esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (04/16/85)
[whatever the consequences, you shouldn't read this line]
Disclaimers: I am not saying libertarianism = pacifism. I am not
saying that the one leads to the other. I am not saying that either
one implies the other.
Imagine trying to argue with a pacifist. One who not only refused
to use violence himself, but advocated the adoption of his view by
others. Who could be *for* violence? Imagine life without any
violence whatsoever -- wouldn't that be great? And don't be too quick
to say that pacifism is impractical. There are lots of ways to do
things without violence. In the case of violence initiated by other
governments, peaceful resistance is possible and could conceivably (if
popular) be very effective. Just because the familiar "solutions"
to such problems involve violence, doesn't mean that non-violent
alternatives wouldn't work.
If you find the above unconvincing, YOU'RE RIGHT! For it ignores two
important points. One, the pacifist's solutions would be complex,
difficult, and in many ways less effective than what we have now. Two,
the whole discussion assumes a set of values which I (and I think most
people) simply disagree with, and find severely WANTING OF JUSTIFICATION.
Yes, violence is bad, but NOT *THAT* ALL-FIRED BAD. The problem with
pacifism is its PURISM -- its insistence that, WHATEVER THE CONSEQUENCES
OR CIRCUMSTANCES, one should NEVER use violence.
Now, substitute the word "libertarian" ("-ism") for "pacifist" ("-ism"),
"coercion" ("-ive") for "violence" ("-ent"), and repeat the above two
paragraphs. And then, one might understand the rest of us's reluctance
to accept the well-reasoned, practically achievable, but still flawed
solutions of either view.
--The developing iconoclast,
Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec2!pvt1047