Quit using the Force already!

What sets apart a government form all other institutions created by man? What makes a government so unique?
Force. And I am not referring to Midi- chlorians!
All governments have the same tool at their disposal for serving their purpose. The lawful monopoly of the initiation of the use of force. Even asshat dictatorships have this right. The thugs carrying out the dirty work of the HAIC (head asshat in charge) are doing so under the 'lawful' right granted to them by the government. I use the term lawful extremely loosely in this illustration only in that the dillhole in charge is dictating the law based upon his or her whim.
The lawful monopoly of the initiation of the use of force against people is the mechanism by which all other functions of a government take place. What does that mean exactly? It means that only the government has the right to use force against someone first. This differs from the right to use force in defense in the sense that the initiation of force was used by the person in the wrong, and the person responding is only doing so to protect their rights. A person fighting off an attacker is using defensive force against the attacker who initiated the use of force. A government however, is granted the right to initiate such force, such as a police officer detaining a suspected thief The thief does not have the right to use force against the government representative (the police officer) who does have the right to initiate the use of force.
All decrees from a government have this backing of force. If it is not explicitly defined, the threat of force backs the decree. Taxes, for example are taken by the threat of force. Although in a free society, most people pay taxes voluntarily, the threat of the use of force backs the laws that define what taxes are to be taken. For a practical example of this concept, try not paying your taxes, and not hiding the fact. Unless your name is Timothy Geithner, the use of force will be brought upon you.
No other institution has this ability. No private organization can initiate the use of force upon a person without the backing of the government. An example being a homeowners association. They have the ability to force a person to comply with their bylaws ONLY with the backing of the government and consent of the individual. A person subject to the rules of the association will have signed a contract to that effect. If, as an example a person fails to pay their dues, the people of the association can not forcibly take them, without involving the government in the form of the courts and police.
A private organization lacks the ability to use force to control a free persons activities without said persons consent. i.e. Walmart can not force you to spend a single penny in their stores, without you willfully participating in the transaction. And likewise, no individual, or private group of individuals can force a business to sell them a product. (at least in a free society)
The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution define what rights a government has the ability to use force in the defense of. Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness (sidenote: pursuit of Happines was changed from Property due to the founders belief that salvery would never be ended in america if they left it as property [note 1]) are the inalienable rights of the people, and as such, the government of the U.S. Was established to protect the citezens of the U.S. Against threats to those rights. The Constitution defines what functions each part of government have in the defense of said rights such as the legislative branch having the power to lay and collect taxes amongst others, (Article 1), the executive branch having the power of the Army, Navy and militias of the states amongst others(Article 2), and the judicial branch having the power of the courts amongst others (Article 3).

This means that all citizens of the United States of America have the right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. With these rights comes the understanding that they are universal amongst all free people, and in order to maintain the rights to yourself, you must also strive to maintain the rights of all other free people. Which means everyone has these inalienable rights, provided, they do not infringe upon others inalinable rights in their pursuits. i.e. I can not start a farm on property that you own, or force you to pay for my services if you have not previously consented to do so as in doing so, I would be infringing upon your liberties and as such declaring that I myself do not have those same liberties and thusly negating the entire concept. Only the Government has the right to do so, as defined by the Constitution.
Why is this of such great importance? Because it would appear that a vast majority of citizens in the U.S. Have forgotten this, along with the representatives in the government itself.
The view has shifted from a government that maintains the rights of the people to a government that controls the activities of a people. That is not the government of a free society.
Allow me to invoke someone who might be a bit of an expert on the Constitution on this matter.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
~Thomas Jefferson ~

That is to say, it is sinful and tyrannical to force someone to pay for those things deemed necessary by the government if they are not defined within the documents thereof. The military may be absolutely abhorrent to some people, but it is defined within the constitution and therefore is a right by which Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes upon. (sidenote: I am of the opinion that if you believe the military is absolutely abhorrent in a free society, you're a dill hole that has no concept of life, and I hope you get overrun by dictators who relish in physical torture of their subjects and their subjects children but that is neither here nor there). Likewise with the court system. In so far as its structure rather then practice. It is defined as such to protect the rights of the people and has the backing of the taxes, taken under the threat of force, to enable it to perform its function. (the abhorrence of the legality of abortion to segments of the population is predicated on the definition of the beginning of life and is not a discussion I will entertain at this time)
The same can be applied to all other functions of the government as defined by the Constitution of the United States. Some politicians have said that they do not like the constitution because it does not go far enough. It does not, they say, define what the government can or must do.
They are morons.
It is spelled out in the most eloquent terms possible. The government can only do what is necessary to protect the rights of Life Liberty and Property of its citizens. It is limited as such because of the right of the government to initiate the use of force. To do anything other than protect those rights is using force against innocent citizens when no crime has been committed by them. For example, a government that uses money collected in the form of taxes to fund artwork which may be found to be abhorrent by the very people paying taxes is a misuse of the power granted a government. It is, at its essence forcing someone to pay for something they find abhorrent, since the taxes are collected with the threat of force. Were the artwork not produced, no rights of the individual paying the taxes would have been violated and therefore is a misuse of the right of force, which is an infringement on the persons Liberty. The very thing the government of the United States was instituted to protect.
For those that wish for the government to pay for healthcare of people, although it is not defined anywhere in the constitution, I must ask, Have I in anyway infringed upon your rights of Life Liberty and Property? Have I taken your life? Threatened to take your life? Held you forcibly and infringed upon your Liberty? Have I taken something of yours without an equal exchange with consent? Then where do you find the right to infringe upon my rights to my own Life, Liberty and Property? Where do you get the right to use the Government as a proxy to initiate the use of force against me to pay for something I find abhorrent when I have not infringed upon the rights of anyone? The statement of General Welfare in the constitution has been used to defend such breeches of the trust of government but it is well documented and can be found in the writings of Madison and Jefferson where the concept of General Welfare does not entitle the government to do more than is defined in the Constitution itself. (more on that in a future essay)

The concept of the monopoly granted to a government in the initiation of the use of force is a concept which has been trampled upon so severely that without immediately reversing course it will lead to at best an Oligarchy (that means you G.E.!) and at worst a Dictatorship. Neither option is conducive to the concepts of Life Liberty and Property, and is most certainly the antithesis of a free society.

Next up, Altruism, debunked in less time than it takes to brew a pot of coffee.



[note 1] The inalienable rights of Life Liberty and Property are requirements with which a person survives. It was changed from Property to Happiness due to the institution of slavery which labeled slaves as property. The founders wrote extensively on the subject and had slavery not been in practice, Property would be listed.
For a more detailed analysis of this concept stay tuned to future essays.