Dddddd0814 at aol.com:
> Sounds more like pacifism to me. Should we love our enemies, too?
It probably wouldn't hurt, but it doesn't have a lot to do with pacifism -- you can love your enemies while you torture them to death. It would be very godlike. But I digress. I would agree with the pacifist label except that people mean many different things by pacifism. For many people, pacifism does not abjure the right of concrete, immediate self-defense, for instance. The major defect I see with war, besides of course its moral deficits, is that one can't use war to get rid of the State -- the system of permanent, institutionalized social coercion -- because war _is_ the State; State relations are best for carrying on wars and will prevail. One might, therefore, choose to go to war to defend a better state from a worse one, e.g. fend off the Nazis in favor of retaining a liberal polity, but one can't expect to further improve matters by getting rid of the liberal, capitalist state too using the same methods. I think what we observe in history accords with my theory.
-- Gordon