There is a long history of philosophical works focused on determining the legitimacy of force. Much of political philosophy is concerned with this
very subject; how to legitimize the use of force. In fact, one could argue that all the political ideologies known to mankind are differentiated from
each other based on this very question. When and how is force justified? Let us briefly look over the five most common ideologies in light of this
question, then we will look at the deeper ramifications for each idea when it is put into practice.(Note: The following will use strict/classical
definitions and do not necessarily reflect the historical representations of said ideologies.)
The use of force within a Democracy is determined by the will of the majority. In this system, Civil Rights are of
more importance than Natural Rights. Theoretically, if 6 out of 10 people support an argument that wearing sandals promotes a health risk (ie. the
spread of athletes foot), then anyone wearing sandals can legitimately have their Natural and Civil Rights violated.
Civil Rights = privileges granted by majority/societal consent. Natural Rights = inalienable rights that are beyond anybody's authority to dismiss.
The use of force within a Republic is determined by the will of the law. Theoretically, the "law" is created by
members of a legislative body who are voted into power by the public. If someone breaks the "law" they can have their Civil Rights violated. Natural
Rights are considered "sacred" under this ideology, and thus are never to be violated under any circumstance
The use of force within a Monarchy is determined by the will of the King or Queen. Theoretically, whatever the King or
Queen says, goes. Essentially the only legitimate rights within a Monarchy is the Divine Rights of the King or Queen.
The use of force within an Oligarchy is determined by the will of the few, who are often the most wealthy and
influential within a given society. An Oligarchy most often arises within an already established structure of governance, thus the legitimacy of
rights can vary. However, common to all Oligarchy's, the pre-existing laws are corrupted and distorted to reflect the will of the Oligarch's.
The use of force within Authoritarianism is determined solely by the will of the ruler(s). Legitimacy for the
use of force is usually not given or seen as necessary, as within a Monarchy, whatever the ruler(s) say, goes. Most commonly, law under
Authoritarianism is established and maintained by a General, or a group of Generals, and implemented by the military.
The use of force within Anarchism cannot be legitimized in any substantive way, obviously, since there are no rulers
or hierarchical structures of authority to determine "legitimacy". Conflicts and disputes within an Anarchist society is thus resolved solely by
individuals through non-violent means. In extreme cases, say in self-defense against an attacker, force may instinctively be used by an individual,
yet it still, in no way, can be legitimized.
Now, let us look at some of the implications for each ideology:
A common critique of Democracy is that it results in the equivalent of "mob-rule". Essentially, violence can be used
as long as they are in the minority of any given circumstance or opinion. This necessarily results in the endless
conflict between two phenomena's: 1) The fragmentation of society into opposing camps who are battling to gain popular consent, and, 2) The endless
necessity to conform to popular demand. These counter pressures alienate the human psyche from all ability to reason and express self-determination.
It turns the human into a machine of cynical warfare, engulfed in contempt and hatred for his/her opposition, and suppresses all ability to actualize
his/her innate drive towards being creative.
The stability of a Republic is solely determined upon the nobility and moral character of its leaders. Being that
power corrupts even the most noble among us, eventually, as Plato put it, a Republic must necessarily devolve into an Aristocracy, Oligarchy or
Democracy. Sooner or later, the rule of "law" is corrupted and distorted to reflect the will of the powerful. Further, the demand of this system to
stand upon the goodwill of its noble leaders with high moral character, creates an heir of "Puritanism" within the society, resulting in the endless
persecution of "outsiders" and those who are different. Thus, those "sacred" Natural Rights that define the Republic's legitimacy are quickly trampled
upon and are replaced with the less than savory Civil Rights determined by those in power. This, in turn, equally alienates the human psyche from any
sense of self-determination and freedom from oppression. The "Puritan" aspect of the system also acts as a mechanism of conformity, resulting in the
suppression of human creativity.
Monarchy, Oligarchy and Authoritarianism:
These three ideologies share much of the same consequences and results. They differ
only in first appearances, not much in resulting affects. A Monarchy could theoretically be run by a noble ruler of high moral character, but
necessarily must result in the same oppressive measures of an Authoritarian system as the disenfranchised parts of the populace demand more rights to
self-determination. The same can be said about an Oligarchy. As the disenfranchised rise up, the Powers To Be come down on their heads with an iron
fist in order to stamp out any changes that could threaten their privilege. The human, under these systems, is essentially relegated to being nothing
more than a subject and slave to the master's will. The psyche is shattered and encouraged to conform to the corrupt ways that the ruler(s) have put
forth, or else they must suffer extreme impoverishment and lack of self-worth.
Being that the health and stability of an Anarchist society is entirely dependent upon the health and stability of
the individuals that make up said society, it is difficult to render any definitive general sense of what this society would be like. The few examples
throughout history, of intentional Anarchist societies, has largely been positive, though often short lived with few exceptions. (see:
Celtic Ireland (650-1650), Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262), Catalonia, Spain (1936 to 1939)...)
These societies often fell to outside
economic and political pressures. Probably the most common argument made against Anarchist societies is that it essentially results in an "All Against
All" situation. On one level, this probably has some potential truth. Then again, it assumes that the human would rather fight than cooperate, kill
Ultimately, as we can see, we have no definitive Utopian solution. The question rests with, being that no system can grant itself the legitimacy of
force without alienating, corrupting and abusing a portion of its population, what kind of society is most justifiable and coherent? Is it a society
where the majority legitimize the use of force against the minority, where the few legitimize the use of force against the many, or where the use of
force cannot be legitimized by anyone at all?
Let's hear some arguments.
edit on 25-8-2013 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)