Who Needs the Pen to Be Mightier than the Sword

Its in the common interest to create a society where "the pen is mightier that the sword" if only because the pen is less dangerous that the sword and mistakes with a pen are easier to fix than those committed with a sword. The first attempt at political organization probably stemmed from two lines of historical experience that have proven beneficial if not crucial for the survival of humanity: family and tribal loyalty on one hand, and the importance of preserving preferred hereditary traits leading to more productive crops and domesticated animals. The logic consequences of these line of thinking was the absolutist hereditary monarchy which failed in the long term after numerous obstinate attempts to make it work. The first attempts at democracy the most well-known in Ancient Greece were not very impressive too: they managed to kill Socrates and loose their freedom to a dictator - Alexander and later to Imperial Rome.

Only the unique combination of Enlightenment in Western Europe (brought in part by Arabic and Muslim cultural influences both original and through their acting as an intermediary for the penetration in Europe of Ancient Indian and Chinese culture and their role for the preservation of Ancient Greek and Roman sources), combined with the advances in trade and industry brought to the initially fledgeling democracies of Switzerland and the North of Europe to culminate with the creation of the U.S.A.

The problems is that even after the end of the cold war and a seeming worldwide consensus on the fact that their is no alternative to liberal democracy and market economy as the only political and economic guarantees for aligning the interests of the individuals to create viable political and economic entities, too many of the countries whose governments proclaim adherence to the above principles (often under some international pressure) in reality develop corrupt states, harboring organized crime and terrorists and stiffing economic development while covertly or overtly abusing the human rights of their hapless citizens.

It cannot be that the citizens of these failed or failing states want this. It is against their interests. I cannot be that the people of the developed countries want them to suffer too if not so much for reasons of sympathy and compassion but more realistically because of the danger that oppression and crime in one country can easily spill over the world through mafia activities, terrorism and the actions of the corrupt state causing suffering and death regardless of borders, cultural preferences and political allegiance.

From a political point of view the easiest way to deal with one's interests may be to take care of everything on your own. Retire in the mountains, fish and hunt for dinner and forget about the rest of the world. That may be a boring but feasible and with some luck sustainable existence. The security, freedom and opportunities of civilization come with complications and danger of becoming a slave of nonessential desires and activities. But it's the only prudent way.

Proper institutions may help but ultimately its everyone's responsibility to take pursue personal goals. The care of others though gives the power and ability to pursue these goals more efficiently and effectively while mainlining a level of security and freedom impossible individually. Freedom as understood by Roosevelt in his four freedoms: "freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of faith and freedom of expression".