Days 77-84 - Honesty vs. Morality

I again had the privilege of co-hosting the Complete Liberty Podcast with Wes and Brett last week. We continued our discussion of an article about necessary evil, this time venturing into the realm of religion, family, and so-called "life-boat scenarios." Additionally the issues of valid contract and kangaroo courts (governmental courts), places where the prosecutor and judge work for the same organization, were addressed as well.

I encourage you to check out Episode 76 - The Seen and Unseen of Politics, Mythologies, Life-boat Ethics, Evil, and Contract Theory. The show is available for download or online listening by clicking, or right-clicking, here for the mp3, or for free at the iTunes Store.

_______________________________

My original intent for this week’s blog had been to focus on a different topic than that of “military service” as involuntary servitude; however, the nature of the many comments that were posted has led me to respond to a different aspect of this issue.

Despite a number of comments that criticized my desire to immediately and completely separate from myself from the group of individuals known as the United States Navy, no one defended my “enlistment contract” as a valid excuse for forcing my labor. Hopefully this a result of my presentation of the morally consistent definition of enforceable contract as defined by Murray Rothbard. In their comments, Jay and Nick’s recurring condemnation of my action instead seemed to be of a moral, or value-driven, nature. The following are a few examples.

From Jay:

"What N. Morris seems to and I to assert is that it becomes a matter of personal integrity. That is, be man enough to realize that you might have made a poor decision. But unless the other party is willing to renegotiate, you should stick to it."

From Nick:

“The way I figure it (with my simple infantry mind) when you make an agreement for anything weather it be legally on paper or verbally agreed upon with a spit on hand shake, a man's word is his honor.”

“My issue with what my good friend is doing has vary little to do with the legal aspect of it and everything to do with the honor and the word of the man who signed the contract. It is my belief that a man's honor bound agreement to fufill his time in the military outweighs his legal one.”

And finally, what I believe has been the most problematic but succinct statement:

“just because you suddenly see something as differnt or wrong doesn't mean you should not fufill your word.”

Many parties in this discussion, myself included, then made references to everything from the Holocaust, to the forced suicide of Roman soldiers, to the current murders committed by those collectively known as the United States Armed Forces. There is definitely value to be had in exploring the significance of these ideas in both past and present situations. However, amidst the back-and-forth barrage of analogies and opinions, it seems as though the truth of Nick’s last statement has neither been substantiated nor directly shown to be false.

Quoted below is a portion of the comment I posted in response to Nick. I had hoped, that without explicitly stating it, I could use an analogy to prompt Nick to reach his own conclusion about the disastrous implications of what he said.

“. . . would Nick have told a Nazi soldier that it didn't matter if he came to see Hitler's "Final Solution" as genocide because, after all, this soldier had given his word to be in the German Army?”

Nick’s response did not answer my question as to whether or not he would tell the German soldier to fulfill his word by obeying his orders to execute Jews. Instead, Nick wrote:

“To answer your qurry... there were many German soldiers who did their duty to their fellow soldiers and their country regardless of the fact that they knew Hitler was wrong … Just because Hitler was horribly immoral and without honor does not mean the normal German soldier out on the line was without morals or was dishonorable.”

This response completely ignores the issue of whether or not it’s right to keep your word if it involves doing what you believe is wrong. To further confound my attempts to understand his position, Nick later wrote back to B.R. Merrick that:

“I couldn't agree more with the statement "To follow orders instead of doing what you know is right is not honorable",”

To argue that one should not break one’s word (i.e. a promise to follow orders) while at the same time claiming that it would be dishonorable to follow orders if it involves doing something that you know is wrong, is essentially to advocate that one should act dishonorably (i.e. although it would be dishonorable, if you’ve given your word, one should do something that is wrong simply because one promised to do so). The other explanation is that Nick blatantly contradicted himself. Either way, it would appear that Nick and Jay place more value on keeping one’s word, than on refraining from wrong actions. This is likely due to an errant categorization of dishonesty as inherently wrong (a problem I address at the end of this blog).

At present, I have no illusions that either Jay, or Nick, as self-described members of the military, understands his actions to be wrong. That they’re sincere in this belief doesn’t justify any murders they may have committed, but it does explain why they personally would value keeping one’s word as more important than exiting a job that they don’t think inherently involves immoral actions.

