Book Review #10

The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides

The popular saying 'May you live in interesting times' may not be nearly so wise a request as wishing to live in peaceful and stable times but is eminently more sensible than ever wishing someone to live in original times. If there is one thing amply demonstrated by Thucydides in his epic and timeless history of The Peloponnesian War it would be the truth stated in Ecclesiastes 1:9 'What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.'

Though the events covered occur roughly 2500 years ago it feels as current and apropos as if it had been written this year. I would freely admit that the study of Greek history has not been my most popular topic. In fact, without it having been chosen as the item to study and comment on by Vox Day it is unlikely that I would have ever picked up the text. Having read it I would place it on a top 10 list of books one must read to be considered educated. Thucydides is a master and leaves ample evidence why his work has survived for the millennia. His insightful commentary and balanced portrayal over events occurring in his own life puts to shame the commentary we are subject to in what is called 'The Information Age'. The scope of his work covers the gamut of human motivation and nature as well as political and military situations that are all to familiar.

The particular version of the text I link above, as you can find free versions online and other pay versions, was well worth the purchase price new. The notes included in the text are insightful and help tie things together as do the included maps. This version, unlike some others, does not really continue past the point where Thucydides himself leaves off. As the text comes to an abrupt halt this may be bothersome to some readers. This work receives my highest possible recommendation and I would like to think I demonstrated my own knowledge of the work in Vox Day's Final Exam.

Affliction: Banned

I purchased the Affliction: Banned MMA ppv. It had several fights that I was very interested in seeing and being a MMA fan who enjoyed Pride I hoped to see a resurrection of sort for non-UFC staged fights. What I got was a very mixed bag. While the top 4 fights on the card delivered the undercard was spotty and could have been cut to get the ppv down from a length of nearly 270 minutes to a more manageable 180. What was most disturbing was the production value. Considering Donald Trump poured some resources into this and the plethora of 'stars' and other interest this show received I really would have expected more. The average UFC show on Spike TV has much better, sound, video and announcing. The fighters walked out to awkward introductions and approaches to the ring and had to dodge a microphone set right at the top of the ramp. Why was there a microphone you ask? Great question... because it should not have been there. The microphone belonged to Megadeth. Who thought to themselves 'lets book a band no one has thought about in a decade to receive prime time exposure on our MMA event'?! They played 3 times and that only lengthened an already long show. If you are going to bring in outside entertainment (and I have never seen this work when tried in pro-wrestling or sports in general outside of the Super Bowl) at least bring someone in that people would be excited to see.

On the plus side, it is obvious that the strenght of the heavyweight MMA world lies in the Affliction camp. Fedor, Arlovski and Barnett each had impressive outings and make for some compelling matchups. With the possibility of Couture being thrown into the mix it is obvious that there is a good series of fights to be made.

I was particularly pleased to see Fedor come out and dominate in the manner he did. Of course watching Silva just destroy his competitor on the opposing UFC show will leave the pound for pound designation out there in limbo.

I hope Affliction succeeds. The competition is good for the sport and it is nice to see the ring as well as the octagon in play. They really need to up the production value though or it will simply appear to be a bush league side show to the mainstream UFC.

Layman's Theology

I fully admit to not being a theologian. However, it is a subject of interest to me. Over on the Vox Popli blog a gentleman who goes by the name Bearded Spock posed the following question...

I asked this before, but didn't get an answer. If the Bible contains errors as almost all biblical scholars admit, then how do you know which parts are divine revelation and which parts are not? How can it be the word of the perfect God if it is not perfect?

My reply is this:

I think this is a really good question. I would say that it can be the word of a perfect God in the same way as this can be the creation of a perfect God. Psalms 19:1 states that effectively this imperfect earth declares his glory. It seems logical that if His glory can be made manifest through a corrupted earth then His will could be known through an imperfect scripture.

2 Tim 4:16 indicates that all scripture is inspired from God and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It does not make a claim to inerrancy there. 2 Peter 1:21 discusses (though covering prophecy) how men spoke from God. The only thing specifically indicated as recorded from God's own hand was the 10 commandments (Exodus 32:16). It seems logical that in dealing through flawed men that degrees of error would be expected. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter points out that distortions are occurring with Paul's epistles as they do with other scripture. I further point out that in Revelations 22:19 it is commented on regarding the penalty for adding or subtracting from the words of that book which indicates that while punishable, God would not himself intervene to prevent the action. And not everything in the Bible is directly the acts or express opinion of God. Some parts are simple recordings of what was done. In particular 1 Cor 7:6 where Paul speaks of marriage and in Matthew 19:8 Jesus talking of divorce.

The Bible is not the path to salvation. Jesus states that only he is the way. The Bible is certainly the best vehicle we have for this. This is akin in my mind to historical study; Thucydides is the best study of the Peloponnesian War but certainly has errors as being recorded by a man.

I think perhaps it would add something to have a scripture that contained no visible contradictions or issues. It would be evidence of a sort. I do not know why in this area as in others God did not choose to use it as such. My quick opinion on the subject.

As for how you know... I think the spirit in which you approach it and the desire to be led into greater knowledge is the important part. The parts of the scripture people seem to have the most trouble with involve portions that restrict behavior. If you are more interested in pursuing your own agenda, be it within a church, family or society then in maintaining fidelity with 1000s of years of tradition and Biblical commentary on the subject then you are likely on the wrong path. If your goal is to judge the scriptures through secular ideas than a spiritual heart I would say you risk the same error. Even those who walked with Jesus or who had direct relationships and contact with God never got it right. But if it ever becomes more about you then Him you are guaranteed to get it wrong.

The Insuring of the 47 Million

I like the Kiplinger Letter. It provides nice concise information. In the letter dated 20 June 2008 they provide a breakdown of the oft cited 47 Million uninsured. I often wonder how you arrive at that number. It seems a little large to go out and talk to each one. Was there a phone number to call? Some statistical study? That rarely seems to be talked about if at all. However, assume the 47M is correct and then we can try to break it down.

- 70% are in families with at least one full time worker
- 10% are in families with at least one part time worker
- The rest retired or unemployed

-8.4M are already eligible for government programs
-10.2M are non-citizens
-9.2M have household incomes > $75k
-7.5M are between ages 19-24

I realize that health insurance generates some strong opinions in people, but looking at the above, what group should I feel terribly bad about? If you are going to use a number like 47M then you are dealing with groups.

We have 8.4M who are already eligible for programs... yet they choose not to insure or cannot manage to figure out the application?

10.2M non-citizens... while granting that some of these people are certainly contributors to the economy, I doubt their would be much clamoring for them from the greater part of the citizenry.

9.2M who earn greater than $75k. Can this really be an issue of cannot afford?

7.5M between the ages of 19-24. This hardly represents the highest risk group. And having talked to this group I can assure you that health insurance does not top their lists of interests.

Without a doubt you have cases of people with preexisting conditions and other dilemmas that give them more unique problems with obtaining insurance. But this number is significantly less than 47M. And handing the reigns over even more fully to the entity that created so much of the problem to begin with seems foolish in an attempt to deal with the margins.

Us vs. Them

In which whatif makes a succinct case for why nothing ever changes and who 'they' are anyway.

