Pacifism Cannot Exist Without Violence

[This post is meant for constructive criticism so that, through the Socratic Method, it may be revised and refined. There is some vagueness within the text which is completely intentional. My arguments are intentionally generalized and not specific to the United States. In addition to this, it is written in the context of the modern state system and is intended to be interpreted through that lens. Finally, this concerns true pacifism and not people who are simply nonviolent until faced with a real threat.]

While on a trip to the United States Universities Debating Championship (2018) at Stanford University as an alumni observer, I had a conversation with one of my former teammates which began a train of thought that brought me to the following conclusion: Pacifism cannot exist without violence. Allow me to explain...

The military Veterans at my university have been struggling to receive, what they believe to be, treatment equal to that of Student Veterans at surrounding universities and community colleges. Throughout my Junior and Senior year, myself and three other Student Veterans had been advocating for, among other things, a space on campus where Veterans would be able to engage with one another. We had finally seen some progress by the time I graduated in May 2017, but that progress was lost only to be recovered recently.

My teammate, who is an elected member of the Associated Students, explained that the school does not appear to be Veteran friendly for two reasons: 1) Veterans are nontraditional students who do not pay as much Student Activity Fees, and 2) Any progress made hits an instant road block when the trustees step in due to their stance on promoting pacifism at the school.

Concerning the Student Activity Fees, that is an issue that we took on the head. We accepted that and were not asking for school funding for any Veteran programs. Our intention was to formalize a Student Veteran Union and begin turning to the community for funding so the financial burden was not placed on our younger classmates who's tuition was more expensive than ours. After all, it is only fair that we do not take from a pot that we did not contribute.

On the issue of pacifism is where I have a problem. As my teammate explained it, the trustees did not want to promote the use of violence and overt displays of support for the military are necessarily displays of support for violence and violent lifestyles. My university's trustees are principled, decent people and I have the utmost respect for every one of them. Where our opinions diverge is on the issue of the promotion of violence by showing support for violent people. (Yes, military Veterans have the capacity for violence. If they did not, then they could not do their jobs and keep America safe.)

You cannot live as a pacifist in an organized society without the presence men and women who are willing to be violent. It is, in fact, their capacity for violence which enables others to live as pacifists.

Within the state, we recognize that the government entities have the monopoly on violence. Law enforcement officials, who otherwise keep society calm enough for pacifism to exist, have a necessarily violent occupation. Their job necessitates the use of force against a violent minority of society to ensure that the majority of nonviolent citizens may live out their lives unadulterated.

Outside of the state, in the anarchic international system, it is the military which keeps the state protected from external threats. The military, like its law enforcement counterparts, is a necessarily violent occupation. Service members must be willing and able to use devastating violent aggression against their enemy to ensure operational success and the wellbeing of those who they defend in their homeland.

Therefore, with the military keeping foreign threats at bay and law enforcement keeping internal chaos at a minimum, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that violence enables pacifism. Without the military and law enforcement, then violent threats would constantly be at the doorsteps [Thomas Hobbes] of every pacifist and they would not survive. There would be no enclave of safety for the pacifists to live.

Because the pacifists benefit from the violence of others, this may be seen as a "tacit consent" [John Locke] of violent action on their behalf. Some of these benefits include the physical, psychological, emotional, and relationship burdens that Veterans willingly take on so that others don't have to. There is, therefore, a transfer of burdens from the pacifists to those with the capacity for violence.

To deny Veterans treatment equal to that of surrounding universities on the grounds of pacifism is to deny the assumption of the burdens previously discussed. It is completely unjust to deny this equality when the very ability to deny it was only granted by the burdens assumed for you by someone else.

Live Free