On the US Torture Report

As Americans are hearing now from their government of the "enhanced interrogations" taking place in CIA held facilities. The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its "Torture Report", and with it a flood of charges of inhumane treatments, murder, brutality and absolute detestable behavior from government employees and military service members. Of course there is no shortage of those who try and justify the treatment of detainees. Those that clamor for the reduction of the government, it's footprint into the lives and actions of people and claims of fiscal conservatism, have been using their loudest bullhorns to defend the actions of government officials and the military industrial complex, calling these actions "right for the public interest".

I am not sorry to say that any man who wishes these actions to continue or to propagate some idea of immunity for those involved are of the lowest respectable people of this earth to me. The idea that in order for "the good of the public" this evil must exist and be administered to other humans is completely asinine and reprehensible.

"No good can come from this evil,

 no justice can come from torture 

and no light from this darkness."

Torture is Torture no matter the reason or the results.
Torture is not acceptable when those you vote for say it is and those that follow them allow themselves to commit it. Shame not only for the politicians who contrive this action but all those in uniform or suit in the name of the government that facilitated or propagated torture of any other person. No act that is immoral for an individual to do unto others suddenly or miraculously becomes moral with the sanction of a State or central authority.

As Murray Rothbard states "In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society...if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes." (Ch. 2, "Property and Exchange")

Government according to P.J. Proudhon

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.

To be governed is be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped,measured, numbered, assessed,licensed, authorized, admonished,prevented, forbidden, reformed,corrected, punished.

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, be placed under contribution,drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, funded, vilified harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned,shot deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

That is government; that is its justice, that is its morality

P.J. Proudhon 1923

Oklahoma attack. 9/26/2014

Regarding the "attack" today in Oklahoma.

Until photo evidence is produced I cannot reasonably believe this man had enough time to behead someone, and attack another. I can believe slitting the throat, cutting a large portion of neck area or even multiple stabs to the neck.

Regarding the claim this man tried to "convert" others. This could be an exaggerated claim. He may have spoken to others of his conversion and how or why they may convert, or it could just be an unsubstantiated claim made out of sensationalism and recklessness.

In any case the events of the day are horrible and should be denounced by all that reject any such acts.

On Hobbes the Philosopher

Reading the book, The Standard Bookshelf, Great Philosophers by S.E. Frost Jr., I came across the authors view of Hobbes in his Chapter Man and the State 

  pg. 216.
Frost writes,
"The materialist, Thomas Hobbes, based his theory of the state upon the fundamental principle that man has the natural right to do anything which he pleases. The most primitive urge of all men is that of self-preservation. To accomplish this end, man may use any means he deems necessary. In this state of nature man may invade the rights of others with the  result that chaos reigns"

In this assessment of Hobbesian theory, any man can and will violate the very basic rights of another for their own gain and this is to be seen as a natural state of man. In this theory, a man who wishes to obtain land or wealth simply must be stronger than those that he wishes to obtain them from. By that it stands to reason that what Hobbes describes as rights are in fact only permissible actions or objects, since any man can come along and take them away. In a way, we live in that Hobbesian world now.

The next paragraph, "Man is, then, fundamentally a ferocious animal, one who engages in war and pillage, seeking always his own gain. But in such a state no man can be strong enough to preserve himself for long. Each man will destroy the others and he in turn will be destroyed by others."

In this part of the theory all actions are seen to only benefit the one at the expense of all others. The author makes it clear that in the Hobbesian model all men are expendable to the strongest other and in the end it shall be the strongest that survives and thrives until another rises to be stronger still.

He continues, "Thus, to escape from this inevitable end, man creates a society in which he voluntarily gives up his rights in many matters. This is a contract which men make with each other by which they give up certain rights in order to obtain others which they desire. To insure this mutual contract, men transfer power to one ruler or an assembly. After the ruler has been set up and given power, the men must obey."

The creation of "society" is done by the mergence of all interactions and individual actions of all living beings in any geographical area. What the author is trying to establish is Hobbes' inclination to the voting of given power, but then negates that by establishing the subjecting class of individual to obey this ruler. The inherent fault of modern voting is that even those that do not wish for that particular ruler or any rulers at all are subjected to the will of the majority because of some cosmic happenstance of geographical location relative to others. If one objects to those rulers or rulers in the general sense they are vilified and accused of "Utopian Idealism". The author charges that Hobbes was a monarchist, trying to defend the right and rule of the King of England. He made his theory to fit a mold of this belief.

Later in this dissection of Hobbesian theory Frost writes, "Hobbes recognizes, that at times the ruler will be unjust and will wreak hardships upon men. But they have no right to rebel. Hobbes justifies this position by holding that even at their worst, the injustices of a ruler are never so bad as the original state of man before power was given to the ruler."  

This is the mindset of those minarchist, monarchist, communists, socialists and all other forms of rule against individual secession and anarchy. Those that can give up their rights, and in turn the rights of others, for the gain of rule over them and given no form or function to remove these self locked chains are the sort this world is full of at the moment.

This theory is obvious in its practice today in our modern world. Its adherence is cast into all young people through mandatory hours of subjection to state made educational programs. This theory is not one that recognizes the inherent natural rights of man but rather forms them to be basic, aggressive and completely arbitrary to the will of the strongest man around. In nature the theory of " the strongest survive" is given leeway to man's ultimate desire without the least inclination to the fundamental rights of others. It is a theory of "you have right to what you can take and what you can keep, and you have a right to elect those that will take for you, but have no right to reduce or refuse that elected power". Seems pretty counterintuitive to a wholly moral philosophy in my personal opinion.

John Locke, philosopher, had a very different idea of the rights of man. I will detail this authors writings of Locke in a later post.

Follow The Jefferson Papers on Facebook.
Or you can follow me on Twitter.

Jennifer Lawrence, NSA and Your Information.

