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."
liberty student: Ok, back up a second here. You mean that you were a paleo who become a proper libertarian? This totally undermines radicalism!
Ok, back up a second here. You mean that you were a paleo who become a proper libertarian?
This totally undermines radicalism!
As with Barr, I'd say you're conflating two different things. A former member of the military, or a present member of the military, or a paleo, or a conservative, or a liberal, or whatever, can become a libertarian. No one denies that, not even Niccolo. The question is what it means for that to happen. A former member of the military only becomes a libertarian by giving up the beliefs that allowed them to join the military. One cannot simultaneously claim, without contradiction "I am a former member of the military who became a libertarian" and also "the beliefs that led me to enlist are correct." In that case, they simply haven't become libertarians.
A paleo can change their mind and become a libertarian; they cannot do so without changing their mind. There is a difference between "I was in the military, I shouldn't have joined, and wouldn't have joined if I were a libertarian then" and "I'm a libertarian, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and listen to you put down the military." One is consistent, the other is not. One could say "I'm libertarian on everything else, but on foreign policy I am a militarist" without contradiction either - but that also wouldn't quite be enough to justify enlisting, given that posse committatus has been thrown out. The consistent statement would likely be "I'm libertarian on everything else, but I support foreign policy interventionism and the suspension of rights in times of emergency, as declared by the executive, and I'm enlisting." That would have no contradictions.
JAlanKatz: As with Barr, I'd say you're conflating two different things. A former member of the military, or a present member of the military, or a paleo, or a conservative, or a liberal, or whatever, can become a libertarian. No one denies that, not even Niccolo. The question is what it means for that to happen. A former member of the military only becomes a libertarian by giving up the beliefs that allowed them to join the military. One cannot simultaneously claim, without contradiction "I am a former member of the military who became a libertarian" and also "the beliefs that led me to enlist are correct." In that case, they simply haven't become libertarians. A paleo can change their mind and become a libertarian; they cannot do so without changing their mind. There is a difference between "I was in the military, I shouldn't have joined, and wouldn't have joined if I were a libertarian then" and "I'm a libertarian, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and listen to you put down the military." One is consistent, the other is not. One could say "I'm libertarian on everything else, but on foreign policy I am a militarist" without contradiction either - but that also wouldn't quite be enough to justify enlisting, given that posse committatus has been thrown out. The consistent statement would likely be "I'm libertarian on everything else, but I support foreign policy interventionism and the suspension of rights in times of emergency, as declared by the executive, and I'm enlisting." That would have no contradictions.
You've completely missed my point (which may or may not be my fault).
There is this notion that we cannot ally with the right, paleos, etc. but I think the evidence is obvious that people do defect from the right (and the left) to libertarianism, and until someone figures out how to clone BrainPolice, then maybe trying to forge relationships and work on common issues is not totally outside a libertarian's best interest.
Juan: Equating military servicemen to government parasites doesn't sit well with me at all. The joke was in bad taste, especially on D-Day. Well, militarists pretending to be libertarians is a way, way, worse joke.
Equating military servicemen to government parasites doesn't sit well with me at all. The joke was in bad taste, especially on D-Day.
I couldn't agree more Juan. If you see any militarists pretending to be libertarians please let me know!
The issue is not with people changing from paleoconservative to libertarian. The issue is with the paleoconservative influence extending into libertarianism itself, so that libertarians themselves start moving closer to paleoconservatism rather than the opposite. That is the concern.
Len Budney: The USMC will keep you for a minimum of four years, pay you squat during that time, and forcibly reenlist you at the end of it through their "stop-loss" program. If you deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan, which is virtually guaranteed, you'll almost certainly come home with post-traumatic stress, possibly bad enough to end in suicide. Dude, don't do it. --Len
The USMC will keep you for a minimum of four years, pay you squat during that time, and forcibly reenlist you at the end of it through their "stop-loss" program. If you deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan, which is virtually guaranteed, you'll almost certainly come home with post-traumatic stress, possibly bad enough to end in suicide.
