Desertion and Treason

Jon: You mean Mr. Garcia, the hater of the French. Put him out of your mind.

Hater of France, not the French, and hate is not a strong enough word when it comes to that damn country. I happen to think the French women are beautiful. Too bad I don't speak the language tres bien.

Post 41

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:32am

HRH Jeanine Ring,

It is my hope that Her Royal Hedonist is pleased with my choice. I worry that she has been so deeply and long absorbed in courtesanship that she has grown unfamiliar with the opposite role. If my choice be found in the least way insufficient, let me repeat my sincere inquiry:
What title shall I please YOU with?

With regard to my ancestresses, I refer not to my half-sibs in the south, but to some hardscrabble grain and dairy farmers in Quebec.

Msr. Letendre

Post 42

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:52am

Byron,

I�m an American. Seeing as I am, in that sense, neither French nor France, I take no offense at your hatred of �that damn country.� Though, I wonder: Is the soil what you hate? The buildings? The food? France is what the French make of it, so your distinction may not hold up well. I hate their socialism and disingenuous foreign policy, but not them or the whole country. They have a long history of oscillating between classical liberalism and screwing up like idiots. They could come around again.

Jon

Post 43

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:39pm

I think that our ill will toward the French comes from the fact that in many ways France is so united against America that�s its hard to differentiate France and the French. Of course there are probably a lot of decent French, a few are likely to have to same beliefs as us, but where are they? Doubtless it�s the MSM fault but I have never heard of a contemporary pro-American Frenchmen.

Mr. Letendre, I doubt Bryon hates the French soil, but if the people in this forum somehow were in France, a few would probably spit on it. I wouldn�t but that�s only because Americans died there fighting in the noblest of causes. Personally, I can�t say much negative about French culture, hell I�m even from Louisiana and understand some French and I�ve met several people from France and culturally they aren�t much different.

What I do take issue with, and please correct me if you think I�m wrong, is that the �classical liberalism� you said the French support is wrong and I don�t think they ever have. I know this is a bit off topic but the French have really never been a stickler for individual rights. Their revolution argued for liberty and equality which is fine but their interpretation of it was really only anti-royalty, not pro freedom. Equality then was easily translated into the socialism it means now. They still considered the revolution successful even when they were ruled by dictators. So now those ideas are embedded in the French psyche just as the ideas of our revolution are embedded in ours. No, France will lose their anti-Americanism when either America turns socialist or France inevitably collapses under its own welfare state.

Post 44

Friday, December 17, 2004 - 12:09am

You all hit the nail on the head in your guesses of why I hate France. It is no accident that their UN Security Council votes are in lock-step with Russia and China. The recent oil-for-food scandal does not surprise me in the least bit (is it also a coincidence the Iraqi military fielded French weapons?). The socialist government is a significant factor, but Clarence touched on the numero uno reason I hate France: they hate a country that saved their skins twice in the last century! Countless brave Americans died or were permanently disabled on French soil because they were unwilling and unable to fight their own wars, and they have the nerve to be ungrateful.

Not all the French living today are beyond redemption. There is one brave 20-something French woman named Sabine Herold who had enough and made a stand. You can read her story on the following link:

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20031115-114801-9157r.htm

Post 45

Friday, December 17, 2004 - 6:30pm

Wow, thanks for the article, I think it actually made me hate France less. Saying she has an uphill battle to fight is an understatment however. Even so, we need more people like that here but France needs them more.

Post 46

Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:17am

A couple of notes which seem to continually be overlooked - one, laws are but codified decrees, and as such may or may not be valid from a moral standpoint -
second, what makes a human a human... its looks? no, its mind... the notion that somewhere along the 'line of development' a fetus becomes a person and the woman has two persons is a falsitude, as the human mind does not begin until the birthing proces, when 'all systems go' is on and the fetus is 'on its own'.... that is why one celebrates birthdays, not conception days... consider, as an analogy, the question of when a chicken is a chicken [or any bird a bird] - it is when the egg hatches, and live birthing is the equivilant..... oh yes, and - of course - the soul is the mind, so there is no soul until the birthing.....

Post 47

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:49am

Robert Malcom wrote: "... laws are but codified decrees, and as such may or may not be valid from a moral standpoint..."

This is an excellent point and it is very relevant to the discussion here.

Post 48

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:53am

Jennifer, you asked several incisive questions at the beginning of this discussion. I do not have complete answers, and that is the reason why I offer these thoughts in reply.

Jennifer Iannolo: "... When a government has the legal authority to kill its citizens ... that opens quite a Pandora's box, doesn't it?"

As I pointed out, recent DNA testing has released people from death row in several states. The discovery that an innocent person was executed is not new. Death is too final to be punishment for a crime.
You also noted the irony of executing someone for murder. In another post you asked about "post traumatic stress disorder." I submit that you cannot take a human life without suffering PTSD to some degree. If you pull the trigger, it is obvious, but even if you only "sanction" the death of another person, the affects are still with you in proportion. Perhaps the salient question is: Who do we become when we sink to murder? However "justified" or "equitable", killing someone makes you a killer, by definition.

Jennifer Iannolo: "Does our government have the right to treat non-citizens/enemies of the state differently? ... Since we are in a time of war, do they then fall under the category of prisoners of war?"

