Throughout the history of mankind, we have seen empires rise and fall, and dynasties take power and lose it. With the introduction of the concept of the sovereign state, the world does not work like that anymore, though we have seen nations invade and suffer from invasion as a consequence of their actions or the actions of a misguided nation wrought on conquest. However, is it the fault of the invaded nation that might not be able to defend itself, or the fault of the land-thirsty invader that must be corrected?
To answer this question, let's take a look at the greatest war of the 20th Century: World War 2. Hitler was able to "justify" his attack on Poland by claiming that it attacked his nation first. What followed was a series of battles, all bloody and risky. However, he finally reaped what he sowed when the Allied powers took control of Germany, cutting it into two and defeating the German war machine. Many German cities suffered devastating damage, and casualties were on the rise. There was also Japan, which invaded a handful of southeastern nations, after which the U.S. came in and dropped The Bomb, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Both got what they expected: bigger armies come in to "help" smaller armies, but only made it worse. Other examples include the Roman Empire, which invited invaders ever since it started expanding. Then there is the Persian Empire, which fell before Alexander's feet after the death of its last ruler, Darius III.
So, to answer the question, who's fault is it: the invader, or the invaded? It's obvious that the invader started this aggression, which was followed by cycles of aggressions on part of the nations that stood in the way of their conquests.
This is a problem that is still continuing today, with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan on part of the U.S. Then there's an even less recent series of aggressions such as U.S. interventionism in the past, through which countless democracies were overthrown and thir soveriegnities threatened by the U.S. government. This led to attacks on U.S. soil. However, blinded by nationalism, the U.S. further seeked goals of interventionism, with Britian jumping in. This led to the 7/7 bombings of 2004.
What is agression? Aggression is merely threatening the soveriegnities of other nations and becoming involved in internal diplomatic and antagnostic affairs in a sovereign state other than one's own (eg. U.S. support for Israel). Such policies lead to resentment towards the aggressive state for its involvement.
We've identified the problem? So what's the solution? I mean, conflict is an inevitable part of life, but surely there must be ways to avoid most if not all of it, right? We can restrict conflict to a way in that it does not surpass the level of individuals and relationships between them. What we need is not a restriction of free trade, nor a governmentalized military expansion or diminution.
All we need to do is not aggress.
Sounds simple, right? It's possible only when nationalism dies out. Nationalism seeks to threaten the sovereignity of others, and thus seeks to aggress. Without nationalism, no one will seek to aggress.
Then there's a craving for resources, whatever they are, and this is tied again to nationalistic beliefs that the state must survive even at the expense of others. Throughout the history of mankind, we have seen empires rise and fall, and dynasties take power and lose it. With the introduction of the concept of the sovereign state, the world does not work like that anymore, though we have seen nations invade and suffer from invasion as a consequence of their actions or the actions of a misguided nation wrought on conquest. However, is it the fault of the invaded nation that might not be able to defend itself, or the fault of the land-thirsty invader that must be corrected?
To answer this question, let's take a look at the greatest war of the 20th Century: World War 2. Hitler was able to "justify" his attack on Poland by claiming that it attacked his nation first. What followed was a series of battles, all bloody and risky. However, he finally reaped what he sowed when the Allied powers took control of Germany, cutting it into two and defeating the German war machine. Many German cities suffered devastating damage, and casualties were on the rise. There was also Japan, which invaded a handful of southeastern nations, after which the U.S. came in and dropped The Bomb, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Both got what they expected: bigger armies come in to "help" smaller armies, but only made it worse. Other examples include the Roman Empire, which invited invaders ever since it started expanding. Then there is the Persian Empire, which fell before Alexander's feet after the death of its last ruler, Darius III.
So, to answer the question, who's fault is it: the invader, or the invaded? It's obvious that the invader started this aggression, which was followed by cycles of aggressions on part of the nations that stood in the way of their conquests.
This is a problem that is still continuing today, with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan on part of the U.S. Then there's an even less recent series of aggressions such as U.S. interventionism in the past, through which countless democracies were overthrown and thir soveriegnities threatened by the U.S. government. This led to attacks on U.S. soil. However, blinded by nationalism, the U.S. further seeked goals of interventionism, with Britian jumping in. This led to the 7/7 bombings of 2004.
What is agression? Aggression is merely threatening the soveriegnities of other nations and becoming involved in internal diplomatic and antagnostic affairs in a sovereign state other than one's own (eg. U.S. support for Israel). Such policies lead to resentment towards the aggressive state for its involvement.
We've identified the problem? So what's the solution? I mean, conflict is an inevitable part of life, but surely there must be ways to avoid most if not all of it, right? We can restrict conflict to a way in that it does not surpass the level of individuals and relationships between them. What we need is not a restriction of free trade, nor a governmentalized military expansion or diminution.
