Enjoying freedom that you choose not to defend
There is an interesting snippet in The Blood of the Fold book I am reading. When asked if other kingdoms will join in a fight against an oppressive regime someone in the audience asks:
What if we choose neither? It is against our principles to fight. We want to be left alone to go about our lives. What if we choose not to fight, to simply go about our business?
The reply given:
Do you arrogantly believe that we want to fight - you are somehow better because you wish not to? Should you enjoy the freedom to live by the same principles you refuse to help us defend?
Now, I am not putting this here in an effort to say that I think pacifism is wrong, or that being a conscientious objector is wrong, or any of that. I am more interested in the ideas and just thinking about them, not in making moral pronouncements. What interests me is the idea that there could be some conviction in the rebuttal. Leaving the current war in Iraq alone, and thinking on WWII (because that is more the type of war that is being discussed in the book). Do countries have a right to the peace, when they did nothing to secure it? My guess is yes, but I am not wholly convinced of why. In WWII, let’s say a country choose to ignore a cry for help from the Allies (I am sure there could have been such a circumstance, but I am not a WW2 historian) and the above was the exchange that ensued. Does the rebuttal carry some truth to it? I find it an interesting conundrum. On one hand I want to respect the sovereignty of nations to choose to abstain from war, but on the other, can they demand a peace they refuse to defend?
I don’t want to give the impression that I would favor attacking a nation that opted out of a war on pacifistic reasons, merely calling attention to the ideas that seem to be at odds.
What say you?
Disclaimers:
I did not serve in the military, nor do I want, nor did I ever want to. I do think there are reasons to declare war. I do think people should have the right to object to war. According to some things I have read, Terry Goodkind the author of the Sword of Truth series is influenced by, Objectivist Philosophy, and Ayn Rand’s writing in particular.
Switzerland hasn’t been in a war since the 14th century. They do have widespread military service, but that seems to be dying out (at least according to my Swiss co-worker). They don’t have to fight anyone because they have everyone’s money.
Then there are those people who were not willing to fight to defend themselves, but were willing to die. The Orthodox church calendar is filled with martyrs who wouldn’t fight to defend themselves, but wouldn’t deny their belief. (And, fwiw, the 20th century produced more martyrs than any period before.)
There are more options than just “be ready to fight fight” or “be lazy and depends on others to defend you.”
Well, talking about “rights” just muddies the water.
Assuming that governments wish to remain in power, they should constantly poll their citizens and the international community to determine accepted behavior. Politicians will make realist decisions that enable their governments to survive. In the above “rights” dialogue, no state has to ever listen to what any other state says….
Switzerland (CH) looks difficult to capture without much of a pay-off: lots of cold mountains defended by an armed populace, and a banking-driven economy that would collapse in war-time as banking only makes money when everyone plays nice. Knowing that, CH took a calculated risk that their joining WWII on either side would not swing the conflict, and staying out would make them better off.
Yes, they have a tradition of neutrality, but bankers run CH with the same rationality they run their banks.
I tend to agree with Patrick about “rights”. It doesn’t seem to help the discussion. No one has a “right” to peace. (And, besides which, “peace” is difficult to define. “War is Peace” after all.)
And I say this as a pacifist. Being a pacifist doesn’t mean that I think I have a “right to peace.”
I like the system Heinlein describes in “Starship Troopers”, citizenship in exchange for civil service (military or otherwise).