I've written often about force, but usually in relation to a particular issue. The use of force is the key factor in virtually everything that causes problems among humans. As such, it deserves frequent examination in detail.

Many of you may be surprised to learn that in order to be counted as a member of the Libertarian party, one must have signed this oath:

I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

There are libertarians who refuse to sign that oath, but, in my opinion, only because they misunderstand it. When I first came to the LP, I made some mistaken assumptions about the oath. My first thought was that it was designed to keep radical militia members from joining. Then I wondered whether it indicated a pacifist position... that force was unacceptable in any situation. In fact, it's far more simple and elegant... it means what it says.

The initiation of force is the important distinction. The oath does not demand that force is unacceptable in self-defense, or even in response when force has already been used against you. The oath does not dictate "turning the other cheek", even though many libertarians may extend the oath to that point for themselves. Those "pacifist" libertarians believe that even though defensive or retaliatory force may be moral, it still may not be the wise response.

If you spend time among libertarians, you'll discover something interesting... you'll find that every issue and every idea will be examined to see whether force is involved. We could examine every Libertarian platform position and discover how that position opposes the initiation of force.

Force is destructive in many ways, some much more obvious than others. Murder is the forcible taking of anothers life. Robbery and theft are the forcible taking of property. Rape is forcible sex. Slavery is forcible confinement and labor. Kidnaping is forcible detainment. Many other uses of force are much more subtle.

Government is legalized force. Theoretically, we grant government the exclusive use of force to protect us against others who would do us wrong. When we give government the right to force us or some segment of citizens to do something against their will, we are using force against them. Make no mistake... when government passes a law that "requires" something of us, there is force behind that law. If we don't comply, there may be intermediate penalties such as fines, but in every case, physical force will be employed if intermediate penalties don't get us to comply. We will be physically arrested, confined, and even killed if necessary.

Every law or regulation, no matter how minor, well-intended, or seemingly insignificant, carries physical force behind it. The only legitimate use of force in our society is that wielded by governments. That great power has been, and is, a terrible source of injustice, because it is all too easy to forget that physical force underlies every law, regulation, edict, or code. It's also easy to forget that laws and criminal justice systems are what we might call "blanket rules". The law, if violated, requires punishment. Very few ifs, and, or buts. Lawmakers try to anticipate all contingencies in advance
to insure trapping "real" violators but not those who stumble into violation, but those attempts are doomed to fail. The criminal justice system is ill-designed to accommodate any variance. Judges and juries are frequently put in the position of bringing in verdicts they don't agree with but which are legally required... hence a lot of people are punished who shouldn't be, or are punished far beyond their actual guilt.

The only real value force has is to stop force by others, and that often doesn't work either. Force can seem to return temporary value, as in criminal actions, but it causes so much damage that the result is always a net loss... not just to the victim, but to the perpetrator as well, and certainly to a society as a whole. Force produces terrible reactions from those against whom it is used... resistance, fear, anger, hatred, frustration, resentment, and retaliation... and those reactions can cause losses far beyond the obvious initial loss.

The use of force by government should never be granted without extensive consideration about how it might be misused, because it most assuredly WILL be misused once granted.

The Libertarian view of the use of force by government is that it must only be used to protect against those who would use force on others. By that standard, most of our laws are illegitimate. All those laws that attempt to force someones idea of morality on all of us are not only morally wrong, but they don't accomplish what they set out to do... they only punish those who don't comply. I repeat here a list I presented in a previous commentary... crimes without victims:

Gambling
Recreational drug use
Religious drug use
Medicinal drug use
Prostitution
Pornography
Obscenity
Violations of marriage (adultery, fornication, oral sex, anal sex, bigamy, polygamy, cohabitation)
Homosexuality
Unorthodox medical practices
Unconventional religions
Unpopular political views
Suicide and assisted suicide
Transvestism
Not using safety devices (seat belts, helmets),
Public drunkenness
Jaywalking
Loitering & Vagrancy
Operating almost anything without a license
and thousands of "blue laws" and local laws you won't know about until you're arrested.

You may believe that some of these acts are abhorrent, but they harm nobody but the participant. Laws against them do not eliminate the acts, they simply punish the participants with fines, prison time, or worse. That accomplishes nothing positive. Such laws cost all of us a great deal of money in enforcement, trial, and punishment, and they punish those who have harmed nobody else. That's not only wrong, it's just plain stupid.
 
Because Libertarians hold to that basic principle of not initiating force, they have the clear advantage of being able to judge issues with more clarity. Ask an experienced Libertarian about an issue, and you're likely to get a response related to the use of force. If it's clear that the proposition involves the initiation of force against others, you're going to find Libertarians opposed.

Libertarians grit their teeth every time someone tries to spend government money for some supposedly worthwhile idea, because it's a clear case of some group trying to force the rest of us to fund their idea. If they succeed in getting money from the government, they've succeeded in taking money out of your pocket and mine... without bothering to even ask us. Even if we find their idea objectionable, we'll still be forced to pay for it. That's simple theft, but even more rude than a mugging, because they went behind our backs to get our money. Any conversation about the idea itself is completely beside the point. It makes no difference how worthwhile the idea might be, it's wrong to force others to support it.

Far too many of us believe that, if we agree with an idea that it's OK to favor making it law... completely forgetting that our support really means that we're telling government to force others to comply with our wishes. That's a severe "disconnect" from reality. People who would never try to force another individual to do their bidding will still often support legislation that will do exactly that.

We are a nation of extremely cooperative individuals who work together to accomplish so much, entering into voluntary agreements and contracts, and spending a lot of time and money helping each other. Yet, when government is involved, many of us are guilty of violating all the rules we live by privately... by supporting the use of force through government. It's wrong and it doesn't work.