The Other Side to the Military Draft

The age old question about whether the individual or society has the 'upper hand" has been a question that has always been of interests to sociologists and pscyologists as well as many others. It is not resolved because the tension between individual liberty and social conformity will always remain in tension in a free society. With that in mind, how does one view the "Military Draft"?

The Military Draft is an obligation to the State to defend its foreign policy; its need to undermine rogue governments. It is a citizen's duty to uphold our nation's laws and be dependable in giving to society through one's work. A free society does not determine what one's work "should be" , but the military draft does. As I pointed out in the last post that our free society does not determine an individual's place, so, what should be our stance toward the military draft, then, as individuals?

In the '60's many dodged the draft or protested our war in VietNam. This was the individual's right to resist. Our country values the individual's right to have a conscience about particular wars and defers obligation to "conscientious objectors" because of religious conviction.

Foreign policy is not a straight forward black and white issue, but is wrought with complex issues of economic interests, and political pay-backs or positioning. It is hard to determine what is 'right or wrong" in certain instances because of such a mix of issues or concerns and sometimes a lack of information; human rights, trade, diplomacy,  etc.

I don't think I'm the only American that is ill-informed about such issues, and as the world becomes more "entangled", then it becomes more complicated to unravel the strings. We live within our own interests, all of us, personally and nationally . So, we must admit that and go from there, otherwise, we will be prone to ideological views that only broaden and enrage an otherwise breachable barrier.

American Values In a Global Climate

Plato said that one had to be dead if there was no more war. I agree, as men are always going to be self-interested, whether they recognize it or not. Even one's ideas about "God" are "self interested" claims, because this is how we define ourselves. People all define themselves by the groups that hold to their values, some knowing that this is a chosen value, while others less so.

Tonight, we watched "Black Hawk Down". Our military went into Somalia and fought against horrendous odds bravely and many were lost. One comment I will never forget was made by one of the Somalian warriors to a prisoner. He told the prisoner that irregardless of America's desire to promote democracy through gunfire, as a means to negotiation; Somalians believe that gunfire IS negotiation. Victory is only declared when their side has won against those that desire to change their culture. That was a sobering comment and made me wonder why we attempt to change these types of cultures.

The young men who represented our military were holding to their ideals of life and liberty and willing to fight to see that all people live free. This is the American ideal and they were defending not just their country's values, but protected each of their "buddies". They would not leave anyone behind, as they believed in the value of each indiviudal life! Their courage was amazing.

One wonders why we were in Somalia in the first place. Why were our men used in an environment that didn't seem to matter? Power does not seem to understand or value the costs to those that it holds under its command. It is an unusual person that understands and values the "little man" enough to not take lightly sending our men into harm's way. Our military are committed to serve any command, so it is imperative that our men in uniform be valued as to their life. They are fighting for our liberty.

When humanitarian aid is confiscated, why do Americans think that it is obligatory to follow up? Are we loyal to U.N. demands, and not our own Sovereignty? Or does American have some vested interest that the common American is unaware of?

 The movie portrayed that hunger creates hostilities between rivalling groups. So, is preventing hunger a means to create peace? Then, what about the dictators or the corruption in society that makes it impossible to claim "the humane"? These cultures are not prone to change, unless they are killed or their power is taken from them.

The honor code of Westpoint claims that fighting for the "right" is not tolerating those that are corrupt or are corrupting influences in a society! One "hero" at the end said that he was asked whether he sought to be a hero and he said that one doesn't seek to be a hero, that becoming a hero happens. Becoming a hero is the result of duty! It is doing one's job in the military.

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"?

The Political Is the Real

Tonight Glenn Beck discussed "restoring" America.  But, unlike some of his past programs, I disagreed as to how this is to come about. His was a vision of spiritual renewal, and commitment from citizens to re-align themselves.

While I do agree no one should try to control another in a free society, the only one they really have control over is themself, I do not agree that spiritualizing "self-governance", is imperative. Why would I say this?

Augustine was the one who transformed the Christian vision to the "other world".  His "vision" was the world of the transcendent God, who prepared the "City of God". And this "world" was to give hope to those who'd been disappointed when Rome was destroyed. Hopefully, this will not be the case for America. And today, man himself is the point of question, as evolution has trumped special creation. The focus today is on "man", not God.

Many have tried to implement Marxist "class envy and warfare" into our public discourse, which has done nothing other than divide our nation over envious feelings about material gain. The purpose, I imagine is the "redistribution of wealth" so poverty is addressed. The issue of poverty is not what America has been about. America has understood herself as a land of opportunity and prosperity. A land where people could find their own "way of life".  America's "hope" has been political freedom. But, now, our political freedom has brought about division not just over how money should be "handled" (by the individual or the government), but also how we should treat our enemies.

Those that have an idealistic view of man affirm "love", as the Christian/humanist mandate. Love is not the practical terminology or actual requirement of political action. Love is a personal term, while other terms such as duty, or responsibility fit more appropriately in the political realm.

