Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Where do people get the idea that it is honorable to fight in a war?

Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 298 Replies | 17 Followers

Top 200 Contributor
457 Posts
Points 14,505
SilentXtarian posted on Mon, Jul 20 2009 1:11 PM

As I've mentioned before in another thread I've been studying history for a while now.  I can't figure out where people get this idea that it is honorable to fight in a war.  In fact I've pretty my view on war is almost completely a pacifist one.  I do not feel that wars of aggression need to be fought.  Nations need not be invaded by one another.  Wars of imperialist conquest are just simply wrong and there are better methods of uniting a region rather than just war.  I feel that the only wars that are really justified in history are revolutionary wars, or, rebellions.  I don't think even those need to happen.  I feel that revolutionary wars happen only because an imperial power is somewhere they aren't supposed to be, so, they pay the consequences.  Other than that- wars are just wrong- unless you love fighting for the state or being some political pawn out there.  I'd like to get some libertarian views on this.  I don't know why people feel that it is honorable to fightin a war.  Unless you really liked empire building I don't see what you would find honorable in fighting a war.

  • | Post Points: 305

All Replies

Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,850 Posts
Points 85,810

wilderness:
I've read up on some Japanese history and culture, but you definitely seem to bring this from a greater memory/knowledge than I.Yes  Let me know if this is correct from what I remember.  Didn't this start with the Meiji Restoration and then this set-up an easier slam dunk for the military to take over in time?

The Japanese government has always tried to sustain a military like culture since the age of the Shogunate. They made edicts on peasants being unable to travel or at the very least they needed to announce their presence at the local buddhist temple [ this was to keep track of them ]. The local lords needed to practice alternative attendence in the city of Edo [ Tokyo ] in which their family was held hostage while they spent 1-2 years in the city and 3 years back in their homeland running it. This costed the lords a great deal of money for they have to sustain two households of wealth plus constantly travel back and forth. Anyways when the Meiji period came around there was actually a vast liberalization of the Japanese culture which embraced western culture [ much like 1920's Japan ] however, there were a few elements within the government who felt they were growing to love the west too much and losing their essence. Their 'Japanese-ness' and so during the late 19th century there was a curtailing of such liberalization. This reactionist traditional view is much like the one seen in the 1930's except people were more feverent due to the depression which happened in 1927 for the Japanese. During the Meiji period, a public education system was also setup for individuals who were not nobility so [ and this is strange ] the more educated the individuals were the more susceptable they were to newspaper and radio propaganda. It is almost like ignorance is bliss. In a sense their military imperialism did start during the Meiji period with the Sino-Japanese war and the Russo-Japanese War. Actually interestingly enough the Russo-Japanese war is the first war that a Western nation lost to an Eastern one. The Russians were quite embrassed. The imperialism continued with the annex of Korea in 1910, WWI with Port Arthur [ the Japanese had to give it back which pissed them off ], the Mukden incident in 1931, and the Marco Polo Bridge incident in 1937 which started the war with China. The Japanese like calling things 'incidents'

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
1,879 Posts
Points 29,735

Josh Dennis:
Most people are not aware of the choice of  being state run or being free or of any of the ideals that come with that.

Nonsense. Soldiers are very aware of the ideological differences between themselves and those they kill, that's why they are killing them!

When Gandhi was being harrassed for wanting to be free of the British Empire, the British soldiers were doing it because they had never been exposed to the ideas they were actively trying to stamp out? I wonder why.

Peace

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
80 Posts
Points 1,385

Would the Swiss populace in the late 1930's be considered soldiers? If Germany invaded would they be called mass murderers? Anyone?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
238 Posts
Points 3,960
Cork replied on Fri, Aug 14 2009 9:13 PM

Even my (un-P.C.) conservative Republican friends think joining the military is stupid.  They'll join me when I mock the troops.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
1,879 Posts
Points 29,735

Curius Dentatus:

Would the Swiss populace in the late 1930's be considered soldiers? If Germany invaded would they be called mass murderers? Anyone?

Interesting that you chose the Swiss over all the countries that actually were invaded by Germany. Just further proof that the only good combatant is a non-combatant?

But if Germany had invaded Switzerland, they would have been a slave army killing and dying in order to preserve a state; just like the Poles and Russian.

Peace

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
80 Posts
Points 1,385

JonBostwick:

Interesting that you chose the Swiss over all the countries that actually were invaded by Germany. Just further proof that the only good combatant is a non-combatant?

There's a reason why Germany didn't invade the Switzerland which rebuts the claim that the best defense is the best offense (I hope you didn't skimmed this essential part of history)? My question wasn't about being a "good combatant" The question is "Could they be considered soldiers." Since a cowardly individual here started to infer that any individual who practices the art of combat [soldier] (including non-Government) is automatically a psychotic baby-killer. The art of combat is a field of specialty, just like any other field, which is an essential part for human survival, whether you like it or not. Humans don't magically become trained soldiers the next day in a impending crises.

JonBostwick:

But if Germany had invaded Switzerland, they would have been a slave army killing and dying in order to preserve a state; just like the Poles and Russian.


