{Editor’s Note: This is the 27th installment of a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the previous installment, “Why Don’t More Defend Both Economic Liberty And Personal Liberty?”}Let's tackle this question first by addressing Ron Paul's reference to "force" and define what that is in context.  Force is not simply an aggressive physical act. Force, in this case, can be the creation of a monopoly for services, the removal of rights, restriction of access to products, or the use of psychological battery through fear mongering. So when Ron refers to "force," he is referring to a wide array of tactics which nest in the realm of an attack upon a person's mind, body or liberty.I also want to clarify how I interpret the phrase "Intellectual Influence" in the question posed - namely that to my understanding Dr. Paul is referring to a non-aggressive intellectual debate, wherein ideas, facts, opinions and principles are discussed without malice.  So, now that that's out of the way...Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?First and foremost, let's take the pure pursuit of power as a motivator. Regardless of one's politics, the pursuit of power is something that drives many people. Power is sexy, brings with it money and influence and in the eyes of some and validates their existence by providing purpose. To have power over someone is to confirm ones worth on this planet. This isn't something that I personally believe, but as history has taught us, this cannot be denied as a primary motivator. Politicians regularly change their policies, politics and parties in order to keep their stranglehold on power. So right away, we see a prime factor in why there are more people that use force to advance their agenda, rather than using intellectual means - because for them it isn't even about the beliefs anyway. It's purely about the power.With this in mind, government as a whole exists to stay in power and maintain the status quo. Government is for government, first and foremost. To think that this is a government by and for the people is madness. Once government gets control of an industry it never cedes control back to the private sector, even if it may be in the best interest of the people for it to do so.Ron Paul references bringing about positive change, whereas the State and the politicians that comprise it have little interest in any change that could potentially impact their way of life or the power of the government. Thus, they are not interested in hearing any intellectual conversations that may challenge the current system or beliefs.  The ruling class will utilize force as needed to maintain the status quo. We've seen sufficient examples of this just in looking at the last round of debates in 2008 and again in 2011-12. Ron Paul was regularly stifled or snubbed in debates, or met with derision from the two primary parties. His followers were arrested, detained, or blocked from voting in primaries. Those in power aren't interested in intellectual debate because it threatens their control.The government, media and politicians also use a form of psychological force to influence policy ,and that is fear. As we have seen with the recent tragedy in Connecticut, the government and media have taken what has happened and used it as a platform to try to push through massive changes in gun control laws. They utilize the fear of massacres like the one in Newtown, CT as a motivator to scare us into submission. It was the same after 9/11 - we must fear terrorists, thus give away our freedoms to maintain the illusion of safety via the Patriot Act.  In reality we are both far safer in certain aspects than we realize and more at risk in other areas than we realize. If a madman were to want to commit mass murders, he will find a way to do it - there is no accounting for or stopping random crime or insanity.  The most practical solution is to allow individuals to determine the means by which they find necessary to defend themselves and their families.  It doesn't matter that you are more likely to die by lighting strike 4 times over than for your child to die in school for politicians to try to force change in gun laws by taking advantage of tragedy. Fear is a very effective, cheap method of influencing policy and controlling a populace.Insofar as influencing by intellectual debate goes, this is a far more difficult path to take.  It involves using education, patience and mutual respect. It is a misconception that those in government are more intelligent than the average American. Simply watching some of the statements, actions and speaking ability of many of our elected officials can dispel that illusion quickly. Most of our Congressmen have little ability to develop an intellectual argument, let alone understand what laws they may be opposing or defending and the ramifications or unintended consequences resulting from those laws. Most Congressmen don't even read the bills that they vote upon. How would they be expected to form a true intellectual argument that can win over an opposing viewpoint? They can't.This is why the race card is played so frequently in politics.  Liberals love to avoid intellectual arguments and instead introduce emotional triggers and name calling, such as, to label someone as "not caring about" the poor, the homeless or immigrants. It is all a cop-out to avoid a rational debate and an honest look at a topic, because to do so would delve into a level of understanding that they do not possess. "What that person is saying is immaterial, because that person is a villain."Our current state of what I refer to as "political incest" also strikes a blow against intellectual conversion. People have infinite options to listen only to what they want to believe, as there is no neutral journalism left. When presented with a well-educated factual argument opposing their viewpoint, the typical response is dismissal and disbelief. They don't want to hear your argument, and don't see your opinion as valid.  Thus, they have zero interest in intellectually engaging you.  From their point of view, you are a lost cause, they know what's best for you and the only way to get you to follow their way of thinking is through the use of force (i.e. government).I know this hasn't been an uplifting piece, but it is an honest one. More people use force because they believe force is effective in the short term and appears far easier than trying to intellectually win someone over. Force cannot be debated. Force cannot be argued with. The authors of this website have always viewed education and intellectual debate as the driver of change and the backbone of the liberty movement - and it still is. However, we are still in the minority, and those with open minds are few and far between.While the question Dr. Paul posed had to be asked, the answer might seem a bit discouraging at first.  But we must remember that all of us, and many of our readers, once defaulted to the "force" position ourselves.  The recent explosion in the ideas of liberty, largely inspired by Dr. Paul, should be an inspiration to push us to reach those who are open minded enough to receive our message with renewed vigor. We hope to have many of you along for the ride. Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!