“The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”—James Madison
“Man doth usurp all space,
States thee, in rock, bush, river, in the face.
Never yet thine eyes behold a tree;
‘Tis no sea thou seest in the sea,
‘Tis but a disguised humanity.
To avoid thy fellow, vain thy plan;
All that interests a man, is man.”—Henry Sutton
“I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, ‘Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did – if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.”—C.S. Lewis
I wrote to California Senator Diane Feinstein in opposition to CISPA, and this is what she wrote back. Not only does she ignore that I am completely opposed to it, but she’s proud of having sponsored and co-written the Senate iteration of it. Despite the liberals’ outrage against SOPA/PIPA/CISPA, they will continue to re-elect her. What a joke.
Dear Mr. Mehta:
Thank you for your letter about the “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act” (H.R. 3523). I appreciate your taking the time to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act passed the House of Representatives on April 29, 2012. The bill would, among other things, establish procedures to allow the Intelligence Community to share cyber threat intelligence with the private sector. On May 7, 2012, the bill was referred to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I chair.
I agree with the authors of the House bill that our nation faces a serious and growing threat from cyber attack and espionage—threats to both our national security and our economy. Effective cybersecurity requires that the information on cyber threats and defenses in our government’s hands be passed to the private sector, and that information from industry be shared with the government.
That is why I authored the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2012 (S. 2102). That legislation—which became Title VII in the comprehensive Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 2105) co-sponsored by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)—authorizes companies to monitor and defend their own networks. It establishes procedures for private sector companies to share cyber threat information with each other and with the federal government, and establishes procedures for the government to share classified cybersecurity threat information with certified private sector entities.
Importantly, however, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 includes substantially more robust privacy protections, as well as better safeguards against the private sector abusing new information sharing authorities, than the bill the House passed.
In particular, our legislation narrowly defines cybersecurity information that can be shared; places limits on how that information can be used by the government; requires that government bodies for collecting and sharing information be civilian institutions; and prevents any information to be shared or government action to be taken based on activities that are protected under the Constitution. I have worked closely with privacy and civil liberty organizations to draft the legislation, and have continued to make changes to the bill to ensure proper protections are in place.
Like you, I recognize that cybersecurity is a very serious issue. We must ensure our national security, and at the same time, protect our civil liberties and our fundamental rights to privacy and free speech. Determining the best way to strike that balance will require careful consideration, and I will certainly keep your views in mind as the debate on this issue advances.
Once again, thank you for your letter. I am pleased that you are engaged in this important issue and hope you continue to inform me of issues that matter to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website.
United States Senator
The United States’ debt in 1861 was $90 million. By 1865, it was $2.7 billion, a 3000% increase in 4 years to take away the states’ rights to secede from the union. Similarly, from 1932 to 1945, the US debt went from $19.4 billion to $258 billion, a 1330% increase, in order to “save” the nation from ruin. Both of these moments were followed by periods of massive increases in government spending as well as increased government interference in the lives of the citizenry. The reason? As Hans Sennholz put it, “A government debt is a government claim against personal income and private property – an unpaid tax bill.”
