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.
Propaganda?
For similar reasons why libertarians value the idea of fighting the war against the state, imo.
. . . the metaphorical war against the state . . .
For the most part, yes. But it is a sort of ideological war that may or may not require physical confrontation in lieu of a full on fascist state taking reigns (i.e. martial law).
I took a Revolutionary War for America to separate from Britain, & that was for essentially a constitutional republic / close to minarchism. I think a stateless society might require a much longer under-taking, in comparison.
Of course it will be great if we could always resolve conflicts without using force. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s always possible. Even if you refuse to initiate aggression someone else might, so you have to be prepared.
Here is the corrected version I did for you: Of course it will be great if the state could resolve conflicts without using force.
Of course, you see that it is impossible for that to happen.
State only exists because of aggression. That’s why I think that getting rid of it completely peacefully is highly unlikely.
I completely agree with you.
And I still haven’t bought a gun. Trying to make hubby to see reason.
Well, it does lead into a paradox of sorts. State’s emerge out of agression and/or fear, but they also perpetuate these two things as well. Self-defense against the state would be spun by state propaganda as an ‘attack’ on ‘freedoms’, & a rationalized civil war is eventually down the road between statists & anti-statists of the same country.
More realistically (I do not see some sort of anti-statist vs. statist ultimatum coming for quite sometime, honestly), we will probably see this regarding sucessionists in favor of smaller states and/or smaller government, as the overall government’s continue to grow.
Interestingly, I just began read this article while writing this post here, which depicts a possible future where secessionists become the domestic terrorist scapegoats of the Brave New World in 2084.
Aggression can only last if it has ideological support. Without ideological support it turns out that they are massively outnumbered. Guess what people do when they are massively outnumbered and they are exposed as criminals?
It’s certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent.
I suppose it depends on how you want to define “honor.” Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion.
I don’t think the OP was referring to libertarian self-defense wars. I think he meant wars fought by the US Government.
Some of the reasons are moral subjectivism and nationalism.
Some people are under the delusion that they ‘belong’ to a fantasy entity known as a ‘country.’
Because State brainwashing has been extremely effective in suppressing the human conscience.
The enemy is evil and wants to take away Nascar and ESPN.
Conflation of the proper sentiment of defending one’s holdings with the idea that the state’s holdings are one’s own and that it is proper to die for them…
You’re right. Just the same, the stated goals of US invasions usually are honorable. In the eyes of most people, anyone who opposes the government doing _____ must oppose _____. When you let your emotions control you, an argument like “you’re for the war or you’re for the terrorists!” holds a lot of weight.
Also, I would still consider fighting in a defensive war for the US military to be honorable. I realize that this too is not the central point of the OP, but it deserves clarification. I still oppose the taxation element, but I suppose it’s better to be taxed than to be dead.
Collectivism.