Leave a comment

cearrdorn April 30 2010, 18:42:18 UTC
I have a simple exam for a true pacifist. One that illustrates for me the fact that most folks are indeed at some level prone to defending themselves.

Sit two folks on a bench, the object for the aggressive person is to own the whole bench, the object for the pacifist it to retain a portion. Losing the bench entirely represents slavery or death depending on which role you play.

Now as the aggressive person pushes the pacifist off the bench, the pacifist has a choice, go willingly to slavery or death, or resist. The problem is that the longer they delay the winning of the aggressor, the more aggressive the aggressor is going to become. Ultimately unless they have some sort of superpower they will lose control of the bench, though in some cases they could conceivably talk the aggressor out of their portion and into losing by promising some additional concession.

Ultimately most professed pacifists will be at some point determined not to lose the bench entirely. True pacifists are rare, simply because it takes a very unique soul to be so willing to be run over by life or in this case, impending death/slavery.

I can understand your distrust for your fellow humans, but you should remember without them in play you would simply fall prey to those even more depraved. Only in countries with insulation from violence do pacifists flourish. A good example of how it plays out in the real world outside of the protection of a working military is Rwanda. While they ultimately did succeed in hanging onto their bench as pacifists, it was only by inches, and thousands did die or worse. The folks chosen to be massacred had no means to defend themselves. The citizenry had been disarmed, which is why most of the brutality occurred with machetes and not machine guns. And in continuing my bench analogy, they mostly ended up on a totally new bench, and lost the old one forever.

It doesn't have to be that way. The scenario you describe is much less likely than the carjackings Houston used to experience before Texas adopted the CHL. I knew a man, named Will, who was one of the last people carjacked during the wave we had during the early to mid 90's before CHL passed. Before the carjacking Will was a gifted, incredibly bright and successful individual, former military and as peaceful and nonthreatening as they come. He was driving his brother's brand new dodge viper and pulled to a stop near the medical center in Downtown. Will doesn't remember what happened next, but the evidence showed that he was shot in the face and pulled from the car. The carjacker got 3 blocks before he destroyed the clutch, since that car was stick. He spent months in the hospital and lost pretty much everything related to his former life because of the damage his mind suffered. Had he not been a veteran he would most likely have never been made anything close to whole.

Once the CHL laws passed in Texas violent crime of this sort dropped dramatically. It's public record. In fact the only area of violent crime to really go up to my recollection was home invasion, and that was targeted specifically in Sugarland against asian families, because they were unlikely to own guns or cooperate with the police.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up