War is an Effect of Government

Knowing that my readership spans a continuum of people, from those who acknowledge the inherent violence of government to those who do not, I strive to consistently create or present meaningful content for the entirety of this audience. My goal in doing so remains the same: to end the systematic and legitimized initiation of violence in our world (of which war is the most obvious).

The question of what means are most effective to this end has been weighing heavily on my mind in the weeks since my discharge. Despite my confidence on a few crucial points, I intend to be continually reevaluating this question as I learn more. If you have ideas, resources, or personal experiences that you think are insightful, please share them publicly via the comment feature or privately with me by email.

Of one thing I am sure, and this is why I have embedded the following video. As regards the violent initiation of force or threats thereof, I firmly believe in the narrator's conclusion, "When we truly see it, and feel it, and speak it clearly, it will end." This process began for me as I read Atlas Shrugged. My hope is that this film will similarly sharpen your own perception of reality as well as your desire to convey the truth to others.

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."

Day 32 - Consent, what consent?

One of my very best friends, Noah Marsh, provided the following comment to my post "The Nature of Government." I very much disagree with what Noah asserts, and after his remarks, I have included my response. I hope this exchange prompts you to try and answer for yourself if there is any morally legitimate basis for one individual or group to impose their will by force on another individual or group.

Without further adieu, Mr. Noah Marsh:

_________________________________________________

While I found the entire post thought provoking I will raise one point particularly to the fore:

In paragraph 24 (the final one before the Addendum)you say, "The sad reality is that nobody alive in 'America' today has been presented the option to consent to be governed by those who currently do so anyway."

I disagree.

Every free person alive in "America" today is presented with the option to consent to be governed by those who do so anyway. There are two ways in which you actively provide consent to the government of America to govern you.

First, any person freely living in America chooses to be a denizen and a citizen of America. The free person living in America can choose to go to another country to live or to claim citizenship if he or she chooses. I know that this is not always possible due to political relationships between countries, visa regulations, etc. but I believe many people effectively excercised this "natural right" (?) in protest to the draft during the Vietnam War when they fled to Canada. By remaining in America and retaining your citizenship you consent to be governed according to their laws.

Second, a person living in obedience to the laws of the government acknowledges and provides consent for those laws to govern that person. Accepting and abiding by the laws acknowledges the authority of those laws and consists of consent. During the civil rights movement one of the great catalysts for change in the laws was the peoples' refusal to abide by those laws which they did not consent to govern them. To continue living according to the objectionable law is to continue consenting to its legitimacy.

Everyday, every person who freely lives in America and follows the laws provides his or her consent to be governed by the American government. For those who wish to revoke their consent for a certain law(s), any continuing abiding by that (those) law(s) consists of their active and conscious consent.

_________________________________________________

I don’t believe that Noah provides evidence to validate either of his stated reasons that “every free person” (?) in America “is presented with the option to consent to be governed.”

First, Noah contradicts his own claim that any “free person living in America can choose to go to another country,” when his next sentence says, “I know that this is not always possible due to political relationships between countries, visa regulation, etc.” If it’s “not always possible” because of governmental interference, then people cannot, by his own admission, “choose to go to another country.” This alone invalidates his first argument, but the example he gives is still worth analyzing for another reason.

Noah cites the successful flight of persons to Canada who otherwise would have been enslaved to the American military, as an example of how people are free to leave the self-claimed jurisdiction of those who call themselves the United States government. Highlighting the fact that many persons did succeed in leaving during that time does nothing to address what happened to the tens of thousands of those that did not leave.

Additionally, Noah didn’t comment about the unjust threat of either imprisonment or forced labor that was the reason why these people fled. For one individual or group to tell another individual or group that the first must fight in a war or be imprisoned, doesn’t equate to giving them a choice. The latter is an example of coercion, not freedom.

Secondly, Noah said in regard to government that, “Accepting and abiding by the laws acknowledges the authority of those laws and consists of consent.” To accept a law is entirely different from abiding by it. A quick click of the mouse reveals the Microsoft Word synonyms for the word “accept” as: “believe, agree to, acknowledge, allow,” and most importantly the word “consent” is given as a synonym for accept. With this understanding of terms, I could not rightly disagree with Noah that yes, if someone does accept and abide by certain laws, she or he does obviously acknowledge the authority of those laws and that would consist of consent.

However, I believe that there is a vast difference between abiding by a law and consenting, accepting, or acknowledging the authority of that law. I would be extremely surprised to find anyone outside the KKK who asserted that the millions of darker-skinned persons that were deemed slaves by the laws of the United States, accepted, consented, and acknowledged the authority of these laws, even though they may have “abided” by those same laws in order to avoid even worse mistreatment. To again apply the draft-dodgers example, were those slaves that didn't run away free to leave the country as evidenced by the ability of other slaves to have successfully escaped? Also, did the these peoples obedience to the laws enslaving them equate to their consent to be enslaved?