Dude, don't do it.
--Len
I agree with you.
I have changed some of my opinions since posting "America and Liberty", in which I defend almost all U.S. foreign policy since Washington crossed the Delaware. I have a new opinion: war in never worth the cost, nomatter how noble the intent, or how vile the enemy.
Take Iraq. Yes, Saddam was an evil man; yes, the insurgents are ruthless murderers; yes, the U.S. gives Iraqis food, medical care, and other benefits; yes, Iraqi women could vote for the first time in history.
But what about the cost? Thousands of U.S. troops killed. Innumerable Iraqi civilians killed. $3 trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayer's money. Higher oil prices and a weakening dollar. A collapsed housing bubble, leading to more foreclosures and bankrupcies than ever before. A complete breakdown of law and order in the Iraqi streets, and an entire country ruined with radioactive depleted-uranium rounds.
And that is just the beginning. Expanded, Big Brother measures at home and abroad. 4th Amendment protections, weakened. Suspects held in prisons around the world, unable to get a fair trial. Torture. That is not what I was taught America was all about!
What about the effect on the troops? What about the ones who get arms and legs blown off, or the ones who get sick from agent orange or uranium? What about the ones who come home with psychological trauma from killing and from seeing the friends die?
War costs far more than we will ever know.
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." Dwight D. Eisenhower
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Juan: Anonymous Coward: Oh, and for all you haters, you ever consider that someone may have had a life before they saw the light? Excuse me 'sir' but your first post in this thread was a thuggish defense of militarism. You don't seem to have changed your ways much.
Anonymous Coward: Oh, and for all you haters, you ever consider that someone may have had a life before they saw the light?
Thuggish defense of militarism? Oh, you're frickin' killing me here.
Did I state that if you talked bad about the good ol' Red, White and Blue I'd punch you in the nose? No?
What i did say is 'we'd be fighting' which could mean a lot of things. But, knowing myself as well as I do, this would mean that after the verbal lashing I gave you you would be so mad that you would start throwing punches...or end up crying, I'm pretty brutal when mad, this is why they would never let me talk to this neo-nazi POS that used to hang out at the bar—they knew nothing good would come of it.
If you seriously believe that you can go around insulting people without there being repercussions to your actions then I invite you to put your money where your mouth is, as they say.
Juan:It turns out that people who should be hanged for their crimes have the high moral ground while folks who point out that militarism is the opposite of libertarianism are haters
What crimes would that be?
Keeping the Soviet Union at bay so they didn't lash out as a desperate act of survival instead of quietly disintegrating? Restoring the monarchy in Kuwait after Iraq invaded? Acting as a deterrent in Saudi Arabia as a 'speed bump in the sand' when the only thing standing in the way of Iraqi domination of the entire Arabian Peninsula was a couple thousand US paratroopers?
Yeah, I'll give you that Gulf War II was an unjustified act of aggression which is why I'm hanging out here getting insulted by you closed minded fools instead of ensuring the safety and security of my family in this dangerous world I was born into.
I guess it would be preferable to be 'purged' after the conscripted Armies of Evil take over the world and the dictators decide they really don't need people with opposing viewpoints hanging about stirring up dissent then?
I wish I could live in y'all's dream world...
----edit----
Oh, and when did I ever claim to be a libertarian?
Brainpolice:The issue is not with people changing from paleoconservative to libertarian. The issue is with the paleoconservative influence extending into libertarianism itself, so that libertarians themselves start moving closer to paleoconservatism rather than the opposite. That is the concern.
Well then we better work extra hard to make sure that doesn't happen. But disengagement is a silly and fearful policy from where I sit. Those paleos are ripe for the picking.
We can't expect the conversion process to be one way.
Well then we better work extra hard to make sure that doesn't happen.
It already has happened, as a direct result of so closedly allying with the paleocons (a strategy encouraged by Lew Rockwell and company). This can be seen with respect to the immigration issue in particular.
