Is it possible for complete pacifists to control a "country"?

Think about what a country is.

In most cases, a group finds a piece of land and declares ownership of it based on nothing but their own declaration. Sometimes some of the land is "purchased" but that's not relevant to what this thread is about.

The borders of the "country" are usually declared to be huge "no trespassing" markers. The "owners" of the "country" state that if anyone passes the "no trespassing" markers without proper permission, they may be killed.

Here's where it starts to get dicey. Is it possible to have a "country" without killing for it? I believe within the context of the current paradigm, it isn't possible. The criminals of the world will not take a "country" seriously if the people of the country aren't willing to kill to protect their "borders." Therefore, if you tried to start a "country" without being willing to kill for it, your "country" would taken over by opportunistic criminals in no time.

This is a very serious point because there are a lot of people who think the "meek will inherent the earth" or something similar. Not within the context of the current paradigm, it can't happen.

People who aren't willing to kill cannot take over the current system of "countries" and make it work.

In fact, I'm of the belief that you have to be crazy to believe in the concept of "countries" at all. Consider the song that American children sing:

This land is your land This land is my land (Because we murdered enough people to be able to declare it was so)

The USA's current administration is very , very close. Dangerously close

a reply to: Profusion

The U.N. is prepared to determine what countries are legitimate, as well as substitute their governments should need be. This in point makes countries obsolete at any moment the U.N. decides to move upon any non member country, state, region, etc.

Therefore, killing is no longer needed to take a country's land or dissolve their government. Economic sanctions are the new tools of war. Now, killing to protect your land/country/government will become the retaliation. So, no longer is invasion necessary, rather defense of sanctions and the U.N.'s legitimacy is how the U.N. justifies their military involvement, if any actions need be taken at all.

Most countries/governments/economies will fall without any invasion or killing to ensure upheaval. That is scary, and that is also how pacifist idealism leads to fascist realism.

a reply to: Profusion

The nation-state is the last communal form of customary order, a long lineage of civil agreements between people who live within the same territorial borders, follow the same rules, and speak the same language. Sure, nations rise and fall by conquest or rot from the inside, but they grow and persist by providing a home and community, complete with a consensual rule of law, security, and a sense of belonging, more so than any religious, racial, or ethnic community ever could.

a reply to: Profusion

Think about what a country is.

It may be more enlightening to think about what a government is.

Ultimately, the most important functions of a government are to maintain law and order and to protect the territory governed against foreign invasions.

Neither of these tasks can be properly carried out without a willingness to use violence under certain circumstances.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Profusion

Think about what a country is.

It may be more enlightening to think about what a government is.

Ultimately, the most important functions of a government are to maintain law and order and to protect the territory governed against foreign invasions.

Neither of these tasks can be properly carried out without a willingness to use violence under certain circumstances.

Thank you for addressing the question directly.

The people who say, "We (the pacifists) need to take over the system" are clearly deluded.

Pacifists cannot run the current system. I think there could be a better system devised that pacifists could run.

It's really a moot point because pacifists could never take control of this system.

a reply to: Astyanax

Ultimately, the most important functions of a government are to maintain law and order and to protect the territory governed against foreign invasions.

The United States goes way beyond this. We use our military to invade other countries or clandestinely over throw other governments. We certainly don't use our military for the purpose it's intended for: To protect our homeland from invasions or outside attacks. If we would mind our own business, we wouldn't be in this Middle East mess.

The U.S. is trying to spread democracy just like the Soviet Union was trying to spread communism. The U.S. is doing exactly what they propagated about the Soviet Union during the cold war.

a reply to: Profusion

Pacifists are a little more strict than I think you are giving them credit.

Anti-war folks aren't pacifists. A true pacifist would watch their family dismembered in front of their eyes and not attempt to stop it with violence.

I don't believe there are many pacifists in this world, certainly not in the US. As an ideology, it is fated to go the way of the dodo.

I realize that you are asking a different question but, I figured I would add that clarification since I hear the term misused a lot.

a reply to: Profusion

Also you should the fact that politics is a dog eat dog world where there are many backstabbings. That's why many politicians are sociopaths.

a reply to: Profusion

I have to disagree entirely with that. It is very easy. Every person in that country takes a long vacation from work, demands the bs stops. But good luck at this point.

-union style strike

It is insane that people are conned into believing they are the weak ones.

Even the dude delivering pizza pays their paychecks.

This is the reason for constant misdirection and coerced division.

Keep the fraud and illegal tax collection out of the spotlight. Keepin' the faucet on.

a reply to: Profusion

Please don’t take my answer to mean anything but just what it said.

No country on Earth is run by pacifists (except, maybe, Bhutan). If you are trying to make some point with respect to the politics of the USA or any other country, you had better make it explicitly.

a reply to: Profusion

First, nobody really can control everything, but yes, can claim land, make rules and such especially pertaining to business. They can definitely affect the atmosphere and peoples moods, with propaganda..

That said, the most powerful and ruthless owns. Which is probably why governments, probably from the beginning of time have been of a 'criminal' nature, something like extortion. It is probably how 'government' came about in the first - groups who were out to extort, not to help people. And if there were ever a government or community that was benevolent and out to serve - community, then they were probably eventually taken over by the governments who were out to extort.

