i dont but as you said they are trained to fight so better equipped to defend, anyone who defends or fights for anything(physically or intellectually) is in essence a soldier
Simply, to die for a cause is an honorable act. To put your life on the line for something you believe in, or trust in others that called you to arms or are force to is honorable. I respect those who charged a hill, held their ground and risk or gave gave their life. From a samurai warrior to a navy seal. Now one can go off on the CAUSE like if it leads to troops committing genocide, empire building or communist soldiers hunting down free market thinkers etc, but in general, I and others honor people who fought in a war.
Example, do I think the Viet Nam war was wrong, yes but my Father did what he was asked to do and it damn near killed numerous times and he lost many friends. I’m proud of him and he doesn’t love fighting or being a political pawn. Maybe he was tricked or his emotions lead him to make a bad choice but that doesn’t take anything away from him. Wish he didn’t have to go through it, but we cant go back and change it. Dont know if this is a libertarian view but it is mine.
I think everyone views the act of war as wrong, but study history, its not new nor will it ever go away. By the way major bear market lows will bring major wars, regardless of the events or reason, negative social mood will bring destruction…sad. Its something we cant escape as herding animals…nor is war good for the economy.
the apologies of mass murder are nauseating.
they are doubleplusgood nauseating when done in the name of ‘libertarianism’
I hear ya. This is how I view it.
I guess the people who get murdered see things differently. Well, they probably don’t see much once they are dead.
There are a plethora of reasons why a random person could find war honorable, some reasons probably exist due to biology some reasons appeal due to deep) classical conditioning (perhaps in some conditioning well over 1000 yr old), and for some more highly unique or misc reasons (someone actually enjoys and finds honor in killing, military strategy, military life, ad infinity), or perhaps a way to justify or reason with oneself for a profit gained.
Also, so far as I know, the vast majority of humans celebrates and considers good and noble such traits as struggle, sacrifice, bravery, and things of that nature. War is perhaps one of the most dramatic examples of these traits. These feelings tend to be seen as more noble when the war is fought for protection or revolution (the over throwing of a violent evil tyrant). How many wars can you think of that at least tried to have the pretense of protection or revolution? How many examples can you think of in literature where the lazy non struggling person is treated as good and heroic and the person throwing in sacrifice, blood, sweat, and tears is seen as the bad person? Even if a person is a pacifist they tend to emphasize the struggle and difficulties of pacifism, often times using war styled analogies and thoughts.
Also there seems to be a somewhat “natural” (I am using that term with the loosest of definitions) predilection in people (particularly males) to have a somewhat inherent desire to protect family, tribe, etc.
Another minor interesting thing of note: the most ancient of literature (Gilgamesh, the Iliad, and The Bible) may not flat out condone war they certainly don’t condemn it, they also tend to emphasize the positive traits of a person who is willing to fight. These books also tend to offer at least some justification for war (as most of these books seem to have an author who is defiantly “pro” one side), rather than just fighting for the hell of it; The Iliad is essentially about violation of property rights and sacred Hellenistic customs, Joshua and the Aeneid are about a mission ordained from God, the seven against Thebes is about legal claims to a city (followed by honorable burial rights for the dead after the war) while the Epigoni (the sons of the seven) is about “just” revenge. The Theogony has Kronos eating all his children sans Zeus, so yeah. Off the top of my head, I can think of no real ancient sources (pre AD) in the Mideast or Europe that flat out condemn all war, and the vast majority tend to at least honor “the warrior spirit” directly to various degrees. I would say even Aristophanes does not flat out condemn war (he seems more concerned with a very specific war). In all fairness though, much of the surviving literature and histories were written more for the aristocratic classes by the aristocratic classes, and just off the top of my head I can name two non “aristocratic” type works that pretty much mock “honorable” war (Ovid’s Metamorphosis and Aristophanes’ Lysistrata). To make a long side point longer: Honor and war is a very primitive ancient notion, it is probably only until very recently has there been much intellectual thought that would state that war is flat out dishonorable. I can not think of any well defined philosophy or work of literature that is definitely pacifist or one that condemns an “honorable warrior spirit” in all of ancient Middle Eastern or ancient European thought.
Some close calls on early pacifism may be Jesus (but he still talks of “soldiers of God”, and ends up fighting in the Apocalypse), the Essenes (I do not know if they were pacifists, but i doubt it), some early Christians (though St Augustine had the Just War Theory and the Eastern Church’s are not de facto pacifist in doctrine, so that gets rid of pure pacifism for defining Christianity as a whole for that period), Perhaps various Gnostic cults such as Manichaeism (perhaps the most persecuted religion in history). As far as I know, pacifism is mostly a philosophical branch from some Protestant groups from Reformation and perhaps coincidently coincides with the rise of imperialism and the nation state.
