Guest Post by Fred Reed
On the Nobility of Motives
Aaaagh! Enough. I keep reading that I should Honor Our Troops. On airline flights, I am asked to applaud Our Young Men in Uniform. Why, for God’s sake? What have Our Troops done for me except cause me great embarrassment, cost money better spent on anything else, and kill millions of people that I have had no interest in killing? For this I am to thank them?
No, they don’t have noble motives. Men join the military because they need a job, because they want money for college or because they are bored or want to prove their manhood or go to exotic places and get laid. Basic training, jump school, being a tank gunner or doing nocturnal scuba insertions are much more appealing to a young man than selling fan belts at the NAPA outlet.
Patriotism? “Love of country” is an after-market add-on, good for a drink or a pat on the back at the Legion–nothing more than an expression of the pack instinct that makes men in all places and times join in groups to fight other groups. The pack instinct is why tribal warfare is continual among primitive peoples, why war, otherwise inexplicable, remains incessant between modern countries. It is why the gangs of young males in Chicago mirror military hierarchy, with territory to be expanded or defended, with leaders and insignia (e.g. black and god jackets for the Latin Kings ), with hand signs to signify identify and loyalty. It is why people join screaming mobs in political conventions, why they become wildly emotional over football teams consisting largely of convicted felons who have nothing to do with the city.
The pattern of loyalty inward to one’s pack and hostility outward toward other packs explains the peculiar morality of the military (and of most other people). A Marine colonel will be at home a good neighbor, civic-minded, honest, cut the grass and help old ladies across the street. Come a war and he will mercilessly bomb any city he is told to bomb, and after killing he doesn’t care whom on the ground, he will go to the officers’ club where there will be high-fives and war stories.
We must not notice this, or the other feral dogs will turn on us. If you say that soldiers are morally indistinguishable from Mafia hit-men, you will arouse outrage—but there is no difference. A soldier who has never heard of Vietnam or Iraq goes when ordered to kill Vietnamese and Iraqis, and duly kills them. Guido and Vito, who have never heard of Hyman Blitzschein the store-owner who is behind on his protection payments, break Hyman’s leg when ordered to. What is the difference?
Morality is always a very thin veneer on top of the deeper savagery of the pack. Militaries encourage this savagery. From Joshua onward until very recently, armies regularly put cities to the sword, and generals allowed their troops to sack and rape rewards for good service. For those unfamiliar with such things, “putting cities…” meant killing every living thing within.
A graphic description of torture and murder routine in the Thirty Years War would have most readers retching. Today this sort of thing, when exposed, is held to be in bad taste. Only the United States engages openly in torture (put “Abu Ghraib) In Google images) but others do it.
Of course, much depends on who is doing what to whom. When the Germans bombed London, the English thought it barbaric. Later, when they were bombing German cities, it was a form of heroism. The Rape of Nanjing was hideous, while the frying of Hiroshima was not. Killing everyone in a city of a hundred thousand by hand would be very bad PR, but burning them to death from above is a cause for congratulations.
An effect of the pack instinct is the suppression of cognitive dissonance. If one noticed that a woman, campaigning for sexual abstinence, was pregnant with her seventh child, one might notice the contradiction. Patriots, or the American variety anyway, cannot notice that Our Boys, and Our Girls, are committing the routine atrocities that armies normally commit. Call it cognitive indifference.
American atrocities are always Isolated Incidents. An Isolated Incident is business-as-usual that is detected by the press. Thus torture is best avoided by restricting coverage.
It is de rigueur to spank of our boys fighting to defend America and our way of life, and to speak of their sacrifices. In the Fifties this spirit was exemplified by Superman jumping out of a window, while the voice-over intoned “truth, justice, and the American way,” then thought to be related.
Actually soldiers are more sacrificed than sacrificing. Precisely how killing Afghan goat-herds protects the United States is not clear: careful students of geography have argued that Afghanistan is somewhere else. The evidence does seem to support this.
Today, the motives of wars are usually disguised so as to be palatable. It has been said that the British fought for empire, the French for la gloire de la France, the Russians to steal watches from the wounded, and the Americans for vague moral abstractions. Thus Washington fights to rid Iraq of a cruel dictator, while supporting many others as cruel; fights to instill democracy, as if anyone anywhere cared whether Afghanistan were democratic; and to protect the world from nonexistent WMD.
