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).