Why Can't I Criticize Soldiers?

This week has seen the absolute pinnacle of nationalism and War Drum parades. All because of a movie, based on a soldiers life as he continued on an invasion of property and the killing of other human beings. My own view of it is to be critical of the act of War and the actions of those who were part of it, not everyone will share in this idea. Some will vehemently attack anyone who dares question the acts of soldiers. 

So I question: Why is it acceptable to criticize the act of war or the given reason for war, to criticize the politicians and Presidents who contrive the wars, but it is not acceptable to criticize the soldiers, who ultimately perform the actions in war? Why is it seen as unsavory or in the responses I usually get "unpatriotic" to criticize a person who has decided to cast off morals and principles, even religious doctrines, to do unspeakable things because they were ordered to do so?

I asked this question on my Facebook page and the responses varied from Emotional attachment, Mental Conditioning, Cognitive Dissidence and even it can be seen as a personal attack. I do agree with these answers but I add two more of my own; Nationalism and the Subjective View of Life and Foreign Ethnicity.

Personally I think the answers Emotional Attachment, Mental Conditioning and Cognitive Dissidence all go hand in hand. The mental conditioning that comes from what I wrote about last week; the War Culture. From the earliest of childhood all the way through the teenage years and into adulthood being inundated with images of war, compulsory deification of the war fighters and justification for their actions.It is almost mandatory to glorify the soldier and all that he does.
With slogans like "they are fighting for your freedom to say these things" and  " if it weren't for the troops we would all be speaking German/Arabic" (Whatever language the native speakers use in the particular region the military is engaged in at the time) Flag waving ceremonies, and recitation of the pledge of allegiance and the singing of the national anthem everyday for schoolchildren and even a host of other venues for those not in the schools. With that conditioning though comes the emotional attachment and in time the cognitive dissidence.
Of course we could include the point of Nationalism in this theory as well as it is the point of the conditioning and indoctrination to subvert any thought that the particular piece of ground you have been cosmically placed upon at birth is superior to all others and that all actions by the government or it’s military are somehow justified under the pretense of National Security or some other vague catchy slogan.

Cognitive Dissidence is a psychological term that refers mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. It is in this area we see the backlash from speaking against or questioning the acts of soldiers, politicians and leaders who act in immoral ways or inhumane ways. Though it seems that more people have an issue with the criticism of soldiers rather than politicians or even the given reasons for war.

After all of these I think another aspect to be looked at is the subjective value of life and of different ethnic groups. Everything in life has a value attached to it by every individual, that value is subjective to each of us, and even the value of life cannot escape this process. The mental conditioning and Nationalism that is taught aims to place in the minds of individuals a value of one life over that of another based on where those certain people are located and the relationship between the governments they live under. We have, in the past, seen this subjective value lead to horrendous things as apartheid, slavery and genocide. We have seen it again and again lead to wars between people. It is this that I find the most dangerous aspect of nationalism and of the kinds of conditioning that is taught. Ethnic differences do exist in this world and will exist in this world until the day some men can justify to the rest that a reason exists to eliminate the differences. We have seen it in the past and I fear we will see it again in the future.

Images like this is why I believe there is room for criticism

The last reply was that of “some may see it as a personal attack”. It isn't a personal attack, it is criticism of the persons actions being moral or immoral, humane or inhumane, justifiable or unjustifiable, and it is exactly this criticism that needs to take place in order for the person and the public to see that no matter what uniform you may wear, no matter what orders you receive, you ultimately make a decision to do those actions and if those actions in any other setting are to be seen as immoral, illegal, wrong, inhumane, or atrocious, they should be seen the same way regardless of orders or uniform.  

This should not be taken as a general attack on soldiers. There are many who serve in the military that do not perform these acts, and there are some that refuse. Some countries military's actually give this instruction to their soldiers. "A soldier has the ability to refuse any act that can be seen as inhumane or immoral and report the officer who voiced the order to him." With that ability comes a choice, they can or cannot perform this or simply let it go and do as they are told.

It is a shame, I believe, that we cannot have a rational discussion on these matters without the name calling and shunning of the critic, without the threats of violence. It is a lack of logical thought that has led the world to wars, genocides, apartheid, slavery, segregation, holocausts, and the widespread demolition of native ways of life and indigenous peoples. We need to stop with the fear of criticism, and a stop needs to be made by those that justify atrocities with nationalism or government service and orders. The actions that take place that lead to barbarity and cruelty will never come to an end if we are silent about them. If we do not speak up and call out the inhumanity that is taking place it will forever continue.

Some further reading in the field of Psychology in relation to this issue.

