Blogroll
- The Strange Story of Peter Thiel
- Rosie O'Donnell's Adopted Daughter Arrested In Squalor Of Meth, Needles, Filth And A Sleeping Baby Is Yet Another Case Study In Why Unmet Needs In Childhood Become Multi-Generational Death Camps
- The Healing Wheel--Non Sleep Deep Rest (NSDR) Exercise
- On the World and Family
- Holy Martyrs Sergius and Bacchus
- A Spiritual Hub Amidst Disaster
- Healing the Son of the Widow from Nain
- Confessor of the Russian Diaspora
- Raising the Son of the Widow of Nain
- Saturday Evening Film: SHADOW RING
- Offsite Post: ‘Missionary Fieldhands’
- Interview 1904 – The Internet Archive Hack (NWNW 568)
- PTSD Healing Series: How To Accept Criticism
- Offsite Post: ‘Mary the Mother of God as Our Protector’
- Michael Nehls Explains How PTSD Through Fear Messaging About Coming 'Pandemics' And Other Threats Causes The Hippocampus To Shrink
- She Was In Talk Therapy For Decades, Never Got Better: She Had To "Diagnose" What She Had, Then Invent A Healing Modality. Now She Helps Thousands Get Out Of The Trap
- Kids and COVID: Costly Mistakes That Must Never Happen Again
- Interview 1903 – James Corbett on God, Government and The Law
- Movie: "Saint Chryse - A Ray of Light in the Years of Slavery" (2023)
- I, Sandwich
- Signs to recognize the Antichrist – Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae
- Semnele pentru recunoașterea lui antihrist – Pr. Dumitru Stăniloae
- Offsite Post: ‘Copperhead’
- Interview 1902 – Government Hurricanes? (NWNW 567)
- Episode 467 – Naming Names and Connecting Dots in the Globalist Agenda
- Offsite Post: ‘Speaker Johnson Shouldn’t Fold on Ukraine War Funding’
- 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
- 2025 Calendar Featuring the Saints of Wales
- Offsite Post: ‘Cowardice Is Not a Virtue’
- 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
- CHD Marks 10th Anniversary of CDC Whistleblower Disclosure of MMR Vaccine/Autism Link
- ‘Make Room for God in Your Life’ an Inside Look at the Belarusian Cross Procession
- A Christian Is a Person Who Remembers the Purpose of His Existence: 10 Powerful Quotes of Fr. Dimitry Smirnov
- “May Paradise consume you!” Elder Cleopas of Romania (†1998)
- “Mânca-v-ar raiul!” Cuviosul Cleopa de la Sihăstria (†1998)
- Down the COVID-19 Rabbit Hole: Independent Scientists and Physicians Unmask the Pandemic
- 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
- 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
- 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? |