All we need to do is not aggress.
Sounds simple, right? It's possible only when nationalism dies out. Nationalism seeks to threaten the sovereignity of others, and thus seeks to aggress. Without nationalism, no one will seek to aggress.
Then there's a craving for resources, whatever they are, and this is tied again to nationalistic beliefs that the state must survive even at the expense of others. This might require some sort of aggression, whether it be pressure or militaristic control of resource deposits. This is of course useful to those who have not encountered and explored the wide options available in the international free market. Free trade is all there is to it, and people will stop giving each other free money or take resources without paying for them.
Non-aggression has worked in a lot of places. For example, China was relatively non-aggressive in the past and suffered only from a few invasions which it tended to counter. Switzerland remained neutral during World War 2, and since then has grown economically as it stuck to free trade with other nations. Other European nations followed suit, and have yet to sound an alarm of invasion.
However, non-aggression on an international level is really an ideal concept, and it will take years for every nation to understand and apply this concept. Seriously, though, leaders themselves should refrain from aggression, and focus on building their nations and exploiting their resources, as well as address the needs of the people. With aggression, nations will be inhibited in their development: aggression not only destroys the sovereignity of another nation, but inhibits its infrastructure and destabilizes its social structure. Aggression can also occur at the expense of the aggressing nation itself: its people will die in vain in the nation's wars of conquest, its resources might get depleted, and its infrastructure and security will be hindered by all the focusing on the aggressive agenda. Then, of course, comes the repercussions from attacking others: getting attacked.
That's not all, though. Non-aggression also involves actions within a nation and the society embedded in the nation. The key to free trade and other interactions is mutual agreement. Walter Block once wrote,
In that sense, in progressive and libertarian theory, one should not commit violence unless coerced to do so. How? Murray Rothbard wrote,
This can be contracted to societal levels, where daily interactions with people sometimes go awry in the sense that robbery becomes rife and property ceases to be safeguarded. There's also taxation on part of the government, but that deserves a topic of its own. In all cases, everyone is entitled to his/her own property and every nation is entitled to its own sovereignity. Goods and other items may be acquired from free trade, so as long as the parties mutually agree to the transaction or deal. This is applicable to all levels.
Finally, it must be noted that once we end nationalism and promote free trade for better societies, while limiting government corruption and interference with our property rights and so forth, we can truly progress and make the world a better place.
Salaam, from
Saracen
To answer this question, let's take a look at the greatest war of the 20th Century: World War 2. Hitler was able to "justify" his attack on Poland by claiming that it attacked his nation first. What followed was a series of battles, all bloody and risky. However, he finally reaped what he sowed when the Allied powers took control of Germany, cutting it into two and defeating the German war machine. Many German cities suffered devastating damage, and casualties were on the rise. There was also Japan, which invaded a handful of southeastern nations, after which the U.S. came in and dropped The Bomb, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Both got what they expected: bigger armies come in to "help" smaller armies, but only made it worse. Other examples include the Roman Empire, which invited invaders ever since it started expanding. Then there is the Persian Empire, which fell before Alexander's feet after the death of its last ruler, Darius III.
So, to answer the question, who's fault is it: the invader, or the invaded? It's obvious that the invader started this aggression, which was followed by cycles of aggressions on part of the nations that stood in the way of their conquests.
This is a problem that is still continuing today, with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan on part of the U.S. Then there's an even less recent series of aggressions such as U.S. interventionism in the past, through which countless democracies were overthrown and thir soveriegnities threatened by the U.S. government. This led to attacks on U.S. soil. However, blinded by nationalism, the U.S. further seeked goals of interventionism, with Britian jumping in. This led to the 7/7 bombings of 2004.
What is agression? Aggression is merely threatening the soveriegnities of other nations and becoming involved in internal diplomatic and antagnostic affairs in a sovereign state other than one's own (eg. U.S. support for Israel). Such policies lead to resentment towards the aggressive state for its involvement.
We've identified the problem? So what's the solution? I mean, conflict is an inevitable part of life, but surely there must be ways to avoid most if not all of it, right? We can restrict conflict to a way in that it does not surpass the level of individuals and relationships between them. What we need is not a restriction of free trade, nor a governmentalized military expansion or diminution.
All we need to do is not aggress.
Sounds simple, right? It's possible only when nationalism dies out. Nationalism seeks to threaten the sovereignity of others, and thus seeks to aggress. Without nationalism, no one will seek to aggress.
Then there's a craving for resources, whatever they are, and this is tied again to nationalistic beliefs that the state must survive even at the expense of others. Throughout the history of mankind, we have seen empires rise and fall, and dynasties take power and lose it. With the introduction of the concept of the sovereign state, the world does not work like that anymore, though we have seen nations invade and suffer from invasion as a consequence of their actions or the actions of a misguided nation wrought on conquest. However, is it the fault of the invaded nation that might not be able to defend itself, or the fault of the land-thirsty invader that must be corrected?