The Milgram Experiment  sought an answer to the reason why people will perform functions or actions when ordered to do so by someone they see as authority, if authority has been placed in them, and when the responsibility for the results of their actions has been removed or placed into the hands of someone else. It is a fascinating psychological study.

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and they are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.

In psychology, the Asch conformity experiments or the Asch Paradigm were a series of laboratory experiments directed by Solomon Asch in the 1950s that demonstrated the degree to which an individual's own opinions are influenced by those of a majority group.

Recently VeteransNewsNow.com released this story of the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Where US service members would engage in sodomizing Iraqi boys in front of their mothers and other women. It is this kind of treatment that causes such concern for what these soldiers mental states are that they would engage in this brutality. You cannot just sweep this behavior under the "for your freedom" rug.

9/11's Legacy of Lost Liberties

Originally from the Opinion page of The Chattanooga Times Free Press. Authors name was not present. This is not an original work of mine.

"Eleven years have passed since al-Qaida used a band of box cutter-wielding terrorists to the attack the United States. Many people will take a moment to reflect on what America lost that day in Lower Manhattan, at the Pentagon and in a field in southern Pennsylvania. Far too few, however, will consider what was taken from us as a result of that day, not by terrorists, but by our own government.

America's losses on 9/11 were staggering. Gone were 2,996 lives, $100 billion in property, the New York skyline as we knew it and the sense of security that Americans enjoyed. All of those loses were brought on directly by al-Qaida and its 19 hijackers.

But the losses didn't end there. Americans lost liberties. We lost privacy. We lost trillions of dollars. In many ways, we lost any reasonable claim of a limited, constitutional government. And all of those things were taken, not by a group of hijackers, but by our own government.

In the days following 9/11, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., declared, "the era of a shrinking federal government is over."

Shortly after the attack, Schumer's prophesy became reality. A new era of big government was born in the wake of 9/11 that continues today, with no sign of shrinking.

---

The new era of big government can be tracked back to a 14-month period between September 2001 and November 2002. During that time, government launched the War on Terror, ratified the Patriot Act, founded the Transportation Security Administration and created the Department of Homeland Security.

On Sept. 20, 2011, George W. Bush declared a War on Terror, sparking military operations that have, to date, sacrificed the lives of 6,594 Americans and will ultimately cost taxpayers approximately $4 trillion, according to a report by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.

Later, in an 18-hour period on October 12, 2001, both houses of Congress rammed through the Patriot Act. The act imparted the federal government with a disturbing array of new powers, many of which fly in the face of the United States Constitution. For example, the Patriot Act allowed the government to:

• Force records custodians, such a libraries, schools, social work institutions and Internet service providers to turn over records to the federal government without explanation or justification.

• Seize assets from charities, even without probably cause.

• Require the release of records from telecommunications and financial services companies without any court order.

• Spy on citizens using a Cold War-era statute designed for tracking the covert activities of Soviet agents.

• Imprison American citizens without proper due process.

On Nov. 19, 2001, the Transportation Security Administration was born. The bureaucracy, best known for harassing and molesting travelers in airport terminals, not only cost Americans a total of $60 billion since 9/11, but a number of lawsuits are winding their way through federal court claiming that the TSA's screening tactics violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

If that weren't bad enough, the TSA is also bad at doing what it was designed to do. The TSA is responsible for allowing 25,000 security breaches, according to House subcommittee on National Security chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

A year later, in November 2002, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. Since it's founding, Homeland Security has cost taxpayers nearly $700 billion. The cabinet department has spied on Americans, been engaged in inappropriate data mining on American citizens and illegally intercepting mail. In addition, a Homeland Security database meant to track people who are considered threats to national security has been filled with members of groups that comprise about one-third of the American population, including pro-gun, anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-Second Amendment, anti-war and Tea Party activists, according to information compiled by the Cato Institute.

---

It was bizarre and disturbing when the government's response to 9/11, one of the biggest failures in the history of government, was to implement even more government.

Since 9/11, and largely as a product of the government's response to the terrorist attacks, the federal budget has doubled from $1.9 trillion in 2001 to $3.8 trillion today. To put it another way, in 2001, the federal government spent $6,752 per person in America. This year, the government will devour $12,090 for each American.

In fact, as hard as it may seem to believe today, the federal budget was balanced in 2001 with a $127 billion surplus left over. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 2012 budget will finish $1.1 trillion in the red.

The price tag of the federal government's response to 9/11, including domestic spending and the War on Terror is now estimated at over $5 trillion, according to The Fiscal Times. This money came from the pockets of taxpayers -- and will continue to for years to come. It also came from lenders, such as China, and from the printing press, which led to a devalued, inflated dollar.

