There is no such thing as a constructive force which does not destroy realities. This isn't to say that some force is not needed for the police or military. It says there are reality problems that go with the force.

But those exceptions are a side point. In all other situations, no amount of force is needed at any time for any reason. People are not supposed to function as mini military forces or police forces. Corrupt persons do not know this. They assume that what works for the military must work in their everyday lives.

The difference is that military and police force are on the other side of a break-point where desperate measures must be taken under carefully controlled social conditions. These exceptions must be limited as much as possible due to the destructive effects that go with all force. The corrupters who assume force is the answer to everything do not limit military and police force. They assume that more is always better than less in the use of force.

A mechanistic explanation is that force destroys realities. Humans depend upon extremely complex realities. Destroying their realities creates a lot of problems for everyone.

The fools who assume force is the answer to something don't care whether someone else has more problems due to the use of force. They in fact want someone to have more problems. What they miss is that one person's problems cannot be separated from another person's problems in the human society. Another thing they miss is that if everyone else is going to be doing the same thing, then everyone is going to have problems created with every force produced by everyone.

It is characteristic of corrupt persons to assume they are the only ones doing something. To a large extent, each corrupter assumes he is the center of the universe and no one else is going to be doing what he does. If no one else is using force, is force the answer to something or not? Corruption is an absence of thought on such simple facts, not an alternative analysis.

The widespread use of force is countered in the thought of corrupters by the assumption that they are going to prevail against everyone else, which will prevent others from using force against themselves. Again, is everyone going to prevail against everyone? No, corrupters assume there will be winners and loser, while themselves are always going to be winners.

But what if everyone else decides that they are going to be winners instead of losers through the use of force? A corrupter intends to prevent that from happening.

So the question reduces down to who is going to win through the use of force and who is going to lose. Believe it or not, corrupters have it all figured out. The ones at the top are going to be winners and all others are going to submit to them. But who determines who is at the top? The winners in the use of force are at the top of a hypothetical structure of control over society.

The contradictions of everyone trying to prevail through force to get to the top to prevent others from prevailing against them through the use of force is too abstract and complex for corrupters to understand. They just keep prevailing through the use of force at everyone else's expense, while there is always someone at the top trying to be a winner through the use of force.