Freedomain Radio

lowkey:

 

Given that the choice to risk ones life for compensation is generally made by those people who do not see any other opportunities in the existing market, what makes you think that the quality of soldier you would get would be any better than the state has to select from today?

 Even without the indoctrination, you're not getting the best & brightest.   You're getting those whose education was so stunted that they don't see other opportunites.

Even assuming you can fill the basic ranks, what motivation is there for the leadership core?   Without patriotism how do you motivate the caliber of person you really need?

 

I wouldn't risk my life for a state but I would for my family even if I was renumerated for the time I was on active duty my focus would be entirely different. This would fit more into the para military category.

The Question of leadership is not as clearcut as you see. The CFA here in Australia vote for positions like brigade captain and from what I understand the Boers weren't exactly hierarchical either, but I haven't done much research.

My point is that in a free market you wouldn't use the word "military" to describe a bunch of gun-toting, tank-riding, dudes in uniform. They might be known as "security gaurds/force," "militia" "mercenaries" "private army"

but I do not believe the term "military" applies in this free market situation.

EDIT: Also beware of Jolly-Roger waving Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers

MrCapitalism:

My point is that in a free market you wouldn't use the word "military" to describe a bunch of gun-toting, tank-riding, dudes in uniform. They might be known as "security gaurds/force," "militia" "mercenaries" "private army"

but I do not believe the term "military" applies in this free market situation.

 

EDIT: Also beware of Jolly-Roger waving Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers

So for you it's just semantics?

lowkey:

Stefan Molyneux:

Well, the criteria for a moral military would be the same as for any other social institution or organization in a free society, it would have to respect property rights and the non-aggression principle, and conform to UPB...

How do you see paying for an ethical/moral military given these conditions?

Stefan Molyneux:

None of these are the case with a state military, and in particular a state military tends to pick off those whose brains have been stunted by more than a decade in state indoctrination buildings.

Given that the choice to risk ones life for compensation is generally made by those people who do not see any other opportunities in the existing market, what makes you think that the quality of soldier you would get would be any better than the state has to select from today?   Even without the indoctrination, you're not getting the best & brightest.   You're getting those whose education was so stunted that they don't see other opportunites.

Even assuming you can fill the basic ranks, what motivation is there for the leadership core?   Without patriotism how do you motivate the caliber of person you really need?

 

You know lowkey, Jan Helfeld does this great show on Sunday evenings about anarchist militia groups...

lowkey, I feel very frustrated after reading your posts on this thread.  It's not the first time I've felt this frustration, but it is the first time I've decided to let you know about it.  My thoughts areas follows:

"lowkey was in the military, so obviously he doesn't like the implications of certain statements made on this board about the military.  But why doesn't he discuss those feelings?  He just keeps going on and on about the abstract and never touches what's really going on!  GRRR!"

So yeah, those are the thoughts that precede my frustration.  I'm guessing that you may also be feeling frustration and instead of talking about it, you post these indepth question sessions about abstract topics.  Who benefits from you avoiding talking about your feelings when the military is brought up?

fingolfin:

You know lowkey, Jan Helfeld does this great show on Sunday evenings about anarchist militia groups...

OK, I wasn't aware of that but I found his show on BlogTalkRadio.   I'll have to add it to my RSS feed list & start downloading it.  Thanks.

I may be getting hung up on the sematics but "militia" implies a different thing to me than "military".   One implies a voluntary group that comes together as necessary and the other is a standing force that regularly trains and is payed for being perpetually ready.  

What I find most shocking about this topic is that Stefan can say that it is possible to have an ethical military and yet has previously said that rape is a perk of military life.  It seems to me that these two positions are inherently contradictory.  Unfortunately for whatever reason, he's not answering my questions so I'm left wondering how he can justify both these positions.

Paul C.:

lowkey, I feel very frustrated after reading your posts on this thread.  It's not the first time I've felt this frustration, but it is the first time I've decided to let you know about it.  My thoughts areas follows:

"lowkey was in the military, so obviously he doesn't like the implications of certain statements made on this board about the military.  But why doesn't he discuss those feelings?  He just keeps going on and on about the abstract and never touches what's really going on!  GRRR!"

