About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, May 28, 2016 - 6:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Nicely said, Dr. H!  Just to note, though...


But too many Americans are committed to the collectivist notion that we “belong” to one another and that we all must work first for one another rather than for our own goals and dreams. In other words, we are all slaves to one another. This is the explicit dogma of Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a parade of pandering politicians.

 

Bernie Sanders kept to his principles and voted against the war-making that other Democrats and Republicans endorsed. Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and Paul Ryan are no less collectivists than the other side of the aisle. More to the point, it is the conservatives and Republicans who lead the charge for other people's children to die in war to (allegedly) protect America. President Obama is ony continuing the policies of President Bush.  Since Vietnam, American military service personnel have been among the casualities in Grenada, El Salvador, Lebanon, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait, among other foreign lands. Our good ally Israel killed 34 Americans and wounded 174 attacking the U.S.S. Liberty on June 8, 1967.

 

Ayn Rand was not alone in pointing out that people do not kill or die for what they can buy or otherwise acquire by trade.  As an organization, ISIS is outside the marketplace, of course. However, the attacks by Islamist militants within the United States generally could not have been prevented by militarization of our society. For a different view of a different Islamic society, see Nellie Hanna's Making Big Money in 1600: the Life and Times of Isma'il Abu Taqqiya, Egyptian Merchant. He did not want to kill anyone.

 

It is easy to look at ideology and see motivations. The relationship seems necessary, perhaps, but not sufficient to be causal. Here at Lackland AFB in San Antonio, the shooter in the April 8 murder-suicide was a former FBI agent.

 

We know that some would "kill a commie for Christ" but would you kill for capitalism? To me, that seems not just counter-productive but inherently contradictory. I joined the Texas State Guard because we are not issued weapons and we cannot be sent overseas. We are Texans serving Texans. (And, yes, that comes with an oath to provide "selfless service" to others.  I have written elsewhere about applying the Merchant Ethos to protective services. So far, most of the rest of the world has not caught up with me on that.)

 

Evaluating a Dive Team

Evaluating a dive team

April 2015

 

BNOC Lackland AFB

Non-Commissioned Officer Training

May 2016

 

 

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/28, 6:42pm)



Post 1

Saturday, May 28, 2016 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bernie Sanders kept to his principles and voted against the war-making that other Democrats and Republicans endorsed.

True.  His version of collectivism is domestic.  But the socialist ideology has no tradition of staying out of wars.  With Bernie we would all be enslaved, to the degree of our abilities, to the needs of others - inside our borders, for now.

-----------------------

 

However, the attacks by Islamist militants within the United States generally could not have been prevented by militarization of our society.

"Militarization of our society" isn't the proper prescription for an effective way to fight the war the jihadists are waging against us.  And neither is ignoring it.

----------------------

 

We know that some would "kill a commie for Christ" but would you kill for capitalism? To me, that seems not just counter-productive but inherently contradictory.

 

Give me a break, Marotta.  "Kill a commie for Christ"?  Talk about a strawman!  What about kill a terrorist as an act of war?  And given that "Capitalism" is the only system that is based upon actual freedom with the right to life, to liberty and to property... Yes, that one I'd kill to defend.  I see nothing counter-productive nor contradictory in that stance.  I have the sense that you have gotten lost among the abstractions... come untethered as it were.

----------------------

 

I have written elsewhere about applying the Merchant Ethos to protective services.

If the protective service is private enterprise, then the merchant ethos is appropriate and it wouldn't be wise to include too many of those characteristics of the warrior.  But, to be a private enterprise, we assume it can only make and enforce rules that do not conflict with the laws of the government who has the monopoly on making such laws in that area.  Anarchists see it as possible for a free marketplace to provide adequate defense of individual rights through 'protective services' - but then there is no single overriding set of laws regarding the proper use of force, and until there is, the marketplace can't be 'free' and that's why that doesn't work.