"Them" government bureaucrats. The three branches of government in our Constitution control nothing. It is the federal and state bureaucrats who control most everything. They must protect and perpetuate government because that is what they do. Government pensions will ALWAYS be funded. The bureaucrat has no incentive at all to cut anything back or his own neck. This is why writing a congressman is a futile exercise by and large. The simplest and safest thing for a bureaucrat to do is to say NO to everyone, to every request for action. Once someone has been dragged into the judicial system, found guilty (whether he is or not) and put away, the government has no interest in determining if they indeed have the right man. The government has NO interest in its citizens, only in the survival of the government. The government will take away any liberties and create any new rules for its own well being. THEY ARE THEM.

Shut Up and Dance!

This is terribly silly... and yet there is a life affirming quality about it.

We Don't Need No Education

In which I involve myself in a Vox Popoli debate on the efficacy of schools and civilization...

Simply put many people do not reason well. Emotionalism and mindless support for an ideological position is no more attractive from the people I have a philosophical kinship with than from those whose philosophy I abhor.

Practical Libertarianism

I admit to having strong libertarian leanings. Simply meaning that I feel that the general philosophy of the country should be one of minimal government and individual liberty. However, I do like to descend from the mountains of ideology and attempt to apply the principles to the world in which I live. I find that is rarely something libertarians like to do. As a movement it seems to lack the ability to paint a picture of what life would be like, how certain issues would be handled or even any historical examples of its success. Ron Paul makes some headway in this area, but he is obviously more intelligent than many of the ilk.

I recently posted the following query at Vox Popli, the blog of WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day.

This might be as appropriate a place as any to query the libertarian minded... Gary North posits that the Big 3 will soon be bankrupt and even further rushing to shed their retirement liabilities. Certainly North has been wrong in times past (Y2K), but he does put forth some good evidence... here is the question. What is the obligation of the Big 3 to the people with whom they had the contract with for those retirement benefits? How does that contract square with their obligation to their current contracted employees and the contracts (if they are viewed as such) with their stock holders? Should the companies be dismantled to provide payouts to prior workers in spite of the effect that would have on the economy? Should the prior contract workers be forced to eat the loss? It seems obvious a libertarian would not believe that the government should intervene. This is the type of bread and butter non theoretical issue that I imagine people would want addressed by those with a libertarian philosophy before turning over the keys to the kingdom.

I had hoped that someone would at least take a stab at the issue. I was not surprised when there were no takers. Certainly it may have simply been that no one was interested or that they felt it was a poor question. I tend to think it was more that people do not like to take on a challenging issue when they can employ hyperbole and ideology in big rant fests and flame wars.

I did attempt another angle in engaging an ongoing discussion that involved the trade philosophy of Pat Buchanan. I will confess to having free trade leanings, but that I find Mr. Buchanan's trade thoughts compelling and worthy of inspection. The free trade true believer of course showed up with the following tactics... a) claim that I do not know what free trade is b) link articles that are strictly repetitious theory c) avoid answering any questions about real world evidence. Intellectual giants are some of these ideologues.

I am interested in people making solid attempts to answer cultural and economic questions from the libertarian point of view with a little more depth then I commonly encounter. If there is no depth to the people... perhaps there is no depth to the movement.

Book Review #9

The Faiths of Our Fathers: What America's Founders Really Believed by Alf J. Mapp, Jr.

I found this book in the discount section at Barnes and Nobles. Paid roughly 7.00 for it. It is an engaging little book. I noted some errors in it... one of which was referencing an item in the appendix that is simply not there. However, for what I paid it provided a taste of the subject matter. I think it does reveal that the 'Founders' like many people today ranged in their beliefs. The Founders were certainly not uniformly evangelical as some church goers would have you believe and they most certainly were not all separated from faith and its role in society as some of the more secular among us would claim. They were humans with all that entails.

I think from this book I would branch out and engage in some of the other texts on the subject. I expect fully that it is a subject that will be highly effected by the personal beliefs of the author. If you only want a taste of the subject however, this would provide that in a very short form ( a mere 160ish pages). On that basis I would recommend it.

Book Review #8

The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul

Given the size of the Federal Register and the various state codes, you would think that the original Constitution and State governing documents were extensive tomes and written with the complexity of the King James Bible. As a capstone and summary of his Presidential bid and governing philosophy, Ron Paul provides a short, succinct an altogether impressive attempt to explain the politics of freedom and the nature of limited government to a new generation of Americans who has never known either as the Founder's would have envisioned.

It is always a boon when someone is able to capture the essence of a concept and movement in a compressed form. It is clear that Ron Paul is more effective with the written word than he is standing on stages delivering speeches or in our hideous and moderated 'debates'.

If one is looking for a quick yet thorough introduction to limited Constitutional government with basic libertarian principles then this book is a must read. If you somehow feel that the common political wisdom and dialog continues to yield only more of the same visibly failed policies then this book is a must read. If you only want to find out why this man was so fervently followed by those who did then you can find out with a minimal time commitment.

Book Review #7

Augustus by Anthony Everitt

If I could go back and meet just one historical person, outside of Jesus, I think I would choose Augustus. This individual sat at the fulcrum of history. If one is a Christian then it must have some relevance that Christ was born during his governance. If one man has ever truly wielded more power and wielded it rather wisely for such a length of time as did Augustus then I remain unaware of him. And that is the fascinating thing. Many have conquered and there have been more than a few empires, but nothing has captured the imagination as much as the one charted by Augustus. As August himself said when speaking of Alexander the Great being at a loss of what to do after his extensive military conquests, "I am surprised the king did not realize that a far harder task than winning an empire is putting it into order once you have won it". And order it he did.

Alfred North Whitehead once said "I know of only two occasions in history when the people in power did what needed to be done about as well as you can imagine its being possible. One was the framing of your American Constitution... The other was in Rome and it undoubtedly saved civilization for, roughly, four hundred years. It was the work of Augusts and the set around him".

Augustus' accomplishments lend themselves to study. Through his life you can see the path to power and more importantly the means to maintain it. Fascinating man, fascinating life... the measuring stick by which all who would rule must be judged.

Specifically to the book, Everitt has accomplished a very readable history. So readable in fact that I will make it a point to acquire other works by him. He fully admits that there are some portions of Augustus' life that are not well recorded. In these sections he attempts to present what he feels is the most likely scenario to have happened. The narrative starts off with a jump to the end of Augusts' life before returning and treating the subject in a more linear chronological manner. The scope of the volume, while complete, does not render it ponderous or overly lengthy. It is well footnoted and indexed. The text also presents a fair and balanced approach to Augustus detailing his failings and triumphs as a man as well as the character and motives of his main adversaries such as Marc Antony.

I wholly recommend without reservation this book.

Fatherhood

For many, symbolism and style trump substance, but not with me. Fatherhood is a calling… a calling from the spirit of God and the heart of a child to the soul of a man who cares to do right in this calling before the eyes of God and in the life of that child. As a father you will forever define a portion of your life to yourself and your very existence to this child by how you carry out your obligations. If our children are not worth our best, then what is?

I was always terribly proud of my father. I truly feel he accepted his calling. As I have grown up it has become all the more apparent how unusual the life that he and my mother were able to create for me. It was a life without instability and worry for my family and my place in it. I truly always felt he gave his best to the endeavor of raising me and have seen how greatly he exceeded the efforts of other men. Having seen the impact I have been able to have in the life of my child it is only more quantifiable the massive impact my father had on me.

With thanks always for giving me the tools to be the man I am. I think you should never doubt that you did well. Happy Father's Day.

Do They Think Before They Write?!

Sometimes I am embarrassed that I have to share my libertarian leanings with inferior minds such as this... (article).

