Daily Anarchist Forum
July 19, 2019, 04:08:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
Author Topic: Pledge of allegiance  (Read 16007 times)
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2012, 02:15:22 AM »

"Here we should note still a third variety of anarchist thought, one completely different from either the collectivists or individualists. This is the absolute pacifism of Leo Tolstoy. This preaches a society where force would not even be used to defend person and property, whether by State or private organizations. Tolstoy's program of nonviolence has influenced many alleged pacifists today, mainly through Gandhi, but the latter do not realize that there can be no genuinely complete pacifism unless the State and other defense agencies are eliminated. This type of anarchism, above all others, rests on an excessively idealistic view of human nature. It could only work in a community of saints."~Murray Rothbard
Logged

JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2012, 10:39:42 AM »

(although FDR may have provoked Japan)
He did. FDR made plans for the war long before there was any reason to think the U.S. would be involved. Japan didn't just haphazardly invite the U.S. into the war. It wasn't a "random surprise sneak attack," no one casually invites a bigger player than themselves into a fight without damn good reason.

Second thing: A murderer is somebody who kills another person who has not done anything to them (and thats a lenient definition).

I disagree entirely with this fallacious definition. A murderer, in AnCap legal theory, is a person who kills someone who has not murdered. (Remember, punishment must always be proportionate to the crime in Rothbardian Law).
Rothbard isn't God (neither is God, I might add).

Quote
False. It's not that simple. If a soldier goes to a foreign land and then snipes down a guy who murdered several innocent people, that soldier is not a murderer. He has, in fact, justifiably and proportionately killed another for their crimes.
You don't actually think that's how the military works, right? Look up collateral murder. The military is a playground for psychopaths, and a prison for the young who get trapped into doing it in the midst of some patriotic fervor.

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
nhwulf
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2012, 08:13:24 PM »

Repetition works. Repetition works. Repetition works. Lies told often enough become the truth. Is there any other reason to force, either through punitive measures or peer pressures that a statement of allegiance be made by children not likely to understand what that pledge means, to a concept that those selling it have a vested interest in its furtherment?
Logged
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: February 05, 2012, 04:34:56 PM »

1). Rothbard isn't God (neither is God, I might add).

2). You don't actually think that's how the military works, right? Look up collateral murder. The military is a playground for psychopaths, and a prison for the young who get trapped into doing it in the midst of some patriotic fervor.

1). {o,o}
     |)__)
     ---
    O RLY? Grin

I'm agnostic by the way. Except with my deity Rothbard. Cool

2). I understand that's not what usually happens. I'm ardently anti-war. It's called a hypothetical. It's simply not necessarily true that a soldier who goes to Afghanistan and kills someone is a murderer.
Logged

JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2012, 05:25:18 PM »

1). Rothbard isn't God (neither is God, I might add).

2). You don't actually think that's how the military works, right? Look up collateral murder. The military is a playground for psychopaths, and a prison for the young who get trapped into doing it in the midst of some patriotic fervor.

1). {o,o}
     |)__)
     ---
    O RLY? Grin

I'm agnostic by the way. Except with my deity Rothbard. Cool

2). I understand that's not what usually happens. I'm ardently anti-war. It's called a hypothetical. It's simply not necessarily true that a soldier who goes to Afghanistan and kills someone is a murderer.
1) I'm bad at interpreting ASCII art, I'll need an explanation.
2) Suppose someone lives in Afghanistan, and his home and family are annihilated during an air strike, and they were all innocent. If he takes up arms to kill americans in the military, is he a murderer? What if he kills soldiers who weren't the ones who technically pushed the button to kill his family? I say this person's actions would be justified either way. The military acts as a killing unit. They operate as a collective. An attack against one soldier is an attack against the whole military, and a strike by the military is the responsibility of all who willingly "serve."
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 05:27:20 PM by JustSayNoToStatism » Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Will
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2012, 05:36:49 PM »

Quote
I'm bad at interpreting ASCII art, I'll need an explanation.

