[Discuss-sudbury-model] If men want to oppose war. . .

From: David Rovner <rovners_at_netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun Feb 16 10:12:00 2003

"It is said that nuclear/biological/chemical weapons have made wars too horrible to contemplate. Yet every nation on earth feels, in helpless terror, that such war may come.

 

The overwhelming majority of mankind - the people who die on the battlefields or starve and perish among the ruins - do not want war. They never wanted it. Yet wars have kept erupting throughout the centuries, like a long trail of blood underscoring mankind's history.

 

Men are afraid that war might come because they know, consciously or subconsciously, that they have never rejected the doctrine which causes wars, which has caused the wars of the past, and can do it again -- the doctrine that it is right or practical or necessary for men to achieve their goals by means of PHYSICAL FORCE (by INITIATING the use of force against other men) and that some sort of "good" can justify it. It is the doctrine that force is a proper or unavoidable part of human existence and human societies.

 

Observe one of the ugliest characteristics of today's world: the mixture of frantic war preparations with hysterical peace propaganda, and the fact that BOTH COME FROM THE SAME SOURCE - from the same political philosophy. The bankrupt, yet still dominant, political philosophy of our age is STATISM *.

 

Observe the nature of today's alleged peace movements. Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear/biological/chemical weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity. Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to comunism. This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against the other, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against ARMED adversaries, but not against the DISARMED.

 

If men want to oppose war it is STATISM * that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged "good" can justify it -- there can be no peace WITHIN a nation and no peace among nations.

If nuclear/biological/chemical weapons are a dreadful threat and mankind cannot afford war any longer, then MANKIND CANNOT AFFORD STATISM * ANY LONGER. Let no man of good will take it upon his conscience to advocate the rule of force - outside or INSIDE his own country. Let all those who are actually concerned with peace - those who do love MAN and do care about his survival - realize that if war is ever to be outlawed, it is THE USE OF FORCE that has to be outlawed."

 

Is the world drifting towards statism?

The United States is drifting towards statism, so are all European countries and many others.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

* Statism/Mixed Economy.

* Statism - The principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

[The American College Dictionary]

* Mixed Economy - A mixture of capitalism and statism, of freedom and controls. A mixed economy is is a country in the process of disintegration, a civil war of pressure-groups looting and devouring one another.

 

It is true that the welfare-statists are not socialists, that they never advocated or intended the socialization of private property, that they want to "preserve" private property - with government control of its use and disposal. But THAT is the fundamental characteristic of fascism.

~ David
Received on Sun Feb 16 2003 - 10:11:08 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:04 EDT