The dog-pack instinct is most intense in the elite outfits, SEALs and Force Recon and Special Forces, with tightly-bonded small groups—the focus of males—working together. Powerful free-floating hostility characterizes the, and patriotism gives them a cover story for doing what they would want to do anyway.
Loyalty to a small band of warriors is easily transferred to an abstraction such as country or religious faith. Witness the fervor of Moslems today, or the enthusiasm for Christianity of illiterate Crusaders in the eleventh century who knew little of Christianity and certainly didn’t follow its moral precepts. Being swept up in a Cause gives an appearance of meaning to a life otherwise devoid of such. The flags, the hurrahs, the rhythmic thump-thump-thump of hundred of boots, the solidarity—these reinforce the pack instinct, and recruiters and politicians know it.
And so a coal-miner who hates the coal company, hates suits and liberals and the rich and blacks and homosexuals and knows he is being exploited and doesn’t really like anybody at all except local friends, will discover unexpected loyalty when the Japanese bomb Pearl.
And now, let’s hear a huzzah for Our Boys.
” What have Our Troops done for me except cause me great embarrassment, cost money better spent on anything else, and kill millions of people that I have had no interest in killing?”
It is not the troops. It is the Government, politicians, and Corporate influence (greed) that should be your focus.These entities do not put their lives on the line, the troops do that, while you sit in your A/C office writing tripe.
BTW, nobody should do anything for you – each member of society should pursue their own future.
If we became a nation entirely comprised of pacifists, 300+ million Quakers, it wouldn’t mean that the world would follow suit. Men – almost always men – have been been waging war from time immemorial. The good news is that far fewer fall victim to it now than in the past. Wishing that there were no war is like women wishing it were safe to walk through a city alone at 2 AM. So we need men at the ready to defend the society against outsiders. The unfortunate fact that they seem lately to have been sent to do things that are, at best, pointless is less the fault of the soldiers than the rest of us who vote for the civilian heads of the military. I’m sure plenty of blame can be placed on some military personnel who could disobey unjust orders, etc. but overall I’m still thankful to those – brave than I – who volunteer to carry out the directives of our representative democracy, such as it is.
Those who turn their swords into plowshares will plow for those who keep their swords.
Iska…….”I’m sure plenty of blame can be placed on some military personnel who could disobey unjust orders”
I would consider those to be the real heroes, like Ed Snowden. The blame is elsewhere.
Kokoda, I was unclear. I meant that blame could be assigned to those who could have disobeyed unjust orders but didn’t. Those who disobey unjust orders are the noblest. Snowden is a hero, IMO.
Troops follow orders, they don’t give them to themselves.
If you got a gripe about what they are doing or why, take it up with the ones giving the orders.
Sallust said most people were (mentally) slaves 2000 years ago. Why is this still controversial?
The history of the state revolves entirely around warfare. The nation-state was presumably born to reign in the continuous warfare of the pre-state era, but now in the era of “democracy” people go to war for essentially no reason at all (e.g., to safeguard an oil pipeline that will fatten the bottom line of an oil company majority-owned by some royal family elsewhere.)
But the gullible masses drink the Kool-aid and send their sons and daughters off to die or whore (respectively) in “service” to those who reap the rewards.
Anyone who thinks a monopoly, tax-paid-for organization like a nation-state’s military can ever actually provide defense, especially without squandering the lives and fortunes of the slaves who man it and pay for it, is in my view a complete idiot.
Complete. Idiot.
Those who say “blame the order-giver, not the soldier who follows them” apparently see humans as not much more than obedient dogs.
Pray tell, when a man dons a uniform does he become completely absolved of moral agency?
Hint: BULLSHIT.
Why do I know? Because soldiers come home from doing evil things DAMAGED. Not every one of them, some people are born sociopaths, but NORMAL people have to be well-trained to slaughter on order.
Normal people come to regret participation in “fulfilling orders” in war. That regret clearly eats many of them from the inside out.
Mommas, don’t let your babies grow up to be cannon fodder.
I think the “applaud the troops” meme goes all the way back to the last “legitimate” war (if war can every be called legitimate), WWII. Clearly, 100’s of 1,000’s enlisted to pay the bastards back who attacked us.
Our truly evil so-called “leaders” want us to substitute that fervor for our “boys” who now enlist for reasons other than patriotism, and wind up doing the bidding of multi-national corporations. As Smedley Butler famously stated “War is a racket”.
