Who Should Make Our Choices?

Column 2018-7 (11/26/18)

Disagreement among individuals is inevitable. There probably isn’t a person on earth who agrees with you 100 percent. How many of those disagreeing people are you prepared to punch out, put in jail, or even kill because they don’t share your opinions? Probably not very many, if any.

If one person wants toast for breakfast, and another prefers pancakes, Are they likely prepared to fight and kill over their disagreement? Suppose that the toast lover starts a campaign to ban pancakes. The disagreement now goes beyond ideas. The freedom to choose pancakes is now at stake. World War III probably won’t flare up in a dispute over breakfast food.

What if government sides with the toast lover and bans pancakes? Government says to everyone, “If you eat pancakes, we will hurt you.” The threat of force and violence is now on the table. The ball is set to roll. How far will it roll?

The first step may be to levy a fine against the pancake eater. If he gives in and pays the fine, end of case. What if he refuses to pay? If government gives in, again the case ends.

Suppose government takes the next step and sends armed enforcers to collect the fine. The victim of the fine resists in every way possible. The victim will end up dead or in prison.

Prison isn't the end if the victim continues his resistance to what he sees as an unjust interference in his life. If he continues his resistance he is all but certain to eventually be killed by government.

The only reason we don’t see many such violent endings is that the victims give in to government. The threat of force and violence lies behind every law. There is a reason why police are called law enforcers. When someone says, “There ought to be a law,” his real demand is for government to hurt those who refuse to obey the proposed law.

The more laws we have, the more threats of force and violence we face. The more we unleash threats of force and violence on those we disagree with, the less peaceful and less civilized we become. Millions who wouldn’t resort to force and violence themselves, eagerly commission government to do the dirty work.

The bigger government grows the more threats of force and violence we all face. The problem isn’t that one group is trying to force its ideas on to everyone else. The problem is that nearly everyone has ideas they want to force onto everyone. We can’t sort out the black hats and the white hats because almost everyone wears a gray hat. They resist the choices forced on to them by others while seeking to forcibly impose their own ideas. As government expands we sink ever deeper into a war of everyone against everyone.

So long as everyone is busy imposing on others, strife, animosity, hatred, and violence will grow. The first step toward peace and civility must be to allow peaceful people to make there own choices, rather than being coerced to accept someone else’s choices.

Disagreements over what to eat for breakfast aren’t very important when no one forces their menu onto anyone. Unless there is a compelling reason for everyone making the same choice, everyone should be free to make his own nonviolent choice. The alternative is to continue what we are doing now and eventually destroy each other.

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2018

Albert D. McCallum