Blogroll
- Suing the Tyrants – #SolutionsWatch
- Offsite Post: ‘The Orthodox Bishops in the United States Act Culturally Illiterate’
- Note To Self
- Interview 1875 – James Corbett Breaks The Spell of the Global Conspiracy
- The Secret History of Hamas
- Reiner Fuellmich, In 18 Minute Recording From Prison, Reveals Deep Infiltration, Intelligence Gathering, And Plot; Also Says Covid Empire Of Lies Crumbling
- Folk Music As Anti-Anxiety
- Iran Launches Retaliatory Air Attack On Israel
- The Path of True Christian Life
- The Significance of Fasting in the Struggle against Fallen Spirits
- Saint John Climacus and the Ladder of Divine Ascent
- Fourth Sunday of Lent
- St. John of the Ladder
- LINK TO 1 PM Zoom Gathering Today
- What Is Happening Today? Zoom At 1 pm EDT
- Russian Orthodoxy in South Africa in the 1950s and ’60s
- Echoes of WWI: China, the US, and the Next “Great” War (2017)
- Offsite Post: ‘The Right Foundation’
- Interview 1874 – 6th Time’s The Charm for Zimbabwe’s “New” Currency (NWNW 550)
- CHD Wins in Los Angeles ‘Smart City’ Public Records Case, Gaining Access to Thousands of Withheld Documents Regarding Rollout of Artificial Intelligence
- Offsite Post: ‘The Power of Women’
- ‘Alleluia’: Exploring the Depth of the Shortest Doxology
- Interview 1873 – Ben Pile on The Behavioural Sciences and the Populist Revolt
- Offsite Post: ‘German Greatness’
- Judge Rules in Historic CHD Lawsuit Challenging Fast-tracking of Wireless Infrastructure in Los Angeles
- CHD Supports the Motion Against U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Alleging Fraud in Omnibus Autism Proceeding
- Offsite Post: ‘Will America Complete Its Revolution?’
- Remembrances for April - 2024
- Exploring the Lenten Triodion: A Journey through Penitence and Joy
- CHD to Host ‘The Rally to Reclaim Free Speech’ as SCOTUS Hears Landmark Censorship Case Murthy v. Missouri
- CHD to Host ‘The Rally to Reclaim Free Speech’ as SCOTUS Hears Landmark Censorship Case Murthy v. Missouri
- From Aristocrat to Ascetic: The Disguised Path of Saint Anastasia
- Autobiography of Alexandros Papadiamantis
- Exploring the Essence of Praising God
- Brian Hooker to Participate in Senator Ron Johnson’s COVID Response Briefing, ‘What Are They Hiding?’
- Navigating the Path to Confession after Grave Sins
- Miraculous Encounters: The Power of Saintly Relics
- A hindu convert to Orthodoxy
- Un hindus convertit la Ortodoxie
- Alexandros Papadiamantis Resource Page
- How Great Spiritual Figures of Greece Helped Form the Renowned Conductor Dimitri Mitropoulos
- Artificial Intelligence as Artificial Brilliance (Metr. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos)
- How to fight any passion
- Pr. Serghei Baranov – Cum să te lupți împotriva oricărei patimi
- The Catacomb Church (1991)
- Movie: "Men of Anjolos" (1997) - An Islamic Movie on the Life of the Seven Youths of Ephesus
- The story of a repentant Sergian Priest!
- A brutal crush and a dark Ecclesiastical secret!
- Tortured for Orthodoxy: concerning Mother Joanna (†1998)
- The Bitten Apple of Apple Inc. (Metr. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos)
- 41 Testimonies: on Sergianism and the "ecclesial" status of the Soviet Church
- Hymn of love
- Imnul iubirii
- The Eternal Day
- Follow Me
- I will give you rest
- Single Mind, Simple Life – Gospel for the Third Sunday of Matthew
- Save your soul with fear of God
- Enduring skillfully
- Orthodoxy is unique
Cele mai citite
- Să învățăm să iubim
- Clark Carlton: Modernity considers sub-natural existence the sumit of human progress
- Dostoevsky for Parents and Children: (IV) Merchant Skotoboinikov's Story
- O mica problema de retorica
- 101 carti de necitit intr-o viata
- O stire: moartea presei.
- Totalitarism homosexual
- Alternativa Nicusor Dan. Nula
- Cu ochii larg închiși
- Evolutionism pe intelesul tuturor
Multe intrebari agresive si putine raspunsuri |
Critica de film |
Scris de Florin Rusu |
Luni, 23 Mai 2011 12:41 |
Cum actioneaza un libertarian in cazul in care realizeaza ca, desi agresiv la randul sau, un guvern invadator este mai putin intrusiv in ceea ce priveste drepturile de proprietate decat cel propriu? Risca sa devina colaborationist, ramane fidel propriului guvern, sperand sa-i modifice filosofia prin mijloace persuasive si democratice sau declanseaza un razboi de gherila impotriva ambilor invadatori? Libertarianismul pare perfect coerent in ceea ce priveste pozitia pe care o adopta fata de conflictele militare. Bogdan Glavan rezuma argumentul defensiv (non)-agresiv: “Cred că pacifismul funcționează foarte bine dacă este în armonie cu dreptul de proprietate privată. Dacă tot ne preocupă costul apărării, atunci cea mai ieftină soluție ar fi înarmarea privată, adică legalizarea posesiei armelor. Statul ar cheltui fix zero pe apărare – și deci nu ar avea nevoie de impozite ca să-și acopere aceste cheltuieli. Nici nu ar putea ataca pe cineva. Deci, nici nu ar putea da naștere frustrărilor care alimentează reacțiile violente de opoziție, precum terorismul. Și mă îndoiesc că cineva – vreun stat străin – va ataca vreodată o societate fără armată publică dar înarmată până în dinți. Istoria acestui gen de incursiuni este plină de "succesuri".”