But disengagement is a silly and fearful policy from where I sit.
Again, you're mischaracterizing what's being put foreward. Noone is saying to totally disengage from people in society. Only from political means and the state.
Anonymous Coward: Keeping the Soviet Union at bay
Juan:Have you ever noticed that the American military and politicians were partners of Stalin and handed him half of Europe ? Did the military bother to teach you that ?
What do you think should have happened, a continuation of the war to liberate Eastern Europe? Isn't that immoral according to your point of view?
No, of course not. We should have just stayed out of the war to begin with and tried diplomacy to convince Germany to halt their dreams of world domination and racial purity.
You should send me your address because I'd really like to visit this dream world you inhabit.
Juan:Haha. Right. So what are you doing here ?
Valid question.
Looking at the little box on the top of my browser it says 'mises.org' and not 'libertarian.org'.
I'm pretty sure the great Ludwig von Mises also didn't claim to be a libertarian which would put me in pretty good company IMHO.
You have us mixed up with pacifists. We all advocate gun ownership, after all. What libertarians advocate is not any more a removing of defense than the end of the US postal service would be a removal of any type of mailing. In fact, it would be a stronger and better force without all of the incompetence, inflated budgets (hundreds of billions of dollars over estimated market value), unaccounted for funds, corruption, and the constant world wide imperialism caused by political parties giving the military-industrial complex a monopoly on such "services." It's really no different than what makes the market work in other fields.
You have us mixed up with pacifists.
Well this is an interesting thing about the non-aggression principle. It's kind of neutral to such a question. A libertarian can be a pacifist, but need not be. The non-aggression principle recognizes both someone's right to be a pacifist and to engage in self-defense. The pacifist would fall into an inevitable contradiction in trying to stop someone from engaging in self-defense, since they'd have to initiate force. Likewise, one would violate the non-aggression principle by forcing someone to defend themselves or be defended. Personally, I'm not a pacifist.
We all advocate gun ownership, after all.
Well we advocate the right to own guns, but this doesn't necessarily mean that we personally advocate owning guns. That would be more of an economic preferance. Personally, I don't own any guns.
What libertarians advocate is not any more a removing of defense than the end of the US postal service would be a removal of any type of mailing.
True, and I don't think anyone here is implying that there should be no defense. The point being made is that the military as it exists is not based on defense. A soldier of the state is not really defending anyone. Their job is offensive, not defensive. They're also net tax consumers.
Anonymous Coward: I'm pretty sure the great Ludwig von Mises also didn't claim to be a libertarian which would put me in pretty good company IMHO.
Juan: Anyway, I thought that mises.org was an organization devoted to classical liberalism/libertarianism and even anarchy. As such, I think it advocates free-trade and rejects war.
Who is advocating for war?
You apparently want me to grovel at your feet and beg forgiveness for offending your delicate sensitivities.
On the other hand if you actually read what I wrote you would find that maybe I'm trying to dissuade a person from joining the military based on my personal experience.
Also trying to determine what crimes I committed that would cause a peacenik to call for my death by hanging.
So you just keep typing away at your little computer there and hope that enough of your fellow citizens stand up and say 'never again' when your government decides that death squads are an effective political tool...again.
We'll make a little sign that says 'Here Lies the Sons of Liberty' to commemorate your mass grave after they come to get the intellectuals...again.
Well, if The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo are able to find out where you're buried that is...
Brainpolice:Personally, I don't own any guns.
Get one, and learn to shoot it. Take the first step today: visit an indoor range near your home, and rent a revolver.
Anonynmous, the problem is that we can't tell whether you understand the difference between defense and aggression. You say Iraq was "unneccesary," but what about Vietnam? Korea? WWI? The Spanish-American war? The war of 1812? The Barbary War? The current US occupation of over 140 countries? In your last post you refer to "death squads," and anyone in his right mind supports resisting those--but in earlier posts you endorsed the cold war.
It all adds up to a distinct impression that you don't grasp the difference between offensive and defensive war.
