Americans you have just started to discover that y

[Chimera]

Anarchy

Law

Note that the definition of law requires authority.

Without humans, a government free society probably would be a Utopia. Unfortunately for me, I live in the real world, where a government free society would be chaos. Where do you live Hugo?

So I ask you again, what gives you the right to abrogate some of my rights? Why can I not do the same to you? Perhaps to me, my right to a nationality is more important than my right to life. You believe vice versa. Which of us is more right? Who is to decide?

I would say that rights are an innate part of being human.

And I would say that Canada is an innate part of being Canadian.

And yes, Dunkirk was in 1940, I realized that last night after I had turned off my PC. I apologize for the mistake in dates.

[Hugo]

Note that the definition of law requires authority.

But authority comes in many forms. Priests are authority, as are teachers, private arbitrators, credit agencies, professional associations, labour unions, etc. You assume that we need government to have authority. You need to prove that first.

Without humans, a government free society probably would be a Utopia.

This is a marvellous self-contradiction. You imply that humans are too greedy, selfish and evil to be trusted to run a society without government. However, you then contend that it is right that we create a government with coercive powers which will be picked by and consist of humans, who are greedy, selfish and evil. You fear that in anarchy, some people will exert coercive power over others, so you propose to create an institution to exert coercive power over others in order to prevent this from happening.

If what you say about human nature is true, then a society with government would be far, far worse than one without. Of course any social system works better if people are more virtuous. The difference between you and me is that for your system to work, people must be saintly. I make no such assumption.

So I ask you again, what gives you the right to abrogate some of my rights?

Nothing.

my right to a nationality

Why do you have a right to a nationality? It's an abstract thing that depends upon both other people and pre-existing social and technological conditions. It makes as much sense to say you have a right to a nationality as to say you have a right to a plasma TV, a right to e-voting or a right to a flying car.

I'd like you to explain this one, please.

And I would say that Canada is an innate part of being Canadian.

Being Canadian is to be born within Canada. But you define "Canada" as part of being Canadian. This is a circular argument.

And yes, Dunkirk was in 1940, I realized that last night after I had turned off my PC. I apologize for the mistake in dates.

I could say that your willingness to accuse another person of lying and poor character before having the facts straight casts aspersions on your character.

[Hugo]

Blackdog, I'd just like to talk on this point briefly.

Now, I'm, generally not anti-state. But the power of the state is but a tool and can be misused. The bigger the government and more all-encompassing it becomes, the more likely it is to abuse its power.

This would seem to support the idea of smaller or minimal government. The problem is that government never stays that way. A State, by definition, holds a monopoly over law and justice, and these things are what curbs State power. Basically, the checks and balances on State power are all in the hands of the State (barring violent revolution).

As we've seen in the USA, minarchist States don't stay that way. Jefferson warned that it was the nature of things for government to grow and liberty to shrink, and in the USA we had a government conceived with the idea of a very limited role (initially consuming only about 2% of GDP and responsible for minimal services such as courts and defence). Over time, despite the very favourable conditions in the USA such as a natural isolation from other belligerent states, a wealth of natural resources and a population at least initially committed to liberty and sick of the oppressive regimes that they fled, this minimal government ballooned to a bloated great monster which currently regulates and polices every aspect of American life, consumes over a third of the economy and has become the most warlike, imperialist and militarist State currently in existence.

The justice system, which supposedly checks and balances State power, has allowed continual massive and flagrant violations of the original Constitution and the ideals of the Founding Fathers. This might be seen as something like Galbraith's "blocs of power" theory, in which various powerful institutions are balanced by each other, e.g. big labour counterbalances big business. Galbraith's failing here is that he does not anticipate that big labour and big business could just collaborate to rip off the consumer, just as the Founding Fathers did not anticipate that the executive, legislative and judiciary would stop balancing each other and just gang up on the citizen.

If the experiment in minimal government could fail so dramatically in such favourable circumstances, I believe there isn't a chance it could ever succeed anywhere. To create a minimal State is to accept that within a few generations, you will return to Leviathan. The checks placed on State power are placed there by the State, and will last exactly until the State decides it needs more power for whatever reason, at which point they will be quickly demolished (see Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, F. Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon... heck, virtually every president since 1890 and a few before). It's significant that all gains in State power are made "temporarily" but somehow manage to never go away.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Now, this is just a lie, because I distinctly remember saying that slavery is inherently wrong,

I try not to lie, but I may err. I do not believe you made any such statement. If you did, feel free to quote it and post it. I do not doubt that you may have been on that tangent while writing, but it is my contention that you did not convey it.