The essential problem is reflected in a couple of scenes in Atlas Shrugged. Tearing up the John Galt Line, Dagny looks at the low scudding leaden clouds and calls it "Board of Directors weather." Earlier, when the State Science Institute issues its warning about Rearden Metal, Dagny asks Eddie what it says. Willers replies that it is like everything else they do: it is and it isn't at the same time. The point is we are not "at war."
According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to make war, and the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Furthermore, the USA is a signatory to the so-called "Geneva Convention." In addition, as I noted, it is a principle of US law, that the Constitution follows the flag: where US armed forces go, there goes US law. The US Constitution specifically defines treason and specifically defines the rules under which a person can be found guilty of treason.
Consequently, I have to agree with what I perceive as the intent of your questions. The present conflict is vague because that serves the needs of those in the murky gray middle of a poorly defined road.

Adam Reed wrote: "I'd be very wary of giving the government arbitrary, unchecked power to imprison, and especially torture, anyone without meeting a burden of proof."

Again, I concur that government is "a dangerous servant and a fearful master." When President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102, on April 5, 1933, making it illegal to "hoard" gold, he rested hs authority on a previous "emergency power" given to Woodrow Wilson to stop people from "trading with the enemy." (Wilson, by the way, nationalized the railroads and seized all radio broadcasting and receiving equipment.) Once people get used to being pushed around, they find it hard to draw the line. As you note: "There is no telling when one of us might be declared an "illegal enemy combatant"..."

Post 49

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:59am

Jeremy Nelson wrote: "I think the first thing that must be addressed is the contract between the citizens and the government to provide protection from foreign invaders and internally protect its citizens from each other."

You see how well this has worked out. Where was your government when 9/11 was being planned and carried out? The news media carry stories all the time about people killing each other. Never is there a story about the government having prevented the murder of one of its citizens. (They do prevent the President of the United States from getting shot -- most of the time.) Government, by its very nature, can only act on the past. On the other hand businesses (individuals) survive and thrive by predicting the future and acting in accordance with it. Governments punish past injustices (murder, price-fixing, etc.). Private entities prevent losses. Government is retro-active. Personal enterprise is pro-active. The point is that government does not provide protection; rather, it provides retaliation.

The so-called "social contract" is difficult to defend.
1. You think that you have a social contract to be protected against coercion. Your neighbors think they have a social contract to be protected against hunger, sickness, and ignorance, to say nothing of the extinction of the snail darter.
2. Since fewer than half of the eligible voters actually vote, it might be said that the majority of people has clearly withdrawn its sanction from the government. That is a rather serious matter for anyone arguing "social contract."

Jeremy Nelson wrote: Anyone who is in this society is bound by its laws (wether they be moral or immoral). You have the moral right at any time to leave if you do not like them either by walking out, sneaking out or shooting your way out (if you are prevented from leaving freely)."

1. We also have the right to change the laws. If we leave as soon as we do not like something, then nothing will change for the better. Ultimately, the government will fall into the hands of the worst possible elements -- those who have not left in response to all the previous injustices.
2. So far, we have not been prevented from leaving, but what if you cannot leave? Many times in many nations, that is the case. Even in our country, recently, citizens with passports and visas and airline tickets have been stopped. Your response is that we have only the alternative of an open gun battle. That seems like a bad idea to me.
2a. Sneaking out sounds like an alternative. Unless you live on the Klein Bottle Planet, there is no way to get from here to there. I mean, I can walk into Mexico or Canada, perhaps, but those are not alternative homelands for me. And from there, what? On the Klein Bottle Planet, I could go to directly point-to-point to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands or some other place where there is some measure of freedom as I understand it. However, on Earth, sneaking out of the USA to those places is not a matter of walking.
2b. Have you ever walked from one country to another? Is that theory based on The Sound of Music? Here is a test. Make a sandwich sign for yourself that says FUCK AMERICA. DEATH TO PIGS. Then walk 20 miles without being detected. That is what it would be like to be a refugee in your own country, trying to escape. Have you ever read We the Living. It does not have a happy ending.

Jeremy Nelson wrote: "The justice system is for determining who broke the contract and what the punishment should be. One of the things in the contract is that you can not kill another citizen. If someone does then that person has broken the contract and it is now null and void."

My understanding of contract law is a bit different. (This is why the "social contract" theory is so hard to defend.) First of all, contracts contain remedy clauses. Merchants do not "punish" each other for breaking a contract. Rather they seek equity. When they cannot find it, they go to an arbitrator. The purpose of arbitration is not to "punish" the "guilty" party, but to find a common ground that satisfies both parties. Merchant courts (called "pie powder" courts in the UK) go back to the Middle Ages. I do not know of earlier examples. Today, arbitration is the preferred method of conflict resolution. It outweighs public criminal courts, but gets no press.

Where is the remedy clause in your social contract? What re-establishes equity when the government violates your rights?
Also, it is a principle of contract law that unless there is some specific provision allowing it, the failure of one clause does not void the contract. Contracts often state this explicitly. In "social contract" theory, this means that if I am accused of some crime, I still have all my rights. Even if I am found guilty of some crime, the rights I lose are specific and limited. A convicted felon, while in prison, still has rights. The "social contract" (so-called) is not voided by a single violation.
If a single violation -- even murder -- were enough to void the citizen's side of the social contract, then what voids the government's side? What crime can the government commit that relieves you of your obligations to it? Where is this written in the "social contract"?

Jeremy Nelson wrote: "In the case of a citizen signing the contract to serve his country it depends on what part of the contract was broken and the severity."

If you scan up the Posts in this Topic, you will find my link to an article about cases where the government has broken the contract and kept people whose terms of service expired -- without a declaration of war.

