The ability to be a pacifist is not a natural state but a privilege granted by a government capable of enforcing order and protecting its citizens. Anti-national security stances are ironically dependent on the very security structures they oppose, which protect their freedom to hold such beliefs.
Related Insights
The academic theory behind 'people-powered' civil resistance has military origins. Seminal research by figures like Gene Sharp was directly funded with $50 million from the Pentagon's psychological operations unit to develop methods for bottom-up, state-sponsored coups under the guise of grassroots movements.
When police remove a Jewish man from a pro-Palestinian march for his own safety, they are misplacing the responsibility for potential violence. This logic is akin to victim-blaming. The duty of law enforcement in a free society is to protect individuals from attack, not to remove them because their presence might agitate a violent mob.
In global conflicts, a nation's power dictates its actions and outcomes, not moral righteousness. History shows powerful nations, like the U.S. using nuclear weapons, operate beyond conventional moral constraints, making an understanding of power dynamics more critical than moralizing.
A simple test for a political system's quality is whether it must use force to retain its citizens. The Berlin Wall and North Korea's borders were built to prevent people from leaving, not to stop others from entering. This need to contain a population is an implicit confession by the state that life is better elsewhere, contrasting with free societies that attract immigrants.
Violent acts are not random; they often represent the logical conclusion within a person's specific frame of reference. If an ideology convinces someone they are fighting a Hitler-like evil, then assassination becomes a moral duty, not a crime. The danger lies in these justifying belief systems.
The debate over government's size can be framed using political philosophy. 'Negative freedom' is freedom *from* state interference (e.g., censorship). 'Positive freedom' is the capability to achieve one's potential, requiring state support for basics like education and health to enable true flourishing.
Command economies inevitably rely on force. In a free society, disagreement is resolved through persuasion. In an authoritarian system where directives are absolute, dissent is ultimately met with force. Adopting a top-down economic model means accepting state-sanctioned violence as a necessary tool.
An ideologue, even an anarchist advocating against the state, may support a massive state action if it serves a higher strategic purpose—in this case, disrupting a system they oppose. The perceived hypocrisy is dismissed as irrelevant when compared to the desired outcome, framing it as a solution, not a preferred method of governance.
Rather than being a problem, public criticism of the military serves a vital function. It forces politicians and leaders to rigorously test their hypotheses and ethics, preventing a descent into an unchecked, aggressive "Team America world police" mentality.
Systems built on violence and coercion, such as authoritarian rule or forced taxation, are fundamentally unstable. They incentivize participants to constantly seek ways to escape, betray, or overthrow the system, creating a repeating cycle of conflict rather than sustainable social coherence.