However, thinking that something exists does not make it exist. You can believe a large pink elephant exists five miles above Toronto. That doesn't place one there.

Amen Hugo. 'Realizing something in the mind', does that make it so? 'Discovery of the metaphysical'? I again ask you to show me one. I believe you can show me how one concieves of it, and I believe it will have a basic chemical formula, but then again, so too does God exist there.

[PocketRocket]

HUGO: Your reply to my remark......

One more statement in this area; it is my opinion that until I step forward and put MY life on the line, I have no right to judge someone who has done so.

Keep the faith, friend, and keep your powder dry.

...was a truly wonderful example of obfuscation. Thank you for that demonstration.

But no matter how many long and convoluted justifications you give for your anti-military stance, you cannot deny the fact that there have always been hostile people, and hostile nations in the world.

Human nature being what it is, there will likely continue to be for a long time to come.

If you personally are pacifistic, that's fine. I will not attempt to demean your personal philosophies in this regard.

But for you to belittle a member of our military, simply because he is a member of the military, is out of line.

Why???

Simple. Because he will be as willing to put his life on the line for you, and those others who hold your beliefs, as he would for me or any other Canadian.

He and his ilk are the first to stand, and possibly fall, if our country is threatened by outside forces.

The likelyhood of such a threat matters not. The fact that he has enlisted, and stands ready to defend your life, and your rights, INCLUDING your right to complain about the military, makes all your trite little complaints in bad taste.

IOW, if you are too "pacifistic" to defend your home and your homeland, that's fine.

Don't denegrate those who are willing to defend it for you.

[Hugo]

I try not to lie, but I may err. I do not believe you made any such statement. If you did, feel free to quote it and post it.

If you do a search for 'slavery' in my posts you will find three pages of results, in all of which the assumption is made that slavery is wrong, and where I argue against the state for enslaving people and that anarchy will not lead to slavery.

Your original lie (or error, whatever) was that I contended that slavery was not morally wrong but only economically unfeasible. The simple search I detailed above proves this wrong quite easily.

'Realizing something in the mind', does that make it so? 'Discovery of the metaphysical'? I again ask you to show me one. I believe you can show me how one concieves of it, and I believe it will have a basic chemical formula, but then again, so too does God exist there.

You've lost me. What are you talking about?

you cannot deny the fact that there have always been hostile people, and hostile nations in the world.

There have always been hostile people in the world, but the crimes of private citizens such as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy are intinitesimal compared to the crimes committed by nations such as Stalinist Russia or Maoist China (although we identify Stalin and Mao as the criminals here, it is important to note that they needed a massive State to be complicit in the crimes). Even the democratic Canadian State has killed more people than Ted Bundy did.

As to hostile nations, yes, and nation-states are by far the greatest criminal organizations in history. This is why I oppose the idea of the nation-state. Once again, quoting Judge Judy, if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true. The idea of creating or supporting belligerent nation-states because there are belligerent nation-states does not make sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it, prove to me that two wrongs actually do make a right, that there can be such a thing as a War To End War etc.

Human nature being what it is, there will likely continue to be for a long time to come.

Then why do you think it makes sense to vest huge amounts of arbitrary power and the capacity for massive (even nuclear) violence in the hands of these fallible, selfish and evil people? This is what I don't understand about statists: anarchy won't work because people are evil. Instead, we must give these people the huge power of a coercive State and a military.

Analogy: corporations are evil, enslave people and rape the planet. What we need to do is to abolish governments and give all the power to corporations, and give them private armies too. That'll solve the problem.

But for you to belittle a member of our military, simply because he is a member of the military, is out of line.

I did not belittle him because he is a member of the military. As I said before, I have had the same arguments with military men and armchair warhawks. I attacked his arguments (or lack thereof), excepting where I sarcastically referred to him as an intellectual giant, which was my attempt to curb his insufferably arrogant attitude made all the worse by his complete inability to explain or justify his views.

Because he will be as willing to put his life on the line for you, and those others who hold your beliefs, as he would for me or any other Canadian.

But this is wrong. He is, in fact, willing to put his life on the line for the Canadian State, which daily commits millions of crimes and rights-violations against Canadian citizens such as you and me.

IOW, if you are too "pacifistic" to defend your home and your homeland, that's fine.

Don't denegrate those who are willing to defend it for you.

