As usual, Ron Paul gets it.
Hat tip lewrockwell.com//blog
As usual, Ron Paul gets it.
Hat tip lewrockwell.com//blog
What happens when you begin to parse, from a biblical Christian context, the bumper-sticker thinking that pleads, “Support our troops”?
John the Baptist tells soldiers to do no violence to anyone. But that is what troops do. Their very job is to enforce by physical means the will of some person or group of persons that claims for itself the right to coerce others. This may be as a group of soldiers who are engaged in military assault, or, as in Palestine, merely an occupation force. Either way, troops are an agency for coercion. But if God makes compliance with His gospel voluntary during this period of the great conflict between selfishness and unselfishness, then there is no place for coercion of others; there is no place for troops.
There is a built-in feature some use when they argue that we should support our troops; they make a separation between the troops as individual soldiers, and the officers or the state. However, Every army consists of those who command and those who obey the commands. In terms of what the army does, there is no difference between grunts and the West-Pointers. Supporting our troops must mean not only supporting the private first class but also the general; not only those who kill on command but those who command to kill.
Those who support the troops also support the rifles, grenades, bunker-buster and hydrogen bombs of the military. The bullets and the guns and the bombs are the very tools used by the troops to murder and to coerce. Support of the troops must mean also supporting the use of these murderous weapons. The man who pulls the trigger or pushes the button is no less culpable than the one who commands, even from the oval office, that the button be pushed or the trigger pulled. To support our troops is to support the weapons used by the troops, is to support the nuclear bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that it was known by its planners would murder women, school-children, and aged men–civilians–and only a very few soldiers.
But then, some want to claim that the army is separate from the state, that the soldiers only do what the civilian leadership of the state tells it to do. And yet, what it all amounts to is a group that enjoys power on the basis of coercion; there is no difference between the political leaders and the military ones. Supporting our troops means supporting the dogface, the general, the representative, senator, and the president. The word “troop” traces back to Middle Latin and “troppus” meaning “flock.” Which reminds us to ask the question, What flock do I belong to as a Christian? Am I part of an earthly flock or a heavenly one? How could I identify with a group whose fundamental task is to murder or coerce–do violence–to others?
The troops are said to be “our” troops. Which calls forth the question, what business does a Christian have murdering or coercing others? Or, what business does he who endorses God’s law–“Thou shalt not steal”–have in aggressing against the property rights of others? Even from the standpoint of the Constitutionalist–the one who believes that the United States Constitution is what amounts to a magic formula that if we all embraced it would prevent all these kinds of issues in terms of government–we have a problem here. For the Constitution does not give authority to raise perpetual standing armies. But this is what we have had since the beginning of World War II. Although the Constitution does not permit it, there has been one for a third of the time the USA has existed. Go checks and balances!
Some of those who serve may be our sons and daughters, but they are not “our” troops. They exist anti-constitutionally. And, blood descendancy does not indicate rational or moral agreement with behavior. If they are serving voluntarily as murderers and coercers, aggressors for pay, they are mercenaries, pure and simple. I do not pay mercenaries to aggress against others. And if they were not voluntary in the present sense, but the state commanded them to serve, still they would be–voluntarily–choosing to obey. We can never be forced, but all of our choices ultimately are voluntary. This is the only way that all of our choices, ultimately, can be moral.
Finally, we do not command them. We have no control over them. The United states public has been opposed to many of the wars that have been fought in its name. More recently, the public is overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And yet, troops, bases, military actions continue. They are not ours. These are not our troops.
Finally, we come to the question of support. What does it mean for us to “support” these troops which are not ours? Support boils down to our non-coerced approval of them. If we voluntarily choose to say, I will pay them to aggress against others and I agree with them when they pull the trigger and push the button that kills, we are disagreeing in the most fundamental way with God’s law which says “Thou shalt not kill.” And so, it is human law, ideas, attitude, versus God’s law, ideas, attitude. And I know where I stand.
I do not “support our troops.” They are not ours. I do not have aggressors and I do not support aggressors; it does not matter what emblem they wear or what flag they salute. I cannot serve two masters. The end result of the attempt to serve two masters is always the declaration “We have no King but Caesar.” I have no King but Christ.
Why do these days mark the end of America? Not because terrorists destroyed the World trade Center, or because a president signed a liberty-destroying bill. The America we grew up loving and believing in, that we were taught about in school and whose flag we dutifully and without reservation saluted, that America has not existed in our lifetimes. That America was a slanted and barely half-truth myth, just one part of the story, leaving aside or gently explaining away the more unseemly parts of American history. No. That is not why it is the end of America.
It is the end of America because the red, white and blue colored glasses are coming off. People are seeing through the fabrications and lies. The results are in now from the lab. Minarchy is like a relentless weed; its only end is imperialism, empire, and then demise. It is like a mushroom surging up into being and then rapidly wilting away in its own death.
When the bipolar cold war era ended with the collapse of the Soviet state, the only appropriate course for the American state was also to shrink. The cold war masked, at least to many of us, the imperial ambitions of the American state. Now that the Soviet “threat” was ended, America could stand down. It did not. Far from it. Rather, its shallow, supposedly do-gooding, entwining hubris expressed itself in the now very open and brazen drive to become the world’s policeman and the ruling power of this age. The state stood out of the shadows, naked in its new boldness. Its sheen of goodness no longer covering its swollen girth.
It is the end of America not because of any great changes that have only just now occurred, but because we now see through. The shades have fallen from our eyes. The dream was only a dream. We must prepare to do something very new but very old. The state has shown its true nature. Let us try a different order—something that for lack of a better name has been called anarcho-capitalism. That is, an ordered world but one not molded in the coercive shape of the state. A world where each man reaps what he sows (Galatians 6:5, 7), and where our moralities are not shaped by those who impose right and wrong as they see it upon us. We have not come to the beginning of utopia, but have come to the end of something else. And this is a good thing.
Hint: The U.S. Census fingered them—and gave their information away in every case. How confidential are your census answers? See Census Confidentiality? The Check’s is in the Mail, by David Kopel.
(Tipped off to this from Lew Rockwell mp3 radio interview on the census at lewrockwell.com.)
Unbelievable. But all too believable. Presidential declaration makes you a non-person if you are tagged “enemy combatant.” As noted at the end of the article, this means that we now have less rights than a Roman did two millennia ago. Via lewrockwell.com.
Yesterday was December 7, which we are all supposed to remember as “Pearl Harbor day,” or, as the then president called it, the “day that will live in infamy.”
Yes, it will. But evidence is abundant that Roosevelt had labored long and hard to bring us to that day. The president was anxious to get the United State into the war and had engineered provocation after provocation against Japan. The American public was overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. entrance into the war. But undue trust in the state, centralized power, and the “goodness” of “our” leaders was their downfall.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of desperation. Japan did not have the resources to win a war against the U.S. and this was known—to them and to Roosevelt. The president baited the Japanese by stationing the Pacific Fleet at Pearl.
Evidence is abundant that Roosevelt hoped for just such an outcome. The lives of a generation were changed because of too much trust in the government. The people thought that their leaders were looking out for them, nobly aiming to keep them out of harm’s way; the reality was otherwise. The president was playing with the lives of American men and women.
What could be more evil?