The government should...

Good ideas MUST be enforced through violence!

Apr 20, 2025

If I say something is for your own good, then I have every right to force it on you using any type of violence necessary. If I say that your inaction endangers me or violates my entitlements, then I have every right to take action against you - even lethal action, if that’s what it takes.

You have no right to do nothing. Your inaction is violence. My violence against you is my right.

Any violence is permitted when the intent is the utilitarian greater good. Utilitarianism means that any atrocity is OK if the state considers the predicted outcome greater than the loss. What’s good for “the many” is greater than what’s good for you. And what’s good for the many, ultimately, is good for you, even if the state has to kill you for it.

The state gets to say so. The all-knowing state gets to define what the greater good is and for whom. Therefore, those by the grace of societal wisdom who’ve found themselves in positions of institutional power get to define the “greater good.” They are morally justified and allowed to use any violence, any beating, any theft, any murder, any forced injection, any rape, any slavery, as long they do it for what think is good.

History proves that good intentions always lead to good outcomes. And if they don’t, then no one should be held accountable… the intent is all that matters.

Here’s what the government should do…

The government should force everyone to work out a minimum of 7 hours a week. The cost burden of sedentary lifestyles on the public health system is astronomical, and we should not allow those who refuse to take care of their health to burden society with their sickness.

People who refuse to work out or lead healthy lifestyles overwhelm the health system, which directly puts us all at risk. They endanger us all. They should be treated like vermin, denied healthcare, denied even the opportunity to live among us… unless they comply with the government’s mandates to work out. This would statistically reduce their burden on the healthcare system.

Yes, you should be forced to work out, even if you don’t want to. It’s for your own good. It is your duty and obligation because we live in a society, and we’re all in this together. This means that your selfish choice not to take care of your health is an unnecessary burden on the health of others who do take care of their health. Selfish people who choose to overwhelm and abuse the healthcare system do so on the backs of people who do take care of their health, and who get lower-quality healthcare whenever they need it - all because of those selfish people who choose not to take care of their health.

It is an undeniable scientific fact that rigorous exercise reduces health risk and people’s reliance on health services. This is science. Trust the science. If you deny science, you are to be ridiculed as a science denier and expelled from society.

Since civilised society does not deny science, and science is essentially one undeniable dogma, one commits heresy to question it. If “the science”™ says that exercise reduces healthcare costs, we can then conclude that any measure, including all types of violence, is justifiable to achieve this goal. The means always justify the ends.

We are all in this together. Everything you do or don’t do affects everyone else. You don’t have the right to do or not do anything unless approved by the state, which represents the entirety of society as a whole; its entirety except you. You don’t have the right to choose to be unhealthy, thus burdening others with your healthcare costs. You don’t have the right to NOT do something that is decided to be for the greater good. By NOT doing something, you are violating other people’s right to DO something to you, to commit violence against you for NOT doing what they want you to do. The state has the right to violently brutalise you for your inaction. You do not have the right to NOT do what the state tells you to do. You do not have the right to NOT do what the state considers your duty to it.

Indeed, some people may not feel like working out - they might think it’s their right to choose to be unhealthy and to burden others with their monopolising of healthcare services. But it’s not their right to make this choice. By not doing all within their power to be healthy, they are violating the rights of others because they put others at risk. It is not their choice to make. They must be forced to take care of their body, otherwise, the state will brutalise their body.

Others may have health conditions whereby exercise might increase their health risk. But these rare cases are a small price to pay for the greater good. We, as one tribal entity, don’t have the resources to screen everyone for such conditions. We can’t waste time on this and risk the overall public health for those who might cheat the system to skip working out. For one person whose health worsens due to exercise, there are many more whose health improves. So, the benefits outweigh the risks. The overall gain from violently enforcing exercise is greater than its cost.

The overall public health matters more than the individual public health, including mental health. Individual cases don’t matter; only the bigger picture matters. We must sacrifice the tree for the forest, again and again. We need to sacrifice every single tree for the forest, if that’s what’s required.

