Can There Be Folly In the Justification of Self-Defense?

Private Crime, The Left, The Right, War
Share

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

~ Mahatma Gandhi

“There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit.”

~ Napoleon Bonaparte

As is my recent and sometimes unfortunate habit, I’ve been actively involved in or passively listening to, debates between libertarians, statists, anarchists talking like statists, statists pretending to be anarchists, self-proclaimed pacifists, libertarian consequentialists, died-in-the-wool might-makes-right psychos and (seemingly) everyone in between.  If they’ve had time to kill and a high-speed Internet link they’ve been involved, or so it seems.  (Clearly, I’ve got too much time on my hands as well, but enough about me.)

One of the sharper and recurring disagreements I’ve witnessed has been around the justification for self-defense, and why such a justification is vital.  This premise–the absolute necessity–and dare-I-say God-given right to defend oneself, has been offered as a proverbial nail in the coffin as to why an ultimate belief in non-violence, otherwise known as pacifism, is doomed.  I guess it’s no surprise that gun lovers of every stripe find themselves drawn to libertarianism, and frankly, I cannot fault anyone who seeks to defend himself and his possessions.

Can There Be Folly In the Justification of Self-Defense? Read Post »