Freedom vs. Force – The Individual and the State

Force used defensively to ward of aggression against one’s person or property is almost universally accepted as necessary and justified. But in the modern world most people accept an additional type of force as necessary, namely, coercive force used by centralized governments in order to exert extensive top-down control of a society. But unlike force used defensively, there is not universal agreement as to whether centralized government force is necessary, justified, or whether it even contributes, rather than inhibiting, the order of a flourishing society. Some suggest that the massive centralized states that dominate our world are parasitic, and destined to destroy the societies which function as their hosts.

The 19th century British philosopher Auberon Herbert was one individual who opposed the unchecked coercive force of modern governments. If coercive government need exist at all then like many others in his day, Hebert believed they should be more decentralized, operate at a local level, and that the sole role of such governments should be to defend the individual against attacks on person or property; and that beyond that, government force has no place in a free world.