Martialism: Only Force Answers Force

By Phil Elmore

---

Since men do not automatically come to the same conclusions, no code of ethics can escape the present issue. The moralist has to tell men how to act when they disagree (assuming they do not simply go their separate ways).  In essence, there are only two viewpoints on this issue, because there are only two basic methods by which one can deal with a dispute. The methods are reason or force; seeking to persuade others to share one's ideas voluntarily, or coercing others into doing what one wishes regardless of their ideas. Excerpted from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff

David's column for this issue was prompted by my original polemic directed at pacifism.  While his response makes some very good points, the fundamental problem of pacifism remains.

Life and human interaction cannot be conducted without recourse to force.  It would be wonderful if this was possible.  It would be wonderful if we could all live peacefully in harmony with one another.  This, however, will always be impossible.  It is in the nature of some portion of humanity to attempt to impose its will on others -- to use coercion.  Coercion may take many forms, but it invariably comes down to the willingness to do violence to someone else in order to make them do something they do not wish to do.

The primary objection to my original pacifism column has been built around the idea that one need not use violence to resist an aggressor.  Noncompliance, passive resistance -- these are the tools of the pacifist standing behind his or her moral principles, according to my critics.  They historical figures like Gandhi and Jesus Christ to make the point.

Well, okay;  I'll grant you that pacifists may indeed choose to resist by refusing to comply.  Ask yourself, however:  what do we know about Gandhi and Jesus Christ?

They're dead. That's right:  they died for their beliefs and those beliefs have had lasting effects in society.  Those effects don't change the fact that they're dead, however, and that has always been my primary objection to pacifism.

Counting on an enemy to become disgusted with his unanswered aggression, or to become bored and wander off in search of someone who will gratify his aggression with a less "enlightened" response, is a strategy that might work on a community level.  (I think David and I both agree that it does not work at the individual level -- at the level of personal self-defense.)  However, what if the stated and explicit goal of the enemy is to kill your community?  What if they want to destroy you utterly, raze your buildings, salt your fields and plow them under?

The answer is simple.  You do what enlightened men and women have done before you.  You die.

What of one's moral obligation to face aggression?  Those who install car alarms or steering wheel clubs on their vehicles could be said to be practicing a form of passive resistance.  Thieves may still take the car or its contents, but the presence of the security device is seen as an irritant that prompts the thieves to move on to more suitable candidates, candidates without such security devices.  

When protecting one's vehicle in this fashion, one does not really deter crime;  one simply shifts it to someone else.

If failure to gratify an aggressor with an equally aggressive response (against which he may then justify his aggression) will prompt him to become bored and go away, or to seek other victims who will give him the response he desires, how has the pacifist avoided violence?  He has, in fact, spread violence to another party entirely, thus creating more evil, more problems, more uses of force.  In this way, pacifism again achieves the opposite of its stated goals.

Historical examples of "successful" pacifism focus on the societal changes or benefits created by the pacifists in question -- the legacies they left to those who came after them.  How, then, is a legacy of shifted violence preferable to one of having fought and died for more active principles?

If, instead, we face aggressors with force, dealing with them in the only language they understand, settling the conflict with finality and understanding that we did not choose the use of force (it was chosen by the aggressor), we create a far greater legacy.  We hinder aggressors in their actions.  We make it more difficult for them to victimize others.

States that enact "shall-issue" concealed carry laws for firearms invariably see a decrease in violent crime.  This is usually attributed to the fact that societal predators suddenly have no way of knowing who might be able to face them with lethal force.  This is not just individual self-defense;  this is a community benefiting from the collective perception that its citizens, as a body, are willing to fight back with more than passive acceptance or noncompliance.

An aggressive enemy rarely self-destructs when confronted with an easy victory.  That enemy will instead take that easy victory and revel in it.  Even if a society managed to repel an aggressive foe by so disgusting that foe with its actions that the enemy moved elsewhere, the pacifist society would be guilty of harming the enemy's subsequent victims by proxy -- through inaction and the refusal to face evil.

Attempting to survive and prosper in life while refusing to use force when confronted with it is like attempting to travel while refusing to use wheels and wings.  It can be done -- but you will suffer for it.  Violence may "beget" violence -- but only superior force truly answers initiated force.

