Tuesday, March 17, 2009

A great way to cut military recruitment in half

By making it impossible for them to receive health insurance when they leave active service.

Why is it that the majority of Democrats can't stand the military?

Update: Here's more on this issue. It seems that the Obama administration could care less about the US government's stated obligation to take care of Veterans who have service related injuries or illnesses. The US government's responsibility to providing medical care for service is a vital part of an enlistment contract, and this will surely cause hangups in recruiting despite the increase in VA funding.

On the other hand, the problems within the deplorable medical insurance for those on active service - known as Tricare - isn't very well known. You would think that those who enlist would ask about that, but they never seem to.


Anonymous said...

With no sarcasm or guile, I ask you plainly: what are the differences between a democrat and a republican?

-Sans Authoritas

Haji said...

Are you asking what they are with the people in office now, or are you asking what they're supposed to be and traditionally have been?

John Kerry was in the service for a while, and he appears to hate the military now, too. It seems to be an institutional thing amongst the hard left of the Dem party.

Unknown said...

There's not much difference at all between the two parties these days, but the majority of Dems seem to have an overt hatred for all things military.

These days they are the party of Kennedy. . . .Ted Kennedy.

Personaly, I can't stand any party as none of them seem to be listening to the voters.

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I can't blame the democrats. This is an era of blind nationalistic militarism and love of power. It may sound like jingo, but is precisely the set of words to describe the mindset that Americans have. The milieu in America is not at all unlike the one in which the the Romans were immersed 2000 years ago.

No longer is the military about "defense." Ultimately, I don't think it ever was. Voluntary militiae are about defense. The Founders of the State hated the idea of a standing army precisely because of the things that have happened because of its existence, in the past 170 years.

If you have a standing army, you're going to use it. And I guarantee, given the nature of men with coercive power, you are not going to use it solely for defense. And indeed, it has not been. Not by a long shot.

-Sans Authoritas

Unknown said...

Love of power, sure, but I don't see it as blind militarism. If it was than we wouldn't see the hatred towards service like we've seen in the last forty years.

I agree with voluntary militia, but the truth of the matter is that America today doesn't want the responsibility. There is truth to the quote "Americans are not at war, the Marines are at war, Americans are at the mall."

The country today is inhabited by a bunch of spineless hippies that wouldn't fight if the Russians were at their doorstep. What has happened is that the vast majority of Americans have chosen to outsource the responsibility of domestic justice to police, and foreign defense to the military.

As long as there are volunteers to live by the sword, then most of those who won't will honor them.

Disagree with the process, but you can't tell me that most of the people in this country would fight for their lives, to say nothing of their freedom.

Anonymous said...


Of course Americans don't want to take responsibility for themselves and for their own defense. Of course most people in this country would not fight for their lives or freedom.

And you think such a culture that refuses to defend itself, or even to propagate itself with children, deserves to continue in existence? You think that because people refuse to fight for themselves (when and if their liberties are actually threatened by an active, real threat of an invading aggressor, which they have not been in the past 140 years) that somehow, you suddenly have the right to tax me to pay for a standing army to defend those sluggards? Those cowards? No, sir. You do not have that right.

Any society composed of individuals who have become so soft, so apathetic, that they refuse to use rational and voluntary means to defend themselves; a society that forces people at gunpoint to fund an army to "defend" them . . . such a society has no right to continue to exist. Do you argue otherwise?

-Sans Authoritas

Unknown said...

"And you think such a culture that refuses to defend itself. . . deserves to continue in existence?"

A culture doesn't deserve anything; it is subject to the whims of nature. Ours may start to flourish again in time, but it's looking like it's going to end before too long.

My kids have to live in this culture, so I don't want it to end no matter how screwed up it may be, but I do want it to change. I do know that it could be worse. Either way I will teach my kids how to survive, and teach them that defense of one's self, family, and community is inherent in everyone, not just police and military.

And I never said that I have the right to tax you to pay for a standing army. I don't levy taxes from anyone. I only acknowledge that such a system exists because of the laziness of the majority. I'm a realist that is stuck in the middle of this mess like anyone else, and my thoughts are that societies don't have the right to do anything, and are only entitled to the laws of nature.