He provides a service I don't want and supports a State that steals money from me in order to provide it. I think I have every right to denegrate that! Imagine if I decided that you needed your roof painted with purple polka-dots, stole a few thousand dollars from you to pay for it, and then accused you of ingratitude when you complained about it. That's my situation.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Because he will be as willing to put his life on the line for you, and those others who hold your beliefs, as he would for me or any other Canadian.

But this is wrong. He is, in fact, willing to put his life on the line for the Canadian State, which daily commits millions of crimes and rights-violations against Canadian citizens such as you and me

This is simply a by-product of 'right's theory'. You had agreed that the defence of 'rights' can justify the use of overwhelming force (strictly in the defensive, of course) and that is what the theory of 'soldiering' is. He has the job of defending you right to not have Nazis come and take your 'property', up to and including you life, though not at this moment.

[Hugo]

This is simply a by-product of 'right's theory'. You had agreed that the defence of 'rights' can justify the use of overwhelming force (strictly in the defensive, of course) and that is what the theory of 'soldiering' is. He has the job of defending you right to not have Nazis come and take your 'property', up to and including you life, though not at this moment.

This is not true. If he was defending my right to property ownership he would defend it against the worst violator of that right, i.e. the Canadian government. However, the reverse is actually true: he will defend the Canadian government, the rights violator, against me!

This being the case, it's impossible that he is defending my rights any more than Mafia protection-racketeers are defending the rights of the people they extort from. As Blackdog said quite a while ago now, the soldier does not serve the citizens, he serves the State and usually against the interests of the citizens.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If you do a search for 'slavery' in my posts you will find three pages of results, in all of which the assumption is made that slavery is wrong, and where I argue against the state for enslaving people and that anarchy will not lead to slavery.

Your original lie (or error, whatever) was that I contended that slavery was not morally wrong but only economically unfeasible. The simple search I detailed above proves this wrong quite easily.

Finding quotes proved to be a formidible task.

The historical analysis, e.g. by Bruce Catton, was precisely that industrialisation made slavery economically unviable.

The free market killed slavery and child labour, because in the evolving labour market both ceased to be economically viable. The state only moved to abolish slavery and child labour after they were virtually extinct anyway.

I do believe that you had edited the latter post (If I recall, it was only a few minutes after the original post, which is something I also do, as I tend to re-read them only after I post them) and added the clarification that all slavery was coersion and therefore wrong. Perhaps this is what I was thinking of. At the time that I read it, the context gave me the impression that the only thing you had against slavery was that it was economically archaic.

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

I shake my head in wonder, I've taken the time to re read all the posts on this topic, and there has been mistakes made on both sides, mine and yours. I'd assumed that you had said Dieppe, i even wrote that out serveral times on different posts ..I asked you to verify your dates and statement serveral times as there was discrepancies

....Instead you niether took the time to read those posts nor did you bother to correct them when you had the chance saving us all this time and effort....

You had used the post of your grand father to make a piont, that the state had forced him into serving his country....Britain we find out later...when the topic was Canadian and US soldiers...Thanks for clearing that up....

My grandfather, not my father. British conscription began in 1938 under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act. My grandfather was drafted under this legislation and sent to France as part of the BEF, and was evacuated in Operation Dynamo in the first days of June 1940.

Any other WWII history you're confused about?

No, actually he was ordered to show up and put on a uniform, or go to prison as a traitor to his country. He hoped that he'd be sent to a non-combat unit. Of course, once he was in uniform, he was told he'd go to an infantry unit, and if you desert the penalty is death. So he felt that probably being killed by Germans was better than certainly being killed by his own government.

Your grandfather did have opitions, He could have declared himself a CO, or gotten into a restricted job listed below....So if he had been FORCED into the military he still had options including leaving his country and become a draft dodger, (not punished by death) Desertion is only after you have accepted military duty and leave your unit while in combat...With all these opitions available to him do you still think he did what he did because he was forced or on his own accord...And if he did it on his own accord WHY ?because he shares the same opinions as you , Or he believes in his country...

Any other WWII history you're confused about?

Yes, your dates are off slightly again, not 1938 but 1939, read below it makes a big difference because the British Military could not possiable train all those that signed up right away....providing your Grandfather was one of the first in line he could have been on the Battle of Dunkirk. Does not like the actions of a person who did not want to go i mean rush down thier to register and everything...sounds like those are the actions of a man that believe in Duty, country, and honor...

During the 1930s some men still chose to enter the armed forces after leaving school and in 1937 there were 200,000 soldiers in the British army. The government knew that this was not enough to fight a war with Germany and in April 1939 introduced the Military Training Act. The terms of the act meant that all men between the ages of 20 and 21 had to register for six months' military training. At the same time a list of 'reserved occupations' was published. This listed occupations that were essential to the war effort and stated that those employed in those jobs were exempt from conscription.