What I fail to comprehend, is that if they know I believe war is immoral, and the military exists for waging war, why would they attempt to convince me, or anyone, that it would be better (in the sense of “honor”, “personal integrity”, etc.) to keep my word if it means supporting that which I believe is immoral? I cannot but assume that they somehow missed the meaning of what they said, because who would honestly argue that a contract-killer who comes to realize the evil nature of his job is still “honor-bound” to carry out his next “hit” simply because he gave his word that he would do so?

Given our similar upbringings, if Nick or Jay were to disagree with my assertion that war is immoral, that would be much more understandable to me than arguing that it’s dishonorable or not acting with integrity to do all that I can to avoid supporting actions that I believe are immoral. Humans naturally strive to avoid dissonance between belief and action. Once someone believes that an action is right or wrong, it’s to be expected that she or he will try and act, or not act, accordingly.

Even though I believe it, I have not attempted to convince anyone that they should leave the military because it would be “honorable.” Rather, I have put great effort into spreading the truth that war is immoral. I do this, because if people believe they support a just war, there is little or no hope of persuading them to change their actions. However, if they understand that war is immoral, then they will undoubtedly feel a strong internal compulsion to leave the military.

Finally, and most importantly, I believe Jay and Nick’s claims errantly equate honesty and/or keeping one’s word with morality. This is not merely a matter of semantics, but one of critical importance in deciding what is, or is not, an immoral action, and therefore, how actions should be prioritized. Properly understood, morality is proscriptive; in other words, it prohibits certain actions as wrong as opposed to prescribing actions as right. In sum, it is immoral to initiate the use of force against another human, or his or her property, and any action can be understood to be moral or immoral by this simple definition.

In this way, lying, or failing to keep a promise, cannot inherently be understood to be immoral. There are innumerable instances in which you can be dishonest, or not keep your word, and yet, you can still do so without initiating the use of force against any person, or any person’s property. For example, a man promises to be forever married to a woman; however, said woman then proceeds to regularly get drunk and beat the man. The man has made a promise, but in filing for divorce, and breaking his promise, he isn’t acting immorally, because he is not inherently initiating the use of force against the woman or her property.

This is not to say that honesty and keeping one’s word should not be valued. These behaviors are most definitely important, and they should be recognized as critical virtues of any desirable society. However, the mistake is to categorize honesty as a moral behavior. Doing so can result in committing a truly immoral action out of the desire to keep one’s word.

Consider the following: if being dishonest is immoral, then those who lied about hiding Jews, or broke promises in order to help black people escape slavery, were acting immorally. Likewise, if breaking a promise is classified as an immoral behavior, it creates the very paradox illustrated by Nick and Jay’s claims that it’s dishonorable to break one’s word, even if keeping one’s word involves committing immoral actions. While honesty and keeping promises are admirable behaviors in most daily circumstances, issues of morality rightfully trump these virtues when choosing to adhere to one standard involves failing to live up to the other.

Days 71-76 - A Misunderstanding of Contract

In addition to this week's blog, I also wish to call your attention to my first foray into podcasting. Wes Bertrand, (author, psychologist, and podcast host) had me join him as a co-host on Episode 75 of the Complete Liberty Podcast. Wes describes the episode as discussing the evils of militaries, the psychology of identity, selfless statism, and recognizing truth.

You can download the show for free by clicking the following link to the iTunes Store

or

You can listen online by clicking here, or right-clicking to save the file to your computer.

_______________________________

I appreciate the time and effort that Jay Jones put into his critique of my last post “What’s In a Contract.” His response is found uninterrupted in the comments section of last week’s blog. I believe his criticism is largely in response to a combination of misunderstanding what I meant and misapplying the principles advocated by Murray Rothbard. For easy differentiation, Jay's writing will be in red throughout this post.

Although this may not seem to directly address the issue of the immorality of war, I believe it’s both related and relevant. I honestly think that the American military would be rendered impotent were it not for the forced labor of military personnel. Working at the Navy’s only boot camp, I regularly interact with individuals who wish to leave the military after experiencing it firsthand, but instead they are forced to continue to “train” against their will. Only days and weeks after joining the Navy, if given the opportunity, a significant percentage of those who signed “contracts” would undoubtedly leave after discovering the true nature of military “service.”

Considering that the vast majority of military personnel claim that they were lied to by their Recruiters, it would only make sense that after discovering these lies, they would not continue to work under the false pretenses under which those very “contracts” were signed. It’s only after weeks of indoctrination and de-individuation that such persons willingly continue to work or even reenlist.

This is why spreading the truth that the organization known as the Department of Defense uses slavery to carry out its wars is crucial to ending both war and involuntary servitude.

