Yes, but the liberators did impose freedom by force, in front of those who did not want it to be so. That is, people who want freedom even if they do not use force have to be willing to use it against those who want no freedom, otherwise those who want slavery, authoritarianism or any other determined system will be imposed. If 99% of people want to live in a model of society, but are not willing to use force to establish and defend it, and the remaining 1% are willing to use it, then one way or another will end up imposing one on another . There is never a total consensus on any topic.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't deny defense is necessary and elimination of true threats may become a possibility, but I don't think using any kind of aggressive force to establish freedom is right or even truly brings about an environment of actual freedom. There's a difference between defensive and aggressive force. But you're right, this is the accepted domination philosophy which the masses of humanity have been under since the beginning.
Also, isn't it contradictory to believe you have to impose something for it to be free. This is the same argument imperialists have used when they say they are looking to liberate a place and there's always unintended consequences.
Yes, well, what I really say is that it is possible to impose a free society without using force, but there must be the possibility that force can be used, in the enemy's mind there must be the possibility that people they will defend the free society, because if the person who opposes freedom knows that there will be no defense against any threat, then he will take advantage of that. So the force, or the ability to impose, must prevail in the minds of people. It's like the relationship between an Alpha Male and a Beta or Omega.