Jeremy Nelson wrote: "The outsider that is not part of our society is not protected by us in any way. So they receive no benefits from it. We are not obligated in any way to the outsider."

We are just as obligated -- if not moreso. You have to take the high ground. If we want to show that our way of life is superior to theirs, then we have to extend to them all of the benefits of that way of life. My own prejudices aside, it is a fact of U.S. law that "outsiders" are entitled to legal protections, redress of grievences, freedom of speech, right to a lawyer, etc., etc. The problem with the so-called Taliban prisoners at Guantanemo is that they are in a legal gray area in which the US refuses to declare war on the one hand, and also refuses to charge them with a crime under U.S. law on the other.

Jeremy Nelson wrote: "If the outsider is believed to have caused or plans to cause damage to us then we may detain them for as long as necessary to determine the truth."

John Galt shut off all the electricity in the United States. Of course, at that point, he had already been detained and tortured.

Post 50

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:01am

Clarence Hardy: "... if the people in this forum somehow were in France, a few would probably spit on it. I wouldn�t but that�s only because Americans died there fighting in the noblest of causes."

What cause was that? What made it "noble"?
(This is an aside, but we attach great positive value to the word NOBLE. What does that word really mean? It means a class of people who have more rights than others because of who their ancestors were. I challenge you to put the word PROFITABLE in there and see how it reads.)

Byron Garcia wrote: "You all hit the nail on the head in your guesses of why I hate France. ... is it also a coincidence the Iraqi military fielded French weapons? ... the numero uno reason I hate France: they hate a country that saved their skins twice in the last century! Countless brave Americans died or were permanently disabled on French soil because they were unwilling and unable to fight their own wars, and they have the nerve to be ungrateful."

1. I don't hate any nation. I save hatred (and love) for individuals.
2. The Iraqi army was also equipped by Americans. When Iran was the enemy of the USA and Iraq was at war with them, the enemy of your enemy was your friend and you supplied Saddam Hussein with arms.
2a. The only reason we went to war with Iraq in Gulf War I was because the Saudis paid us to. (What is the Saudi national anthem? Onward Christian Soldiers.) You could trace the history back through the Parthians and the Sassanians to the Medes and back to Abraham of Ur and back even farther. It is the same history. Only now, the United States has inserted itself into the picture. Why?
3. Americans died in France because two collections of looter states slugged it out over the practical application of Hegel's philosophy: the Idealists vs. the Dialectic Materialists. In World War II half of France was not even occupied because it was fascist. Why did Americans need to die for them? The other half, occupied France, was not necessarily opposed to the German occupation. Action Francaise and other fascist groups were pro-Nazi. Many French were anti-German, but that went back to Sedan 1870. These "revanchists" only hated Germans, regardless of who the Germans were or what they stood for. However, many of those opposed to German occupation had no problem with the same laws when applied by French authorities. Does it matter? You claim that you hate France because they are ungrateful. Your willingness to stick your nose where it does not belong did not bring gratitude. Where is the surprise in that?
3a. World War I, was all the more devoid of moral principles, unless you think it was a moral imperative that Americans fight to defend the right of France to ally itself with Russia which supported Serbia's right to resist Austrian demands for the deportation of an accused criminal from Bosnia. The best part about World War I -- if you are grimly humorous -- is that no one knew who was going to be on whose sides until all the declarations of war were in. Secret treaties were a hobby. Everyone sort of expected France, Austria-Hungary and Italy to be arrayed against the United Kingdom, Germany and Russia... And that did not even take into account the Netherlands being with Germany and against England, as a result of the Boer War. No one had any idea what the Ottomans were going to do, except that they would declare war on Russia, no matter whose side Russia was on. If there is a moral principle in here, you will have to point it out to me.

Post 51

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:06am

Kurt Eichert wrote: "...and therefore a citizen has every right to avoid or subvert any such immoral laws. I don't think all of the posters here understand Objectivist Ethics - which is Ok, but just don't assume they are speaking from that standpoint."

I agree.

Keith Eichert wrote: "I think the military does its best to weed out people who won't be able to handle it, but no one truly knows until they experience it. Death would only be reasonable for some active betrayal, such as going to the enemy and pointing out the positions of our troops, or something like that."

1. The military does not do this. They work from a different model, entirely. Professional soldiers assume that "anyone" can be a soldier. It just takes "guts." Personally, I define humans by their minds, not their intestines, so my model is different. Even so -- as I said, I see this both ways -- I have no patience with the soldier who volunteers for duty and then discovers that they "can't handle it." No one can handle it. War is hell. It is not something that anyone should ever have to deal with. However, I do not run the world. So, that brings us back to the question. Anyone who volunteers for the military has made their bed and should sleep in it.
2. Except for Pvt. Eddie Slovik (see my other comments on this), that is not the case. On Henry Mark Holzer's website is a story about one Robert Garwood who actually went over the Viet Cong for 13 years and has served no jail time. Personally, I am of two minds about that. On the one hand, I point to the reality of soldiering. Deserters are usually shot, at least in most times and places. On the other hand, the notable exception of the American experience speaks volumes about who we are as a people. True humanitarianism is an aspect of true capitalism. To the extent that we still grant "grace to the fallen" (for lack of a better phrase) we show that we are better than other people.

Kurt Eichert wrote: "There are various status levels granted to non-citizens ... this is not the same as non-citizen enemy combatants or complete non-citizens and/or illegals here in the country."