First, to rebut the claim that one cannot “transfer one’s self-ownership”. That begs the simple question: “Why can’t I?” The analogy of someone else animating your body is a false choice.

The empirical fact that someone else cannot animate your body is not a false choice but incontrovertible evidence that one cannot transfer her or his self-ownership. An individual may choose to direct her behavior to fulfill the wishes or desires of someone else, but she is no less in control of her body and mind and, therefore, no less a self-owner because she does this. The reality is that no matter how many contracts you sign or oaths you swear, you cannot have any less ownership in yourself (i.e. control over your mind and body).

Entering into a contract, in any degree, doesn’t imply the loss of all bodily or cognitive function.

I fully agree, and this only serves to further answer the first question of why you can’t transfer your self-ownership.

But to assert that one person, for whatever reason would not be able to choose to limit their choice, freedom or any number of things that binding oneself to a contract inherently implies is a horribly misguided sentiment. If the price was right, who is to say that I should not enter into a bond that said I must not speak about one specific thing for a given time? I think that Dan would assert that this would be separation “from your right to internally control your body”. But why couldn’t I limit myself, for awhile, if I were to choose? To assert that I couldn’t would infringe on my personal liberty and invalidate most, if not all, contracts. .

I did not, nor do I, assert that a person should be prohibited from being able to “choose to limit their choice, freedom” etc. so long as these limitations are self-imposed and self-enforced. I believe it would be absolutely wrong to try and force you to speak about something if you decided to refrain from speaking about “one specific thing for a given time.” However, it would be equally wrong to try and force you to stop saying something no matter what you may have signed or to whom you may have promised that you wouldn’t do so.

As an individual Jay has the right to say, or not say, anything on his own property because exercising this ability does not constitute the initiation of force against anyone else. However, if Jay were to sign a piece of paper promising that he wouldn’t make certain statements for a given period of time, such a document should not be viewed as an enforceable contract. I’m not advocating that Jay should be prevented from signing such a piece of paper but rather that he could not justly be penalized for failing to fulfill his promise.

The reason the hypothetical “no speech contract” cannot be justly enforced is because it involves no transfer of property and, therefore, no implicit theft if not fulfilled. Jay is incapable of transferring his right to speak because it is an inherent part of his self-ownership. Even if he signs a “contract” swearing that he will not speak about something, there is no transfer of this aspect of his self-ownership to the “receiving party.” Ultimately, Jay’s ability to speak whatever he wishes is an unalienable right.

If the “receiving party” in Jay’s contract transfers property ($1) to him in exchange for his promised future action (silence), then such property can be rightly understood to have been transferred conditionally and not absolutely. Should Jay fail to make good on his word, it would be implicit theft for him to keep the $1. What would be wrong, would be for the “receiving party” to duct tape Jay’s mouth shut or to confine him to a cage because he started talking. It is obvious then that if there were no transfer of property to Jay it would also be wrong for him to be forced to maintain his silence.

To directly answer Jay’s question of why he couldn’t limit himself from speaking for a while if he so chose, I would say that he is certainly welcome to do so, and I never implied otherwise. My assertion is that it would be wrong for someone to initiate the use of force against him for failing to live up to his promise.

However, the hallmark of true libertarianism is the mixture of eisegetic views of fanciful writings, the inability to look two steps ahead as well as a widespread failure to apply theories to the real world. “True Libertarianism” works in a world where true libertarians are gods. Dan’s excerpt of Rothbard’s work falls in line with my assertion. He overlooks (because it doesn’t fit with his world view, I suspect) the actual cost of a contract. Rothbard may have had an ethical book published. I doubt he did well in econ though.

That Jay expressed his doubt that Rothbard “did well in econ,” is an unfortunate example of shoving one’s foot deep into one’s mouth. Until his death in 1995, Murray Rothbard was in fact the preeminent economist of the Austrian School. He held a doctorate in the Philosophy of Economics from Columbia and was a distinguished professor at the University of Nevada. In addition to publishing numerous books on economics, he helped found the world center for Austrian Economics (Ludwig Von Mises Institute) as well as the scholarly journal “Review of Austrian Economics.” (Wikipedia: Murray Rothbard)

As for Jay’s claims of failing to apply ideas to the real world, I find this to be in direct contradiction to my condemnation and call for change to the very real world situation in which I’m forced to labor on behalf of others because of a past promise.