It is like in nature where the most ruthless and powerful grizzly gets the nicest spot on the river with the salmon running. To take him down, you have to defeat him.

a reply to: Profusion

Yes the meek will Inherit the earth
Great quote out of context, completely

The earth once those in possession of it have been destroyed the inheritance will be distributed amongst the meek.
Quoting scripture out of context doesn't work, christs teachings are for christians

a reply to: Profusion

"Is it possible...?" Yes. Is it probable? Maybe. That depends on the available technology and the mindset of the people involved.

Your OP focused on borders, so I'll speak on that first. Yes, it's possible to protect borders without violence. That was the whole point in constructing forts, moats, walls, fences, etc. Strong enough fortifications can prevent invasions passively, which is the whole point in deterrents. Of course, this requires constant improvements in fortification technology in order to stay ahead of any invasion forces. Ex: If I had a socialist utopia that was completely encased in a 100 foot thick reinforced dome, we'd be able to control our borders without worrying about marauding venture capitalists (until they created bombs & legal justifications that could bypass our dome; so we'd have to keep improving our dome, legal arguments, and other deterrents to stay ahead of them).

As for running the internal aspects of a country through pacifism: Yes, it's definitely possible. Technology & public effort would be keys here. Even pacifist communities have laws and consequences. But those punishments don't have to be through violence. That's the whole point in rehabilitation. Focus on teaching people to work together & about how our actions affect others; reward & glorify people who are peaceful instead of people who are violent; and basically make it socially desired to solve situations without violence.

As for stopping a violent criminal, a truly advanced society could do this easily. Here's a concept to explain it: Someone starts robbing a bank. A bystander, clerk, or threat detection software activates an emergency response in that specific area. That area is immediately quarantined through an automated emergency lockdown, complete with an isolated air supply to prevent the spread of potentially harmful gases. The automated lockdown system then disperses a mild sleeping agent that immediately puts everyone in the quarantined area to sleep. Then the authorities can go over the footage and arrest the perpetrators. Some buildings already have lockdown procedures like this, so it's just a question of implementing it everywhere.

A situation outside can be similar, with automated roadblocks, "safe areas" for bystanders, and emergency sirens in every district. Modern buildings have fire alarms & disaster safety plans anyway, so this is just an extension of that. CCTV & an automated quarantine system would be ideal for isolating crimes as they're occurring. I imagine it like this: If a city is a large maze, smaller sections of the maze can be blocked off when an incident happens. The isolated section of the maze will constantly decrease until the suspect is "trapped" or surrenders.

Though there's a major point of "pacifism" that you're missing. We prefer to focus on creating conditions that prevent the need for violence in the first place. Pacifism doesn't mean weakness, it simply means handling situations without violence. In the border situation, pacificists would address the reasons for people coming to our borders in the first place. If they're leaving an economic craphole, we'd work on improving their economies, social safety nets, and trade terms. Then they could have an incentive to stay and advance in their own countries. We could even have training & temporary integration programs to help the "invaders" learn how to improve their conditions at home. It's literally a different mindset.

a reply to: nOraKat

First, nobody really can control everything.

Why do you think governments always want to control everything? Is that what you would like to do?

the most powerful and ruthless owns.

That would certainly be true if there were no governments. Governments exist to prevent such things from happening.

governments, probably from the beginning of time have been of a 'criminal' nature, something like extortion.

That is a very lopsided way to look at it. In fact, they are the result of a bargain: each citizen contributes some of his resources and freedom to the authorities in exchange for an assurance of security and greater prosperity. Governments exist because they are needed, and because people want them.

If there were ever a government or community that was benevolent and out to serve - community, then they were probably eventually taken over by the governments who were out to extort.

Are you hoping for a government of angels? Governments do exist to serve the people, but they are run by human beings, and thus have human failings. Government is power and power is worth having, so many will contend for it.

The trick is to design a system of government that takes these human failings into account and sets up checks against them. That is the object of all systems of government. But they can only ever be works in progress: they will be perfected nor even completed. But mostly, in the advanced world at least, they function fairly well, and enjoy the confidence of the people.

What would your ideal government look like, then?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Or, as Sting once pert(inent)ly inquired,

What good is a used-up world
And how can it be worth having?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Profusion

Pacifists are a little more strict than I think you are giving them credit.

Anti-war folks aren't pacifists. A true pacifist would watch their family dismembered in front of their eyes and not attempt to stop it with violence.

I don't believe there are many pacifists in this world, certainly not in the US. As an ideology, it is fated to go the way of the dodo.

I realize that you are asking a different question but, I figured I would add that clarification since I hear the term misused a lot.

Exactly. Quite often because someone states "the solution is talk around a table" is often labelled a pacifist and derided for his views. Then a few years later after folks have grown tired of maiming each other they end up talking around a table to resolve the problem!

True Pacifist's holding a country you say...

No.
Some people here seem to equate killing, war, violence to being caused by the evil Govt's of the world while seemingly living in this naive world of ignoring the fact that Mankind is what causes violence.

Since the dawn of man some stronger person has been doing horrible things to some weaker person which in turn either destroys the weaker person or they adapt and become the stronger person.

You can have a country ruled by all pacifists with no military at all or a passive approach but since you can't remove mankind from that equation some stronger nation will eventually try to enforce their will on them. Again because it's mankind that creates violence and not Govt.

Right of Might as they say.

a reply to: opethPA