After we enforce exercise, and using statistics to project, we can safely predict that public health markers will increase. This is all that matters: the greater good. Who cares if a few unhealthy people end up dying from exercise? Who cares if some lazy people feel violated by being coerced to exercise, thus denied their liberty to consciously live an unhealthy lifestyle? A lot more will be saved, and a lot more people will benefit from a healthcare system that is not overburdened by sickly people.

And even if the exercise science deniers are the majority, it still doesn’t matter because the state knows best, and in a democracy, the state has the right to enforce what’s good for the majority, even if the majority doesn’t know what’s good for it. But the state knows. The state always knows best.

What’s right for all is an objective fact. In this case, what’s objectively right for all is that exercise improves health and reduces public healthcare costs. No one has the right to deny this fact. No one has the right to overwhelm and abuse the healthcare system with their sickly sedentary conditions - no one has the right to deny the rest of us access to healthcare services.

Exercise deniers put us all at risk because their unjust over-demand for healthcare services erodes access to healthcare services for the rest of us.

Exercise science deniers should be forced to work out, and that’s that.

According to utilitarian principles, any murder and atrocity is justifiable if more lives are to be saved. If you deny this fact, then you want the many to die just to save the few. So you are a murderer. If the state murders one to save two, then the state is not a murderer. Who cares if those two people are unrelated to each other? We are trying to save lives here. We want to kill the few to save the many, and human lives are as simple as basic arithmetic. The sagacious state gets to say that the sacrifice of a few will indeed save many others, and the state gets to decide who lives and dies. Who are you to question the all-knowing, benevolent state?

The state is the will of the people, just not any person individually.

So, how do we practically make people work out? How can state authorities monitor and verify people’s compliance?

Gyms should all be made public (state-owned), and all citizens should be forced to pay even more in taxes to cover the costs of running such a publicly monopolised service. Citizens would then be forced to attend rigorous fitness regimes and classes. Their attendance and eager participation will be assessed by their allocated health and fitness official, since all fitness instructors will be elevated to state agents, each tasked with keeping tabs on citizens’ participation and commitment to state-enforced exercise.

This should be easy to implement - the state manages to enforce much more elaborate regulations, and is also quite proficient in verifying compliance with intricate mandates.

This can realistically be done by the state.

We should all petition the state to enforce rigorous exercise regimes for all to reduce the burden of sedentary people on the already overwhelmed healthcare system, thus safeguarding our healthcare access rights.

You might say that violence is not a way to enforce exercise. You could say that people should face fines instead of the threat of violence. But all fines are predicated on the threat of force. The reason you feel compelled to pay any arbitrarily issued fine is because, if you don’t, you’ll get a knock on your door to be kidnapped, imprisoned, and enslaved. If you resist, then you will be relentlessly and gleefully brutalised by overenthusiastic state enforcers. And if you keep resisting, then you will be legally killed by people itching for the chance to legally kill.

In case you didn’t detect the blatant irony in this entire article, I don’t blame you. It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between literalness and irony these days.

If you found the above argument for forced exercise ridiculous and unreasonable, then you must also understand that every single state mandate or prohibition rests on the same “logic” or lack thereof - the same non-sequitur utilitarian insanity. Every single law, every single state enforcement, every single thing for which you squeal “the government should” is using the exact same rationalisation.

And before you object using the ridiculous straw man of chaotic statelessness, I highly recommend you go through my reading lists because I believe your survival depends on it. I argue against coercive, centralised, threat-based government, and I support voluntary, decentralised, incentive self-governance whereby laws emerge spontaneously through incentive, and criminals are punished without any state protecting or enabling them.

On morality [Part 1]

Pandemic ethics

Discussion about this post

The government should...

Good ideas MUST be enforced through violence!

Recommended reading

On morality [Part 1]

Pandemic ethics

Discussion about this post