Simply put, contracts have both a cost and a price. What Rothbard and Dan both look at is the price. However, the cost may be far more. While an entity may offer pay for a given period in exchange for any number of things (work, silence, sex, whatever) they make the assumption that whatever problem they were trying to fix, or gap they were trying to fill, will be taken care of for that set amount of time. Thus, they can shift resources elsewhere.

The flaw in the thinking here seems to be in the idea that “If I am basically being paid as I go, me breaking the contract is ok. No harm, no foul.” That’s simply not the case. Reneging on a contract causes a shift in resources, time and personnel that the contract was designed to avoid for a set amount of time. This is the de facto theft that Rothbard cannot see. If not for future assurances, why make contracts at all? Thus, if Dan were to break his contract, it would be implicit theft.

Again, Jay fails to address the exchange of property that is essential to any justifiably enforceable contract. The fact that the expectations of people in the military would go unmet if I were to fail to fulfill my promise of labor cannot in any way be seen as my possessing any property that justly belongs to people in the military. Even though I signed such a promise in writing, it does not change the lack of property involved.

Jay is correct that the military might experience losses as a result of having decided to “shift resources elsewhere.” However, any such losses are always a risk when making predictions about human behavior, and they would not equate to theft on my part. If you doubt this, tell me what property belonging to the military I would possess if I were to stop working for them.

The analogy of the baseball player vs. the military is another false choice. I have known Dan for as long as I can remember. I know him to be an intelligent person. I cannot accept the argument that he didn’t know what he was getting into. To do so would imply wholesale ignorance on his part. The same goes for the baseball star. He knows the consequences of his actions when he signs on the dotted line. Dan did as well (as have I 3 times). Consequences are inherently a part of a contract and they vary. Given one’s place in history, indentured servitude could be an excellent option. But the argument of whether the cost was paid up front or in installments is paper thin. If Dan were to have received a bonus, would his arguments really be framed differently? I think not.

Jay does not explain what he means by saying that the analogy of the baseball player and the military is a false choice, so I cannot address this claim.

I’m glad that Jay doesn’t accept the argument that I didn’t know what I was getting into by signing a piece of paper promising to work for the military. I’m the only person who can truly answer as to whether or not I understood, and yet I would not accept this argument either. The fact that I did understand what I was doing when I signed those papers is never something that I have contested, and therefore, I’m unsure why Jay highlighted this truth.

If Jay was pointing this out for the purpose of arguing that a consequence is justified so long as someone understands beforehand what the consequence will be, then I vehemently disagree. I knew when I signed those papers that if I failed to fulfill my promise others would claim justification for imprisoning me. At the time, I agreed with this, but that neither made it right at the time, nor does it justify the threat of such action now that I properly understand it as enslavement.

My overall argument that I am currently enslaved would not be framed differently had I received a bonus tied to a set number of years of work. However, such a bonus would equate to the transfer of property, and therefore, as with Jay and his $1 received in exchange for silence, I would rightly transfer back any property I had conditionally received.

Although these clarifications are important to a proper understanding of what rightly constitutes a contract, it is irrelevant to my current circumstances. Unfortunately, those people identified as the military believe that I can rightfully be forced to fulfill my promise despite the fact that there would not be any implicit theft of property on my part if I were allowed to quit.

Dan’s lack of concern about his future employment adds nothing to this debate; it only shows that others may, whether they agree or disagree with him, find him hirable. The same goes for the persistence of taxes or the military. It has nothing to do with the debate (although everything to do with the failure to apply theory to the world and looking past step two). Neither does using the rape example. That analogy simply preys on our culture’s view on prostitution and other mores. If in another time or place; people wouldn’t look so harshly on said example.

My addressing my future employment was not for the purpose of debate, but seeing as this is my blog, I added it because some readers inquired about my perspective on this issue, and I figured that others who know me would be interested as well. I remain unclear on what is meant by “looking past step two,” and I can only postulate that it is somehow an argument that the ends can justify the means. As for the rape example, it remains pertinent, regardless of the prevailing cultural views on sex because it addresses the central question of our debate: whether or not it’s right to force someone to keep a promise.

In conclusion, who is to say what I can or cannot chose to do or give up? This is the nature of contractual law. Both parties giving up something of value for something they happen to find more valuable. The clauses or timeframe of said contract have no bearing in this debate. Simply that, at the time of signing, both parties accepted the terms. For good or for bad Dan, I and most of you have done the same at some time. The fact that we gave up something whether it be money, goods, time or a combination means little. And to renege is theft on some level. However, the greatest litmus test is to turn the contract around and play devil’s advocate. And here is where Dan’s argument meets its greatest failure: One party is always cheated when the other doesn’t come through.

