Well pacifism would only work if every country would be pacifistic. Because if one country, or even group, would be violent they would have power over any other country.

Pacifism is works only if the other group is not willing or constrained in the use of violance. As long as a group or someone is willing to hurt or kill to get what they want a Pacifist depends on the retalation or intervention by a third party.

I suppose this is a very controversial view of mine but I am strongly in favor of pacifism, at least on a personal level. I cannot speak on a governmental level since I don't control a government and I don't really know all the mechanisms to go into it... although my personal preference is for a demilitarized government.

I think pacifism works on a personal level (and I subscribe to it myself) because it means that I do what I can to prevent myself from doing harm in the world. Given that I will never know all the facts surrounding a conflict, I cannot imagine a scenario (except a stark, sterile, imaginary one for demonstration purposes only) in which I would be 100% certain that my violent actions would do more good than harm. I would far rather have another person commit a crime of violence (and he himself be personally responsible for it) than be goaded into violence just because someone else is violent. It takes a measure of self-control to realize that I am responsible only for my own actions and that if someone else cons me into violence (by starting a fight, for example), it is a reflection of my stupidity and immaturity that I sink to his level. I think Gandhi said "There is no cause I would kill for but many causes I would die for." This is a statement from a wise man. This is what I aspire to.

On a personal level, how does pacifism work into self defense, or defense of your friends/family?

Everyone prefers pacifism to a point, after all who really wants to fight? But do you see any situations, hypothetical, historical, or current events where pacifism would not be the best approach?

If somebody came into my house and tried to kill my family, and I had the chance to save them through violence, I would definitely do so.

As for self defense, if its simply a verbal attack like name calling and shit talking and the like, I think pacifism is the way to go. However, if somebody swings at you, or puts you in physical danger with the intent of seriously hurting you, I would fight back. In my view, sometimes violence is forced upon you, and I wouldn't just take the beating without even trying to prevent it.

I'm not convinced by the basis of this thread.

What do you mean by pacifism, for starters? What context? Before you can even begin to discuss these things, you need to specify what your talking about.

Pacifism is an enchant creature that makes it unable to attack or block

It's an ok card.

it is a pretty cheap card to deal with rather expensive opponents, though it is still a single card, and can be counter (or removed) by other single cards (enchantments are generally easier to remove than creatures, which is why you would pacify the creature instead of removing it in the first place) Still for the price it's worth playing as most opponents will have decent targets for t throughout an average game.

Having not read "how non-violence protects the state" I don't know what it's central thesis is. Maybe sic will enligthen us.

That said, Irish law (which can of course be changed by the government) requires UN approval of any military deployment (aswell as government approval) And that is only for multinational peace keeping missions, this recognises the fact that we do not live in an ideal world, and sometimes force is neccesary, not that the UN security council is neccesarily the best system for deciding what conflicts to get involved in and what should be considred an internal affair (for example the security council is hardly unbiased when it comes to civil distrubances in Tibet, meanwhile the russian recognition of south ossetia last year effectively created a new country, (one dependant on Russia for it's external security) and again the security council was powerless to act due to the Russian veto.)

So when there is international agreement i think it is appropriate to use militrary force, but perhaps there are occasions when it should be used and without consensus, but i don't know how to determine such.

I don't really buy the "if someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you and your family then you must fight the intruder" scenario. It's never happened to me or to anyone I know. Most people are not looking for a fight (including intruders---they want to steal your stuff) so the safest thing is to not fight. My form of self-defense is really just not being a target and living in a civilized country where the police does good work. Perhaps I'm not as "self-reliant" as some might prefer but my lifestyle in the modern western world is, to my mind, superior to that of someone living hand to mouth in an earlier era.

All that said, whenever I am in a fistfight (which has happened but is rare), I find the best solution has always been to not engage in offensive moves. Defensive struggling (ie, NOT turn the other cheek) does not, to my mind, violate the principles of pacifism.

Are there any other people here who consider themselves pacifists?

"Stop trying to hit me, and hit me!"

That's from the Matrix isn't it, ag7433. When Morpheus and Neo are fighting in the training room and Neo keeps missing Morpheus. Right?

Right.

I'm getting the urge to load up the DVD changer with the three of them and have an all night Matrix marathon.