The internet is ablaze with stories of Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities having photographs released to the digital world via hacking into multiple iCloud accounts.

In July Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor, released information that implicates the US's National Security Agency (NSA) in the collection, and inter-agency distribution of photos of American Citizens. These photos are of the same nature as these celebrities and should be taken just as seriously. But it seems as fast as this story by Snowden broke, it fizzled away almost unnoticed. What is the major difference here?

Can it be that the images of these very few celebrities have been given a higher value than that of every other person taking these types of photos? Absolutely. Whenever a person places an individual value on something it becomes a product of acquisition for others searching for their own valuable item, in this case money or notoriety. Can it be that the very nature of why they were "stolen" in the first place; the celebs being for mere entertainment and carnal value and the other for what the vast majority of Americans claim as "National Security"? Whenever people place a greater value on the very few of any given grouping of people a classification is born and in that some sort of exclusions can be placed into those classifications. In this case it is excusable for some that the NSA, because of its task at "security" can collect this information at all. While it then becomes unexcusable for a private person to do the same to a select group of others who are seen as more valuable than the whole of the population, based on the idea that these celebrities have a right to privacy. What is missed here is that the right to privacy is an inherent right to all people, not just celebrities. That right has been violated repeatedly and it has been reported and brought to light repeatedly, though not much in the way of protest happens.

One thing to remember also in this is the level of security to be expected from a public information cloud. Celebrities and everyone else would do well to understand how these things work and the level of risk they place themselves in whenever they join or publish to these services. Google+, iCloud and other cloud services should be better prepared for the inevitable breaches and security risks they will encounter.

While Apple is taking into their own investigation of how these breaches were made and to track down those that did it, it is almost laughable that anyone really cares at all.

Are they Rights or Permissions?

I have heard a few people recently exclaim they do not believe in the theory of "Natural Rights" but more in a theory that we, as humans, can do only what outside persons allow us to do or help us to do. This seems a crazy concept to myself, and probably to quite a few of my readers, so I wanted to take a moment to touch on this idea, and to ask for any feedback on the idea of  "permissible actions rather than explicit natural rights"

The beginning of this theory it is said relates to the young, the newly born, the ones unable to provide for themselves to ensure their safety, security, and prosperity. This part of the theory relies on the fact that as an infant, and what I would supposed to be also the case in a geriatric stage, that these beings need help to perform tasks and actions just for their basic survival. This is said to be the stage at which a person would not have a right to anything but rather a dependency on others to perform actions for it and can choose whether or not to do so.
Question: Under this theory I can conclude these people to say that a child has no "right" to live but only a permission to do so under the care of others, is this to say that even after birth, a child, a human being has no right to life and can be killed by its caretakers on a notion that they did not give permission for its survival and chose not to nurture the child until it was self sufficient?

That is a maddening thought to me; one that takes away the most basic humanity of people and subjects them to a form of barbarity and cruelty I do not want to know or ever allow to exist. I would seriously question the morality of anyone who dares to agree to that.


Under this theory all human action is delegated to permissions from what we can label "society". If this society allows us to own a home, we can, but if they do not than we cannot. This point can be taken with all property, actions, and production. In this theory only that which is allowed, by what I am to assume is a majority, can be be done. What a scary theory indeed. A socialistic, communal, decision can affect the lives of everyone. But let us not think of it only in what can be called negative rights or what is not permitted. Let us take this theory to positive rights or permissions.
If this society were to condone and endorse an act of taking someone's life for a small transgression against another, say you ran over their flower garden (if they are allowed to have one) with your car (if you are allowed to have one) and the result of this would be in the norm for the transgressor to be killed by the victim.
What has been done to justify the taking of life? What has been done to rectify the situation other than to kill the other party? What positive effect can come of this?

If in this self indulgent society where permission is a valid use of force and judgement of others, the idea were to arise that an act in violation of one's morals were to become routine and customary, made to be privy to the permission of the majority vote, would they then regard the notion of permission over rights as invalid?

Rights exist regardless of the permission granted by anyone, it is the practice of those rights that is in question of permissibility. In that, a look into private property rights would be more influential.
If a man were to allow or disallow an act in or on their property, it is the act of permission that can be charged as hindering rights.  In that aspect all property owners have a right to refuse or allow whatever actions they feel comfortable with and assume all risks therein in response to those actions. It is still not to say that natural rights do not exist, but that the practice of those rights have been trumped by others natural rights.

This entire argument bases itself on the thought that Natural Rights do not exist when in fact it is a study into the permission of the practice of those rights that is the argument. One can do well to recognize the argument as a fallacious debate on two entirely different aspects of human behavior and interaction.

Remembering Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz was an amazing person. Inspiring and influential. His impact on this generation and future ones can and will be seen in the ways information is shared and the type of digital world we leave to posterity. His voice resonated around the world, with his message that all information should be free, the new education of people can take shape. It was through his mind ideas like Reddit, Think Progress, Creative Commons and a host of government accountability websites were brought into existence or improved upon. He was an incredibly intelligent person and will be missed by millions, some without even a knowledge of who he was or the impact he has made.

This is a copy of the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, though not confirmed to be his lone hand that wrote this, it was signed with his name. It's message is strong, it is needed and it should be heard and carried further.

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto 

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for 
themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries 
in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of 
private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the 
sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier. 

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought 
valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure 
their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But 
even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. 
Everything up until now will have been lost. 

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their 
colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? 
Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to 
children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable. 

"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they 
make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — 
there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's 
already being done: we can fight back. 

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been 
given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world 
is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for 
yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords 
with colleagues, filling download requests for friends. 



Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been 
sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by 
the publishers and sharing them with your friends. 

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or 
piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a 
ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only 
those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. 

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate 
require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they 
have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who 
can make copies. 

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the 
grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public 
culture. 

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with 
the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need 
to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific 
journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open 
Access. 

