How Opposite are Reason and Force?
ja...@inmet.uucp
[kort@hounx --Barry Kort]
>Nothwithstanding the rationalist view that the use of force is (generally)
>an irrational behavior, we are nevertheless left with the reality that some
>alloplastic agents in our society do habitually embrace force as a means
>of attaining their goals.
IRS and INS are prominent among these agents.
>The dilemma of the rationalist is how to
>protect his interests without returning violence for violence.
In the cases above, one might vote or lobby ...
>This dilemma vexed even Einstein, an avowed pacifist who later
>urged (and then regretted) the use of atomic weapons.
*Later* that, and before, simultaneously with pacifism, the So-
viet revolution; and later, simultaneously with pacifism, Zionism
and defense of Israel. He was awfully nice but inconsistent,
through and through. His political views carry as little authori-
ty as Newton's biblical exegesis.
But you've switched to alloplastic agents *outside* our
society (external enemies). That problem is hard, indeed.
>It is easier to learn war than to learn peace.
Read: to "learn" *them* peace. Democratic societies *are* peace-
ful, it is a proven fact. While the planet is always covered
with a rash of wars, there has never been a war between two
democratic countries. They don't even arm against each other.
The problem of war is solved, in principle: make all nations
as free as (e.g.) Costa Rica. In practice, there are obstacles.
Jan Wasilewsky
ja...@inmet.uucp
[hound!rwsh (R.STUBBLEFIELD)]
> When I say force is the opposite of reason, I am *not* saying the
>victim or the initiator of force necessarily becomes incapable of reason.
>(Although it is clear that force could destroy the victim's brain and his
>faculty of reason.) To be precise, initiation of force to gain values is
>*opposed* to the faculty of reason. I will argue, after some intermediate
>steps, that initiating force to gain values is detrimental to the faculty
>of reason--both to that of the victim *and* the initiator.
We have here 3 successively weakened reformulations. I
agree with the last one, in a still weaker form:
(1) Force is *the* opposite of reason. --"The" implies the one
and only. Surely, force is not the antonym of reason; and lots
of things (such as self-delusion) could be said to be opposed
to reason as much as force or more.
(2) Initiating force to gain values is *opposed* to the faculty
of reason. --Well, it is opposed to whatever faculty would be in
command if force were not initiated - sometimes, reason.
(3) Initiating force to gain values is *detrimental* to the faculty
of reason--both to that of the victim and the initiator.
Add : "tends to be", and "in the long run", and I agree. This is
*still* strong enough to object to *institutionalized* initiation
of force in society - *even* if that were the only way to prevent
*sporadic* use of force by society's members. However, the alter-
native of a total breakdown of civilization, or of imminent con-
quest, would be bad enough to justify that.
If non-initiation of force is the rule, it would seem to follow
that enforcement of *contracts* by physical force - especially
by the government - is *not* justified. Breaking a contract is
not initiating force. People often say "force or fraud" - as if
they were one. But they aren't. Also, breach of a contract does
not always imply fraud.
Can contracts be maintained, except by the threat of force ?
Certainly. There are many examples.
Jan Wasilewsky
SEVENER
>
> But you've switched to alloplastic agents *outside* our
> society (external enemies). That problem is hard, indeed.
>
> >It is easier to learn war than to learn peace.
>
> Read: to "learn" *them* peace. Democratic societies *are* peace-
> ful, it is a proven fact. While the planet is always covered
> with a rash of wars, there has never been a war between two
> democratic countries. They don't even arm against each other.
>
> The problem of war is solved, in principle: make all nations
> as free as (e.g.) Costa Rica. In practice, there are obstacles.
>
> Jan Wasilewsky
This is utterly untrue. As I have pointed out in net.politics,
democracies have been just as likely to engage in armed conflicts
as other forms of government. To cite an example of "war"
between democratic societies in our own century one need only
look at the American intervention in Iran against the Mossadegh
government, the American intervention in Guatemala, the American
intervention in Chile in 1973. Many of these "interventions"
have not involved protracted "war" for the same reason the
Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 did not involve
protracted "war" - because the military balance so favored
the invading country. In many cases, such as Chile, the US
has been able to topple a democratic government by using the
native military to do its work.
It is also simply untrue that "democratic societies do not even
arm against each other". India is a democracy and Pakistan has
been a democracy in the past. Pakistan could overthrow General
Zia and have elections tomorrow. But if they did that would
hardly mean that Pakistan would suddenly join India in totally
dismantling their military machines which are aimed primarily
at each other. An onset of democracy in Pakistan would hardly
mean that anything would have changed in terms of their enmity
and distrust of India.
What *is* true is that democracies do tend to have much more
*domestic peace*. When politicians must face the electorate
they are much less likely to put that electorate before the
firing squad for arbitrary reasons. Also democratic institutions
provide an automatic mechanism for the very tricky problem of
the transfer of political power and succession to high office.
However the current nationalistic style of democracy does
hold lessons for how to extend the *domestic* peace of such
democracies to the whole world. This is to try to follow
the rule of law in international relations, to allow all
nations a voice in international decisions, and move away
from the dictatorial sort of attitude expressed by
right-wingers who feel that America has the right to rule
the world, whether others like it or not.
This is the sort of attitude which argues that other
nations have no right to vote as they wish in the United
Nations, that somehow just because the US doesn't always
get its way in the UN that somehow that makes the UN worthless.
Please study the most elementary history, Jan.
tim sevener whuxn!orb