“American businesses had pushed the federal government to place strict regulatory standards on imported food and drug products as a form of veiled protectionism. The result was, as [Gabriel] Kolko noted, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Big businesses also understood that costly federal regulation would disproportionately harm their smaller competitors. Thus while claiming to be “socially responsible” by favoring regulation of their own industries, businesses really supported the creation of monopoly power in their industry.”—Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton’s Curse
“I encountered hostility especially among those who knew me only at a distance without my knowing them myself. Doubtless they suspected me of living fully and being given up completely to happiness; and that cannot be forgiven. The look of success, when it is worn a certain way, would infuriate a jackass.”—Albert Camus, The Fall
“The [socialist] commandments are two in number – the first, economic; the second, political: thou shalt have no more than the least of thy fellows; and, to cause those who have more than others, to give up what they have for the benefit of others, is the highest virtue.”—Robert Lefevre, This Bread Is Mine
“The state will perceive, first of all, the advantages to be gained from adding to the throng of its appointees, from multiplying the number of jobs at its disposal, from expanding its patronage and electoral influence. It will not realize that, in arrogating to itself to a new function, it has placed upon itself a new, and, indeed, a frightening responsibility. For what must the immediate consequence be? The workers will no longer look upon their common treasury as property to be administered and maintained by themselves, with their own claims on it limited by the extent of its limited resources. Little by little they will become accustomed to considering unemployment benefits, not as something to be provided by the limited funds that they have accumulated by their own foresight, but as debt society owes them. They will never admit that society cannot pay and will never be satisfied with the benefits they receive. The state will constantly be obliged to ask for new additions to the budget. At this point, encountering opposition from the treasury officials, it will find itself in inextricable difficulties. Abuses will increase all the time, and the government will shrink, as it always does, from rectifying them until there comes the day of explosion. But when this happens, the government will discover that it has to reckon with a population that has lost the ability to act for itself, that looks to a cabinet minister or an official for everything, even its livelihood, a population whose thinking has become so warped as to have lost any notion of right, property, liberty, or justice.”— Frédéric Bastiat, Economic Harmonies, pg. 381 (via luchadoreofliberty)
“If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do—the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen—those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There’s only one person that’s been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It’s murder—it’s mass murder—when you say, ‘We are going to bomb this area’ because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I’m sorry, that’s murder.”—Jeremy Scahill calls President Barack Obama a murderer. (via aheram)
Freedom as we know it is a condition of ego. Prosperity is a condition of things. Increase these satisfactions to any degree and there is still that knowledge of incompleteness which torments the spirit. This is the anxiety of the perishable I fragment to make affinity with an imperishable whole. Beyond the sense of belonging to himself man craves also the sense of himself belonging. We are bound to live two lives at a time. One is our own, a little arc, sudden and discontinuous; the other is the life of society, perpetual and perhaps immortal. To live them consciously, without conflict, so that one shall fulfill the other, is the next achievement. Necessity lies in one, completion in the other.
That servile status of the individual binding him to the sceptre, to the state, to the lord, to the land on which he grew, with no inalienable rights of being, is the oldest political story. The extreme revolution, wherein the state itself becomes the cringing body, mob-serving, owing everything to the individual who owes it nothing in return, is a complicated modern story, with some fearful and abrupt periods. An entirely new story would be that of a people jealously egoistic dedicating their freedom to a social imperative discovered in themselves and learning by that act what freedom is for.
”—Garet Garrett, The American Omen (via laliberty)
“The individualist, on the contrary, would take the position that an act of injustice which injured one person must not be performed even though a thousand others, or any number of others, might benefit thereby. The individualist would point out that a society which believed in injuring even one person for the benefit of others would be a society of cannibals. Each individual’s rights are absolute.”—Robert Lefevre, This Bread Is Mine
As the California primaries are right around the corner (June 5th), I wanted to create this simple guide for friends and family to refer to. As a Ron Paul supporter, I registered Republican, and accordingly, this is my list of ballot preferences and my reasonings thereof.
PRESIDENT Ron Paul
The singular champion of liberty, he is the only man who stands for peace, small government, civil liberties, and fiscal responsibility. No one else deserves the nomination but Ron Paul.
COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE
This is based on the least amount of research, as the Republican Central Committee has the least amount of impact on the state of things: Jon Aiken
Richard “Dick” Palmer
Scott “Scotty” Peotter
I’m currently torn between two options: Rick Williams
While he is another champion of liberty, and would support Ron Paul in his policies, I am a bit wary of his stance on immigration. I believe we should allow immigrants to freely enter this country, rather than put hoops on the entire process. I believe an Ellis Island approach to immigration is far healthier than sending illegal immigrants back at this point, especially considering that millions of these people are filing federal taxes through I-TIN. Plus, their support of the local economy also leads to sales tax accumulation, so it’s just a weak argument to say that they don’t pay taxes.