With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the 
privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us? 

Aaron Swartz 

July 2008, Eremo, Italy

To quote Tim Berners-Lee proclaimed inventor of the world wide web...




"We’ve lost a fighter. We've lost somebody who put huge energy into righting wrongs. There are people around the world who take it on themselves to just try to fix the world but very few of them do it 24/7 like Aaron. Very few of them are as dedicated. So of the people who are fighting for right, and what he was doing up to the end was fighting for right, we have lost one of our own. … We’ve lost a great person. But also, we've lost somebody who needed to be nurtured, who needed to be protected. I didn’t work with Aaron as closely as many people here, but I got the sense that all who have known him realized that he needed to be protected. He needed to be held carefully in our hands. He needed to be nurtured. So nurturers of the world, everyone who tried to make a place safe to work or a home safe to live, anyone who listens to another, looks after another or feeds another, all parents everywhere — we've lost a child. And there’s nothing worse than that."
Aaron was a genius in his own way and a brilliant mind, one that we sorely need. His perseverance in the fight for the uninhibited sharing of information and knowledge was amazing and his passion for doing all he could to release the grips of censorship, especially in academia. His devotion to the idea that ideas and knowledge should not be hidden away in storerooms and servers but instead freely broadcast is a brave goal.  His idea was to change the world and in his own way he did just that. 

There are multiple sites to look at his life, his work, those that knew him and those that benefitted from his work. Wikipedia, being a model of like mind to Aaron's is an excellent starting point.

As I was doing some reading on the life of Aaron and his mission, his message and his influence into todays tech culture I found this, a documentary of his life, as he lived it, with those he shared it with and his brilliance and his untimely death. 

To watch the movie "The Internet's Own Boy" a documentary of Aaron Swartz and his life, his accomplishments and his impact go here... 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/internet-own-boy-story-aaron-swartz/

Libertarian X-Men

I went to see the latest edition of the Marvel Super Hero Comic movie X-Men Days of Future Past. One thing that hit me harder than the action and drama is something I don't think a lot of people picked up on. Many in the libertarian circles have heard of the tenacious debate on Humanitarian versus Brutalist Libertarians, and I know I have written on it before, but this movie brought up some good ideas in my head.

While the X-Men led by Professor Charles Xavier and Magneto are searching for a way to bring a close to a long battle between humans and mutants, their means for doing so are entirely different. Much like the struggle to get others to see our way of thinking or even just another way of thinking and in our efforts to bring more people to support the cause of freedom and liberty. In this effort, it seems Libertarians, Anarchists and Volunatryists are what is seen as the mutants and the rest of the population as the the non mutant humans. The division between the means of change seems the same as Xavier and Magneto. And though the ends are the same it is the means which can have the most positive or negative impact on the outcome.

Charles Xavier is what we can call the Humanitarian, wanting to find a peaceful way to end the hate for mutants. Using education and awareness he and his school hope to form a partnership with non humans so that all can live in the same world unhindered by the biases and hate towards one another. This is the peaceful way to change hearts and minds, to gain new supporters and to gain a level of respect for the cause. his fight is not against the humans so much as it is against the biases and fear inside them, he is combating years of indoctrination and programming. Much like what we see here in the real world, it is the perception and the manipulation of that perception that makes the biggest imprint on the non mutants minds and their attitudes. If they see good coming from the mutant they can see that the fear and hate embedded in them is meaningless and false.

Magneto on the other hand is what we can call the Brutalist. He has experienced the pain of human hate and has endured what most would not even dare to imagine. His roots and life have revolved around that pain, that mistrust and the retribution he sees as his duty to repay. Magneto's ways are seen as the aggressor in most instances, and as his only defense. It is safe to say that Magneto would not be the most popular guy at the end of the battle, but his means lead to the same goal. In this last movie Magneto uses force to combat a threat against his own self and others, this can be seen as justifiable use of force as a defense.

The common goal between the two ends of this fictional movie spectrum is much the same as it is for the Humanitarian and Brutalist Libertarians. The argument for the brutalists is that their way shows one end of freedom. The freedom to decide what to say, who to associate with and the very act of discrimination, which of course in this day and age is seen as a negative. Though years ago to call someone discriminating was a compliment. It was seen as a positive that a man could distinguish between his tastes and his wants to make choices based on his own self interests, modern redefinition has turn this word to have a negative connotation. Now to say a man is discriminating is an insult and seen as a negative insight into his behavior or being. Those that use the brutalist way may not get more people to join in with them but they do serve as a reminder of what freedom is and how we must deal with the differing views of others.

Humanitarians are determined to show the utmost positive aspects of freedom while the brutalists show us that there are those that will still have discriminatory tastes and behaviors This again is to their own benefit or demise and should not be restricted from them. Much as Magneto and Professor X battle the line of how to progress the ideology, it will in the end be to the perception of those looking in.


Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers
                          or
Connect with me on Liberty.me @BeardedLibertyGuy

The Ability to kill American Citizens

The ability to condemn a citizen to death without trial is one that will find very little resistance  in the wake of the ever-long battle in the Middle East and the persecution anyone the Government *thinks* is a threat. There does not need to be any proof, there doesn't have to be any trial, it is just this ability to kill and justify it through the rules of engagement or to completely write it off as security measures. This action will not be met with much resistance from the public, as the years of fear programming, hate education and misinformation makes its way to the public eyes through media and a preposterous White House Press Secretary.

The recent release of documents relating to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) openly admits that the government of the United States of America considers itself able to kill its citizens without trial or conviction. These powers they have delegated to themselves stems from the apparent belief that the US Government is above the moral and acceptable practice of allowing a person to defend themselves legally and to submit to the courts a defense of accusations against them.