The Bill of Rights in particular and all of the other obligations and benefits apply to non-citizens and always have. We are a nation of immigrants. For much of our history, places that are now states were territories, where, by definition any distinctions between "citizen" and "non-citizen" were moot points, since no could vote for president, senators, governor, etc.
Furthermore, one-third of the United States is what has been called "the Spanish borderland frontier." You say that someone's uncle's home is in "America" and their aunt's home is in "Mexico" and I say that it is all in your mind. Generals and their armies slaughter each other -- and innocents -- and they draw a new line in the sand naming one side this and the other side that. Frankly, that kind of behavior sounds delusional.
Native Americans in places like Montana and Arizona simply do not recognize our "national" borders because our "nations" were superimposed on a pre-existing culture.
Look at a map of Earth from outer space: there are no borders. When you trade value for value with a rational producer, it does not matter which side of an imaginary line they live on.

Kurt Eichert wrote: "As to the "unnamed collective" I will name it. The United States and its Citizens, n whose name the armed forces act. It is a smaller group writ large - if a criminal attacks my family, we can protect ourselves. If a gang attacks, me and my neighbors can band together for defense, and so on from the city to the modern nation."

1. Not in my name, they do not. As I understand the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. If we are at war, someone forgot to tell 435 Representatives and 100 Senators.

2. It sounds to me as if you want to form gangs of your own to fight the gangs you fear and hate. I fail to see the rational self-interest in that. When I look at history, I see that business interests are usually opposed to gang warfare. The World Trade Center housed dozens of multinational corporations. Why did Thailand or China not mount an offensive against the Taliban or the Wahabi or whoever? War is bad for business.

3. What about the gangs of criminals you chose to overlook? The gang of looters that takes your income is not imaginary. They are real. Are you and your neighbors armed to resist them? Hopefully not! War is bad for business. What was your response when Martha Stewart was arrested and imprisoned? Did you and your neighbors bust her out and save her from the gang of looters? Like all civilian pawns, you externalize your anger at The Enemy identified for you by the very people who cause your internal unrest. You cannot handle the fact that you let yourself be pushed around by the American government, so you take it out on the people of Iraq.

4. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with retaliation for 9/11. Even if the invasion of Afghanistan were justified in order to get the Taliban or Wahabi or whomever Ossama Bin Laden is working with or for, Iraq is a totally different situation.

Post 52

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:15am

Clarence Hardy wrote: "We have made a government for ourselves and have given it the sole responsibility for law enforcement and the legal authority to take life where necessary."

Who is this "we" you refer to?
First of all, capital punishment is on a state level and 13 states do not have it. Of the rest, there is a wide range of implementations. In some the jury hands out the sentence; in others it is the trial judge; in a few, the execution order must come from the governor of the state. "We" have not given "government" the right to take life.
Specifically, the federal government does enforce capital punishment for certain crimes. Relevant to this discussion are those for:
treason
genocide
war crimes
terrorism
However, the claim to authorization to enforce these laws on non-Americans living outside the United States is -- as it must be -- an element of U.S. law. 18 USC Part I. Chapter 113B. Section 2332 makes it illegal to kill any American anywhere on Earth if the goal of such killing is to "coerce, intimidate or retaliate against a government or a civilian population." As a US law, this law is subordinate to the Constitution.
Therefore it seems perfectly clear to me that in order to prosecute anyone for "terrorism" under this law, the accused must be accorded the full array of Constitutional rights.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "The government is out killing terrorist�s everyday and naturally we applaud them for it."

By the same standard, we condemn our government for killing non-combatants and demand that it stop.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "... the government has a moral obligation to bring criminals to justice and to treat them equally to or worse then they treated their victims. If they don�t then that would be the same as saying that the criminal�s life is more valuable then the victims."

It has nothing to do with the criminal's life and everything to do with yours. Aside from the basic fact that capital punishment has been shown to be flawed, there is a deeper question. If you sink to the level of the murderer, you do yourself an injustice.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "As for rights, all people have basic human rights but Americans or the citizens of any country have more rights there then in a foreign nation."

That is not true. Non-citizens have the same rights under U.S. law to trial by jury, legal defense, etc., as do U.S. citizens.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "As for Gitmo, I would say that if they are American citizens, they deserve a speedy trial per the Constitution. If they are not American citizens, then as long as they are taken care of there is no problem."

Again, that is not how U.S. law works. In the second place, it is not clear that they are "being taken care of." That is a result of the murky gray middle of the ill-defined road. Congress has not declared war. If we were legally at war, then the Geneva Convention would apply, being a treaty. Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are entitled to the same basic comforts enjoyed by the average citizen of the nation that has captured the POWs. As we are not legally "at war" then the status of these prisoners is undefined. The only fact that seems to apply is that they were kidnapped from their homes.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "Those people there aren�t innocent and you don�t need a trial to see someone in the middle of the Afghani desert with an AK as guilty."

Sure you do. First of all, guns are a way of life in many places, including the United States, and no less so in Afghanistan. Even in Iraq today, the US occupation forces allow one gun per home for self-defense. Regardless of how you see the event from 10,000 miles away through the perceptions provided to you by the American news media, the fact remains that under US law, everyone gets a trial (and a lawyer).

Clarence Hardy wrote: "And for the uncertain ones the ruling is: these people are a flight risk and too dangerous to be let out on bail and have to be kept detained until it is ABSOLUTLY determined they are no."

