rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (11/18/85)
Reason, Force, and Free-Riders "It might be nice if reason never called for force, but sometimes in the real world it does--free-rider situations being a notable example." This statement is wrong in content and in the method of thinking used to arrive at it. It is wrong in content because force and reason are opposites. It is wrong in method because it is anti-hierarchical--it takes a concrete from the realm of political-economics (free-rider situations) as being simpler to grasp and analyze than the more fundamental concepts of reason and force. There is a pattern to the arguments between those who think that force should be barred and those who believe in exceptions to this rule. Someone makes some general statement opposed to government intervention and then others reply with counterexamples. The anti-force contingent responds with detailed analyses showing how voluntary cooperation could avoid the use of force. In the meantime, more counterexamples are raised. There are always some unanswered objections. Force has been recommended for financing public education and street sweeping, enforcing standards against pollution, licensing physicians, and making wearing of hockey helmets mandatory. Anti-force answers used protection of property rights (for the pollution cases), individual responsibility (public education), and voluntary contractual arrangements (licensing and street sweeping). But as long as people do not understand that force is wrong in principle, someone will be making up a problem he would "solve" with force that nobody has yet solved without force. And since force *is* wrong in principle, there will always be a voluntary alternative. Arguments go on and on because the anti-force side does not defend their position in principle. As long as non-coercion is treated as a starting point--just some rule that has an equal status with any other, there will always be alleged counterexamples to argue about. What is wrong with force in principle is that it is incompatible with reason. Ayn Rand's definition, "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses," captures what I mean by reason. It is my faculty of reason that allows me to identify, for example, the door to my room as a door. It is reason that allows me to integrate what I know about doors with the fact that I want to leave the room and guides me to open the door first. Reason is my means of acquiring knowledge and my guide to action. In contrast, I might wish that the door were a curtain and try to walk through it. If I did, I would bang against reality. It is reason, not wishes, that keeps me tied to reality in what I know and do. The concept of force does not arise in any relationship between my mind and reality as long as no other person is involved. The fact that I must open the door if I want to go through is not because of force. It is because of a metaphysical fact; i.e., that's the way it is--no one's wishes will change it. Force is when someone uses physical means to get you to obey his wishes. Force is grasped by distinguishing it from values or arguments that someone might use to get you to change your mind. For example, it is force when a thief says, "Your money or your life." It is not force when the sales clerk says, "Ten dollars, please." It is force when you are not allowed to make up your own mind how to act. Force is a gun aimed at your mind. Force cuts off your tie to reality--your reason. Reason tells you to do this. Force-- someone else's wishes--tells you to do that. He wants to put his wishes between your mind and reality. If he had more than his emotions to offer you--if he had an argument or a value, he could use reason instead of a gun. If *your* emotions do not automatically guide you to the right actions, why should his? Force is anti-mind in a still deeper sense than its divorcing reason from action. Imagine that in addition to wanting you to change your action, a mugger wanted you to change your mind. "Don't just give me your wallet; but believe it is the right thing to do. Don't just obey. Believe!" Force cannot accomplish what a logical argument can. Force can destroy a mind--it cannot change it. There are two ways of dealing with people--reason or force. When someone recommends force, he is subordinating reason to something he holds higher. When he says "It does not matter if you agree with my reasons," he is telling you his wishes are more important than your mind. Such a person is no defender of reason. -- Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846