So if Switzerland was an Anarcho-Capitalist country instead of a Republic and Germany attacked your telling me they should just bend-over and give up their freedoms! 1940's Switzerland is the closet "resemblance" in human history on how Proto-Anarchistic country would've of acted. I said resemblance not exactly, remember that.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,538 Posts
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Sun, Aug 30 2009 12:01 AM
Since a cowardly individual here started to infer that any individual who practices the art of combat [soldier] (including non-Government) is automatically a psychotic baby-killer.
Might you be talking about me ? I'd bet two cents, judging by your language and ideas, that you belong to the psychotic baby-killer club, sorry! I mean, you are honorable master of the art of 'defense'...

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,850 Posts
Points 85,810

Curius Dentatus:
Since a cowardly individual here started to infer that any individual who practices the art of combat [soldier] (including non-Government) is automatically a psychotic baby-killer.

The profession of a soldier is that of a killer. There is no disputing that. Have there been baby-killing soldiers in the past? Most certainly. Does this apply to all soldiers? Absolutely not, yet they are still trained to kill and when a soldier is carrying out there task that is their objective [ to kill ]. There is nothing glorious about martial values. To quote Bastiat on the Romans who were perhaps the most militant peoples of the world:

Bastiat:

What was [Roman] patriotism? Hatred of foreigners, the destruction of all civilization, the stifling of all progress, the scourging of the world with fire and sword, the chaining of women, children, and old men to triumphal chariots – this was glory, this was virtue. … The lesson has not been lost; and it is from Rome undoubtedly that this adage comes to us … one nation’s loss is another nation’s gain – an adage that still governs the world. To acquire an idea of Roman morality, imagine in the heart of Paris an organization of men who hate to work, determined to satisfy their wants by deceit and force, and consequently at war with society. Doubtless a certain moral code and even some solid virtues will soon manifest themselves in such an organization. Courage, perseverance, self-control, prudence, discipline, constancy in misfortune, deep secrecy, punctilio, devotion to the community – such undoubtedly will be the virtues that necessity and prevailing opinion would develop among these brigands; such were those of the buccaneers; such were those of the Romans. It may be said that, in regard to the latter, the grandeur of their enterprise and the immensity of their success has thrown so glorious a veil over their crimes as to transform them into virtues. And this is precisely why that school is so pernicious. It is not abject vice, it is vice crowned with splendor, that seduces men’s souls. (“Academic Degrees and Socialism.”)


'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
414 Posts
Points 5,255
Answered (Not Verified) Saan replied on Sun, Aug 30 2009 9:58 AM
Suggested by liberty student

@Josh

I bought the neo-con fascist statist line before too.  It is never honorable to fight for the state. Once you pull the trigger you will always be a murderer.  There is no going back.  You will not be prosecuted, you may even be hailed as a righteous hero.  It is all a lie. 

Your training may or may not save in the event you make contact, close with, and destroy the "enemy."  If you survive the scar on your conscience will always be there. You will have to live with the fact you are a Murderer.  Even if you never see combat this scar will show its ugly face.

After this you will have three options.   Justification, suicide, or admission.

I pulled the trigger.  I came home.  It was long journey.  I can now only ask for forgiveness. 

You seem to grasp the NAP, and have admitted yourself that the American Gunverment oppresses and kills innocents.  If you join with this understanding; you have chosen the option of justification.  This will lead to homicide and quite possibly suicide.  Don't do it.  If you are truly a warrior, then either join or form a militia that adheres to the non-aggression principle. 

All state military organizations create murderers.  Some of us warriors have woken and are now asking forgiveness.  Don't be one of us.  We shouldn't be celebrated. 

as an aside.  Most soldiers who wake up to what they have become put a bullet in their head.  Those who don't cry for the rest of their lives.

Is that what you want?  Perhaps you will never wake up.

 Criminals, there ought to be a law.

Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more.   Bon Scott.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
574 Posts
Points 9,305
Natalie replied on Mon, Aug 31 2009 10:25 PM

I don't know, but at this point I wouldn't mind if someone nuked Washington, D.C. Angry

If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.

J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
574 Posts
Points 9,305

A quote from the master:

All warfare is based primarily on the deception of an enemy. Fighting on a battlefield is the most primitive way of making war. There is no art higher than to destroy your enemy without a fight—by SUBVERTING anything of value in the enemy’s country.

Sun Tzu
Chinese philosopher
500 B.C.

If Obama gets his way, it's not the American military we'll need to worry about.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.

J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,879 Posts
Points 29,735

Curius Dentatus:
1940's Switzerland is the closet "resemblance" in human history on how Proto-Anarchistic country would've of acted.

Not even.

Peace

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,850 Posts
Points 85,810

Natalie:

If Obama gets his way, it's not the American military we'll need to worry about.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

Isn't it humorous that Obama was elected as an relief from Bush militarism?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
574 Posts
Points 9,305

Well, conservatives hoped that Bush wouldn't use military as much as Clinton :)

If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.

J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 20 of 20 (299 items) « First ... < Previous 16 17 18 19 20 | RSS