The myth of liberal pacifism

A lot of talk has been given in the last century about non-violence, the Left being particularly enamored with the concept of a peaceful and gentle existence in which violence is far removed from everyday life.  But one thing the Left forgets is that violence and government are intrinsically intertwined.  As the state and its institutions are the Left’s primary tools for social change, it becomes very important for thinkers to question the pacifistic nature of policies that solely rely on the state for their enactment.

It is not difficult to understand that violence (or the threat thereof) is the tool the state uses to achieve all its goals.  For instance, if a person breaks any law, that person is subjected to fines or jail time.  But what if the person refuses?  Since the government cannot enforce such a policy when a person refuses to comply, their only option is to use violent force to subdue those in rebellion.  And this displays a fundamental point: there simply is no such thing as a non-violent government policy.  If you refuse to pay taxes, the government will come for you with force.  If they weren’t able to forcefully subdue you, our government wouldn’t be able to do anything.

This isn’t necessarily bad, as as all intelligent humans (especially in modern democratic societies) recognize legitimate violence as a necessary evil, infinitely preferable to anarchy and important for the harmonization of those under government protection.   But understanding the violent nature of the state is absolutely necessary for understanding liberty itself, as a government with less influence over daily business is ultimately a government with less ability to violently engage its citizens.  And the argument can be made that a government with too many legitimate chances to engage in violence is known as being totalitarian.

As one can see, this means anyone who adopts a governmental program to enact the limitless demands of “social justice” (meaning, the governmental regulation of opportunity) is adopting an intrusive policy of change under threat of violence.  So while those who idolize people such as Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi claim to personally espouse a policy of non-violence primarily against the government, these people are more than willing to bring “enlightenment” and “progression” to the masses under coercive force.  This is the equivalent of telling a child you won’t hit them, and then getting the schoolyard bully to get the child’s lunch money and give it to a disadvantaged child. 

Thus, if Martin Luther King Jr. had espoused a policy of hijacking businesses and banks at gunpoint during the 60’s, the public would have arisen in anger.  Do the same through the legitimacy of the state, however, and suddenly the armed robber–er, philanthropist–becomes a hero.  The vehicle of violence is simply legitimized. 

Now, nobody would suggest that the Right always avoids using the state to influence society, but that isn’t the point here.  The point is that the Left purports itself to be some kind of consensual and peaceful movement while doing exactly the opposite, and transgresses against liberty in ways the American Right couldn’t dream (after all, true conservatives shrink government oversight).  And this highlights a major difference between liberals and conservatives: a good conservative says you should be charitable in all your deeds, but a liberal will make sure that if you don’t want to be, the state will violently force your resources from you or violently place you into debt.  Of course you can always resist, but who enjoys pepper spray and a beating?

Don’t buy the PR.

This entry was posted on 11. October 2009 at 14:39 and is filed under philosophy, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print