Most arguments in support of the established order assumes that laws and their enforcement can achieve a stable
and orderly society. This notion fundamentally lies on a shifting foundation. Any society exists within a culture that alters
and varies with the current world view that is shared with the institutions and organizations that dominate. Views of individuals
that disagree with that consensus, usually pay a price for their refusal to accept the standard that permeates within. Most
people seldom if ever question the standards, even if they are uncomfortable with some aspects of it. But does this reality
invoke any moral basis for those norms?
The most common practice of governments to foster the current cultural norms is to legislate laws and establish
bureaucratic regulations. I each of these methods, there is a requirement to obey, comply and accept the order. If one resist,
a penalty is imposed on the offending individual. The entire system is design to inflict a price for non compliance. Coercion
IS the means to organize. Force is THE method to compel. And in every insistence this approach creates resentment, disgust
and defiance; even if fear of the cost of refusal to obey is known. Within the Nature of each person, whether they are willing
to acknowledge it or not; is a inherent need to realize value for their own life. Any person who is able to think and act
in their own self interests, wishes to discover purpose for their existence. This is a natural motivation and a proper goal
for all men. Even the most wicked and malefic of individuals, want some kind of personal satisfaction for their own self,
even if it comes at the expense of others. This intrinsic trait is real. It is at the core of all cultures, peoples and societies.
Governments never created this reality. They came into existence because the public demanded an authority to run their society
because they were too engrossed in matters of personal survival. Why is this the record? I submit, the 'Nature of Man' clearly
is speaking to us. But will we hear what she is saying?
So what is the failure in this organization structure? Simply put, COERCION! The root of all conflicts stems
from the unwillingness of people to accept modes of behavior that are imposed upon them without their willing consent. This
statement is an axiom. It's TRUTH is undeniable. We may debate the various aspects in what is 'Human Nature', but surely,
we should not dispute that each person makes choices to accept or reject laws, social conventions and peer pressures? The
threat of force may push people into acceptance, but that route doesn't create willing approval. Any system of organization
has to face this issue. A venture works because all participants contribute. A society fails, because every inhabitant refuses
to comply. But an attempt to impose conditions that require compliance, breeds more disruption. This lesson has never been
learned by States; All Goverments. And those who defend the legitimacy of society and their agents, to compel proper conduct
on all within their reach, is futile and depraved. Why? The answer is simple. Society is just a method of balancing contacts
among individuals. Its is not the ultimate purpose of life. The notion of the 'Common Good' is specious in its final substance.
It's a concept that has been invented to impose guilt, shame and condemnation upon all those who differ from the tenants of
this grand scheme to regiment. With this context defined, the question is posed: "Just who benefits from this method of organizing
people?" Is this the correct order that Nature and the Universe demands? Or could this be a convention that most adopt, because
of their own laziness to understand or protect their own self interests?
'Self Interest' is the bedrock of each person's motives. Certainly, one can look to the achievement of noble
ends and objectives that go beyond the immediate reward to yourself. But who can say with total certitude what these benevolent
goals are, especially when viewed within the 'so called' interests that the State has for its own perceived benefit? It cannot
be denied the power of the State to force compliance upon the objector. What can be asked, is by what righteousness does that
entity possess the moral stature to oblige acceptance to that goal? People are different in their views. These debates surely
proves this point. So where does the virtuous of the whole, come from? The prudent and common sense explanation is that each
person MUST willingly acknowledge and accept that course of behavior. Imposing the determination of a regulatory body, a legislature,
or even a court begs the issue. Society can only work and function in the long run, when each person freely renders their
most important possession to the larger body of organization. And that prized holding is his or her consent. The issue of
force is inseparably linked to the choice that the individual makes. It is because of this relationship that the method of
when power is used, or whether it is or can be used; is central to any discussion and more appropriately, to any union within
society. Those who are 'Statists', refuse to resolve this conflict. Their answer is always a diatribe for the good of the
many. Sorry, that doesn't address the issue.
The proper manner to view this issue is reducible to the nature of the relationship. Is the individual the
building block of all societies, or is he merely its tool? Who is the boss and who works for whom? That's the central point
to this entire question. And your plight directly depends upon how you answer its query. How will you answer . . .
SARTRE - December 4, 2000