Most "veterans" probably didn't know any better and really thought that by signing up, or cooperating with their enslavement during the era of the "draft", they were doing the right thing. Of course, they were NOT- they were being used to advance the interests of a group of insane monsters who want to control the world- but few people are aware enough to realize that.
The constant barrage of "Thank you for your service" and "We thank our veterans" is enough to make me ill. There has been no "service" and I have no ownership interest in any "veterans".
People working for a mass-murdering psychopath are not to be thanked, even if they thought they were doing good. Naive intentions may matter, but the end results are extremely important, too.
The truth is the US government is the American's worst nightmare. The greatest threat America has ever faced. And the only real danger to your liberty and mine.
Want me to think you, Mr. and Ms. Military? Then walk away from your "job" and arrest your employer (the one who writes your checks, not the person the money backing the checks was stolen from). And then, when out of the clutches of the federal domestic enemies, please don't join the domestic enemies of the standing army that occupies America. We were warned about them in no uncertain terms.
Then I could honestly, without any hypocrisy or irony, say "Thank you for protecting liberty". You would then have served with honor.
.
Well said.
ReplyDeletecouldn't agree more. this is a very touchy subject for me, because half of my family has or is serving now, and whenever i voice my opinion, my lynching seems likely.
ReplyDeletethe think that ignites the puke reflex in me the most is how the blind masses say shit like "thank you for protecting our freedom" and "thank you for serving the greatest nation on earth".
WHAT?!?!?
i don't know how stealing money from working class folks then using it to wage war on countries that were never a threat to us in the first place constitutes such thanksgiving, but i am clearly in the minority.
Yet, when I ask if you would want to have a choice which government organization received your taxes...you continue to respond that you find little value in the concept.
ReplyDeleteAs a veteran of Afghanistan, given a choice, I would allocate a portion of my taxes to our efforts over there. Of course...there are plenty of veterans that would not choose to allocate their taxes to the Department of Defense.
On the Ron Paul forum a fervent supporter of self-ownership had this to say about pragmatarianism..."Being allowed to choose my rapist IN NO WAY renders the fact that I'm to be raped more tolerable."
I was just curious whether or not you agreed with his statement...?
Taxation is still theft. If it is voluntary, and that means no penalty for non-payment, then it isn't "taxation", and I don't care who you send your money to. It is yours and how you spend it is not my concern (until you spend it to finance the thieves who are targeting me- then you are guilty, too).
ReplyDeleteI will not voluntarily send a cent to the mafia, no matter what you call them. If the mafia takes my money under threat of harm ("Gee, what a nice house. I'd sure hate for something to happen to it...") then to pretend it makes things "better" if I can send the money directly to their branch that will shake down a different neighborhood (when those in the other neighborhood are probably funding my extortionists with their stolen funds), is still wrong. It's a vicious, insane cycle.
I think you know I would agree with the statement. Taxation is theft. Period. It doesn't make it ethical theft to be allowed to choose which of the thieves get to spent the stolen money. Receiving stolen property, when you know where it came from, is just as bad as being the one robbing widows and orphans at gunpoint.
Personally...even though I think rape is wrong...I would still want to have the choice who raped me. Even though I think theft is wrong...I would still want to have a choice who stole my money.
ReplyDeleteI would choose that Mother Teresa stole my taxes rather than some mob boss. I would rather be raped by Mother Teresa than be raped by some mob boss. More choice equals less coercion. It doesn't make sense to say that it's either all coercion or no coercion.
Less evil is always better than more evil. Therefore, an argument for less evil is in no way an argument for evil.
So, think about this a minute. What you are saying is that you would tell your daughter (or mine): "Hey, you're gonna get raped no matter what, so decide who it's gonna be"? No thanks. I'll tell my daughter (or yours) that someone may try to rape her, but if so she is justified in resisting in whatever way she can, including blowing his brains all over the county. That doesn't mean her resistance will necessarily prevail, but I'm not going to be a party to the rape by telling her to lie there and take it.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty naive. By your own reckoning, there are mass-murdering psychopaths out there. So, therefore, common sense dictates that sometimes military force is necessary to stop those mass murdering psychopaths.
ReplyDeleteThere is a such thing as just war and even most libertarians recognize the need for the use of defensive force.
To paraphrase Ayn Rand, for whom I usually have little use, I think that you are trying very hard to be the smartest person in the room. Why?
