Is coercion ever justified?

Last week’s editorial asked the question: Can the Constitution be improved? We said that the American Constitution represented an new concept in history. It declared that the sovereign power of the state rightfully is derived from the people instead of the divine right of kings. We concluded that it was an

amazingly successful beta model but that it was not perfect, because it contained undefined phrases, such as “the general welfare” clause, that left holes through which political predators eventually were able to enter and undermine original intent.

Rather than deride the Founding Fathers for failure to foresee every contingency and close every hole, we praised them for embedding the ideology of individualism into the nation’s guiding document, and we thanked them for starting an experiment that we, ourselves, now have an opportunity to continue.

The centerpiece of that editorial was the idea that public officials should be considered as hired experts to do a specific job, but that we should remain as their employers. We are like passengers on a ship who determine where we want to go but leave it up to the crew to get us there. I wrote:

“The place to start for keeping the ship’s crew from becoming masters of the passengers is to draft the contract [between passengers and crew] in such clear and unambiguous terms that it is impossible to interpret it any other way. The next step is to make sure that the passengers as well as the crew read the contract; and, third, there must be a small group of volunteer guardians who see to it that the content and especially the wisdom behind the content of that contract is perpetually disseminated among all future passengers.”

On the following day, I received an email from a subscriber who asked:

“What should be done with the passengers or crew that don’t agree with the terms of said contract? Are they allowed to leave the ship? Or will the contract be forced upon them regardless? The latter would not seem to be in line with the idea of freedom-of-choice over coercion. Shouldn’t the principle of non-violation be at the heart of all human interaction? I shouldn’t violate you or your property, and you shouldn’t violate me or mine — except in true self-defense. Beyond that, can any so-called contract really be enforced without clear consent from each and every individual affected by it?”

Here is my reply:

This is a great question, and the answer goes right to the heart of the issue. You stated the question in its purest form when you asked: “Shouldn’t the principle of non-violation be at the heart of all human interaction?” The answer is no.

As you stated in your letter, the use of coercion is consistent with the principles of individualism – if it is used in defense of life, liberty, or property. Therefore, the contract should require the crew and passengers to follow the rules even if they disagree. They should be free to express their disagreement and free to change the rules by means outlined in the contract itself but, in the meantime, they are obligated to support the agreement.

In this analogy, passengers are the source of authority for determining the ship’s destination but, in the real world, we need a precise description of what the word “destination” means.

Citizens have authority to use coercion against their neighbors only in the defense of life, liberty, or property. Therefore, that is all they can delegate to their elected representatives. They cannot delegate that which they do not possess. (For a deeper analysis of this issue, see Freedom in One Lesson; Authority Cannot Exceed Its Source.)

That means the only legitimate destination of any ship-of-state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. Nothing more.

If it is acceptable for the state to use lethal force to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, then it also may use lesser types of coercion, such as taxation and enforced compliance. The problem is that, the minute we accept legalized coercion in the defense of human rights, many people immediately jump over the line and start concocting all kinds of social programs to be funded and enforced in the same manner. However, if we keep in mind that the object of coercion must always be limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property and nothing more, then the apparent contradiction disappears.

G. Edward Griffin
2016 March 18