Post 2

Saturday, June 4, 2016 - 12:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Well, Steve, I must point out that international socialism failed to stop World War I. The social democrats and others attempted to call for strikes, rather than to have workers killing workers for the profits of capitalist arms manufacturers. But they failed.  On the other hand, Mussolini, other national socialists and other right wing syndicalists urged their publics to support nationalism and patriotism for the Great War.  For the true socialist, the only war that matters is the class war. I agree with you 100% that Bernie Sanders advocates for domestic policies that engage that class war against the true producers of wealth. But that was not the topic. Unlike 400 Republicans and Democrats, and like a few of them such as Ron Paul, he refused to vote for war (overseas).

 

Criminology wrings its hands and furrows its brow over the causes of crime. Jihadis are just another kind of criminal. There is a theory called "Techniques of Neutralization" that was worked out for explaining juvenile delinquents. You probably know it from your studies for counseling. I found that the excuses offered by youngsters are actually found, also, in social resistance movements, such as the Civil Rights struggles. Whether those who break the law by civil disobedience in the name of a higher good are in the same league as neighborhood toughs and Islamist militants is a salient question.

 

Denial of Responsibility - Delinquent: It was an accident; We didn't mean for it to go that far; Some other dude did it - Jihadi: We are forced to react to the Crusaders and Zionists. We would not do this if you were not evil.
Denial of Injury - Delinquent: We only broke a window; I only stole a bag of potato chips - Jihadi: It is nothing compared to what Israel has done; It is nothing compared to the sins of the Great Satan.
Denial of the Victim - Delinquent: The old man had it coming; The other gang was in our turf - Jihadi: the apostates deserve this.
Condemnation of the Condemners - Delinquent: Everyone knows the cops are crooked. Jihadi: Israel stole Palestine. Americans are decadent.
Appeal to Higher Loyalties - Delinquent: I won't rat out the gang. Jihadi: Allah commands this.

 

While the social context of crime cannot be ignored, crime is the choice of an individual who has chosen not to think. I agree with my comrades on the left that the fact that 20% of Black youth have primary contact with the criminal justice system is a consequence of racism. I also point out with less success that 80% of Black youth do not have primary contact with the criminal justice system. Racism, while real, is too easy an excuse for the refusal to think. Guns are loaded with blank-outs.

 

It is why I volunteered at my age to serve in the Texas State Guard. (I can serve until I am 70. In Vermont, they serve until 80.  We all live better longer now.  And the US Army took my brother-in-law at 50 when his National Guard unit was activated to Iraq. He was not the only grandfather there.)  We are not issued weapons and we cannot be sent overseas. We are Texans serving Texans. Like the roadway engineers in a Heinlein story we are organized along military lines for very clear and compelling reasons. Moreover, we are not the only unarmed military. (See "Armies without Weapons" on my blog.) That said, my volunteering to wear a uniform places me in two special contexts.

 

A while back, Steve, I cited a criminology professor who was also a veteran, who wrote an essay on the morality of uniforms. Special garb sends a special message. We put ourselves at risk to bring others to safety. Truly, the risks are asymmetrical. You would be hardpressed to jump out of an airplane, even with a parachute. Paratroopers learn to do it routinely.  My unit - though not me personally - practices swift water rescue. Would you dive into a raging stream to save an infant?  For you, that would be highly risky. For a SWR team, it is less dangerous.  For myself, like all TXSG members, I am prepared to arrive onsite in 6 hours and take care of myself for 72 hours until other help (such as the National Guard) arrives.  I am trained to operate a Red Cross Shelter, to manage spontaneous volunteers, and to render adult first aid.  Mostly, I operate a computer tracking other people and supplies.

 

The TXSG is a volunteer force with roots in the Texas War for Independence. We pay for our own standardized gear, and we are all paid the same rate, privates to generals, when called to state active duty.  Also in the frontier tradition, it would be typical for a lowly enlisted like me to run a computer or a clipboard while four people with officer ranks unload a truck.

 

Every army in the world believes that it can defeat the enemy. In our battle books the "hostile force" is listed as a hurricane. You cannot win; you can only minimize your losses.

 

In the social sphere, I look for non-violent solutions to conflict because peace is more powerful.

