Quote:
Originally Posted by ogon_bat
I think you have cognitive dissonance, you just accepted that in civilian society the state has the monopoly of violence but still think civilian disputes and wars are the same thing? The equivalent would be having a group of lawyers decide the result of any international dispute, which is sadly a very rarely the case. War is not a dispute resolution mechanism, war is a dispute, always violent in nature, which may or may not solve the cause why the conflict originated in the first place.
|
Sorry?
Cognitive dissonance? I'm not feeling uncomfortable in any way. Or perhaps you mean to say I was mistaken or misinformed? I don't think so -- I never once said a civilian dispute was the same as war. I did nothing of the sort? I just said in a civilian dispute
"going to war" wouldn't
actually be going to
War. The closest proxy would be using your resources to the extent possible to "win" or "triumph" over your opponent.
In our modern society, even a single "state"
according to the U.N. no longer has the right to use force. That said, the Security Council of the U.N. reserves the right to
"Enforce its decisions militarily, or by any means necessary". It seems like you are of the mind that war can always be avoided and is never necessary? Just like war can be used to seize territory or inflict grievous harm, so can other non-military actions .. that may need the threat of force to dissuade.