Reserved Occupations

Dock Workers

Miners

Farmers

Scientists

Merchant Seamen

Railway Workers

Utility Workers - Water, Gas, Electricity

When war broke out in September 1939, some men volunteered to join the armed services, but Britain could still only raise 875,000 men. Other European countries had kept conscription between the wars and were able to raise much larger armies than Britain. In October 1939 the British government announced that all men aged between 18 and 41 who were not working in 'reserved occupations' could be called to join the armed services if required. Conscription was by age and in October 1939 men aged between 20 and 23 were required to register to serve in one of the armed forces. They were allowed to choose between the army, the navy and the airforce

My Webpage

I did not belittle him because he is a member of the military. As I said before, I have had the same arguments with military men and armchair warhawks. I attacked his arguments (or lack thereof), excepting where I sarcastically referred to him as an intellectual giant, which was my attempt to curb his insufferably arrogant attitude made all the worse by his complete inability to explain or justify his views.

Here is your opening remarks, sounds like an attack to me..There is not to many postive things in any of your quotes..

How would a person trained to accept and use brutal, lethal violence in the pursuit of certain ends be a "better person"? Is the fact that the wives of soldiers are beaten by their husbands far more often than the wives of civilians indicative that these soldiers have become "better people"? When my grandfather returned from Dunkirk having watched most of his childhood friends blown to pieces in front of him by German artillery and aircraft and tried to forget it by spending the next six months constantly drunk, was he a "better person"? Are the soldiers who get drunk on weekend leave in barracks towns and assault civilians in bars "better people"?

You're telling me that soldiers are better people. Why? Anyone can give candies to children. What makes soldiers better - that they'll spray people with bullets after giving the candy out? I say that makes them worse.

The point is this: you say soldiers give out candy and that makes them better people than the average civilian. I say that the average civilian performs many acts of charity, most of them greater than giving out candy. However, the average civilian doesn't kill people. On balance, therefore, I judge soldiers to be worse human beings than civilians.

Again, this doesn't address my point that any heroic and humane acts done by soldiers are, in my opinion, offset by the killing that they do. Civilian heroes don't kill people. In fact, I consider it better that one donates $10 to feeding Ethiopian children than if one donates $1,000 and then shoots a bunch of Arabs.

As Blackdog has noted, however, soldiers are the agents of those who destroy liberty and thus destroy the chance for so many people to do and pursue what they love.

If you actually read all my posts again you'll see what it is that Canadian soldiers do every day in the servce of thier country, not for extra money, not for recogintion, but because they honestly believe that it is in service of thier country.

They believe in DUTY, Country, and honor just as much as you believe in being a pacifist, They believe that they are defending Canada and ALL her citzens "including you Hugo" If your as smart as you think you are then you know exactly what i mean by Duty,country and honour.

I'm not asking you to believe in it, or even understand it....as i don't understand how you can believe in pacifism...i am a realist, and i've seen first hand what happens to people when they don't fight back....

I wouldn't use deadly force to protect my family, friends and property because I'm a pacifist, however, I recognise the right of others to use deadly force to defend themselves if it were necessary.

And yet you criticise me because i might have to use deadly force to protect me, my section, or any one else under my protection....but that would be different if i used deadly force to protect you and yours...

What nerfarious deeds have i commited...or for that matter what nefarious deeds have Canada commited.

I don't know what crimes you've committed. And as I've said above, "Canada" hasn't committed any deeds of any kind because it isn't an acting agent.

I know because Canada does not exist....and this is a perfect example of how you respond to all your posts with more questions what is a country,what is rights,, etc,etc, ...But it is one sided you can ask questions but not myself...and when i ask the questions you respond with your Intellectual superior self serving answers this is a debate not a student / teacher period...as you know full well what i meant by Canada (the Goverment of Canada).

[Hugo]

Your grandfather did have opitions, He could have declared himself a CO, or gotten into a restricted job listed below...

Perhaps I did not make myself clear before. I will say it again.

I am getting really tired of this. I'm not going to answer any further questions on this topic as long as you refuse to extend the same courtesy to me. In debate, both parties ask questions and are equally entitled to have them answered. If you are just going to question me, this stops being a debate and turns into a mentor-student session.

Answer this question: What is the difference between Country A and Country B? No more excuses, insults, and distractions.

You cannot escape or deny the fact that all Allied countries conscripted men to fight. Nor can you escape or deny the fact that a very great many of them came back dead or very physically and mentally scarred.

