By Alejandro A. Tagliavini*


While Trump relaxes about North Korea tyrant and frets over Syrian gas events, it is worth noting that war is not an option ever since science has shown– in a definite and conclusive manner- that violence always destroys: it is counterproductive even in cases of urgent self-defense. It would be impossible to summarize the logical development of ideas in such a short text, but let’s analyze some statements.

To begin with, it is a logical inconsistency – and logic is a science- that violence is resolved with more violence. On the contrary, it adds up and escalates. More is more. The Greeks – for instance, Aristotle- already knew that the universe is governed by an order: the sun rises at the same time every day, animals must feed themselves to live, etc.

Then, science indicates that violence is an extrinsic force that diverts the spontaneous development of this natural order: for instance, when a person is murdered, his evolution as a human being – with his intrinsic potential- is restricted. Hence, since violence is extrinsic and contrary to the existing order, it is impossible of any impossibility that, in any case, violence aids – or “defends”- the development of the universe, of life, of nature.

As empirical evidence showing that violence only adds up more violence, let’s discuss the case of the emblematic Second World War (WWII). The official political propaganda has been so strong –including Hollywood- that today it is difficult to find someone making a serious and objective analysis. Indeed, Marcos Rougès may be right when asserting that the First World War (WWI) was worse since it triggered the Russian Revolution, the rise of Nazism, the fall of the progressive monarchies, the Great Depression, and WWII.

WWII clearly produced the opposite effect, it added up violence. If we look at the map of totalitarianism before and after we see that the Stalinist red beats the Nazi black. This war was won by Stalin, and for that reason he is even today considered a national hero in Russia. It seems that the governments of England and the US came out to defend the USSR, which enjoyed a rapid expansion, instead of weakening until disappearing in confrontation with Nazis. Thanks to this soviet expansion today we have Cuba and Chavism.

Indeed, the Nazi concentration camps, which were atrocious, were spurred by the WWII that distracted public opinion. Some people argue that the British entered first in this war to defend the Jews, but Geoffrey Wheatcroft assures that the English Government did not intend to put an end to the Holocaust but to “protect” Poland, a goal that Churchill abandoned in Yalta in the hands of an even worse tyrant. Wheatcroft also clarifies that the crimes of Allied soldiers were not minor.

And there is yet more incoherence: freedom cannot be “defended” by coercing liberties. WWII, which was one of the most destructive -over 60 million deaths and an incommensurable material destruction- and liberticidal events in history given it enlarged the totalitarianism map, was conducted by means of the coercion of liberties: obliging citizens to enroll, increasing taxes to finance war, etc.

Then, the Soviet empire peacefully collapsed demonstrating that great evils are defeated by free and peaceful methods, which are the efficient methods. Freedom and its synonym, peace– and happiness and wealth-, according to science and wisdom, are only achieved with peace and freedom.


* Member of the Advisory Council of the Center on Global Prosperity, Oakland, California