We may be smarter than other animals, but we are animals, and as such are vulnerable to the strong preying on the weak. That we walk on two legs or four makes no difference, and instead of using fangs to kill, we use pens.

My kids will learn to kill with both; to be predators if they must; to live by the sword if that is what is needed to live; but to strive for a just and peaceful life that doesn't interfere with the life of anyone else.

Anonymous said...

"A culture doesn't deserve anything; it is subject to the whims of nature."

I agree. Only individuals deserve things. I, as an individual, have the right to my property. You do not have the right to take my money through violence by a third party (voting for a politician.)

Whether or not you believe that working through the violence of politics is "realistic," it's morally wrong, and hence, it is off limits. The reason we have collars on life jackets is because the Nazis found that Jews submerged in 33-degree water survived longer with their heads above the surface. Was their discovery a beneficial thing for everyone? Yes. May we morally emulate their means of attaining such discoveries? Only a madman would say "Yes."

Forgive me if I'm misjudging, but it appears that your saying, "I am a realist . . . stuck in this mess [system]" is a Macchiavellian justification for participating in an immoral system. There is no justification for formal participation in an immoral system.

"to strive for a just and peaceful life that doesn't interfere with the life of anyone else."

That place is not justly reached by giving to a third party your approbation to do violence against innocent men. That place is only reached by not interfering with the life of anyone else. That includes not voting to take your fellow man's property by third-party violence.

If one cannot use just means to accomplish an end, the end may not morally be attained. Nor will you attain the end practically, by using unjust means.

-Sans Authoritas

Unknown said...

"Only individuals deserve things."

I'm not in total agreeance. I don't see that mankind has rights of any kind outside of this system that we have here because rights are only valid on paper. I can scream that I have rights until the cows come home, but that does not mean that I have them, and it will not stop the kings men from taking my pieces of silver, nor will it stop a highwayman from snatching the life from me. I can either be stronger than the kings men or the highwayman, or I can play within the system.

Natural law is that the strong take from the weak; politicians use an alliance of likeminded crooks within the system to take from the people, and I do not possess the means on my own to break that fact. Short of armed revolution, there is nothing that all of us likeminded people can do to reverse the course of this theivery because the majority of the people do not see it as theivery.

I don't believe that this country will fail because the people outsource violence to the military, but I believe that it will fail internally. I would bet that if the Founding Fathers could see where we were today that they would be pissed with the current state of affairs, but they would be no less suprized to see that it has lasted this long.

Men are flawed beings, so no matter how sound the structure of government it will always fall apart, and the strong will always be there to take from the weak.

I have no interest to take from anyone, as most of mankind doesn't, but like all people I aim to provide for myself and for my family, and to do that as it stands today I have to work with what is in front of me, until there is a better way. I understand that, at times, that may be against moral judgement, but it is in compliance with natural law.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not in total agreeance. I don't see that mankind has rights of any kind outside of this system that we have here because rights are only valid on paper. I can scream that I have rights until the cows come home, but that does not mean that I have them,"

If a bully takes five dollars from a ten year old by force, does the ten year old have the right to his money, even if he is physically incapable of taking it back? Does a virgin who is being raped have the right to her body and virginity even though she cannot physically fight the man off? Do you have the right to exercise your religion even though the State prohibits it? Please answer these questions.

CTone, rights are not physical things. Thus, they cannot be taken away with physical violence. You cannot beat, bludgeon, or destroy beauty itself, truth itself, or goodness itself. Those, too, are intangibles. The 10-year old DOES have the right to his money. The woman DOES have the right to her body and virginity. The individual DOES have a right to religion, whether or not the State hinders his ability to exercise that right.

A right is a right, independent of one's ability to exercise it. Do you recognize that fact? Do you yet realize that violence is not the supreme law of the land?

You essentially say that "force is the legislator of natural law." This is godless nonsense. There is absolutely nothing natural about using aggressive violence against other people! It is utterly contrary to human nature.

I believe that the Golden Rule should be followed by everyone. I do not always succeed, but I will never cease saying that everyone should adhere to it. If you do not want to have people take your money by violence or threat of violence, you should not take their money by violence or threat of violence. Which, if you vote, you do.