Anonymous Coward:Yeah, if someone equated my military service to being a parasite to my face we'd be fighting...
Which military, friend? It may be better to call you murderer. I hope this makes it clear just what I think of military folk what threaten those who criticize the military. Fascist.
ChaseCola:I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, yet I plan on joining the Marine Corps after college. Why? I love firearms and would love to learn how to use them. The stolen money to pay off my college loans wouldn't be too bad either. If I am sent to Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, or any country comrade Obama feels necessary to invade I will do anything in my power not to violate the property rights(the only rights) of others. If there was an oppurtunity to defend the flawed constitution I would do that too.
In my experience, Marines are all semi-crazy brainwashed people who are really enthusiastic about violence. Will doing everything in your power include defying direct orders? You know ahead of time, you may be asked to murder. Make your choice now. Don't join the GD US military. You can learn to shoot on your own.
Superfluous: Equating military servicemen to government parasites doesn't sit well with me at all. The joke was in bad taste, especially on D-Day.
D-day was, too, part of an unnecessary and unjust war that we had no place inserting ourselves into. It seems a perfect day to me.
histhasthai: Brainpolice:I reject the common view which essentially entirely exempts soldiers from moral responsibility for their actions. I do too, but it doesn't change the fact that the profession of soldiering is not inherently immoral, nor the fact that the majority the actual actions of even US military members is, aside from where they get their paychecks from, virtuous. It's not the funny hat that makes it so, it's the nature of what they do. The fact that a good part of what the US military does do is illegitimate does not change that. To claim that they're all nothing but parasites and murders is to make the same categorical error as to claim that they are all nothing but virtuous.
Brainpolice:I reject the common view which essentially entirely exempts soldiers from moral responsibility for their actions.
I do too, but it doesn't change the fact that the profession of soldiering is not inherently immoral, nor the fact that the majority the actual actions of even US military members is, aside from where they get their paychecks from, virtuous. It's not the funny hat that makes it so, it's the nature of what they do. The fact that a good part of what the US military does do is illegitimate does not change that.
To claim that they're all nothing but parasites and murders is to make the same categorical error as to claim that they are all nothing but virtuous.
To claim that giving out food occasionally or whatever else you think "good" they do is far outshadowed by the murder they commit with the dollars stolen for them.
ChaseCola: I will have completed college and would go through OCS and get officer pay, which starts at 40k. I know It's guaranteed I will be deployed, because Obama is a warmonger as well(at least I will get combat pay). Only like a third of troops get PTSD plus Im too tough for that(lol jk). They will pay for my college loans as well. I know there are plenty of private training programs, such as Blackwater, and others. But I don't think that can compare with the constant training that you recieve in the military. With an understanding of rights I will treat the civilians with respect and understand I am part of an occupation.
I will have completed college and would go through OCS and get officer pay, which starts at 40k. I know It's guaranteed I will be deployed, because Obama is a warmonger as well(at least I will get combat pay). Only like a third of troops get PTSD plus Im too tough for that(lol jk). They will pay for my college loans as well. I know there are plenty of private training programs, such as Blackwater, and others. But I don't think that can compare with the constant training that you recieve in the military. With an understanding of rights I will treat the civilians with respect and understand I am part of an occupation.
Thief! Scum! What right have you to go and get a job where you KNOW you will get your precious student loans paid by my stolen hard-earned money? You go in, smilingly, willingly, to steal from me from your own benefit. You are worse than a welfare mom, because at least she does nothing for the money. You'll become a uniformed murderer for it! I can't believe someone who calls themselves an anarchist would ever do this.
Anonymous Coward: Who is advocating for war?
So you just keep typing away at your little computer there
and hope that enough of your fellow citizens stand up and say 'never again' when your government decides that death squads are an effective political tool...again.