The reality is that I “abide” by the unjust laws of those who call themselves government, despite my lack of consent, acceptance, or acknowledgment of their authority, because I wish to avoid the worse injustices that would undoubtedly be perpetrated against me if I did not.

If you think that I’m merely playing a game of semantics to generate a non-existent difference, ask yourself if you can honestly say that you’ve never “abided” by a law to which you didn’t agree. Applying this same rationale to the broader issue of the overall “consent of the governed,” is to recognize that people may follow the laws of those who would do them harm if they didn’t. However, such prudential action shouldn’t be misconstrued as consent.

I’ll conclude with what Noah wisely recognized in a previous comment as the imperfect, but useful, tool of an analogy. Imagine that a person with a gun approaches you and demands 50% of whatever money you have or you will be imprisoned. At this point, is it fair to say that you have the choice between paying the money and going to prison? Is it relevant to say that you are “free” to try and run away, and therefore, by not fleeing, you consent to whatever consequences come next? In both cases I answer with a resounding "No!"

The same resounding “No!” is applicable in real-life situations involving those individuals who call themselves government. Noah, you and I were born within the confines of what is commonly called the United States; we didn't choose to be alive within this specific geographic area, nor did we choose or consent to have others classify us as citizens. Both happened as an immediate result of our being born.

During high school when we each first got jobs, certain groups of people began taking a percentage of our income away from us. I believe you agree that the ends do not justify the means, thus making it irrelevant why this was done. What is crucial is that which was rightfully ours was taken from us. At this point, the key difference between us and the hypothetical person being mugged was that we had already had our property (income) extorted, and therefore, unlike the hypothetical person, we didn’t have the opportunity to flee prior to becoming a victim of theft.

The fact that, to my knowledge we both continue to pay income taxes, and neither of us has fled the country, does not signify that we have implicitly or explicitly consented to “be governed.” I believe that this point is incontestable, in that even if you have somehow offered your consent, I know that I have not.

Day 30 - The Nature of Government

As I had hoped, my reference to Roger Young’s article “The Blinding Fog of War” did elicit reader feedback. However, I’m now convinced that before I can address the platitude that “you only get to say what you do because someone else served and died so you could,” I must first establish precisely what I believe the nature of government to be.

Below I have quoted an email I received in response to Mr. Young’s article. It was this excerpt that specifically sparked the reply that follows it. My hope is that by presenting this in the same conversational format in which it was originally written, it will be more enjoyable and easy to read. At the same time I aim to provide a clear and thorough overview of what I understand to be the nature of government.

"First, I take issue with the label of "subject". I am not a voiceless, powerless serf but an armed (well, not yet, but soon) citizen who, with his fellow citizens, chooses people to represent him in government."

I definitely resonate with your sentiment, but I also believe that this is the exact idea that those in government wish to perpetuate. However, despite having felt a similar and wholehearted zeal for this perspective in times past, I now believe that these are not the true dynamics of the situation. I’m glad that you take issue with the label of “subject,” but I think your focus on the word distracts you from realizing that you’re being treated as a subject, even if you’re more often described as a citizen.

First you address the fact (or soon to be fact) that you are armed. I believe that this is (or will be) absolutely true, albeit practically irrelevant. Although I believe that the framers of the Constitution made an obvious and honest attempt to check the power of government via the 2nd Amendment, it little matters for multiple reasons. I imagine that you will agree that what is said in the Constitution does not now, and has not historically, restricted the actions of those called government. I believe that the possible examples of this are so numerous that even entire organizations of liberty-minded individuals such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation are unable to fully exhaust the list of abuses.

Of more practical importance is the reality that even if you’re armed with a handgun, shotgun, or at best a semi-automatic rifle, your ability to either defend yourself or forcefully attempt to stop those in government from doing what they choose is effectively non-existent in comparison with the physical force that government is viewed as being able to legitimately level against you. Again, examples abound of how even the collective physical force exercised by modern day militias or even other state militaries are inconsequential compared with the deadly weaponry utilized by those who are collectively known as the government of the United States.

What consequence does your ownership of a firearm have on the dealings of the State? The State commands millions of individuals who daily walk around with such weapons at their waist. If anything, your having a gun poses a greater risk to your safety than if you didn’t. This is because those in power would find it easier to justify your death if you ever choose to use your gun in defense of your freedoms, as compared to the slightly more complicated task that would be involved in legitimizing your death if you were unarmed. If you think I’m exaggerating, tell me what you honestly think would happen if you didn’t pay your federal income tax, and then attempted to use your firearm to defend your freedom when men with guns came to try and physically apprehend you, as they eventually and undoubtedly would.

Ironically, while I’m here highlighting the absolute power of life and death over the entire world that is at the immediate disposal of those who are the American government (i.e. nuclear weapons), I actually think that their most effective means of subjecting the populace is the perception of legitimacy that you so candidly exemplified in your opening statement.