ReplyDeleteYou argument makes little sense. For forcible sexual violation to take place, the victim can-by definition-not have any choice.
If you are trying to suggest that if rape is inevitable, then-as expressed by a former Texas governor-you might as well enjoy it, or at least avoid injury by not resisting, then your case has some merit.
You are not suggesting that from what I can tell. Instead you are saying that by not resisting, the act of rape itself becomes less heinous. Because she was not beaten to death or rendered infertile after enraging her assailant by resisting- the rapist is "less evil." This is what you are saying, are you aware of that?
On the notion of evil by degree. Where do you get this idea that there is such a thing as more or less evil? I done some fairly broad theological reading, and from my understanding the concept of evil is usually presented as an absolute. Usually this is because it is considered a balance between an absolute good.
I frankly question the usefulness of either term, but in any event the statement that "Therefore, an argument for less evil is in no way an argument for evil." is-and I am trying to be generous-gibberish. If you have some insight other than mine into the nature of evil-please provide a source.
Sin, on the other hand, is indeed measured, since it is not a metaphysical concept, but rather a moral(and therefore, by the way, totally subjective)determination of the actions of human beings. Usually rape is considered a immoral act, theft is also in most modern societies(unless it is conducted by organized groups). I have read no-where, other than by you, a suggestion that either of these is somehow mitigated by being able to- al la Ghost-busters-choose the perpetrator. The issue is the robbery or the rape-not if the rapists let you choose which of the gang goes first. Or, to get back to your earlier point-where the spoils of theft wind up. Why do you think that such a choice would be beneficial? Are you seriously suggesting that you would have some real control over the thieves?
Unless it is to avoid personal harm, which as I've explained does NOT lessen the culpability of the perpetrators, I simply have no idea what you are writing about.
Are you basing this on the 80's comedy, or do you have some deeper philosophical reference-if so, do share.
Defensive force, yes. What you are supporting is not defensive force. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
ReplyDeleteUsing one mass-murdering psychopath (or an army of them) to combat another supposed mass-murdering psychopath who is not an actual threat to anyone I know (as long as they don't go into the vicinity of that mass-murdering psychopath) is crazy. To use stolen funds to pay for the "adventure" is evil.
I have no problem with mercenaries paying their own way or getting voluntary donations to travel to other countries and kill other murderous psychopaths in defense of the innocent (but even one innocent death or innocent person's damaged property should be grounds for high restitution by the aggressor and all who supported his "adventure"). But to pretend that a government is the best "organization" to decide who needs to be killed, and to be responsible for stealing the money to accomplish that killing, is not a "libertarian" way. It is pure statism, through and through.
Mr. Lucente,
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time that the US Military was engaged in a "Just war?"
Kent and Mike, for your arguments to work we'd have to assume that every single thing the government does is equally evil. If I told my girlfriend she was going to get raped but she could decide who raped her...she'd jump up and down and scream "Joseph Gordon-Levitt!!!". He certainly wouldn't be my first choice but I'd certainly want to have the freedom to choose him over Christopher Walken.
ReplyDeleteThe government has a million different functions...what might be an ethical function for me might be an unethical function for you. I know you guys can't possibly think that every function of government is equally unethical...which is why I'm advocating for a system that would give you the freedom to choose between the lesser of evils.
Clearly you don't think coercion is ethical which is why in a pragmatarian system you would have the freedom not to allocate any of your taxes to the IRS, the police, the courts and the jails. This freedom would not in any way go against your principles.
Xerographica- You go right ahead and ask your girlfriend that question. Sex does not equal rape does not equal sex. If she consents to sex with that actor, it is not rape.
ReplyDeleteYes, it would be against my principles. Not just for me, but for anyone else who desired to keep their own property. I am not opposed to rape only if I am the victim.
I have a lot less problem giving my own money (if I could actually afford the expense) away than to telling someone else they "must" give theirs away- the amount of the theft is not open to debate, only the recipient is.
It is unethical for government to do anything; even the most benign act... or at least an act that would be benign if it were done voluntarily and without being paid for through theft.
Xerographica- I don't have any problem with you funding any function of The State you want. Be my guest. And take responsibility for what your funding causes. My problem is that you are willing to use force (and that's the only way to impose your plan) on people like me who want no part of it. Get rid of that aspect and I'd support your plan, even as I opt out.
ReplyDelete