What is a criminal? They are either (a) stupid, (b) ignorant, or (c) “evil”, as we understand that term.
Great.
Just like compulsory democracy?
[quote=“Lysander Spooner, “No Treason””]
The consent, therefore, that has been given, whether by individuals, or by the States, has been, at most, only a consent for the time being; not an engagement for the future. In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, be finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.
[/quote]
Is that sarcasm?
It’s me leaving this thread before my eye pops out.
Not that I have any idea what you mean by that, but whatever.
I got the impression it was for any war that is not against an oppressive state stripping you of your liberty. From another one of his posts “The only time you should pick up your weapon is when you plan to aim it at a state which directly strips you of your (god given/natural) rights.”
I dont think it is as easy as that.
If the government over you started to threaten to draft people into the military to fight a war like the one in the middle east, what would you do, would you let them throw you into the “kill or get killed” situation?
I’m not sure where this idea originated or how it has become so mainstream while defying every tenat of reason and common sense. This blantant lie has been one of the key reasons that young men and women join the war effort, support perpetual wars and demonize anyone who does not do the same. It has also paved the way for other absurdities to become stables of everyday conversation such as “we support the troops but not the war” and “we have sacraficed to many lives to go home now.” As long as these myths are allowed to circulate unchallenged the majority of the people are going to believe them and have the moral justification they need to defend their beloved mass killing.
I agree, it doesn’t make sense. Most people really are sheeple.
I don’t think that is the case. People have been taught to believe that all soldiers in all wars are fighting for their freedom since they were children. When a person hears something go unchallenged throughout their entire life they tend to believe that it is true. Not all people have been exposed to libertarianism thus have not heard the other side of the argument. I don’t believe these people are less intelligent or “sheepie”. They just need to have some exposure to the other side of the story.
No, they just need to learn to question things, whether the answer is established or not.
That is one of those questions that is easy to answer in the hypothetical. “Of course not, I would stand up for my rights” but in reality Its different.
A little example. I was once charged with “assaulting an officer” and “resisting arrest”. I had a disagreement with a person in a bar one night, nothing major a little pushing and shouting. The officer grabbed me from behind and I pulled away and attempted to turn around. In the process my elbow hit him in the chest. Now I was so angry and vowed to not let him get away with the trumped up charges. But as the reality of the situation set in, it was going to cost me literal 8 to 9 thousand dollars to fight the charges and there was no gaurantee that the truth would prevail. My word against his. So reality forced me to tuck my tail and beg for mercy. Humiliating episode in my life.
I wish I could say that my principle are unbendable. But reality is a powerful thing.
How about you?
No idea. But I would do everything I could to not get put in that situation.
Exactly they need to “learn” to question things but that is something that is typically not taught to them. I remember a lesson in highschool that stated that the only relible infomation that can be found on the internet comes from .gov and .edu websites. That is why I feel that it is so important for libertarians to introduce people to their beliefs. It only takes learning the truth concerning 1 well established myth for the wall of ignorance to come crumbling down.
Most would too. But the price to be paid is steep. To dodge the draft is a huge sacrifice. For those with strong ties to family, friends, and home; dodging the draft would be the equivalent of giving up everything you had ever known. That is too high a price for most.
That is frightening.
Yeah, I agree with that.
The important thing is that if you bended and allowed yourself to be drafted you would not shirk from your moral responsibility. You would not pretend that you were not doing anything wrong by occupying a foreign land simply because you were pressured into doing it.
Why is getting drafted not also “the equivalent of giving up everything you had ever known”?
Originally it was “they died for our country”. After years of statist propaganda, Freedom = Country. Now it’s “they died for our freedom”.
Kind of reminds me of that line from Patton.
From the perspective of the families, no one wants to accept that their family member has died in a war to advance the national interests of the state. They want to rationalize the loss for some higher ideal, and those who died probably looked at it the same way. This is comparable to sacrificing yourself to the volcano god in hope that it keeps the village safe. You may strongly believe it, and your family many strongly believe it, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it was a good decision and may have absolutely no effect on the threat whether it’s real like an exploding volcano or imagined.
So the logic used in war is not that dissimilar from any other government agenda. Whether that be healthcare, wellfare, education, retirement, environmental control (“protection”), etc. We are to sacrifice all to the state for the betterment of the state, although everyone rationalizes their servitude as “helping others”.