hero: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities (dictionary.comThe first addendum to be made, is to clarify that this title can be attributed to both males and females. The proximity of the words heroine and heroin, make it awkward to refer to female champions as heroines. The word actress has been nixed for actor, the same can and should be done for this category of human action.
Anytime an armed human initiates violence, or aggresses, against a group of humans it is despicable, deplorable and downright dirty. When the aggressor does this indiscriminately, it is even more so. When the aggressor is an adult, and the victims are elementary school children, it sets a brush fire of emotion in the minds of men. So that you stick your head out of your window and yell "I'm AS MAD AS HELL, AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"
We sympathize with the scariness of the loss of life. I and I empathize with the family members of the victims. This is oneness. This is unity. This is humanity.
The anger is not useful if maintained, and used to respond to this aggression with more aggression. To end cyclical aggression, it is essential to seek the root of the problem. To seek this systemic change is radical. The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is not the end all be all of morality, but it is the radical first step. A calm, cool, and collected deliberation of human action, after rage can make this subject clear. The NAP states that aggression, alternatively expressed as the initiation of violence, is morally reprehensible always and everywhere.
Armed gunmen who blithely murder children are wrong. Soldiers of invading forces are wrong. Criminal cohorts that plan and attempt to commit theft of jewelry are wrong. Savings stealers, Orwellianly referred to as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), are wrong. Kidnappers, whether or not they seek ransom, are wrong. Supporters of the prison industrial complex, a gang of kidnappers writ large, are wrong.
The beginning of positive change is the usage of language. If we are not able to identify and distinguish the morally reprehensible categories of human action from those that are not, we have no chance at stopping them. The prescient issue of the day is gun control. The economic debate on this is important, but I will not delve deep into it. One side wants to abolish the ownership of guns, and the other wants no restrictions. The liberal position should be evident. If one could succeed in asking for the peaceful forfeiture of all weapons, then I would advocate this position. We are not in this fantastical world. We are in the real world. Aggressors exist and they are best combated when there is uncertainty of the armed status of their victims.
Why do a large number of individuals valorize the initiation of violence? Why do these individuals give their consent to an organization, the State, that cannot exist without being an aggressor? What can fanatics of loving, peaceful, and voluntary exchange do to convince others that aggression is wrong?
James Poulos writes, at Forbes, that
our soldiers are often so much more heroic than the rest of us.
Earlier in his piece Poulos notes that Chris Hayes's discussion of soldiers and heroism is not as antiwar as Catch 22 or All Quiet on the Western Front. Hayes feels a slight discomfort with referring to all individuals of invading forces as heroes. Perhaps, he would feel comfortable valorizing a limited number of invaders here and there. I am not so restrained in my diction. A duck is a duck, an invader is a murderer, and a taxer is a thief. The valorization of aggression can be pinned to misunderstanding. When the truth of moral absolutes is properly understood, the vagaries and purposefully confounding political euphemisms desist.
Please read Anatomy of the State, also here, to understand what exactly the State is. If Murray Rothbard is wrong, refute his arguments. If not, then it stands that
Armed gunmen who blithely murder children are wrong. Soldiers of invading forces are wrong. Criminal cohorts that plan and attempt to commit theft of jewelry are wrong. Savings stealers, Orwellianly referred to as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), are wrong. Kidnappers, whether or not they seek ransom, are wrong. Supporters of the prison industrial complex, a gang of kidnappers writ large, are wrong.
The beginning of positive change is the usage of language. If we are not able to identify and distinguish the morally reprehensible categories of human action from those that are not, we have no chance at stopping them. The prescient issue of the day is gun control. The economic debate on this is important, but I will not delve deep into it. One side wants to abolish the ownership of guns, and the other wants no restrictions. The liberal position should be evident. If one could succeed in asking for the peaceful forfeiture of all weapons, then I would advocate this position. We are not in this fantastical world. We are in the real world. Aggressors exist and they are best combated when there is uncertainty of the armed status of their victims.
Why do a large number of individuals valorize the initiation of violence? Why do these individuals give their consent to an organization, the State, that cannot exist without being an aggressor? What can fanatics of loving, peaceful, and voluntary exchange do to convince others that aggression is wrong?
James Poulos writes, at Forbes, that
our soldiers are often so much more heroic than the rest of us.
Earlier in his piece Poulos notes that Chris Hayes's discussion of soldiers and heroism is not as antiwar as Catch 22 or All Quiet on the Western Front. Hayes feels a slight discomfort with referring to all individuals of invading forces as heroes. Perhaps, he would feel comfortable valorizing a limited number of invaders here and there. I am not so restrained in my diction. A duck is a duck, an invader is a murderer, and a taxer is a thief. The valorization of aggression can be pinned to misunderstanding. When the truth of moral absolutes is properly understood, the vagaries and purposefully confounding political euphemisms desist.
Please read Anatomy of the State, also here, to understand what exactly the State is. If Murray Rothbard is wrong, refute his arguments. If not, then it stands that
the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.The State is antisocial. The moniker socialism makes no sense, for this reason. If anything, antisocialism is a more definitional portrayal of Mao's, Lenin's and Stalin's regimes. Rothbard accurately portrays the State as aggression incarnate. Once this is understood, anyone against aggression will become against the State. They will become An Enemy of the State.
If fanatics of peace, peaceniks or peacemongers, were to host persuasive conversations with Statists as often as they can, the battle for love would be won. I do so throughout my blog and in my personal interactions in the world of scarcity. Do likewise, and watch peace ensue. May God bless all of creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment