This is why, in order to maintain a free society, the government should be minimal. Only things which are worthy of using force if necessary should be done via government. Other values and goals should be pursued by the people themselves. If the “force” of government is added to things which should not be advanced by force (such as telling people what they should believe) tyranny of some sort becomes inevitable.

So… Should the government be in charge of individual welfare? Education? I don’t know.

National Defense? Roads that benefit all? Do not murder? Do not rape? Do not steal? These kinds of laws make sense.

:-)

ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com

P.S. Fascinating post! :-)

The pacifists I know are strict: “do no violence, period.” I’ve never met an “everything but self-defense is wrong” self-styled pacifist, though I would be honored if I ever got the chance.

Though it does seem to me that RonPaulian non-interventionism (or whatever his position is. I only hear what the media writes) might count as pacifism if we’re allowing that term to be consistent with an approval of self-defense.

The problem is, it seems to me, that if someone were to allow for violence in the case of self-defense, wouldn’t that put her/him dangerously close to thinking it’s okay to use violence to defend other people from violence?

And in that case, how would that position be any different from traditional “Just War” theory?

Not knowing any pacifists who accept self-defense, I don’t know who to ask that one.

Some are more strict, and I think that you are right in saying that anarchy would be the only consistent political approach for them. Socialism is not consistent with strict pacifism, as you point out.

I suppose this just reinforces the initial point, that pacifism does not work.
Would most pacifists define themselves this way? Does a pacifist by definition refuse all violence or just unnecessary violence?

Jeff is right that laws that aren’t obeyed by anyone tend not to be enforced at all. Or worse, they are enforced arbitrarily. I can name several examples of this. There are, ostensibly, laws against office pools on the NCAA tournament, but I’ve yet to see any arrests made about them, despite their ubiquity. I think these sorts of laws are a serious mistake and there are too many of them. When a society has laws it doesn’t bother to enforce, it breeds disrespect for the law in general.

Micah’s general point stands. Ultimately, all laws are enforced by violence or the threat of violence. One can’t endorse this and still call oneself a pacifist. A true pacifist would use no violence even to stop a mass murderer. However, I still believe there have been genuine pacifists in history — the Quakers, the Anabaptists, the Jain Buddhists. All of these groups have tended to be apolitical.

The fact is that if I decide to stop following a law, police officers carrying guns will show up at my door and invite me to go with them to jail.

On pragmatic pacifists:
A pacifist who accepts violence isn’t a pacifist.

Could a lesser-of-two evils argument be run here? If we didn’t submit ourselves to laws then the world we’d live in would end up being much more violent. If a pacificst is pragmatic they’d recognize an imperfect, sometimes violent government is better than no government at all.

Maybe so. I just happen to know several socialist pacifists. :-)

And it seems to me that a lot of people want all the goods of socialism without admitting that it all has to be done at gunpoint. As if socialism isn’t a kind of (latent) violence on a massive scale.