“Now the EU spoke in one voice, and it was listened to. The fighting in Lebanon would not have been ceased so quickly if there had not been a common EU stance.”
Definitely agree there, the EU with Finland at the helm had definitely shaved off an hour, maybe two, of fighting. But who knows, if the EU would have acted even quicker without the ceasefire-terminology debacle, the violence may have stopped 3-4 hours earlier instead. Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister Erkki Tuomioja and Finnish President Tarja Halonen were high-profile players during the Israel-Hezzbollah crisis, they were in charge of ending the violence – but as welfare state socialists, are they the right people for the job?
Welfare state socialists strongly support lots of rules and regulations that govern our lives – and each of these rules and regulations are backed by threats, repercussions, and eventually violence. Think – you don’t want to be forced into the army or civil service…you’re threatened with jailtime. Don’t want to goto jail? Men with guns will visit your house. Don’t agree with the insanely high taxes? Again…threats, jailtime, men with guns. Every welfare state initiative is backed by violence. Do you think the people would actually voluntarily pay these outragious taxes? Of course not, the welfare statists need the prisons and the guns to impose their ideology onto you.
But, I’m not an anarchist, I realize we do need laws, especially when it comes to violent crime. The point is that we should have less rules, less regulations. Take the U.S. as an example – lots of rules, lots of regulations…and it’s all enforced by violence, and it shows! Some people might argue that the U.S. and Finland have all these laws to prevent violence in the first place – Finland has stifiling taxes for social programmes to curb the possibilities of violence in society, the U.S. has tough border controls and lackluster privacy concerns to curb potential terrorists. This may be true, but all of that reminds me too much of George Bush’s “we must wage war to create peace” policies, it’s quite hypocritical to end violence by acting in a violent manner. It’s like the parent who punishes their kid by spanking them because they hit another child.
So I wonder – are welfare statists the right people to make peace? Israel and Lebanon have certain policies to keep the peace, and as we’ve seen, aren’t afraid to use violence to uphold these policies. Is the welfare state much different?