This request was entered in an attempt to gain information on the drone strikes that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi; his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi; and Samir Khan in Yemen September 2011. These strikes were carried out by CIA and other Federal departments along with the military and its drone pilots and crews. The claim that any of these three citizens posed a risk or imminent threat, to the US or any of its interests has never before be substantiated by evidence, just the reports and words of officials within the government and its military. Drone strikes being a preferred method of killing in the Middle East by the American government, many foreign people have lost their lives to these machines, the issue America has at the moment is the way to justify killing an American Citizen in contrast to the United States Constitution that has provisions outlined for the rightful trial by jury and knowledge of charges.

"It is a dangerous notion when your government can make you believe its enemies are yours"

This is not the first time the United States government has killed citizens without trial. Two other cases, The Ruby Ridge Shootout and the Attack on the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco Texas stand as the predecessors, along with many other instances, to justifying murder of citizens. These two incidents are all but forgotten to most and the events leading up to both are the same as the drone strikes that killed these 3 American Citizens.

Each of these cases has the same question. Why is a Government allowed to kill citizens and justify it one way or another. If the Constitution stands as the great tool Conservatives say it is, why then has the Government not answered for its trespass of Amendments securing rights of trial?

The Attack on Branch Davidians, more commonly known as the Waco Siege, took place on April 19, 1993 after 51 days of negotiations. Koresh was accused of practicing polygamy and abusing children, but that wasn’t what the Government was concerned with. The ATF had been tipped off by a UPS driver that had made earlier deliveries that some of the packages contained what looked like hand grenade casings. While owning inert grenade casings is not a crime in of itself, the ATF procured a warrant to search the Church and compound for “illegal” weapons.  When the Davidians refused entranced into their compound the ATF and Local Police used a military type vehicle to punch holes into the sides of building and inserted CS gas. Later in the day, after heavy exchanges of gunfire by both sides a fire erupted killing 75 of the remaining women, men and children.

This attack has been debated heavily over the ensuing years and has never satisfied the questions. Does a government have a right to search an individual’s personal property, whether with a warrant or not? Does a government have the right to initiate an attack on a religious compound? Why does this government have a right to kill citizens without trial? Could this event have been avoided?

Similar to The Waco Siege and not too long before another attack on citizens took place; this time ending the lives of a mother and a son, along with a Federal Law Enforcement Officer.  The Ruby Ridge Raid was again perpetrated on the belief in illegality of weapons and the sale of those weapons. So many events leading up to the siege made this a contentious affair.

All of this leads back to the question. Does Government, any Government have the authority and justification to kill its own citizens without trial or conviction? Since the value of life and the difference in opinion on the legal and philosophical view of this matter varies so drastically it cannot be answered by one person, but rather should be self reflected on. Ask yourself the questions: When did it become permitted that any enemy of a government should have the right to stand trial stripped from them? When did it become permissible to kill a man without his knowledge he is even considered a threat? When did our government stop relying on its own form of inter control and instead subject themselves as a higher moral ruler than the natural rights of man? How long will it be before those that I associate with, or even myself, are considered a threat to the government and are snuffed out without standing to our accused?

With this said and with these questions put out to your own reflection I will offer this last statement . I vehemently oppose any form of government the ability or justification to kill a man, anywhere in the world, from any foreign or domestic place, of any creed or color, of any religion or preference without the ability to defend himself in a court of resolutions. I see this as a violation of natural rights and a gross violation of a moral and civil society. 

Do Philosophies Change Because of Children?

Yesterday my wife and I were at the gym, when a woman interjected herself into our conversation. The conversation we were having ,before this interruption, was on a small bit of success I had that day talking to a co-worker. This woman, who unbeknownst to us had been listening in, asked us if we have any children. We responded with a no, and she told us that our thinking would change if we had kids and it is nice to be idealistic. This caused me to just turn and silently laugh to myself. I honestly do not know where people come up with some of this stuff, but OK, let's address this real quick.

My wife and I do not have kids based on choices we have made to be financially secure enough to not have to struggle if and when we do have children. Our goal is to have a single income home with my wife homeschooling our kids, as it is right now, with debt we had put ourselves into and other very visible issues with the World and US economy it is not feasible at this particular time, that is a decision we live with daily, as both of have a goal to have children.

What this woman had assumed is that with having children our ideology or philosophy would change. That may be true in some cases, but she failed to realize or even acknowledge that she had not the faintest idea of what our philosophy is or what our beliefs are. To understand that what we advocate is freedom for every person and the economic conditions to prosper for everyone, free of state or government control, to rid the world of any semblance of servitude or slavery of any kind. I am not sure how this would change having a child.

This is not the first time I have heard this being said. It is quite a popular expression to tell others that their ideals, their morals, and their values change with the addition of parental roles. I have never understood this concept.

I believe theft is wrong, would this somehow become moral if a child was involved? Taking someone's life is also wrong in my eyes, would this somehow be altered if I had considered the effect it would have on my child. I am not sure what people who use this saying are trying to express or even what they believe how a moral standing, a philosophy would change with having a child.

I did not respond to this woman's claim, though looking back I should have. I could have asked these questions to her, maybe to find she doesn't actually believe in what she just said, or maybe to find her justify what she said with fallacies or even popular myths and excuses.

What needs to be said is this. By changing the dynamics and structure of family units a real philosophical and moral standing should not change but become ever stronger. It should be passed on and expressed to the heirs and inheritors to the spaces we inhabit and the world we leave behind. It should be lived, experienced and taught to those we bring into this world, with no exceptions or justifications for going against these beliefs.

To this woman I say this. Your unfounded accusation and assumption that a belief would change as the family unit count increases was completely unwanted and unwarranted. What you said may be the case with some people, but in those cases I would say that the beliefs or morals of those people were not solid, they were not the philosophical foundation  that these people try to live their lives around and they were not the values that were likely to be taught and carried on to later generations.

