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 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).