.png)
War is a subject that many treat with the same attitude that they treat their favorite sports team; that is, they cheer loudly and vociferously for their favorite team whether the team is any good or not. Many people feel strongly about war and many people argue just as strongly. Unfortunately many people do not argue rationally. This author will attempt to argue rationally for the necessity of war. War may not only be Just, but it may also be necessary. “Peace at any cost” may very well be the worst and most inhuman idea to ever exist.
A little background information may be necessary to better understand the reasoning behind that provocative statement. A man in a state of nature, that is a man with no allegiance to any society or government, it bound by the laws of nature. A man in a state of nature is in a state of total freedom. In this state a man has the freedom to do with his possessions and his person as he will so long as he does not prevent or hinder another man from doing the same. Self-preservation is the first priority for all men living in a state of nature.
How does a man know what he can, or cannot, do in a state of nature? All men are endowed with a rational mind. A man’s reason dictates what follows natural law and what does not. This is seen clearly on a daily basis in everyday conversation. People regularly say something is “unreasonable” or “wrong” or say such things by extension by using phrases such as “I can’t believe you did that” or “You should not do that.” The idea of should or (as some, mainly older, people say) ought is imbedded within man. Where do men get the notion of “shouldness” or “oughtness” if not through their reason? What is a person called who does something wrong or acts in a wrong manner? That person is called unreasonable.
The laws of nature bind a man while he is in a state of nature, but laws are worthless if there is not an entity that is tasked with executing and defending the laws. Since all men are equal there can be no one man greater than another who is endowed with ensuring that other men follow the laws of nature. In this state all men are tasked with defending and executing the laws of nature. If any man breaks his bond with nature and acts in a manner that causes him to (in the words of John Locke) because “a noxious creature” to other men, it is the requirement of all other men to restrain and punish the man so that he ceases acting in a noxious manner. This is the only case where one man may do violence to another man.
Likewise if a man steals another man’s property the man that is the injured party may seek reprieve from the thief. Any other man who finds the cause to be just may join with the injured party and seek to punish the thief. Only one man, the injured man, may seek reparation from the thief. All other men may only punish and seek to prevent the act from occurring again. These rights and responsibilities are bestowed upon all men living in a state of nature. As all just governments are granted their rights and responsibilities from the laws of nature, a just government is bestowed with the right to punish offenders and seek to prevent men from become offenders.
In the case of war, this author will use an event that any educated reader will be familiar with: the Second World War. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Hideki Tojo were clearly in violation of the laws of nature and were noxious creatures. The governments of the Allied Powers realized the situation and joined against the Axis Powers and World War II was fought. Had the Allied Powers allowed the Axis to continue their actions they would have been in clear violation of the laws of nature. The Axis Powers violated the laws of nature and the law of reason and could not be allowed to continue their actions. World War II was not only just but necessary to fulfill the obligations of Natural Law.
If a single war can be seen as just and necessary then it follows that any war may be just and necessary. Not all wars are just nor are all wars necessary, but to argue that no war is necessary and no war is just is to argue that no entity exists to defend the laws of nature. If no entity exists to defend the laws of nature then any man may get away with murder. If no entity exists to punish the murderer except the victim then no murderer can be punished. It can therefore be asserted that anyone who argues against war (not a war but all war) is actually advocating the dissolution of the laws of nature and the dissolution of reason. If men are reasonable then it is clear that to advocate against all war is the most inhuman act that can exist.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared at Unanimocracy and appears here in its entirety.