June 07, 2008 "Obama is Unelectable" Posted by Stephen Carson at June 7, 2008 10:38 PM Now that we know that Obama will indeed be running against McCain, I am thinking about what John Dvorak said in passing once on TWiT. (Paraphrasing) "The next president will be a Republican, I've been saying that for months. Clinton and Obama are both unelectable." The only reason I pass this on is that as soon as I heard it, it sounded exactly right. Dvorak didn't elaborate at the time (though see here) and I haven't been able to find him explaining elsewhere what he meant. But just think about the American electorate... Not the one you wish for, but the one we've got. Now picture them picking a lefty professorial type over a "war hero". I'm not saying what I want to be true, just saying: "Brace yourself".

Yeah... the American people would never vote against a 'War Hero'... oh, except they voted against Bush the 1st who not only had a distinguished enough war record but also waged what was viewed as a very successful war... and who did they vote for? Someone they viewed as a draft dodger...or the vote against Kerry in favor of Bush II? Now obviously someone could argue that Kerry put out a lefty professorial vibe... but he was the decorated war veteran... and the argument entirely falls apart with Bush I... Frat boy draft dodger defeats 'war hero'...geez... do you all think before you write...

The Little Amendment that Failed

As I ruminate on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America I am forced to conclude that if it was put in place, as it surely seems, as a personal right with the intent to fortify the people against domestic tyranny then it certainly seems to have failed. Given the proportion of our population that is armed, is there a more timid people? In fear of everything they resist nothing. Where 300 might have resisted 100,000 in Greece here it is inconceivable that 300,000,000 would resist 700,000 (an estimate of the domestic law enforcement population). Despite tax rates that would have set the world ablaze in times past, government intrusions far beyond the bounds envisioned during the country's formation, unaddressed and massively unpopular immigration and active and increasingly common violence against the population there is little more than the occasional harsh word, law suite or youtube video to mark any signs of resistance. The South seceded and the continent was bloodied over issues no more divisive than those we face now.

In the few acts of resistance to the Government of the United States you have the use of fertilizer, planes and powders. The weaponry that was supposed to steel the spine of the nation has failed in that purpose. While government seems to fear its citizenry, it is not through the collection of firearms that it acts out its will upon them. By the time it would get to that point it is far to late anyway...

Is it an overarching faith in government and its legitimacy that restrains the current population in ways prior populations would not? Is it the relative economic prosperity that gives more people a stake in the system as it stands? Is it a preoccupation with foreign affairs that has kept the domestic scene so tranquil? Is it simply a level of passivity in the general population that exceeds the vision of those who authored the amendment, and if so, what accounts for the passivity of this population group compared to the French, early Americans and the Eastern Bloc countries?

Book Review #6

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner

Many people have heard of Freakonomics. If you have not read it, you may still be familiar with the conclusion it reached on abortion and crime rates and with the controversy this caused Bill Bennett. On the whole it is a fascinating concept. The ideas of following data wherever it may lead and what the study economics can be used for.

The book as a whole is presented in a very readable style. And the various chapters while readable in an independent fashion manage to tie together in a loose overall theme.

I hope there is a sequel as it seems that there is no end to the directions you could go with this concept.

Book Review #5

The War of the Roses by Alison Weir

History can be a tricky thing to write about. There is always the issues of bias, accuracy and complexity with which to deal. Being my first foray into this era of English history it is hard to speak to the authors dealings with the first two issues, but it is the latter that presents both the main strength and weakness of the book.

The War of the Roses covers a period of English history primarily from 1455-1487. The text does a solid job of setting the stage for the political situation and bringing the personal traits and motivations of many of the main players to life. Given the magnitude of the cast and the number of titles and people to contend with, the author does an admirable job of keeping the overall flow of the tale moving forward. I do feel that in some form or fashion more could have been done to help the reader keep track of the relationships and titles various people had and held throughout the time frame and their significance. At times it became exceedingly difficult to understand who was related to whom and in what capacity the different titles conferred influence and power. No doubt this was problematic for the people of the time also.

I can recommend the book as a fairly concise and apparently thorough look at the situation and one that leaves you with a richer understanding of a famous time in English history.

Book Review #4

I Am America (And So Can You!) by Stephen Colbert

A decade or so ago I probably would not have liked this book. It is certainly fun, but I would have chafed a bit at the fact it was picking at 'my side'. At this point in life though I can find the humor in it and even agree that those who I would have once thought on 'my side' deserve a good skewering.

This book is based, in my opinion, on the model of the old Rush Limbaugh books. Issues thrown out there with the opinion of the author addressing them. The book is just the right length to cover a good amount of issues and not become tiresome. There are some true gems in here... the comment on the Catholic Church and getting production value for your offerings still brings a smile to my face. He even has a point there.

A comedy book worth a read.

Book Review #3

Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors by Cosby & Poussaint

I so wanted to like this book. If I had stopped in the first few pages I would have. Mr. Cosby and Poussaint do a reasonably admirable job of laying out the background and problems for the black community. Where this book ultimately fails, in my opinion, is its all to predictable fallback into the position of government action. Yes, there are certainly calls for self help, but there are many calls for more of the same programs that have yielded little to no return on the investment in terms of helping the black community they were targeted at. I think if one searched out Mr. Cosby's speeches as of late then you would get the majority of the same information and opinion in probably a more engaging form.

Mother

"Mother is the name for God in the lips and hearts of little children" - William Makepeace Thackeray

Made famous more from its appearance in the theatrical release of The Crow than from its original author, it conveys a truth that should be self-evident.

As I have grown older I have come to recognize that there are few guarantees in life. Input does not always equal output and outcomes are not always predictable. We sometimes pretend that raising children in a particular way means that we should get a certain result or that only the way children were raised in a certain time was correct. A historical review will show that it is nonsense to believe that humanity was only successful when the family was structured as shown on the 1950's television shows. Many societies have flourished under different approaches and in particular with different roles for mothers and fathers.

Raising a child is a very personal thing... and on what can you judge its success? If you seek to judge the success by the performance of the child then that can paint a very unfair picture. A parent is no more responsible for all their child's failures than they can be for all their child's successes. The same effort given to each child will have wildly different results. But effort is what I would choose to make my judgement on. For if God is love and that is shown through His efforts for mankind than how can the 'god in the lips of children' be expressed any more purely than through the effort shown to her offspring. I believe that all to often children are just another commodity in the life of their parents. They represent the check marked item on a sheet that included marriage, car, big house and a high definition tv. That love of a child expressed in the effort of engagement and purpose of will is something I have rarely witnessed in my life.

I was fortunate... my formative years were guided by a mother whose love felt so complete that I tarried long from a life of worry or doubts of my worth. In all aspects she prepared me to someday have a wellspring of decency and honor and love that would exceed even a life bent by cynicism and disappointment.

I could never have wished for more in a mother... nor could I ever hope to match her as I raise my own child.

For this day... and all others... for always... my love and respect.