JCFolsom: ChaseCola: I will have completed college and would go through OCS and get officer pay, which starts at 40k. I know It's guaranteed I will be deployed, because Obama is a warmonger as well(at least I will get combat pay). Only like a third of troops get PTSD plus Im too tough for that(lol jk). They will pay for my college loans as well. I know there are plenty of private training programs, such as Blackwater, and others. But I don't think that can compare with the constant training that you recieve in the military. With an understanding of rights I will treat the civilians with respect and understand I am part of an occupation. Thief! Scum! What right have you to go and get a job where you KNOW you will get your precious student loans paid by my stolen hard-earned money? You go in, smilingly, willingly, to steal from me from your own benefit. You are worse than a welfare mom, because at least she does nothing for the money. You'll become a uniformed murderer for it! I can't believe someone who calls themselves an anarchist would ever do this.
So Firefighters, Policeman, and Ron Paul are also scum for taking stolen money. I am just taking an advancement on the money that will be stolen from me in the future anyways :) I am not willing to steal from you at all and do not know where you reached that conclusion. I am not joining the IRS. We need to remember that defence is a legitimate service, but it is done terribly by the state. As for murder, I do not plan to kill anyone unless they try to kill me, or others. So that would not be in the category of murderer.
BTW: you are more of a thief for not acknoledging land as property:)
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
ChaseCola: So Firefighters, Policeman, and Ron Paul are also scum for taking stolen money. I am just taking an advancement on the money that will be stolen from me in the future anyways :) I am not willing to steal from you at all and do not know where you reached that conclusion. I am not joining the IRS. We need to remember that defence is a legitimate service, but it is done terribly by the state. As for murder, I do not plan to kill anyone unless they try to kill me, or others. So that would not be in the category of murderer. BTW: you are more of a thief for not acknoledging land as property:)
That's a dispute over the definition of property, I am operating on good faith and believe what I say, and in any case from another thread. You, on the other hand, know full well that your room, board, and precious gun will be paid for by stolen money. My money, which you have no right to. Your perspective is very convenient, wouldn't you say?
As for the murder bit, if you go into a man's house to rape his wife, and he tries to kill you, but you kill him instead, how far do you think the "self-defense" bit would fly? Mercenary. Assassin. You will be the invader. They have every right to try to kill you. You have no right to be there.
Len Budney: ChaseCola:With an understanding of rights I will treat the civilians with respect and understand I am part of an occupation. If you undestand that you're part of an occupation, then you realize you have no more right to self-defense while you're in Iraq than a burglar does while he's in your house. Do you really think that when they plunk you down in the middle of an exchange with insurgents that you'll throw down your arms and surrender like you should? Knowing they'll probably shoot you where you stand, or take you and kill you later on video? There's just NO WAY to be a compassionate occupier. It can't be done. They'll constantly put you in the position that you must either murder or die. --Len
ChaseCola:With an understanding of rights I will treat the civilians with respect and understand I am part of an occupation.
If you undestand that you're part of an occupation, then you realize you have no more right to self-defense while you're in Iraq than a burglar does while he's in your house. Do you really think that when they plunk you down in the middle of an exchange with insurgents that you'll throw down your arms and surrender like you should? Knowing they'll probably shoot you where you stand, or take you and kill you later on video?
There's just NO WAY to be a compassionate occupier. It can't be done. They'll constantly put you in the position that you must either murder or die.
Most land where fighting takes place is already public(stolen) property. That property is no more the insurgents than it is mine. Many of the house raids are of terrorists that have killed innocent civilians and have no right to stay alive. But for the many house to house searches of innocent civilians, most of them have an IQ over 1 and wont shoot at a group of marines, and thus I will not have to kill them. Just like drug raids, or tax raids here where people do have the right to defend their possesions, but 99.9% of the time they are smart enough not to. I have already thought out the innocent civilians house searches and decided that if I am ever in one(unlikely seeing that Iraqi soldiers now do the house to house searches and that will likely become more common) I would compensate the victims with some of my combat pay.
I still agree there is no way to be a compassionate occupier, but it is very simple not to be a murdering one.