I’d like to see interviews with veterans of Iraq I & II when the 28 pages of the Senate 9/11 report are de-redacted and when they learn it was Saudi Arabia who facilitated 9/11. My guess is many would refuse to believe it.
Eusociality E.O. wiLson. Humans much like ants and bees crossed a threshold that group evolution takes as much precedence as genetic inheritance.
The gene needs the group to survive in competition with other groups and genes.
There will always be competition between groups for resources and ideas.
As he often does, Fred says what needs to be said.
It’s possible to have a military with relatively good moral groundings – Switzerland comes to mind – but it is not compatible with empire.
Empire building or setting off to plant democracy where there is none are quests that can border on fools errands.
However, when it comes to payback, action-reaction, cause-effect comes into play. So call it what you will, your sorry ass America be bad tripe does not sit will with this patriot. You forget that patriotism is about faith in the idea of America and not to a President or a government. Freedom is what America is about and it is being lost to the greed and corruption in all fields of endeavor in this once great country. Ignorant voters, corrupt politicians, greedy business leaders, who go unchecked by what should be a good judicial system of laws has been perverted by lawyers and lobbyists and money. And socialists have taken advantage of the good heartedness of the people to live and let live and like termites have been busy destroying the foundations of the house while people live their daily lives. They are a scourge and need to be eliminated. We know who they are and where they are, we only need to motivation to take action and clean house.
Persnickety: Switzerland? Really? Why is it that when someone brings up a country with armed citizens that is non-violent, they bring up Switzerland (not post WWI)? The Swiss while having some industries of note, have not done anything militarily except act as financial brokers between warring parties thereby making money off both winners and losers. Since the Templars, their financial system has been protected and they “sit out” the tough ones and only care about making money off the madness around them. So don’t give me any of this “How great Switzerland is” BS!
Those of you who are suggesting that it’s not the troops, it’s the government, fail to realize that the troops ARE government. Not only that, without the troops (and cops), the politicians would be nothing but empty bags of hot air. All the great atrocities of history were carried out by those following orders.
” All the great atrocities of history were carried out by those following orders.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. If there is to be any hope for humanity the regular troops and police on the front lines need to tell the order givers to eat shit or better yet execute them.
I’m with DC on this. You and only you are morally responsible for your own actions and at the Nuremberg trials the allies held the Nazis legally responsible for barbaric actions against humanity, dismissing the defense of “just following orders” as invalid.,even as their own crimes of mass genocidal went unpunished . To the victor goes the rule of law or the right of bastardization thereof.
Fred never said he was against defense of one’s nation, just agasint foreign wars for the sake of Empire , of which WWII was definitely one.
Aguila1952 -” Freedom is what America is about and it is being lost to the greed and corruption in all fields of endeavor in this once great country.”
Since when?Before 1861, maybe?
The North’s Southern Cash Cow
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2013/June/37/6/magazine/article/12309/
The tariff was the principal cause of the Civil War. It was the reason the South seceded—and the reason the North waged a war against the South’s secession.
It is because of the American System that the secession of the Southern states posed an existential threat to the Northern states. Without the revenue from Southern exports and the tariffs on Southern imports, a union comprising the Northern states would have constituted what today is termed a failed state. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Gen. Winfield Scott, commanding general of the U.S. Army, opined that, without the South, the North would dissolve into three separate republics: West Coast, Midwest, and East Coast. Initially, it appeared likely the North would, in fact, shatter into four independent countries. Democratic Congressman Daniel Sickles and DeBow’s Review, among others, urged New York City to secede from New York state and become “the Republic of New York,” a city state that would flourish through free trade.
Northern newspapers reflected this fear. In an editorial on November 20, 1860, Cleveland’s Daily National Democrat declared,
The entire amount, in dollars and cents, of produce and of manufactured articles exported to foreign countries from the United States for the year ending June, 1858, was $293,758,279, of which amount the raw cotton exported alone amounted to $131,386,661 . . . taking the estimate of the cotton used [in the] North . . . and adding it to the worth of the cotton sent abroad, and we have over one hundred and fifty-eight million dollars[’] worth of cotton as the amount furnished by the South. Deduct from the exports the silver and gold and the foreign goods exported, and the cotton crop of the South alone exported exceeds the other entire export of the United States, and when to this we add the hemp and Naval stores, sugar, rice, and tobacco, produced alone in the Southern States, we have near two-thirds of the value entire of exports from the South. Let the States of the South separate, and the cotton, the rice, hemp, sugar and tobacco, now consumed in the Northern States must be purchased [from the] South, subject to a Tariff duty, greatly enhancing their cost. The cotton factories of New England now, by getting their raw cotton duty free, are enabled to contend with the English in the markets of their own Provinces, and in other parts of the world. A separation would take from us this advantage, and it would take from the vessels owned by the North the carrying trade of the South, now mostly monopolised by them.
