—The idea that you can force someone to do what you think is right is inherently evil.—
What if I want someone not to hold up the 7/11? Is it inherently evil to force them not too?
All laws are an imposition of someone, or some group of people. The question is, Is the law just? And the answer varies depending on a myriad of factors.
Reductio ad absurdum isn’t really worth my time, but I’ll bite. Stopping someone from “holding up” a 7/11 is not forcing someone to do anything. It’s protecting yourself from having your God-given rights from being taken (precisely what Rick Santorum aims to do, btw). You do not have a God-given right to take someone’s money to give it to a cause of your choice.
There is a happy medium between anarchy and totalitarianism. It’s called a Constitutional Government. 99.9% of government spending would be eliminated overnight, if the federal government shrank to it’s Constitutional boundaries of the Founder’s intent. The remaining Federal Government functions can be carried out by usage fees (IE postage, and toll roads).
The fact that we live in a fallen world and have a limited government, inspired by God that’s purpose to protect people’s RIGHTS (NOT eliminate people from any wrong doing), doesn’t change the fact that forcing someone to do your will is evil. People CAN regulate their own behaviour, government CAN’T. And should quit trying.
You have a right to maintain your property in your 7/11 example. You don’t have a right to rob the 7/11. Your false dichotomy has now been blow out of the water. No need to try again.
Exactly, the eternal balancing act. It can never and will never be a “done deal”.
Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust."