Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[myata]

Good..you readily admit that nations currently reject your proposal and embrace armed conflict as an option.

Some nations do. And? One cannot lead, invent anything new, etc just by trailing in the back of the pack and doing the same thing than the guy ahead is doing.

That's because violence is most certainly acceptable in many situations. You can't keep it in a cage only to be let out on your philosophical whim.

In question was though aggressive violence, specifically.

So you want your cake and eat it too. You will also need to add a thick layer of proportionality, less an aggressor incinerate your population in a perfectly "legal" defense.

Yes I do. I want the cake of actually knowing that I'm peaceful and non violent as I like to say on every corner, and the ability to defend myself and mine, against an open aggression. And I can have that, with will and determination to follow my own preaching. The moment I start to cross the line though, my cake is gone, and perpetual offense and defense will be my fate forever, no matter "just"ifications.

Good point about proportionality, the defensive response must be proportionate to not itself escalate into crimes against humanity, although "defensive" coalition would never initiate aggressive wars itself, and therefore would be unlikely to face a legal defense response.

[charter.rights]

Some nations do. And? One cannot lead, invent anything new, etc just by trailing in the back of the pack and doing the same thing than the guy ahead is doing.

In question was though aggressive violence, specifically.

Yes I do. I want the cake of actually knowing that I'm peaceful and non violent as I like to say on every corner, and the ability to defend myself and mine, against an open aggression. And I can have that, with will and determination to follow my own preaching. The moment I start to cross the line though, my cake is gone, and perpetual offense and defense will be my fate forever, no matter "just"ifications.

Good point about proportionality, the defensive response must be proportionate to not itself escalate into crimes against humanity, although "defensive" coalition would never initiate aggressive wars itself, and therefore would be unlikely to face a legal defense response.

As long as one holds war as a potential resolution to conflict they are NOT peaceful and non-violent.

[bush_cheney2004]

Some nations do. And? One cannot lead, invent anything new, etc just by trailing in the back of the pack and doing the same thing than the guy ahead is doing.

Your idea is not new.....and has been rejected many times.

In question was though aggressive violence, specifically.

Sorry...it doesn't work that way. A tiger is a tiger.

Yes I do. I want the cake of actually knowing that I'm peaceful and non violent as I like to say on every corner, and the ability to defend myself and mine, against an open aggression. And I can have that, with will and determination to follow my own preaching. The moment I start to cross the line though, my cake is gone, and perpetual offense and defense will be my fate forever, no matter "just"ifications.

No, I suspect you would just start over again from the safety (and power) afforded by the very aggression you protest.

Good point about proportionality, the defensive response must be proportionate to not itself escalate into crimes against humanity, although "defensive" coalition would never initiate aggressive wars itself, and therefore would be unlikely to face a legal defense response.

Yet even more parsing and conditions.....a rule book that will require many pages and binding for sure. I would prefer that the peace knockers who pretend they are superior to garden variety war mongers get nuked first and most of all for their "hypocrisy".

[bush_cheney2004]

As long as one holds war as a potential resolution to conflict they are NOT peaceful and non-violent.

+2

[myata]

As long as one holds war as a potential resolution to conflict they are NOT peaceful and non-violent.

No, here we disagree. One can be peaceful, and non violent, and still defend themselves against aggressive violence. And the test is simple. A stable society of non-violent entities, individuals, countries, etc, is possible with a minimum requirement that nobody exhibits aggression toward another. Very simple. I do not attack, you don't, he/she doesn't - there's no aggression, wars, ever. And, it has at least some minimal stability against an aberration, if one of the entities becomes aggressive, but everybody else comes to defend the victim of aggression.

A pacifist society (no violence, even in defense, in principle) will not be stable against such aberration and would fall on every incident of aggression. It requires everybody to come as absolutely non violent all at the same time, and therefore is less feasible.

The approach to legislate war out of existence is therefore a practical way to eliminate wars (I don't really care much about phylosophy). It can proceed one people / country at a time, for as long as is needed to gather a critical body of peoples that have subscribed to not be involved in any aggressions for any reason. Once that condition is reached, the non aggressive states will conclude a pact of mutual defense, and the future without wars would become a reality.

[charter.rights]

No, here we disagree. One can be peaceful, and non violent, and still defend themselves against aggressive violence. And the test is simple. A stable society of non-violent entities, individuals, countries, etc, is possible with a minimum requirement that nobody exhibits aggression toward another. Very simple. I do not attack, you don't, he/she doesn't - there's no aggression, wars, ever. And, it has at least some minimal stability against an aberration, if one of the entities becomes aggressive, but everybody else comes to defend the victim of aggression.