That is not how U.S. law works. We assume that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. Howevermuch the government has become monolithic, the fact remains that the purpose of the courts is to provide a mediator between the citizen and the state. The "government" must go to court to prove its case to a jury and a judge. Traditionally, in America, the government was only another plaintiff. Just because someone complains about you, does mean that you must be locked up for everyone else's good.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "Traitors are even worse, I literally cannot think of any crime more heinous then treason. There are 290 million people in this country and a traitor puts all of them, including me, in danger. Just killing someone like that still seems too good for them."

1. Treason never prospers because when it does, none dare call it treason. In other words, citing Ronald Reagan's statement on the Nicaragua Contras: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It might be said that anyone who is a socialist is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of everything that makes America. Of course, the socialists who rule from Washington and 50 state capitals and thousands of city halls certainly do not agree. Some of these socialists protest in the streets that globalist capitalism is treason to everything America stands for: equality, democracy, opportunity... I ask you: What is treason?
2. Before 9/11, the greatest visible threat to our government came from nominal right wingers, self-annointed super-"patriots" like Timothy McVeigh. By the logic of Gitmo, in the wake of the Murrah Bldg. bombings, the Clinton Administration would have been justified in the mass detention of conservatives, libertarians, objectivists and others (with guns) who "threaten our society."

3. The reality is that treason is defined in the Constitution specifically because the founders of our republic did not want it to be used as a broad weapon with which the state could retaliate against families and neighbors of those accused of treason.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/21, 5:19am)

Post 53

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:22am

Jon Letendre: "I won�t even consider execution unless fellow soldiers did in fact die as a direct result of the walking."

I am not a supporter of the military way of doing things. I believe that violence is the last resort of the incompetent. If individualism is superior to collectivism, then there must be a better way to create and run an army than to have everyone do the same thing at the same time in the same way because they are ordered to. What that might be is beyond me. I have not solved the problem, but I do see it as a problem. So, I take your statement as being your evaluation of a possible solution, rather than as a statement of fact.
As for the facts, as I have said before, soldiering is not a mystery. Everyone in uniform knows that deserters can be shot on the spot, summarily executed on the authority of an officer with jurisdiction. However, there are other facts. So far, only Pvt. Eddie Slovik has been executed for desertion since the Civil War. Slovik was a draftee. He had become detached from his unit during a shelling and joined some Canadians for six weeks. Re-assigned to his unit, he made at least two attempts in writing to make it clear that he would run away if assigned to combat. In response, he was court marshalled and executed. In fact over 21,000 Americans were charged with desertion in World War II. Slovik was shot as an example because desertions were running high at the time. Despite popular mythology today, World War II was not heroic for the people caught in it. War is hell.

Jon Letendre wrote: "For example, if captured alive, Hitler would have been tried and executed. But that�s not enough! For the punishment to match the crime he would have to have been at least tortured every day for the rest of his natural life."

1. I do not understand why. Is Hegelian Idealism a capital crime? Hitler (or any leader) can give all the orders they want. If people laugh at them and walk away, the leader is powerless. The people who should be punished are the people who actually carry out the leader's orders. I know how you feel about Hitler. I would not want him for a son-in-law. However, it is a "muscle mystic" fallacy to believe that destructive power is more potent than reason. The leaders of the USA -- political leaders, educators, and many others -- support this fallacy because it empowers them in the "minds" (so-called) of their followers.

Jon Letendre wrote:
Mike Marotta "We moved back to Michigan ... Does that mean that we forever lose our right to return to New Mexico on the theory that we are dodging their laws of property inheritance?"
Jon Letendre: "No, but you�ll have to pay the tax you dodged. If you don�t, then of course you will be imprisoned or at least banned."

We do not owe any New Mexico taxes. It was a red herring. My point was that the claim that a "draft dodger" loses his right to return to America because he refused service is false. The only way to give up your citizenship is to do so at a consular (or embassy) office in writing and with the surrender of your U.S. passport. You can leave America to sunbathe on the Hudson Bay in January or to soak in the healing mineral waters of the Kalahari Desert. Why you leave is irrelevant. It is true that an active soldier who leaves the U.S. to avoid service does have a situation to deal with upon return. That is a point we agree on. However, such a soldier is still entitled to due process under military law.

Jon Letendre wrote:
Mike Marotta: "Last month, I was in Calgary speaking at a museum conference. ... "
Jon Letendre: "If I owned a museum and ... we really needed you to speak at our event ... and you got up and went to join a museum in Canada where they make lesser demands on you ... Of course you would be banned for life. I�m against coercive taxation and the draft. That doesn�t mean we can dodge either with impunity."

1. You can do what you want at "your" museum. The USA is not "your" country. You share it with millions of others who have values different than yours. We were speaking theoretically and you said that we should ban deserters from returning. That is how you feel. It is not the law of the land.
2. I perceive a contradiction in your claim to be opposed to coercive taxation (a redundant term) and conscription while noting what we cannot dodge either with impunity. I ask: why not? If you are opposed to the law, then dodging it with intent of going unpunished is one of a very few alternatives.
2a. You can obey the law, of course. Doing that would make you guilty of complacency.
2b. You can disobey the law, get caught, and fight it in the courts. That is the civil disobedience route. It is a tough row to hoe, but go for it, if it suits your needs.
2c. You can dodge the law, trying not to get caught. This is what most people do in most times and places because the principles of economics demonstrate it to have the best cost-benefit ratio.