I’ll tell you what, Mr. Reed, as soon as you have the guts to join and spend 4 years in the Marine Corps as a grunt, if you get out and still feel you deserve no public honor, I’ll be one of the first to respect your opinion. Until then, keep it to yourself.
Terry P. Rizzuti , now that you’ve revealed yourself as a total idiot and placed your blind ignorance on public display , maybe you should follow the link to Fred Reed’s page and learn little about his military background in both soldier and civilian capacity and then skulk away like the vapid jingoist you are.
“I’ll tell you what, Mr. Reed, as soon as you have the guts to join and spend 4 years in the Marine Corps as a grunt, …………. ” ———— Terry P. Rizzuti
Hey, Terry! Are you man enough to apologize?
From Fred’s biography; —
“I enlisted in the Marines, in the belief that it would be more interesting than stirring unpleasant glops in laboratories and pulling apart innocent frogs. It certainly was. On returning from Vietnam with a lot of stories, as well as a Purple Heart and more shrapnel in my eyes than I really wanted, I graduated from Hampden-Sydney with lousy grades and a bachelor-of-science degree with a major in history and a minor in computers. Really. My GREs were in the 99th percentile.”
here —> http://www.fredoneverything.net/biography.shtml
Oops, my bad. I should have done more homework. I’m sorry, Mr. Reed. You have my support of your opinion regarding honoring our troops.
Terry
Not many own up to their errors. You did. Kudos to you.
Bravo!!
I reacted too quickly, mostly because I’m seeing a return to the 60’s in that folks get frustrated with the bad decisions of our politicians and then start blaming the troops for failed policies. I’m seeing more and more “bash the troops” articles, and I think that’s wrong. Our troops, specifically the ones below the rank of O4, are among the few of our citizens that actually serve our country rather than self-serve. They give something, they contribute, rather than simply take and reap the benefits of living here. Although I too am very concerned and disturbed by current events, when I read Mr. Reed’s article I made the mistake of assuming he had no military background. I should have researched that before jumping into this discussion.
Supporting the troops only dupes more and more young men and women to sacrifice their lives and autonomy so their corporate overlords can generate more profit and grow the tyranny of government. We should make it shameful to be a US government soldier; we should be praising those who join local militias and actually protect our communities. If we continually praise troops, American warmongering and jingoism will never end.
I disagree, Mr. Webb. Your way would take us to a warlord society, same as now except on a much smaller scale, and much closer to home. I do however think it would be good if our troops were only used for defense.
Terry,
In point of fact, Militia’s – both organized (“well-regulated”) and unorganized (every able-bodied man between the ages of 16-60) are formally codified in the BOR and US Code – they are what we used from 1789 until the Nasty Guard was formed in direct response to opposition to the totalitarian Federalists in 1861-1865.
The Feds didn’t want folks getting uppity again and start to think that maybe it might be a better idea to go their own way and tell the Feds to go fuck themselves.
So, they sold the States and respective Commonwealths a bill of goods via bribery – you can stop paying for your respective militia’s and let us pay for them, but they have to be folded into the “National Guard”… oh, sure, they’ll still be the same State troops you can use for whatever, but we’ll be the ones paying the bills… ain’t that nice?
Except it’s a fucking fraud.
Anyone who thinks that the National Guard – trained by the Feds, equipped by the Feds, fed by the Feds, clothed by the Feds, armed by the Feds, take their orders from the Feds, supplied by the Feds and draw their paychecks from the Treasury Department – are anything close to a “Militia” – or even “State” troops – is a witless, window-licking retard.
Militia’s are the way things are supposed to be, as per the Framers. If your way of reasoning were valid, the Militia/warlord thing would have happened in the 100+ years after the formation of These United States. It didn’t. And it won’t.
