by Barry A. Liebling
How do you deal with other people? That is a enormous open-ended question, but note that there are two diametric macro modes that humans have available – persuasion or force.
Consider the persuasion approach. You want another person to agree with you. Perhaps you want to sell or buy something. Perhaps you intend to change someone’s opinion, attitude, or belief. You craft your argument and have a discussion. If you are honest and your persuasion is effective you both benefit.
Persuasion sometimes works and sometimes does not. Even if what you have to say is entirely correct, the other person may be unable or unwilling to understand it. Sometimes the person you are trying to persuade might accurately grasp everything you say, agree that you are right, and still refuse your proposal. That is a permanent feature of free individuals having sovereignty in their lives.
So keep in mind, if you rely on persuasion you have to accept that success is never guaranteed. The other person has the power to refuse even when the better decision is to agree.
In a free society persuasion is the default. It is derivative from the best Enlightenment principles. All humans have natural rights “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And if you appreciate that persuasion is the moral way to conduct human interactions you will see that free speech is essential. That implies that individuals should be able to express themselves. You may or may not be interested in what others have to to say. You might agree or disagree with their assertions. But if you value freedom you do not prevent anyone from speaking, and no one should thwart you. Of course, the exception to this rule is that it is not acceptable to threaten or promote violence.
And notice that the threat of violence is a precursor to force. Some people are inclined to use force instead of persuasion to achieve their goals.
Force is the alternative to persuasion. Someone wants others to submit and threatens or physically intervenes. Force can be expressed by a wide range of behaviors including theft, fraud, imprisonment, physical assaults, and even murder.
As of this writing the country is consumed with news and commentary about a terrible crime – the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Mr Kirk was famous for his organization Turning Point USA where he visited college campuses and conducted open, public debates. He invited students (mostly woke leftist enthusiasts) to argue with him and “prove him wrong.” Mr Kirk’s mission was to present his conservative philosophy and policy positions to people who did not agree with him. The distinctive characteristic of his method was that he strongly endorsed open conversation and understood that when people give up on talking the alternative is violence. His unmistakable big theme was “use persuasion, do not use force.”
Besides being a horrible act, the assassination is a powerful symbol of a cultural conflict. The essential issue is how you should respond when someone sends a message that you believe to be false and abhorrent. You could counter the message by making the case for what you believe. You could simply reply that you do not agree. You could ignore the assertion. You could warn others to avoid the source of the bad content. But in a free society you recognize that everyone, even stupid and vile people, have the right to say what they want.
There is a large faction of citizens that reject the free-to-speak principle. They equate speech that they do not like as equivalent to violence. And if someone says or writes something that is disagreeable to them the utterance (to them) is the same as violence. So responding to words with violence is appropriate.
Who has this attitude? Of course, every person has the power to decide what conduct is acceptable and what is out of bounds. But there is a clear pattern of most violent assaults coming from miscreants who are inspired by leftist woke ideology. Why should this be?
Step back and notice that Marxism and Neo-Marxism is explicitly hostile to individualism and is intent on bringing about a world where everything is communal and collective. Look at a socialist or communist country and observe that dissenting expressions and viewpoints are not tolerated. Nonconformists and protesters might be shunned, jailed, assaulted, and even killed. Free expression – the right to say whatever you want – is a feature of a capitalist, classic-liberal, bourgeoisie society. So free expression cannot be permitted.
There has been a sizable number of celebrities, influencers, educators, and pundits that commented after the Charlie Kirk assassination that he brought on his own murder. Mr Kirk had the audacity to argue against the dominant woke culture and push for his conservative ideals. These apologists for answering words with force have revealed – wittingly or not – a great deal about their spirit. It is not pretty.
*** See other entries at AlertMindPublishing.com in “Monthly Columns.” ***