Jay’s conclusion makes clear that he does not recognize the transfer of property as the key to understanding just contract. Without a transfer of property, as in the case of a promise, reneging cannot be theft because theft requires the possession of someone else’s just property. In cases where property has been conditionally transferred dependent on the fulfillment of some action, the property should be returned if the contract is not fulfilled. However, in no case, is force ever justified to make someone keep a promise. Nevertheless, this is the standard operating procedure for those comprising the “Department of Defense.”

Ultimately, Jay is correct in implying that, apart from initiating the use of force, nobody should be able to justifiably say what a person “can or cannot chose to do or give up.” If this is his belief, I wonder why he does not see the contradiction in then arguing that I should be forced to continue to labor for someone else? Is slavery not one of the worst examples of forcing someone else’s action?

Days 67-70 - What's In a Contract?

The most common reason given to invalidate my claim that I am currently a slave seems to be the fact that I do not deny having once signed a piece of paper that said I agreed to work for the "Navy" for 8 years (5 years "active," 3 "inactive"). If you were unaware, I publicly decried this tyranny in Days 60-64, which was a blog that included my rebuttal to the "Investigating Officer," a paper copy of which is also currently circulating among those who identify themselves as my "Chain of Command."

To argue that the manner in which I'm presently forced to labor under the threat of imprisonment is not slavery simply because I once signed a sheet of paper is to pretend that it is possible to transfer one's self-ownership (or at least, to rent it). It is an easily observable fact that, while alive, you cannot allow anyone else to animate your body and use it in place of you. Simply put, self-ownership is an absolutely inalienable right; you cannot be separated from your right to internally control your own body. Even in slavery then, a person cannot rightly be said to be the property of someone else, but only a forced laborer on that individual's behalf.

The question then becomes, can a person ever consent to being forced to labor? This is, of course, inherently contradictory because force is an action initiated against someone in the absence of consent. For example, a woman cannot consent to be raped, for then it would not be rape, but consensual sex. With this truth in mind, who would argue that if a woman were to sign a contract saying she would have sex with a man whenever he wanted for the next five years, that man would then be justified in having sex with her even after the woman began to protest and say that she no longer wanted to have sex with him? Who would defend the man saying, "Well, she voluntarily signed a contract. Therefore, it's consensual sex, and she has no grounds for complaint. After all, nobody forced her to sign the contract."

Hopefully nobody would make this argument, and yet this same logic has repeatedly been the rationale given to me for why it is right that I be forced to continue working for the organization known as the "United States Navy." What is different? For both the hypothetical woman and myself, we signed pieces of paper agreeing to engage in certain behavior at a future point in time. At a later point, we both no longer desire to perform the previously agreed to behavior. If the previous logic would not be applied to a woman who promised she would engage in sex, why then is the argument applied to me? How is it right for others to force me to act against my will? The principles involved are the same; the only difference is the promised action.

Additionally, I suspect that not only would the hypothetical man be generally condemned for forcing the woman to fulfill her "contract," but the very piece of paper that the woman signed would be considered invalid and barbaric, certainly not a binding contract. Why then are "enlistment contracts" considered to be anything different? They are surely nothing more than promises of future action, just as the hypothetical woman's contract was such a promise.

Whether or not such "contracts" involve the transfer of benefits to the individual making the promise of future labor is irrelevant. Ultimately, the reason such "contracts" are not valid is that no person can alienate her or his right of self-ownership in the present, let alone can they rightly contract to do so in the future.

I don't mean to imply that there are no such things as promises. I do mean to emphasize that it is most definitely wrong to initiate the use of force against people simply for breaking a promise. With these clarifications in mind, the natural question arises as to how one differentiates between a contract and a promise. The answer is based on whether or not there was an exchange of property.

A promise is a statement of intended future action; a contract involves a real-time exchange of property. In his book, Ethics of Liberty (available free online), Murray Rothbard makes the following critical specifications regarding the nature of contracts:

“Unfortunately, many libertarians devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society. Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party. In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts.” (page 131)

From this, I believe that if I were to break my "contract" with the Navy (something I don’t intend to do), it would not result in the implicit theft of any property. The Navy has not given me bonuses, advanced pay, or any fringe benefits such as a car, or a vacation home in the Hamptons, which could rightly be considered property and understood to be in exchange for my agreed upon future labor.

