“There ought to be a law against that!” Have you ever said that? Most people have. You see something you don’t like in the world, and you want to change it. There are only two ways to do it: with force or with words.
Words are hard. You say things but the other guy doesn’t care. Or he doesn’t listen. Sometimes you have to give people something in return to get what you want.
Force is easy. You shoot someone, they don’t bother you anymore. You can just threaten them with a gun and they’ll give you their money. All it takes is a few seconds.
Sometimes force is the right choice. When someone steals, they should be punished. Punishment is force. The law is force. When we say there ought to be a law against something, what we are really saying is we should use force.
We use force against those who disagree with the law. People who think it is okay to rape will be shot if they actually do rape, and we are okay with that. That’s the right thing to do.
For some laws, this makes sense. We as Americans oppose the use of force whenever possible. We prefer to deal peacefully with each other, with words. We believe in letting people live their lives however they want so long as they don’t interfere with our lives. But when someone does interfere, you have to use force. You don’t use words with murderers to try to convince them to stop.
But many laws don’t make sense. Do you want to shoot people who don’t buckle their seatbelt? Do you want to shoot people who don’t support the war in Iraq? Do you want to shoot people who use more than 1.6 gallons each time they flush?
There’s a federal law that makes it illegal to use those old toilets that flushed more water. That law doesn’t say anything about shooting you if you do it. But it mentions penalties. Fines. Maybe some tiny amount of jail time. They sound so harmless, don’t they?
They’re not. Every law ultimately relies on deadly force. A ten dollar parking ticket is a statement by the government that if you don’t pay up, they will come get your money. If you resist, you’ll be arrested. If you try to escape, you’ll be shot.
Not sure? Imagine if the parking ticket said, “No matter what, you will not be shot because of this ticket, even if you don’t pay it.” You don’t pay, and they come after your wallet. You defend yourself as you would from any thief or mugger. You point a gun at them. They let you get away.
Maybe they get clever and stun you. Maybe they don’t hurt you but just keep you in jail. They put padding on the walls. They make you wear a straightjacket.
That’s what we want to do with people who flush too much? Keep them in straightjackets in padded cells?
Well, what about charity? And welfare? Suppose we see lots of poor people we think should be helped. We have two choices, as always: use force or use words. We could use words and try to create a charity to collect donations and build shelters and soup kitchens. That’s a long journey. Or we could use force and say, “There ought to be a law.” A law to give them money from those who have more.
And what about the people who disagree? What about the people who want to send their money to starving children in Africa instead? Or to buy medicine from overseas for a sick relative? Or simply to spend on themselves, to watch a movie, or go out and party? These are the people we’ve decided to shoot. Or keep locked up in padded cells. Not very charitable.
That’s the test of any law. Are you willing to shoot those who disagree? You’re willing to shoot murderers, rapists, and thieves. But are you really willing to shoot those who flush too much? Would you shoot those who don’t want to pay for the eventual retirement costs of today’s young people? Would you shoot a doctor who gives his patient medical treatment the government hasn’t approved? Would you shoot people who don’t want to give up their home to a government that wants to build a mall there?
The next time someone says there ought to be a law, ask them if they’re willing to kill those who disagree with them.