Your way of thinking reflects a remarkable distrust of the citizenry – that they are incapable of policing themselves and/or forming militarily useful units. The Federal indoctrination is so strong with you, you are literally incapable of imagining anything other than a strong central government holding sway over the citizenry via their alleged monopoly on sanctioned violence…
Militia’s – genuine “State” troops – owe their allegiance to their respective States and Commonwealths, NOT the Feds. They were meant to be a check on Federal power, since the States could check the Federal’s military power with equal power…
Which brings us to today – don’t make me get into folks having genuine worries and concerns about what will happen in the future with a totalitarian Federal government… you know it to be true. If we still had State Militia’s – the genuine article – we’d at least have something to check them with instead of an unorganized grabasstic clusterfuck of scattered citizens…
To me, militaries/militias are little different from football teams. You can practice and practice and practice but never know how good you are until you play another team. I’d rather have a federal military playing some other nation’s military than have a local militia playing some other local militia. We can’t compare America today with America in the early 1900’s. We’re far too contentious as a society today. We’re fighting over every little thing. Sometimes it’s religion, sometimes politics, sometimes sexual preference, sometimes what we say on social media, whatever, ad nauseum. If we became a country made up of militias again, it wouldn’t take long before our political boundaries shrank from states, to counties, to towns, to parts of towns, to families. We’d become a nation of gangs.
To me, militaries/militias are little different from football teams. You can practice and practice and practice but never know how good you are until you play another team.
The US military is outstanding at fighting conventional war. “Here’s the line. We have to push it that way.” Unconventional warfare, especially 4G warfare? Not so much. (See: Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc). In fact, our track record at fighting unconventional warfare – 4G or otherwise – is so shitty we haven’t “won” a war since 1945 (The Korean War being a tie).
Oh sure, we’ve killed the shit out of illiterate goat herds and smart-bombed/droned a bunch of tents and weddings and shit, but all we’ve succeeded in doing is getting a bunch of our guys killed and maimed and breathtaking numbers of the “enemy” killed… as well as spent literally mountains of treasure doing so and we’ve not only accomplished fuck-all, but we’ve managed to make things worse… We haven’t “won” shit – they’re still there, their will unbroken and stronger than ever, more-so because they’re using our own shit!!
Now we have to spend yet more mountains of treasure flying around blowing up our own shit….
Track record since 1945? Historically, not awesome.
I’d rather have a federal military playing some other nation’s military than have a local militia playing some other local militia.
Fair enough. Why? I mean, other than the false premise that the State militia’s won’t agree to go along with the Feds’ little war against some more illiterate goatherds and instead choose to pick on their neighboring State? The militia’s went along in 1812, 1861-65, the Philippines, Spanish-American War, etc… but all of a sudden we can’t trust them to do that anymore…
You’re still stuck in this “IT’S GONNA BE SARAJEVO!!!” mode of thinking, when I have already proven that to be wrong. You keep saying “local militia” and using it as a pejorative when I – and Mr. Webb – have been talking about State Militia, as per the supreme law of the land. You’re not even arguing the right point.
We can’t compare America today with America in the early 1900’s. We’re far too contentious as a society today. We’re fighting over every little thing. Sometimes it’s religion, sometimes politics, sometimes sexual preference, sometimes what we say on social media, whatever, ad nauseum.
Soooo, what? We were all sitting around smoking shit and grooving out before “society today”?
Uh huh… we’ve always been bitching and squabbling amongst our selves… Since Day 1. Sometimes it gets heated (see: 1861-65). The only reason you’re citing it as some sort of mythical reason to not have State Militias is because it’s being shoved in your face more, thanks to instantaneous media… Bad News at your fingertips every day, instantly, all day if you want… We’ve always had Bad News… you’re just noticing it more.
Times change. People don’t.
Which means if they were valid before, then they’re valid now.
If we became a country made up of militias again, it wouldn’t take long before our political boundaries shrank from states, to counties, to towns, to parts of towns, to families. We’d become a nation of gangs.
Bullshit.
You don’t know that. It is your opinion. And not a very good one.
Whereas my opinion is based on US history from Day 1 up until the formation of the Nasty Guard. We’ve already proven the system works. Not perfect, but it works. You just can’t face the idea of States having their own military formations to check Federal power, hence the bed-wetting “gang” nonsense you’re spewing…
And as an afterthought, I cannot believe I missed this gem of yours:
Our troops, specifically the ones below the rank of O4, are among the few of our citizens that actually serve our country rather than self-serve.