I align with nearly all of her views on the issues. We only differ on abortion: I believe that life begins at conception, and so it must be defended at all costs. However, it should be up to the states to decide the punishment, as Ron Paul has often mentioned. Gail believes that abortions should be restricted to the first term, something I appreciate, but I don’t necessarily agree with. However, given that Roe v. Wade currently stands, there isn’t much we can do about abortion, so restricting it is a far more viable option at this point.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, 48TH DISTRICT Dana Rohrbacher
Having written to him several times about my stance on issues, he has supported them and shown me a commitment to a smaller government, lower taxes and more civil liberties. While he has a ways to go to be a true champion of liberty, he is the best option at this point.
STATE SENATOR Mimi Walters
While I appreciate certain views that Steve Young shares (apprenticeship as an alternative to college), his pro-state increased spending is the last thing we need. Mimi Walters would not be my first choice, but these are the only two candidates on the ballot.
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, 74TH DISTRICT Allan Mansoor
While there isn’t much truly remarkable about Allan Mansoor’s platform, his commitment to keeping taxes low lends my vote over to him. Bob Rush is another candidate who has some great views on civil liberties and education, but a pro-state approach is the worst way to go about it. And as far as Leslie Daigle is concerned, the fact that Charles Munger, Jr. PAC spent nearly half a million dollars on her behalf is enough to keep my vote away from her.
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE NO. 1 Eugene Jizhak
While this was the toughest office I had to research, what brought me to my conclusion were two things, the first being that Eugene Jizhak believes courts should treat citizens with more respect than they currently do. I agree wholeheartedly as government institutions have a tendency to treat you as criminals or time-wasters. Secondly, Deborah Chung has received contributions from firefighters and police, and has mentioned that the toughest problem facing her today is pension reform. It may be a jump, but I don’t think it’s wise to have someone like that in office. Contrarily, Eugene Jizhak hasn’t received any contributions to date, which means he doesn’t owe his allegiance to anyone.
PROP 28: LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS’ TERMS IN OFFICE NO
This is a rather sneaky proposition. It says it “limits” the terms of legislators, but it actually increases it. Currently, Assemblymen can serve a total of 6 years, and State Senators can serve a total of 8 years. Combined, this adds up to 14 years in office. This proposition, however, changes it so that a legislator can serve up to 12 years in the Assembly, the State Senate, or a combination of both. This actually increases the time a politician can serve in a single position, which means that lobbyists control them that much longer. This isn’t something I intend to support.
PROP 29: TAX ON CIGARETTES FOR CANCER RESEARCH NO
I don’t care for increased taxation on anything, so whether or not the money ends up in cancer research (debatable), I will be voting against it.
MEASURE A: COUNTY OF ORANGE, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR YES
This is to vote on whether the office will be filled by appointment or election. I’m not a fan of direct democracy, so I vote for appointment.
MEASURE B: COUNTY OF ORANGE, MANDATORY MINIMUM PENSION SELECTION ABSTAIN
While I’m inclined to lean towards voting ‘yes’ on this measure, it’s a mess either way. Currently, the system allows for two pension options: 2.7% at age 55 and 1.62% at age 65. A ‘yes’ on this measure would force everyone to enroll in the 1.62% at 65, which is a good thing because it would begin to address the $3.5 million in unfunded pensions in the county. However, the option to opt out of pensions (which currently exists) is taken away, and that may create more problems. Until real reform can be made without taking away the choice of opting out, I intend to abstain from this measure.
For a handy PDF copy of these recommendations, click HERE
“So many vows they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Obey your father. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. But what if your father despises the king? What if the king massacres the innocent? It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or another.”—Jaime Lannister, A Game of Thrones
“Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform.”—Henry David Thoreau, On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience
“But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? – in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.”—Henry David Thoreau, On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience
“And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba. His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice.
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, ‘Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.’ But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed to the Lord. The Lord said to Samuel, ‘Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.’