So yeah, those are the thoughts that precede my frustration.  I'm guessing that you may also be feeling frustration and instead of talking about it, you post these indepth question sessions about abstract topics.  Who benefits from you avoiding talking about your feelings when the military is brought up?

I was open to that conversation.   I even scheduled a call with Stefan to discuss my reaction to his podcast where he stated that rape was a perk to military service.   I was aware that I was opening myself up to discuss my feelings about my service and how the military is discussed here.  I was willing to do that.

However Stefan withdrew the invitation because I am theist.   I do not follow an organized religion and I recognize that many of the complaints that are voiced here about the church are valid, but after many years as an atheist & agnostic I returned to what faith I have because it feels right.  I'll admit it's not logical, it was/is an emotional decision. Apparently that's enough to make my opinion on other topics irrelevant and not worth discussing.

So you want to know what I feel when these topics coming up?  I feel anger.  I feel slighted and I wonder how many individuals aren't able to express themselves freely for fear of being ostracized in a similar manner. 

I did not foresee this topic going like this.

Let's see, I think that "military" in a non state context is a historically a priori term, it's confusing because I don't know there has been a non state military which didn't perpetrate in the same way state military has. So perhaps the confusion is out of the concern of how it could be interpreted without clarification that the host of freedomainradio says "which is not to say that all military is bad" without clarifying that meant, "not that all military is bad, state military is bad" in front of random podcast and youtube listeners who may not come to the forum, and again, as I said, as far as I know I can't recall a non state free-market military so it's like saying "not that all sheep are bad"  (genetically engineered/cloned sheep aren't bad) before there ever was a cloned sheep.

As for the other I agree with Stef on the fact that social ostracism is an effective way to shape the society we want. He has explained how false morality like fake money attempts having value whilst not having it. He has already spoken about the solace that comes from "prayer" which is delegating to the unconscious, and from the community that comes from being religious. The fact however is these are not based on reason. It's like having friendships which are not based on values. Now, Stef has said you can't be 100% rational and that would be unrealistic, but that doens't mean you don't try to be as rational as you can, but that unconsciously there are cognitive biases and mechanisms which we may not be aware of that might I don't know make us snap at someone we love. But that doesn't mean that you consciously go on not rejecting things which are not based on reason, it only means that when we speak about reason we approach it as a tendency towards an infinity of knowledge, a relation to reality in which no one can have all the answers, this is why there are doctors, scientists, etc.

So I think that the fact that irrational things like religion have not been discouraged and ostracized against, has made them an appealing incentive to consciously reject reason because it provides a benefit, like community or prayer or a sense of hope that is not based on any proof or evidence. This of course means a voluntary abandonment of reason, sure you can do that, but this implies no obligation for a rational person to want or have to talk to you, and considering the evils of religion and irrationality I think it's a good thing that progressively individuals see these irrationalities as socially unacceptable. That is make it hard for people to be religious by showing how they will lose valuable friendships due to that. Same with theft, etc, in a DRO society.

my two stefcents

ZebastianOrtis:

I did not foresee this topic going like this.

Let's see, I think that "military" in a non state context is a historically a priori term, it's confusing because I don't know there has been a non state military which didn't perpetrate in the same way state military has. So perhaps the confusion is out of the concern of how it could be interpreted without clarification that the host of freedomainradio says "which is not to say that all military is bad" without clarifying that meant, "not that all military is bad, state military is bad" in front of random podcast and youtube listeners who may not come to the forum, and again, as I said, as far as I know I can't recall a non state free-market military so it's like saying "not that all sheep are bad"  (genetically engineered/cloned sheep aren't bad) before there ever was a cloned sheep.

Wouldn't a Private Military Corporation (PMC) be the very definition of the non-state free market military?

Examples: Executive Outcomes, Xe, (formerly Blackwater), Sandline International, DynCorp International

Now their clients tend to be states and they get their employees from the rosters of various states so it seems to reason that their ethics & morals aren't that different those groups and may not be a good example of what a non-state free market military force would be in a voluntarist society.