Argumentul pare extrem de convingator la prima vedere. Insa el mi-a readus in memorie un film, unul dintre putinele filme hollywoodiene mai putin “corecte politic” pe tema Razboiului Civil (sau Razboiului de Seccesiune – dupa gust), Shenandoah. Filmul trateaza soarta tragica a unei familii prinse intre cele doua tabere, familie al carui cap avea un singur scop: sa fie lasat in pace. Vizionarea filmului a trezit in mine o nedumerire, concretizata intr-o intrebare de 10 puncte pentru un libertarian: Cum actioneaza un libertarian in cazul in care realizeaza ca, desi agresiv la randul sau, un guvern invadator este mai putin intrusiv in ceea ce priveste drepturile de proprietate decat cel propriu? Risca sa devina colaborationist, ramane fidel propriului guvern, sperand sa-i modifice filosofia prin mijloace persuasive si democratice sau declanseaza un razboi de gherila impotriva ambilor invadatori? Pozitia adoptata de Bogdan Glavan pare a favoriza ultima varianta. De altfel si Murray Rothbard pare a sugera acelasi lucru: “[R]evolutionary guerrilla war can be far more consistent with libertarian principles than any inter-State war. By the very nature of their activities, guerrillas defend the civilian population against the depredations of a State; hence, guerrillas, inhabiting as they do the same country as the enemy State, cannot use nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. Further: since guerrillas rely for victory on the support and aid of the civilian population, they must, as a basic part of their strategy, spare civilians from harm and pinpoint their activities solely against the State apparatus and its armed forces. Hence, guerrilla war returns us to the ancient and honorable virtue of pinpointing the enemy and sparing innocent civilians. And guerrillas, as part of their quest for enthusiastic civilian support, often refrain from conscription and taxation and rely on voluntary support for men and materiel.” Un libertarian poate ca este prea mic pentru un razboi atat de mare. Asa ca problema ar trebui mutata la nivelul unei comunitati de libertarieni. Insa nici macar o comunitate de libertarieni nu poate face fata cu arme de vanatoare unor rachete tomahawk. Pe linia lui Rothbard, am putea condamna armele de distrugere in masa, ca nefiind coerente cu principiile libertariene. Insa, tot aceleasi principii nu permit interzicerea productiei acestora. Chiar daca ele nu pot fi utilizate decat in acest scop, profund non-libertarian, nimeni nu poate interzice productia lor fara a incalca dreptul la proprietate privata al producatorului. Acesta poate fi “tras la raspundere” doar dupa ce armele de distrugere in masa au fost folosite impotriva unei comunitati. Dar ar fi deja prea tarziu… In plus, solutia luptei de gherila pare cel putin imorala, neluand in seama consecintele angajarii intr-un astfel de conflict. Generalul Robert Lee rezuma pozitia unuia dintre ultimii reprezentanti ai spiritului cavalerismului pe aceasta tema: "General, you and I as Christian men have no right to consider only how this would affect us. We must consider its effect on the country as a whole. Already it is demoralized by the four years of war. If I took your advice, the men would be without rations and under no control of officers. They would be compelled to rob and steal in order to live. They would become mere bands of marauders, and the enemy's cavalry would pursue them and overrun many sections they may never have occasion to visit. We would bring on a state of affairs it would take the country years to recover from. And , as for myself, you young fellows might go to bushwhacking, but the only dignified course for me would be to go to the General Grant and surrender myself and take the consequences of my acts" Solutia neutralismului pare cea mai logica. Insa ea este putin fezabila in conditiile in care cele doua tabere cunosc pozitia libertariana a legitimitatii folosiri fortei in scop defensiv. Pozitie dublata practic de demersurile anterioare de “inarmare privata”, pe care Bogdan Glavan o incurajeaza. In plus solutia neutralismului, in absenta exprimarii unei pozitii publice puternic argumentate, va duce la catalogarea libertarianului drept colaborationist de catre propria sa comunitate si drept loialist de catre invadator. O solutie alternativa este cea intuita tot de Rothbard, si pe care a surprins-o doar intr-o nota de subsol: “There are some libertarians who would go even further and say that no one should employ violence even in defending himself against violence. However, even such Tolstoyans, or "absolutist pacifists," would concede the defender's right to employ defensive violence and would merely urge him not to exercise that right. They, therefore, do not disagree with our proposition. In the same way, a libertarian temperance advocate would not challenge a man's right to drink liquor, only his wisdom in exercising that right.” Si asa ajungem la ultima intrebare: Ar putea fi considerata o comunitate amish (care si-a demonstrat istoric prin fapte pacifismul) colaborationista sau loialista? |