A Libertarian Problem with the Military Pt. 3

The sports analogy was yours and I was simply responding to it. Football is a game in which people try to score more points than the other side. War is not a game, it is an activity in which one side tries to kill the people on the other side. When the soldier signs his contract, as a practical matter he agrees to obey the orders of the president to wage war against another country, no matter if he believes the war is immoral or violates the principles of aggressive war set forth at Nuremberg. At Nuremberg, the judges punished German officials for attacking another country that had not attacked Germany. They held that doing so constitutes a war crime even if no German court ever found the war of aggression to be illegal. The president ordered his army to invade Iraq despite the fact that neither the Iraqi people nor their govt attacked the United States. That makes the U.S. govt the aggressor power in the conflict. It is not a football game. If you add the deaths of the Iraqi children from the sanctions, which were enforced by U.S. troops, to the number of people killed during the war of aggression and subsequent occupation, the number gets close to 1 million. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, no sports event in history has produced than many deaths. Only one soldier, as far as I know, refused orders to deploy to Iraq on basis that the attack and occupation are illegal and immoral--Lt. Watada, and the military is doing its best to punish him, in order to show the other soldiers--obey the orders of your commander in chief or else, no matter what your conscience says. If a football coach inserted a clause in the contract that said, "By signing this contract, you surrender your conscience and you kill whatever player on the other side that I tell you to kill," there is no doubt in mind that very few football players, if any, would sign the contract. Moreover, if a player does feel that a football coach isn't doing things properly, he can quit without going to jail. The worst thing he might face is a breach of contract action. That's not the case with the military. Soldiers must obey orders to attack any country on earth, no matter how weak or how defenseless those countries are. If they are ordered to drop bombs that will inevitably kill defenseless women and children, they are expected to obey. If they refuse, they are punished. Govt prosecutors are going after Watada viciously, seeking to put him into jail for 7 years for refusing to deploy to Iraq and killing people in a war of aggression. That's the purpose of boot camp, or basic training if you will. It is to destroy all sense of individuality and instill conformity and obedience. In that way, when the president says, "Attack Iraq" or Bolivia or Panama or Cuba, or Iran, the soldier will not question the morality of attacking people in a war of aggression--that is, people who have never attacked the U.S--but instead loyally obey the orders to attack of their commander in chief. One of the primary reasons that the Founding Fathers feared standing armies is because they would also follow orders to kill their own citizenry. That's why soldiers obeyed orders to do what they did to Jose Padilla. They will do the same to any other Americans, if their commander in chief orders them to. Soldiers in a standing army are loyal to their commander in chief, Mr. Shirah, and they will loyally obey his orders to go after "the terrorists" or the "bad guys" regardless of whom their commander in chief labels "the terrorists" or the "bad guys." The key to human growth and development is a society in which people have the widest ambit of choice with respect to peaceful activity. In a political context, that would entail the repeal of such socialist and interventionist programs as Social Security, Medicare, public schooling, and drug laws. When people are free to make their own choices--including bad ones and irresponsible ones--that is when conscience, consciousness, responsibility, and charity are nurtured. When govt punishes people for the peaceful choices they make or forces people to make choices, those traits atrophy. While the military convinces soldiers that they are acting properly in surrendering their conscience with respect to the people that are killed in a war of aggression, the state cannot relieve the soldier of the moral or religious consequences of his choice. That is beyond the power of the state. If you are not familiar with the essay "Conscience on the Battlefield," I recommend it to you. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/read1.html Both the warfare and welfare state are leading our country to catastrophe, both morally and financially. I highly recommend three books to you--all three written by Chalmers Johnson--Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Best regards and thanks again for sharing your perspectives with me. Jacob Hornberger

At this point I feel we will have to agree to disagree. I think you can only relate my intent in comparing football in the military in the way you are is because of the choice you have made on how to view the members of the military and the military itself. In a free society, as you state, people must be free to make choices, even incorrect ones. From my perspective the analogy holds because it is simply comparing the utility of tradition and ‘nonsensical’ drills in forming a cohesive team and establishing a common framework for future training and skills development. You want to debate the legitimacy of the Iraq war which was not the focus of your original article or the focus of my replies. The issue I felt we were debating was whether military boot camp training is as you describe and effectively whether military people are as you describe. The first point I think has been proven to be untrue. The people are not drafted, the services have different modes and methods in their training and there is nothing illegal or immoral about a contract to perform the functions in basic training. As you have frequently mentioned the Founding Fathers, I must make a direct note of their establishment of a standing Navy. The Navy of course has its own boot camp and the Marines being a part of the Navy have theirs also. I wonder if you feel that the contracts for the Navy are also invalid. They certainly cannot be illegal as they are in fulfillment of a Constitutionally established agency. Your extrapolation to what may occur in the future is irrelevant to this point. I feel that I have provided enough points to support the latter contention, to include a news article. This will simply butt up against your opinion on military members. It also seems that you focus on legality when that suits your interests and morality when the legality of the issue does not support your desires. The 600,000 children that you state have died did so in part in fulfilling what the world would consider legal sanctions imposed by the United Nations. At this point I imagine your argument will move the morality of the situation. Regarding Nuremburg, it is not my understanding that it is a treaty. It is simply a legal precedent. As it is not a treaty, then the members of the United States Military are obliged legally to follow the directives of the legal entity of the Constitution and the statutes established which govern the military’s relationship with the people their agent the government. Nuremburg itself cannot condemn a war as illegal; it can simply provide a framework and argument for an agency with jurisdiction to declare it illegal. This leads us once again to the area where legality and morality are not synonymous. You wish military people in the name of your definition of morality to commit an act of illegality. A stand which I do not feel you would take as I assume you pay income taxes (the power to tax is the power to destroy) and do not water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. If Nuremburg is in fact a treaty then I will acknowledge the error of my previous statement in this paragraph and hold lawyers and Congress responsible for not prosecuting this issue before I will hold 18-21 year old adults culpable who went through the education system you describe. Further, I will disagree that taking a stand on morality should be without personal sacrifice. In the case of Lt. Watada, as I stated in my prior comments, who we will assume acted out of conscience has been allowed the action and now will pay the price for acting on his/her view of morality. As a libertarian I doubt you would think that a pharmacy should not be able to fire a pharmacist who will not prescribe the morning-after pill to a woman. Even though this pharmacist believes he is acting morally and is not taking part in an act of killing as he would define it; I would think you would believe the pharmacy has its own rights to remove with prejudice its employee. Acting morally does not free one from the consequences of action. Which is the equivalent of your belief that acting legally does not free one from the consequences of action. If your objection now becomes the level of sanction the military may visit versus the pharmacy then I feel that is another issue altogether. The military member swore a different oath and signed a different contract. I am not certain how to address your feelings regarding the military’s loyalty to a commander in chief. Your view seems to reflect a belief that the military is the equivalent of the legions of Caesar. The military is not personally loyal to a particular commander in chief. As an institution, it is loyal to a process established by civilian government which in philosophy if not practice is given its authority by the people of the nation. From this it is incorrect to label the military ‘the president’s army’… it is the United States Army. I feel you evaded most of the remainder of my points. That is certainly your prerogative. I am sure you are busy. Thank you for the discussion. I always enjoy debating issues such as these. I wish you and your organization the best and hope that it experiences success in drawing down the size and scope of government.

Book Review #2

Day of Reckoning by Patrick J. Buchanan


Of all the political columnists and commentators I enjoy, I believe Pat Buchanan tops the list. I have read several of his books and many of his columns and all of them I have found them all worthy of the time and mental engagement. Pat Buchanan combines readability, historical perspective, cultural understanding, facts and religious insight into his works. More than any other writer his thoughts challenge some of the economic beliefs that I tend to gravitate towards as a libertarian minded person.

