Concise arguments against the use of force

[Sidewinderpro2]

I have not had much success in the way of finding concise, collected arguments against the initiation of physical force by prominent Objectivist intellectuals and scholars. I am in the process of researching for a lengthy analytical paper incorporating such arguments, and it would greatly streamline the process if Rand, Peikoff, Branden, etc. have concisely and systematically laid out the argument for "Why should I not use physical force to obtain values?" If anyone knows of any, I would appreciate a link or source.

 

FWIW, the overarching topic of the paper is benevolence as a positive guiding principle for social interaction (say, as opposed to a negative guide of what not to do, like initiate force) and its application to contemporary political issues. All from an Objectivist standpoint, of course. 

 

 

Thanks,

 

SW

[A is A]

Read The Objectivist Ethics, Man's Rights and The Nature of Government. It's a fairly straightforward argument: man's life depends upon the achievement of values, man's life depends upon his use of reason, reason identifies the values man needs for life, reason is volitional and does not function under force or threat of force, man needs to be free of force to achieve the values his life requires. Unless you are prepared to exempt yourself from the human species, that should be a sufficient explanation of why you should not use force.

Edited September 10, 2013 by A is A

[Sidewinderpro2]

I have read each of these too many times to count. I appreciate the suggestion, and it is looking like this will be the route I take. Great summary, if I must say. However, I'm looking for what I envision as a numbered succession of premises and conclusions, something neat and clean if that makes sense. Not a purely deductive proof, of course, but something with similar organizational traits.

 

Furthermore, it would be helpful to have varying presentations of the argument by different writers to assess, particularly if they were in a clear, concise form already. 

[A is A]

I have read each of these too many times to count. I appreciate the suggestion, and it is looking like this will be the route I take. Great summary, if I must say. However, I'm looking for what I envision as a numbered succession of premises and conclusions, something neat and clean if that makes sense. Not a purely deductive proof, of course, but something with similar organizational traits.

 

Furthermore, it would be helpful to have varying presentations of the argument by different writers to assess, particularly if they were in a clear, concise form already. 

There is no "numbered succession of premises and conclusions."  Such an argument is Rationalism, and Objectivism rejects such a method.  You must grasp the inductive nature of the argument, otherwise you won't get anywhere. You need to reject Rationalism in your thought.