Are you going to answer my question or not? I have been very accomodating of you, and you are just being rude.

If you actually read all my posts again you'll see what it is that Canadian soldiers do every day in the servce of thier country, not for extra money, not for recogintion, but because they honestly believe that it is in service of thier country.

Good for them! Replace "Canadian soldiers" with "Waffen SS" or "Gestapo" and the sentence is still exactly true. So, you still need to prove your point, unless you're saying that Canadian soldiers are no better than Nazi stooges.

If your as smart as you think you are then you know exactly what i mean by Duty,country and honour.

No, I don't know exactly what you mean, because you repeatedly refuse to explain it to me. I find it laughable that you tell me how elementary so many of your points are and then are either incapable or unwilling to articulate them.

And yet you criticise me because i might have to use deadly force to protect me, my section, or any one else under my protection

In what circumstances would you need to? Perhaps because they perceived you as a threat, you were in their territory and heavily armed, etc?

I know because Canada does not exist....and this is a perfect example of how you respond to all your posts with more questions what is a country,what is rights,, etc,etc

Yes. I would like to think that those who debate with me understand the terms they are bandying about.

when i ask the questions you respond with your Intellectual superior self serving answers

I think that's better than responding with no answers at all and tireless repetition of empty dogma.

as you know full well what i meant by Canada (the Goverment of Canada).

Ah, so you defend the government. The government is not the people. The government is a violator of the rights of the people. It steals, it murders, it kidnaps, it enslaves, it defrauds, it counterfeits, millions of times, every single day - and yet you defend it against the people whose rights it violates, and then have the absolute nerve to tell me you are fighting for those people?

Wake up, man!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

You cannot escape or deny the fact that all Allied countries conscripted men to fight

Actually, Australia and South Africa did not. Canada only did so in Nov. 1944 (that is, enact conscription for service overseas), after a bitter parlimentary debate. Australia only had compulsory service for the home militia, and only volunteers went to fight.

Interesting though, that you seem to have a hatred for the military, no matter the country, (though Switzerland and Sweden have 'civilian militias' that aren't a standing army, yet would 'uphold national law' if asked) yet it was only they who could have stopped the gassing of the Jews by the Nazis. I'll agree, it was evil of the Nazis to do such a thing, but you seem to say that it was equally evil of the Allies to stop them. Dare I ask for a clarification?

[Hugo]

Interesting though, that you seem to have a hatred for the military, no matter the country, (though Switzerland and Sweden have 'civilian militias' that aren't a standing army, yet would 'uphold national law' if asked) yet it was only they who could have stopped the gassing of the Jews by the Nazis. I'll agree, it was evil of the Nazis to do such a thing, but you seem to say that it was equally evil of the Allies to stop them. Dare I ask for a clarification?

I might point out that if it were not for soldiers and other armed thugs in the service of the State there would have been no gassing of Jews to stop. Does that clarify things?

My other point is that there is no real difference between Country A and Country B, and unless you can demonstrate to me that two wrongs make a right, that's what I'll continue to believe. If something is worth fighting for, people will fight for it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I might point out that if it were not for soldiers and other armed thugs in the service of the State there would have been no gassing of Jews to stop.

You might indeed point that out, but it would have been a pretty lame approach to an argument. 'If', in this context, is just far too big a word.

Does that clarify things?

No.

It was a battle between A and B,

My other point is that there is no real difference between Country A and Country B, and unless you can demonstrate to me that two wrongs make a right, that's what I'll continue to believe.

and the only difference between them is the rights that they are carrying with them, and which ones they are going to bestow upon you once the dust settles.

In this case, the two wrongs can't make a 'right', only the winner can.

If something is worth fighting for, people will fight for it.

Most times. It means that they'll win or lose.

[PocketRocket]

Human nature being what it is, there will likely continue to be for a long time to come.

Then why do you think it makes sense to vest huge amounts of arbitrary power and the capacity for massive (even nuclear) violence in the hands of these fallible, selfish and evil people? This is what I don't understand about statists: anarchy won't work because people are evil. Instead, we must give these people the huge power of a coercive State and a military.

Analogy: corporations are evil, enslave people and rape the planet. What we need to do is to abolish governments and give all the power to corporations, and give them private armies too. That'll solve the problem.

I have to agree with your first point. I DON'T think it makes sense.

Unfortunately, it is happening. The USA does not need us or anyone else to "vest huge amounts of arbitrary power" in them. They seem to taking care of all such vesting on their own.