Mr. Buchanan's current work seems to be a culmination of several of his prior ones. Where before he lays out problems as he sees them, in this one he postulates that we have slept too long at the wheel and now all that is left to do is succumb to the inevitable consequences of so many errant policies and actions.

Across the board of economics, foreign policy, culture, immigration and demographics, Mr. Buchanan demonstrates how America and Western Civilization is being ripped apart and irrevocably changed and weakened. While his opinion has often acted in the role of Cassandra, it is hard to argue with the information he presents to make his case. One can only hope that he is wrong... one can only fear that he is right.

Book Review #1

One thing I certainly do a great deal of is read. I tend to do a lot of Sci-Fi and Fantasy reading, but recently I have been engaged more with culture, politics and history. Seemed reasonable to let others know my thoughts on the books that I have read... so here goes.

The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day

My first encounter with the new atheist movement came primarily from commentators on Vox Popoli. I had encountered people of the atheist bent in my personal life, but they lacked nearly so much stridency and it seemed fairly obvious that they were mostly angry at parents and personal circumstances. They also were in no way posing as intellectuals so it seemed harmless enough. However, it has become quite apparent that besides the entertainment portrayal of those of faith as boobs, dullards and hate mongers there is now another group that seems to spend its days fuming about perceived theocractic and historical injustices committed by particularly by those of the Christian faith. Any argument with this crowd is instantly dismissed as being done by people who suffer the mental disorder of faith and are not qualified to speak and unworthy of being heard. Into this 'debate' comes Vox Day.

Vox Day decided to engage the atheist 'intellectual' leaders on their own perceived turf of rationality and evidence. To give a more fair review it would be better if I had read the original texts that he is commenting on, but the arguments he debates and debunks are common enough to have been heard through other sources (ie Religion causes war).

Vox Day writes in a pretty engaging style. It is not dull which is a risk that books on social issues, culture and history take. His approach to the debate is admittedly combative and treats the New Atheist movement with little more respect than they treat those of faith.

For those looking to debate an atheist without relying on the obviously losing argument of theology and personal revelation this book provides the ammunition. It should be noted however that the New Atheists and their ilk being less than the rational people they advertise have opted not to engage in debates on this book. But perhaps, in smaller groups and crowds it will give you a few talking points to hold your own and convince those more on the fence who are less strident that while there may or may not be a God... atheists ARE asses and are NOT rational.

A Libertarian Problem with the Military Pt. 2

Mr. Hornberger replies... and I respond. Note the comments by Mr. Hornberger are presented as they were sent to me.

Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting feedback on my article. First of all, I couldn't agree with you more about your assessment of basic training in the air force, but wouldn't you agree that it has always been rather cush, especially compared to that in the army? And I could be wrong but I've got a hunch that "drop down for 10" is still an integral part of training at Quantico. I also agree with your point about NCOs and boot camp. I should have made that clear in my article. However, I must disagree with your comparisons between the military mindset and way of life and that of civilian life. For example, your comparison of the "contract" signed by soldiers and that signed by people in the private sector, including sports teams, is totally inapt. Please permit me to explain to you why. In the military, the contract that the person signs effectively requires him to surrender his conscience, especially as part of obeying orders to kill people. That is, soldiers are expected to obey the orders of their superior officers and their commander in chief to kill people by invading another country, regardless of whether such an invasion is morally or legally justified or not. That's why basic training--left-face and right-face--etc is so important--to inculcate a sense of conformity and obedience and loyalty--and not questioning whether the president should be invading another country or not. For example, if the president today told soldiers, "I am ordering you to kill Bolivians as part of an invasion of their country to oust their socialist president," 99.99 percent of American soldiers would obey those orders. During the invasion, they would proudly proclaim, "We're killing the bad guys." Only one or two would say, "My conscience will not permit me to kill people who don't deserve to die." Most all of them would say, "I don't need to exercise my conscience. My boss has decided to deploy me to Bolivia and I have a right to obey his orders because that's the contract I signed. The same applies to an invasion of Venezuela, Panama, Cuba, Granada, or whereever. How do we know this? Because we know that only one soldier--Lt. Watada--refused orders to attack Iraq, a country that never attacked the U.S. If U.S. soldiers would faithfully obey orders to attack Iraq, they'll faithfully obey orders to attack any country and kill countless people in the process. Don't forget that an estimated 650,000 Iraqis have been killed, none of whom ever attacked the U.S. When added to the 350,000 Iraqi children killed by the sanctions, that's close to 1,000,000. That's not a small number of people killed by U.S. soldiers. Even thought Watada has refused orders to attack and kill people who have never attacked the U.S. -- and even though a war of aggression was punished as a war crime at Nuremberg--the Pentagon is doing its best to punish Watada for refusing orders to commit an immoral and illegal act. I don't know of any sports team that orders its players to intentionally kill people. In fact, my impression is that there are severe infractions for intentionally or even accidentally fouling another player. Moreover, the danger that the American people face is that the president's military would obey orders to employ their force against them--against Americans. That is, if the president ordered U.S. soldiers to kill and torture Americans, they would obey those orders too, especially if the president told them that national security depended on it. And if a soldier refused orders to do so, he would be punished, just as with Watada. After all, how many soldiers have you seen resign or protest the torture of Jose Padilla or any of the people at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, or the CIA overseas torture centers? How many refused to participate in the wrongdoing? How many CIA agents, who in reality serve as the president's secret private army, have been indicted for killing and torturing detainees? They faithfully followered orders,which is exactly why they've been indicted in Germany and Italy. After all, you don't really think that they're going to be extradited to those countries to stand trial, do you? How many soldiers and CIA agents have protested the CIA's rendition program? As I understand it, Capt. Fishback is the only officer who has taken a public stance against the torture. Our Founding Fathers clearly understood the differences between militirism and the civilian way of life. I assume you're familiar with their antipathy toward standing armies and their preference for citizen soldiers (no, not the National Guard--that's a govt operation), but just in case you're aren't, here are a few quotes to reflect upon: Madison: A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. St. George: Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. Henry: A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? Henry: that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Pennsylvania Convention: as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power. U.S. State Department website: Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth. Fields and Hardy article on Third Amendment: The experience of the early Middle Ages had instilled in the English people a deep aversion to the professional army, which they came to associate with oppressive taxes, and physical abuses of their persons and property (and corresponding fondness for their traditional institution the militia). This development was to have a profound effect on the development of civil rights in both England and the American colonies.... During the seventeenth century, problems associated with the involuntary quartering of soldiers and the maintenance of standing armies became crucial issues propelling the English nation toward civil war. Finally, I would agree with you that boot camps tear people down. But we should keep in mind that the means by which to producta mindset of conformity and obedience rather than a means for nurturing human growth and development with independent thinking and exercise of conscience. I would like to invite you to subscribe to our FFF Email Update. Also, be sure to check out our big June 1-4 conference: Restorign the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties: http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/index.asp

Best regards and thanks again, Jacob Hornberger

I also appreciate your reply.

I addressed my comments to your article as written, not to what you may have intended. Your comments regarding boot camp were very general. Speaking to the cushiness of USAF Basic Military Training, I think that would be a matter of perspective. While it may be viewed as cushy by the sister services, I imagine it is not viewed as such by the millions of people who are unable or unwilling to submit to even its ‘relatively’ lower expectations and requirements. Further, while all the services share some goals with their boot camps, they tailor much of it to a specific audience or population groups.

I queried a marine regarding push ups in boot camp. As of 1990, push ups were used in their training process. I have not queried further as the original statement was yours. It is my belief that future articles regarding the military would benefit from more specificity and fact checking.

