Furthermore, as Haugen explains, protecting the poor requires the use of coercive force:
All of this constitutes a formidable challenge to Christian pacifism. When pacifism is set against the crude nationalistic militarism that has gained such a strong foothold among American evangelicals, the doctrine appears quite humane and enlightened. However, we are disingenuous if we refuse to acknowledge the inescapable conclusion that pacifism is not only incompatible with nationalistic militarism; it is also incompatible with the vision laid out in The Locust Effect. If the pacifists are correct, then Gary Haugen is wrong. If the pacifists are correct, then the campaign that Haugen is engaged in is contrary to the will of God. If the pacifists are correct, then Haugen’s attempt to secure protection for the poor through “coercive force” runs counter to the message of the gospel.There is virtually no credible social science evidence to support the idea that violence in societies can be effectively addressed in the absence of the state exercising its monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force through law enforcement. ... Wishful thinking should not lead us to pretend that we can substitute something else for the state’s power to physically restrain and punish acts of illegal violence. ... Hunger has many exacerbating factors—but it has one primary and indispensable solution: food. One must address dysentery and food distribution problems and the cultural preference for feeding boys over girls—but at the end of the day, you are going to have to have food. Likewise with violence, one must address the social factors that increase violence and the vulnerability of poor people, but at the end of the day, you are going to need the properly exercised coercive power of the state to physically restrain violence and provide a credible deterrent to those prepared to use violence to advance their interests. (121-23)
I find that very hard to believe.