Days 113-119 - Adding Insult to Injury

This week I received my third letter from the "Under Secretary of Defense" via the United States Postal Service. At current postage rates that amounts to $1.32 that has been stolen from someone in taxes to have these letters sent to me. This dollar figure doesn't include the more significant costs that were extorted from other "taxpayers" in order to create the letter and enact the program the letter describes. Bear in mind, I have also received multiple emails regarding the same issue that is addressed in this correspondence.

The waste of resources involved in forwarding such junk-mail is not insignificant, but on a personal level, the real travesty is the slap in the face of what is being asked of me. The letter states:

Dear Petty Officer Lakemacher,

You have been selected to participate in the August 2009 Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members ... It will ask for your opinions on a variety of policies and programs that will improve the workplace and family life for all military members. While your participation is desired, it is entirely voluntary.

I urge you to share your perspective on these important issues. This is your chance to influence the formulation of military personnel policies. These surveys are Official Business and can be completed at your duty station, using government equipment ...

The rest of the legal size card stock page goes on to detail information about accessing the survey online as well as enclosing a perforated tear-out card "designed to fit in your wallet."

Apparently I've been wrong all along about those in the military not caring about me. The reality is that they care so much that despite my having written thousands of words condemning their actions and repeatedly asking to be released from their pool of forced labor, they are giving me the "chance to influence the formulation of military personnel policies."

Oh, but just when I thought they were interested in me as an individual, the truth comes back through the following statements that are found toward the end of the letters:

I assure you that your responses will be kept confidential. All data will be reported in the aggregate and no individual data will be reported.

Whew, for a second I thought I was dreaming and had escaped what I've come to know as the completely communized institution that is the United States Navy. However, just when I had my doubts, they added the reassurance that I had no need to worry about being recognized and respected as an individual because "all data will be reported in the aggregate."

Of course, any adept "Master" knows better than to actually seek individual feedback in a personal way. After all, to do that might end up enabling people to feel justified in some manner of dissent or discontent. No, no, these authoritarians are well-versed in collectivism, and instead provide a computerized form with ready-made options of whether one would rather be forced to do "X" or forced to do "Y".

It's really kind of like voting. If you can convince people that they're somehow making a difference, and thus are personally responsible for their own mistreatment, they call their slavery freedom and persecute their fellow slaves without the "Master" even having to raise the whip. Notice how just like voting, it was explicitly emphasized that my participation is "entirely voluntary." If it's so voluntary, how about I don't give you my feedback and you don't threaten me with force if I don't do what you say. This, of course, is never an option because again like voting, whether you participate or not, people with guns will tell you what to do and claim justification based on your having voted (or at least had the opportunity).

A final similarity is found in the aspects of anonymity and aggregation. Only an individual has volition, and therefore, only an individual can make a decision and enact it. In this way, voting is really no different than an anonymous public opinion survey in which the available choices have been limited to only those options pre-approved by the rulers. For instance, I can present my friends with the chance to anonymously vote over which of two movies to watch, but when they open their eyes it would be a complete misnomer to claim that they chose the film so they have nobody to blame but themselves if they don't like it.

Freedom has nothing to do with voting and opinion surveys, and it has everything to do with not having force initiated against you.

Days 108-112 - Interview Responses

I'm guessing that many of you have already seen my interview with Pete Eyre of the Motorhome Diaries, but if not, press play below or the rest of this blog probably won't make nearly as much sense.

I'm continuing to receive feedback (positive and negative) about the video, but of course I'd be interested to read more in the comments section or by email at warisimmoral@gmail.com. On the encouraging side, a classmate from high school, whom I hadn't spoken with since graduation, saw the clip on my Facebook page, checked out my website, and then took the time to write. She shared how she joined the military right out of high school and ended up feeling both disappointed with her experience and embarrassed that she had enlisted. Overall, she thought the interview was really cool and that it was great what I was doing.

I appreciated knowing that my efforts had a significant enough impact on someone I haven't seen in 8 years that she took the time to write. Least to say, I absolutely assured her of how much I resonated with her feelings, in addition to thanking her for such an encouraging note.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, another person who was also in GTMO claimed that I'm "fabricating the truth to (my) own benefit," by "spreading lies" about what I saw. He said that he was there too, and he knows that "these dillweeds are being treated just fine."