Post 54

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:12am

Michael, you have written so much here I cannot just now respond to it all. However, I just wanted to comment that sometimes you write some excellent posts with very Objectivist points of view, and other times (like now) you sound more like Noam Chomsky. Now to some specifics:

Never is there a story about the government having prevented the murder of one of its citizens. The point is that government does not provide protection; rather, it provides retaliation.

Retaliation is necessary, and while there is less of a story in it, I believe the fact that the police exist does prevent a fair measure of lawlessness. The FBI also prevents a lot of nasty stuff from taking place, so I don't think it is justified to say that they provide no protection.

Also, you appear to be espousing pacifism, saying that self-defense is the same as violence, that all killing is murder. It is not, there is a clear difference in retaliation vs. initiation.

Also, I was not in particular defending the current war in Iraq, but as a matter of point the congress did vote to approve the action, we just don't call it a declaration of war any longer. Granted we should, but in the end it amounts to the same thing.

I think I agree with what you said about deserters, definitely about the poor fellow executed as an example, not sure about the guy who joined the Viet Cong? That would qualify as treason I think.

Also, the Geneva convention allows for the execution of spies, for example when we found Nazis here planning attacks, they were executed (in this case, I think we were in error, because the fact is they didn't end up seriously attempting to actually do sabotage, but that is another story). Bottom line is, why the sympathy for these Taliban scum in Guantanamo? You really do sound like a leftist here, in your themes - using moral equivalism, demanding that high standards of justice (those of the US Constitution or the rules of war) be provided to enemies who do not abide by even the most basic elements of such.

Oh - and if the WTC had been in Shanghai and blown up, the Chinese would not have sat back and let it go!

Post 55

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:33am

Michael,

You have a lot of knowledge about history. That is commendable. In all the posts you are addressing symptoms with these historical facts. Admittedly, so was I in my original post. We could debate each action every person in the world makes and derive the appropriate solution to them. However, this would be an impossible task. We may even be able to find useful bits in the process but it doesn't really address the core issues or the solutions to them.

How do we find answers to the problems without having to answer each and every one? There is another field that provides the answer. That is the field of science.

When given an overwhelming amount of data a scientist will attempt to consolidate the information into a theory. Theories are designed to take various input and try to predict reliably and based on reality (through experimentation) what the output will be. Philosophy is our group of theories that help us make right decisions. It is a branch of science (to be more precise it is the origin of science and included chemistry and mathematics). The original Greek word means love (philo) of wisdom (sophy). The original Greek word for wisdom is the accumulation of knowledge. We attempt to find the facts and derive a theory to help us understand the right way to do things. Objectivism is the closest I have found to a scientific philosophy of how to live in existence based on right choices (assuming life is your goal). It is not perfect and we should continue to strive to find the best possible theories to live by.

Assuming we do find the right theories, perfect theories if you will. The major problem that we have is that reality does not require others to think the same way. Sure these people that attempt to defy reality will suffer the consequences of their actions but most will not associate the effects being directly related to their choices.

We have three options. One is to try to teach everybody how to come to the logical conclusions. Learning requires a person to choose to engage in the learning process. This does not guarantee their participation and defeats this as a possible solution. Only people that understand that the theories are logical and true to the laws of reality will actually use them to better themselves.

The second option is to figure out a technology that will eliminate murder, personal force fields for example. That way no one could force anyone or threaten anyone else. Another may be a massive computer system that could instantly do arbitration in disputes. These are not currently real options. So it is not a viable solution.

The third option is force. If we know our theories are true then we must force others to follow these theories. The only way to do this is with government. Is this the optimal solution? No, but it is all we have. Our current government and governments in general are the answer to the problem of other individuals that may have a different code of ethics or none at all. To live with others and be able to engage in relationships with them we must implement control mechanisms. It makes me want to throw up a little but just because I don't like the reality of the situation does not change the facts.

Government is the only solution. Which form of government is the best until we can find an alternative? Historically only a system that protects choice and eliminates internal and external threats to the individuals in that society. As you mentioned government is a retaliatory force. That is true but if one wrong is done and the person is punished we are hopefully eliminating future problems. No one can predict the future. The government is not exempt from this rule.

To the question of "What crime can the government commit that relieves you of your obligations to it?". The answer to this
is violation of the Constitution and the rules outlined in it that the government must abide. If any of those are broken that is a breach of contract. I already outlined several courses of action and you added the one about changing the laws as another viable alternative. That is true assuming that I want to deal with the government when the trust relationship has been destroyed by it's previous actions. That would be like playing poker with a dealer you know to be a cheat in the hopes that you can make him honest and thus allowing him to perpetrate more crimes against you. So to me that is an option I would not choose.

So where do we go from here? We study the philosophy and improve it. We abide by the theories we have (internalize them and live by them) in the hopes that they are true to reality and will better our life. I don't find whining and crying over the wrongs in the world to be productive. So by far the hardest thing is to engage our creative thinking and come up with a way to implement the correct philosophy without forcing anyone. In doing so we can eliminate the need for government at all.

Regards,

Jeremy

Post 56

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:35pm

Michael,
You make some interesting points. Thanks for the debate.
Jon

Post 57

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:10pm

Well Mr. Marotta, it seems you have a few problems with what I had to say. I�m not as prolific a writer as you so I�ll keep this short.

I am not an etymologist so when I used a word, I�m saying what it means no, not three hundred years ago. A person or a nation that does something noble is doing something that is just and righteous, reguardless whether to you can make a dollar doing it.