I never feel that I made a comparison between the military and civilian mindset. For one thing, the civilian mindset is incredibly diverse and the mindset of military members, as stated in my last message, is hardly uniform. I made a comparison between organizations based on teamwork and traditions that serve no purpose other than their existence as traditions and their unifying experiences. In this I think a sports analogy is appropriate. Yelling and certain types of drill may make no difference to the particular sport at hand, but the coach is seeking to create a team that is greater than the sum of its parts. Traditions, such as those I described in my prior message, simply exist to bond groups. The military is composed of its own traditions and they serve similar purposes.

I also am forced to disagree with some of your feelings regarding the contract. Your article focused primarily on the applications of boot camp not the utilization of the military in present world events. Being a lawyer, you must be familiar with the concept of an illegal contract. It seems that you propose that the potential performance of illegal acts renders the whole idea of the military contract invalid. However in the time frame under discussion, boot camp, I think you must concede there is nothing illegal or immoral even with the standardization of an organization, push ups, drill and inspections that are agreed upon by both parties. You also extend the argument at this point to conscientious objection where before the example you used was going fishing. Those represent entirely different situations and while one can be given serious thought the other cannot.

I do not think I would put forth that the purpose of the military institution is to create moral thinkers or nurture human growth; it is certainly not a church. However, I do think it puts more emphasis on ideas of integrity and character then other institutions. The expectations are higher. This can be witnessed by the recent AF Academy ‘scandal’ regarding what would be in most eyes a pathetic case of cheating. This same event at another institution would not even make the campus paper, let alone CNN. What you identify as a problem, I would more apply to an institutional respect for civilian oversight. The military member is free to vote and appeal to his representation in the manner any citizen can. But when the civilian government acts then the military submits. This is in line with most of the quotes you provided from the founders. This obviously does have both good and bad applications in practice. However a military that does not submit to the orders of its civilian government is one more likely to march on Rome, so to speak. I am curious what institution you think does work towards the promotion of human growth and independent thinking. I hope with all my heart you aren’t implying the American university system. At this point I will submit a comment my father made when I directed him to your article. “The comparison to public school is erroneous. The military reduces chaos and enhances focus. Ultimately a young recruit focuses on a particular skill set despite their public school experience. The public and private schools conduct a one size fits all program usually so that their students can get into a one size fits all university. Even the military sizes people in equipment, uniform and marching...”

What disturbs me however is the more direct burden you place on the military member to uphold certain lines of thought than you would put on others. You want a small segment of the population to put their financial lives, families and even physical liberty at stake for your point of view. The view you, and one I would not claim differently, believe as correct. But I ask you, where are the libertarians who take these shots at the military? They publish on websites and run organizations and send newsletters around. The founding fathers may have abhorred a standing army, but enough of them physically rose up against that which they found incompatible with freedom as they defined it. Where is the similar physical and moral courage in this generation? You want resignations of service members. Where is the resignation of the engineers and manufacturers of our weapon systems? Where are the resignations of the politicians? Where is the exodus of people who believe that we are an evil warmongering country? Where is the refusal of the taxpayer to finance the war fought in their name? People submit to things they disagree with all the time out of utility. To most people, what is good for them and their family ultimately trumps what happens to another group. That is the nature of human existence. I would also ask you to cite what legal American entity (cite case and court please) that has determined that this current military action is illegal. Until that happens the soldier is bound by his oath to fulfill the orders of his civilian government. If you are basing this simply on your moral feelings about the war then that will mean there are thousands of different opinions on the morality of the situation. Who is the soldier to obey?

If the president orders anything, I do not believe 99.99 percent of soldiers (as our general term for all service members apparently) would proudly proclaim anything. Again, some people will feel as you describe. Many more will simply worry about their buddies, how long they will be away from their families and if they will be hurt or killed. I will concede that a lot will probably at least feel that what they are doing is valid or acceptable because the government said it was okay. How is that different from general culture and society? People conflate legality and morality frequently. Culture across the board is shaped by what is considered legal. Perhaps you feel that because the soldier deals in death that his offense is worse. But Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death. The agents who steal liberty in my view could be viewed as worse than the agents who steal life. And who has truly stolen more liberty than lawyers? In your own field sir, can you state that the profession of Law and the Attorney’s Oath has resulted in more honest applications than the military and the oath that service members take? For the right price you can certainly find a lawyer who will say anything. You can find a lawyer who will say ‘if the glove doesn’t fit’ regardless of whether he knows for a fact his client is guilty. And lawyers do this without fear of retribution from the organization or even something as general as a mistaken belief in the good of the country or ‘defending our freedoms’. Do we not have lawyers claiming that Habeas Corpus is not a right? Do we not have lawyers involved in putting Padilla away? Whose character is higher sir, the group who might in the future turn against the people or the group that effectively already has?

I also find your statements on Watada interesting. While not familiar with this case directly, I am curious if this Lieutenant is likely to face branding or a firing squad. You seem to feel that taking a conscientious stand should not impart any risk or discomfort. I think that is unrealistic. The moral high ground, the position of righteousness etc can be lonely and harsh places. I think the example of Jesus and the apostles would suffice to prove that point. While one might be able to say that a 18-21 year old enlisted person might not have the knowledge, thanks again to the public school that was one of the focuses of your article, about the use of the military, I find it hard to have sympathy for a 22-24 year old person who took the oath of a military officer being so ignorant. Assuming Watada chose to object for the reasons you state as opposed to justifying fear with high sounding causes (which really is no different then justifying killing with high sounding causes in terms of the truth of our actions) then temporary suffering is a suitable exchange for a preventing a mark on your soul. Perhaps Watada is not being treated that terribly anyway. I do not think George Washington was very agreeable to people who wanted to leave his army either. As for sports teams, you should take a look at baseball and hockey and give some thought to the ‘code’ they have (though granted, not killing).

I am familiar with the majority opinion of the founding fathers on a standing military. I imagine they would have antipathy towards a large amount of what passes for American civilization now. However, they did make allowances in the Constitution for a standing navy. The reason, I believe, being that a navy could not readily be created and stood up. Unfortunately the modern military is the exact same way. You cannot manufacture and field a modern force in a short time. What answer the founding fathers would have come up with for this particular problem would be pure speculation.

All this being said however, it is my fervent hope that the American people put reigns on the governments use of the military. I am not optimistic, as the American people have not put reigns on the government in many areas that I can think of. Thank you for your time.

P.S. I think the following news piece demonstrates the variety of opinion in the military. Additionally, these members seem to place strong emphasis on submission to civilian authority.

P.P.S. Wall of text crits you for 9000 damage... you die.

Et tu America?

Los Angeles is at the leading edge of a U.S. demographic trend, with half of its workforce immigrants, many of them unskilled and speaking little English.

As baby boomers retire, the same pattern will emerge across the country, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday. Demographers estimate that by 2025 most of the growth in the workforce will be from immigrants.

Suppose that in some ways the decline of America mirrors that of ancient Rome... we allow the 'barbarians' to settle inside the empire for the purpose of filling our armies etc... The result ultimately was the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the continuance of the Eastern Roman Empire... If the fate of America is the same, what portion will reconstitute itself as the Eastern Empire...

Or, are we instead looking at the end of the Republic and waiting for an Augustus to usher in a new society?

A Libertarian Problem with the Military Pt. 1

Mr. Hornberger does not let facts get in the way of a 'good' principle.