Brutalism As A Trend

As many in the Libertarian circles and liberty movement general groups are aware there is a stir growing around an article by Jeffrey Tucker. His article, "Against Libertarian Brutalism",Tucker tried to explain the thought of what he calls the brutalist, or  for me better labeled the coarse libertarian. These coarse and abrasive libertarians, explains Tucker, are drawn to the ability "to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontent with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms."  As I read the article I had my ideas of who this could be directed at or who at least fit the description and the various reasons why I could see a quick and unrelenting response from the person. Sure enough, within an hour of reading the article there was a response, and from none other than who I felt the original post defined well.

While I do not agree with the severing of the small group of libertarians, I can see where Tucker was coming from. The language and demeanor of the now self gratifying and self identifying Brutalists is something I had noticed before, but shrugged it off as just a way for someone to express themselves.Though it is not the way I would do things or even a way I see as beneficial to advancing the case of liberty.  Even if I don't agree with the ways in which someone wishes to be, I have no power to stop them from doing as they see fit.

Jeffrey Tucker compared this nature of people to an architectural style used from the 1950's through the 1970's. "Brutalism asserted that a building should be no more and no less than what it is supposed to be in order to fulfill its function. It asserted the right to be ugly, which is precisely why the style was most popular among governments around the world, and why brutalist forms are today seen as eyesores all over the world."  What Tucker says here is important, and mostly missed by the responses I have read into since its publication. It is seen that the right to be crude or abrasive is inherent in the rights of all men, but it does not do well in the stand of time, what is seen today as form or function will later be seen as an eyesore or impediment to the advancement to an idea. An idea of individual freedom should not hinge on a case to be offensive just for the sake of being offensive and then to justify the behavior by stating you have the freedom to do so. Of course the freedom to say and do things is a natural right of all people, and of course the right to be offended is in there too. One note that I did take from a lot of the responses to this article is the assumption that Tucker would want to somehow limit or restrict the ability to being a brutalist, I could not find one mention of this idea in any of words he has written on the subject. He even says in his article,"Thus do the brutalists assert the right to be racist, the right to be a misogynist, the right to hate Jews or foreigners, the right to ignore civil standards of social engagement, the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude. It is all permissible and even meritorious because embracing what is awful can constitute a kind of test. After all, what is liberty if not the right to be a boor?" Yes you do have a right to be the way you are and are even encouraged to be this way; for what is freedom but the inner most expressions of oneself to the world without the restrictions or regulations of outside forces?

In order to build a city many styles will be used; some used out of necessity, some out of function, some even for subjective beauty. This is an important idea in the building of any city, while what may seem as an eyesore in the later years, or in the present seen as a style without style, so to speak, still contributes the basis for the idea of that city, it performs a function of being a vessel inside whatever environment it inhabits. The houses and building in any city vary from one another and each has its own value attached by those in and around those structures. Just as in the Humanitarian Vs. Brutalist argument, these two styles will naturally draw and dispel certain people to its respective ranks. As time goes on we will see the effects of what we do and say to other in the progression of this idea of Liberty we all hold dear.

In all the conversations about this topic there is a clear dividing line, and this is the worst of what is happening in my opinion. Instead of being able to work together for the common goal there has come this divide in sections of the same general groups. Mending this gap, I don't think is possible at this time. But we hold hope that together we can move past the smallest details and work for that common end. Individual Liberty.

A friend of mine on Facebook stated it wonderfully.
Say you are to buy a car. Would you want the sales person to come at you with an attitude, to belittle and offend you? Or would you be more receptive to the offers given if the salesperson has a pleasant attitude and disposition? For me this signifies the greatest belief in the good of people and the good that people can bestow upon others. Just because you have the freedom to be brutal doesn't mean you have to be. Selling the idea of liberty and freedom does far more for those that see it in the most positive ways and can again present it in a most positive way.

I hold no discontent or judgement against those that view themselves as the Brutalists, and I hold no higher esteem or reverence for those who identify as the Humanitarians. I see everyone as the individual they are and the many different things they bring into my life and the surrounding environments we both enjoy.

"The Future is Too Good to Waste on Lies": Bowe Bergdahl's Moral Odyssey

Bowe Bergdahl and his mother, Jani.

“I can’t make up my mind to put the damn thing on again. I feel so clean and free. It’s like voluntarily taking up filth and slavery again….I think I’ll just walk off naked across the fields.”

John Andrews, a U.S. soldier in World War I who went AWOL, discusses his uniform in Three Soldiers by John Dos Passos

Trying to find their footing amid a gale-force outpouring of largely manufactured outrage, officials in Hailey, Idaho canceled their long-planned homecoming for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. They were understandably intimidated by the prospect of dealing with thousands of protesters who planned to besiege the tiny central Idaho town to demand the blood of a young man they now regard to be a deserter, and a father they consider a terrorist sympathizer.

To understand the kind of welcome the War Party has been preparing for Bowe and his family, it’s useful to consider the treatment given to the family of World War I-era conscientious objector John Witmer.

A Mennonite from Colombiana, Ohio who was denied a deferment by the local draft board, Witmer died from the Spanish Flu while stationed at Camp Sherman, Ohio. Witmer's lifeless body was returned to his hometown on October 10, 1918, where the family – his father Dan, his siblings, and his fiancee, Nola – was greeted by a silent crowd heavy with sullen disapproval for the “slacker” and his family.

Like thousands of others who shared his faith, John had been kidnapped at gunpoint from his family farm through the evil practice of conscription. The local draft board had turned down John's appeal for Conscientious Objector status, dishonestly assuring him that once he had taken the oath of enlistment he would be recognized as a CO and be given a non-combat assignment.

As with everything else of consequence that emerges from the lips, pen, or keyboard of a government functionary, those assurances were lies.