Each month that I work, more money that was stolen from other people is deposited into my bank account. Make no mistake, this is not a voluntary exchange (either between myself or the people from whom the money is expropriated), but it does occur in the present. Hypothetically, if I were to fail in fulfilling my contract by no longer laboring or reporting for duty, there would not only be a lack of moral or ethical grounds for imprisonment, but there would also be no legitimate reason to attempt to extract any type of repayment for my failure.

As to the pragmatic question of how the "military" could continue to operate without enslaving people to it, that's easy: it couldn't, and so it would cease to exist. Thus would end yet another form of slavery, and liberty-loving people everywhere would undoubtedly cry, "Good riddance!" No other employer forces people to continue to work for them under the threat of imprisonment. In these other industries that don't force people to labor, one’s reputation becomes immensely more important. Going back to an analogy I've used in other blogs, if I were a baseball player who failed to live up to his contract, I would legitimately have to return any property that had already been transferred to me in exchange for my promised future labor. Worse, I would face the extremely forbidding prospect of trying to convince another ball team to extend me an offer that I really would keep this time.

As for my own future employment, I have little concern that I will fail to find work because of a tarnished reputation. Going forward, I'm confident that there are myriad individuals who will gladly exchange their property for my labor. These are the type of persons who are of such character that they acknowledge that it is definitely better not to persevere in wrongdoing, merely for the sake of keeping one’s word.

In conclusion, I did sign a piece of paper promising to work for those calling themselves the "Navy." But which is immoral: that I no longer want to live up to my word in this regard, or that those same people are threatening me with incarceration if I don't continue laboring for them?

*My role in the process of seeking discharge as a conscientious objector ended when I filed my rebuttal last week. From this point forward, I'm simply waiting for a decision as to whether or not my "request" will be granted. Given this new set of circumstances, I expect that there will be few, if any, progress reports to give until a decision is made.

In the meantime, I intend to cut back to posting only on a weekly basis. Hopefully, this reduction in quantity will result in higher quality content that more effectively dispels the deadly memes that justify war. Of course, if an urgent issue develops, I won't hesitate to keep you apprised via a midweek blog.

Thanks for reading, and please, keep questioning.

Daniel

Days 65 & 66 - Words & Flags

Much like the comments section of my last blog, My Rebuttal to the report of the "Investigating Officer" has been met with silence. After having read what I submitted, one of the doctor's with whom I work did the easily recognized gesture for "over their heads" as explanation for why there was no reaction from the powers that be.

Unfortunately, I think the idea that forced labor = slavery is not a concept that pushes the limits of anyone's mental faculties, and thus ignorance is not a valid excuse. Instead, I believe the problem is one of conscience. If those who demand my labor under the threat of imprisonment were to objectively evaluate their actions in light of this simple truth, the result would be such an extreme level of cognitive dissonance that a change in behavior would be unavoidable.

As Stefan Molyneux has pointed out, once a behavior is recognized as evil, it ceases to continue. Evil can only flourish when that which is evil is presented as that which is good. And what facilitates the illusion that juxtaposes evil and good? Language.

Think of the worst atrocities that you can recall from human history or your own personal life? How did those who perpetrated such deeds describe their actions? Did those who called themselves the American government advocate an unparalleled slaughter of the brown-skinned indigenous peoples who lived on the land they wanted? Of course not. Instead they spoke of "Manifest Destiny." Sounds glorious, right? Well, apparently it was an effective enough illusion that the murder of millions of people was passed off as the righteous enactment of a loving God's will.

Sadly, the mass extermination that took place within "America's" borders gets quickly glossed over in favor of horrors for which people who flew a different flag can be blamed. Most frequently the Nazis. If you've always thought the Nazi Holocaust was worse than anything "America" has done, think again, or redefine worse so as not to include the possibility of multiple times more people dead.

Independent research has shown death totals between "10 million and 114 million indians (sic) as a direct result of US actions. Please note that Nazi Holocaust estimates are between 6 and 11 million; thereby making the Nazi Holocaust the 2nd largest mass murder of a class of people in history." Neither Hitler's minions, nor those who committed genocide under the banner of the American Flag, were able to do so while plainly stating their actions. One group had advocated a "Final Solution," and another carried out their "manifest destiny," both sound like something any good person would want, and yet both resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

The atrocities carried out under the banner of the swastika have likely forever designated that emblem as a symbol of the worst evil. Honestly, I've never encountered a person that said, "Yes, the Holocaust was horrible, but look at all the good things the Nazis did. The roads were improved, the garbage was taken away, and for a while, national defense was at an all-time high."

