Libertarian Pacifism

[David]

I believe in the power and influence of peaceful civil disobedience.  Certainly others do not.  Many think I put Dr. King on an undeserved pedestal, or that I am Utopian, and many have called me a pacifist.  I resented all that and have spent a good deal of time trying to convince them otherwise.  I tried to promote nonviolent direct action as a strategy, rather than a philosophy.  I tried to reason that the opposite of nonviolence, is counterproductive, and a losing strategy.  None of it seemed to work.  

Than I got to thinking, what if I am a pacifist.  Pacifism does not mean that I have to stand by while others or myself are being harmed.  It just means I will not use force to retaliate or commit revenge.  It means I will not justify senseless violence and call it 'defense'.  I will try to block others (and hope others of good will will do likewise) who are committed to harming the innocent, but I will not kick them while they are down.  

I also got to thinking, why run from the pacifist label?  I do not have to be ashamed of not wanting to hurt others, including cops and politicians.  I believe in trying to stop harm from being committed, so I do not accept the label of 'allowing' harm to continue.  

I'm done trying to debate people from following roads I cannot go down, and following paths that I do not think will work.  You can cling to your pistols, and your anger filled rhetoric, I wish you the best.  It is time for me to move on and try to recruit others to what I think could work.  

Are there others that agree with me?  If so, my first stem to getting others to join me in Keene, NH, is to open my house to others who are not controlled by anger, or the lust for revenge, but rather a burning desire to help encourage and demonstrate peace.  

Two roommates are interested in moving on, and I thought it would be good to have Libertarian Pacifist activists move in.  More details here.   http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=18943.msg306755#msg306755

[violence]

the only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.

There are several examples where it has made the coming violence a lot more intense and drawn out.

WWII for example. if good people would've stopped hitler when he first became aggressive, tens of millions of people wouldn't have died.

pacifism seems to work on a small scale, like in NH, or in the different cities in NH.

its fairly certain to say that on a national level we will never be free being pacifist. because pacifism relies on the notion that the aggressor will stop or change what they're doing because of humiliation, disgrace, shame, etc... but if those things do not effect the aggressor, they will just take advantage of the weakness.

certainly govt thugs and bureaucrats are not concerned about such labels.

[Jacobus]

I started a thread some time back wondering where the "libertarian pacifist" tradition was.  There is not much of one.  In one sense, this seems strange because libertarianism seems already close to pacifism: don't initiate violence.

But I came to the conclusion that pacifism is incompatible with strict "rights" theory.  That is, via "rights" a libertarian feels that any conceivable action can have a "proper"ness attribute attached to it.  Improper actions (those that violate someone's rights) may be responded to with force.  

The problem with rights though is that now you have to draw imaginary lines to separate the proper from improper actions, and even worse, decide what level of force is "proper" in response to improper actions.  Ack!  No one will ever agree on all that, any more than everyone will agree about the exact age, down to the microsecond, that a child becomes an adult (arbitrary pronouncements from powerful governments notwithstanding).

To me, the pacifist approach is largely a rejection of rights and the corresponding idea that actions can be looked at as objective "things" to be classified as proper or improper.  Rather, the pacifist approach is to endeavor to cause no one harm, even if you feel they have harmed you.

[violence]

.

you avatar is funny... oh its cheney i have to take this. hello sir

lol...

libertarians tend to not believe in aggression. defensive actions libertarians believe in.

[dalebert]

Interesting timing, David. I am working on a blog post called The Pacifism Straw Man which addresses this largely misunderstood point of view. There is self defense and there is trying to use violence as a tool for change. They are two different things that are constantly confused. I will be addressing what I see as bad analogies and straw men in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amr4JQ7FbsE

[violence]

Interesting timing, David. I am working on a blog post called The Pacifism Straw Man which addresses this largely misunderstood point of view. There is self defense and there is trying to use violence as a tool for change. They are two different things that are constantly confused. I will be addressing what I see as bad analogies and straw men in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amr4JQ7FbsE

well, that doesn't work.

because wouldn't using violence for "change" be self defense? the govt is attacking us everyday, killing us, stealing our stuff, money etc...

its self defense as much as me defending myself from just one person trying to rob me

[David]

I believe that restraining, or blocking those who intend to commit harm is perfectly appropriate.  Certainly not philosophical pacifism, but the nonviolent activism that has gone on in NH is a form of pacifism, at least in action. 