Other countries are doing the same.

As for your analogy, that was just silly. Relevant, but silly.

But for you to belittle a member of our military, simply because he is a member of the military, is out of line. 

I did not belittle him because he is a member of the military. As I said before, I have had the same arguments with military men and armchair warhawks. I attacked his arguments (or lack thereof), excepting where I sarcastically referred to him as an intellectual giant, which was my attempt to curb his insufferably arrogant attitude made all the worse by his complete inability to explain or justify his views.

Perhaps "belittle" was the wrong word.

But I did not find his arguments as feeble as you seem to.

It cannot be denied that your debating skills are quite highly developed.

Also, you have the knack of being able to twist your opponent's words to imply something other than their original meaning.

Ever think of getting into politics???

Because he will be as willing to put his life on the line for you, and those others who hold your beliefs, as he would for me or any other Canadian.

But this is wrong. He is, in fact, willing to put his life on the line for the Canadian State, which daily commits millions of crimes and rights-violations against Canadian citizens such as you and me.

This I disagree with. Ask any member of the military WHAT they feel they are defending.

The replies will be many and varied, but I doubt any of them will say "The State".

They may say "My Country".

But everyone has a different feel of what "their country" is.

I believe that most, when pressed on this point, will answer that they seek to defend the people, and the rights and freedoms of those people.

Why don't you ask ArmyGuy to break it down in that way for you???

It may put an end to a pointless whinge. (Gotta love that word)

IOW, if you are too "pacifistic" to defend your home and your homeland, that's fine.

Don't denegrate those who are willing to defend it for you.

He provides a service I don't want and supports a State that steals money from me in order to provide it. I think I have every right to denegrate that! Imagine if I decided that you needed your roof painted with purple polka-dots, stole a few thousand dollars from you to pay for it, and then accused you of ingratitude when you complained about it. That's my situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay. Again, this is silly. First of all, I want the polka dots to be a nice fuscia.

As for the "service" that you don't want, that's exactly the point I made a few posts back.

But IF we were invaded (big "if" I grant you), and IF your family and home were threatened, then would his services be so unwelcome as they are now???

I think not.

When push comes to shove, when your home is threatened and can only be saved by the military, that's when your tune will change, like most, if not all, pacifists.

And regarding the money being "stolen" to pay for services you don't want; this I must agree with.

But I have no beef with maintaining a military.

It takes but one enemy to start a fight, not two.

I do, however, agree that a lot of our tax money is pissed away on stupidity.

Gun registry, for example.

The Sheila Copps Flag Flap was another.

Many others that you can probably come up with more quickly than I.

But taxes are the price we pay for having a government and a structured civilization. Sad, but true.

But if you think we have it bad, check out what's been happening in Belize.

Then you'll see some REAL theft by government.

By comparison with most countries, we have it REALLY good.

But we have strayed from my original point and concern.

Your views on the "unnecessary" nature of the military are wonderfully idealistic.

But unfortunately, in the real world, idealism must often take a back seat to pragmatism.

Otherwise, the "ideals" of others will walk all over you.

[Black Dog]

Hey Army Guy: may I suggest you check out the following by Smedley Butler. Butler was a Marine Corps war hero, two-time Medal of Honor recipent and retired as a Major General. I think his beliefs about the nature of war (from one who'd seen plenty of it) ring as true today as they did in his time:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

War is a Racket

[Hugo]

You might indeed point that out, but it would have been a pretty lame approach to an argument. 'If', in this context, is just far too big a word.

Perhaps, but still, you must appreciate that picking the lesser of two evils is an inferior (though perhaps pragmatic) option to picking neither.

As to WWII, as Friedrich Hayek noted, it's almost funny that we fought that war to oppose 'evil' Nazism and, before, during and after that war, adopted many Nazi principles and ideas. They weren't original to the Nazis, to be sure, but the collectivist Nazi ideology is and was firmly entrenched in mainstream European and North American political ideas.

and the only difference between them is the rights that they are carrying with them, and which ones they are going to bestow upon you once the dust settles.

In this case, the two wrongs can't make a 'right', only the winner can.

Right, you keep saying this. However, this nullifies your idea that the Allies fought the war to end the Holocaust and that the battle is between good and evil. According to you, there was no moral weight between either the Allies or the Axis powers and it was simply a struggle between rival power blocs - a viewpoint you have rejected elsewhere.

This is a further example of what Blackdog has described as your pretzel-like corkscrewing without actually landing on an argument.

Most times. It means that they'll win or lose.