Public schooling is much like the military. What is the first thing that the military does to new recruits? No, not teach them to fight or kill. That comes later. First comes boot camp, a seemingly nonsensical period of time in which soldiers are ordered to drop down for pushups at the whim of an officer. Soldiers learn to march together in unison, mastering such movements as right-face and left-face. They’re taught to respond without hesitation with “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” to an officer barking questions a few inches away from their face.

Why? Why does the military spend time teaching those things to new soldiers? After all, none of them comes in very handy once the actual fighting begins.

The reason is very simple: to mold each person’s mindset into one of strict conformity and obedience. That is, higher-ups in the military know that if they can compel a person to do something as ridiculous and nonsensical as a right-face and a left-face, then there is a greater likelihood that that person will obey other orders without question.

Or if a person can be taught to obey orders to march in unison within a group of people, all of whom are wearing the same uniform, there is a strong likelihood that such a person will lose his sense of individuality and instead simply consider himself part of the collective.

That is the real value of military boot camp – it very quickly eliminates all notions of individuality within the human being and makes him feel that conformity and obedience are the only acceptable states of mind.

Mr. Hornberger,

While generally agreeing with the thoughts behind your recent column on Lewrockwell.com regarding public schools, I must take exception to some of your statements regarding the military. All to often on Lewrockwell.com statements concerning the military are made that are either erroneous or denigrating simplifications. In many of these cases what seems to be revealed is a complete lack of personal knowledge on the military at all, and opinions based more on antipathy than reason.

Boot camp as you describe is not a nonsensical time. It is also certainly not uniform in its application across the services and not uniform in its application in a particular service over time. The Air Force for example does not allow officers to drop recruits for pushups. Most frequently, the officers have little involvement in the daily process as that is left to enlisted members on special duty assignments. I question whether you would have a similar complaint if this was a sports team. If upon joining a football team the coach yelled at everyone and required them to run laps and do push ups regardless of its application to the game at hand. In both this sports situation and the military, the recruit voluntarily signed up to submit to certain rules and standards in exchange for financial compensation, training or personal fulfillment. In essence we have a contract that requires both parties to fulfill certain obligations. From the libertarian perspective, what complaint can be made against someone who chooses to submit to an institution that desires conformity or makes one do push ups (if that were true).

Much of the background for things in basic military training comes from military tradition. The goal is to build unit cohesion and a sense of tradition. This is no more silly than the Fighting Irish slapping a sign on the way to the field or the tradition of dotting the I is for Ohio State. Also the theory is that if you cannot trust someone to learn basic skills such as marching, clothes folding and dormitory or barracks cleaning, how can you trust them with responsibility over equipment valued in the millions of dollars and the lives of other people. Remember, the group you are discussing here is generally age 18-21. No other organization gets more out of this age group. At 25 a military member might expect to have more responsibility and span of control then most of his peer group. Whether you like the purpose that this is put to is an issue different from the effectiveness of the military's method of grooming technical expertise or leadership skills.

There is some truth in the goal of raising the level of obedience and conformity to achieve certain results in crisis situations. That is the purpose of training in most every field. This is particularly true in sports. But it is simplistic to say that the military is unquestioning up and down the chain regarding directives. The military is generally of the philosophy that at a certain point the discussion has taken place and the decision made. At this point we revert back to the voluntary nature of the contract signed. The military must be this way. It is essential for it to function in the environment in which it does. If you do not like the use of the military then it must be taken up with the civilian leadership who ultimately assigns the missions and objectives.

I wonder if you know many military people. You speak of them as if they are Borg. Many people do take pride in their chosen occupation. But it is ridiculous to make a statement that indicates that in any environment everyone thinks the same. People join for different reasons, gravitate to different areas of service for different reasons and choose to stay or go for different reasons.

Boot camps are effective at breaking down people. Though certainly only effective on people who desire to successfully complete the experience and are at least partially committed to their choice. The purpose is hardly as nefarious as you make though. It is simply more expedient then dealing with the irrelevancies of everyone's background. You cut out the personal likes and dislikes and create an environment where people look for reasons to work together as opposed to reasons to dislike each other. Eventually most groups reform, but it is effective as a uniform starting point for a career. Something everyone can point back to and say 'I did that too' (frequently with laughter). This makes it much easier to continue training in the technical fields that come later.

At this point in time it is simply silly to talk about the draft unless you refer to another country. The military employs no such thing. It is an all volunteer force. We could have another discussion on things like stop loss etc. Points can be made there, but the draft scenario at current time does not warrant serious discussion.

You are right about how a group would respond to a recruit who said he was going fishing. First, he is violating his contract and word. He actually voluntarily swore an oath to behave in a certain way. What value is a contract or a person's word if they do not honor it. Secondly, he is letting people down who depend on him. This would be no different than if Peyton Manning said he wanted to go fishing on Sunday afternoon. In fact, I can think of few employers who wouldn't respond negatively to someone announcing he wanted to go fishing rather than fulfill his obligations.

To frequently on libertarian sites the military is viewed in a way that would never be applied to another organization. I speak of the lack of acceptance that it is a voluntary arrangement, there is a contract, that somehow people libertarians would treat as adults in all other situations are now children who should be shielded from evil recruiters etc. I hope in the future you will at least speak more honestly or more informed when making the comparison between the military and other organizations.

Jake

And I know just what I would change if I went back in time somehow but there is nothing I can do about it now. – Willie Nelson

Someone very precious to me asked me if I knew what in my life I would change if I could go back and do it over. Basically it is a question that revolves around regret. Who does not regret in life? Who does not wish that they had made different decisions at different points? Who does not wish that they had chosen to love differently, apply themselves differently to important tasks or taken advantage of opportunities now so apparent in hindsight? What makes this a difficult exercise, at least for me, is the realization that it is hard to separate out how certain failures and blows in life truly shaped who you are. Perhaps there is one thing so good in your life that it almost completely defines you and that one good thing only came as a result of a series of missteps. Remove a misstep and your life becomes unrecognizable. But, given this premise and some thought, I think I have come to the one thing I know I would change… Jake.

Jake was a little puppy I found abandoned outside the place I was living at the time. He truly must have been one of the cutest puppies ever to see the light of day. I took him in immediately. Unfortunately for him, my compassion exceeded my competence and capability to look after him. I think if there is a mistake that can be made with a dog I made it with him. The living situations I was in and the other demands of my life as well as simple youthful irresponsibility and self-focus placed Jake into a lonely existence. Even the addition of another dog at a later point could not undue the personality that had arisen through the intervening years.

Finally, at a particularly low point in life, I could not deal with the destruction and barking and all the troubles that went with it. I had a friend come and take him away to the city pound. This no doubt resulted in his death. The last image of him described to me was that of a keeper hooking him around the neck with a noose and dragging him off with Jake struggling. It is a mental image that even years later still haunts me from time to time.

What I would give to be able to go back to any point in time in my relationship with that dog. I truly believe that if I had been different so would he. I think he would have been a special dog. Sometimes I hope that it is in God’s plan that the animals that meant something to us in life can be restored to us and that I can do better for him. In this life however, in this situation, there is only regret…

… and regret is just a memory written on my brow and there is nothing I can do about it now.

The Non Dilemma

Wherein Mr. Meyerson raises a problem of his own making...

