Libertarian take on Veterans’ Day
I'll say right up front that I'm not going to win many friends with this post, especially among those with whom I served.
It's that time of year again: Veteran's Day. The time when we all go around patting the troops on the back and thanking them for their service and for fighting for us and defending our freedom.
There's just one little problem: they're not actually defending our freedom.
There's a case that could be made that they're defending Iraqi freedom or Afghan freedom, or that in times past they defended South Vietnamese freedom or South Korean freedom or the freedom of various European nations. But they were not defending Americans' freedom. But to make the case that our troops are defending OUR freedom, you would have to show that they repelled or resisted an unprovoked invasion of person or property. But as far as I can tell, the only two times that's happened was the Revolutionary War and the Civil War (in which the Confederate forces legitimately attempted to resist the aggression of the Union forces following the South's perfectly Constitutional secession). After perusing the very long list of conflicts in which America has been involved since its birth, I found no other instances of major unprovoked aggression by a state actor with the exception of Pearl Harbor (and leaving aside the possibility that Roosevelt may have allowed the attack to happen in order to get the American public to support a declaration of war, our entrance into WWII had nothing to do with protecting Americans from another imminent attack).
So, the military isn't in the business of defending our freedom. But what about enhancing our security? Now that seems to make more sense. Except that nearly every U.S. military action, being offensive rather than defensive, actually tends to reduce our security by creating rallying cries for lunatic terrorists. After all, even us non-lunatics would be pretty pissed off if Iran started bombing our neighborhoods to try to kill someone who had flown a plane into an Iranian building. Now think about that situation except the bombing country is a big, intimidating superpower, and the bombed country is a primitive, impoverished country loaded with fundamentalist Muslims. Uh oh.
So, it turns out that the military doesn't defend our rights or keep us safe. Now I don't blame them for these shortcomings. The troops are doing what they think is right. They're following orders. They're eating up all that stuff about defending the Constitution (I certainly did). Unfortunately, they're just like any other national military - they're one of the tools the state uses to maintain power and enlarge itself. The troops are good people who just happen to believe that elected officials know what they're doing and have good intentions (neither of which is generally true in actuality).
And, in theory, they could actually keep us safe (at least from foreign aggression) by actually remaining stationed only in America and only engaging in purely defensive operations. They could also theoretically defend our freedom by standing up to the government when it tries to confiscate our income or property or restricts how we run our businesses or forces us to get insurance or prevents us from trading with certain people. But of course that would be considered a rebellion, just like Lincoln called the southern states' decision to secede a "rebellion" (so rebellion was good enough for the Founding Fathers but not for anyone that comes after them apparently).
If you want to thank someone who really defends your freedom, thank a defense attorney. After all, they're entire livelihood is based on holding the government feet to the fire and keeping it from violating rights. We may not like a lot of the people they defend (and trust me, they don't like them either), but they're probably the only reason we still have even a semblance of personal liberty in America.
Just to be clear, I'm perfectly fine with honoring veterans. Just like I honor anyone else who goes to work and performs the tasks they had agreed to, although I strongly affirm the rights of our troops to terminate their service to the state at any point if they come to the conclusion that they're not okay with being used to further the immoral ambitions of a coercive government. And I look forward to the day when society goes out of its way to honor those who produce goods and services that people actually need and get paid voluntarily rather than by taxes taken from people against their will.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
November 12th, 2008 - 13:23
brilliant.
November 12th, 2008 - 15:20
Thanks, Jason. They’re tearing me a new one over at WRAL: http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/3941483/
November 12th, 2008 - 16:04
“……..defended South Vietnamese freedom or South Korean freedom or the freedom of various European nations” -
You are confusing “defend” with where the action is taking place, not the concept of freedom and/or defense of person or property. You further misclarify the point by the use of the term “invasion” as being operative in your justification below. If a missle is in outer space, or on the launch pad in Iran exiting, due to arrive in NYC in 20 minutes then by your definition the U.S. freedom is not being defended because we have not waited for it to arrive on U.S. soil or air space so it can be “repelled or resisted”. That’s ludicrious.