A pacifist society (no violence, even in defense, in principle) will not be stable against such aberration and would fall on every incident of aggression. It requires everybody to come as absolutely non violent all at the same time, and therefore is less feasible.

The approach to legislate war out of existence is therefore a practical way to eliminate wars (I don't really care much about phylosophy). It can proceed one people / country at a time, for as long as is needed to gather a critical body of peoples that have subscribed to not be involved in any aggressions for any reason. Once that condition is reached, the non aggressive states will conclude a pact of mutual defense, and the future without wars would become a reality.

You obviously misread my statement.

War is not an option for peaceful and non-violent people. Those who predicate war as the resolution of any conflict are neither peaceful or non-violent people. One cannot claim to be peaceful while at the same time rationalizing the use of violence to achieve an end - any end.

[ToadBrother]

You obviously misread my statement.

War is not an option for peaceful and non-violent people. Those who predicate war as the resolution of any conflict are neither peaceful or non-violent people. One cannot claim to be peaceful while at the same time rationalizing the use of violence to achieve an end - any end.

How very interesting. Let's go back to 1935, when Germany rearmed the Rhineland. If the Allies had launched an attack then across the French border and had blown the German army to pieces right then and there, there would have been no WWII. As well, it's pretty likely that Hitler could not have politically survived such an event, so the Nazis would probably have been wiped out too.

That's the problem with oversimplifications and blind ideological statements like "all wars are bad". The world is not a simple place filled with delightful black and whites, and when you try to make it into that, you get Neville Chamberlain clutching a worthless piece of paper in his hand declaring "peace in our time!". There is a harsh lesson of history that anyone who thinks all wars are bad, and that is that peace at any cost is no peace at all.

[ToadBrother]

No, here we disagree. One can be peaceful, and non violent, and still defend themselves against aggressive violence. And the test is simple. A stable society of non-violent entities, individuals, countries, etc, is possible with a minimum requirement that nobody exhibits aggression toward another. Very simple. I do not attack, you don't, he/she doesn't - there's no aggression, wars, ever. And, it has at least some minimal stability against an aberration, if one of the entities becomes aggressive, but everybody else comes to defend the victim of aggression.

What if the entities can't agree on the aggressor? I'll ask again, who started WWI?

A pacifist society (no violence, even in defense, in principle) will not be stable against such aberration and would fall on every incident of aggression. It requires everybody to come as absolutely non violent all at the same time, and therefore is less feasible.

The approach to legislate war out of existence is therefore a practical way to eliminate wars (I don't really care much about phylosophy). It can proceed one people / country at a time, for as long as is needed to gather a critical body of peoples that have subscribed to not be involved in any aggressions for any reason. Once that condition is reached, the non aggressive states will conclude a pact of mutual defense, and the future without wars would become a reality.

I have already given a number of examples where attempts at legislating peace would not create peace. It's not a matter of political philosophy, it's a matter of competing interests. If the source of your drinking water sits on my property, and I dam it up on my side of the line, I don't need to fire a shot to cause you serious troubles.

Wars are fundamentally economic in nature, and as we've seen, legislation isn't always terribly effective at solving economic problems.

[myata]

What if the entities can't agree on the aggressor? I'll ask again, who started WWI?

In the world where most major players had a legislation against initiation or participation in aggressive wars, it may not have happened at all. Or if it did, the aggressor would be seen much clearer.

I have already given a number of examples where attempts at legislating peace would not create peace.

We are not attempting to "legislate peace" though. Only saying to ourselves, and we world that we abandon aggressive war as an instrument of achieving our goals. This in itself should eventually bring about a more peaceful future, but no guarantees, only doing the right thing.

If the source of your drinking water sits on my property, and I dam it up on my side of the line, I don't need to fire a shot to cause you serious troubles.

I'm sure one could come up with many hypothetical situations. It's also very clear, even from the past examples like e.g. blockade of West Berlin, that a determined community of states sharing common principles of non-aggression would be able to do much and go far before having to abandon these principles for the sake of survival, perceived or real. How far, only the real experience would be able to tell.

Wars are fundamentally economic in nature, and as we've seen, legislation isn't always terribly effective at solving economic problems.

Some are and some arent'. The obvious truth is that the fewer players consider aggressive wars as a legitimate instrument of policy, the fewer wars are going to happen. I'm quite certain that eventually, in the society of states we would come to the same understanding as in the society of individuals, i.e that aggressive violence is inacceptable and should be prosecuted on the same level as a common crime.