The sheer number of people constituting the federal government workforce has grown dramatically, as well. From 2000 to 2012, the population of the United States has risen 11.7 percent. Over that same time period, the number of federal workers (excluding U.S. Postal workers) has increased from 1.78 million in 2000 to 2.21 million in 2012, or 24.2 percent.

Perhaps the worst result of government's response to 9/11 was the total disregard for Constitutional rights resulting, not only from the aforementioned Patriot Act, Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, but from the precedent that these bureaucracies set. Rights have been removed, rejiggered, ignored and trampled to the point that the Fourth Amendment has become a historical footnote, rather than an ironclad restraint on federal powers.

---

In the weeks and months after 9/11, it was poplar to declare "the terrorists did not win" as Americans returned to daily life, as if the American lifestyle was the reason for the attack. But it wasn't.

America wasn't subjected to terrorist attacks because America had too much liberty or too many freedoms. It wasn't because America was too rich or too powerful. The attacks, according to Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida masterminds behind the terrorist attacks, were due to the U.S. military and economic sanctions against Iraq, the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia and America's support of Israel.

In that sense, the terrorist did not win. America has continued to trip over itself to defend Israel, even when Israel is the aggressor. The age of expansionist American foreign policy is still alive and well. In fact, the 9/11 attacks led to military action which cost a total of 300,000 lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to numbers compiled by OWNI, a French media website. In the terrorists' attempts to make U.S. to become more limited and less intrusive in its foreign policy approach, it's fair to say they lost convincingly.

But Americans have lost, too. That loss didn't come to terrorists or to radical Islam. That loss came to our own government.

The government has done what terrorists never could: take away freedoms, privacy and Constitutional rights that were fundamental to what it means -- or, more accurately, what it meant -- to be American. Government has multiplied in size and exploded in scope. It has taxed, borrowed and spent until it is forever impossible to restore federal spending to what it was before 9/11. While America was not defeated by 9/11, American principles have been beaten to death in the 11 years since.

While terrorists and American principles both lost badly in the wake of 9/11, there is one undisputed winner: big government."

The Real State of the Union

President Obama gave his 7th State of the Union speech  last night, January 21st 2015. After hearing these speeches year after year, president after president I have come to see them not as projections of what the actual state of the nation is, but rather an advertisement for things the president thinks he did well,

“ ...more of our people are insured than ever before...”

Well yeah, they kind of have to be, remember you made them criminals if they didn’t buy insurance.

Not mentioned in last nights remarks is the reality of the real state of the union.

What about the National Debt?

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Jan 2015 at 06:03:20 PM GMT is:

The estimated population of the United States is 319,850,520

so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,565.23.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$2.40 billion per day since September 30, 2012!

Or maybe the amount of new regulations?

A little over 75,000 pages of new burdensome and restrictive regulations were imposed on US businesses. Each one a hinderance to the growth and expansion of businesses.

No mention of the prison population.

More than 1.57 million inmates sat behind bars in federal, state, and county prisons and jails around the country as of December 31, 2013. Many from victimless crimes.

We could go on with the rising tax rates, poverty levels, inflation, wasteful spending, the drug war, real wars and their destructive nature, the rate of returning soldiers committing suicide, the rate of bankruptcy and homelessness, the NSA…. And so on and so on.

The State of the Union has become nothing more than promises of future action and commercialization of past actions, not to give a statistical breakdown of how the nation is functioning.

Growing Up Into War Culture

With the release of the film American Sniper, which chronicles the life and military career of Chris Kyle, an American sniper in the US military, I sat down to think of what are the effects of growing up in what I call "War Culture"? What influence does the constant barrage of pro war and pro military images, songs and the almost mandatory glorification and appreciation that must be bestowed upon those who "serve" have on individuals.
How does the use of militarism and imbued detached emotional conditioning in entertainment lend to this culture?

I think first I need to explain what I see as "War Culture"
War Culture is the constant inoculation of militarism and perpetual war to the people of the world. It is not an isolated subject and is seen in just about every country on earth. It is the conditioning through various means to make war seem as just another aspect of life. It is the systematic conditioning to raise new generations to believe that the only way man has lived is in this perpetual state of alarm or conflict. Through the entertainment industries we see video games, movies and music that revolve around the occupation of the military or its missions, in essence Propaganda. Through the political sphere it is a constant stream of fear manipulation and the misuse of resources for destruction rather than diplomacy. The schools teach the military conquests from their home countries and gloss over the destruction that resulted. Again this is not an isolated occurrence, it happens all over the world.

Those that were born in the US after 2001 have never known a time when the US military was not engaged in a conflict, war, occupation or mission in one or another Middle Eastern country. Those who were born after 2001 may never know of a time when the US military will not have some sort of presence or installation in these countries.