Some of you reading the above lines might be utterly perplexed as to how he could say this, and if so, I encourage you to read my article, Behind the Wire: An Insider's Perspective on Gitmo. It provides an overview of how my understanding about GTMO changed in the aftermath of my own time there. Essentially, I can personally relate to the hatred and feelings of injustice that the above detractor expressed because they were my initial feelings as well. The difference is that much of my understanding has changed since that deployment. I tried to communicate some of the ideas that prompted my own transformation, and what follows is a substantial portion of my email response to this person.

In my interview I neither spread lies nor exaggerated anything. I was absolutely disturbed by what I saw and experienced in GTMO, but I didn't immediately understand the evil nature of the acts I helped support. As you apparently feel now, I first reacted with hatred for the men imprisoned there and scorn for the way I had to "cater to their needs."

I think the best way I can address this is to ask if you would you so boldly claim that what goes on in GTMO is fair treatment if you were the one down there in a cage? Would you honestly say that you were being treated well if you were locked up in that same fashion? If you were caged someplace where none of your family or friends could come visit you, and you had no idea of whether or not you would even stand trial or have any opportunity to publicly defend yourself, would you be saying that all the people that were involved with keeping you confined in that manner were "taking care" of you?

If you were completely unarmed and had 5+ guys in riot gear forcefully restrain you within your cell simply because you didn't give back your styrofoam meal container when asked, would you say that was being treated well? Would you say you were being mistreated if you decided not to eat, and thus were forcefully strapped into a chair and fed through a tube that was put down your throat?

I didn't understand these dynamics all immediately, and for better or worse, it's taken me more than a year to come to my current understanding of what I experienced in GTMO. Believe me when I say that I'm not just saying stuff or making it up for the purpose of getting out of the military. My understanding has fundamentally changed since I first came home.

I see now that it's absolutely not catering to those people's needs if they're being housed in cages against their will. I couldn't rightly say that I was taking care of you if I locked you in a closet and then shoved food and water through a hole in the door. Even if I provided you the world's best medical treatment, but still kept you in a cage, it wouldn't be doing you a service if all you wanted to do was leave.

One point that you made was that the people down there were horrible baby-killer types. A second point you made was that the US is working to try and return them to places they won't be killed. This doesn't make any sense. If the people who had been, and are, at GTMO are really the sub-human animalistic killers that you make them out to be, then why would any of them have been released?

The fact is that the majority of those who have been confined in GTMO have already been released from there because they were innocent. Innocent people being locked up is mistreatment, even if they're later released. Secondly, if there are any people who are as horrible as you make out, then it would be easy to use reason and evidence to prove to the world that these men are justly confined.

People should not be indefinitely held against their will for supposed crimes for which they've never been convicted. However, this is exactly what Barack Obama has said needs to happen with some of the people confined in Guantanamo Bay (http://www.reason.com/news/show/134775.html). If they are guilty, prove it. If they are innocent (as most of them undoubtedly were given the fact that the majority of those who were ever there have already been released) then those in the United States military and those giving them orders ("President"/"Congress") have committed horrible acts of evil.

Overall, the result of the video is that I'm continuing to hear from a number of other present and former members of the military. With that in mind, I'm asking you to forward this video to anybody who you know that's ever been in the "Armed Forces." Another option would be to post a link on your own Facebook page. While I definitely wouldn't guarantee that others will agree with what I have to say, I highly doubt they'll be bored by it.

P.S. If you're curious to find out more about Pete and the rest of the crew of the Motorhome Diaries, check out their website via their linked name, or read my previous mid-week blog (Meet My Interviewer).

_______________________________

My participation in the Complete Liberty Podcast looks to be continuing for the foreseeable future, so I leave it to you gentle reader to subscribe at either the iTunes Store or to check out the hosting site: http://completeliberty.libsyn.com/ . If you're looking for other listening specifically about war, I have one podcast of my own dedicated to this topic at http://warisimmoral.com/podcast

Days 106-107 - Meet My Interviewer (Video)

If you haven't recently visited my homepage, WarIsImmoral.com, then you may not have realized that I participated in my first video interview with Pete Eyre of the Motorhome Diaries. The interview, still in post-production, is scheduled to be online later this week as part of Pete and Jason's almost real-time documentary, "Searching for Freedom in America."

