The Voluntary Military and Peace

Ayn Rand


If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.
C:TUI 226

 This statement captures the essence of liberty, which is peace. And Rand grasps the concept that volunteerism to military duty, is correlated to self=defense and not ideological commitments, or agendas! No one likes to be co-cerced. Co-cercion demeans and demoralizes humans and treats them as commodities or of expendable value.
 
That means that to remain a free people we must not war along ideology (religion or politics) or  independent agendas (without co-operation/negotiation). It becomes complex when there are so many agendas that clash with another's. And what about a nation's values if they conflict with another's? Will there be  consensus building in determining how to go 'forward"? 
 
Diplomacy is needed more than ever today, because the world is wrought with so many conflicts. The wars our country is involved in now, have not been declared "wars" by Congress from the beginning. Though there needed to be some response to the 9-11 incidence,  was there consideration about all the reprecussions?. Self Defense is important for any entity that has separate interests or distinction. This is important to the nation-state herself! We have to maintain a "voice", otherwise, the nation-state's distinctive voice, will loose power and then, only a few will be heard. And just as the individual without any "voice", the minority position, power will win over and enslave all of us!
 

"The Gospel" and the Modern State....

What has "happened" to the "Gospel" and "The Church" in Modern society?  How do we understand life, and time and text and tradition?

 Much has transpired over time that makes it hard to hold to "biblical faith" or "biblical Christianity". Christians believe that history is "God"'s time/story. Westerners think in linear terms concerning their faith. There is a beginning and an end. God created the heavens and the earth and Christ is to come again. Faith is understood within the text as a developing story, God's story in Christ. Salvation was understood as  "accepting" the story, and identifying with a Christian community.  How faith communities understand themselves is the real issue after the Protestant Reformation.

Faith, as Protestants undestand it, is what liberty of conscience is to our Founders. Therefore, the Protestant Principle "works to fragment "faith" into diverse communities. The Roman Catholic Tradition understands itself as a political community, because it determines what each person's duty is to remain within it "graces". Such a political stance might grant crimes and punishments against the Church, but not necessarily against the nation-state, as these are seen as "spiritual" offenses. Since the West values a linear view of history, change is assumed.As America is primarily understood as a Protestant nation, how did America come to understand "Faith"?

Self-Respect

On a blog tonight, someone stated that an ideological approach to biblical studies was what was "selling". But, the objective, more factual studies were not. He painted a picture of some unknown classics or religious studies professor, who would be in the back of the "ship". It got me thinking about Self Respect.

I believe that when one has certain commitments of value, these make for "self-respecting" behavior. In the above situation, those that would love fame and fortune, more than intellectual honesty have different values than those that wouldn't submit to "majority rule" for the sake of "peace". "Self Respect" would not allow one to bend such issues of integrity.

Self Respect protects the teen couple under a moon-lit sky, the businessman faced with a financial dilemma, or the person filling out their tax forms. One will not tend to take advantage of another if they act with self respect. Self Respect means that you don't allow others to take advantage of you, either. Healthy self-respect is of necessity to function in society in a healthy way, knowing who you are, and what you are committed to and giving the same respect to others. Most of the time respect is not an overt action, but a respect of proper boundaries that maintain stability in society.

You Cannot Demand Relationship

I have spent the greater part of the morning trying to "discuss" (at least that was my thinking) a particular person's needs. She had called me, so I thought that this was a suggestion of her openness to me. But, unfortuately, one cannot demand a healthy living relationship.

Relationships have to be built on mutual trust, respect and a diligence to keep the communication lines open. Otherwise, the relationship become a one-sided attempt to keep alive what is really, dead.

This person doesn't seem to "give and take". And I find that if one doesn't agree with everything the person says, they feel defensive. Why the defenses? I'm not sure. But, what I do know is if one attempts to suggest another alternative interpretation about "what happened" or another's motivation, one will end up holding a phone that has gone dead. Or if I offer suggestions that might help a particular situation, there is a verbal attack. It is baffling and frustrating. But, I'm sure that the other's perspective could be similar, as to her preception of me! I just don't know!

When I attempt to make clear expectations, there is a justification and defensiveness that tells me, that this is more about "her" than "us". Maybe some people can't have relationships. Or maybe there is something that hasn't been expressed or shared that is the interpretive "frame" to everything that is said, or not said.

I have asked numerous people how to handle theis person and our relationship (or lack thereof) and most that know her seem to suggest that I really can't have a mutual relationship. I guess I just can't grasp that concept. Perhaps, I am the one that is co-dependent.

Demands upon another cannot offer real gifts of love, or sevice, but only demands of duty or obligation. This is what makes me so resistant to "requirements", such as duty, demands, commands, etc. I equate such terms with obligation, responsibility, and co-ercive and/or manipulative power.

Commitment must be a choice, but how does one commit to a relationship that isn't based on terms that define healthly relationship? can one commit to such a relationship and survive the deneigrating sense about onself? Can one have self-respect enough to overcome a bombardment of snide remarks, inuendo, and outright disrespect as to one's character or motivations or others that are mutually known? I am just at a stale-mate, as I don't know what to think or do or not do.

Why do I desire any relationship with this person? Whenever one begins to "enter" or think they enter the other's world,  there is a slammed door, or so it seems. On the other hand, this person can have a overzealous conscientiousness about another relationship, to the extent of compulsion. I've been advised that one cannot have access to those that choose to not allow such access. And when I think about it, isn't this what I'd want? Respect for my boundaries and a honoring of my "right of denial"?