During wartime, explained Bernard Baruch, the head of the Wilson Regime’s War Industry Board, all “men, money and things” within the government’s claimed jurisdiction “suddenly become a compact instrument of destruction…. [T]he entire population must suddenly cease to be a congeries of individuals, each following a self-appointed course, and become a vast unitary mechanism." John Witmer, like many thousands of others, was designated a “slacker” because he persisted in the belief that he was not the property of the State. His refusal to  undergo military training forbidden by his religious convictions provoked violent reactions from his fellow conscripts, and led to a punitive re-assignment to a CO camp – a detention facility that was also used as a holding pen for German prisoners of war.

The weather turned colder, and influenza – one of the government's chief wartime imports from Europe – propagated itself throughout Camp Sherman.  John pleaded for adequate bedding and dry clothes, to no avail. The isolated, terrified young man contracted the Spanish Flu, from which he soon died.

John's body was returned in a flag-shrouded coffin. While most Americans would regard this as an honor, the Witmer family's convictions didn't allow them to make acts of allegiance to anyone or anything but God. There is a sense in which wrapping John's body in the US flag was one final proprietary gesture by the government that had stolen the young man from the family who loved him, the religious fellowship that had raised him, and the young woman who wanted to be his wife.

The crowd that had congealed at the train station to witness the arrival of John Witmer's body was acutely interested in the reaction of his Mennonite family. Most of the spectators knew that the Mennonites didn't support the war; their principled pacifism had provoked both curiosity and suspicion.

For a brief period, the Witmers enjoyed what could be called probationary sympathy from the crowd. But they quickly learned that few things are likelier to provoke sanctimonious violence from war-maddened Americans than a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm for killing foreigners whom the State has designated the “enemy.”

Slumping beneath a burden no parent should ever bear, Dan Witmer approached the coffin containing his son's body and carefully removed the flag. In doing so, he committed an act regarded as a sacrilege by adherents of the omnivorous idol called the State: Either out of innocent ignorance of, or commendable indifference to, the ritual called “flag etiquette,” Dan folded the banner as he would a blanket.

The crowd, deep in the throes of the psychosis called “war patriotism,” erupted in pious outrage.

“The mood of the onlookers turned from one of sympathy to hostility,” recounts Lily A. Bear in her book Report for Duty.

“Mennonites!” hissed one disgusted onlooker.

“Got what he deserved!” declared another of Dan's dead son.

“Traitor!” bellowed yet another outraged pseudo-patriot.

Someone hurled a stone that hit John's younger brother in the shoulder. A second stone, missing its target, landed at the feet of the mourning father. John's young sister Mary, puzzled and hurt by this display of murderous hatred, began to cry. After making arrangements for his son's funeral, Dan took his family home. This crowd, deprived of the hate objects that had given it cohesion, quickly dissipated.

This repellent spectacle, recall, occurred in a tiny Ohio town nearly one hundred years ago. In this age of saturation media and online social networking, the “homecoming” given the Bergdahl family would likely have been worse by several orders of magnitude.

“I will push for Bowe Bergdahl’s execution during the next Republican administration,” fumed South Carolina Republican agitator Todd Kincannon. “And his dad too. Those who commit treason need to die.” Kincannon’s sentiments are not an aberration.

Bowe’s detractors claim that his desertion cost the lives of U.S. soldiers sent to rescue him – a claim that plays well on talk radio but cannot be substantiated by casualty records. Given the fact that Bowe had expressed his growing misgivings to his superiors, the effort to locate him might have been less a rescue mission that an attempt to locate and re-assimilate a wayward drone who had exhibited troubling symptoms of resurgent individualism.

Like John Witmer, Bowe Bergdahl was raised in a deeply religious home. Unlike Witmer, Bergdahl was not a conscript. Like countless other young men, Bowe was lured into enlisting by a recruiter who cynically appealed to his idealistic and patriotic impulses, and offered lying assurances about the missions he would be required to carry out. Bowe was a committed and disciplined soldier who devoted what private time he had to refining his skills, conditioning his body, and feeding his mind, rather than indulging in recreational vice.
Once he arrived in Afghanistan, Bowe was immediately disillusioned by the corruption and cluelessness displayed by his superiors, the laxity and unprofessionalism of his fellow soldiers, and the criminal indifference to innocent lives that characterized the mission.

“The few good [sergeants] are getting out as soon as they can, and they are telling us privates to do the same,” Bowe informed his father in an e-mail. He decided to act on that advice immediately, explaining to his parents that “The future is too good to waste on lies.”

Bowe’s parents are Christians of the Calvinist persuasion who home-schooled him, instructed him in Christian ethics, and respected his independence of mind and sense of personal responsibility.

“Bowe was a young man with all the dangers of home-schooling – a brilliant and inquisitive mind, a crisp thinker, and someone who had never really been exposed to evil in the world,” recalls Phil Proctor, who was pastor of the Presbyterian Church attended by the Bergdahl family. “He [wanted] to determine whether the Christian faith was his own, or his parents’ and was doing a lot of exploring of ideas – never drugs or alcohol, but trying to be an outdoors/Renaissance type figure.”

When Bowe announced his enlistment in the US Army, Bob didn’t approve but also didn’t discourage him. When Bowe expressed his terminal disgust with the mission in Afghanistan, Bob offered the admonition: “Obey your conscience.”

By offering that advice, rather than rebuking his son or turning him in to his superiors as a potential “shirker,” Bob Bergdahl committed treason, according to his detractors, who insist that loyalty to the Warfare State trumps all other moral commitments.

Bowe’s parents never relented in their efforts to bring their son home. Now their relief over their son’s liberation, and their expressions of unconditional love toward him, are being depicted as evidence of disloyalty to the Regime and even hatred forAmerica.

“Bob felt (with some justification) that the US government was not going to engage with diplomatic efforts and so decided to try to free his son himself,” recounts Pastor Proctor. “He learned Pashtun and developed a lot of contacts in the Middle East. The Qatar connection is one that either originated with Bob or, at the very least, became very personally connected to Bob. Bob has, for quite some time, been saying that the closure of Guantanamo is integrally connected to the release of his son.”

