”Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.” (LDS Alma 48:14)
One of the reasons politics can be a toxic subject for discussion is because it can involve supporting policies that can be forced on people who do not support the policy. When you’re talking about forcing people to comply with something they don’t agree with, it’s little wonder that the topic can turn contentious. If politics were simply about defending the freedom of all, there would be much less to worry about. Instead of simply supporting the freedom of all, politics has largely become a place where one agenda or another is proposed to be forced upon a significant portion of good standing people in the population who do not agree with it.
There are two major factors which, if corrupted, can lead to great contentions. These are voting and the use of force. The corruption of either of these factors can lead to the quick demise of a free society.
Voting
Ideally, voting is simply a way for the people to choose how to best uphold and support the freedom of all in their society. While some choices or methods may be more or less effective than others, every options should support the freedom all, regardless of which one ends up prevailing by popular vote.
While responding to the voice of the people is important to upholding a free society, voting can also be used for tyrannical purposes. When voting is used to obtain consent to enforce tyrannical measures, woe to such a people. When a tyrannical idea prevails by a majority vote, the people are in trouble. When voting is compromised by not truly representing the voice of the people, it is corrupt. These are signs that people should notice to measure the strength and health of a free government which is truly supporting the freedom of all its people. If this is not the case, citizens should wake up to the awful situation that is upon them. It should be no consolation to look around and see others in worse circumstances. Simply noticing worse forms of tyranny does not make the local tyranny any less egregious.
When a vote is taken, the outcome should genuinely reflect the voice of the people. The purpose of a vote is to discover the voice of the people. It’s the voice of the people that really matters, not necessarily the method that is used to discover the voice of the people. The method can be used to distract from what the voice of the people really is. When voting does not truly reflect the voice of the people, it’s the method that isn’t working. The people do have a voice. How to best measure and obtain that voice is the question and voting is a popular means used for that purpose. When a vote is taken and only a few people participate in the vote, does that vote truly reflect the voice of the people? If a majority of people refuse to vote on a measure, should it be allowed to pass by only considering the number of votes that approve relative to the number that disapprove? Or should the lack of participants be considered as well?
When tyranny controls voting, it will never appear clearly on a ballot by saying “should we be a free society or a tyrannical society”. It will always be more subtle. One method is to only provide options to vote on which only support tyranny. Because a choice is offered, it can appear to be an exercise of freedom, or that a free society is being upheld because a vote is being taken, even though freedom can be destroyed by any of the choices. When tyranny controls what is voted on, do you think a choice will be offered which can destroy tyranny? A vote where a tyrannical outcome is the only option, is a mockery of freedom.
Tyranny does not allow itself to be truly threatened by voting. Voting may be conducted, but only concerning matters that will continue to support tyrannical power. When under tyrannical control, a vote may be allowed only when the outcome is certain to not pose a real threat to the real powers in control. If a dictator holds a vote, he may be the only one on the ballot. If anyone votes against him, they may become a target for punishment.
Tyranny does not really respect the power to choose. Under tyranny, choice is an illusion because all of the options are endorsed by the tyrant and nothing that threatens tyranny is an acceptable option to choose. If such a choice is up for vote, it will lose. A tyrant will see to that. If people do have a real choice, some might choose tyranny anyway if they think they will be the benefactors of the brand of tyrannical rule they vote for. But given a real choice, some might actually put aside the promises of benefits from some form of tyranny and choose freedom, even with its uncertainty.
The use of force
When the only options available in an election are tyrannical, you can bet that the decisions will carry an element of force behind them. In order to make tyrannical decisions binding, they must be forced. But force should never be applied to people who support and uphold the freedom of their fellow man. Applying force to people who are seeking to uphold a free society is tyrannical.
How should force by applied? What is appropriate use of the power of force of the state? The use of force against the will of an individual should only be allowed when it is defensive, and specifically to the defend personal freedom and the freedom of others. All are allowed this same freedom, so there can be equality. Only when the person being forced or imposed upon is the aggressor, seeking to force or impose their will upon others, should force be used to restrain them. Self defensive force cannot be used to impose upon people who are not aggressors. Some have referred to this limitation of force as the principle of non-aggression, which is essential to sustaining a truly free society. Abandoning force for self defense or justifying force for aggressive purposes are offenses against freedom. Tyranny seeks both.
If you simply removed the wrongful use of force, how much more respectful and civilized could public discourse be? If you knew that a disagreement concerning public policy, would never be forced upon you, how much easier would it be to discuss and explore various ideas? When force is used, how much more likely is it to create a contentious atmosphere around such topics? Today, the justification of the wrongful use of force is because a vote has been taken and the results of that vote are used as consent to use force to enact whatever was approved by a vote. Voting can be used as justification for the abusive use of force.
When policies which go beyond defending freedom are enacted by force, that force can be used against good standing people. In such an environment, any argument or proposal can become toxic simply because of the threat of imposing it against the will of good people is at play. Rather than allow those who disagree to go on their merry way and not be effected by an idea they don’t support, tyranny uses its power to force things upon good people that they don’t approve of. An alternative can simply be to allow various experiments to be carried out only among those who support such cooperative efforts. If an idea turns out to be good, it can garner support and spread on its own without compulsory means. The best ideas don’t have to be forced upon people because they can speak for themselves.
Voting may be an appropriate method for obtaining the voice of the people. It can be a useful means to advance the protections of freedom. But it can also be corrupted and used as consent to force tyrannical measures upon an otherwise free people. Force should only be defensive. To deny the use of force for self defense is tyrannical. To use force for non-defensive purposes or for aggression is tyrannical. Freedom must be properly protected or it will be lost.