On the other side is if we have a person or property in another country and they are in peril then we can not defend them apparently because they are not on our soil but are a guest of a foreign nation. I assume the “citizenship” position of that U.S. citizen on a foreigh soil lacks any form of soverignity.
” So, it turns out that the military doesn’t defend our rights or keep us safe.”
Are you saying that the actions against Germany in WWII did not keep us safe, but was an uprovoked attack? If so the sinking of commercial ships off the N.C. coast, up and down the Eastern seaboard by the German U2 boats was for the U.S. an act we should not have “defended” ? The destruction of property and life occurred but was outside the territorial waters so by your reasoning the U.S. could not defend because the U.S. should only be allowed to ” remain(ing) stationed only in America and only engaging in purely defensive operations.” after an “invasion”. Again if the missle is fired from U.S. territory but hits outside U.S. territory then by your reasoning, not the preponderance of Libertarians, but soley yours under the veil of speaking for Libertarians and their collective views, then and only then would it fit your tidy definition. Did the prohibition of the missles in Cuba by the USSR enhance our defense or keep us safe? By your definition we had no right to take those acts because apparently there was nothing to “repel or resist” since an “unprovoked invasion” had not occurred. Recheck your history books in light of your working definitions.
“you want to thank someone who really defends your freedom, thank a defense attorney”
You way off target on that one. Missing a simple thought process.
Defense attorneys are used by those who have been accused of unlawfully taking life or property or the assertion of reasonable imminent physical harm to that person by the accused. Defense attorneys are employed in criminal court, not civil court. The taking of liberty, property, or reasonable expectation of infliction of harm done to another person depriving them of life, liberty or property has already occurred or there has been reasonable suspicion of such. The defense attorney is not asserting his client had the right to deprive one of those liberties so his client could obtain such by the use of unlawful force or intimidation or the actual taking, but is asserting his client does not meet the legal definitions of what he/she is accused of. The duty of the defense attorney is to show the client did not do such, or what the client did fails to meet the legal requirments of the taking aspect of the criminal chargeor infliction of reasonable expectation of an unwanted touching( battery) . He is defending a legal process, not a moral process. Defense attorneys are instruments of the court motivated often by money from the taxpayer’s funds and administered by officiers of the court.
Again the use of specious reasoning to further your personal beliefs under the veil of speaking for “libertarians”. Your posts should be titled ” Darren’s take on Veteran’s Day” which would be a more honest and open post rather than trying to create a façade you speak for an entire group which you do not. Your sense of self worth to others is somewhat embellished apparently in your own mind. You speak for yourself, which is fine, and you have every right to because of many who have laid their lives on the line and died for you to have that right. There are many more who will do so and their only compense will be taxes taken from those who do support the personal liberties we enjoy.
November 12th, 2008 - 19:22
Easy there, Bob. You’re putting words in my mouth. Certainly an imminent attack is worth responding to (although I’d of course prefer it be handled by forces not paid for by tax dollars). A missile doesn’t have to be in U.S. airspace before it’s considered a threat to be neutralized. But on the other hand, we can’t legitimately go after a country that happens to have missiles and also happens to say nasty things about us. That’s just part of being the last remaining superpower–the other kids are gonna talk smack and wave their weapons around. And no, I don’t think it’s really a good idea for our government to go into other countries to protect Americans who have gone there voluntarily. Just think about it happening the other way around.
As for WWII, it’s a difficult scenario due to the terrible nature of Hitler’s actions and his aggressiveness. Nevertheless, it wasn’t an attack on or invasion of America, and it did not constitute an imminent threat to America. Thus, our entry into the war, despite any advantages it may have had, was not a defense of American freedom (and, considering the wartime infringements of our freedoms by government, it actually had the opposite effect). That’s all I’m saying.
