Blogroll
- Holy Hierarch Alexander, Bishop of Guria and Samegrelo
- Seeing Christ in One’s Neighbor
- Offsite Post: ‘Escaping the LGBT Briar Patch’
- Archbishop Peter of Chicago and Mid-America reposes in the Lord
- CHD Scientists Identify 19 Different Diseases Associated with Routine Infant Vaccine
- Interview 1911 – Glyphosate Levels Dropping in Oat-based Products (NWNW #571)
- The Eerie Silence Of The Democrat Cabal After Trump's Victory: Harris, Walz, The Obamas, The Clintons—All Silent On X
- Dave Portnoy: Election Outcome A "Ringing Indictment" Against Democrat Elite Vilification Of More Than Half The Country, Says That Arrogance and Moral Superiority "Drove People Away"
- Donald Trump Elected 47th President Of The United States: In Victory Speech, Calls It: "A Historic Realignment Uniting Citizens Of All Backgrounds Around A Common Core Of Common Sense."
- Cosmas of Maiuma and John of Damascus: Brothers, Friends, and Hymnographers of the Orthodox Church
- NYT: "We Consider Trump Likely To Win The Presidency"
- We Have Won The Culture War: It Was Not Left Vs. Right; It Was Bullies Vs. Scapegoats
- Offsite Post: ‘Icons Are a Great Fit for the South’
- "You Tried To Kill Me!" Gay Woman Testifies How She Freed Herself Of What She Calls The Trauma Bond She Had All Her Life With The Democrats—Who Turned On Her When She Didn't Want The Covid Shots
- Interview 1910 – James Announces the (s)Election Winner on TFM Report
- Interview 1909 – James Corbett and The Great Awakening on Breaking the Spell
- November Open Thread (2024)
- Prayer at Daybreak
- Two Sermons on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus
- The Legacy of Father Nicola Yanney
- Offsite Post: ‘Flesh and Spirit’
- Interview 1908 – BRICS Unveil the NEW New World Order! (NWNW #570)
- Interview 1907 – Dissecting the (s)Election with Whitney Webb
- Remembrances for November – 2024
- Holistic Vet Reveals Veterinary Medicine’s Dark Underbelly in New Memoir Published by CHD
- Offsite Post: ‘Patron Saints in Christendom and at the South’
- Offsite Post: ‘The Pathetic Last Stand of the Public Education Monopoly’
- Battle for Love
- Kids and COVID: Costly Mistakes That Must Never Happen Again
- Movie: "Saint Chryse - A Ray of Light in the Years of Slavery" (2023)
- Signs to recognize the Antichrist – Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae
- Semnele pentru recunoașterea lui antihrist – Pr. Dumitru Stăniloae
- The Mysteries of Matthew’s Gospel: Was It Really Written Before the Others?
- The "Policing" of our Lives (Metr. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos)
- The Medical-Pharmaceutical Killing Machine
- CHD Scientists Uncover Evidence of Pfizer ‘Hot Lots’ Linked to Higher Rates of COVID Vaccine Injuries
- Miracles Amidst the Siege: How St. Sergius Defended the Trinity Lavra from Polish and Lithuanian Troops
- “Someday You Will Throw Dirt on Me.”
- St. Panteleimon’s Legacy: Miracles, Medicine, and Martyrdom
- ‘Vaxxed III: Authorized to Kill’ Premieres Nationwide September 18
- “May Paradise consume you!” Elder Cleopas of Romania (†1998)
- “Mânca-v-ar raiul!” Cuviosul Cleopa de la Sihăstria (†1998)
- The Final Days of the Iconic Fashion Designer Billy Bo
- Autobiography of Alexandros Papadiamantis
- 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
- How to fight any passion
- Pr. Serghei Baranov – Cum să te lupți împotriva oricărei patimi
- The Catacomb Church (1991)
- The story of a repentant Sergian Priest!
- A brutal crush and a dark Ecclesiastical secret!
- Tortured for Orthodoxy: concerning Mother Joanna (†1998)
- 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
Cele mai citite
- Să învățăm să iubim
- Dostoevsky for Parents and Children: (IV) Merchant Skotoboinikov's Story
- Clark Carlton: Modernity considers sub-natural existence the sumit of human progress
- O mica problema de retorica
- O stire: moartea presei.
- 101 carti de necitit intr-o viata
- 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? |