Why do we so easily miss the foundation of our own existence? Volume 8 - Issue 5

Hamid A Rafizadeh*

• Emeritus Professor, Bluffton University; Adjunct Professor, University of Dayton

Received: May 17, 2025;   Published: May 26, 2025

Corresponding author: Hamid A Rafizadeh, 320 Northview Road, Oakwood, OH 45419, USA.

DOI: 10.32474/SJPBS.2025.08.000296

Abstract PDF

Abstract

This article highlights the importance of recognizing and nurturing foundational knowledge that shifts behaviour towards more informed societal interactions, with a particular emphasis on the core of everyday life, especially the often-overlooked dichotomy between force-driven and sharing-based behaviours when making political decisions. The analysis digs into the consequences of imposing individual preferences on others through societal brute force and highlights the underlying power of collective sharing in creating and sustaining societal goods and services. Through real and hypothetical examples, the article illustrates how deeply embedded is sharing in our daily lives, despite our frequent reliance on force-driven methods.

Introduction to Force-based Nightmare

Consider the dilemma of an unwanted child. Someone is pregnant and does not want the child. Who will adopt the child? Who will compensate the pregnant person for the burden of carrying and birthing the child? You have a firm stance: you want the child to be born and raised to adulthood. However, you have no intention of adopting or financially supporting the child or paying the person for bearing the burden of birthing the child. What are the options? Should we “force” the pregnant person to have and keep the child? Should we use society’s concentrated brute force-police, armed forces, and courts-to achieve this goal? To do this, all that’s needed is to gain control of societal power and position a leader who agrees with this forcing. The pregnant person is then “forced” to have and keep the child, with no worries for you regarding adoption or financial support or paying for the burden of birthing, even though the person, if not forced, has no intention of doing so.

In advocating for the forcing scenario, you argue for the “value of life.” However, this argument is fundamentally flawed because you value life only when someone else bears the burden and cost. If that burden and cost were transferred to you, you’d want no part of it. To understand the implications of “forcing” individuals to do what they do not want, consider another example. You are of the opinion that your neighbour must leave the house at 6 am every day. Your logic is that the sooner he leaves, the more hours he can work, improving society. But your neighbour does not want to leave at 6 am. He wants to leave whenever he wishes.

You’ve already succeeded in applying your technique to someone else’s unwanted child; the same can be done to unwanted work hours. Your societal leader agrees. leave early, work more! Your neighbour is now forced to leave at 6 am. If he does not, he faces arrest and legal action for violating this societal law. These examples, one real and one hypothetical, illustrate the hell we create on earth through a force-defined and force-driven structure that imposes some people’s preferences on others. This approach inherently guarantees that everyone will eventually find themselves subjected to someone else’s preferences. By resorting to societal brute force, unwanted preferences invade our lives. Only by understanding this force-driven way of life can we grasp the severity of statements like those from Kevin Roberts, who claims the only way to prevent societal collapse is to force his preferences on everyone else [1]. A society based on imposing someone’s personal preferences on others is doomed, as no one wants their behaviour dictated by others.

The Key Lesson of Sharing

Is forcing others the prominent way of structuring societal life?

Ironically, few recognize that societal brute force-manifested through the police, armed forces, and courts-originates from the collective sharing of our individual power. We voluntarily subjugate our personal force to this collective entity, creating a system where everyone is subject to the law. In theory, as long as everyone abides by the laws, no one should be exposed to this concentrated brute force. However, we often fail to comprehend that we have collectively created these institutions through the sharing of our individual power. Our collective amnesia extends to not recognizing that every action in producing goods and services stems from “sharing” the capabilities of millions. Take the example of bottled water [2]. In many countries, bottled water is readily available in grocery stores. How many people contribute to creating a single bottle? Initial estimates might range from a few to a few hundred, considering the workers at the bottling plant and the store. But who provides the machinery at the plant? The machinery is made of metal, thus the capabilities of those in mining, metal processing, and manufacturing industries flow into the bottled water.

The bottled water must be transported, involving the auto industry, fuel providers, and road builders. The plant relies on electricity and natural gas, connecting countless workers in power generation and distribution to the water bottle. All these individuals must be fed, housed, educated, and cared for, implicating the shared capabilities of farmers, builders, doctors, and teachers in the production of bottled water.

If this example is unconvincing, consider coffee. At your favourite coffee shop, you see the barista’s skills but not the farmers who tend coffee bushes, the workers in packaging and shipping, or the industries supplying machinery, fuel, and other resources. Even the cream and sugar involve numerous contributors-farmers, ranchers, and their entire supply chains. Every aspect of producing your cup of coffee reflects a societal sharing matrix.

This sharing structure underpins all goods and services. Yet, we remain blind to its foundational role in our existence. We abhor authoritarian restrictions, preferring voluntary exchanges. But in dealing with an unwanted child, we revert to forcing rather than sharing. The unwanted child is a “sharing problem,” not a “forcing problem.” We consistently choose voluntary engagement in most aspects of life, avoiding coercion. However, we fail to learn from this widespread behaviour, falling into the trap of forcing others into our personal preferences using societal brute force-something we vehemently oppose for ourselves.

Is There a Conclusion?

When reflecting on the foundational factors of human life, I often struggle to reach definitive conclusions, as human behaviour has historically remained so disconnected from these foundational aspects of existence. Here, however, I begin by summarizing the key points I have articulated so far:

Force-Driven vs. Sharing-Based Systems: I have contrasted the negative impacts of force-driven societal structures with the benefits of sharing-based systems.

Collective Sharing in Daily Life: I have emphasized the extensive network of shared capabilities involved in producing everyday goods, using bottled water and coffee as examples.

Call for Informed Choices: I have advocated for better education and awareness related to foundational factors of the societal life.

In short, I have highlighted the critical need for a societal shift in awareness and commitment from coercive, force-driven methods to more collaborative, sharing-based approaches. The foundational view underscores the profound impact of collective sharing in every aspect of our lives and the essential role it plays in creating a sustainable society.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

None.

References

1. (2025) Kevin Roberts is a political strategist and president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative political think tank. He is also the architect of Project 2025, focusing on restructuring the federal government in order to advance conservative priorities.
2. Rafizadeh Hamid (2018) The Sucker Punch of Sharing. Bloomington: Archway, pp. 40-50.