As for your post dedicated to me (thanks!), first I was referring to the people, and again to the people on juries, as far as I know no judge can sentence someone to death although it really dosen�t matter to me (I support automatic sentencing, it forces the jury to consider the punishment at trial). Also, and let me make this clear, I was never saying what the law was, I was saying what it should be and should be interpreted. As for the rest of your statements, its clear you�re a pacifist and against the wars so I�m not even going to bother responding

�By the same standard, we condemn our government for killing non-combatants and demand that it stop.�

I look at it as innocence and guilt, whether or not you have a gun in your hand at this very moment doesn�t matter.

�If you sink to the level of the murderer, you do yourself an injustice�

If I point a gun at someone and fire, what does that make me? It all depends on the context, we can both perform the same actions but one of us be right and the other wrong depending on context. Executing a murderer is not comparable to him murdering.

�If we were legally at war, then the Geneva Convention would apply, being a treaty�

Normally I would say I could care less about Geneva but I really don�t think I can. America has never fought a nation that adhered to them so why should we. Not to say we shouldn�t have standards of course, it just they should be our own.

When I said, �Those people there aren�t innocent and you don�t need a trial to see someone in the middle of the Afghani desert with an AK as guilty." I meant �firing on you�, sorry.

As for your question, �what is treason� that�s easy. It is betraying a good government to an evil one. Call it evasion on a massive scale if you want but the effects are the same. Giving information, money, or material from the government to another nation without the permission of your government is treason. I thought I cleared this up earlier. This is a democracy of sorts and when you betray the US government, in a way you are betraying ME!

And finally, by the logic of Gitmo and Oklahoma City, every terrorist from wherever would be under lock and key or rotting in some godforsaken desert somewhere. I don�t like all of the laws of this country or even most of them. But some of them are very good and based on very good premises. So for note, when I�m quoting the law you�ll know it and when I�m saying what I want you�ll know it.

Post 58

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 5:00pm

Clarence Hardy wrote: ...when I used a word, I�m saying what it means no, not three hundred years ago."

What a word "means" works at several levels. Any dictionary -- and they are not all equal -- only reports what the editors think that "most" people believe at some point in time. Ayn Rand identified the problem with the words "altruism." Unselfish concern for the welfare of others is the most commonly accepted meaning of that word. That sounds good to most people. Similarly, "noble" carries a morally favorable meaning to most people. I only point out that there is more behind the word. What is behind or underneath a word is also important. For a perhaps oblique example, the words "week" and "weak" have the same root meaning in English. We tend not to pay attention to that in everyday talk. However, a poet could use the subconscious equivalence because it exists in the mind of an English speaking reader. When you consciously identify something as "noble" you tell your subconscious that being an armored warrior on a horse, whacking away at other armored warriors is good -- and that people who do not do this are beneath you. This has very real consequences in the formation of your political opinions.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "A person or a nation that does something noble is doing something that is just and righteous, reguardless whether to you can make a dollar doing it."

If something is not profitable, it should not be done. If you cannot offer a value in return for a value, your actions originate in irrational epistemology and unreal metaphysics. Profit signals correct action.

Clarence Hardy wrote: ... as far as I know no judge can sentence someone to death ...

You are right. Since June 2002, the procedure has been different than it was historically. Until recently, eight states allowed the judge to set the sentence. Now, the sentence must come from the jury. (I searched for "capital punishment jury judge procedure" on Google and found this fact on the website www.faithandvalues.com, which cited a Christian Science Monitor article.)

Clarence Hardy wrote: "... I support automatic sentencing, it forces the jury to consider the punishment at trial..."

Every crime comes with a punishment, defined in legislation. Automatic sentencing removes the power of the judge to more closely make the punishment fit the crime. Yet, that is historically one of the powers of the bench. The judge has several tasks and sentencing is one of them. The jury finds on matters of fact. The judge rules on matters of law. Every crime comes with a punishment, so the phrase "automatic sentencing" is not needed. What that phrases clouds is the fact that objective law has been replaced with range-of-the-moment democracy. This problem is perhaps best thrashed out in another topic.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "I was never saying what the law was, I was saying what it should be and should be interpreted."

That is appropriate in a philosophy forum, of course. One of the problems I had with your post -- and it is a common problem; I fall into it, too -- the way you glided from "is" to "ought." You accepted uncritically the basic premises of existence of nations, military service, the nature of soldiering, and much more, and then leaped forward to posit "solutions" to "problems" that, however, poorly defined, already have solutions.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "As for the rest of your statements, its clear you�re a pacifist and against the wars so I�m not even going to bother responding."

I am against war. I am not a "pacifist." In another topic, I addressed the quote "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." Sometimes, we are forced by circumstances into a failure mode. Harsh events unfold so rapidly that your only apparent option is to retaliate against a threat with superior, overwhelming force. I would much rather kill someone else who is attacking me than to be killed myself. It is still an incompetency to allow yourself to be forced into that situation. In The Fountainhead, a bunch of the second-handers are kvetching about Roark and one of them says, "He would notice me if I hit him on the head with a club." The other replies, "No he wouldn't. He would just blame himself for not getting out of the way of the club."

Clarence Hardy wrote:
Mike: By the same standard, we condemn our government for killing non-combatants and demand that it stop.
Clarence: I look at it as innocence and guilt, whether or not you have a gun in your hand at this very moment doesn�t matter.

