Libertarianism rejects the idea of pacifism. I’m a consequential pacifist. I think violence can be used in some circumstances… but I do reject the ideas of wars in general, but, wars in general are wrong. I’m not a libertarian. I’m not really ideological… but if I were to become a libertarian would my views about war be compatible with it?
Then you are not a pacificist
How did you reach that conclusion?
Of course.
I’m a consequential pacifists. There are certain types of pacifists. There are people who believe that violence is not okay in all situations but then there are some that only believe it can be used in some.
Ah.
I would like to further explain my views on pacifism as someone who responded to me the first time obviously didn’t understand what I meant or didn’t take the time to research what pacifism is.
Here is a website talking about pacifism: http://plato.stanfor…tries/pacifism/
I basically see all wars as wrong. I don’t think that wars need to be fought. I only think that you should be able to defend yourself- as- that is what needs to be done. However, in many cases I view the act of self-defense as unjustified if it’s a wrong war. If you have to do it then yes, that’s what you should do. There are extreme pacifists- who- always say that you can never have violence. I am against war. I know that wars does more harm than good. But, people have a right to defend themselves, and that’s the ideological stance I would support, but even that I think is wrong and I denounce that.
Well I don’t know the specifics behind what you believe is a situation in which it is ok to use violence, but libertarians follow the NAP… In which it is not ok to initiate coercion, but it is ok to use force against someone who has initiated coercion against you (so if someone steals your watch, it is ok to use force to get it back).
If you are a complete pacifist this would still work, you would be free to not use force against the theif.
I do not believe libertarianism rejects the idea of pacifism, even though many libertarians are not pacifists, in so far as they reserve the right to use violence in self defense. Consider this example:
If A is attacked by B, then A has the right to retaliate against B using proportional violence (and B, concomitantly, has given up his right NOT to be aggressed against because of his attack against A). But A also has the right to choose NOT to use violence against B. That is, there is no requirement that A respond using violence. It is his or her choice (in fact, were it not a choice, it would be necessarily contradictory, in that it would become necessary to enforce this using violence). In this I do not see any incompatibilities between libertarianism and pacifism: the choice is yours. Under libertarianism, you have the right to respond using proportional violence. If you are a pacifist, then you reject that right.
I should note that I assume here that pacifists reject violence, but that they do not reject the choice to use violence. This is an important distinction, and it is a necessary one for pacifism to be compatible with libertarianism. For libertarianism says that you do in fact have that choice. While pacifism says, in my understanding, that you should reject using violence, because violence should not be used as a means to resolve problems. There is a certain moral high ground obtained by choosing “what is right”. Were it not a voluntary choice much of this elevated morality would be lost.
Any other thoughts?
Libertarianism, when it’s based on the non-aggression principle, is the only ideology which is compatible with pacifism.
If true, then everyone could be some sort of “pacifist.”
I’d like to see how long you would remain a pacifist (absolute pacifists) if I started punching you in the face over and over whilst laughing my head off. Robert Murphy said he is one.
That is a contradiction of what the word pacificist means. A pacificist is an individual who is oppressed to violence. period. Therefore they do not initiate violence either in aggression or defense.
Then you are a follower of NAP, not pacificism because pacificism entails not defending yourself.
As I’ve said- I am a consequential pacifist. I reject the use of violence. However, I wouldn’t stop someone from using it to defend themselves. I’m basically a 90% pacifist… however I do think that the very act of violence whether it be physical or harmful is wrong.
I’ve already gave you a link to the website that talks about what my views on pacifism are. I reject the use of violence. I reject the use of force. However, if it came to that someone should be able to defend themselves- but the act of violence shouldn’t come about in the first place- that’s what my views are.
Libertarianism and war are opposed concepts. This should be contrasted with the views that right wingers, conservatives and miniarchists have on so called ‘national defense’ - a view which is not libertarian.
Also, pacifism at the collective level so to speak, the idea that war is evil, stupid, and useless, doesn’t mean that individuals are opposed to individual self-defense. You can be a pacifist as long as war is concerned but you can also believe that if somebody is trying to murder you, you are justified in using force. Of course, other pacifists may reject all use of violence and are free to do so if they want.
Don’t forget progressive leftists. They love killing people for egalitarianism, country, democracy, and the state in general.
That really sounds like following the NAP, you reject aggression, not necessarily violence itself. I though pacifists rejected the use of violence completely, you make it really sound like the term pacifism has being watered down.
90% pacifist? Are people (including rapists and murderers) who sleep 8 hours a day 33.3% pacifists?
Exactly, it is a total misnomer of the traditional definition.
No, you misunderstand. I do reject violence. I feel that if you are being attacked though that you should be able to defend yourself. However, I would rather not have these wars happen in the first place.