In addition to meeting up with scores of individuals who value freedom and voluntary interactions, these peaceful liberty-activists have experienced some harsh physical abuse from people identifying themselves as "the government." As is sadly common in our society, the rights-violators who aggressed against the crew of the Motorhome Diaries did so in broad-daylight and while wearing official-looking costumes and shiny badges.

I figured there was no better way to introduce Pete and his friends, than to offer a video of them sharing about why they started the Motorhome Diaries, and how they came to be mistreated by the "Jones County Sheriff's Department."

To find out more about this incident visit http://motorhomediaries.com/jonescounty/ or use any of the above links to access their homepage.

Days 99-105 - In the Absence of Government

I'm pleased to announce the first-ever "War Is Immoral Podcast." Before you continue reading, simply right-click the previous link and begin downloading the mp3. The show isn't yet available through the iTunes Store, so for the moment you'll have to download it directly and then add it to the mp3 player of your choice.

Episode 1 addresses the atrocity of keeping men in cages regardless of their captor's ability to prove their guilt or innocence (The Right to a Guilty Verdict). Additionally, the show exposes the precedent of unlimited executive power that was set by George W. Bush's disregard for both "Constitutional Law" and more importantly natural law (The Sinister Purpose Behind Bush Administration Lawlessness). The final segment is devoted to recognizing the efforts of a number of individuals trying to free themselves from the involuntary servitude that is generally known as "active duty military service" (Afghanistan War Resistor to "Put the War on Trial").

_______________________________

In last week's blog, I again put forward the idea that war is a function of the state, and therefore, if people are to ever stop waging wars, they must first stop enabling people to get away with initiating force under the guise of calling themselves government. As I stated last week:

Without the initiation of force, there can be no state, and without a state, all that will remain is a voluntary society.

As for what a voluntary society will look like, and how exactly it will function, no single person, or even group of people, has all the answers. However, this fact doesn't offer any justification for the evil that is government, nor does it serve as an excuse to claim that government (or war) is a "necessary evil." The reality is, that if anyone believed that she or he had a comprehensive plan for what each person should do in order to create a perfect society, this would only serve as an extremely strong utilitarian argument in favor of an absolute dictatorship.

In contrast, an advocate for anarchy, voluntaryism, agorism, market anarchism, or complete liberty, etc., believes that no individual or group would be either capable of or justified in organizing the nearly limitless interactions that comprise any society. Therefore, it is both moral and practical to refrain from initiating force against others.

The ends do not justify the means, so even if there is no all-encompassing plan that spells out exactly how each interaction in a free society will take place, it does not justify how people calling themselves government currently prohibit others from relating in this manner. If you still think that you are free to voluntarily interact with others because you live in the "land of the free," try to engage in trading $1,500 for a pound of cannabis, or, if you're not interested in such substances, try to give an individual a gift of more than $10,000 in one year without someone else saying that she or he has a rightful claim to part of that money (theft by the "IRS").

Looking at history, numerous "practical" arguments were made against the abolition of chattel slavery in America because it was said that nobody could explain exactly what would happen if tens of thousands of enslaved people were to suddenly become free. Likewise, it's argued today that if the millions of people who populate the geographic area known as America were to suddenly be freed from the tyranny of government, all manner of chaos would surely follow.

While there are myriad resources available about how a free society could flourish, the point is not to focus on whether or not we can properly predict the details of what will happen, but rather, just like the abolitionists of the 19th century, we must call for an end to the subjugation of ourselves and our fellow human beings, regardless of whether or not we have the perfect plan for what comes next.

_______________________________

Another avenue by which you can learn more about the illegitimacy of the state, as well as the values of a voluntary society, is to listen to the Complete Liberty Podcast: Episode 79. This week I again had the pleasure of co-hosting the show with Wes and Brett, and as always the episode is available for direct download by right-clicking here or for free at the iTunes Store.

Days 92-98 - A Website With a Purpose

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009, will be the 100th day since I requested discharge from the military as a conscientious objector. If the claim that America has an "all volunteer military" were true, surely it would not take in excess of 100 days for an individual with a spotless "service record" to be freely allowed to go about his way. To apply this principle in another context, it would require some serious obfuscation and mental evasion to claim that somebody serving soup at a homeless shelter was there as a volunteer, if that person had actually only volunteered once 4 years ago, and had since been threatened with prison if he stopped continuing to "volunteer."

