Force and scarcity are seldom brought up in the same sentence, but the truth is neither can exist without the other. Force always inflicts scarcity of some kind on its victim and often force is the result of scarcity.
The most aggressive force between two individuals is the "taking" of another's life. This is the ultimate show of force in which life is made scarce and non-existent, the endpoint of scarcity.
As we lower the intensity of force between individuals, we reach different degrees of harm and injury. The aggression is an attempt to make scarce the health and well being of another. The less harm and injury incurred, the less scarce the victim's health becomes until it meets the state of total health; or at least the natural state of health that was present before the altercation.
If we consider our bodies our own private property, then any force is a "taking" of our private property or a "taking" of the natural state of our bodies. This taking by its nature, produces a "scarcity" of our property [our bodies] that did not exist or didn't exist to the degree it exists after the force.
If what our bodies produce through labor is also considered to be private property, then any unwilling surrender of the product of our labor can be considered force. To aid the argument, this surrender has made "scarce" the product of our labor, that which was abundant before.
Conversely, scarcity is often the cause of force. If the supply of food is limited such that a percentage of the people will not survive on an equal distribution of the agricultural product, then force most likely will be used to determine who will get enough to survive. No matter who "owns" the product by the input of their labor, survival and scarcity will assure that force is used to distribute the needed food. Whether it is distributed to those who are in need or to those who aren't depends on who "owns" the force. This has been proven time and again throughout history.
Scarcity of any product will necessitate the use of force to distribute the product where those possessing control of the force wish the product to go. If the "owners" of force believe the product should be distributed as those who produced the product and "own" the product see fit, then force or threat of force will guarantee that. If they have other ideas, the use or threat of force will determine the results. The redistribution of wealth from the taxpayer to the banking system that is occurring presently is an excellent example of the latter application of this concept.
When there is abundance, there is little need for force. If force is threatened, those threatened can simply find their needs satisfied elsewhere. With abundance, force only occurs between those who possess too little cognitive abilities to perceive abundance. This type of pointless aggression usually guarantees the survival of those who avoid the aggression and soon these aggressive idiots weed each other out.
Scarcity amidst abundance can be created by force. If what is rightfully owned by others through production is confiscated by force and accumulated, an artificial scarcity can be created. In a like manner, a group that produces in abundance can use a greater force to repel a group that find survival scarce and will resort to force for their needs, which could be satisfied by confiscating the product of the other's. Usually, the group producing in abundance also possesses the greater force but this is not always the case. Often the possession of great force causes scarcity of basic goods necessary for survival. This is a very dangerous situation and many wars have found their cause under this preexisting condition.
Land is of primary importance when we consider both scarcity and force. There is little reason to use force when land is abundant; at least in reference to the land It is only necessary when land becomes scarce. At this point, force is necessary to protect the "boundaries" of scarce land from a "forceful" confiscation. We use the term "enforcement" of the law. This is the possibility or actual use of force to maintain what is an accepted principle, although the principle or law is by definition "forced" since all will never come to agreement.
Hence, the paradox: force is the only, well.............the only force that is strong enough to deny forceful action. It seems it is inescapable. And yet it is force that can be used to "enforce" laws, regulations governing human action or inaction, whether just or not, over others. What is the law governing "enforcement"? It can only be other "enforced" laws. Unenforced laws are simply words with little meaning.
It follows that "abundance" would be the primary factor in eliminating forceful action. The more abundance, the less there is a need to use force to obtain that which is scarce. This could not be an "enforced" abundance or regional abundance. If we could ever maintain a state of absolute abundance we might reach a state of peaceful coexistence. Or, at the least, we would be "free" to choose this option. Until then, we are forced to accept force and seek what is impossible by nature, the peaceful use of force.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gene DeNardo only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gene DeNardo is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