P.S. I would guess that most of those civil servants think they're doing the right thing. They are incorrect, of course. You, however, claim to be an anarchist. You have seen the light, as it were. Yet still, you would become an government thug. Lots of people are wrong. I was and no doubt every one here has been wrong on government at one time or another. That people buy the propoganda is no surprise; that's what propoganda is for. You are not mistaken, you are a vile hypocrite, looking forward to the day you get your blood money. That, or you're insane. Which do you prefer?
First off I would never(nor would I be ordered to) rape a man's wife so that is completely irrelevant. I answered this inquiry in detail above.
I realise in full I have no right to your property, but you have to understand that I am not stealing it from you. And just because you do not think land is property does not change the fact that it is anymore than a communist not thinking my money is property. I still have a right to stop you from taking it.
I believe there is too many personal attacks in this thread and less civilized discussion. [I also believe there is a lack of philosophical consistency. It is difficult to determine who is genuinely trying to defend libertarianism and who is not. Anyhow....]
ChaseCola: So Firefighters, Policeman, and Ron Paul are also scum for taking stolen money. I am just taking an advancement on the money that will be stolen from me in the future anyways :)
Some might be tempted to answer that it's future generations who will pay. That's untrue. If the federal government consumes $2.4 trillion of what Americans produced in 2005, it must find ways to force us to spend $2.4 trillion less privately in 2005. In other words, the federal government can't spend today what's going to be produced in the future.One method to force us to spend less privately is through taxation, but that's not the only way. Another way is to enter the bond market. Government borrowing drives the interest rate to a level that it otherwise wouldn't be without government borrowing. That higher interest puts the squeeze on private investment in homes and businesses, thereby forcing us to spend less privately.
ChaseCola: I am not willing to steal from you at all and do not know where you reached that conclusion. I am not joining the IRS.
However, now that you know your expenses incurred today are paid by confiscating property today from other people -- as opposed to dismissing it as just "an advancement on the money that will be stolen from me in the future anyways" -- are you willing to change your outlook? or does that matter to you?
---
This is a nasty playing of the devil's advocate on my part because practically everybody uses the state to his advantage to a degree. It really is difficult to avoid doing so.
ChaseCola:Most land where fighting takes place is already public(stolen) property. That property is no more the insurgents than it is mine. Many of the house raids are of terrorists that have killed innocent civilians and have no right to stay alive. But for the many house to house searches of innocent civilians, most of them have an IQ over 1 and wont shoot at a group of marines, and thus I will not have to kill them. Just like drug raids, or tax raids here where people do have the right to defend their possesions, but 99.9% of the time they are smart enough not to. I have already thought out the innocent civilians house searches and decided that if I am ever in one(unlikely seeing that Iraqi soldiers now do the house to house searches and that will likely become more common) I would compensate the victims with some of my combat pay. I still agree there is no way to be a compassionate occupier, but it is very simple not to be a murdering one.
What about the children of the people that resist? Your "collateral damage"?
So, an IQ "under 1" disqualifies you from life, eh? Or at least, an IQ low enough that you'd shoot at MARINES!!! I mean, my god, they're like bulletproof and shine with divine light and stuff. They can flick a pebble so hard it will pass through a cinder block and 3 men before stopping.
Oh, wait, you are made of meat like the rest of us. And a person who shoots you in his house because you're invading because you SUSPECT there may be a TERRORIST (aka soldier without a state) there, is totally reasonable to do so. Why, some people would say it's even worth dying to protect you and yours from an invading army. Even one that's coming to "make the world safe for Democracy".
You could get paid to give speeches in hospitals as a substitute for ipecac, judging from my reaction to you. Jesus Christ (and I'm not even a Christian)!
Much of the stolen money is mine from the job I currently have and if you want to get real technical it is mine from the money stolen from my dead grandparents. You can not identify who the money was taken from, so I obviously do not know if it is yours or if it is mine.