If you regularly read my blog, the contradictory nature of such government slogans is hopefully easily recognizable by now. However, for the newcomers, or those who have only caught bits and pieces along the way, I intend for this post to be a summary of my overarching purpose in maintaining the website WarIsImmoral.com

This site exists to promote the truth that war is always immoral because it inherently involves the initiation of the use of force. For this reason, virtuous people are naturally repulsed by war and compelled to end it. In advocating for peace, it's therefore necessary to address the institutions and ideas that perpetuate war. WarIsImmoral.com differentiates itself from most of the anti-war movement by identifying and condemning the following root causes of war:

Military "contracts": If individuals were free to leave "Active Duty" at will, the military would surely be rendered impotent. This is because a vast number of people would value staying alive, or the prospect of again being a "civilian," far more than the pittance paycheck that they currently receive from following the orders of their "superiors." Regardless, it's impossible to claim that someone is acting by choice, if failure to act will result in incarceration.

Taxation: The military is funded in the exact same manner by which it ensures a ready supply of labor, by force. Just as there would be a conspicuous absence of personnel if they were given the opportunity to leave, there would undoubtedly be an even greater void of funding if people chose for themselves how much they would pay in taxes. Ask yourself, how many thousands of dollars would you voluntarily send to the "Department of Defense"? In your consideration, please remember that you will have no assurance that millions of other strangers will even give anything. Simply put, while "military contracts" are a justification for slavery, taxation is merely a fancy word used to try to legitimize theft.

The State: The above two practices, as well as war itself, would not be possible were it not generally considered acceptable for people calling themselves government to commit the very actions which, in any other context, are almost unanimously condemned as wrong. As many people have aptly identified, government is essentially legitimized force. Therefore, if war is immoral due to its initiation of force, government must also be equally unjustified. The progression of this reasoning, from denouncing war to decrying government, loosely follows what has been my own journey to consistently apply the moral absolute that it's wrong to initiate force.

Unlike the immorality of government, people seem to find it much easier to overcome the massive propaganda scheme that is in place to convince them that war can be justified. This is likely due to the difficulty involved in obscuring the obvious and intentional destruction of life and property that is the hallmark of war. By emphasizing the initiation of force as the explanation for the immorality of war, I hope to encourage people to consistently apply this axiom to every aspect of their life.

One can never control the actions of another person, and therefore, as long as people are autonomous there will always exist the possibility of rights violations. However, by ridding society of its greatest criminals, that is government, there can be vast improvement. As Murray Rothbard said,

"no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state's unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind." (Society Without a State)

Without the initiation of force, there can be no state, and without a state, all that will remain is a voluntary society. This doesn't mean that certain individuals, or even groups of individuals, won't try to hit people and take their stuff, but what it does mean, is that such persons will be denounced as violent thieves instead of praised as "service providers."

_______________________________

If you've been following along, or if you're perhaps interested to tune out the radio and listen to something new, I co-hosted another episode of the "Complete Liberty Podcast." Episode 78 focuses on supernatural contradictions, free will, behaviorism, determinism, and compatibilism.

As always the show is available for free download from the iTunes Store, or by right-clicking here and selecting "Save As" or "Download Linked File" (Safari).

Days 85-91 - State-Sponsored Terrorism

As I explained in my article The Fallacy of Preemptive Violence, there is no mystery as to why terrorists hijacked and crashed airplanes on September 11, 2001. It's a tragedy that this occurred, but what's worse is that individuals claiming to be the government of the men and women killed launched a so-called "War on Terror" in response. As an unwilling laborer for the United States Navy, I regularly wear a costume that includes two colorful pins of fabric called the "Global War on Terrorism Service Medal" and the "Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal." I'm unenthusiastic about being forced to wear said uniform (who's ever happy to be forced to do anything after all), and I'm downright disgusted that the ribbons are intended to draw attention to my "service" in support of this cause.

If I had my druthers, I would have absolutely nothing to do with the murderous organization known as the "Department of Defense." However, seeing as the mysterious decision-makers at this immoral institution have not, in the past 90+ days, answered my request to be discharged, I will avoid imprisonment and continue to wear the prescribed accoutrements for a Petty Officer Second Class. At the same time, I'll also conjecture as to some "medals" that would more accurately represent what this so-called "War on Terror" has accomplished.

