Tibor R. Machan
many people who try to justify coercing others to part with their
lives, time, resources and so forth claim that the goals to be served
justify the coercion. Indeed, one hears it said often that we must
realize there are greater goals than our own ones that need to be served
by us. Anything else is greedy or selfish or some such thing or other.
So don’t fret about your liberty, you selfish monster you. (And by
what moral right do slaves and serfs insist that they be set free? Go
I have an observation to offer that should wake up people to just what
kind of ruse all this amounts to. If you believe that there are these
very important goals that everyone must serve and for the sake of which
they may be coerced, how is it that coercion is the chosen approach
instead of, say, proselytizing, advocating, crusading, promoting,
campaigning and all the other peaceful, non-coercive ways one can go
about raising support for what one believes is really worthwhile? Not
only is it inhuman to force people to do the right thing–it deprives
them of the morally significant choice of whether to do it
themselves–but it also shows one’s own laziness or, even worse,
hypocrisy. After all, if everyone ought to believe in and support this
supposedly superior goal, would it not follow that one who is fully
convinced of its great merit would be first in line to actually work for
it instead of trying to force others do so? I mean here that they
ought really to work and not merely vote for government regulations and
rules to force others to comply with the idea.
voluntary compliance with good ideas, including moral imperatives,
amounts to something praiseworthy. Anything else is morally
insignificant–at the point of the gun, morality ends as Ayn Rand once
pointed out. But those who would enforce such imperatives should of
course be the first out there doing what they preach. And to respect
their fellow citizens, they should always use persuasion, never coercion
to achieve their goals. Using coercive force on others to get them to
do anything, including what is worthwhile when done voluntarily, is
treating people as if they were the children of those using the
coercion. If adults make use of such means, it is unjustifiable except
it amounts to retaliation of the prior use of force, as in self-defense.
Who are these adults regimenting fellow adults anyway?
then are so many people utilizing coercive force to get others to
pursue all those great ideas they believe need service from everyone?
Could it be that (a) these people talk a good game but do not at all
really believe in putting their money whether their mouths are; and (b)
might they just be so damned lazy that they want everyone else to come
up with the effort excepting them? After all, if a cause is that
worthy, surely one way to serve it is to go out and diligently hustle up
support for it. Here is where the traditional peaceful missionaries can
serve as a good model–most of them believe and preach instead of using
weapons or the threat of them to serve their ideals.
no, the bulk of those advocating using force really just want other
people to do the work that they pretend to be committed to doing, serve
the objectives they pretend to cherish so much. Are they then better
than ordinary criminals who circumvent the honorable ways of interacting
with their fellows and resort, instead, to stealing, lying, cheating,
murdering, raping and doing all kinds of other things that do not
respect the rights of others? You know the correct answer to this, of
course. Please try to make sure everyone else reaches the same
insight–these coercers are unabashed bullies.
who reject coercion as a means for getting things done have a bit of a
disadvantage because they must, if they are to possess any integrity,
abide by their own policy of refraining from coercing others even if the
objective is morally impeccable. Certainly implementing voluntary
relationships among people qualifies as that.