War and Peace

It is an unfortunate truth that, while there are communities who want what another community has more than they want peace, there will be war. Those who would have peace must therefore choose either to submit to the tyranny of the oppressor or fight back in spite of their distaste for war. Those unwilling to fight will be made slaves or left robbed and destitute. Those who will fight must be better at war than those who choose it in order to win peace.

It would seem, from the true analysis above, that peace is hopeless. The peaceful must be better at war than the warmongers. This is the inherent contradiction that must be hurdled. But we’ve found that overstepping this hurdle is quite possible, and even natural.

A community that respects personal property and coexists peacefully has proven to be the most economically efficient in the world. Free and moral trade prompts both trading partners to create wealth for the other at the highest efficiency possible. Trade can only maximize its productivity when its interaction is completely honest and open, and no coercive force is applied.

When a society fails to respect personal property, production becomes less valuable to the producer, since it is expected that whatever is produced may be taken away. The risk is much higher than the reward, so little is produced. Why would I put my hard work in to create something of value, just to have it stolen by someone who has done no work at all? So the only ones who are willing to produce are those who are very diligent in the protection of their property, but eventually even they are overcome by the force of the many.

Naturally, therefore, moral and free societies economically out-perform those of coercion. Any honest evaluator of history must admit this to be true from past experience. Thus the economic discrepancy between peaceful societies and coercive societies grows quickly in favor of the peace lovers. This economic advantage gives peaceful societies a large advantage in the art of war. The additional resources and technologies available to peaceful societies will allow a defense that is indestructible by those who would attack them in pursuit of their wealth.

The problem then becomes the ability of peaceful communities to hold off any attack on their liberties and properties until they become so economically advantaged as to ward off any attack by mere intimidation of size and strength. The American experiment was successful, but it was convenient to have an ocean to separate itself from potential conquerors. It has been much less successful protecting itself from itself. But the foundations for peaceful trade were well enough established initially to protect itself long enough to become the richest nation, and thus the most powerful military force, in the world. It’s only major breakdowns, and thus setbacks, were the Civil War and the Great Depression, two dark time periods of great envy and division where the size and strength of the coercers exceeded that of the peace and freedom lovers.

We are approaching a possible 3rd dark period where the coercers exceed the size of the peacemakers. The peacemakers have so far submitted to the coercion of the takers, but the line is wearing thin. The producers still feel like their own hard work is creating for themselves a better life, but more and more of that hard work is being stolen from them for the benefit of those who are not so ambitious. If tax rates increase much more, the producers may refuse to be enslaved and coerced to produce for others. At this point, we must face either another Great Depression, where producers give up the fight and stop producing except at the barrel of the gun, coercion reigns supreme and production becomes scarce, or we must face another Civil War, where producers fight to protect and defend their freedoms and properties against the takers.

A civil war seems to be the more likely outcome, as it appears those who love liberty are passionate enough to fight for it. But we must remember, if we are victorious, that our strength in war is to be used only to maintain our peace. If we become tempted to use its force for coercion, we will lose our peace, and war must again become necessary. I fear that this is what America has already become, and I fear that it will take a world war to resolve.