14 ms·
If you read the article carefully, he talks of an opposition who "offered themselves as alternate protectors and arbiters of justice" and set up a road block, a
by herge 14y ago
If you read the article carefully, he talks of an opposition who "offered themselves as alternate protectors and arbiters of justice" and set up a road block, all this to push the mob to execute the insurgents who attacked a bank. This is exactly what you are proposing, mob rule to attack any "destroyers".
I struggle to see how the solution to violence is more violence.
- javajosh 14y agoFirst, I think you misread the piece. That anecdote was clearly facetious. The roadblock was an empty show of force and was nothing more than more violence. There was no way that was an effective response. It was just a bad excuse for the gang to extort money. Second, my proposal cannot be imposed from the outside. It would take a group of like-minded individuals to band together and protect a geographical region, imposing this rule on all within it. It's a safe harbor where peace is enforced with violence. Pockets of peace could arise, and then connect, and grow. If they are peaceful enough, and productive enough, their ability to sustain and fight wars will improve, naturally turning them into more powerful foes. This, essentially, is what happened in the West. And I think that's what could happen in Afghanistan.