Now we get into the true nature of our subjugation to those who label themselves as government. This relationship, if that is even an appropriate use of the word, can best be characterized as that of master and slave. While this choice of words may strike you as extremely inflammatory I ask that you stick with me because I have a very logical and rational explanation for this assertion.

Before I say more, I wish to make absolutely clear that I’m neither implying nor stating that those people who currently live within the purported jurisdiction of the United States are more or less restricted in exercising their natural (or as you see them, God-given) rights. However, having fewer restrictions on one’s freedom than are imposed on others doesn’t mean that there is no cause for objection to the injustices of one’s own reality.

Simply put, the master-slave relationship, despite always being unjust, is not uniform in the degree of its abuses. This can easily be seen from America’s own brief history. Some masters, arguably a few of the “Founding Fathers,” are remembered as comparatively benign in exercising their claims to legitimately own other human beings, whereas the torturous artifacts that remain from other slaveholders speak to an entirely different level of inhumanity. That there are drastically different extents to which one can act immorally doesn’t make the less immoral act justified.

Returning to the present, I assert that you and I are both mere slaves to those who call themselves government. Even in this situation, the yoke is not equal, as I am less free to act without having my natural (or God-given) rights violated than you are. My answer to the likely retort that I am voluntarily more limited in my freedom, since I chose to be a member of the military, became an invalid argument the day I no longer wished to remain employed by the Navy but was still forced to labor under threat of imprisonment. Note that in this instance the common use of language accurately signifies that my action was done in the past tense. I “chose” to be in the military, that action is done; I no longer willingly choose to be in the military.

These specific delineations aside, I believe we’re both slaves according to the top definition result given by Google as “the state of being under the control of another person.” The extent of this control is not what is at issue in determining slavery. Whether or not we’re under the most lenient master-slave relationship could be rightfully debated, however, the fact that we are slaves, is to me, quite clear. If you think we’re not slaves by this or other similar definitions of the term, I would be eager to hear why you don’t think so.

No master can ever exercise total dominion over a slave; therefore, there exist only differing constraints that define such relationships. What follows is only a small selection of the many ways in which the people calling themselves government have made me a slave by controlling some of the most significant portions of my life through the threat of physical force.

I don’t deny that others have been treated worse and controlled to a greater degree; however, that truth does not make either of our present situations less restrictive. I have intentionally limited my examples to that which would be true even if I weren’t labeled an “Active Duty Sailor.” If you’re not controlled in these ways as well, I’m curious to hear how you have avoided such mistreatment.

As regards the individuals who call themselves government:

1. They control what substances I ingest into my body through drug regulation – legal and illegal, and food restrictions like those restricting access to raw milk

2. They control how much of my income I get to keep as per income tax laws

3. They control what property I own, how I can use it, and how much of it I can keep as evidenced by eminent domain, grass-cutting laws, property taxes, gun laws, automobile regulation, firecracker laws, aluminum bat laws and the regulation of almost any other piece of property imaginable

4. They control if and how I can labor, by requiring licenses as absurd as those regulating if I can cut someone else’s hair

5. They control whether or not I can cross the geographic boundaries in which they claim jurisdiction - thus if I don’t like it here, it’s a fallacy to say that I can freely leave and go elsewhere due to the exit tax among other reasons

Bear in mind that if I ever resist their control by exercising my own volition against their wishes, they will violate my natural (or God-given) rights by initiating physical force against me even if I have done nothing to infringe upon their natural (or God-given) rights or the natural (or God-given) rights of others. I understand that we disagree about whether humans are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” or if they possess them naturally, but I ask you, how could a just God that views humans as equal to each other ever desire for them to relate to each other in any form of a master-slave relationship?

I recognize that this response doesn’t address many of the other statements you made in your email, but I felt that it was more important to first establish what I believe is the true nature of any group (government or not) that uses force to impose its will on anyone else without the continuous consent of every individual involved. Perhaps you would consent to live under the current U.S. government, or maybe you would only acquiesce to a government that continuously abides by the Constitution. I hope you agree that whatever your preference, it wouldn’t make it right to force others to do the same.

The sad reality is that nobody alive in “America” today has been presented the option to consent to be governed by those who currently do so anyway. As I understand you to be a fan of John Locke, I hope that when presented in this manner, you now see that there does not exist the “consent of the governed” in America today, and therefore, at the very least, those claiming to be the United States government are illegitimate and should rightfully be ignored.

*ADDENDUM (8:36 PM): My wife, Heather Lakemacher, made the following statement in regard to what she viewed as my possibly errant attribution to John Locke of an alternative concept of the consent of the governed.

"I think that Locke's idea of the consent of the governed still has collectivist roots. He understands it to be the consent of the majority. He doesn't carry his own ideas about the origin of property to their logical conclusion, that is, that only continuous individual consent could justify government."

Although it may be true that Locke conceptualized the consent of the governed only to be the consent of a majority, this concept provides no more legitimacy to the idea that any one individual or group of individuals can be justified in ruling anyone else. Therefore, if this was Locke's view, it inherently contradicts itself.