The only just reason for the use of violence is the current or impending (requires a judgment call and is too particular to a situation for current consideration in a discussion this broad) use of a violence on an innocent party (whether that be oneself, one's family, or any other innocent person(s)).

In responding to any violence or impending violence, an individual has to protect the rights of all parties involved, including the original attacker - the goal ought to be to create the best possible situation for all involved, without thoughts of revenge/vengeance - those are useless and solve nothing. In other words, if someone starts a fight with your friend, then you ought to end the fight as quickly and as painlessly as possible for all involved - you shouldn't beat your friend's attacker to a pulp just because you can, but you should disable him as quickly and painlessly as possible.

In short, in preventing violence one has an obligation to the original attacker as well as to the original victim (though if two people's rights come into conflict the original attacker forfeits his before the victim does).

Theft is an act of violence...

I go back and forth on the issue of whether violence to achieve social or political goals is a good idea. My current thinking is that, however justified it may be, political/social violence inevitably leaves everyone worse off than they were before. France wanted to be rid of the Ancien Regime; they overthrew it and were stuck with the Reign of Terror, Napoleon, and in the end just wound up with another king. Russia wanted to be rid of the Tsar; it got Lenin, Stalin, the gulags, and genocides instead. England wanted to be rid of the Stewarts; it got Cromwell. The American Revolution is one of the few I can think of that have been relatively successful, but even that was after tens of thousands dead, the new states bankrupt (with the attendant social turmoil, manifesting in a number of rebellions in the 1790s), political tensions that boiled over in another war with England, and before too long a central state which had become every bit as oppressive as England in an economic sense (resulting in the secession of the Southern states and the War of Northern Aggression).

I can't bring myself to say that violent resistance to Tyranny is wrong, but neither can I see it being productive and having a positive end result in the vast majority of circumstances. Someone(s) could fairly easily do some real acts of violence against The State, but in our modern age The State is so large and powerful that the efforts of a small group of people doing violence against it would have no real effect on its operations, but would almost certainly result in the perpetrators' capture and execution. IMHO, it takes a very particular and rare confluence of circumstances and events to make anti-state violence effective, successful, and beneficial. I don't see that happening in the US of A right now.

There have been a few instances in the last decade here in Southern California and around the country of people attempting to assassinate entire city councils after their lives have been ruined by code enforcement goons, zoning ordinances, crooked cops and the like. Sometimes they succeed in killing a government official or two (or three!), but the resistors always wind up dead and nothing ever changes. (they're also inevitably branded as 'terrorists' and the incident is always used to justify even greater oppression locally, with citizen activists often being dragged off to mental hospitals - exactly the way dissidents in the Soviet Union were often dealt with)

I think the only clearly moral way to resist State evil is by withdrawing from the system, as Sicarius already does. Starving Leviathan of its tax revenues by living an unproductive life (in a financial sense) and being for the most part untaxable is the only way to do any real damage to it with no ill consequences.

@flashman: "Theft is an act of violence."

No it isn't, what are you talking about? Some thefts involve violence, sure, but the basic act of theft is not inherently violent.

Say, for example, I leave a box on my front lawn. Someone comes along, opens my closed but unlocked garden gate, and makes off with the box. That's theft. But what was violent about their actions?

@ orathaic, I'm not really trying to guide this disscussion, just a general talk about pacifism.
I would think that the thesis of "How non-violence protects the state" to be pretty obvious, given it's title. A book I strongly reccomend to tolstoy.

Also jerkface, is it possible your pacifism comes from your priviledge?

Absolutely. Why would I not adapt my lifestyle to the circumstances under which I was born?

Also, I think it is very unclear what the central argument of "How Non-Violence Protects the State" is. I haven't read it but my first question would be... how??

I suppose theres nothing wrong with enjoying your priveledge of pacifism, unless you actually care about other people that dont have the same lofty choice.

I said the premise of the book is clear, that non-violence is statist, not that its main argument is clear from just the title. that is silly.

I'm confused. How does my choosing to take advantage of a better, more comfortable life indicate that I "don't care" about people of lesser material wealth?

Are you saying my refusal to fight means I'm somehow hurting people?? I guess I better go find some people to get into a fight with...

