Peace vs. Violence

Every action government takes begins with the threat of violence.

Ray Haynes

Republican Whip Ray Haynes represents California’s 36th state Senate District.

The essence of government is violence. Every action government takes begins with the threat of violence. Whether it obtains the money to act through taxes, or the power to act through laws or regulations, it cannot act unless it first threatens to punish or imprison anyone who does not pay the tax or follow the law or regulation. That threat requires some form of violence to back it up.

The essence of private action is peace. Whether it is a business contract, private charity, church, community, or other social organization or club, people act privately (outside of government) through cooperation. Cooperation requires peaceful interaction. If a business owner wants to make a profit, or a church or charity wants to pursue its mission, that business, church, or charity, must persuade people to join with them peacefully.

The distinction between government and private action is an important one. Those who believe that government ought to “do more” believe in the spread of violence in a society. Those who believe that private action is more important believe in the spread of peace and cooperation in a society. Should the government or private industry run schools? Should the government or private industry run health care? Should the government or churches be primarily responsible for taking care of the welfare of society? Those who think that government should be the provider of first resort in these areas believe that force and violence ought to be the means by which these services are provided.

Make no mistake; some degree of force is necessary in a society. Criminals who want to steal from or harm others will always exist. This type of activity must be forcibly restrained. Using threats of violence to stop the perpetration of violence is rational. That is an appropriate role for government. In addition, dictators in other countries want to pursue war to advance their own delusions of grandeur. Maintaining an army to stop them is also rational.

Using violence to promote schools, health care, welfare, housing, or to do the thousands of other things our government does is nonsensical. The use of violence in these areas is more often than not ineffective, and too often counterproductive.

Take for instance the issue of housing. We are told that we need government to “plan” and “manage” housing supply. In today’s language, those who desire such government control call this “responsible” or “smart” growth. The purpose, we are told, for this government action is to make sure we have “affordable” housing, to avoid “too much” traffic congestion and “overcrowded” schools. To implement these grandiose government plans, bureaucrats (called planners) in cities throughout the state draw lines on maps, and color in between these lines to “plan” growth. If the landowners don’t follow the “plans” of these bureaucrats, they are thrown in jail. If they don’t like the plan, they can try to get it changed by paying the government, or the politicians, lots of money to get the change.

What is the result of this “planning” structure? Our houses cost too much, our freeways and streets are jammed, and our schools are overcrowded. The bureaucrats blame private action for all these problems, but all building in California, whether it is schools, streets, or even houses is done today according to some bureaucrat’s plan. The threats of violence that those plans imply have failed to accomplish the task for which they were originally implemented. In fact, they have exacerbated the problems they were intended to solve, leading those in government to call for more force and violence in our housing policy.

It has always been true, whether it is housing, health care, electricity, education, or businesses, when people cooperate peacefully through private action problems get solved. When government seeks to impose solutions on them through threats of force and violence, problems get worse. Californians who love peace want a smaller government, less force, and less violence. Our government, however, wants more government power, more violence, more force. Until we say no to these threats of violence that our governor and our state Legislature enact every day (we call them laws), our society will continue to decay. We should say no to violence, and yes to smaller government and less taxes.