Those that were born in these Middle Eastern countries after 2001 have never known a time when there wasn't a foreign military moving into their homes and communities. They would not know a time when their family were not targets for violence by men from far away. They grow up into a system of seeing this everyday, their family fighting for their own homes and their own way of life and they follow into this mindset. It doesn't take too much of a leap of logic to see that when someone sees this behavior day in and day out from childhood that they would continue on with the cycle later in life.

Then too we can think of the child soldiers from some other countries. Those who have entered this "service" by voluntary means have also been in large part brought up into this War Culture. They have never known a time, most of them, that their fathers were not at war, that their homes have not been threatened or even that their minds not set to these actions by the learned behavior or expressions of their religious leaders.

Kids, in the US especially, are approached early in their lives to consider joining the gears of the war machine. They are fed the scripts and lies of recruiters who have to fill new boots as fast as they fill caskets. By high school age in the US a person is to have been familiarized to the concept of war, used to the blind obedience to authority and have had their heads filled with the idea of protecting freedom by killing whoever their government is fighting with at the moment.

The media and entertainment industries play a major role in this idea. Think about this past year, how many movies were released that were based around military and war themes. Unbroken, Monuments Men, The Boys of Abu Ghriab, Seal Team 8, Jarhead 2,Fort Bliss, Good Kill and many many more. Now what about the gaming industry. In recent years with the rise in military actions around the world the gaming industry has turned into putting out more and more titles that deal with war and militarism. Now there is a lot of debate about the effect the games have on the players, if they turn out to be any more or less violent than those that do not play those types of games. But the theory is still valid, as far as the desensitizing effect it may have. Getting used to shooting at another human, destroying homes businesses, taking orders from authority and doing so unquestionably. Titles like Call of Duty, Destiny, Fallout, Titanfall, all lend to this issue. Again this is still a disputed theory and has not been determined to be viable at all. It is only in mentioning this that I hope to illustrate the tendency of entertainment companies to follow events happening in the world and to bring about some sense of entertaining qualities of war and the military theme to each new generation.

{ Speaking with a friend on this theory as I am writing this he makes a notation that this theory, that violent images from games or movies can have an effect on the minds and responses of individuals, makes the case that if the theory were incorrect there would be no reason to sit your child in front of a television or use and audio program to help them learn certain traits or characteristics. Sesame Street being an example, it is said that the majority of parents feel that by allowing their child to view this show they hope to reinforce good behaviors and learning skills. IF this theory were true in this instance it would be true in the case for picking up violent behavior as well. }

Even before some kids make it to an age that playing these games or watching these movies become an option they are brought into the war culture through their public and private educations. The National Anthem in America is a song of the battle at Fort McHenry in Baltimore MD September 7th 1814. It is a song about battle, of war, glorifying the action and triumph of the American colonies from the invading British troops. This anthem, being recognized as a National Anthem of the US by a law signed on March 3, 1931 by President Herbert Hoover. This being one of the first encounters with the theme of war even on a subconscious level. But this isn't just left to schoolchildren any more, no the national anthem is played at most if not all major sporting events, public ceremonies, political events, funerals, weddings, birthdays, national holiday celebrations and in some areas just because people love to sing a song of war. Many other nation's national anthems depict war themes as well. Many calling for rivers of blood, domination over enemies, revolutions, the firing of weapons to defeat foes and the beating of war drums and superiority of the country in battle.

 The anthem of Algeria is a example of this: "We swear by the lightning that destroys, By the streams of generous blood being shed" 

"When we spoke, none listened to us, So we have taken the noise of gunpowder as our rhythm, And the sound of machine guns as our melody"

For more on Anthems used as the drums of war see here.

http://users.dickinson.edu/~history/product/perry/national_anthem.html

Then there are those parents that raise their children with an expectation of joining the military. With parents that wish to ship you off to either kill someone or die trying to do that, who needs enemies? Often heard are the pro war people, "I would be so proud if my son/daughter joined the military." Under this implication they are under a false impression that 1. the military fights for freedom or security and 2. that their career choice is somehow a service to the country. 

That being said, what do we see from the culture of war?

Being raised and seeing the media portray the figures and images of war, without the true nature of destruction that it leaves in it's wake has left us, the world, desensitized to it all. The ability to be entertained by the use of violence has disconnected us from the real tragedy of the brutality of war. The constant barrage of subdued tones of Patriotism means serving in the military, the threats of violence from those the defend the institution of war and of the military's that wage them to those who seek peace through diplomacy and free and open trade. The boogie men created by institutions of government that turn into the very real monsters they were meant to look like. All of these things have added to a culture that sees war as the health of the state, that sees heroism in being able to kill another human being, that sees patriotism and nationalism as the wanton release of all personal morals or beliefs in the name of orders.