So how is that different? Conscription means a nation-state will win a war?

Unfortunately, it is happening. The USA does not need us or anyone else to "vest huge amounts of arbitrary power" in them. They seem to taking care of all such vesting on their own.

Other countries are doing the same.

Ah, so we must do like they do? The antidote to Nazism is building a state along Nazi principles to oppose it? Or is it better to try and oppose this evil wherever it is seen?

As for your analogy, that was just silly. Relevant, but silly.

Actually, it is pretty silly to call an analogy 'silly' without any argument to prove it. You might as well say the analogy was 'purple' or 'happy' or 'populous'.

But I did not find his arguments as feeble as you seem to.

Yeah, and quite a lot of Germans didn't find Hitler's arguments as feeble as I do. What does that mean?

It cannot be denied that your debating skills are quite highly developed.

Also, you have the knack of being able to twist your opponent's words to imply something other than their original meaning.

I reject that claim. I use the perfectly valid rhetorical exercise of reducto ad absurdum and construction of valid analogy to illustrate the invalidity of certain ideas. I do not twist anything, I just show how other arguments are self-contradictory and nonsensical.

This I disagree with. Ask any member of the military WHAT they feel they are defending.

The replies will be many and varied, but I doubt any of them will say "The State".

Once again, ask any Waffen SS soldier in WWII what they were defending and they'd never reply "one of the greatest evils in human history." What does that prove?

As for the "service" that you don't want, that's exactly the point I made a few posts back.

But IF we were invaded (big "if" I grant you), and IF your family and home were threatened, then would his services be so unwelcome as they are now???

I think not.

You guess not. But as Iraq, and Somalia, and Afghanistan (Soviet-era), and WWII Yugoslavia and Denmark, and so forth prove, you don't necessarily need an army to defend yourself against an invader. This is all speculation on your part.

The argument is essentially the same as that used by Mafia protection racketeers. It's also the same as used by tyrannical regimes the world over: "You need us to protect you, even though our existence violates your basic rights, because the evil fill-in-the-blank will come and kill you in your sleep if we're not here!"

This is like the whole Cold War argument too. American anti-Communists warned that the Soviets were going to take over the world, resting on faulty theories like the "missile gap" fearmongering, but history proves without a doubt that the USSR was not interested in conquest, would not risk her security for foreign conquest, would not send her armies outside her borders (except for Afghanistan - far less than American belligerence in the same period), and was always willing to trade territory for guarantees of peace. Stalin gave up his stake in Austria for a guarantee of Austrian neutrality, and was also willing to give up East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Baltic states etc. in exchange for similar guarantees of neutrality. American unwillingness to live at peace with the USSR condemned millions of Central and Eastern Europeans to 45 years of tyrannical rule.

[Hugo]

But if you think we have it bad, check out what's been happening in Belize.

Then you'll see some REAL theft by government.

By comparison with most countries, we have it REALLY good.

Ah, so if I steal your car stereo, you should just accept it, because some people are actually carjacked?

And regarding the money being "stolen" to pay for services you don't want; this I must agree with.

But I have no beef with maintaining a military.

So it's not that you reject theft, you only reject theft if it's not done to support something you agree with. How about murder? Rape? Torture? Will you support these crimes if you agree with the cause?

Your views on the "unnecessary" nature of the military are wonderfully idealistic.

But unfortunately, in the real world, idealism must often take a back seat to pragmatism.

Well, here's the thing. Anarchist societies without armies were all eventually conquered by foreign armies (although they usually made it very difficult), although most of them existed for centuries - longer than the paltry 85 years of the USA. However, history very clearly shows that a nation-state with an army is also perfectly conquerable. In fact, it's often easier to conquer because the existing apparatus of government can be used by the enemy, and the populace is trained to subservience.

So what do we gain from an army? Invulnerability to invasion? Tell that to the Persians, the Romans, the Turks, the Holy Roman Empire, the Chinese, the Russians, the French, the Germans... you get the point. Having an army in no way guarantees your security in any measure. It just adds more tyrants who already hold power over you without having to invade first.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

According to you, there was no moral weight between either the Allies or the Axis powers and it was simply a struggle between rival power blocs - a viewpoint you have rejected elsewhere.

No, you have misread what I said. The moral weight lies totally within the 'rights' that either side will grant the conquered. You claim it exists elsewhere.

[Objective Observer]

Dear Hugo,

According to you, there was no moral weight between either the Allies or the Axis powers and it was simply a struggle between rival power blocs - a viewpoint you have rejected elsewhere.

