Picking the Wrong Examples


I quite frequently read fairly absurd things on Lewrockwell.com. This is one of the more obvious examples.

Once in a great while, there is hope for the human race. At a sporting event, the security guards used excessive force on an overzealous fan who went onto the playing field. After a short while, many fans in the stadium not only recognized the outrageousness of the guards’ abuse, they decided to come to the rescue of the fan.

I replied thus:

While I believe the force was excessive, I fail to see what great hope there is.

Unless you possess more information that provided in the video. Was the stadium private property? Were the guards hired by the lawful property owner to defend their property and assure the safety of the players? Even if you want to cheer the fan's defending someone against excessive force (whether you are recognizing excessive private force or you believe this to be unjust government force) how can you justify the fans then trespassing past the point of the rescue and then themselves assaulting someone.

You see hope. I see a vast majority of people who just wanted to run wild. Only a few probably took true initiative on the initial situation. You see an overzealous fan. I see an unlawful trespasser on private property. The only part it would seem we agree on is that the nightstick use was unnecessary.

Too many on Lewrockwell.com pick marginal cases to demonstrate liberty and the principles of freedom. It demeans both.

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 #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.

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...

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.

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.

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.