My position is :
1)- There is a certain instinct in humanity to pursue status and power.
2)- Some people succumb to this urge more than others.
3)- Those who strongly succumb are often willing to wager their own life (as well of the lives of those around them) against their goal.
4)- Any who wish to deny them their objective must be similarly willing to wager their own lives back, as well as being willing to call the wager of the power hungry individual.
5)- Conceding to a power hungry individual, and forfeiting your freedoms, are one and the same act, unless it is done on a one-time-only basis, and not a repeating basis. (However, it's unlikely a power hungry power hungry person will ever sincerely demand something on a one-time-only basis, because power about what you can demand repeatedly.)
Conclusion: It's impossible for a pacifist society to maintain its freedoms. If you want to be free, then either you must be willing to kill over it, or someone else must be willing to kill on your behalf.
-Does anyone disagree with all of that? I'm happy to accept multiple opponents, if there are any. Also, I wouldn't mind having one person on my side, if multiple opponents emerge. We can divide debate segments equally among all contenders.
1)- There is a certain instinct in humanity to pursue status and power.
2)- Some people succumb to this urge more than others.
3)- Those who strongly succumb are often willing to wager their own life (as well of the lives of those around them) against their goal.
4)- Any who wish to deny them their objective must be similarly willing to wager their own lives back, as well as being willing to call the wager of the power hungry individual.
5)- Conceding to a power hungry individual, and forfeiting your freedoms, are one and the same act, unless it is done on a one-time-only basis, and not a repeating basis. (However, it's unlikely a power hungry power hungry person will ever sincerely demand something on a one-time-only basis, because power about what you can demand repeatedly.)
Conclusion: It's impossible for a pacifist society to maintain its freedoms. If you want to be free, then either you must be willing to kill over it, or someone else must be willing to kill on your behalf.
-Does anyone disagree with all of that? I'm happy to accept multiple opponents, if there are any. Also, I wouldn't mind having one person on my side, if multiple opponents emerge. We can divide debate segments equally among all contenders.