The connection between cause and effect is not arbitrary. It is impossible to achieve a good consequence from a flawed method. Warfare is inefficient, ineffective, wasteful, a misallocation of resources, a loss of future value, and much more that is wrong. Warfare is the result of attempting to make consciousness primary to existence. The practical effects are undeniable. Saddam Hussein was not the first dictator in history to put his expendables on the front lines as cannon fodder. In order to get to him, our forces killed thousands of people who would have been our friends, if we let them. We made them our enemies -- in our own minds first.

Clarence Hardy wrote:
Mike: If you sink to the level of the murderer, you do yourself an injustice.
Clarence: If I point a gun at someone and fire, what does that make me? It all depends on the context, we can both perform the same actions but one of us be right and the other wrong depending on context. Executing a murderer is not comparable to him murdering.

Suppose that you earn twice as much money as you need for basic comforts and beyond. You have a paid-up home, two cars, etc., and a good income. Your entertainment includes going to casinos. You can afford it. You have a right to do it. I point out that the odds are against you in the first place and in the second there are many other ways to entertain yourself that will bring more profit, both monetarily and psychologically. You can say that you play rationally. You can show me your most recent winnings. You can say that it is "just entertainment." I still reply that casino gambling is a misalloction of your resources. So, too, with killing people, either as excution for murder or in the prosecution of war or in self-defense.
(Incidentally, and perhaps as another interesting topic in another forum, there are "rational gamblers" among Objectivists. See the works of Frank R. Wallace.)

Clarence Hardy wrote:
Mike: If we were legally at war, then the Geneva Convention would apply ...
Clarence: ... I could care less about Geneva... America has never fought a nation that adhered to them so why should we.

Mike Paraphrasing Clarence: The enemy is always less than us. They are immoral, unethical, crude, inhumane, uncultured, rude, offensive and incestuous. They worship false gods. They even eat human flesh. On the other hand, whatever trivial faults our leaders might have, they were chosen in the noblest tradition of our land to protect us. Our nation is being led by the bravest, noblest, most heroic warriors in history and in their glorious armies fearless soldiers willingly give their lives so that we here at home have the freedom to support our leaders.

Clarence Hardy wrote: As for your question, "what is treason" that�s easy. It is betraying a good government to an evil one. ... Giving information, money, or material from the government to another nation without the permission of your government is treason.

Again, we have this disconnect between the reality of the U.S. Constitution and your opinion of the way things are supposed to be and my opinion of the way things are supposed to be.
1. The U.S. Constitution defines treason in Article III Section 3. In order to understand the words of the law as they were understood by the men who wrote them, look to the case of AARON BURR. Then examine the reasons why, 100 years later, the Southern rebels were not charged with treason. The purpose of this section in the Constitution is not be pro-active, but to prevent the government from making every dissent into treason.
2. Your definition looks only at transfering government assets. Also, it depends on judging one government better than another. Suppose some of these New Nation Libertarians actually succeed in finding their place in the sun. Since their government is "better" than the USA, is it all right to give them nuclear secrets? I do not think you would say so. However, in that case, you then remove the morality from your claim and it boils down to "my country right or wrong."
3. My own personal view is that like the power to maintain post roads or coin money, this power to prosecute treason is not necessary to a properly constructed government.

Clarence Hardy wrote: "This is a democracy of sorts and when you betray the US government, in a way you are betraying ME!"

1. Like "noble" the word "democracy" carries dangerous emotions. You would be hard pressed to find any Objectivist who is in favor of "democracy." In fact, as an Objectivist, I actually recommend Tyranny in its original meaning, as being the historically appropriate form of government for a mercantile society. My opinions aside, most Objectivists are not in favor of "democracy" so-called, but rather advocate for the restoration and revitalization of our Constitutional Republic.
2. Without slicing up "democracy" with Occam's Razor, let us agree that the USA is a "popular government" resting on the consent of the governed. How do we reconcile everyone's desires at the same time? Who is right? How do we know? It might be said that our republic is being betrayed by Zionists who have used their lackeys in the mass media to poison our historically friendly relationship with Islamic nations.
     The Treaty of Tripoli Signed by John Adams
     "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
     "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
     -- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul)
Please understand that I am not claiming such a betrayal by "Zionists." I only point out that every citizen (and many non-) have the right to influence the government according to their conscience. Within the context of "democracy" (so-called) there is no way to know who, if anyone, is right or wrong, and then to make government foreign policy from that determination. For that reason among many others, George Washington cautioned against "foreign entanglements."

Clarence Hardy wrote: "And finally, by the logic of Gitmo and Oklahoma City, every terrorist from wherever would be under lock and key or rotting in some godforsaken desert somewhere. I don�t like all of the laws of this country or even most of them. But some of them are very good and based on very good premises."

On the succeeding anniversaries of the Murrah Bldg. bombings, the vast majority of my federal colleagues deserted their posts, threatended by rumor of new bombings by rightwing militia elements. I reported for duty. Everytime those big elevators rattled that empty building, I wondered if it was coming down, but I was not going anywhere until my shift ended. I do not surrender to terrorists, no matter what the cost. I was not a federal employee, but a contractor, a civilian "mercenary" for the Department of Defense.
You cannot stop terrorists with the policies and procedures of conventional war. Even "red alerts" and airport patdowns and all of that is just more of the same, without actually addressing the actions and the required counter-actions.
"Rational warfare" is probably a contradiction in terms, but if it has any meaning at all, I know that this is not it. Whatever the solution, it starts with the premise that you do not compromise with evil.

Post 59

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 5:07pm