What a load of shit.
Lower ranking EM’s only desire one thing – to please their superiors enough to gain promotion or some shiny bauble on their uniform. They swear allegiance to the Constitution – support and defend, enemies foreign and domestic, etc – but they don’t know what the Constitution fucking is… 1 in 100 could tell you what the Bill of Rights is. 1 in a 1000 can quote an Amendment – ANY Amendment – verbatim and not the bullshit shorthand folks repeat…
They’re taught that they have a moral obligation to disobey orders that are unlawful, illegal or immoral, but they are not told what those unlawful, illegal and immoral orders might be! Courage on the battlefield is common. Moral courage is so fantastically rare, it might as well be a fucking Unicorn. To have the moral courage to stand up against your Command structure because you recognize the bullshit and have the courage of your convictions, knowing it’s a career-ending move, that you will be Courts-Martialled and your career will still be over, even if you are exonerated…
I find it very telling that high-ranking officers and NCO’s only find their “courage” when they’re short and looking at retirement in a couple months… then they’re almost untouchable, so they don’t give a fuck anymore… most are allowed to retire out, unless you really make a stink – like that Green Beanie in the news recently. They cancelled his fucking retirement so they could Courts Martial him because he blew the whistle on Obammy and showed him to be the fucking piece of shit he is by paying “terrorists” off so we could get back an even bigger piece of shit – that Bergdahl motherfucker…
They’re gonna crucify that guy… moral courage should be cherished, cultured, encouraged… instead they’re gonna nail him to a cross as an example for anyone who might be thinking of saying something…
The ONLY ones I have any faith in are crusty old jaded NCO’s who know the deal and flat out don’t give two fucks anymore… everyone else is a shameless careerist willing to Blue Falcon the next guy to get ahead…
You said it yourself: times change, people don’t. It’s the nature of the beast, I think you’re saying, so ssuming that’s true, then since we’ve been killing each other like forever, we’re gonna keep doing that whether we have a federal military or state militias. I’ll give you that it would take more than a president’s sayso to get us into war with another nation, but I disagree that state militias wouldn’t eventually be battling it out over some issue or other, whether it be water rights, cross-border pollution, export tariffs, or what have you.
Look, Billy (if I may), much of what you say about the evolution (and abuse) of our military is true, and I suspect that if we were sitting on some deck enjoying good scotch and seegars, we’d find we agree more than disagree.
Look, Billy (if I may), much of what you say about the evolution (and abuse) of our military is true, and I suspect that if we were sitting on some deck enjoying good scotch and seegars, we’d find we agree more than disagree.
Make it bourbon… or even good old corn likker – and you’re on.
Don’t mind me… I’m just one of those crusty old ex-NCO’s that don’t give two fucks anymore… I might be an abrasive motherfucker sometimes – even abusive. But I won’t lie to you. Ever.
Heh… you’ve lost your faith in people. I’ve lost my faith in the Feds.
Sucks being an apostate… but there it is..
Not sure I could handle corn likker anymore, but I do like good bourbon. As for crusty old NCO’s, I got out an E-5 and as soon as my four years were up. Literally sped out the gate at Camp Lejeune. And a good thing, too. Found out later that if I’d stayed in, they were gonna make me a drill instructor. How sad that would have been, preparing kids to follow in my sorry footsteps. I know, I know, I defend our troops now, but back then I cursed them.
Apostate? Maybe you’re right that I’ve lost faith in people, too, but I have zero faith in the Feds. In fact, I’ve been an independent since old enough to vote. Now I’ve taken it to a new level and have vowed to never vote democrat or republican again. That didn’t leave me much choice in the last election. Had to abstain mostly, which sucks.
You haven’t taken it to the next level Terry. Taking it to the next level would be recognizing that authoritarian rule, no matter if it comes from a Republican, Democrat, or independent, is morally wrong. If you vote, you are supporting authoritarian rule and are an enemy of freedom.