Looks like an owl to me. Not that that makes any sense in context Roll Eyes
Logged
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2012, 05:40:31 PM »

1) I'm bad at interpreting ASCII art, I'll need an explanation.
2) Suppose someone lives in Afghanistan, and his home and family are annihilated during an air strike, and they were all innocent. If he takes up arms to kill americans in the military, is he a murderer? What if he kills soldiers who weren't the ones who technically pushed the button to kill his family? I say this person's actions would be justified either way. The military acts as a killing unit. They operate as a collective. An attack against one soldier is an attack against the whole military, and a strike by the military is the responsibility of all who willingly "serve."

1). It's the "O RLY?" owl! Grin



2). You said it yourself. You're considering the military as a collective. I apply Libertarian theory equally to everyone. Yes, that Afghanistani would be a murderer if he killed someone who wasn't a murderer. The military is not a collective, as no collectives exist. Period. Rothbard explains this in the first three pages of MES brilliantly. By your definition, it might as well be equally OK to kill my dad as it is OK to kill an Air Force member who bombs innocents in the Middle East. Which is not cool at all. Undecided
Logged

Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2012, 05:44:42 PM »

Looks like an owl to me. Not that that makes any sense in context Roll Eyes

Hm, why not? He said "Rothbard isn't God," and I replied with the classic "O RLY?" owl as a joke. It's funny because I don't see Rothbard as a god in any sense (although he is pretty godly), but my reply was "O RLY, he isn't?"

Perhaps you need to revisit the finer points of satire.
Logged

Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2012, 07:19:05 PM »

2) Suppose someone lives in Afghanistan, and his home and family are annihilated during an air strike, and they were all innocent. If he takes up arms to kill americans in the military, is he a murderer? What if he kills soldiers who weren't the ones who technically pushed the button to kill his family? I say this person's actions would be justified either way. The military acts as a killing unit. They operate as a collective. An attack against one soldier is an attack against the whole military, and a strike by the military is the responsibility of all who willingly "serve."

2). You said it yourself. You're considering the military as a collective. I apply Libertarian theory equally to everyone. Yes, that Afghanistani would be a murderer if he killed someone who wasn't a murderer. The military is not a collective, as no collectives exist. Period. Rothbard explains this in the first three pages of MES brilliantly. By your definition, it might as well be equally OK to kill my dad as it is OK to kill an Air Force member who bombs innocents in the Middle East. Which is not cool at all. Undecided

Unfortunately, the world looks at countries as collectives.  As a citizen of the country that is invading, many people will consider you as guilty as the soldier that pulled the trigger through indirect consent.  Due to the nature of political systems, even the anti-war minority are part of the system.  There is no war opt out for us.  Just as we see our neighbor as guilty of theft when they elect someone to steal on their behalf, the world sees citizens as guilty for electing people who send troops to kill on our behalf.  Besides, what good is a solder without the civilian machinery to keep it all going through taxes and weapon building.  

If you're alone and able to explain you're against the war, perhaps people will understand and not continue to consider you part of the collective, but that isn't going to happen with people that are under fire.  They are going to aim for anyone with the wrong flag.  If some country invaded your country, and tanks were rolling down your street, even if those particular soldiers didn't kill your family they are still part of the invasion force that are killing people.  You wouldn't be able to go up to them and ask them nicely to find and execute the man that killed your family.  They will treat themselves as a collective and protect themselves from you.  
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 09:30:18 PM by Syock » Logged

derick
Full Member
***
Posts: 160


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: February 05, 2012, 08:03:55 PM »

Unfortunately, the world looks at countries as collectives.  As a citizen of the country that is invading, many people will consider you as guilty as the soldier that pulled the trigger through indirect consent.  Due to the nature of political systems, even the anti-war minority are part of the system.  There is no war opt out for us.  Just as we see our neighbor as guilty of theft when they elect someone to steal on their behalf, the world sees citizens as guilty for electing people who send troops to kill on our behalf.  Besides, what good is a solder without the civilian machinery to keep it all going through taxes and weapon building. 

