I’m sure it will offend some to hear this, but I can’t always tell whether some people choose pacifism out of principle or out of cowardice. (Are you offended yet?) Some people, for example, wear it as a badge of honor that they don’t own firearms. But is that really something to be proud of? FULL ARTICLE
|
 |
10 comments ↓
I definitely prefer a non-violent approach, even when it is in someone’s right to use force to defend themselves. That’s the only way we’ll bring this empire down.
Larken. You framed the question such that one has to decide how to resist tyranny. With passivisim or violence as options to various scenarios, none of which usually applies to those of us who are against illicit, immoral, unethical, wars.
We who take a passive stance, or I for example, in the retaking of our Government want to leave the Government whole after the event. I for one, would rather take back my government without bloodshed.
But if forced to the other option, there will be a multitude to join the just violence that must come. Remember this would be a last resort. War is supposed to be the last resort, but there are those who foment war to gains profits.
Violence to these people is earned. Again I wold prefer it be that a just Judiciary would bring the criminals to the court. But if that fails then options dwindle until only two are left, or as Ethan Allen put it: “Give me Liberty or give me death.”
And if I am to be slain, let it be in the search of liberty.
A friend of mine asked the local sheriff what to do in case somebody was breaking into his house or attacking his family. The sheriff’s off the record answer was, “shoot the bastard. If you call us, it will take a half hour to respond and by that time you could all be dead.”
I personally have not had a violent confrontation of any kind for about fifty years. However, I am well trained, a dead shot, and pretty fair with a knife. I would not hesitate to protect myself or my family if threatened, or to intervene if someone else were being bullied or brutalized.
To just stand and watch as someone is beaten, raped or brutalized is, in my opinion, reprehensible, if there is any probability of of helping them.
Steve, I’ll let you know how it turns out in a case like that in my home state. The homeowner saw three men trying to steal his 4 wheeler.
They saw him come out the door and ran. He shot one of them. He is now charged with murder.
Two things are for sure:
1. This is a bad law that would allow charges to be placed
2. The dead guy won’t be stealing anything else to pay for his habit
In Texas it is a defense to prosecution to shoot someone in the act of pilfering one’s (or one’s neighbor’s) private property.
That doesn’t mean you wouldn’t be sued. But a grand jury in Texas should return a “no bill”.
I would be surprised if this Homeowner wins. The mood seems to be that if you are not under physical threat of your life, you have no right to shoot someone.
The Irony is that this guy called the police when he saw the men around his 4 wheeler. They told him they would be out in about 30 minutes. He told the dispatcher he was taking a gun out to stop them. The Police got there in under eight minutes. He lives outside a town in the country. By the way, his previous 4 wheeler was stolen off his property.
I wonder if he could be charged with murder if he had shot the guy off his 4 wheeler as he was riding away? Something tells me that law would allow him to be charged.
Dear Larken,
You are misusing the word “pacifism.” Pacifism means nothing more or less than opposition to war on moral or pragmatic grounds. Your editorial says nothing about war. Therefore, it is not an essay “on pacifism.” I doubt that many pacifists would deny that individuals have the right to self defense. The pacifist position is that it is wrong to indiscriminately kill innocent people.
Just to follow up on my own comment….
I reprinted an essay by Mulford Q. Sibley (”Pacifism: Foundations and Problems”) on my website. It provides a good explanation of the philosophical foundations of pacifism. The essay originally appeared as the second chapter of Sibley’s booklet “Pacifism, Socialism, Anarchism: Which Way to Peace and Justice?” See: http://www.geocities.com/bushcheney1984/Sibley.html
The comments preceding the essay are my own: “I previously considered myself to be a humanist pacifist, but I now believe that a new American revolution is essential for the survival of the human race. However, I still believe that killing innocent people in any conflict can never be justified. If revolution is possible, it must rely primarily upon methods of economic, political, and social resistance, with violent struggle strictly limited by principles of justice. The notion that there can ever be any such thing as a “just war” is highly problematic.”
Gary, I think you make some excellent points. As far as the term “pacifism” itself, that’s more of a semantic debate. I have seen definitions that agree with both what you say, and what Larken Rose has said. What I’m supportive of, however, is to never use aggressive force as a solution to any problems. If that makes me a pacifist, I’ll wear it proudly!
It's been said by so many much more intelligent than myself, with all due respect:
"One…asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy." – Col Jeff Cooper
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is NOT overcome by fleeing from it." –
Col Jeff Cooper
"Nobody wins when freedom fails,
The best men rot in filthy jails,
And those who cry 'APPEASE!! APPEASE!!',
Are hanged by those they tried to please"
"A proper pacifist is one who will fight for his right to be peaceful." — Col. Jeff Cooper.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." – Sir Winston Churchill
Pacifism is a privilege of the protected.
"No man who is not willing to bear arms and to fight for his rights can give a good reason why he should be entitled to the privilege of living in a free community" – Theodore Roosevelt
"The meek who will one day inherit the earth are those who forgo aggression but are
NOT those so pathetically meek that they won't even defend themselves, because a
failure to resist evil is a sin, and the willful refusal to defend your life is the mortal sin
of passive suicide." — Dean Koontz.
Leave a Comment