No, you have misread what I said. The moral weight lies totally within the 'rights' that either side will grant the conquered. You claim it exists elsewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The confrontation between the Axis and Allies was beyond morals and ethics, but was also more than just a struggle between two power blocs. A series of treaties brought in Britain, Russia was backstabbed, and the United States had economic interests to protect in the Allied forces in Europe. All three of these nations were brought into the war to protect their own images, to protect their economies, or protect their people. These were main, if not the main, factors for the allied government officials making the decisions they did in Europe. Morals and ethics were used by the governments to fuel the spirits of the poeple helping the war effort. Now both the governments and the people have their own views in mind, neither neccasarily incorrect or mispercieved, but the common goals of destroying the 'axis of evil' united both in the effort.

[Hugo]

No, you have misread what I said. The moral weight lies totally within the 'rights' that either side will grant the conquered. You claim it exists elsewhere.

Ah. Then what you are saying is that WWII didn't need to be fought, because the conquest of Europe by Nazis and the murder of European minorities was not immoral or wrong. After all, it was up to the Nazis to grant them any rights they might have had, and they didn't do that, ergo, they had no rights which could have been violated.

[Objective Observer]

No, you have misread what I said. The moral weight lies totally within the 'rights' that either side will grant the conquered. You claim it exists elsewhere.

Ah. Then what you are saying is that WWII didn't need to be fought, because the conquest of Europe by Nazis and the murder of European minorities was not immoral or wrong. After all, it was up to the Nazis to grant them any rights they might have had, and they didn't do that, ergo, they had no rights which could have been violated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A government is set up by the people (majority), and the moment the majority is no longer being served but the minority, then it is the right of the majority to destroy the government they had created in hopes of building a new government. This is obviously not always the case, but it has always been the mob mentality of the masses that allow for governments such as the nazis to come into power. the fact that executions were taking place would be considered an internal affair, much like today's circumstances sorrounding mass persecution and execution. We fought the nazis in World War II because they were hell bent on expansion and wanted to rule from Spain to Kamchatka.

[Hugo]

A government is set up by the people (majority), and the moment the majority is no longer being served but the minority, then it is the right of the majority to destroy the government they had created in hopes of building a new government.

Can you name me a democratic government that actually had the support of the majority of the people? Even FDR's greatest electoral victory netted him the vote of about 21% of the populace.

It's the case that democratic governments still serve a minority, albeit a larger one than that served by autocracies. Even what you claim were true, since when does a majority automatically make the right and ethical decisions? What about when the majority of Americans believed that blacks should be enslaved to them? Did that make it right? If we accept that the majority is still fallible, why does that make government by the majority a good idea?

I fully realise that you aren't contending any of these things, I'm just curious to hear your views, because you explain something about democratic governments but not about the morality behind them.

[Objective Observer]

Morality is something bred into us from birth throuout nurturing. The natural feeling to conform in order to be at peace with society makes us accept what our families believe up until we enter the world. There we either adapt our morals and ethics to components of society that we interact with or we breakdown and become atheisists. Emotion is behind morals, that's how we can feel bad about something and know that it is against our morals. Therefore morals are whatever we teach ourselves. Is it right for me to tell others that they have the inccorect morals? No. Just that they don't have the same morals i do.

When I'm talking about the majority rules, i'm speaking not in an elecotral sense, but in a literal sense. If the majority of people disagree with what is going on with a government they can overthrow it. Even if a coup or other form of rebellion fails, by the time the majority of the populace believe in an idea then that idea will survive any persecution. This is of course if the idea is a new one challenging an old one. Out with the old and in with the new always seems to be the way history has worked.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Hey Army Guy: may I suggest you check out the following by Smedley Butler. Butler was a Marine Corps war hero, two-time Medal of Honor recipent and retired as a Major General. I think his beliefs about the nature of war (from one who'd seen plenty of it) ring as true today as they did in his time:

This is but one respected mans opinion, and Yes the Net is full of opinions the pros and cons of being a soldier. It took this man 33 years and 4 months to come to the conclusion that Not All goverments make the right decisions. He also quotes

"Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." Yet he fails to mentioned WHY? he volenteered in the first place, or WHY he continued to serve for 33 years. This quote is false, he could have changed his fate in many ways,by getting out of the military, etc.etc.

And how does this relate to todays Canadian Armed Forces or being a soldier in it....And how does this tie into yours and Hugo's argument of not having a present day goverment system period...He also quotes that he has a soldier is still willing to defend his country,if attacked or for the bill of rights (written by the goverment and accepted by the people).