ZebastianOrtis:

As for the other I agree with Stef on the fact that social ostracism is an effective way to shape the society we want. He has explained how false morality like fake money attempts having value whilst not having it. He has already spoken about the solace that comes from "prayer" which is delegating to the unconscious, and from the community that comes from being religious. The fact however is these are not based on reason. It's like having friendships which are not based on values. Now, Stef has said you can't be 100% rational and that would be unrealistic, but that doens't mean you don't try to be as rational as you can, but that unconsciously there are cognitive biases and mechanisms which we may not be aware of that might I don't know make us snap at someone we love. But that doesn't mean that you consciously go on not rejecting things which are not based on reason, it only means that when we speak about reason we approach it as a tendency towards an infinity of knowledge, a relation to reality in which no one can have all the answers, this is why there are doctors, scientists, etc.

So I think that the fact that irrational things like religion have not been discouraged and ostracized against, has made them an appealing incentive to consciously reject reason because it provides a benefit, like community or prayer or a sense of hope that is not based on any proof or evidence. This of course means a voluntary abandonment of reason, sure you can do that, but this implies no obligation for a rational person to want or have to talk to you, and considering the evils of religion and irrationality I think it's a good thing that progressively individuals see these irrationalities as socially unacceptable. That is make it hard for people to be religious by showing how they will lose valuable friendships due to that. Same with theft, etc, in a DRO society.

my two stefcents

I think ostracism is a bit strong of a word here.   If I was banned from commenting then it would be right but as I am not, I think Stefan is just exercising his freedom of association to choose not to reply.  However, when asked why some topics cause me frustration, I feel no reason to not tell the truth.   If Stefan feels that I'm being excessively biased in my telling of it, I'm sure he can reply with clarifications or even ban me.  It's his site after all.

I do find it interesting that while for many other topics, we can separate the beneficial things & desires from the corrupting influences of power & control (example: wanting to help the poor is good but the state's method of taxation & redistribution of wealth is wrong).  Even in the case of this discussion the idea that a military can be ethical & moral (which may or may not require the absence of the state).   However when it comes to religion, it's dealt with as a singular aspect of human cultural development that some how didn't undergo & experience the same corrupting influences.  It's as if we hold religion to the standard of perfection that it attempts to achieve (or advertises achieving) while not doing the same to other areas.  I've been dabbling with this idea and I think it should be obvious to anyone who's looked into it at all that many of the lessons that the church teaches are not about the faith but rather about protecting the power of the church.  Now I can't prove it but I also wonder that if we removed those sections of the cannon that are not there for reasons of faith but are rather the corruptions added to consolidate & hold power that what would be left would be fairly toothless &  benign from a perspective of potential harm. 

Of course none of that proves any of the remaining cannon is true but I just wonder why so few people question what the negative effects of statism have had on organized religion.

Look, I was a liberal unprogrammed quaker, that's from having been born in a catholic family. That's as "good" only as you'll get and yet, historically you go back and surely enough, false moral systems are there to excercise guilt and control people and just like minarchism, you cannot clean what is fundamentally by definition meant to corrupt and inflict superstition and arbitrary rules.

ZebastianOrtis:

Look, I was a liberal unprogrammed quaker, that's from having been born in a catholic family. That's as "good" only as you'll get and yet, historically you go back and surely enough, false moral systems are there to excercise guilt and control people and just like minarchism, you cannot clean what is fundamentally by definition meant to corrupt and inflict superstition and arbitrary rules.

 

The question I have is have we established that definition because of what we see in religion today and not because of what the original message was?  I really can't see any other answer given the centuries that have passed.

I view the use of guilt as simply one of the many tools for controlling people and not as separate from that control.  Additionally, the only purpose for the corruption is to control so I don't think that can be part of the original message. 

As for the arbitrary nature of the rules, well that's just something I believe that you need to accept if you choose to believe in a creator god since it is not unreasonable for such a god to establish whatever rules he deems appropriate for his creation.