What America Might Consider as a Solution

America is great because we believe that NO ONE is "above the law". The law is the leveler of position, power and prestige. But, in practice, this is not reality.

While I don't believe that the government should control the market, because the market benefits society through competition and rewards, I do believe that money does undermine "equality under law", as to one's ability to afford good lawyers to defend the average guy's interests! Corporate money and the wealthy have not only connections that corrupt our "ideal system", they also have money to get the best and brightest to defend them against criminal, or unethical activity! Should Americans look the other way when justice isn't done, and just "sigh" and say to ourselves, that that is the way things are, and no one can change it?

Those in political office should not be serviced by undue exposure to power indefinately. These positions should have term limits. Otherwise, the empowered have the position and connections to undermine "equality under law". Power can be corrupting and give one a "god-like" feeling against "all odds" at beating the system. A "god-like" sense of being "above it all", is the beginning of a downfall, whether it is in one's personal or public life. Destruction is on the heels of such invinciblity! Invincibility is the feeling of teens when they do foolish things, because they think they will never get caught! Though this might not be the overt intent or goal of a particular individual, one must always be on guard to what can happen, if one is not careful and serving for the public's interest and not one's own.

Government was never intended to be the "patron saint" of mankind, but a overseer of proper behavior regarding others and their boundaries! We must never forget that the individual and his liberties are guruanteed only as long as the government (those that serve in these positions) are seeking to promote the interests of the nation. National security should be of concern and importance to those serving the American poeple!

Tolerance is Another Name....

A lot of "talk" today is about tolerance, mainly, I think because there is so much diversity and those that are intolerant want others to be "tolerant" to them.....This got me thinking.

Tolerance is another Name for submission to those you don't like, and/or agree with. What is wrong with this picture? Well, it depends.

Those who one doesn't like can range the gambit from how they dress to what they do. What someone does that is wrong, is not to be "tolerated". "Wrong" is trespassing. And wrong is not loving, kind, or tolerant. So, should we be tolerant of those who are terrorists amongst us?

I think that sanctions work in giving another a boundary, so that there will be no more trespassing. Trespassing in this regard is disregarding another's "person", whereas disregarding a standard of dress is trespassing against another's taste or personal opinion. One annihlates and destroys a sense of security, whereas the other offends.

Tolerance should never be granted to those who are hardened toward another's very life. Life is not up for grabs and should not be a tolerable mistake.

No, trespasses of this kind demand an accounting. This is why negoitiating with those that do not adhere to the same values of life is dangerous, because their ideology drives them beyond the bounds of reasonable dialogue.

Healthy Relationships

It irritates me when others take advantage of others. It doesn't matter if I am personally involved or not, because in principle, I believe that the individual is not to be presumed upon. Presumption depends on others without their input, or knowledge. While my husband trusts me, it would be disrepectful and unkind for me to not ask his opinion, advice, or permission, if I were to take on certain responsibilities that affected his life.

Just today I encountered a discussion with a believer, who adheres to "orthodox Christianity". He was raised a Pentecostal, but thinks that Pentecostals do not understand or believe in "real righteousness". While I agree that theological explaination cannot be separated from "real reality", neither can "real reality" in creating "real righteousness" be separated from one's personal history. I further questioned him on why he thought there was anything "special" about religious training, as training for character is done in secular environments and not just religious ones.

Relationship is built on trust, from the cradle to the grave. Trust is learned in the cradle when the infant's needs are met and the toddler's questions are patiently answered. Trust is built as the teen learns to expand their horizons and explore the world a little further from home. But, adults understand trust to be about living life within a context of social contract.

Social contract is an understanding that although we are individuals, we do not live alone and separated from the greater world. We live our lives within many contexts that underline "who we are". Our identities are written in the contexts we commit to. Adults do not have to be defined by the contexts of their upbringing.

This particular person is a highly educated and personable who believes in supernaturalism. I felt frustrated over his seeming inability to understand where I was coming from. He had stated that we all have dogmatics that we "live by". And he proceeded to talk about postmodernity and narrative.,the Church being the ultimate universal. He spoke of "community", that sounded uptopian to me. When I tried to point out that all social organizations "run" in similar ways, he kept holding to a "higher spiritual view". Definitions of boundary are what identifies the groups "form" and structures the organization's values. These are not universal, but specified and are committed to by individuals who want association with the group. This commitment is a commitment of choice and value. It is a commitment of faith, which is the "social contract". And the social contract must be built upon the foundation of 'good will" and "good intention".

But, what if there has been a history of "ill will" or a breaking of trust? What then? Is one called to just "take a leap" without understanding or reasonableness? I think this would be the height of naivete'. One must trust what one commits to, otherwise, it is an unhealthy relationship.

All Want Respect and Sovereign Rights

This morning I was listening to a news broadcast about Iran's desire to be respected and have sovereignty over their national interests. All people and nations want this respect, at least, if they have had the opportunity to experience it.

I find it hard to resolve the problems of diversity, when globalization calls so loudly for unity. How do we resolve the differences across cultural values, differences, convictions, and commitments? One thing for sure any ideological commitment that is exclusivist in its claims is a dangerous mix in the global climate.

But, how do we protect national interests and security? These issues cannot be ignored when terrorists undermine our sense of security and peace. Security is secured by the "rule of law" and an understanding and respect for another's right to exist. But, countries that support or encourage terrorists activity, either by commission or omission, cannot be ignored either. I don't know the answer. But, I am concerned about my own country's security and peace. The values that our country upholds are ones that many have lived and died for. I, for one, am committed to see that it succeeds in its endeavors to remain at peace and promote democracy abroad.