In contrast, only a few days ago, I encountered hundreds of individuals who were waving the banner under which a different genocide was committed. With a few of these people, I did engage in conversation, and yet they maintained that whatever travesties were committed by those who used the "stars and stripes" as their symbol, they were "proud to be an American."

Are you?

Days 60-64 - My Rebuttal

The following is my rebuttal to the report of the "Investigating Officer." Thus ends any part that I will have in my request to be discharged from the Navy as a conscientious objector.

To Whoever Decides If I Will Be Discharged:

I agree with the recommendation of the “Investigating Officer” that I am a conscientious objector to war and should be discharged. My rebuttal, therefore, is to the legitimacy of the reasoning by which you justify forcing me to labor on your behalf.

I will no longer pretend that I am a member of an “all volunteer” military force. In the previous phrase, the word “volunteer” is used in the present tense; however, I no longer voluntarily work for you, nor do thousands of others whom you call Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines. We follow orders because we ultimately know that if we do not, we will be imprisoned. This is servitude, not volunteerism.

Undoubtedly, like me, all these persons did at one time voluntarily sign a piece of paper promising to work for what is known as the “Department of Defense,” but natural law and logic reveal that a contract of enslavement is a contradiction. A slave is a person who submits to the edicts and threats of another, not a person who freely chooses. We volunteered (past tense), and this fact does nothing to address whether or not our continued labors are voluntary. As for me, I am telling you unequivocally that although I continue to work for you, this is under duress; rather than being voluntary, my work is done to avoid the further restriction of my liberty that would come from imprisonment.

If you consider yourself justified in exercising authority over me, then you inherently deny my self-ownership. Such a blatant usurpation of individual autonomy continues largely unrecognized because of widespread conformity and propaganda that employs false notions of freedom. The result is that people regularly favor the illusion of liberty over the recognition that they are obeying others’ commands to avoid being thrown in cages, or worse.

Who, except those calling themselves “the military,” imprisons people for quitting their jobs? Had I signed a piece of paper promising to play baseball for the Chicago Cubs for five years, I would not go to jail if I quit after three years (although I would likely forfeit the outstanding monetary benefits promised upon fulfillment of the contract). However, you act as if there would somehow be justification for imprisoning me simply because you wear a different uniform than a baseball jersey.

Despite the fact that I only work for you under the threat of imprisonment, I am not without volition. I have therefore chosen to jump through the bureaucratic hoops that you have established by filing this request. However, I do not want this fact to be misinterpreted as my condoning the legitimacy of this process. Slavery has been, and continues to be, an atrocity perpetuated by those who call themselves “the government of the United States of America.” I hope that this will one day change, and I’m working toward that end.

In the meantime, I do not expect that you will allow me to freely leave merely because I have exposed the truth of my involuntary servitude. Deep down, you already know this truth all too well. Most simply, a slave is someone who is forced to labor, incurring harmful consequences for attempting to sever the corrupt relationship with the master. Whether or not you choose to classify me as a conscientious objector, the truth of my slavery (and yours) is plainly evident to people who yearn to be free to make their own choices. Every day that I continue to work for you not by choice but because of your threat of imprisonment, you only add further evidence to the truth that I am indisputably a slave.

(signed)

Daniel J. Lakemacher

Days 58-59 - The Fallacy of Preemptive Violence

Throughout the numerous interactions I've had with people who disagree with my absolute opposition to war, I've found a great deal of consistency. Such persons do not argue against the destructive nature of war. They do not pretend that war doesn't result in large numbers of people dying. In fact, sometimes these are the very facts that my detractors use to support what I hear as the most frequent defense of war:

Daniel, it's not as if I like war, of course not, but the reality is, war is necessary.

This is generally said in a very defensive manner. Ironically, others apparently interpret my advocacy for peace as a threatening attack. Although there is irony given the terms, I certainly understand that my assertion does call into question the morality of others' actions, and thus, it does in fact threaten their masquerade of presenting that which is wrong as being right.

The inherent inconsistency of arguing that war is justified by its necessity can clearly be seen by specifying the actions of the individuals involved. If it is accepted that individuals initiating physical violence against other individuals is wrong (e.g. men hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings is wrong), how then can it be right to enact behavior that also involves individuals initiating physical violence against other individuals (e.g. men and women dropping explosives out of airplanes is right)?