I wouldn't be too surprised if when all the corruption is removed we end up with a small set of guidelines for living a simple ethical life.  Maybe not even that different from UPB and maybe the first rules arose from people tired of explaining how to apply their version of UPB to each distinct situation.   How many times can you go through the why murder is not UPB before you give in and say "thou shalt not murder" or create a story to illustrate the point?

It may be that you've already walked this path and come to the inevitable conclusion but it's a path that I feel I must walk myself.   As I said, I was an atheist & agnostic for years, but my questions lead me back and I can only continue the journey one step at a time.

lowkey:

Paul C.:

lowkey, I feel very frustrated after reading your posts on this thread.  It's not the first time I've felt this frustration, but it is the first time I've decided to let you know about it.  My thoughts areas follows:

"lowkey was in the military, so obviously he doesn't like the implications of certain statements made on this board about the military.  But why doesn't he discuss those feelings?  He just keeps going on and on about the abstract and never touches what's really going on!  GRRR!"

So yeah, those are the thoughts that precede my frustration.  I'm guessing that you may also be feeling frustration and instead of talking about it, you post these indepth question sessions about abstract topics.  Who benefits from you avoiding talking about your feelings when the military is brought up?

I was open to that conversation.   I even scheduled a call with Stefan to discuss my reaction to his podcast where he stated that rape was a perk to military service.   I was aware that I was opening myself up to discuss my feelings about my service and how the military is discussed here.  I was willing to do that.

However Stefan withdrew the invitation because I am theist.   I do not follow an organized religion and I recognize that many of the complaints that are voiced here about the church are valid, but after many years as an atheist & agnostic I returned to what faith I have because it feels right.  I'll admit it's not logical, it was/is an emotional decision. Apparently that's enough to make my opinion on other topics irrelevant and not worth discussing.

So you want to know what I feel when these topics coming up?  I feel anger.  I feel slighted and I wonder how many individuals aren't able to express themselves freely for fear of being ostracized in a similar manner. 

 

So because Stef chose not to interact with you due to your chosen path of irrationality, you have chosen to give up one of the other primary virtues consistently talked about here: honesty.  Instead of being honest about your feelings about what's going on with you in regards to this topic, you've chosen to pass on your anger to those that read your posts by not openly acknowledging it yourself.

Do you see how these actions could further lead people to chosing to not want to interact with you?  Your anger stems from the thought that you and others may be staying silent because of fear of ostracism, yet your choice to stay silent is likely leading to people not respecting you enough to want to interact with you.  I know that that's the case for me, typically.  I read your posts and I see that there's something deeper going on, and I'm not interested in talking about the outer issue if you're not interested in talking about the inner one.

I do hope you'll answer the question this time, but who does it benefit for you to stay silent, to alienate yourself from a community you have an interest in, to not be honest with your feelings in the moment?

Paul C.:

So because Stef chose not to interact with you due to your chosen path of irrationality, you have chosen to give up one of the other primary virtues consistently talked about here: honesty.  Instead of being honest about your feelings about what's going on with you in regards to this topic, you've chosen to pass on your anger to those that read your posts by not openly acknowledging it yourself.

I don't see that I have given up on honesty.  Rather I have embraced it.   When I first revealled my theism, I debated with myself if I should.  In the end, I decided that it was more important to be honest than to be silent & accepted for false pretenses.  That honesty caused Stefan to make the decision he did (which is fair, I just mention it because it was an effect of my admission).  So if I am hesitant to be honest now, it is because I am aware that honesty has a cost in this community. I am also aware of my own anger & frustration about it.  I avoid many topics because I don't think I can be involved in them without expressing that frustration but I still see that there is so many smart people in this community that I want to be part of it.

Paul C.:

Do you see how these actions could further lead people to chosing to not want to interact with you?  Your anger stems from the thought that you and others may be staying silent because of fear of ostracism, yet your choice to stay silent is likely leading to people not respecting you enough to want to interact with you.  I know that that's the case for me, typically.  I read your posts and I see that there's something deeper going on, and I'm not interested in talking about the outer issue if you're not interested in talking about the inner one.

