Violence begets violence – a mostly cold civil war

“Peaceful transition of power” – This phrase has been uttered countless times over the last several months in relation Joe Biden’s election to replace President Donald Trump. Probably most of you have read, or even said, that phrase with emphasis on the peaceful part.

I like peace. With respect to human action, peace is our default interaction with others: if we do nothing (literally, we are inactive), we are peaceful towards others. Unfortunately, the satisfaction of certain wants of mankind requires action. Fortunately, the need for action doesn’t necessarily require violence to other people. When we encounter others, we could simply refrain from disturbing their persons, places, or possessions without their consent. If we don’t agree to interact, we can remain at peace separately, even while acting to meet our needs separately. If we agree to interact, we can remain at peace together, and even cooperate to our mutual benefit.

That simple vision is the recipe for both peace and prosperity, and is the positive vision encapsulated by libertarian negative rights theory: the initiation of force and fraud is always wrong. Although it’s possible for any person to refrain from a violent response to others who initiate violence, such a merciful response is not earned by the initiators of violence. Even if most people choose to forego a forceful correction to every encroachment, routinely violating peoples’ rights usually leads to more and more violence.

I consistently oppose the initiation of force and have done so since before adulthood. As universally appealing as that sounds, many of you who are reading this disagree with that position both in theory and in practice. The overwhelming majority of Americans actively promote the initiation of force, or the threat thereof, in some way or another. Although there has been much domestic peace in American history, we see the consequences of systematic violence bubble up from time to time. Witness 2020, and, so far, 2021.

The most common way people promote violence is through government. The simplest evidence is this: about 160 Million Americans voted in the 2020 Presidential election, which is well over ½ of the voting age population. Almost all of them voted for either Joe Biden or Donald Trump, both of whom promised to continue initiating force in some way or another against everyone in America.

If you voted for Joe Biden or Donald Trump, you voted for violence.

In mid-2020, the mostly-cold civil war between government and everyone heated up over allegations of racially biased police violence. In numerous locations in America, violent riots occurred in response, public buildings were destroyed, private businesses were vandalized and destroyed, and many people were injured, some fatally. The visible outrage was characterized as pushing back against racially biased violence against Americans by government. Many people painted Republicans as being, or supporting, the oppressors. Many Republicans and even a few Democrats decried the use of violence in response on the part of the rioters, while the protesters cited systematic oppression with no other recourse.

Fast forward to the Presidential election, and the subsequent allegations of widespread voter fraud. Whether or not any such fraud was sufficient to change the outcome of the election, Republicans object to the government – the instrument of coercion – being controlled by Democrats if such control was obtained fraudulently. On the day the election was to be certified by the Congress, protesters “stormed” the Capitol building in a violent clash with police and security. Many Democrats, and even a few Republicans, decried the use of violence in response on the part of the rioters, while the protesters cited systematic oppression with no other recourse.

The problem the protesters and rioters face in each case is the same problem: systematic violence. Yet the solutions most popularly proposed and supported by the majority of Americans are to increase the magnitude of the problem: more voting, more taxes, more police, more government power of all sorts at all levels. And yet those same people seem confused and disappointed, some to the point of violence-in-response, when their beloved government turns against them. How ironic that they call for a peaceful transfer of power when the very power they promote undermines the peace they say they want.

If you voted for violence, your condemnation of it is hypocritical. Lying about opposing violence just adds evil on top of evil. You don’t want peace, you want power for your ‘side’.

I continue to oppose any initiation of force. But in addition to that, I also oppose forceful response to violence that isn’t very carefully targeted and confined to the most proximate perpetrators, and is proportionately corrective to the problem. I have a long record of careful advocacy in that regard, too, and am not so distracted by rioters burning down police buildings or storming the Capitol as to become careless about that position.

But make no mistake about it, the government is the agent of the voters who are the initiators of violence against Americans. The riots, though not accurately targeted and confined, are a sort of response to that violence. This is a civil war, and most Americans have long supported one, or even both sides of that war (even at the same time!). What’s remarkable isn’t the occasional periods of violence, or even the recent increase in violence. What’s remarkable is that this civil war has remained mostly-cold for so long. That is a testament to the merciful patience of many Americans. It appears that patience is waning.

V-

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× two = four