The Glorification of soldiers and the illogical justification for actions that in any other setting are immoral and unjust is a hard barrier to break. Any attempt is usually met with a onslaught of defenders and a constant stream of physical violence and threats of violence, again a product of the culture. The almost mandatory subjection of oneself to a life of praise and glory being bestowed upon those who "serve".

*I used quotation marks when mentioning the word serve in relation to military members. This is because the false sense that they are serving a nation, a country, the citizens of a certain land. Their service is to the government imposed over that land and those people. It is true that the paycheck does come from the citizens but not by voluntary means, not as a signal of worth or seen value but it is coerced and forced from them by government mandate.

 

War begets War it is said. And it would be correct given the history of the world SO FAR. But we do have the capability to end the cycle of perpetual wars, unneeded killing and dying, destruction and conquest. I refuse to glorify or propagate a system of despicable behavior under a twisted logic. Hero's are not those that go along with immoral orders, they do not revel in killing other human beings, they do not use a justification cooked up by some other person or entity to inflict destruction and death.

On Taxes

Taxes are not something most people joyfully or gleefully pay. They are not something that most people claim to benefit from. But people defend taxation for various reasons; they are voluntary or compulsory. Taxes are what some describe as the cost of living in a certain area or to enjoy certain services that this money is supposedly collected for. And then some say all taxation is theft.  Apologists will denounce anyone who dares to "cheat" the system and keep some of their own money. They are a guilty pleasure and an unseen control mechanism to a lot of people.

Tax Time is here and not too many smiles will be found, unless you work for the Government that is...

Individuals and companies, from the last day of January to the 15th of April every year, sit down to try and figure out how much of their money has been taken by the Federal Government and if they can expect some of it back or if they will be forced to "give" some more. The Federal Income Tax has been enforced since 1913 and ever since that time people living in this country have been required to pay part of their wages to support government programs and fund Federal Institutions. Trillions of dollars are taken from the paychecks of citizens before they ever see it.

Why are you defending theft?

There is a saying "Taxation is Theft". Some believe this is an error and that the statement is false in all degrees. But is it? Is taxation theft? The legal definition of theft is the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). With that said, one can question if the pay of a man for his labor is his property of that of the government for which he lives under. Questions can arise if the man has voluntarily submitted himself and his wages to the seizure of his property or if under the definition of theft has been the victim of a crime. Since those persons outside of government employment are in the private sector and those persons have not submitted the wages of their labor voluntarily, but by threat of violence or imprisonment the definition of theft can be applied to the act of taxation of income.

"If, then, taxation is compulsory, and is therefore indistinguishable from theft, it follows that the State, which subsists on taxation, is a vast criminal organization far more formidable and successful than any “private” Mafia in history". -Murray Rothbard-

Those that are in Employment of the government, in whatever capacity and at whatever level, (federal, state or local) are the beneficiaries of these extorted monies as their paycheck.

It has been said that these government workers "pay their own wages because they are taxed also". This is a fallacy. As a person is taxed at a percentage of their income, a person cannot pay into their entire paycheck. If they paid the entirety of their own wages it would be known as volunteering or slavery.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., American Jurist and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932 is quoted as saying, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." This is a popular thought of those who I would say taxation is a guilty pleasure or who feels that their wants should be funded by public means extorted from individuals instead of private and voluntary contributions. The very nature of this statement brings to mind a incredibly different question altogether for me. "Do we have a civilized society?"  That is a question left for another time.

A society based on the theft of wealth cannot be a moral and civil society. The very action of theft is against civility. But in this thought, we can ask ourselves these questions.

Does the act of paying into a general fund benefit the individual outright as much as it would if he would have funded whatever it is by voluntary means?

Can the value of these institutions to the general public be in contest to the value by the individual?

If a man be forced to fund policies and departments that they find immoral, unneeded, or in conflict with their religious or philosophical beliefs.

Murray Rothbard writes in his work "The Ethics of Liberty" that the size of government can be directly affected by the coercive nature of taxation. If the State were to suddenly abolish all taxation and thereby fund their departments and programs through completely voluntary means the size and scope of government would dramatically shrink.

This should be and is touted as the goal of the Neo-Conservatives and Republican Party,but is in complete contrast to their actions and policies. The same can apply to Democrats and Neo-Liberals, as their policies and actions tend to be based more on helping people, excessive taxation steals the money from people they are attempting to help.  It robs businesses of capital and forces higher prices, unemployment and subsequent poverty.

Where does all of this money go?