If your alone and able to explain you're against the war, perhaps people will understand and not continue to consider you part of the collective, but that isn't going to happen with people that are under fire.  They are going to aim for anyone with the wrong flag.  If some country invaded your country, and tanks were rolling down your street, even if those particular soldiers didn't kill your family they are still part of the invasion force that are killing people.  You wouldn't be able to go up to them and ask them nicely to find and execute the man that killed your family.  They will treat themselves as a collective and protect themselves from you.

I have thought for some time now, that if we view our country from a distance, it would look like a collective and the taxpayers, being the worker bees, would be equally guilty as the soldier killing people on the battlefield. I dont know that that is 100% wrong but I am in the process of rethinking the effect that the force and violence of the state really has.
Logged
Will
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: February 05, 2012, 09:02:07 PM »

Looks like an owl to me. Not that that makes any sense in context Roll Eyes

Hm, why not? He said "Rothbard isn't God," and I replied with the classic "O RLY?" owl as a joke. It's funny because I don't see Rothbard as a god in any sense (although he is pretty godly), but my reply was "O RLY, he isn't?"

Perhaps you need to revisit the finer points of satire.

I've just never heard of that expression. I knew you were being sarcastic, I'm not that dumb Wink
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: February 05, 2012, 09:55:03 PM »

You said it yourself. You're considering the military as a collective. I apply Libertarian theory equally to everyone. Yes, that Afghanistani would be a murderer if he killed someone who wasn't a murderer. The military is not a collective, as no collectives exist. Period. Rothbard explains this in the first three pages of MES brilliantly. By your definition, it might as well be equally OK to kill my dad as it is OK to kill an Air Force member who bombs innocents in the Middle East. Which is not cool at all. Undecided
Collectives do matter. People can voluntarily come together to do certain things, and act in unison through coordination. If person x coordinates with y to kill someone, it doesn't matter which one pulled the trigger. It doesn't matter if I'm a mechanic fixing tanks or the person laughing and shooting shells at people's houses. As for derick's comment, I'm forced into paying taxes. No one, at the moment, is being forced into the military.

Joining the military is a deliberate, conscious, voluntary, uncoerced choice to help the death machine achieve its objectives.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Will
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: February 05, 2012, 10:29:17 PM »

"Here we should note still a third variety of anarchist thought, one completely different from either the collectivists or individualists. This is the absolute pacifism of Leo Tolstoy. This preaches a society where force would not even be used to defend person and property, whether by State or private organizations. Tolstoy's program of nonviolence has influenced many alleged pacifists today, mainly through Gandhi, but the latter do not realize that there can be no genuinely complete pacifism unless the State and other defense agencies are eliminated. This type of anarchism, above all others, rests on an excessively idealistic view of human nature. It could only work in a community of saints."~Murray Rothbard

I'm not exactly a Tolstoy follower, though I do have a great deal of respect for him. I just have a personal conviction that the use of lethal force is always wrong. I'm not going to try to convince or force anyone to agree with me about that or try to form a society that revolves around that, it's just the way I choose to live my life.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: February 06, 2012, 12:06:48 AM »

"Here we should note still a third variety of anarchist thought, one completely different from either the collectivists or individualists. This is the absolute pacifism of Leo Tolstoy. This preaches a society where force would not even be used to defend person and property, whether by State or private organizations. Tolstoy's program of nonviolence has influenced many alleged pacifists today, mainly through Gandhi, but the latter do not realize that there can be no genuinely complete pacifism unless the State and other defense agencies are eliminated. This type of anarchism, above all others, rests on an excessively idealistic view of human nature. It could only work in a community of saints."~Murray Rothbard

I'm not exactly a Tolstoy follower, though I do have a great deal of respect for him. I just have a personal conviction that the use of lethal force is always wrong. I'm not going to try to convince or force anyone to agree with me about that or try to form a society that revolves around that, it's just the way I choose to live my life.
I see nothing wrong with that. Even in self-defense, it would be difficult for me to kill someone. The only difference is that I suspect, in the end, I would be able to do so.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!