ChaseCola: First off I would never(nor would I be ordered to) rape a man's wife so that is completely irrelevant. I answered this inquiry in detail above. I realise in full I have no right to your property, but you have to understand that I am not stealing it from you. And just because you do not think land is property does not change the fact that it is anymore than a communist not thinking my money is property. I still have a right to stop you from taking it.
Please respond in the proper thread to the land rights issue. This one, and I know you don't like it, is about you and your desire to be a clomping rifle-carrying jackbooted jackass for the state.
Now, lets think here. I have money I made by producing something someone was willing to pay me for. I'm not saying it's totally pure money, but I'm not a government employee. Some government pig steals some of my money, and pays you with it. How is it you are not being paid with money stolen from me, now?
ChaseCola: Much of the stolen money is mine from the job I currently have and if you want to get real technical it is mine from the money stolen from my dead grandparents. You can not identify who the money was taken from, so I obviously do not know if it is yours or if it is mine.
Your dead granparents... WHO ARE DEAD!!! You don't know, and cannot know, that that money would have come to you. They might have given it to charity, or drank it away, or whatever. In any case, the money today doesn't come from some kind of stolen money trust fund, it comes from me and at my expense and against my will. It's like these jackasses who think that they are owed social security because social security money was stolen from them. They are, by the people who stole it. If they aren't around any more, they should be SOL. But no, because by mere virtue of my birth I signed some sort of "social contract", "the government" feels free to steal my money to pay their obligations.
Except, one can only really be held to an obligation that one incurred oneself. I stole nothing from anyone, so no one has a right to what I have except me.
I doubt there have been many cases of the innocents shooting at marines and it is extremely unlikely I will ever have to raid the house of an innocent at the point when I join, otherwise I wouldn't. And 2 or 3 innocents vs. a platoon of marines, yea you would have to have an IQ under 1.
Your hypothetical simply is not likely to occur.
JCFolsom: ChaseCola: Much of the stolen money is mine from the job I currently have and if you want to get real technical it is mine from the money stolen from my dead grandparents. You can not identify who the money was taken from, so I obviously do not know if it is yours or if it is mine. Your dead granparents... WHO ARE DEAD!!! You don't know, and cannot know, that that money would have come to you. They might have given it to charity, or drank it away, or whatever. In any case, the money today doesn't come from some kind of stolen money trust fund, it comes from me and at my expense and against my will. It's like these jackasses who think that they are owed social security because social security money was stolen from them. They are, by the people who stole it. If they aren't around any more, they should be SOL. But no, because by mere virtue of my birth I signed some sort of "social contract", "the government" feels free to steal my money to pay their obligations. Except, one can only really be held to an obligation that one incurred oneself. I stole nothing from anyone, so no one has a right to what I have except me.
I will not steal one penny from you any more than the current Social Sercurity recipient steals from you.
edit: "did not" replaced with "will not"
ChaseCola: I did not steal one penny from you any more than the current Social Sercurity recipient steals from you.
Charles Anthony: ChaseCola: I did not steal one penny from you any more than the current Social Sercurity recipient steals from you. In that case, you are apologizing for the continued theft perpetrated by statesmen.
No, I am simply trying to get across the point that the military does not do the job of collecting taxes stealing money.
ChaseCola: I doubt there have been many cases of the innocents shooting at marines and it is extremely unlikely I will ever have to raid the house of an innocent at the point when I join, otherwise I wouldn't. And 2 or 3 innocents vs. a platoon of marines, yea you would have to have an IQ under 1. Your hypothetical simply is not likely to occur.
Are you kidding me? How do you think that over 100 thousand Iraqis are dead, and only 4,000 Americans?
This forum needs an ignore feature. It's your free choice to join the military, but your ignorance and willful denial makes me feel ill.
The theft is less relevant than the other issue: they are wasteful and used for imperialism because of the theft. Just like the government is allowed to run an absurd Ponzi scheme because of the theft required for "social security."
LibertyStudent: How do you think that over 100 thousand Iraqis are dead, and only 4,000 Americans?