sailingaway
12-20-2012, 07:00 PM
Why Don’t More Individuals Try To Influence Through Intellectual Conversation Rather Than Force?
{Editor’s Note: This is the 27th installment of a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the previous installment, “Why Don’t More Defend Both Economic Liberty And Personal Liberty?” http://lionsofliberty.com/2012/12/19/why-dont-more-defend-both-economic-liberty-and-personal-liberty/ }
Let’s tackle this question first by addressing Ron Paul’s reference to “force” and define what that is in context. Force is not simply an aggressive physical act. Force, in this case, can be the creation of a monopoly for services, the removal of rights, restriction of access to products, or the use of psychological battery through fear mongering. So when Ron refers to “force,” he is referring to a wide array of tactics which nest in the realm of an attack upon a person’s mind, body or liberty.
I also want to clarify how I interpret the phrase ”Intellectual Influence” in the question posed – namely that to my understanding Dr. Paul is referring to a non-aggressive intellectual debate, wherein ideas, facts, opinions and principles are discussed without malice. So, now that that’s out of the way…
Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
First and foremost, let’s take the pure pursuit of power as a motivator. Regardless of one’s politics, the pursuit of power is something that drives many people. Power is sexy, brings with it money and influence and in the eyes of some and validates their existence by providing purpose. To have power over someone is to confirm ones worth on this planet. This isn’t something that I personally believe, but as history has taught us, this cannot be denied as a primary motivator. Politicians regularly change their policies, politics and parties in order to keep their stranglehold on power. So right away, we see a prime factor in why there are more people that use force to advance their agenda, rather than using intellectual means – because for them it isn’t even about the beliefs anyway. It’s purely about the power.
With this in mind, government as a whole exists to stay in power and maintain the status quo. Government is for government, first and foremost. To think that this is a government by and for the people is madness. Once government gets control of an industry it never cedes control back to the private sector, even if it may be in the best interest of the people for it to do so.
Ron Paul references bringing about positive change, whereas the State and the politicians that comprise it have little interest in any change that could potentially impact their way of life or the power of the government. Thus, they are not interested in hearing any intellectual conversations that may challenge the current system or beliefs. The ruling class will utilize force as needed to maintain the status quo. We’ve seen sufficient examples of this just in looking at the last round of debates in 2008 and again in 2011-12. Ron Paul was regularly stifled or snubbed in debates, or met with derision from the two primary parties. His followers were arrested, detained, or blocked from voting in primaries. Those in power aren’t interested in intellectual debate because it threatens their control.
more: http://lionsofliberty.com/2012/12/20/why-dont-more-individuals-try-to-influence-through-intellectual-conversation-rather-than-force/
{Editor’s Note: This is the 27th installment of a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the previous installment, “Why Don’t More Defend Both Economic Liberty And Personal Liberty?” http://lionsofliberty.com/2012/12/19/why-dont-more-defend-both-economic-liberty-and-personal-liberty/ }
Let’s tackle this question first by addressing Ron Paul’s reference to “force” and define what that is in context. Force is not simply an aggressive physical act. Force, in this case, can be the creation of a monopoly for services, the removal of rights, restriction of access to products, or the use of psychological battery through fear mongering. So when Ron refers to “force,” he is referring to a wide array of tactics which nest in the realm of an attack upon a person’s mind, body or liberty.
I also want to clarify how I interpret the phrase ”Intellectual Influence” in the question posed – namely that to my understanding Dr. Paul is referring to a non-aggressive intellectual debate, wherein ideas, facts, opinions and principles are discussed without malice. So, now that that’s out of the way…
Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
First and foremost, let’s take the pure pursuit of power as a motivator. Regardless of one’s politics, the pursuit of power is something that drives many people. Power is sexy, brings with it money and influence and in the eyes of some and validates their existence by providing purpose. To have power over someone is to confirm ones worth on this planet. This isn’t something that I personally believe, but as history has taught us, this cannot be denied as a primary motivator. Politicians regularly change their policies, politics and parties in order to keep their stranglehold on power. So right away, we see a prime factor in why there are more people that use force to advance their agenda, rather than using intellectual means – because for them it isn’t even about the beliefs anyway. It’s purely about the power.
With this in mind, government as a whole exists to stay in power and maintain the status quo. Government is for government, first and foremost. To think that this is a government by and for the people is madness. Once government gets control of an industry it never cedes control back to the private sector, even if it may be in the best interest of the people for it to do so.
Ron Paul references bringing about positive change, whereas the State and the politicians that comprise it have little interest in any change that could potentially impact their way of life or the power of the government. Thus, they are not interested in hearing any intellectual conversations that may challenge the current system or beliefs. The ruling class will utilize force as needed to maintain the status quo. We’ve seen sufficient examples of this just in looking at the last round of debates in 2008 and again in 2011-12. Ron Paul was regularly stifled or snubbed in debates, or met with derision from the two primary parties. His followers were arrested, detained, or blocked from voting in primaries. Those in power aren’t interested in intellectual debate because it threatens their control.
more: http://lionsofliberty.com/2012/12/20/why-dont-more-individuals-try-to-influence-through-intellectual-conversation-rather-than-force/