"I understand that, at times, that may be against moral judgement, but it is in compliance with natural law."

Again, there is nothing natural about breaking the moral law. The moral law is the law which is based upon human nature, and aggressive violence is against human nature. Four words: "Thou shalt not steal." Four more: "Thou shalt not murder."

God doesn't care how practical those ideals are. He told you to live by them. Mammon certainly won't indict you for living by the law of the jungle. God will. Who do you respect more?

-Sans Authoritas

Unknown said...

"does the ten year old have the right to his money". ."Does a virgin who is being raped have the right to her body". ."Do you have the right to exercise your religion". ."I, as an individual, have the right to my property." (from earlier)

Yes, but only as far as the Constitution says you do. Outside of that, where do you get rights? They are intangible because they only exist in the minds of men. I respect the "rights" of mankind and I recognize that they are independant of one's ability to excercise them, but I'm also not naive to believe that they are recognized outside of this country in this period of time.

Up until some now famous Americans wrote words on parchment paper, did we have rights? Two thousand years ago did men have rights, or respect them? They sure respected strength. If a dog rips out the virgin's throat, did it violate her right to her body? People an animals will always be subject to natural law in that the strong will influence the weak.

I'm not saying that violence is the means that I use to get what I want, but it is a means that mankind in general uses. That we recognize that rights exist does not change that fact, and it doesn't mean that natural law is subordinate to it. And natural law doesn't have to include violence, just strength. The father being the head of a household is an example.

With that in mind, does disciplining your child count as aggressive violence against other people? It sure is forcing your will upon another, which you acknowledge is un-natural godless nonsense that is contrary to human nature, and thus against moral law.

Human nature has been totally entwined in force since it's inception, and mankind has used that fact to make others do what they wanted since Cain killed Able.

Governments are an extention of force, but the system of government that the Founding Fathers started in this geographical area was designed to be as minimalist as possible. Despite that, it still is force, and a force that will punish those for violating the rights that it acknowledges are inherent in every individual. To believe in these rights is to acknowledge the very system that you chose to not be a part of.

It's your choice to not vote, but do you really think that your very existence does not hold a measure of force against another? Does moral understanding keep the ten year old from taking your wallet, or is it that you're a grown man that can inflict damage upon him?

We live within what is before us, and for me that is a system of laws most of which I don't agree with. God says to obey the laws of man, which I do, but he also made me inherently selfish, in that I exist for my own ends. That I can sacrifice my own wants in order to give them to another is the only thing that separates us from the dogs.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, but only as far as the Constitution says you do. Outside of that, where do you get rights? They are intangible because they only exist in the minds of men."

Are you actually saying a woman only has the right to her body because of words a piece of paper? The Constitution doesn't protect her right to her body from the rapist. It just sits there. Behind glass.

Aye, the Constitution just sits there. If it were burned tomorrow, your rights would still exist. The fact is, people recognize that you have rights. They use the Constitution as a reminder. But the Constitution is not the source of your rights. It does not protect your rights. What is the Constitution itself but a collection of intangible ideas, CTOne? The important thing about intangible ideas is that men believe in and act according to those ideas. If your ideas are flawed, (e.g., that some men have the right to take your money at gunpoint, as the Constitution,) then your actions will also be flawed. Ideas, as Ludwig Von Mises noted, have consequences. Good ideas will have good consequences, and bad ideas will have bad consequences, and the degree of the damage done will be dependent upon how far from the Truth those ideas are. I grant you that the Constitution is a document which was used to forge what is quite possibly the least evil system of initiating aggression ever. But it is still a system of initiating aggression, and for that reason, it is still wrong. Violence is for self-defense against an immediate threat, period. I can't steal your firearms from you and justify it by saying, "Hey, if I don't take your firearms, I might be unable to defend myself from being robbed some day." You might legitimately break into a house and take a firearm if you were actually being pursued by robbers, but morally, you would be obliged to return that firearm as soon as the danger had passed. We do not live in a society where everyone is being chased by baying packs of robbers. And the end of "security" is not justified by the means of initiating violence against your fellow man by taxation. Not only is it not justified, the State itself has proven itself the worst enemy of peace and stability! 200,000,000 dead in the last century alone. Not one individual, not a group of individuals, not a corporation could have possibly achieved that much slaughter without the people bleating, "Take my neighbor's money to keep me safe. I hereby bestow my approval on the action of taking money from innocent people at gunpoint, and I also approve of your forcing other people to fight for you."