So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. He said, ‘This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.’
Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, ‘No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.’ Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the Lord’s hearing. The Lord said to Samuel, ‘Listen to their voice and appoint them a king.’ So Samuel said to the men of Israel, ‘Go every man to his city.’”—1 Samuel 8, New American Standard Bible
“When my sense of self depends on what others say of me, anger is a quite natural reaction to a critical word. And when my sense of self depends on what I can acquire, greed flares up when my desires are frustrated. Thus greed and anger are the brother and sister of a false self fabricated by the social compulsions of an unredeemed world.”—Henri Nouwen, The Way of the Heart: The Spirituality of the Desert Fathers and Mothers
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” - Romans 13:1-2
“Obey the law of the land.”
When dealing with the question of obedience or disobedience to the state, this is the standard Christian response. The only time disobedience is allowed is when the ruling of the government is in direct conflict with the word of God. Otherwise, we are bound by a Christian duty to do what the state says. Despite a New Testament filled with disobedient disciples and a disobedient Messiah in Christ, Romans 13 is the only reason for this strong belief in and support of the state. Perhaps this faith is misplaced, however, due to an incorrect reading of the first verses of that chapter.
“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.
Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
In the latter stages of the war all the belligerent governments practiced, from necessity or incompetence, what a Bolshevist might have done from design. Even now, when the war is over, most of them continue out of weakness the same malpractices. But further, the governments of Europe, being many of them at this moment reckless in their methods as well as weak, seek to direct on to a class known as ‘profiteers’ the popular indignation against the more obvious consequences of their vicious methods.
These ‘profiteers’ are, broadly speaking, the entrepreneur class of capitalists, that is to say, the active and constructive element in the whole capitalist society, who in a period of rapidly rising prices cannot but get rich quick whether they wish it or desire it or not. If prices are continually rising, every trader who has purchased for stock or owns property and plant inevitably makes profits. By directing hatred against this class, therefore, the European governments are carrying a step further the fatal process which the subtle mind of Lenin had consciously conceived. The profiteers are a consequence and not a cause of rising prices. By combining a popular hatred of the class of entrepreneurs with the blow already given to social security by the violent and arbitrary disturbance of contract and of the established equilibrium of wealth which is the inevitable result of inflation, these governments are fast rendering impossible a continuance of the social and economic order of the 19th century. But they have no plan for replacing it.
The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent governments, unable or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance. In Russia and Austria Hungary this process has reached a point where for the purposes of foreign trade the currency is practically valueless. The Polish mark can be bought for about [three cents] and the Austrian crown for less than [two cents], but they cannot be sold at all. The German mark is worth less than [four cents] on the exchanges.
But while these currencies enjoy a precarious value abroad, they have never entirely lost, not even in Russia, their purchasing power at home. A sentiment of trust in the legal money of the state is so deeply implanted in the citizens of all countries that they cannot but believe that some day this money must recover a part at least of its former value…. They do not apprehend that the real wealth, which this money might have stood for has been dissipated once and for all. This sentiment is supported by the various legal regulations with which the governments endeavor to control internal prices, and so to preserve some purchasing power for their legal tender.
The preservation of a spurious value for the currency, by the force of law expressed in the regulation of prices, contains in itself, however, the seeds of final economic decay, and soon dries up the sources of ultimate supply. If a man is compelled to exchange the fruits of his labors for paper which, as experience soon teaches him, he cannot use to purchase what he requires at a price comparable to that which he has received for his own products, he will keep his produce for himself, dispose of it to his friends and neighbors as a favor, or relax his efforts in producing it.
A system of compelling the exchange of commodities at what is not their real relative value not only relaxes production, but [also] leads finally to the waste and inefficiency of barter. If, however, a government refrains from regulation and allows matters to take their course, essential commodities soon attain a level of price out of the reach of all but the rich, the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer.