The mainstream belief is that these monies go to pay for services and programs inside and outside the United States. That would be nice, IF IT WERE TRUE. What is not taught to most Americans is that all the money that is taken in the form of the Federal Income Tax is used to pay off a loan for the previous fiscal year’s budgets. Who is this loan from?  The Federal Reserve loans the US government money at an interest rate. They then sell this debt (or securities) to foreign and domestic banks and individuals. The US Government pays these notes of security to the holders upon payment to the Federal Reserve of its loan. Of course the Federal Reserve does not pay the interest earned to the holders of the securities and instead makes a profit from the transactions. Interesting that a private bank that holds an enforced monopoly on the issuance of money is turning large profits off of the debt of a nation.

You might be wondering why the US debt has skyrocketed in the past and why it is so astronomical now; that is the nature of the Federal Reserve System. Since all money the government, and by mandate of the rest of the country, uses is owed back to the Fed with added interest; and the only way to pay it back is to take out a loan the next year, it is inevitable that this debt is unpayable. For a better explanation, I would recommend the book The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.

Is it cheating to keep your own money?

There are Tax Apologists out there that will become irate when an individual or company is found out to have offshore or international banking accounts in order to skirt paying taxes. The idea that someone who finds a way to keep his or her own property from seizure is seen as a criminal or seen as the bad guy has never really made sense. It is the same as someone who sets an alarm on their car or home: they are protecting their property and assets. The keeping of their own wages or property is the essential goal of Tax abolitionists which is to free everyone of the burden of theft of wages. It’s baffling to think that anyone is against this, but I think the emotional and illogical thought people have is, " If I have to pay then so does everyone else." i.e. the fair tax. To be certain there is nothing fair about the Fair Tax, it is still funneling money away from commerce and savings and it still only applies to certain groups and individuals.

The Fair Tax advocates will debate all day long that their system is better than what we have now, and I will not disagree, however I will say this: it is far from an ideal way to handle things. The entire idea of collecting money to fund programs and departments that the original "victim" may not have voluntarily given to is still present. The idea that money is still being diverted away from private enterprise and given to a bloated, inefficient and expanding government hasn’t changed. The same idea that Rothbard stated is still there: if the department or program cannot be funded by voluntary means it should not be fit to survive on public funding. Much like private business, if customers do not value the product or service, the company will fail and cease to exist. In the opposite of public departments and government offices, there is no measuring stick or ruler to determine if the service is viable beyond the edicts of bureaucrats and politicians wants.

To name a few things that tax monies are used for that would most likely not be funded by voluntary means.

The NSA and its wiretapping programs- Seen as a violation of privacy by a majority, this office and its "service" most likely would fall.

Animal Shelters that euthanize animals- This is a partial subsidy most often and the shelter may or may not survive with voluntary contributions.

The Militarization of America's Police forces and the brutality that they commit on a daily basis-If these police departments were reliant on the surrounding communities support and contributions there would be less of a chance they would commit the heinous acts that they do. Killing family pets and even people are becoming everyday occurrences in America. Changing the way they are funded could force them to rely on community service and protection services without the God Complexes a lot of them have.

Calling on more taxation.

There is a growing movement in America, an added Tax movement. The Robin Hood Tax or The Wall Street Tax is the next big thing for gluttons for monetary punishment. This new tax would add tax onto Wall Street transactions. If any sane individual thinks that this would not have a detrimental effect on the Stock Market, they are gullible and economically ignorant. Any addition to transactions coming from Wall Street would hamper the degree and volume of daily transactions. This would have a negative impact on the formation and expansion of companies and corporations as they will stifle new markets and products. These new taxes, like all others, will be passed to the end consumers, YOU AND I. When a new tax or regulation is added to a transaction of a corporation, the owners of that company will want to reduce any interference in their ability to turn profits (after all everyone is after a profit). That is the reason most of us have jobs; to profit off of our skills and labor. The owners will pass their cost of compliance to regulation or the collection of new taxes down the line until it hits the product on the shelf where the end user, the consumer, picks up the higher price.

As an Anarcho-Capitalist, I understand that this is hard for some to understand and takes much more than a simple blog post by a relative unknown person for many to grasp the concepts I have laid out here. That is why I encourage further reading into the failure and immorality of taxation.  The works of Ludwig von Mises, Murray N Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and so many more are easily found online. Take the time and educate yourself. Learn and apply, it really is that easy.

Also Follow me on these other Social Media Sites

Twitter @PatriotPapers

FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/travis.wilson.355744

We Don't Speak To Evil - Why Is America Afraid Of Iran?

Reblogged from carsonspost.wordpress.com

“WE DON’T SPEAK TO EVIL”
Ted Rall

The nation is Iran. And the reaction is ridiculous.

“The Evil Has Landed,” shrieked the headline of the New York Daily News on the occasion of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speeches at the United Nations and Columbia University. A “madman,” Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post spat, setting the tone for a week of Bizarro News. On “60 Minutes,” the Iranian president said there was no reason his country and ours couldn’t be friends–even the best of friends.

