| Kasz216 said:
But ok, instead of Medicine... lets say the police. No need for the police if everyone decided not to comit crimes against each other? So against the police too then? Or weapons for that matter. Being against these things is the same problem as being a pacifist. All it takes is one person who thinks differently... a single divergent opinion to make you wrong. |
One person or group of persons who don't share the same beliefs, don't hold others in the same regard and have no reservations about imposing their will, forcibly if necessary, upon others.
I think most people would agree with this. Those who don't simply haven't found themselves on the wrong end of that single divergent opinion of which you speak. For individuals, it typically means they've never been mugged, robbed, assaulted, whatever.
The paradox in regards to pacifism is that it is completely doable, but much like a nation that declares neutrality, it means having such an imposing built in capacity to defend via force that aggressors have to seriously weigh the potential risks and losses against any benefits in seizing assets or territory.
By the same token, any individual that wants to declare themself a pacifist would probably do well to turn themself into the baddest mofo on the block that no one would take the chance to antagonize. Unfortunately, few pacifists do so and instead depend and rely upon the good will of bad individuals.