The effect on foreign trade of price-regulation and profiteer-hunting as cures for inflation is even worse. Whatever may be the case at home, the currency must soon reach its real level abroad, with the result that prices inside and outside the country lose their normal adjustment. The price of imported commodities, when converted at the current rate of exchange, is far in excess of the local price, so that many essential goods will not be imported at all by private agency, and must be provided by the government, which, in re-selling the goods below cost price, plunges thereby a little further into insolvency.
The note circulation of Germany is about 10 times what it was before the war. The value of the mark in terms of gold is about one-eighth of its former value.
It is a hazardous enterprise for a merchant or a manufacturer to purchase with a foreign credit material for which, when he has imported it or manufactured it, he will receive mark currency of a quite uncertain and possibly unrealizable value.
It may be the case, therefore, that a German merchant, careful of his future credit and reputation, who is actually offered a short-period credit in terms of sterling or dollars, may be reluctant and doubtful whether to accept it. He will owe sterling or dollars, but he will sell his product for marks, and his power, when the time comes, to turn these marks into the currency in which he has to repay his debt is entirely problematic. Business loses its genuine character and becomes no better than a speculation in the exchanges, the fluctuations in which entirely obliterate the normal profits of commerce.
Thus the menace of inflationism described above is not merely a product of the war, of which peace begins the cure. It is a continuing phenomenon of which the end is not yet in sight.”—John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, pages 235-248
“Power, on the other hand, settles everything. It took time, but we finally realized that. For instance, you must have noticed that our old Europe at last philosophizes in the right way. We no longer say as in simple times: ‘This is my opinion. What are your objections?’ We have become lucid. For the dialogue we have substituted the communiqué. ‘This is the truth,’ we say. ‘You can discuss it as much as you want; we aren’t interested. But in a few years there’ll be the police to show you I’m right.’”—Albert Camus, The Fall
“Have you noticed that death alone awakens our feelings? How we love the friends who have just left us? How we admire those of our teachers who have ceased to speak, their mouths filled with earth? Then the expression of admiration springs forth naturally, that admiration they were perhaps expecting from us all life long. But do you know why we are always more just and more generous towards the dead? The reason is simple. With them there is no obligation. They leave us free and we can take our time, fit the testimonial in between a cocktail party and a nice little mistress, in our spare time, in short.”—Albert Camus, The Fall
“War feeds the growth of the state. The state is nourished on the liberties of the people. The choice is liberty or dictatorship, republic or empire. The notion that we can cut government and maintain the empire is preposterous. A country that supports preventive war, allows assassination of its own citizens, and endorses torture can hardly be called a republic.”—Ron Paul, Liberty Defined
“The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance.To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”—Paul Krugman, New York Times Column, circa 2002
Pacifism is an oft-confused topic. Liberals would like you to believe that there is a singular brand of pacifism: non-violence. Of course, they don’t even believe that. Otherwise, you wouldn’t see them go postal over Kony, or defend Obama over blowing the hell out of Libya and Pakistan. But I wanted to talk about a thin but distinct line between two sects of pacifism: non-violence and non-aggression.
Non-violence suggests that no violence will ever be employed, no matter the nature of the transgression against you. The aggressor could be trying to kill or rape you, or your family, but you will not lift a finger to stop them. There are very few people in the history of the world that have adhered to strict non-violence. The far more popular brand of pacifism is non-aggression. This means that one does not seek out violence, but will come to the defense of his person, property, and his family. This also means that if a country is attacked unprovoked, they have every right to defend themselves.
Of course, this is not the stance that conservatives take either. They continue America’s intervention in the affairs of the Middle-East, then wonder why they hate us. It’s not rocket science. But that’s besides the point, which is that you can be a pacifist without adhering to non-violence. If anyone tells you otherwise, they’re either a saint (unlikely), or a hypocrite.
“In fact, as planning becomes more and more extensive, it becomes regularly necessary to qualify legal provisions increasingly by reference to what is ‘fair’ or ‘reasonable’; this means that it becomes necessary to leave the decision of the concrete case more and more to the discretion of the judge or authority in question.”—Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom