SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA (08/25/86)
Although Charles's question was how a libertarian society would defend itself, I will also respond, since his question would seem to also apply to a pacifist society. To begin with, I hold the belief that there are certain things that are inherently wrong, and should not be done, even for a good cause, and even if this particular time the consequences of doing these actions seem better than the consequences of refraining from them. War is one of these things. I believe that people who are not committing violent acts against other people have an inherent right not to be violently attacked themselves. War as I know it necessarily includes some indiscriminate attacks on the populace, men, women, and children, of another country, even though they are not all aggressors. I could support some limited use of force in self-defense, but I can think of no cause which could justify the wanton destruction of innocent people which is inflicted even by soldiers who are not trying to direct their attacks at civilians. I am also opposed, on religious grounds, to killing anyone. I am not going to give the justification for these beliefs in this message, but will just give them as axioms. It is hard, both on a personal and a national level, to break out of violent ways of resolving disputes, but I believe that someone needs to be the one to show the way. Nonviolent methods of conflict resolution and defense don't always succeed, of course, but neither do violent ones. In fact, violence very often, even when it succeeds in the short term, breeds more violence in the long term. Nations also grow to justify all kinds of bloated military spending, aggression against other nations, and repression of their own citizens, all in the name of "defense". I think that a major part of our defense should be to try to get at the roots of war. That part is fairly complicated, and involves many things, including developing techniques of negotiating and maintaining agreements with people we don't trust, just dealings with people of other countries, support for organizations like Oxfam which attack the problem of poverty and for organizations like Amnesty International which attack the problem of human rights violations, lifting trade restrictions and immigration restrictions, and promoting exchanges with other countries. I am sure there are other things I haven't thought of now. Of course, dealing justly with other people does not guarantee that they will deal justly with you, so there is still the possibility that another country will attack us. In that case, I would organize a nonviolent defense. Governments rely on the cooperation of their citizens. If enough citizens refuse to recognize the authority of a government and persist in disobeying, it would be very difficult for an invading power to govern. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic [ I'd really like to beleive this, but I don't. Its still the meanest guy in the valley that runs the valley, and its going to be that way for a while yet. It would seem to me that in a contest of peoples who beleive in war and those that don't, the 'beleivers' will win every time. Non-violent defence didn't work for the Jews (which is one of the reasons the Isrealis act the way they do - they learned the lesson at an incredible cost), and won't work for anyone up against a determined aggressor. On a separate tack, does anyone care do discuss the political effects of the exploitation of space? One possible solution out of the present struggle of the have/havenots is to become so prosperous with new raw materials and energy sources and a population 'safety-valve' so that nobody wants to be killed fighting, and would rather than sit around and have a good time. Is this possible? Likely? - CWM] -------