“La la la la–we can’t hear you” was the response.

“Is it the goal of your government, the goal of this nation to build a nuclear weapon?” CBS News’ Scott Pelley asked Ahmadinejad.

He replied: “You have to appreciate we don’t need a nuclear bomb. We don’t need that. What need do we have for a bomb?”

Pelley followed up: “May I take that as a ‘no,’ sir?”

Ahmadinejad: “It is a firm ‘no.'”

Some Americans would pay good money to hear an answer as honest and straightforward as that from their leaders. Yet, minutes later, Pelley kept badgering: “When I ask you a question as direct as ‘Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?’ you dance all around the question. You never say ‘yes.’ You never say ‘no.'”

Weird. Is Pelley hard of hearing? But what I really can’t figure out is how Iran qualifies as our–Very Big Word coming–“enemy.” We’re not at war with Iran. Neither are our allies. What gives?

Capitalizing on the reliable ignorance of the American public and the indolent gullibility of its journalists, the Bush Administration regularly conflates its numerous targets of regime change, pretending they love each other to death and are united only in their desire to slaughter innocent American children. There are gaping chasms in this narrative, but they vanish into our national memory hole.

After the 9/11 attacks turned the U.S. against the Taliban, U.S. media outlets put footage of a handful of jeering Palestinians on heavy rotation. Meanwhile, “In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute’s silence at Tehran’s football stadium.”

Wondering why you never heard that? The above quote comes from the BBC. Fox News didn’t report. American news consumers didn’t know, much less decide.

Finding an opportunity for rapprochement and a mutual foe in the Taliban, Iran became a silent America ally after 9/11. The Iranian military offered to conduct search and rescue operations for downed U.S. pilots during the fall 2001 war against the Taliban. It used its influence with the Afghanistan’s Dari population to broker the loya jirga that installed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan.

Everyone expected U.S.-Iranian relations to thaw. There was even talk about ending sanctions and exchanging ambassadors. A few weeks later, however, White House neocons had Iran named as a member of an “Axis of Evil” in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address. “We were all shocked by the fact that the U.S. had such a short memory and was so ungrateful about what had happened just a month ago,” remembers Javad Zarif, now the Iranian ambassador to the U.N.

Bush accused Shiite-majority Iran, a mortal enemy of Sunni-dominated Al Qaeda, of offering sanctuary to Al Qaeda fighters fleeing Afghanistan. “Iran must be a contributor in the war against terror,” Bush railed. “Either you’re with us or against us.” The allegation was BS. No one–not the CIA, not one of our allies, no one–believed that Iran would harbor, or had harbored, members of Al Qaeda. “I wasn’t aware of any intelligence supporting that charge,” says James Dobbins, Bush’s special envoy to Afghanistan. But we never took it back.

In May 2003, Iran shook off its annoyance and again tried to make nice. The Iranian overture came in the form of a letter delivered to the State Department after the fall of Baghdad. “Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table–including being completely open about its nuclear program, helping to stabilize Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah,” reported the BBC.

U.S. officials confirm this overture.

“That letter went to the Americans to say that we are ready to talk, we are ready to address our issues,” says Seyed Adeli, an Iranian foreign minister at the time. Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, says the Bushies made a conscious decision to ignore it. “We don’t speak to evil,” he recalls that Administration hardliners led by Donald Rumsfeld said.

In the minds of the hard right, the case for Iran’s evilness rests on three issues: the 1979 hostage crisis, its opposition to Israel, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Readers of Mark Bowden’s “Guests of the Ayatollah” can’t help but sympathize with the American embassy staffers who spent 444 days in captivity from late 1979 to early 1981. But the right-wingers’ real beef over this episode concerns our wounded national pride.

What they fail to mention is that President Carter brought the mess upon himself, first by continuing to prop up the corrupt and brutal regime of Reza Shah Pahlavi long after it was obviously doomed, and then by admitting him to the U.S. for cancer treatment. Carter knew that his decision to coddle a toppled tyrant could stir up trouble.

“He went around the room,” said then-Vice President Walter Mondale,” and most of us said, ‘Let him [the Shah] in. And he said, ‘And if [the Iranians] take our employees in our embassy hostage, then what would be your advice?’ And the room just fell dead. No one had an answer to that. Turns out, we never did.”

Iran finances and arms Hezbollah, the paramilitary group-cum-nascent state based in Lebanon that wages sporadic attacks against Israel. If proxy warfare and funding Islamist terror organizations that despise Israel were a consideration, however, the U.S. would cut off relations with and impose sanctions against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. (Can we stop talking to ourselves? We supported the Afghan mujahedeen.) It is possible to maintain friendly relations with nations that hate one another, and we do.