Chris
Chris, he’s come far. To shake off the programming and indoctrination and make it this far? Shows he’s got more on the ball than most… It took me 10 years to get where he got in 4 or 5. We each have to walk our own path and progress on our own – nobody can make us see it. We have to find it for ourselves. Some make the jump. Most don’t. My own father – a Korean war vet – tried to tell me, back when I was young. I had to find out on my own that he was right. I had the remarkable good fortune to be able to apologize to him and vindicate him before he passed on…
At least he’s made some progress re: voting. He just hasn’t caught on that voting doesn’t matter. It’s a smoke screen – the illusion that you actually have some say in what happens. And we don’t. Folks keep voting in the same douchebags – or even different douchebags – thinking shit will “change”… and it never does. They keep voting for themselves and their cronies and to hell with us…
He hasn’t realized we live in an oligarchy yet, and that voting is worse than useless because people still think it matters… give him time… he’ll figure it out.
Billy, very true what you said, but there are lots who never make that final jump to freedom without a bit of a nudge.
Totally abstaining to me is like quitting — not gonna happen, not in my nature. I figure if no one voted democrat or republican for the next 12 years we’d get their attention, that govt is controlled by the people. Put another way, if we were to all vote out every incumbent for 12 straight years, things would have to change, and if they didn’t, then it’s revolution time but never abstention time.
Terry & CW not sure how I missed this particular thread but welcome to monkey cage here at TBP. I hope you stick around and post more. It can get intense when the feces takes wing but don’t let that keep you away.
Terry, your response is exactly what I’m getting at. The government never has and never will be controlled by “the people”. It’s sole purpose is to support monied special interests. Think about this for a sec – how can an institution that makes, interprets, and enforces the law (and the law is nothing but the violent control of people) ever be “by the people, for the people”, never mind be limited? We are the servants, not the other way around. Government, ALL government, is nothing but a control mechanism. There are ways to organize society without having to resort to authoritarian rule. There is a really terrific book you should read – “The Problem Of Political Authority” by Michael Huemer.
Look, I’m not so ignorant that I don’t see govt as a problem, a big problem. BUT, I fought in a war in the 60’s and got a close up look at what happens when you turn people loose without govt — you get people making stupid decisions, immoral decisions, and eventually you get chaos. I wrote a book about it. I don’t wanna live in a world of no govt. You can, but I’ll thank you to leave me out.
Who was turned loose without government? I thought you were fighting communists. And trust me, if I could live without government, I would, but the core problem of government is that it is not voluntary. YOU are the one who is using violence to impose your will upon me, not me upon on you.
We were turned loose on squad sized patrols, 6 to 12 guys walking around in the boonies looking for the enemy. Basically we were bait dangled out there to make contact so larger units could come to the rescue. It rarely worked that way.
I don’t even know where to start with this. Like I said, I wrote a book about it. It only takes the loss of a few friends before you’re no longer fighting for some ideal like democracy or whatever. You’re fighting to stay alive, and fighting to help your friends stay alive. Eventually fear and anger take over, and you make stupid decisions, immoral decisions, and from that comes the potential for chaos — atrocities for example, killing of innocent civilians.
To think that you can have a society (and we are social animals) without govt is naive hope for some kind of utopia. Sure, one or two people can live off in the woods somewhere and survive just fine without govt. But 10, 20, 100? No way. Eventually someone or some gang takes charge, whether through logic or intimidation or violence, and that’s govt. Even families are governed, usually by the mom or dad or both. What happens when they’re not? Usually out-of-control kids.
Like I said, you can live in a world without govt, but leave me out.
Who said anything about living in the woods? And your argument against not having government is actually an argument against government. If it wasn’t for government, you wouldn’t have been in the jungle in the first place. Just so you know, I used to think just like you, but when I got into political debates, I kept running into inconsistencies in my argument, and by working out those inconsistencies is what led me to anarcho-capitalism. I’ve read a ton on it and spend an awful lot of time (too much time probably) thinking about it, and all of your fears simply aren’t realistic.
Also, you think that people aren’t capable of ruling themselves but you think they are capable of choosing someone to rule them? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. And anarchism is not utopian, it is realism. What’s utopian is thinking that a centralized authority will remain benevolent when that institution is the one who makes, interprets, and enforces the laws. Any system that *requires* the right people to be in power is destined for tyranny.
Please, read the book I mentioned above. It’s a great starter book and explains all of this so much better than I can.
I don’t need another book to explain to me why and how govt is bad. I already know and agree with that. I just see govt as inevitable and the lesser of two evils. When you’ve lived the laws of the jungle, write your own book and then recommend that one to me, and I promise to read it.
The first part of the book deals with the illegitimacy of authority but the second part deals with how ‘national’ defense, private policing, etc work. It’s about the laws of the societal jungle, if you will.