The TXSG carries out humanitarian missions into the Rio Grande Valley in concert with other state agencies such as Health Services. It allows us to serve under-served communities, to deliver medical care to Texans who otherwise might not get it.  In so doing, we practice mass care exercises that are required for other responses such as wildfires, tornados and floods. We also help to keep violent elements from finding fertile ground in the sociological context of the Rio Grande Valley. Another aspect of that is Operation Strong Safety (variously rebranded) which patrols the border region seeking lost asylum seekers, human traffickers, and drug runners. We place and maintain thousands of cameras. Although we are not (necessarily) armed, our Texas Ranger partners always are.

 

So, I will leave you to defend RoR against any anarchists with the temerity to come here. I defend Texas.

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/04, 12:43pm)



Post 3

Saturday, June 4, 2016 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The social democrats and others attempted to call for strikes, rather than to have workers killing workers for the profits of capitalist arms manufacturers. But they failed.  On the other hand, Mussolini, other national socialists and other right wing syndicalists urged their publics to support nationalism and patriotism for the Great War.  For the true socialist, the only war that matters is the class war.

 

That is so confused.  It is true that some socialists were opposed to WWI and others actually pursued war, but to mention that they saw capitalism as a root cause of war and let that stand is poor writing for someone who, I assume, doesn't believe that. 

 

There are no "true socialists" - there are only those who seek centralized control of others at the expense of individual rights and attempt to justify this with some variant of Marxist rhetoric. 
--------------------------------

 

Jihadis are just another kind of criminal.

 

Marotta, this is a pattern I've seen you follow for years.  You find a non-essential trait and then treat it as if it were essential.  The fact that juvenile delequents and violent Islamic terrorists both use similar set of psychological/rhetorical devices to justify their actions does not make their actions the same, and it does not make them the same.  This is a very peculiar kind of relativism.

 

Progressives want to discuss violent jihadism as if it were a series of separate crimes... and no more.  But that is a kind of context dropping.  When the context isn't dropped, it has to be seen as a war - not a series of crimes.
---------------------------------

 

While the social context of crime cannot be ignored, crime is the choice of an individual who has chosen not to think. I agree with my comrades on the left that the fact that 20% of Black youth have primary contact with the criminal justice system is a consequence of racism.

 

I agree that individuals make choices.  But those choices arise within a context of beliefs (and emotions).  The racist beliefs are NOT those of whites or of institutions.  They are NOT engaging in racial discrimination against blacks - that period of history is history.  The primary racist beliefs effecting the young black man in this context are his beliefs.  His identification with his race and his belief that whites are oppressing the black man, that "white privilge" makes him a second class citizen, that a black man can't get ahead in the world today.  This is the ideological crap that has been pumped into the black community by progressives and amped up by a virulent, toxi black sub-culture that glorifies crime and is lacking in rational values.  Black violence and crime are endemic to those black communities where these harmful, counter-productive views hold sway.  For five years I worked in the heart of South Central LA and I saw the direct link between the beliefs individuals held and the actions they took or didn't take and the results that made their lives what they were.
----------------------------------

 

So, I will leave you to defend RoR against any anarchists with the temerity to come here. I defend Texas.

 

Marotta, I'm not defending RoR.  I focus on ideas and I try to examine what makes ideas right and valuable, or wrong and dangerous.  Anarchy is a dangerous idea because the nihilistic version leads to the initiation of violence, and the more academic version mistakenly leaves people thinking that initiated force can be removed from society without a government and that's an impossibility.  So, if someone really values liberty (freedom from initiated force) then they should support a minimal government whose every law arises out of individual rights.

 

Sometimes I attack the person bringing the idea I'm attacking, but that is, to a degree, a separate thing.  No ad hominem argument should ever hold sway anywhere, especially among as sophisticated an audience as we have here at RoR.  When I attack a person here (excluding a momentary heat of the moment thing... a lapse from good judgment), it is because they exhibit a nasty character trait quite apart from the ideas they espouse.  When you made ugly, false charges against me, and then stuck by them long after the heat of the moment, that became a character issue with me.



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.