| A pacifist rejects the use of force as being the wrong method to solve a problem. His problem is not the initiation of force, but the reaction to force, which is self-defense. When he or his own family is attacked, the pacifist will "automatically" fight back, whether this occurs in peace or war. He abhors being the initiator of force, but is proud to be the reactor to force. I think he knows that it is not in his self-interest to start a fight, but he also feels it is not in his self-interest to let himself be molested, so his pacifist principle is not "absolute". Is his natural human reaction to force contradictory to his principles or belief? Is a pacifist a contradiction in a violent world, or could he be the solution? Would not reacting to force be the right or the wrong thing to do? Any government makes a distinction between legal force and illegal force and any religion makes a distinction between moral force and immoral force. While it is legal for the state to kill a human being, it is illegal for an individual to do the same thing, except in self-defense. The state defends the community; the individual defends himself, his family, or friends, so what is so different? When many states have abolished the death penalty, do they in effect acknowledge that two wrongs do not make one right, or do they really believe in rehabilitation? If there were no initiation of force, there would not have to be a reaction to force, so the logical solution is to educate every generation in the counter productivity of force. John Van Huizum Acton, CA |
Home Volunteer Events Officers In the Media Newsletter Libertarian Links Candidates World's Smallest Political Quiz |