NEED:

People should be compelled to serve the needs of people, because people need it, and without the meeting of one’s needs the consequence is suffering, and suffering should be avoided, since it indicates deficiency and hence it makes reform imperative, as well as healing. If some people cannot be compelled by their own feelings, then their feelings are misinformed, for they remain ignorant of suffering in the outside world, which is of course no different than the inside world. In such a case, the use of force is ethical, because there simply is no reason why force SHOULD not be used. All values stem from the will to live, and implied in the will to live is the will for others to live, for fundamentally there is no difference between the experience of being an individual and that of being all of humanity, including any other individual. The use of force is no different from an individual will, so long as it is motivated by the same overlying principle of human life, which serves as the prerequisite for all moral discussion, and without which thus no just use of force, even in one’s own defense against a greater force, can be. So long as the needs of the beneficiary are greater than those of the deviant whose actions are corrected by just force, the use of such a force is justified within the confines of those needs, just as one may have to risk injury in saving life in any other set of circumstances. There is simply no intrinsic value to the individual will except in its orientation towards an overlying process of healing, and without this overlying process of healing the assertion of any deviant will becomes negligible. Regrettably, those who are justified in their defiance are robbed of a voice by those who are unjustified, and those who are unjustified, since they can find no other purpose to be deviant, tend to become monarchical and hypocritical while those who would defy authority in serving Something Higher tend to remain flexible and vulnerable to the sufferings of their fellows. No part of their project can be criticized, for it is devoid of personal self-interest; self-interest itself is defined only by CONTRAST with others’ interests, and those who serve others deserve to be served thus in turn, so long as their needs are sufficient. No part of this can be personalized as the expression of a private will to power, because it is the private will, to control “one’s own life”, a product of the will to dominate, that is in fact under attack by all altruism, whether it’s forced or given freely.

Dm.A.A.