There are two points missing from most discussions of Iran’s nuclear energy program and whether it’s a cover for a weapons program. First, Iran ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. Leaders of the Islamic Republic inherited the NPT from the Shah. The revolutionaries voluntarily chose to honor the agreement after they threw him out.

Second, the U.S. practices a double standard by threatening war against Iran while ignoring Israel’s refusal to obey a U.N. resolution calling for a nuclear-free Middle East passed in 1996. As of the late 1990s, U.S. intelligence agencies believed Israel to possess between 75 and 130 nukes. Iran has zero. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there’s even less evidence against Iran than there was against Saddam’s Iraq.

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the government of Iran. They’re just a regional rival in the Middle East–another frenemy.

(Ted Rall is the author of the new book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.)

William F. Buckley's obituary of Murray Rothbard

MURRAY ROTHBARD, age 68, died on January 7. We extend condolences to his family, but not to the movement he inspired.

The academic and journalistic achievements of Professor Murray Rothbard of the University of Nevada were prodigious-25 books, including Man, Economy, and State, and a four-volume history of economic thought, the final two volumes of which will appear in the spring. He was the primary influence in founding the Libertarian. Party, whose godfather he continued to be until he broke with it a few years ago.

What reason, then, not to regret the end of his influence on the conservative-libertarian movement?

Murray Rothbard had defective judgment. It pains even to recall it, but in 1959 when Khrushchev arrived in New York, with much of America stunned by the visit of the butcher of Budapest-the Soviet protege of Stalin who was threatening a world war over BerlinRothbard physically applauded Khrushchev in his limousine as it passed by on the street. He gave as his reason for this that, after all, Khrushchev had killed fewer people than General Eisenhower, his host.

Murray couldn't handle moral priorities. In 1991 he decried the Cold War, which had just ended by liberatingthree hundred million people while maintaining our own independence. As president of the John Randolph Society, he spoke jubilantly at its convention in 1991 of his fancy, that we should "think the unthinkable and restore the good old Articles of Confederation." In recent years he disavowed Milton Friedman on the grounds that in endorsing the idea of school vouchers, Professor Friedman had sold out to the enemy, the State. James Burnham, the noble strategist and philosopher, he attacked bitterly in 1968 ("I can see Burnham now, helping the slavemasters of the South round up the slave rebels under Nat Turner"). In 1957, reviewing in NR a book by Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt observed that he suffered from "extreme apriorism." Indeed he did, Rothbard retorted in an essay that defended categorical positions, leaving no room for qualifications however critical. We have not read his economic history, but if it is as reliable as his contemporary history, we warn against it a generation of scholars which, from all appearances, is paying it the attention it deserves. In his speech to the John Randolph Society Rothbard gave this rendition of the history of NATIONAL REVIEW: "And so the purges began. One after another, Buckley and NATIONAL REVIEW purged and excommunicated all the radicals, all the nonrespectables. Consider the roll call: isolationists (such as JOM T. Flynn), anti-Zionists, libertarians, Ayn Randians, the John Birch Society, and all those who continued, like the early NATIONAL REVIEW, to dare to oppose Martin Luther King and the civil-rights revolution." Anybody who could decipher this magazine's history as above, could also conclude that Khrushchev was morally preferable to Eisenhower.

Murray Rothbard was a wonderfully pleasant social companion. He had been a friend and colleague-he did the research for the passages in Up from Liberalism that dealt with economics. But in 1962, at an lSI-sponsored seminar at Yale, I spoke derisively, if with good humor, about Murray's proposal to privatize the lighthouses, suggesting that such a platform would persuade listeners less of the advantages of the private sector than of the disadvantages of knowing nothing about lighthouses. Rothbard was outraged and noisily denounced this journal, vowing never again to contribute to it.

We muddled through without him, and he got on with his own work, though the influence of the Libertarian Party did not correspond with its valuable insights- the American people, during the Cold War, were not going to welcome in large numbers a political party whose leader thought the defense of freedom through containment was a travesty.

It was a great pity, but his problem ought not to be thought of as tracing to the seamless integrity of libertarian principles. In Murray's case, much of what drove him was a contrarian spirit, the deranging scrupulosity that caused him to disdain such as Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and-yes-Newt Gingrich, while huffing and puffing in the little cloister whose walls he labored so strenuously to contract, leaving him, in the end, not as the father of a swelling movement that "rous [ed] the masses from their slumber," as he once stated his ambition, but with about as many disciples as David Koresh had in his little redoubt in Waco. Yes, Murray Rothbard believed in freedom, and yes, David Koresh believed in God.

~ William F. Buckley, Jr.