You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: # The Non-Aggression Principle // Part 2
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Martin Luther King, jr
So, when I apply this principle—
to this—
This is what I get:
We should not retaliate against those who wage war against us or seek revenge. Nor should we start the war, even as a preemptive strike against what we determine to be a devastating or extinction level attack.
I'm in agreement that we should not start wars. I'm also in agreement that a war should not be entered solely as a matter of revenge or retaliation.
But I do believe in self-protection. So, while agreeing that war is not a necessary evil for the reasons stated above, I'm hoping this leaves room to defend ourselves against an aggressor. Which means, in my mind, repel the attack until it's no longer a threat, then stop.
If this was implied somehow, I apologize for missing it. If it's supposed to mean no self-defense, then I'd like to know what that's supposed to look like.
This is do no harm, but take no shit land. I'll all about self defense, but you can't self defend while occupying something that isn't yours.
Well said. Thank you for the clarification.
Even roses have thorns. ;)
those who turn their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.
A well timed quote.
thank you.