But once you recognize homosexuality as a genetic reality, it does create a theological dilemma for the Mohlers among us, for it means that God is making people who, in the midst of what may otherwise be morally exemplary lives, have a special and inherent predisposition to sin. Mohler's response is that since Adam's fall, sin is the condition of all humankind. That sidesteps, however, the conundrum that a gay person may follow the same God-given instincts as a straight person -- let's assume fidelity and the desire for church sanctification in both cases -- and end up damned while the straight person ends up saved. Indeed, it means that a gay person's duty is to suppress his God-given instincts while a straight person's duty is to fulfill his.

Mr. Meyerson, (article entitled god and his gays)

I read with interest your piece on God and homosexuality. I cannot concur with your opinion though. Whether or not homosexuality is genetically based really has no bearing on whether or not it is a moral act in God’s eyes. Assuming, as I am sure many do, that heterosexuality is a genetic trait, does not change the fact that God laid down many specific rules on the proper expression of that act. Having a predisposition or desire to perform an act is not always excused even in our society. You would not take the position that a child molester who is attracted to children through a genetic trait should be able to act out. Nor would you likely accept genetic traits that attract one member of a family to another (neither of these examples is an attempt to make claims as to the relative societal impact these acts present, it simply serves to detail how genetic predisposition does not equal a moral act). A person who has a genetic flaw that leads to alcohol abuse would not be held less accountable for the death of someone in a drunken driving incident. God expects us to deny the flesh and temptations of this world, not succumb to every desire.

Your complaint would be that a homosexual cannot act out on their particular impulse while a heterosexual can find a moral, defined in the Christian sense as compliance with the rules laid out in the Bible, avenue for expression. This is a secular problem, not a Christian problem. As humans we all have natural desires and traits that are not in compliance with the rules laid down by God. What is hard for one person is easy for another. For a Christian there is really no ground for dispute or problems. There really is only acceptance or failure to accept the rules we have been given. Homosexuals are no more damned to your vision of hell than any other person who has not been saved as defined in the New Testament (which by the way does not involve Church sanctification) In making this claim you are projecting an improper understanding of scripture. A Christian can struggle with homosexuality as any other sinful impulse. Struggling against the flesh is to be expected in a Christian life. It is when someone makes the argument that what is defined as sin is not sin that one could begin to question whether that person is a true Christian.

With regards to whether it is fair or right for a Christian to try and have their belief system imposed on society, I would say that all segments of society try to impose their beliefs and values. A Christian does not lose that aspect of citizenship just because their belief system comes from a religion instead of ‘modern’ culture.

I would of course not expect your understanding of the Christian faith or that you would accept or believe in those rules that people of that faith understand to have come from God. I do think it proper to say that your failure to understand or believe in these items renders you in a poor position to detail any quandary that those in the faith may have. I appreciate your time.

Regards

A Source for Morality

Having given some thought to the issue of morality over the time I have read the Vox Popoli blog, I believe that a valid moral system can be constructed outside a religious system and without reliance on theistic grounds. This system could not possibly be a universal system of moral truth as it would be acceptable and perhaps desirable to change it over time. In effect this creates what I believe to be the truth: that there exists a universal system of moral truth that is based on absolute defined mandates of God and a series of complimentary, competing or supporting systems based on practical applications at a given point of time. To demonstrate how these systems look let us take an example of the universal moral truth of ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’. A complimentary moral system would be one in which it is moral to show respect for that which is classified as the spiritual or divine. A competing moral system would be openly hostile (that of the general atheist commentator) or at best indifferent to this concept at all. A supporting system would be the beliefs, traditions and human created rules that dictate in what way you show obedience with this moral command.

This of course begs the question as to why certain morality systems arise. I believe the answer falls into one of several options: it was a series of choices made by people who chose or came to live in a similar vicinity with the goal of easing or defining social interactions; it reflected the preferences or desires of a dominant figure that galvanized the culture or mindset of a particular group; it is an amalgam of traits from successful human endeavors that survive to be duplicated.

The problem with both positions of the morality debate as commonly framed at Vox Popoli is the reliance on the concept of rationality. Morality and moral systems need not be rationally based because humans are not rational creatures. At best, rationality is one of several competing forces that humans use to approach the world and make choices. It is not even in all cases the best source for approaching the world and making decisions. It also seeks to limit morality to a static matter rather than a dynamic force.

Morality need not also be eternally true to be valid. It can be true in practical terms for a period of time. That is why what is true and acceptable in one era is not in another. The morality changes as the focus of a people or culture changes. In past ages obedience and respect for the king was right as it served the moral notion of loyalty to king and country and the establishment of the nation state. In present times, even respect for a president is considered a potentially unreasonable expectation as prior morality has given way to the morality of limited expression rights. Slavery and colonialism were considered either morally good or neutral as they supported the economic systems of the time. Currently, they are more generally considered morally bad as the newer passion for the masses is a form of self-determination.

Morality need not be established by a creator God to be proven valuable. Economic theories are not credited to God and yet they exist. Economics come forth in the same way as other cultural expressions. They arise through formal and informal decisions agreed upon by enough of a culture to give the power of preponderance to the system. I find it interesting that those who believe in the nearly inerrant invisible hand of the market cannot give credence to a similar construct for the system of morality. I posit a system whereby thousands to millions of individual choices shape a whole moral system that an individual works in without understanding how every point was arrived at. While someone may choose to operate outside of this system, if they deviate significantly from the norm then they risk social sanction. It is only when whole groups migrate to a different moral sphere that the moral system is observably changed.

Relativism is also not a downfall of a transitory practical moral system. Human interactions are based on relativism: she is better looking than her; that car is cooler; this milk is worth more to me that these Federal Reserve Notes… These transitory practical moral systems frequently are expressed through political manifestations. A libertarian may accept the death of an elderly person who cannot afford his medication because the compulsion of another to pay for that medicine violates a moral prohibition against theft. A liberal will take the nearly exact opposite approach to this issue. The liberal will feel that preventing that death is a greater moral good. As it currently stands, this particular society is giving more credence to the second line of moral thinking.

How do you measure a relative moral system? It is obvious that you do not measure a universal moral system. We are told that under that system (assuming that of a saved Christian) that we are at best laying up treasures in heaven and that we can expect to be ill treated in this world. However, a relativistic transitory practical morality system is an indirectly measurable thing. Granted, this measurement might possibly only be made through the study of history. One can evaluate a moral systems contribution to a sustainable culture, unifying forces in a defined community, economic outcomes and in other general categories. In effect, what serves the best interest of the most people for the longest period of time.

Relativistic transitory practical morality is a system quite similar to economics but with more extended social implications. Established or modified by humans, it serves functions unique to a specific period of time or culture. In that type of system, success is the only judge necessary. While an atheist cannot argue universal morality, a Christian or member of another faith should realize that most atheists will not accept their arguments of universal morality as the Christian faith will be viewed as simply a competing relativistic transitory practical morality. Further most Christians should realize that many things they hold to are not universal tenants, but supporting morality tenants developed over time. For your average Christian, morality is based in terms of a) the Bible b) their church and c) what they personally believe. When arguing from point’s b and c you are engaging other moral sets from a relativistic approach.

This piece in no way implies that a libertine existence is acceptable or idea. It also does not put forth the erroneous belief that all moral systems are equal. Some ideas and beliefs bear out to be superior over others, just as certain economic theories so demonstrate. What we are likely to see is a continuous cycle of moral systems that rise and fall (sometimes aiding the rise and fall of their cultures) until the Author of universal morality has His final say.