There's a thoughtful and interesting thread on The High Road, the firearms advocacy forum, about pacifism. I think you can read the posts without registering. Here's the post that started the thread:
thought on pacifismPosted by Demosophist at January 23, 2004 09:49 AM | TrackBackWas discussing with a semi-liberal but interested in at least trying to shoot friend. Seems slightly fed California prepackaged thoughts on self-defense and so forth. In the discussion pacifism came up and I responded something that stumped him but he may ponder and respond tomorrow. So, I'm hoping some of you can argue the point and others help defend it if it is defendable. This was the statement:
"Pacifism is actually irresponsible since it creates a greater pool of easy victims and therefore increases the need for men and women to risk their lives to defend those victims."
http://windsofchange.net/archives/004180.html
Posted by: Armed Liberal at January 23, 2004 10:28 PMA.L.:
At first I couldn't quite figure out the connection between a post about sexual mores and this topic, and then came to this:
"Do you wish you'd had a girl?" And before I could consciously think, I replied "Well, she'd shoot damn well, that's for sure."It's a difficult thing to say, but I think that women have a duty to resist. I'm very aware of the risks. But it's not to distinguish themselves as victims of violence, rather than someone who "says yes and then changed her mind," but for the same simple reason that I think we all have a duty to resist. Because it raises the price of being a predator.
This is a one of the foundation stones of liberalism that just doesn't seem to have stayed in view in the 20th Century, and I have to admit I lost sight of it myself until recently.
Posted by: Scott (to A.L.) at January 23, 2004 11:17 PMThe biggest problem with pacifism as a philosophy is that it only works in practice against an enemy with a conscience. Thus, Gandhi was able to prevail in India against British colonia rule, whereas Hitler would simply have murdered him. In certain situations, pacifism is immoral. If you do not fight the likes of Hitler, someone else will have to fight for you. In other words, remaining neutral is less moral than fighting against some enemies.
Posted by: Ben at January 25, 2004 03:55 PMIt may be worth reading this Donald Sensing post from June 2002 where he distinguishes between pacifism and cowardice.
Posted by: Ed Flinn at January 26, 2004 01:53 PM"Pacifism is actually irresponsible since it creates a greater pool of easy victims and therefore increases the need for men and women to risk their lives to defend those victims." - The High Road
I looked at the question from just that perspective over at Who Tends the Fires in the essay: Pacifism and Personal Responsibility. To my view, pacifism is an abdication of responsibility for self and others. The only time that it's an even semi-viable philosophy is in an extremely State controlled society - an environment that is anathaema to the individualist.
Even in the absense of a totalitarian and abusive state, that mentality works to the benefit of any state in that it creates a pool of citizens who are dependant on the govrment for everything, even to the most basic of protections, allowing for the state to assume greater and greater control of the citizenry's lives.
Posted by: Ironbear at February 16, 2004 05:39 AM