To answer this question, let's take a look at the greatest war of the 20th Century: World War 2. Hitler was able to "justify" his attack on Poland by claiming that it attacked his nation first. What followed was a series of battles, all bloody and risky. However, he finally reaped what he sowed when the Allied powers took control of Germany, cutting it into two and defeating the German war machine. Many German cities suffered devastating damage, and casualties were on the rise. There was also Japan, which invaded a handful of southeastern nations, after which the U.S. came in and dropped The Bomb, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Both got what they expected: bigger armies come in to "help" smaller armies, but only made it worse. Other examples include the Roman Empire, which invited invaders ever since it started expanding. Then there is the Persian Empire, which fell before Alexander's feet after the death of its last ruler, Darius III.
So, to answer the question, who's fault is it: the invader, or the invaded? It's obvious that the invader started this aggression, which was followed by cycles of aggressions on part of the nations that stood in the way of their conquests.
This is a problem that is still continuing today, with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan on part of the U.S. Then there's an even less recent series of aggressions such as U.S. interventionism in the past, through which countless democracies were overthrown and thir soveriegnities threatened by the U.S. government. This led to attacks on U.S. soil. However, blinded by nationalism, the U.S. further seeked goals of interventionism, with Britian jumping in. This led to the 7/7 bombings of 2004.
What is agression? Aggression is merely threatening the soveriegnities of other nations and becoming involved in internal diplomatic and antagnostic affairs in a sovereign state other than one's own (eg. U.S. support for Israel). Such policies lead to resentment towards the aggressive state for its involvement.
We've identified the problem? So what's the solution? I mean, conflict is an inevitable part of life, but surely there must be ways to avoid most if not all of it, right? We can restrict conflict to a way in that it does not surpass the level of individuals and relationships between them. What we need is not a restriction of free trade, nor a governmentalized military expansion or diminution.
All we need to do is not aggress.
Sounds simple, right? It's possible only when nationalism dies out. Nationalism seeks to threaten the sovereignity of others, and thus seeks to aggress. Without nationalism, no one will seek to aggress.
Then there's a craving for resources, whatever they are, and this is tied again to nationalistic beliefs that the state must survive even at the expense of others. This might require some sort of aggression, whether it be pressure or militaristic control of resource deposits. This is of course useful to those who have not encountered and explored the wide options available in the international free market. Free trade is all there is to it, and people will stop giving each other free money or take resources without paying for them.
Non-aggression has worked in a lot of places. For example, China was relatively non-aggressive in the past and suffered only from a few invasions which it tended to counter. Switzerland remained neutral during World War 2, and since then has grown economically as it stuck to free trade with other nations. Other European nations followed suit, and have yet to sound an alarm of invasion.
However, non-aggression on an international level is really an ideal concept, and it will take years for every nation to understand and apply this concept. Seriously, though, leaders themselves should refrain from aggression, and focus on building their nations and exploiting their resources, as well as address the needs of the people. With aggression, nations will be inhibited in their development: aggression not only destroys the sovereignity of another nation, but inhibits its infrastructure and destabilizes its social structure. Aggression can also occur at the expense of the aggressing nation itself: its people will die in vain in the nation's wars of conquest, its resources might get depleted, and its infrastructure and security will be hindered by all the focusing on the aggressive agenda. Then, of course, comes the repercussions from attacking others: getting attacked.
That's not all, though. Non-aggression also involves actions within a nation and the society embedded in the nation. The key to free trade and other interactions is mutual agreement. Walter Block once wrote,
The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms.In that sense, one should respect the legal sovereignity of ownership when it comes to other things involved.
In that sense, in progressive and libertarian theory, one should not commit violence unless coerced to do so. How? Murray Rothbard wrote,
Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor.Again, violence in self-defense is an ideal solution, and defense does not mean attack. Fending off without gaining any legitimately owned property from another nation is an ideal way to defend one nation's sovereignity from the attack and aggression of another.
This can be contracted to societal levels, where daily interactions with people sometimes go awry in the sense that robbery becomes rife and property ceases to be safeguarded. There's also taxation on part of the government, but that deserves a topic of its own. In all cases, everyone is entitled to his/her own property and every nation is entitled to its own sovereignity. Goods and other items may be acquired from free trade, so as long as the parties mutually agree to the transaction or deal. This is applicable to all levels.
Finally, it must be noted that once we end nationalism and promote free trade for better societies, while limiting government corruption and interference with our property rights and so forth, we can truly progress and make the world a better place.
Salaam, from
Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment