|
I've emphasized
in my last two articles that foreign expansionism has nurtured terrorism,
which in turn contributes to a host of associated factors like the
surveillance state and the police state. Now I want to go deeper.
It is my belief
that evils that we are seeing do not come about unless the public
not only tolerates them but wants them. Economists would say that
there is a demand for them. Behind these demands is a demand for
Law and Order, and behind that demand is the even more basic DEMAND
FOR FORCE.
Start with
the fact that the amorphous "public" demands Law and Order. The
political system supplies it, even if it means tearing up the Bill
of Rights, even if it means sending people to prison for victimless
crimes, and even if it means massive injustice. The "War on Drugs"
is a strong example. This has met with public support ever since
it began. The prevalence of the entertainment industry's tv police
shows that glorify police is a second example. The "War on Terror"
and its results on civil liberties are a third example.
I am saying
politely that the American public is brutish at heart, prone to
resort to force, not freedom-loving at heart and not justice-loving
at heart. I am not one who blames government for being the sole
cause of the evils that we are seeing. I think social-political
causation is more complex. It is a two-way street running between
public and government; it is a dance with two partners. First one
takes the lead, then the other. There is an interaction.
We make a basic
error if we ignore the brutishness of the public. It is not that
they are sheeple or ignorant, but they have some basic beliefs that
libertarians do not share. These need to be identified. One of them
is a belief in FORCE, POWER or COERCION as a tool to do good.
This might
possibly trace back to a theology in which the WILL of God rules
and it's because God exercises his will that he makes divine laws.
In this theology, it is because God wills something that makes it
good or right or just. When the public becomes sovereign and has
a government that is sovereign, it transfers this way of thinking
to itself. The public's exercise of its will, which means the use
of POWER, is what makes things right. Whatever law the public and
its government make is right, in this way of thinking.
The opposing
theological idea is that before anything is willed, there is a mind
and reason at work. These are inherently just in God. Justice and
good are inherent attributes of God and his mind, which embody truth
and reason. God's divine laws are good and right by virtue of being
of God's mind and reason. They are not right because he put his
will to work. The divine goodness of divine laws is inherent to
them. God does not will himself or anything else to be good. He
is good in and of himself.
If this idea
is transferred to the secular domain, it means right is right irrespective
of what the public and the government will or what they make into
a law. The force of law is not what makes something right. There
are right laws and wrong laws outside of force and outside of will.
Man's laws must be assessed against standards that exist outside
any law-making sovereign.
There are going
to be many exceptions to this general picture of American worship
of power. There are going to be many variations in public attitudes
over time. The public is not homogeneous. Surely there are all kinds
of voices that speak up for this or that right. As in many things,
there exists a distribution of opinions and attitudes covering a
large range. But I am speaking of the central tendency, because
it's that center that swings elections and influences political
outcomes. I'm not saying it's the sole influence, but it's an important
influence. I am speaking of the general trend that persists over
many years, and we can see what that trend is. It involves continual
applications of force in human life. There is a need to understand
this and trace it back to its roots. I've suggested that the roots
involve a theological difference that has been transferred into
the secular realm. The route by which it got there has no doubt
been concealed, lengthy, circuitous and surreptitious. People need
not even be aware of it. It may have entered their belief systems
via philosophers and sages, or by schooling, or via the media, propaganda,
or sermons. But it is a deep and firm belief, not easily dislodged
or replaced by the main alternative, which is a belief in peaceful,
non-coercive freedom.
Those who believe
in the will making right believe in might makes right. Those who
believe in right existing in and of itself have no such faith in
might or might makes right.
There is such
a thing as too much Law and Order and too much suppression being
used in order to reduce crime. An unalloyed focus on reducing crime
by any means invariably ropes in many innocent people and it invariably
augments the police power so greatly that the police and justice
system abuse innocent people for all sorts of evil reasons. It has
to be understood that the human being has an evil side and will
exercise it more greatly if given the opportunities to do so while
getting away with it or even being rewarded for doing so. Part of
the problem here is in the public's not understanding that reducing
crime too greatly by oppressive laws creates new evils. Might starts
to make wrong because might is violating that which is right without
knowing it, because it believes itself to be right.
The American
public's demand for law and order has gone too far because its demand
for the use of force has gone too far. The public is far too supportive
of oppressive rules, searches, tearing up rights, invading privacy,
and jailing people. Even if we do not know for sure why this has
happened, I feel we can be sure that it has.
The public
largely believes in might makes right. The public has adopted and
become used to the idea that all ills can be overcome by government
laws and force. A basic misapprehension is at work in this belief.
The people leading the government think that FORCE works to alleviate
various ills and problems both domestically and overseas. The public
shares this belief.
This belief
is an error in thought that views life mechanistically and assumes
that human beings can be forced into patterns of behavior that overcome
problems. For those who think in theological terms, the error is
to think that God is just because of his will and that will is what
makes good, as opposed to the idea that God's mind and reason are
inherently good and precede his will.
Government
people think wrongly that whole economies can be manipulated by
force to a good end, by turning spigots on an off of debt, money,
rules, projects and taxation. The public thinks that one can pass
a law to resolve any problem, and that somehow if it has negative
effects, they can be overcome by passing yet another law and then
another. The public believes in FORCE. It does not believe in letting
nature take its course, i.e., a more free situation in which the
individual assessments of situations, costs and benefits lead to
beneficial social outcomes.
Holding to
this mechanistic view of human beings and the prominent role of
FORCE and the force of law, the public and its government have shunted
aside the idea of freedom and rights. Some rights are there traditionally
to protect the innocent and the accused from being exploited, suppressed
and oppressed by other people and by those who have power. But if
the public assumes that force alleviates all evils and thinks that
the government is a useful and appropriate means of applying such
force, then it throws rights out the window. Freedom becomes narrower
and narrower, while social and political oppression become broader.
When the American
public worships government's use of power, it worships the brutishness
in itself. The two go hand in hand. To the degree that a people
is uncivilized, it will produce an uncivilized society and an uncivilized
government. But government, consisting of men and women elected
to use force, is not a mere tool of the public. Causation works
in both directions. The government actively promotes the use of
force, educates and propagandizes on its behalf and extends its
use in the lives of the society and overseas. The people and the
government people they elect are at one and the same time independent
and dependent. What they share is a demand for the use of force,
as opposed to a demand for freedom.
![]() The
American public's typical eagerness for war and in support of war
exemplifies its demand for the use of force. In these situations,
the public readily embraces regimentation, suppresses dissent and
glorifies the military. The most popular and revered presidents
are those who have been associated with wars.
If the American
public, that amorphous central tendency, were peace-loving, we would
see it tending to support neutrality, not expansionism. It would
support the republic, not empire. It would support all those ideas
associated with neutrality that I listed in my previous
article. This is not the case. Expansionism is the expression
of a demand for the use of force. Neutrality is the expression of
a peace-loving people.
| 
