View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 11:52 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley


Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399

Josf, I am struggling with sorting out my thoughts regarding pacifism.
I fall back onto my well worn principle of Do No Harm.

I was reading and commenting on Sergey's words and at one point I was in agreement with his words.


So any person who gave in to misunderstanding and become, say, thief - was exiled. Why not killed? Because they were relatives, they were pitied, even murderers and rapists. And they were even given supplies for the road.
Then I read further and found words that fail to be agreeable to me.

And my ancestors paid dearly for not executing parasites early on.
The reason for my disagreement has to do with Man Made Law, or Institutionalized Law, whereby there is a fictional power created, a Legal Fiction, and that imaginary POWER "says" that it will be done, whereby it is good, whereby it is law, whereby it is justified, whereby it is right, whereby it is moral, whereby it is financed, whereby there will be people hired, whereby there will be people specialized, whereby there will be people trained, to kill people, on purpose, for profit.

I say no.

I am not saying no to the concept of Military Power.

If you are confused by my perceptions here, then I may be able to explain how a contradiction appears to exist, when I see no such thing.

Military Power can be entirely defensive, as an Institution, as a Law, as a Man Made Set of Rules, whereby the idea is to Do No Harm, but be prepared to defend against harm.

A Military Specialist can be prepared to be one of many Military Specialists who are ready, willing, and able, to stand in between a criminal and a victim, or stand in between a group of criminals and a group of victims.

How about this angle of view:

If said Army of Defensive Specialists, a Military, were to gain the required POWER, to be truly effective, capable, and to realize their goal, then any criminal intending to harm any victim would first be known, measured, quantified, and overpowered, in each case.

As soon as that one criminal acted in any way to injure any victim, the well trained, well informed, and powerful Military Specialist, on the scene, would overpower the criminal, and the victim would not be harmed.

Why do you think I invented my Defensive Weapon, designed exactly the way I designed it?

As soon as an Army of Criminals invade a Country of people, will there be enough POWER in the Defenders Military Force to avoid any harm, at all?

If the answer is no, then you can realize why I am not against The Military, whereby the goal of The Military is to Do No Harm.

Failure to prepare an effective defensive POWER invites the creation of an effective offensive POWER.

It starts with a small transfer of POWER from those who create that power to those who steal that POWER, and then those criminals use the POWER stolen to steal more POWER.

To me this goes back to Joe's Law, and the accurate measure of The Power Struggle.

I do not sign onto Institutionalized Harming of anyone.

It is not a contradiction to be in support of Institutionalized Defense against Harming Anyone.

Does that make sense?