The aim of civilization, if there is any such collective orientation, is the constant upward motion towards a more perfect and intelligent way of living, not dying. It is to further the progress of man from being a brutish animal, to that of one that is just that: civilized. In order to answer the question of whether or not a global state of peace is possible or achievable, and to take into full consideration the fine points made in this course, I will endeavor to show how peace already functions and exists quite extensively throughout the global, and possibly, universal community we find ourselves in.

    Fundamentally there really is no difference between conflict in both micro and macro scales. The underlying notions of anything in the macro scale can be seen in the micro. A man fighting with another man over ownership of property, or a dispute for a natural resource, land for instance, or simply an argument of who’s opinion is right and who’s is wrong, involves just as much of an appeal to ones honor as it does to the tactical knowledge of how to throw a punch, or effectively assemble in a phalanx. The differences in a major televised boxing bout where millions of dollars is at stake between highly trained individuals is just as congruent as that of a street fight, where the game has the only rule of survival, as exist between theater war and insurgency. Is a state of people not resorting to physical violence, one in which street fights don’t occur and the rule of law triumphs, and one in which major fights are reduced to that of entertainment, achievable? I would argue that, at least in some communities, this is achieved in totality.

    Destruction of the notion of an other” or an enemy, as evidenced as a necessary prerequisite of mass conflict, by more clearly defining and building a globalized individual identity or sense of “nationalism”, is by far the highest ideal society as a whole on this planet should strive for. Not an easy task, considering religious ideologies, ways of governing, economic theories, language barriers, limited natural resources, various and numerous cultural norms etc. nearly all in opposition to one another. Nations already exist and have existed for long periods of time in relative peace, at no time since joining the United States of America has Kansas gone to war with Colorado, whether or not Coloradans wish to ingest marijuana, or whether the initial citizens of Kansas decided to explicitly state “Under God” in the preamble of their state constitution.

    To say that in order for there to be peace there would need to be a globalized monopoly of violence would be to miss the point. If a monopoly of violence were to exist in any setting then violence itself would not exist, and where violence does not exist there cannot be a monopoly of it. The only time that force is necessary, beyond that of defense, is to force an individual or a collective to do something beyond their own volition. A cop, or a justified intelligence agency, never ever absolutely has to use force. It is the choice of the individual being detained in an investigation and in the course of due process to enter into the will of the people peacefully, or not. The only need for a monopoly of violence would be in a state where people are not intelligent enough to understand this will and its benefits, and are to be forced to comply because they are too stupid, or otherwise “other”, to do so to the contrary. In their shoes they are defending themselves from the will of a collective, as exemplified by the depictions of the Jewish people by the Nazi regime.

    There exists as an axiom the executive, legislative, and judicial organization in any and all societies in some form or another. Just as every individual has differing wants and needs or values, decides what action is necessary to obtain what they value, and in how they regulate within themselves which actions being taken are morally justified and which are immoral. The ramifications of peaceful constitutions is self-evident. Property is traded in a rational way for the mutual benefit of the parties involved, not taken in a zero-sum game of force. Differences of opinion are tolerated, and intelligently debated. Individuality and greater cohesion, perhaps not at the pace under the goal of defeating an enemy, among people is at it’s zenith when my inalienable rights end where yours begin.

    War is inherently fascinating, seeing a skyscraper tickle the heavens is sometimes less awesome than seeing it reduced to rubble in the matter of a few seconds. The attendance of millions of people at a concert, surrounding an edifice, or bustling around a supermarket doesn’t evoke the same shock response as seeing corpses in a pile or lines of tanks stretching miles on end. The ramifications of a world without war, states competing in a civilized manner, is business as usual, without the drama and paradox that is war.

— Tony

Written as a final for the excellent Paradoxes of War course on Coursera.

---

. . .