Sicarius, from the look of the reviews on Amazon I seem to agree with the book's thesis that non-violent resistance to tyranny is generally ineffective. But I don't think the alternative (violence) is any more productive. Also, (again just judging from the Amazon reviews) the book appears to be the kind of ivory-tower marxist academic perpetual-class-struggle drivel that I find extremely annoying.

People also seem to think the book is short on answers, so I have a question: if you had an army of a million Sicarii at your command who were ready, willing, and able to use violence to bring about an anarchotopia, what would your orders be? What acts of violence do you believe would bring about the fall of The State and usher in an era of peace and justice for all?

It;s not about violence versus non-violence. with the exception of the criminally insane, I dont know of a single activist who has advocated only violent tactics. I dont either. Most people cant even agree on what is or is not violent. I just think that pacifism is stupid because you are limiting your tactics. It's about using the most appropriate tactic at the time. if letter writing will do the job, awesome. if it takes bombs, so be it.

Anyway, If I had a million at my command, my first act would be to step down as leader. I dont want to be in charge of anyone. But I suppose if they all looked to me for advice (dont see why) I would suggest liberating areas from state control, then giving that community the right to self determine.


not saying that, just saying that not everyone has the choice of pacifism. you do. that is a position of priviledge.

damn lost my post... stupid browser.

1) @Tolstoy: please look at the Irish uprising and followed by the war of independance, and then the Irish civil war. Also consider the India independance movement.

In each of the cases you described the revolutionaries basically took over the roles of those the rose up against. (in the Irish case we setup a similar government to what the Britian with a president who acts like their monarch) In many cases in the 60's black africans became just as despotic and corrupt as the white rulers they replaced. (and much of the current political issues which africa faces are a result of de-colonisation)

Russia didn't change much going for Tzars to Communists to todays so-called democracy. That said, almost any revoultion which succeeds by military force then hold power by that force (and thus is successful - barring external pressure)

Right, but how do you 'liberate areas from state control'? Are you talking about marching in and driving off all the government workers (particularly tax collectors, police, and soldiers) at gunpoint, and shooting those that resist? Are you advocating something more like the Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org)? Or something else?

And who exactly is 'unpriviledged' enough that they must resort to anti-state violence by default?

I dont have a battle plan laid before me man, you just gave me a fairly ridiculous hypothetical and I answered it to the best of my ability in a short amount of time.

Palestinians? Indigenous populations in mexico? Ethnic groups in china, india, the middle east, sudan etc. Navajo on black mesa, to a lesser extent, blacks and hispanics in american ghettos (or brazialian favelas or anyone anywhere on the very bottom of the socio-economic rung of society)

2) i agree - pacifism does allow for a state to hold power. Without it no state can succeed. Iraq and Afghanistan are great examples of failing states. Without this pacifism among a population the mechanisms of the state can't function.

By policing this pacifism and encouraging stability (like enforcing contracts and keeping inflation low) we can make plans for our lives and think of the long term/big picture rather than just having to survive "hand-to-mouth".

Further pacifism is probably the best way to encourage an internationalism which would be able to offer every human equal opportunities to education and chances of survival irrelivant of the geography of their birth.

actually sic you do make me realise that whatever I may hope for ideally some people tend to get left behind, and perhaps we should help those less fortunate in our own societies - if we can't solve our current problems why would you want to extend them, extend the responcibility of a state to include all humans (whatever my ideals... the road to hell is paved with good intentions)

That said it is not just those who are different in various countries who suffer, Ireland has it's own share of poor irish people, living on the streets. It is easier to take advantage of any group which seems different (be it palestinians, indigenous/ethnic populations in Asia or America) In Africa it's not clear which groups are the most downtrodden because they don't have the same stability of other states, and so haven't had the same opportunity to take advantage of their ethnic groups, but also allows genocide of those groups - is it better to have a strong state which prevents violence (and a group of citizens who embraces pacifism) but allows certain ethnic groups to suffer economically - or would you rather live in a geographic area where there is no state and individuals protect themselves? Where roaming rape gangs travel around taking advantage of those they don't consider equal (due to tribal differences) and there are no poor because the weak can simply be killed. (i don't say murder because without law and human rights you don't have murder, you just have pieces of meat which can be killed or enslaved, like animals)