So if I am honest & open then people may choose to not interact.   Or if I hold back then others may choose to not interact with me.  It's a catch-22 and given those conditions, how am I supposed to act?   Or is it simply that there is no place in this community for someone who doesn't embrace atheism without reservation?

I'd certainly be open to discussing the inner issues but I think you can understand my hestitation.   I will say this, I'm not trying to hide anything and I have answered every question placed to me honestly and as completely as I can.  So if you have a question, feel free to ask.  I will answer even those questions I hestitate to bring up myself.

Paul C.:

I do hope you'll answer the question this time, but who does it benefit for you to stay silent, to alienate yourself from a community you have an interest in, to not be honest with your feelings in the moment?

I have been trying to answer the question, and maybe I'm not providing the simple answer that you anticipate but I'm not sure there is a simple answer in this case.

Stefan Molyneux:

Well, the criteria for a moral military would be the same as for any other social institution or organization in a free society, it would have to respect property rights and the non-aggression principle, and conform to UPB...

None of these are the case with a state military, and in particular a state military tends to pick off those whose brains have been stunted by more than a decade in state indoctrination buildings.

Following Paul C's advise to be more open, I have to say that the longer I reflect on this answer the more frustration I feel because it is a total non-answer.

In the threads about religion and in Stefan's podcasts, it has been pointed out repeatedly that saying "God did it" is pretty much the same thing as saying "I don't know how it was done" and appropriately so.

In this case, this answer is the anarcho-capitalist equivilant of saying "God did it".   This answer simply says "I don't know how a military force could exist in a voluntarist community but they would have to live by the same rules everyone else does."   Pointing out that the rules apply to them as much as anyone else doesn't say anything that wasn't already known.  It's avoidance of the issue and doesn't add anything to the conversation.  The second statement also doesn't add anything and seems to be a senseless slam on state militaries (even if true) that is in place to get a kind of simple agreement based on other agreed upon premises rather than it's relevance to the question asked.

This is especially troubling given that the earlier standard proposed by the True News 41: Soldiers, Policemen, Politicians podcast which was that it is impossible to have soldiers who were capable of achieving the high level of ethics necessary for someone with that authority and it would inevitably lead to bad results. 

This new standard implies that it would be possible to find & employ the philosopher-soldiers that could resist the urge to abuse their power but says nothing about how.  This is what prompted me to ask the questions I did and I'd still like to know how these two apparently contradictory standards can be reconciled.

AND  Socrates being a soldier too, I remember Stef commenting on that in the trial and death of Socrates, plus his corrupting everything by claiming the laws were virtuous.

I know this is offtopic, but I have a feeling that Stef is trying to appeal to wider audiences and though I agree on the virtue of humility I feel sometimes frustrated with his exagerated humility of nowadays, I think Stef is simply the best ethical philosopher in history thus far, it's like underlining everything that makes sense of the rest of philosophy and taking the arbitrariness of moral arguments and presenting them in a logically ordered manner, whilst applying psychological, historical, scientifical perspectives as a back up. I've become often frustrated at Stef making the psychological disclaimer that he's not a professional. This is particularly annoying as one of the reasons why I haven't gone for therapy yet, is because I know that a lot of therapists out there don't know basic logics or stick to rationality as the method to virtue, there are a lot of psychologists who will go into a mumbo jumbo world of metaphorical nonsense like joseph campbell and argue that culture is good, and even statist psychologists. So as compared to that Stef's constant disclaimers seem irritating. So I was thinking, wouldn't it be cool to have a youtube video with Christina's take on FDR and Stef's books etc from a purely psychological perspective?  I personally think that any theory can be evaluated objectively and so credentials don't imply much about the rationality of the individual who has them, much like Stef saying once that you can't have philosophy without psychology and viceversa, I think that FDR would profit from having a "professional" backing up FDR and avoiding the "non-professional" disclaimer. Just a thought/suggestion.