Military decorations are arranged in order of precedence, and on my hypothetical uniform the top medal would undoubtedly have to be the Death Toll Medal. The qualifications for wearing such a device would be related to the number of people that died as a result of U.S. military actions during the member's career. Those who "served" during peacetime would be hard-pressed to earn such a commendation, for the minimum death toll would need to be quite high given the astronomical number of deaths that quickly compile during war. In the current wars, a baseline of 500,000 dead would merit wearing the ribbon, with a gold star added for each 500,000 thereafter. Unfathomable though this may seem, it sadly fits with the the almost 1.5 million estimated deaths from these wars.

Although such casualty counts are minimized to the point of being generally unknown, surely all this death must mean that Islamic terrorism will soon be relegated to the history books as a phenomenon of the past. Unfortunately this is not so, and thus ribbon number two would come into play. It would be known as the Guarantor of Future Wars Medal. It comes in second to the Death Toll award, not for its lack of evil effects, but because its repercussions are much less easily measured. This decoration would represent one's efforts to ensure that there will forever be a growing population of once innocent people who are now bent on seeking vengeance for the unprovoked violence perpetrated against them by the U.S. Armed Forces.

Beyond the obvious death and destruction enacted in Afghanistan and Iraq, is the far more insidious effect of perpetuating the very need for a so-called "War on Terror." Considering that it is only because of the State that war exists, it should be no surprise at all that such a parasitical cycle is in place. The argument that "we can't just stop the War on Terror, because there are people out there that want to kill us," is an objection that I've frequently heard.

From my personal experience, I believe I can honestly say that I've been face-to-face with people who would have killed me if they had the opportunity. Now let's look at the all-important context in which that took place. The people to which I'm referring had been abducted from their native lands, possibly tortured, and then caged for years by people wearing the same clothes that I then wore when I met them. These people didn't necessarily know why they were so cruelly confined, nor did they necessarily have any reason to hope that they would be released. That this is true, has been confirmed by the man who currently accepts responsibility for these men's continued imprisonment, Barrack Obama.

In his May speech the president said these prisoners "cannot be prosecuted" because there is not enough admissible evidence against them yet cannot be released because they "pose a clear danger to the American people."

I feel confident in claiming that if they were put in a similar circumstance to that which I described, a vast majority of people would have homicidal ideations pertaining to their captors, and even extending to the friends, family, and financial supporters of their captors. I believe this would be true regardless of the cultural, religious, or even "national" backgrounds of the people involved. Through this process, a new generation of both "terrorists" and "soldiers" are forged in their opposing, and not altogether inaccurate beliefs, that the other is out to get them and do their family harm.

Whether from the unjust confinement that I saw firsthand in Guantanamo Bay, or the slaughter of 100+ civilians in a mistaken U.S. airstrike, such violent and unjustified actions either serve to strengthen the resolve of those already convinced to violently seek revenge against the U.S., or they act as a catalyst for radicalizing what were previously peaceful people. Whatever the case, no good end can be achieved through such evil means.

Therefore, if trying to use violence to end violence is no solution, what can be done to bring about change? According to Ludwig Von Mises, "To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war." That ideology can be summarized in one word: Statism. War is imperative for the continuance of the State, but neither the State, nor war are necessary. In fact, both are immoral, because, by definition, they both involve the initiation of the use of force.

If we are ever to achieve a society without war, we must chose to live in a society without government. Such a society is not a utopian dream, for there would undoubtedly still be individuals, or even groups, who engage in violence and theft. The difference would be the ostracism and moral condemnation with which any such individuals or groups would be confronted. In a Stateless society, a person demanding money, while threatening to harm you if you didn't comply, would be denounced and resisted as a mugger, instead of appeased and legitimized as a tax-collector.

Ultimately, the minutia of the names of ribbons on a military uniform is truly not a matter of great consequence. What is significant, is that by wearing that clothing, a person can commit the gravest injustice, murder, and yet do so while hundreds of millions of people cheer him on. Does it make any sense to scorn and punish one person for committing an action, and yet praise and support someone else for that same action, so long as it's done while wearing special clothing or using an official title? If enough people resolve this contradiction, then there will truly be an end to war, for there will be no State.

_______________________________

Another outstanding episode of the Complete Liberty Podcast is available. This week's show starts by addressing war, and the first article covered was an inspiration for this week's blog. As usual, Episode 77 is available for free at the iTunes Store or can be downloaded by right-clicking here and selecting "Save As" or "Download Linked File."