In addition to placing his duty to his son above loyalty to the State, Bob Bergdahl’s offenses include learning the language of his captors and expressing the heretical view that God disapproves of death of Afghan children. Even Bob’s beard is presented as evidence of his supposed affinity for Islamic jihad, a charge that – if applied even-handedly – could justify a drone strike targeting the cast of Duck Dynasty.

Rather than being a jihadist sleeper cell, as they are being portrayed by War Party dead-enders, the Bergdahls are Christian individualists. Their moral universe is defined by the Two Great Commandments (that we love our Creator and love our neighbors as ourselves ) and biblical teachings regarding the reciprocal moral duties of parents and children. They do not place allegiance to the State above loyalty to their family – which to a statist is an unforgivable heresy.

Speaking on FoxNews, Dr. Keith Ablow – displaying the ideologically inspired certitude of a Brezhev-era Soviet psychiatrist – discerned “narcissistic” tendencies in the entire Bergdahl family. Bowe’s desire for adventure and self-directed nature indicate that “he can’t really serve the nation … because he’s serving himself.” Bowe’s individualism was a form of “addiction,” insisted Commissar Ablow, eliciting coos of thoughtful assent from the Fox News personalities interviewing him, one of whom was prompted to underscore the importance of “obey[ing] your commander, rather than your conscience,” which is a decidedly a pre-Nuremberg order of moral priorities .

Bowe’s incorrigible commitment to his conscience is to be expected, Commissar Ablow continued, given that Bowe was raised in a family displaying a tendency “to distance one’s self from institutions, to diminish the rule of law and to elevate the individual above all else.” The problem with the Bergdahls, Ablow suggested, was that they “don’t feel part of our country.” The exchange of five Gitmo detainees for “somebody who didn’t feel very American” resulted in “a tremendously psychologically dispiriting moment for our people,” summarized the putative doctor, who strikes me as the kind of person who would consider the public execution of the entire Bergdahl family to be a moment of communal healing.

For people in the grip of war patriotism, the proper role for Bob and Jani Bergdahl was described in Livy’s account of the Horatti, or sons of Horace. During one of the countless conflicts in Rome's early expansion, Horace's triplet sons volunteered to engage three brothers from a rival tribe on the battlefield. The victors would win, on behalf of their city-state, possession of a strategically crucial – and now long-forgotten -- village.

Rome’s opponents were killed in a battle that also claimed two of Horace’s sons. In the subsequent victory celebration Horace lost one of his daughters as well: She was killed by the surviving brother as punishment for her romantic dalliance with an enemy of Rome. Horace bore the losses stoically, as befitting a father who sought above all things the greater glory of the government that claimed him.

Under that model of “patriotism” – which inspired the totalitarian French Jacobins, as well as their ideological offspring in Italy and Germany – Bob Bergdahl’s duty was to chastise his errant son, and exhort him to be true and faithful in carrying out the State’s murderous errand. If Bowe were to be killed by Afghans defending their country, his parents were expected to regard their son as an exalted hero, and their irreplaceable loss as a holy privilege.

Bowe was hardly the first American soldier whose understandable disillusionment led him to quit while deployed overseas.

                                                              

“I cannot support a mission that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,” wrote

Colonel Ted Westhusing, a West Point Graduate, Special Forces veteran, and devout Catholic husband and father, in a despairing e-mail to his family. “I am sullied. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. Death before being dishonored any more.”

A few hours later Col. Westhusing shot himself in the head, ending his life less than a month before his tour of duty was scheduled to end. In the fashion of “Doctor” Ablow, an Army psychologist who reviewed Westhusing's e-mails following his suicide determined that the Colonel was “unusually rigid in his thinking” and unreasonably committed to his moral code.

 Army Specialist Alyssa Peterson was also devoutly religious, a former Mormon missionary from Flagstaff, Arizona. Like Bowe and Bob Bergdahl, Peterson had what one friend described as an “amazing” ability to learn languages, an aptitude that helped her learn Arabic at the Army's Defense Language Institute. Spec. Peterson volunteered for duty in Iraq, where she was sent to help interrogate prisoners and translate captured documents at an air base in Tal-Afar.

And, like Ted Westhusing, Alyssa Peterson was driven to suicidal depression as a result of the role the regime forced her to play in Iraq.

“Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners,” summarized Reporter Kevin Elston, who was using the official euphemism for “torture.” “She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokesmen for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed.”

Immediately after lodging her objections, Alyssa was reassigned and sent to suicide prevention training; her suicide note took ironic notice of the fact that the “prevention” training actually instructed her in the best way to kill herself.

“What right had a man to exist who was too cowardly to stand up for what he thought and felt … for everything that made him an individual apart from his fellows, and not a slave to stand cap in hand waiting for someone of stronger will to act?” asked John Andrews, a WWI-era deserter, in John Dos Passos’ novel Three Soldiers. It’s quite likely that Ted Westhusing and Alyssa Peterson asked that question of themselves. Bowe Bergdahl’s emails to his father make it clear that he was pondering that question at the time of his desertion.

Implicated in grotesque crimes against decency, Col. Westhusing and Spec. Peterson “deserted” through suicide. They were buried with honors, and their bereaved families received sympathy, rather than scorn. Rather than ending his life, or allowing it to be wasted in the service of lies, Bowe Bergdahl sought to reclaim it on his own terms – and this is why War Party fundamentalists are seeking to not only to imprison him, but to destroy his entire family. 

This is a re-blog from Pro Libertate: "The Future is Too Good to Waste on Lies": Bowe Bergdahl's Moral Odyssey. Used with permission.

Author 

William N. Grigg

Payette, Idaho, United States

Christian Individualist, husband, father, self-appointed pundit.

Right to Life and the Right to Die: Rethinking what that means.

