Categories:
Political Economy
Violence and War
Merriam-Webster defines pacifism as “opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes.” As long as disputes are possible and not everybody is a pacifist, the pacifist can only hope to live in peace if some non-pacifists stand on his side. In other words, being prepared for self-defense is essential to a situation of usual non-violence. (See my EconLog post “The Economics of Violence: A Short Introduction.”)
To quote Roman poet Lucan, due consideration being given to the difference between ancient (collective) liberty and modern (individual) liberty:
Ignorantque datos, ne quisquis serviat, enses
[And they ignore that swords are given so that nobody be a slave.]
READER COMMENTS
Mark Brady
Jan 18 2023 at 5:26pm
“As long as disputes are possible and not everybody is a pacifist, the pacifist can only hope to live in peace if some non-pacifists stand on his side.”
In short, no. I recommend that you consult the work of Gene Sharp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 18 2023 at 11:47pm
Mark: Which one of his work should I order from the library?
Jim Glass
Jan 18 2023 at 7:07pm
As long as disputes are possible and not everybody is a pacifist, the pacifist can only hope to live in peace if some non-pacifists stand on his side. In other words, being prepared for self-defense is essential.
I get it. So Belgium could be pacifist during the cold war while protected by the US nuclear umbrella and the US Army in Germany. And the slaves in the Confederacy could be bestowed with peaceful freedom by the Union Army marching through killing, burning and destorying the social order that had oppressed them. It works for me. But I’m not a pacifist.
And it does seem to me that “you go use violence to protect my peaceful way of life, please”, is an odd illustration of either pacifism or self defense.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 18 2023 at 11:56pm
Jim: I am not sure to understand your point. As far as your last paragraph is concerned, the rhetorical example you use is yours, not mine. Pacifists (as I have defined them, borrowing from Merriam-Webster) may not be aware, or may want to be unaware, of your offer. And I did not use this rhetorical sentence as an “illustration” of “either pacifism or self defense.”
Jose Pablo
Jan 18 2023 at 10:08pm
I think that most of your concerns for being a pacifist were interestingly addressed in this post from Bryan Caplan.
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2010/04/the_common-sens.html
I find these quotations particularly insightfull:
“Some definitions of pacifism specify opposition to all violence, even in self-defense, but these strike me as too broad. I’m a pacifist not because I oppose self-defense, but because it’s virtually impossible to fight a war of self-defense”
“In the real-world, however, pacifism is a sound guide to action. While I admit that wars occasionally have good overall consequences, it’s very difficult to identify these wars in advance”.
By the way, this is also the case for “wars of self-defense”: Most (if not all) of the Iraqi and Afghan individuals should have never engaged in self-defence against the American invasion.
“I suspect that economists’ main objection to pacifism is it actually increases the quantity of war by reducing the cost of aggression. As I’ve argued before, though, this is at best a half-truth”.
And the argument that follows this to conclude that the effect is “ambiguous”, is particularly interesting when read with Putin in mind.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 19 2023 at 12:18am
Jose: Thanks for your comment. I don’t disagree with the last paragraph of the Brian post that you quote, although its application depends on how consequences can be measured. Moreover, if the effects of self-defense are difficult to forecast, the effects of submission (of yourself or your attacked friends) are as difficult to forecast.
If one is an individualist or even a methodological individualist, one needs first to justify individual self-defense. I suggested self-defense is good even for the pacifist who does not resort to it. It is a distinct and second phase of the argument to apply this principle to collectives, including collectives ruled by a state. For this second phase, some of your argument or of Bryan’s are relevant (opposing conscription is only one example).
Jose Pablo
Jan 19 2023 at 7:38am
“I am morally justified to shoot him”
Maybe, but it does not make sense to follow every single course of action I am morally justified to follow.
But even in this case it could still make sense to be a pacifist. Let’s say all the individual with the revolver can steal from me is my wallet and my watch which are worth $10,000 (let’s suppose I am a wealthy man wearing a very expensive watch) and that engaging in self-defense increase my possibilities of being killed by 10% (I am very unlikely going to be the quickest on the trigger this side of the Mississippi) and I value my life at $5M (a standard value)
I could still be better off being a pacifist. Of course, the calculation are way more complicated since repeat interactions and game theory would be at play, but my point is that the conclusion is far from clear.
And this is not taking into account that once I have a revolver at hand (just for self-defense of course) the chances of ended up being that “individual pointing a revolver” to somebody else significantly increase (if reality has any epistemic value)
Jose Pablo
Jan 19 2023 at 7:39am
This comment was intended for your other answer, Pierre. I am afraid I need my morning coffee right now!
Thanks for your comments by the way.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 19 2023 at 12:22pm
Jose: Your engaging in self-defense is not going to affect more than infinitesimally the probability that you will be attacked by criminals who don’t know you. Your being a pacifist will not affect more than infinitesimally the number of pacifists. Your act of self-defense is a net gain for you.
Jose Pablo
Jan 19 2023 at 2:52pm
I meant, Pierre, that engaging in self-defense while being the victim of a robbery, increase my chances of getting killed (compared with peacefully surrender my watch and wallet)
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 19 2023 at 7:54pm
Jose: Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yielding to a threat of violence does not require you to be a pacifist. It is not sufficient to claim the title. It may be just a matter of prudence depending on the circumstances. Being capable of self-defense just gives you another option, which you may choose to exercise or not. It depends on your evaluation of the outcome of each alternative, which is shrouded with uncertainty. John Locke’s wrote (emphasis added):
Jose Pablo
Jan 18 2023 at 10:15pm
I don’t see why the concept on “being a slave” is of any help when considering self-defense, since armies are not making slaves out of the defeated populations anymore.
Which regime is going to appropriate more of your earnings in the future (the existing one or the invading one) should be carefully considered before deciding whether or not to engage in “self-defense”; which, borrowing from Caplan, has always very high short-term costs and pretty uncertain long-term benefits (if any).
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 19 2023 at 12:44am
Jose: By “being a slave,” I mean (notwithstanding Lucan) an individual being obliged to live like a conqueror or his looters want him to live, without regard to the benefits the individual previously derived from a free society. You can model these benefits as Buchanan or Hayek would. You and I have little to say about two gangs battling each other to determine which gang will impose its lifestyle to the other. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a gang of slaves presumably have no objection to be “conquered” by individuals intent on liberating them.
On your second paragraph, please see my rejoinder to your previous comment.
The individual “analogy” is always relevant (except for problems of collective action or problems of collective decision-making). If an individual points his revolver towards me, saying “I will kill you, [expletive deleted], or steal your property,” certainly I am morally justified to shoot him before the bullet has come out of his barrel or even before he puts his finger inside the trigger guard. A friend or a neighbor, whether there is a formal defense alliance between us, is certainly justified in doing the same to defend me. Of course, if we are two pacifists, we are morally justified in doing nothing–although we get into a more complicated problem.
Comments are closed.