As for defense attorneys, they take cases in both criminal and civil court, but it’s their criminal work I’m defending. They exist to do battle against the state when the state brings a case against someone. I’m not sure what exactly you’re saying in that paragraph, but I can only assume you misunderstood my position. The accused are just that–accused. Innocent until proven guilty. If the cops broke into your house without a warrant and arrested you for something outlandish and planted evidence and beat you for no reason, it would be your defense attorney defending your rights and exposing the government for violating the Constitution, etc. Defense attorneys keep prosecutors and police (i.e. government) honest. Your last line in that paragraph is incorrect. Defense attorneys are NOT instruments of the court. The court is the environment in which they do battle. Sometimes they are indeed compensated by tax dollars (public defenders), but that of course is something I’m wholly opposed to as a violation of the rights of the taxpayers from whom the money was taken.
I never said I spoke for all libertarians. But I do know that my position is a fairly common one among libertarians who have a good grasp of the non-initiation of force principle on which all libertarianism is supposed to be based.
December 9th, 2008 - 07:56
You’re right, Darren. You have offended at least one of those with whom you’ve served. Though I understand the trained military mind is not that of the average “joe” on the street, I believe that rhetoric can be spun either way for a cause. I’m somewhat appalled that you’ve likened serving in the military with the duties of a DA or that of a 5 and dime owner. Though those professions may offer challenges of their own, they have freedoms to operate within the confines of good practice. I submit that thankfulness was much more the case in a time of a draft in that those who served had no choice. In many cases a “thank you” was all that their public could offer. We now live in a time that because of veteran’s volunteer status, people like you and I have been afforded the opportunity to make the transfer from army green to corporate gray. Without those younger veterans in our shadows, and given some of the government policy, we’d otherwise still be under command.
December 17th, 2008 - 12:52
Chris, reading through your comment, I guess I’m not entirely sure what it is that you find offensive. Is it that you consider military service a nobler and more honorable choice of career than all others? Do you have a particular disdain for attorneys who serve as a check on government power because they also end up getting criminals acquitted? Or some other point that I’m not grasping in my sleep-deprived state?
December 19th, 2008 - 12:44
What I find offensive is that it appears as though your particular comments were almost designed in a manner which intended to organize others to join you in your suppression of thankfulness and appreciation under the umbrella of your disagreements with the structures of government. To refer to attorneys as though they are worthy of the same (not less than, not as much as nor more than, but the SAME being that of context) thanks as that of those who have served, in my opinion, is quite an injustice. If anyone would understand the sacrifices that a soldier, sailor, airman or marine makes by placing his family second and his country first – I would have thought you would have. As the attorney’s enjoy the comfort of their spouse or other loved ones along with a warm abode, the veterans struggle to maintain peace within themselves and their families, all the while focused on the defense of a country, be it at home or abroad, disputed or not.
To answer whether military service is nobler or more honorable isn’t answered by stacking it up against another public service alone. There are good apples and bad apples in each. That question should be asked of each individual and the role which they play. However, to take away the dignities of military service simply because of your perception that different public service is not as highly respected (or as I would argue, your disdain for an organized military) is a poor manipulation of the use of a comparison.
January 21st, 2009 - 21:03
Well, I’m only a month late getting back to my blog (though still a bit sleep-deprived)…
I think we’ve somehow gotten off the point of my post. The point was simply that I believe we’re mistaken when we say that veterans defend American security or freedom.
I’m sorry if my opinion is offensive, but I definitely feel that private defense attorneys do much more to restrain government (i.e. enhance our freedoms) than the military.
I never said that veterans’ sacrifices were anything to sneeze at. Sympathy for such sacrifices is probably the only aspect of Veterans’ Day that makes logical sense. It’s tragic, really, that those who were forced to sacrifice so much (anyone who’s damaged or lost a marriage, missed the birth of a child, etc) because of military duty can’t even legitimately console themselves with the idea that they were defending Americans or American freedom (although I certainly understand how that mythology has evolved as a psychological survival mechanism). I sincerely hope everyone understands those sacrifices, just as we sympathize with a guy who’s lost his family and 40 years of his life sitting in prison after being wrongfully convicted.