Attempting to force a state of equality is immoral.

Firstly, I think I should, to the best of my ability, clarify what I mean by the initiation of force – this is not a change in definitions, but, rather, a matter of exposing the underlying and deeper meanings behind what was posted in the first acceptance round. I am not arguing that the use of force is wrong. I am, however, arguing that the initiation of the use of force is – in other words, force used to meet pre-existing force is not immoral, but force introduced not as a response to force, but as a response to peace, is. What, then, does this mean for the debate? This means that I am only to argue against the initiation of force, and not against true cases of self-defense. As such, it can be seen that I do not have to argue against the use of force to defeat, say, slavery – the slavers initiated the use of force. I would, though, have to argue against what is deemed to have been done not in self-defense. Men have two main inherent rights – the right to life, without which no life would be possible, and the right to property, which is the right to the action needed to sustain and live life. These rights apply equally to all men – to break them would be immoral. As such, it can be seen that one man must not have the right to violate the rights of another – the very idea is a contradiction in terms. It would defeat the purpose of rights in general. From this, it is shown that the right to life cannot be the right to another’s property, since this being the case would result in a right conflicting with another right. If this is the case, then, the right to life must not be anything but the right to not have life taken away, and the right to property the right to not have any property taken away – and the initiation of force directly contradicts these rights. If force is the use of coercion, then the initiation of force is necessarily the violation of property rights – both in terms of property such as land and property such as your body. Coercion threatens both of these things directly, and, as such, is immoral. Now that I have set out that the initiation of force is immoral, I’m going to briefly go over why natural inequality does not constitute the initiation of force. In a state of nature, no two things are equal – if they were, they would be the same entity. Rocks are unequal in many qualities to flowers. It cannot be said that rocks and flowers are both equally hard, for example. This is inherently an amoral issue – morality cannot apply to that where there is no choice to make. Rocks do not force flowers to be different, it is simply the state of reality. In the same way, if one person is, say, taller than the other, it does not mean that the taller person is forcing the shorter person to be unequal in height, necessarily. The same goes for traits such as intelligence, beauty, &c. If the taller person is not using force against the shorter person, would it then be moral for the shorter person to take a hacksaw and cut off part of the taller person’s legs, in the name of equality? No – just because of the fact that doing so would violate the rights of the taller man. This is what advocates of forced equality want – a hacksaw to every pair of legs, and a gun held to the heads of who try to resist. This was fairly basic, but I think it laid the main ideas of my arguments out in an acceptable manner.