By David W. Pearson

XLIII 98 The most submissive thing in the world can ride roughshod over the hardest in the world -- that which is without substance entering that which has no crevices. 99 That is why I know the benefit of resorting to no action. The teaching that uses no words, the benefit of resorting to no action, these are beyond the understanding of all but a very few in the world." pg 104. Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu Penguin Classics, 1963  translated by D.C. Lau - - Professor of Chinese and Literature at the Chinese university of Hong Kong.

The doctrine of pacifism is not one that is easily understood by those who do not grasp the concepts of inner peace and external peace. Those who sometimes call themselves pacifists do not realize the true nature of to what they are subscribing. I start this article clearly stating that I am not a pacifist by true definition. I consider myself a spiritual man, sometimes partaking in the role of pacifist, other times partaking in he role of spiritual warrior.

Webster's defines pacifism as "the policy dealing with the establishment of universal peace between all nations; opposition to violence or war as a means of settling problems or disputes."

Pacifism is an age-old doctrine that has proved successful for thousands of years. Many would have you believe that no progress has ever been made without the use of force in our world, citing world wars, great leaders who were violent at times, and tragedies that have befallen otherwise peaceful people. I disagree with this thought process -- and so do many others.

Lao Tzu authored the Tao Te Ching as far back as the first century CE, as far as history can tell us. It is widely believed to be "the" classic piece of literature in Chinese culture and among material expressing the tenets of Taoism.

The expression of pacifism is not lying down while you are trampled over by an aggressor no matter what the situation or cost. This is a common misconception among those who have not grasped the concept of this process. Each of us is a human being, with emotions and instincts just like any other. Our reaction to a violent act towards our personal selves, as the human animal, is nearly the same as any other creature on the planet -- at first.

What separates us from the beasts is that we have the ability to process what is happening to us and take that information to the next level of understanding -- why? Let me set an example similar to Phil's example:

A village (instead of an individual) is attacked -- struck if you will, by a group of violent aggressors. The village decides not to fight, but to allow the attacks to happen. The aggressors will succeed in causing harm among the village folk. There may be injury, atrocity, even death. Over time, the aggressors will take over the village and have their way.

The way of the pacifist, the strategy used, is not to fight, but simply not to comply with the aggressor. Eventually, the aggressor will have only two options left: destroy the village that its forces have expended all their efforts to take and destroy the people they have come to conquer, or do something completely different.

It is within the nature of those who possess violent and aggressive souls to find another target on which to take out that aggression out upon. They may move on to another place, finding more "interesting" prey -- similar to predators in the wild. They may become enlightened, witnessing the strength of the conviction of those they came to conquer, and cease their violent acts. Yet again, they may take action against their own for the "failure" in breaking the pacifists' wills, thus causing their own destruction.

There have been many cases of the pacifist strategy working in the past and present. I will only cite three. First: Gandhi -- who managed to free his country with his simple and personal acts of pacifism. He is likely the most well known case for this action and the easiest to cite as a popular example. One man changed history and defeated an empire.

Second: Jesus Christ. Christ, through his actions as documented by the Christian Bible, was an adherent to the pacifist philosophy, although I will admit that at times he did step out of that realm (depending on the version and type of Christianity you study). Most of the old texts show Christ to be a pacifist.

Lastly: the war on Iraq. Some went to that country to act as "Human Shields" to stop the United States from striking targets. Whether these areas were truly targets or not remains to be seen. At the time this article was written, it has been reported by both the Associated Press, Public Radio International, and the Pentagon -- through regular press conferences -- that not a single target at which "Human Shields" were positioned was struck. To my knowledge, this is still accurate; however, we know that the media is less than accurate when it comes to war. This example, I admit, has no accurate sources of proof with which to verify it.

My argument is simple. Action is necessary for self preservation on a one-on-one basis. I do not disagree with this. I do disagree that we, as a people, should take up the thought of "martialism". 

Yes, we should settle things. We should never allow ourselves to be victims when we have any means of fighting back. I suggest we temper our reactions always with calm heads, peaceful hearts, and clear minds. Only then will everyone involved come away from conflict better than they started. 

Violence begets violence. It is contagious, just as peace is. Morality is a separate issue, for right and wrong should not enter into the situation.

Thanks for reading
this issue of
The Martialist!