Heinlein was a libertarian 
juan you are blinded by your bitterness, if we were to randomly kill,or randomly wage war or kill civilians in war yes its murder but if your being attacked and you kill your attacker all he is thinking is "damn wish i didnt f with that guy
I really think you eaither need to calm down and actually read what other people have posted and you might realize it all under the premise of being under attack. Since,libertarianism is about the defense of personal property, I believe an attack falls under protecting yourself and property. so as you said it, really go back to the basics.
Also realize that just because soldiers have not been exposed to the philosophy’s against the government empire building and intervention does not mean they are no less valorous
Dogs are valorous. Humans should be better…
Josh, if you join the military, and they send you to Iraq or Afghanistan, and you are told to use violence against someone there, will you do it?
I don’t hate on the military, but I think libertarians who conciously join the military to go fight for the state are very misguided. Libertarians are supposed to understand that there is no collective right to use force. If it is wrong for me to go to Iraq and order people around and point a gun at them, it isn’t right for a British or American soldier to do it under government orders.
Indeed, whatever valuable skills that could be acquired during military servitude could be easily replicated by supporting local militia groups and/or getting together with other people who are anti-military for survival camps.
One does not need to betray their morals in order to learn how to survive, & the difference between survival training & military training is that the earlier is focused more on self-defense, while the later is focused on pre-emption and/or survival in the context of collectivist tribes fighting over the ability to coerce.
Survival training does not require coercion, except in self-defense. Military training (under The State) implicitly requires rationalized coercion. The earlier involves one learning how to survive despite statism, the later involves surviving because of statism.
There’s a good reason why I do not read about militia groups supporting secession shooting children in the papers (I’m sure at some point , the smear campaign from state propaganda will begin to lie about this, though).
There should be plenty of ex-military types who have more or less withdrawn & disagree with the military nowadays to make survival training without being an agent of the state relatively inexpensive & very possible.
The only “problem” is that eventually you’ll risk being labeled a domestic terrorist for wanting to know how to defend yourself, but that’s an inherent risk from being a dissenter regardless.
I would much rather deal with being imprisoned (& being able to sleep at night) than the possibility of shooting children and other human beings for a flag, imo.
Well said.
Aggressiveness and disrespect won’t win people to your cause. Making sound arguments in a tone that invites participation will.
But facts are facts.
This makes sense to me, perhaps I’m misunderstanding you though. I don’t think it’s particularly sensible to oppose the military to the extent that many libertarians do, in fact, I think that soldiers in the U.S. military are one of the groups that has suffered most from the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Whilst they went into the military voluntarily I think to a great extent they genuinely believed that they were doing the right thing by serving their country (and perhaps they just needed money), whereas I think it’s somewhat safe to say that they’re fighting a war that might well be on behalf of various special interest groups. Rather than calling soldiers immoral, it’s probably more correct to just call them misguided.
However, given this I don’t think it makes any sense for a libertarian to join the army.
Not at all. You are blinded by false loyalty and your apparent and complete ignorance of history. The US government never engaged in a so-called ‘defensive’ war.
As a side note, I have the same contempt for ‘my’ government or any other government and army, and the nationalists that support governments, nations and armies. I’m not picking on American militarism - though it is especially sick.
So you are not aware of the fact that the US government has killed millions of civilians ? And invaded dozens of countries ? Not for defense ?
which is a false premise.
Libertarianism is about trade, not war. And ‘collective’ defense is not a concept compatible with individual liberty.
Bromides will get you nowhere.
I wonder what’s really wrong with you ?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org
I don’t think there is much that can win most people to my cause.
Sure but humans aren’t robots.
I have a friend who is very dear to me, and she is in the military, and she loves it, and she loves Obama. Because I care about her, I’m willing to take a long time to make my case. It might take years. But it’s better than ruining the friendship and perhaps making her deaf to libertarian ideas.
All movements fail when they sacrifice long term goals for short term results. The LP is the greatest example of this in America.
Well, those are your choices. While you tread carefully in order to not upset your friend she’ll keep on directly or indirectly murdering people. But so what ? Who cares ? You know, right and wrong are subjective illusions.
OTOH, I might argue that if your friend is really dear to you should tell her the truth about her actions…but is there something ‘objectively’ wrong in what she does ? Not at all! It’s just her preferences…
Anyway, I’ll stick to facts. And as I said, the American military is an organization fully geared towards aggression, not defense. And no person who really understood what libertarianism is would be a member of the military.