Force and Violence and Property

In the 1960's, the Left, in their relentless pursuit to achieve Marx's goal
of no private property created a legal concept which divided Force and
Violence into separate categories of crime. The example most used to define
this separation was as follows:

A man (A) comes home from work to find another man (B) in his
living room eating his (A) food and watching his (A) TV.
They contended that (B) had committed an act of Force which
while a crime was not really that bad. They asserted that violence
against property was a lesser evil than violence against humans as if persons
and their property were conceptually separable.

Hence, if the response of (A) was to pick up (B) by the scruff of his neck
and throw him out of the front door, they contended, would be an act of
violence worthy of the arrest and prosecution of (A). They justified
this concept by placing the onus on the homeowner (A) to decide whether
the intruder (B) had a clear intent to finish eating and leave or to escalate
this act of Force against him (A) and his property to the level of Violence.

Since it is impossible for the home owner (A) to determine
what the intruder's (B) intent and next move would be, the Left limited
the home owner's (A) response to calling the police and/or fleeing his home.
While a radical notion back then, it is widely accepted today even by some
who advocate for individual rights.

By this cleavage between Force and Violence, the Leftists have cleverly
obfuscated Ayn Rand's contention in John Galt's speech that
"no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of
physical force against others."

By this cleavage between Force and Violence, the Leftists have cleverly
disposed of the concept that a man's home is his castle and that he has
an absolute right to defend his property by any means he deems necessary
including the killing of the intruder.

By this cleavage between Force and Violence, the Leftists have inched
closer to Marx's dream that:

”...The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition
of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.
But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most
complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating
products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the
many by the few."

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single sentence: Abolition of private property...".

Today the taking of property by governments local, state and federal
has reached a level in America that indicates Marx's vision is close
to being fully implemented and is likely irreversible.

Comments? Send them to the author

Copyright @2015 Joseph W Gabriele All Rights Reserved