Might and Right

When I was growing up, and in the decades since, we’ve been constantly moralized about the evils of people who think “might makes right.”

I get it, it was supposed to be a shorthand that being strong doesn’t make you good, but the problem is, being weak makes you incapable of doing good. We like an underdog, but being a victim , or being able to be framed as one, doesn’t make you moral, principled, or virtuous.

Or right.

Not only does might make right, might defines right. The powerful get to define the standards of what is acceptable within their reach, and the weak, for better or worse, have fuck all to say about it. If the powerful are good and just, they keep the wicked in line, and if the powerful are wicked, then the weak suffer.

Of course, those who don’t wish to be held to account, and the weak, even if basically decent, fear power in other’s hands. We’ve been fed that “violence is not the answer” since before I was in grade school and had run ins with the attitude that if I hit someone back, I was just as much in the wrong. A lot of this can be blamed towards a feminized attitude towards direct violence and force instead of deniable passive aggressive backbiting (repeat after me, Mean Girls is a documentary), but the understanding that might defines what is “right” spans the political sphere.

Heinlein wrote in Starship Troopers, partly in response to the same accusations that “violence never solves anything”:

I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. ”

Mao of course has told us “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” This lesson has not been lost on modern “pro gun” socialists like the John Brown Gun club and their ilk, who make no effort to pretend they believe in universal gun rights. When they win the revolution, they intend to be the only ones with guns.

Every real law ends in a bullet

A law, written and codified, means nothing if not enforced. Neither does a social standard. It’s just apiece of paper or an idea, and means nothing, even as a “here’s our expectations for what you need to do or not do,” if there are no consequences for violating those standards.

For minor things, those consequences can start simple. A reminder, a nudge, a “hey, you should/shouldn’t do that.” If they refuse to go along, that can become social ostracization. Shunning.

But what if he won’t stop? What if he keeps crashing the party? Getting in people’s faces and yelling at or shoving them? Playing music loud enough to rattle your windows at 3AM? Keeps stealing?

Attacks you with a knife? Or any other situation where “use your words” will no longer resolve things.

You can effectively declare the law null and void by not enforcing it, conceding the other has a right to do as he wishes no matter the harm it causes. This not only erases the law, but respect for those who passed it, if they do not have enough will and power to back what they say. “Never give an order you know will not be followed,” even in the military respect for rank only goes so far.

Or someone needs to use physical force to make him stop. Lay hands on him, restrain him, and if he fights, hit him until you can cuff or tie him, and if he renders that impossible, or grabs a knife or axe or gun, use deadly force. It doesn’t take much before milliseconds count, and you have to react to what may or may not be a guy reaching for a weapon, only to find out you were wrong, or you were right, but too slow, and now you are the one bleeding out.

In short, if someone pushes back on a law, the only options are to give, rendering the law moot, or to escalate, until someone blinks. Or can no longer resist. It’s why getting into a fight puts you in a position where one wrong move or misapprehension can leave dead and broken bodies. Doubly so when it comes to law enforcement. It doesn’t matter who is in the right, you’re entering a whole new playing field.

Pretending that’s not the case is idiocy.

Even a law as minor and petty as forbidding the sale of loose cigarettes from a pack, if enforced, can get someone killed from the interaction with the police if they resist , or have bad health, as in the case of Eric Garner. Incidentally, that particular incident is a picture perfect example of why having scads of petty laws is a dumb idea.