For every idealistic peacemaker willing to renounce his self-defence in favour of a weapons-free world, there is at least one warmaker anxious to exploit the other’s good intentions.
I would argue that disarming is not an action resulting from a good intention, but from a bad one.
Because an individual, or a group, can choose to obtain their survival and well being through the use of force against the productive persons or groups it is necessary for the potential victims of such violence to be armed and mentally prepared to to respond with force.
Peace is simply the absence of enemies. It is the state of being where one is not subject to the will of a hostile power, be it an individual, a group, or a nation.
In practice, peace can only be obtained through the forcible suppression or outright destruction of the aggressors. To obtain peace an individual or a nation must have superior firepower and the will to use it. In order to avoid being subject to the will of aggressors those persons or nations which disarm themselves must enter into a dependent relationship with those are remain armed. Disarmament is therefore not an act resulting from a good intention.
At best a pacifist is a parasite. In present practice most pacifists morally condemn the act of self-defense and therefore become accessories to acts of violence carried out by aggressive individuals, groups, or nations. In effect, they've become part of the problem.
And as a rule I favor including pacifists in the solution to the problem of aggressive violence.
What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_
No comments:
Post a Comment