Libro

Force versus Violence

We need to understand that these concepts are complete opposites of each other. They are not the same. The term should never be used interchangeably with each other because not only are they not even remotely similar, they’re direct diametrically opposed opposites.


Let’s look at the difference; they’re often spoken about as if they’re the same, and they’re used interchangeably, when in fact, they are actually diametrically opposed to each other.

Force: the definition of force is the capacity to do work or cause physical change in the physical world. Okay? For any change to be created in the physical world in any capacity, force must be used and applied. There’s nothing you can do that doesn’t require force, if you’re going to make a change happen in the physical. Okay, so to set up this equipment, force was required: we had to lift it, we had to set it up, we had to plug in the cables. Force is required to do all those things. It’s the capacity to perform physical activity, physical work. Force is actually action with which is in harmony with morality and Natural Law because the taking of it, the usage of it doesn’t violate Rights of other people.
So, as soon as you’re stepping over the line into coercive usage of force, that becomes violence. The initiation of force for coercive reasons, for coercive applications becomes violence; that’s what makes it violence. Force itself is not violence. As such, force is action, which one always possesses the natural Rights of take, and this includes the defense, the physical defense of someone’s person, their body against the act of violence; force may be applied in that situation. When you are accosted with violence, you do reserve the Right to use physical force defensively against such an assault. Violence on the other hand, and this is the key to keep in mind with violence; it is the immoral initiation of physical power to coerce, compel, or restrain unrightfully. No one has the Right to ever enact violence because violence is always starting it. Initiation, that’s the keyword there. It’s the immoral, the unrightful initiation.


I’d say “you got what you deserved.” That’s it. Because that person had a Right to defend themselves. You had no Right to strike him. You initiated the violence, he responded with defensive force. Many people don’t want to hear that because they’re very conditioned and I’m not saying you have to do that. You also reserve the Right not to do that. But the Right does exist, both things, both Rights exist. You would have the Right to not respond with physical force, but you would have the Right to respond with physical force. See, that’s a freewill decision that the person has the Right to choose between those actions.
I don’t even look at either one of them as the high road. You know? Personally, I think if somebody keeps beating somebody and keeps conducting violence to them and the other person keeps accepting it and never rebels against it, never uses any force to put it down, I almost look at that as the low road. I’m not a pacifist. Not a pacifist, okay? I am 100% about nonviolence, meaning don’t initiate harm to other people. Don’t start it. “Don’t start none, won’t be none” in street lingo. That’s how it really is, but if somebody else starts it, they’re asking to be put down with the amount of physical force that is required to put down the act of aggression.

Violence is coercive action. See that’s the key, it’s always coercion: saying “you’re going to do what I want you to do, or then I’m going to strike. Then I’m going to commit the act of violence.” It’s coercive: it’s action, which is always in opposition to morality and Natural Law for the very reason that it involves the violation of others’ Rights. That’s why it’s called violence. It’s a vio-lation the act of violation, because it resulted in vio- lence, your Rights have been violated. That’s why it’s called violence. It’s the same root word. Violence is actually which one never possesses the Right to take, ever. There is no such thing as the Right to commit violence, doesn’t exist, because violence is the immoral initiation of physical power to compel, coerce restraint, which no one has the Right to do. No, you don’t have the Right. No, one does have the Right to initiate that type of action. Force on the other hand, there is a time and a place to exert that force in a defensive capacity. Alright, so we’ll talk about that here.


Perception and reality do not really align in many cases, they’re not the same. That person is incorrectly perceiving what is. They’re not seeing the truth, and many people don’t want to hear that that’s the truth because they’re very conditioned, and they are very well-behaved slaves. You know, as harsh as that is to say. They don’t want to understand that the inherent Right to use force against violence exists and is always our Right, always. Now, I’m not telling you to go out immediately and do that either because the perception is so screwed up, and the body of humanity that the majority of people don’t believe that would be a Right and they’ll persecute you for doing it. You see, the self-defense principle is continuously being eroded.

Human beings possess the Natural Right to defend themselves from violence with defensive physical force. A person who is accosted by violence possesses the Right to stop the person who is conducting the violence from continuing to do harm to them with any amount of force that is necessary to stop the attack or the assault; up to and including deadly force. I would say too, if you want to be nice about it, give the person one verbal warning to stop; say no once, after that it’s on. That’s it. And that’s really my policy. And that would be my policy on the street with an individual. The problem is here, the so-called “authorities” of the government, like you say, don’t want to see it that way and they’re constantly trying to take this Right away from somebody. They’re constantly trying to say, “no, we own the monopoly on the usage of force, and all you may do is wait and be accosted and assaulted until one of us shows up.

So, the question becomes, does violence magically become a Right when it’s conducted by Government? When they shut down people’s free speech Rights and assembly Rights. Or when they conduct direct theft from people through this euphemized form of slavery called taxation? And like I said, I’m not asking you to accept or believe taxation is slavery. I’m telling you, if you don’t understand that, you’re Wrong. I don’t care what you think, I’m telling you it is that way in truth and in reality: taxation, slavery, shutting down a people’s Rights is slavery. Telling people what they may or may not put in their body is slavery. It’s not my perception. That’s what is, okay, and that’s what we’re accepting as a people. We’re accepting that. These people have no more Right to do it than any other individual would.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s