Voluntary interaction on every level is how human beings are designed to act, by virtue of our human nature. All violence is unnatural. It was never meant to be. Defensive violence is not immoral. Initiating violence, however, is immoral. Always.

CTone, you seem to think that I am against the use of force to defend oneself. I am not. Anyone who is being aggressed against may morally use force to defend himself. But if the end of defending yourself requires that you use the means of initiating aggression against other people... you may not morally achieve your end. You may not, as St. Paul said, do evil that good may come of it.

If a tribal chieftain threatened to kill you if you didn't sacrifice an innocent child to the tribal demon god, would you morally be able to use the means of killing an innocent child to save your life?

If not, then what makes you think that it is moral to do lesser evils to achieve the same thing? Evil is evil, and you may not do evil for any reason. God is clear about that.

Do you consider taxation, the act of taking money from non-violent people at gunpoint or the threat of gunpoint, to be a morally good act?
Please respond to that question in particular.

Lastly, God did not make us selfish. God made us individuals with a rational self-interest. Rational means that we must live within reason. Initiating violence is not reasonable. It is wrong.

-Sans Authoritas

Unknown said...

"Are you actually saying a woman only has the right to her body because of words a piece of paper"

There's no way to answer that without looking like a bad guy, but yeah, and I only have the right to live up to the moment someone takes my life from me. "people recognize that you have rights" - not all people. Go to Sudan and tell the Sudanese soldier to stop raping that woman because she has rights and see how far that goes.

"But the Constitution is not the source of your rights" Roger that, and I'm saying that the source of rights is only in the minds of men, and that those ideals all go out the window the moment someone stronger than you decides to influence you by force.

"But it is still a system of initiating aggression, and for that reason, it is still wrong" Agreed, but do you believe in no system? A system consisting of no system will never exist because not all of mankind shares this idea of rights. The only way to maintain a majority of individuals who keep these ideals of morals an rights is to form a union of likeminded people. There is strength in numbers.

The only way a lawless but peaceful society would be possible is if every person in it was perfect, but that's not reality. Reality says that people are not likeminded, and not all care about rights, so inevitably any society will ultimately be destroyed by those who are stronger. Such is nature.

I am not a fan of the state, nor of taxation, and I am not trying to justify taking from someone for my own benefit. My point is that by mankind's mere existence violence and force already exist, and because of that we bond together in societies that use laws to acknowledge a common respect for one another. Without any system we would be forced to fend for ourselves. That the state has proven to be the enemy of peace and stability is irrelevant because 'the state' is only a union of people who use numbers to gain enough strength to force others to comply. If there is no state, then there will still be unions of people who will use force for their own ends; we would just lack a method of keeping them in check for as long as possible.

A minimalist government can be used to acknowledge and protect the rights of a society of morally upright people for a time, but it will fall apart as any system of man will, and it will ultimately require taxation at some point - so to answer your question, yes.

With that I have to point out "Initiating violence, however, is immoral. Always" - no, not always, as I pointed to above: disciplining your child is an initiated act of violence, is it not? Do you agree that smacking your kid on the ass for trying to light the carpet on fire is an act that justifies the means? Not all force is evil, as you recognize that defensive violence is not evil, and not all state force is evil as well, although it can easily be argued that it will end up that way eventually. Not all force is physical either, as there are plenty of predators who use persuasion to steal, or commit other acts.

My other point is that I might not agree with the current governent that we have, but I do live within it, and I do what I can to obey the laws of man while providing for my family. Personaly, I feel that we are well past the point of fixing it with votes or the moral non-participation of good people, and that it's time for it to end by the natural death that is inevitable for anything man made. My hope is that it happens soon - before my children have bear the burden of high taxes and little freedom; and to ensure that they hold the ideals of individual rights and liberties, and morals, and become part of a system better than the one we have. Until then I will protect what we've got.