By Chris Basten

  In all his technologically sophisticated glory, man still acts rather primitively. Ludwig von Mises declared that, "The struggles in which primitive hordes and tribes fought one another for watering places, hunting and fishing grounds, pastures and booty were pitiless wars of annihilation. They were total wars." But man has exceedingly progressed from these humble, prehistoric beginnings, has he not?

Yes and no. Ludwig von Mises, in his treatise, "Human Action," explained it this way:

[I]n the primeval age, long before the time of which historical records convey information, another mode of procedure began to develop. People preserved even in warfare some rudiments of social relations previously established; in fighting against peoples with whom they never before had had any contact, they began to take into account the idea that between human beings, notwithstanding their immediate enmity, a later arrangement and cooperation is possible.

Above the implacable hatred and the frenzy of destruction and annihilation a societal element began to prevail. The idea emerged that every human adversary should be considered as a potential partner in future cooperation, and that this fact should not be neglected in the conduct of military operations. War was no longer considered the normal state of interhuman relations. People recognized that peaceful cooperation is the best means to carry on the struggle for biological survival (p.169).

War, then, is a step backwards. It is not a front that encourages new beginnings. War is neither innovate nor necessary. It is a panic button that furiously engages in emotional killing sprees and destitute conditions for all involved. War spreads disease. It disfigures and maims the innocent. It wastes money and a whole host of valuable resources. It confuses people and causes them to turn against each other.

This should occur to most humans as common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is a relative term. During times of great duress, we rationalize in many shapes and sizes that war brings moral clarity and resolution. We implore that it is the only solution to impending threats and calamities.

The irony is that any build up of armaments requires some semblance of peaceful cooperation. A military cannot coordinate efforts for war without collaboration in a civilized setting. It may occur under brainwashing and corporal threats but to erect a war machine, men must cooperate when putting it together. If troops fight amongst each other, there is no way a war effort can work. Even in a despicable attempt to spread carnage and destruction, peaceful teamwork is needed to carry it out.

Peaceful cooperation, then, is the epitome of society. It stands on its own merits. It says that I am willing to trade something of value for something else of value. It understands that men would rather not have to deal with each other. But peace is maintained in recognizing that one benefits most when he benefits another.

It appears as though the only time war is necessary is when it becomes indispensable to protect one's own person, loved ones, or property. The greatest threat to these personal boundaries is the State. Not just our government but government itself. This is why the smallest government is the most sensible one. It can be monitored much more readily than one that lavishes itself with trillions of dollars and has nothing to show for it but gluttony and foreign occupation.

Peaceful cooperation entails sound reasoning. It does not assert that a homeland invasion requires a counterstrike. Instead, a man who believes in ordered partnership takes into account his own failure to protect against those who wish to destroy him. In addition, he researches his actions to identify what his prior contact may have done to provoke such attacks. But he knows that bowing to his primitive impulse to unleash vengeance is futile. It is also detrimental to continued relations that are peaceful.

A man of peace will not rally behind the State who incurred the wrath in the first place. Rather, he will assess what can be done to prevent it in the future. He will stop encouraging expensive government programs that are dysfunctional and dangerous. He will promote the disbanding of so-called Homeland Security Departments and insist that these funds be used to fly all occupying forces home to protect his own soil. He will investigate the promise of private security for all airline industries that have a vested interest in protecting their own businesses, workers, and customers. Principally, the man of peace will be adamant about exterminating any and all foreign sanctions that invoke intolerable hatred instead of free trade.

Most importantly, he will consider the possibility of discontinuing support for the Presidency of the United States of America. He will contemplate that the position itself, not the man who fills the position, is what stomps out all efforts to maintain peace. No matter what party platform a candidate supports, the peaceful man will know that the power of the Presidency is too much for one man to possess regardless of how noble his intentions seem. He will recognize that most of the peaceful cooperation that he has worked so hard for is squashed instantaneously with each and every President that takes office. He must cooperate with his fellow man to these ends, else peace is dead.