The question that divides again is over what is our responsibility or duty as American citizens? Is our responsibility for the whole world, or is it for our nation? And then, is our responsibility over those in poverty, addictions, criminal behavior, or what? All of us cannot be concerned and focused on the same issues if our country and how the world's needs are to be met. This is why how one understands and commits is dependent on what one values most and why.

 Is our responsibility for our nation, or for our families? or both? It has often been said that the nation is only as strong as its families. And this is true, I believe. Other matters that concern our nation are matters that will always divide our nation, even, "Christian" citizens. Is the political or real world policies not more important, than the transcendent? I believe so. Nothing impacts the child more than their family of origin, and this arena has also become politicized. It is no longer the parent who must raise their child, but the State. ( And yet, I know that there are those parents who will not do right by the child, in regards to giving the child the best opportunity to succeed. Should the State intervene? And how?)

I am weary of faith, culture, and politics, as I think it has been a useful tool in the hands of the empowered at the disadvantage/discrimination of the "Christian". Values have been defined for the "Christian" by others, so that these will fit their mold, opinion or value. So, being "human" is a more important value for/to me, than "being a Christian", as being 'human" recognizes that I have common needs, desires, and opinions, as any other person.  Being a Christian, only means that there are others that define your life by their own standards and demand obedience to what they find is "ultimate".

I find the "ultimate" in our American culture, where individual liberty is valued and protected.

"What Children Don't Know"

"What children don't know, won't hurt them", is a common phrase here, in America. But, what adults don't know does hurt them.

When government is not forthcoming with information to the American people, either through power over the press, or elitist attitudes about policy making, then our "common interests" no longer exist, and we are not duty bound to continue in "the social contract" or we are called to reform the contract. Voting is just the beginning to changing what needs change.

A social contract was to be defined by "equality under law". The law is to protect the liberty of opinion, while limiting governmental oversight. Now, things seem reversed. We seem to be given pablum, because "what the children don't know, won't hurt them". And all the while, we are commended to protect the interest of the public's good. Peace at all costs looses much of what has been paid for in blood.

Our country was founded by those that believed that all were created equal and protected and provided for civil liberties.

Virtue is a relative term, when one faces evil. What is one to do? Submit? Resist? Fight? Surrender? Run? What is one's "duty"?

Kant says to do what you would want to become universal. But, universiality is still dependent on one's values, isn't it? And one's values are individually embraced. That is, unless there is a 'universalized agenda" that would undermine liberty of choosing one's values, or changing one's commitments as life requires.

My grand-daughter's "wisdom" is child-like. She believes that everyone wants the same thing that she does, so she will understand things in a childlike way. But, this is not true to reality. People want different things from life, and that should be allowed in free societies.

So, put away childish things and understand that all are not alike.

Collectivism Leaves Us Demoralized

“The word 'altruism' was coined in the early nineteenth century by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (who also invented the word 'sociology' ). For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good. It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion--that is, the initiation of physical force--in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others.” -- George H. Smith

"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." ...
"As to Kant's version of the altruist morality, he claimed that it was derived from 'pure reason,' not from revelation -- except that it rested on a special instinct for duty, a 'categorical imperative' which one 'just knows.' His version of morality makes the Christian one sound like a healthy, cheerful, benevolent code of selfishness. Christianity merely told man to love his neighbor as himself; that's not exactly rational -- but at least it does not forbid man to love himself. What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer. This is the ultimate form of demanding that man turn himself into a "shmoo" -- the mystic little animal of the Li'l Abbner comic strip, that went around seeking to be eaten by somebody.
"It is Kant's version of altruism that is generally accepted today, not practiced -- who can practice it? -- but guiltily accepted. It is Kant's version of altruism that people, who have never heard of Kant, profess when they equate self-interest with evil. It is Kant's version of altruism that's working whenever people are afraid to admit the pursuit of any personal pleasure or gain or motive -- whenever men are afraid to confess that they are seeking their own happiness -- whenever businessmen are afraid to say that they are making profits -- whenever the victims of an advancing dictatorship are afraid to assert their "selfish" rights.
"The ultimate monument to Kant and to the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia." – Ayn Rand



I think that demoralization happens whenever choice is devalued or denied. And demoralization leads to addictions, and even suicide, because of the demoralization that subsumes individuality. Russia has a high addiction to alcohol, for instance. Suicide happens mostly from those who have been demoralized through crisis in life. Why live, if one has been annihilated anyway?

Christians "use" the term of self-sacrificial "love" to affirm such sacrifice for the 'greater good'. But, this is does not come from a healthy self assessment, but from a needy and perverted way to gain self-affirmation from others.

Jesus has been useful for Christian "moralists" as an example. But, Jesus life was taken by the power hungry religious and the greedy and powerful State. Fortunately, for us, there is a recourse to such greedy grabs for power over the individual in today's modern world.

We must not allow such means an opportunity to gain a foothold under any "moral guise" of "greater good". Otherwise, we will become pawns to dictators, who demand obedience at the costs of our liberty. We must not submit!