Like most roommates, my dormmate and I engage in discussions on a daily basis. We talk about religion, sports and cars.
At the end of the day the talks are meaningless outside of enjoyment. I cannot convince him to become a Christian, or to believe that baseball is a better sport than football or why Bentley is hands down superior to Rolls Royce. He still maintains Jesus was most likely not the son of God, that football rocks and that any Rolls Royce can crush any Bentley. I do not force a compromise that would dictate him to pray a little, I don’t force him to attend an Astros game and I don’t make him think that some Bentleys are cool.
No one could possibly claim that I am oppressing my dormmate by arguing with him. But after convincing his roommate and a mutual friend that he ought to pray to Jesus am I closer to justifying the use of physical coercion against him? Of course not. Not just because it is against the law, but because on-face oppression of non-criminals is morally repugnant. Oppression is present if a non-criminal is forced to undergo some action or forced to support an action that he or she does not individually consent.
But why is majority domination necessitated when the discussion is framed in the context of politics? When a government wishes to invoke the political process to support a bill to fund a local community center, why does this issue enter into a radically different field from the discussions from the one I have with my dormmate?
In the winner-takes-all system, the majority’s will is implemented over the opposition of the minority. Why are the members of the community who do not see the utility of the community center forced to fund the project if a given percentage of its fellow citizens support such measure? Why can’t the members of the community who support the measure fund it and see its establishment regardless of the dissenters? Perhaps the answer lays in the nature of the democratic structure.
When framing an issue as a political issue that mandates the entire community’s funding through the process of taxation, oppression is what necessitates against a certain percentage that resists such measure. The minority rights protected in the Bill of Rights provide no recourse to the oppressed, as they do not allow the dissenter to avoid funding a given project that one does not support.
One might respond that once engaging in the political process each member consents by default to the results of the process. This line of thinking could justify the worst abuses against the minority. Would the dissenting Germans who resisted the democratic rise of Adolf Hitler lose the ability to protest Hitler’s policies? Clearly not.
It makes no difference if the criminal is a monarch or a mass of people. When one’s property is expropriated against one’s will, it is deplorable act of aggression.
When one claims that governmental actions are necessary to solve an issue, this means that oppression is necessitated to achieve that end. If there were adequate support of individuals to solve a needed issue, no governmental action would be needed.
Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola College, reflecting on the work of Ludwig von Mises, argued, "The contractual state is guided by such concepts as natural rights to life, liberty and property and government under the rule of law. In contrast, the ‘hegemonic society’ is a society that does not respect natural rights or the rule of law. All that matters are the rules, directives and regulations issued by dictators, whether they are called kings or congressmen."
If the ending of oppression is to be considered a social virtue warranting our concern, more issues should be framed outside the context of democratic political discourse and focus on individual education giving rise to peaceful voluntary action.†
Gilson, a business sophomore, can be reached via [email protected].