What have the accomplices to the 9/11 attacks repeatedly stated as their purpose? In his remarks directed to the general citizenry of America, Osama bin Laden, the man recognized by those in the United States government as the leader of the hijackings, gives his answer.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.

"To the American people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another Manhattan," he said. "I tell you: Security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html)

This form of argument sounds strikingly familiar, does it not? Osama bin Laden has publicly claimed that the deaths caused by his compatriots was in retaliation for the deaths that members of the U.S. and Israeli governments have caused. Going further still, bin Laden emphasizes that his main concern is for the security of other people that he feels are threatened by the individuals who identify themselves as the United States government.

Meanwhile, costumed individuals collectivized under the heading of the United States military have killed multiple times more people than died on 9/11, and all this has been done while stating that their actions are in retaliation for the deaths perpetrated by Osama's comrades. Like bin Laden himself, these people also claim that they are merely acting out of concern for the security of others whom they say they want to protect.

In this manner, both factions are caught in the paradox of trying to justify their initiation of violence by calling it preventative. The reality is that no matter how big the WMDs or how fearful people are for their "security," there is no such thing as preventative violence. Such an idea is as contradictory as preemptive rape. Ultimately, if initiating the use of force is morally wrong, then it is wrong for anyone, at anytime, in any place, and for any reason.

Once a person accepts that war is wrong, it will immediately become something to be stopped. This raises the natural question of how to end war. For one answer, I turn to Howard Zinn and his aptly titled book A Power Government's Cannot Suppress.

We must recognize that we cannot depend on the governments of the world to abolish war, because they and the economic interests they represent benefit from war. Therefore, we, the people of the world must take up the challenge. And although we do not command armies, we do not have great treasuries of wealth, there is one crucial fact that gives us enormous power: the governments of the world cannot wage war without the participation of the people. Albert Einstein understood this simple fact. Horrified by the carnage of the First World War in which 10 million died in the battlefields of Europe, Einstein said: "Wars will stop when men refuse to fight."

That is our challenge, to bring the world to the point where men and women will refuse to fight, and governments will be helpless to wage war.

Is that utopian? Impossible? Only a dream?

Do people go to war because it is part of human nature? If so, then we might consider it impossible to do away with war. But there is no evidence, in biology, or psychology, or anthropology, of a natural instinct for war. If that were so, we would find a spontaneous rush to war by masses of people. What we find is something very different: we find that governments must make enormous efforts to mobilize populations for war. They must entice young people with promises of money, land, education, skills. Immigrants are lured with promises of green cards and citizenship. And if those enticements don't work, government must coerce. It must conscript young people, force them into military service, threaten them with prison if they do not comply.

Woodrow Wilson found a citizenry so reluctant to enter the First World War that he had to pummel the nation with propaganda and imprison dissenters in order to get the country to join the butchery going on in Europe.

The most powerful weapon of governments in raising armies is the weapon of propaganda, of ideology. It must persuade young people, and their families, that though they may die, though they may lose arms or legs, or become blind, that it is done for the common good, for a noble cause, for democracy, for liberty, for God, for the country.

The idea that we owe something to our country goes far back to Plato, who puts into the mouth of Socrates the idea that the citizen has an obligation to the state, that the state is to be revered more than your father and mother. He says: "In war, and in the court of justice, and everywhere, you must do whatever your state and your country tell you to do, or you must persuade them that their commands are unjust." There is no equality here: the citizen may use persuasion, no more. The state may use force.

This idea of obedience to the state is the essence of totalitarianism. And we find it not only in Mussolini's Italy, in Hitler's Germany, in Stalin's Soviet Union, but in so-called democratic countries, like the United States.

I accept Zinn's goal as my own, that is, bringing people to the point where they "will refuse to fight, and governments will be helpless to wage war." Every day that I remain in the military against my will, my situation serves to dispel the myth that the American military today is an "all volunteer force." I do not report for duty by choice; I do so under the threat of imprisonment. Also, despite the fact that I report for duty, I refuse to fight. The reality is that even if every individual who currently works for any military showed up tomorrow for work but refused to fight, that would be the end of war and not a drop of blood would be shed.

Chances are that you are not considered a member of any military. Nevertheless, without your support and the support of those like you, the people who call themselves government would be impotent to continue the destruction that is war. I have taken my stand against an immoral act that is cloaked in the vagaries of patriotism, honor, courage, duty, and, the rationale most referenced to me, "necessity." The question is now, what will you do?