I am not likely to convince those opposed to pacifism, so I do not plan to try.  However, Violence brought up a good point. 

the only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.

There are several examples where it has made the coming violence a lot more intense and drawn out.

WWII for example. if good people would've stopped hitler when he first became aggressive, tens of millions of people wouldn't have died.

pacifism seems to work on a small scale, like in NH, or in the different cities in NH.

its fairly certain to say that on a national level we will never be free being pacifist. because pacifism relies on the notion that the aggressor will stop or change what they're doing because of humiliation, disgrace, shame, etc... but if those things do not effect the aggressor, they will just take advantage of the weakness.

certainly govt thugs and bureaucrats are not concerned about such labels.

hitler by himself was powerless, but with a massive group of people willing to do whatever he wanted, he was by definition, evil.  The time to assertively oppose the third reich, was not right before or after they gained power, but long before.  If the use of power had been widely challenged, in Germany, or anywhere else it is being used, it would never have gained the foothold needed for someone like hitler. 
I do not believe virtually any of the country will be 'saved' by pacifism, or anything that resembles libertarianism. 

Love, and nice sounding philosophies by themselves will never lead to change.  Assertively challenging the power structure, is the only way to change those in positions of privilege.  Much of the out of the system activism that has already been going on, particularly in Keene, but elsewhere as well, is exactly what I wish to continue.  I simply will not be telling people that if they don't stop harassing me that I will kill them. 

I remember your thread Jacobus.  The groundwork for a pacifist libertarian 'tradition' is already being laid out by those who are ironically, not pacifists.  We can continue with those efforts.  And if we do stuph that people like, and are inspirational, rather than obsessed with anger and revenge, I think we can start to lead these efforts.  We need doers, not talkers.   

[Jacobus]

the only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.

It depends on what your goals are. 

We need doers, not talkers.

I disagree, in that there is plenty of activism that can be done that does not directly relate to performing acts of civil disobedience.  I do agree though that just debating philosophy on message boards won't move society very far.

[violence]

well i guess if your goal is to be killed then pacifism works great 

of course on a smaller scale pacifism can work. not on a large scale though

[dalebert]

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/08/21/the-pacifism-straw-man/

[Tom Sawyer]

the only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.

A troll who lives on the other side of the country. Has been asked to leave and continues... I say we will watch the news for your violent revolution.

You make stupid statements like the one above. Ever hear of the successes of the "Velvet Revolutions". Better yet give me an example of violent revolt succeeding in the last 50 years.

I read an apt description of trying to use violence to counter what we are up against... "It's like shooting a cloud." There are millions of people that make the cloud, kill one and you strengthen the resolve of the rest of the people to be protected against the threat. You haven't won anything, you in fact push things in the wrong direction.

From a pragmatic point of view...
Libertarians can't get more than 1% in a national election, yet some how you are going to lead them to victory in your fantasy battles.

It's not about not being "manly" enough to fight... it is about the fact that it only feeds the beast.

The old world was about taking resources from others to win. The world we live in is about information and pursuasion. The single individual up against the leviathan plays well for ourside. Some angry white guy talking about killing people doesn't get us anywhere.

[violence]

the velvet revolution was only possible because of the united states, without any threats to communism it would've never happened.

don't be so naive.

violent revolution works, you just need enough people on your side. it has always worked, and will always work.

if you had 95% of the country ready to sit in the streets and have a non violent revolution, and there were people willing to kill you on the other side you would lose.

all power comes from the barrel of a gun.

if someone had the will for violence, but you had the rest of the population of "non violent" "peaceful" revolutionaries. that one violent person would kill everyone until there was no one left to disagree with him. and he would win. your revolution depends on the other side being overcome with some emotion.

pacifism HAS NEVER WORKED. NOT ONCE. always the threat of violence, or violence.

[Tom Sawyer]

OK you have all the answers... what are you waiting for? Go have your violent revolution and leave us to our lost cause.

But you won't, because you are busy talking and fondling your guns.

[Jim Johnson]

I think the poster 'violence' should be banned from this board.

[David]

the only problem with pacifism is that it has never worked.

It depends on what your goals are. 

We need doers, not talkers.

I disagree, in that there is plenty of activism that can be done that does not directly relate to performing acts of civil disobedience.  I do agree though that just debating philosophy on message boards won't move society very far.

Bingo.   

OK you have all the answers... what are you waiting for? Go have your violent revolution and leave us to our lost cause.

But you won't, because you are busy talking and fondling your guns.

Agreed.