What does it mean to be Pro-Life? In the popular definition it is the protection of life, usually meant in the ways of protecting an unborn child from the choice of abortion. I wrote previously about that choice as I see it as the individual rights of the mother and father to make that choice up to a defined and measurable heartbeat of the fetus. But what I want to talk about is not about the choice of abortion or even the choice of being Pro-Life. What I aim to highlight is a discrepancy I see in the train of thought of some of those that claim to hold a Pro-Life moral philosophy. It is without a doubt a worthy venture to protect human life, and I do not see anything wrong with that philosophy, what I do see though is certain disconnects in the Pro-Life mindsets of some people I have conversed with recently.

I make the case that if you are Pro-Life for the life of a child you should carry that philosophy all the way through the life of the individual. This would be a consistent and principled stance in the protection of life in all instances, rather than an exclusionary and emotional response.

 Three areas I see in conflict with this proposed philosophy are (1) the approval and endorsement of acts of war and violence in certain circumstances and under the guise of government acts or employ, (2) calling for death penalties and the lifelong incarcerations of individuals, and (3) has to do more with the choices within the timeline of life and the ultimate choice in life that some take is to voluntarily end theirs, the ability to live a life they see fit without hindrance or opinionated laws restricting them.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death?

The war screams and pro-military intervention crowds really confuse me. These groups seem to be made up more from people who hold a Pro-Life stance, odd as that might be. It’s as if the concept of death escapes by some sort of justification or moral high ground. It is this missed concept that confuses me. If one holds a belief that life should be protected and nourished, then it should stand to apply across the board, that ALL life be protected. Unfortunately it is, in the minds of many, exclusionary, it holds an asterisk* to the end of a sentence, it includes only those that the believer holds as superior or more important in having this life that is protected. If the Pro-Life believers were true to their claimed philosophy they would be against all forms of killing, whether in the employment of a government or not. As governments around the world push harder and harder to either remain sovereign or to remain in their place of self-indulging and self-proclaimed superiority they employ forces of individuals to do their deeds. In these deeds is often the chance to either kill or be killed while serving. As a supporter of a mindset that all life should be protected, these acts should be overwhelmingly opposed by the Pro-Life individuals. But what is reality? Reality is a far cry from a firm stance on that philosophy.

In the same vein of military the increasing amount of cases of death at the hands of police should be noted as a discrepancy as well. For too long now we have seen the ever increasing brutality of the world’s police forces, for too long now these killings by police officers have gone somewhat hidden or unnoticed by the public. Not so much anymore. With the rise in technology in cellphones the capability to take video and to make it public instantly has become a nuisance to police and a help to those who call for accountability and transparency. The act of killing a person in the line of duty has long been associated with the job description of police officers, and there are many reasons why this is so, but this should not give them unrestrained abilities to murder without recourse. This should not give them amnesty in the eyes of justice. It should not grant them the blindness and permit to take life from the Pro-Life believers.  If it is wrong for one to kill it is equally wrong for every other person no matter what clothes you wear, no matter what taken not granted authority you claim to have.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty?

The Death Penalty has been a mainstay of execution methods for well over 100 years in the US. It is without a doubt the second most controversial discussion of social order aside from abortion. It comes from a line of thought that states and federal governments should have the legal authority and moral judgment to adjudicate a person to die by various means in government run institutions. Looking at some polls and opinion survey results from different groups and institutions it seems Americans in particular are keen to the death penalty and see it as a moral means to the subjective idea of social justice. In the comment sections of local and national news I see daily comments that support the state’s ability to kill a person for a transgression it was not harmed in; unless we count the case of murder as an act of taking a revenue source from the state as the act that which is being punished. In the minds of these commenters there is the ability to convey an idea that justifiable murder can take place in the case of agents or agencies of the government committing the act. Like the other instances of the discrepancy in the line of thought of Pro-Life thinkers, can you really claim to protect a life in one circumstance and reject this thought in another? Can you say that humans can lose the ability or favor of being important enough to be spared from death? At what point would a person lose this ability? Can one re-gain the lost ability or favor by any means; repentance, restitution, admitting guilt and wrongdoing? Can one ever regain the protection of their life?

The difference in being Pro-Life and being Pro-Living.

Many people I have talked to have a thought that Pro-Life is only the idea to protect the actual life from being destroyed, but what about the act of living that life, what about the actions and choice in that life? Shouldn’t those also be protected from interference and hindrance? What if the action or choice was so out of the norms that it goes against the position of being Pro-Life but is in line with being free to make decisions for one-self? What if a person’s choice was to voluntarily end their own life? I know suicide is a not too talked about topic in the right to life or Pro-Life circles, but does it not conclude that the right to life would also include the right to end that life by choice? In my personal opinion this choice cannot be made for another person, as well as it cannot be stopped by any person. The right to life and the right to live a free life includes a right to cease to live. Voluntary removal from the situation and circumstance too big to handle for some is nothing new, it should neither be banned nor openly endorsed, it is a choice and rightfully should be made only by individuals. This is the case of protecting the act of living over the act of life itself, the act of making choices rather than living by someone else’s standards, the act of remaining free over remaining caged by societal norms and traditions.  

I know this seems in contradiction to what I have written above, but consider a new way of looking at the issue of life. Being alive does not guarantee happiness, it does not guarantee equality, it does not afford us fairness and sometimes that is just too much for someone to take. The act of protecting a life may in the best case be to let it go.  To let the choice be made and to exit in the time, place and situations they may choose. So in the end the position to be Pro-Life must at some times be to be Pro-Choice. It must sometimes be to embrace the act of death for one to live a life worth living.

Right to Life and Pro-Life labels being thrown around leaves a lot to be defined.  Let this be my contribution to the thought of what it can mean to be Pro-Life in all instances, what it means to take a serious, principled stance for the protection of life under all circumstances.