Over the weekend I took a brief look at the mass media’s coverage of the Iraq war, posting eight satirically captioned photos of soldiers playing with Iraqi children. I’ve been monitoring the response to these photos all over the Internet, and across the political spectrum, the response has been overwhelmingly positive, both from conservatives and surprisingly from most liberals as well. But a few people misunderstood the point of the posting, or just don’t have a sense of humor, and their responses were scathing.
First, a little background, for those of you just tuning in. I actually did receive these photos from an Army source in Baghdad, with the captions already attached. As far as I can tell, though, they were sent to me by mistake. I rarely cover the Iraq war in any way, because I’m focused on the homeland. But I am well aware that the mass media presents a horribly one-sided view of the war, and I found the pictures funny.
So in that same humorous vein, I posted them.
As I mentioned, both conservatives and liberals enjoyed the post. Conservatives found it funny and felt vindicated because an important aspect of the Iraq war was getting some exposure. Liberals found it funny and took heart in the rarely explored fact that not everything going on in Iraq is death and horror.
But this is primarily to address the three critics (of thousands of people) who raise two important points. Before I do that, I want to make one thing crystal clear: I opposed the Iraq war then, I oppose it now, and I believe that the U.S. has no business interfering in the affairs of other countries.
First, I was criticized for “trivializing” the death and destruction that has taken place in Iraq, both of Iraqi citizens and American soldiers. Death is hardly trivial. We are all well aware of the death and destruction in Iraq. But death was not the point of the post. The point was life. Here we have a celebration of life, with almost-forgotten people helping Iraqis rebuild and improve their lives. I’ve made the point before that most of you would voluntarily contribute to helping Iraqis dig wells, build schools and hospitals, and so on — if only you and your unborn grandchildren weren’t already being taxed for it and getting a horrible bargain because the U.S. military doesn’t know how to account for money.
Second, I was criticized for “supporting war criminals.” This person believes that, because the Iraq war was wrong, any American soldier in Iraq is automatically a criminal for refusing to go, regardless of what they happen to be doing over there, that President Bush is a war criminal for ordering innocent people to be tortured and killed, and so on. Again, all of this may be true, but the critic misses the point again. The point is that no matter what plot of land we were born on, or which tinpot dictator claims to rule us, we are all human beings.
But this critic feels justified in calling someone who builds a hospital a criminal. I can’t claim to understand the mindset which fails to distinguish between someone who builds a hospital and someone who shoots up a hospital, killing the people inside. If building a hospital is a crime, then we are all criminals, and the human race should go extinct. I say there is a significant difference between someone who follows orders to build a school and someone who follows orders to bomb a school. Perhaps, then, some of the soldiers in Iraq are criminals.
The larger questions, though, are: Is war ever justifiable? Why do governments go to war? Can war be made unnecessary?
The answers to these questions turn on the nature of government. Government, in its essence, is simply popular agreement among a set of people that a small subset of them, as few as one or as many as millions, should dictate to the majority of them how their lives are to be ordered, and to force them to comply. Government provides power to those who are a part of it, over those who are not. There are many “forms” of government, but they all maintain this basic structure.
The American experiment was of a new form of government, but it too maintains this basic structure. And history has shown that it too suffers from the same problems as any other government. It grows large, feeds off its people and “eats out their substance,” enters into preemptive wars of dubious merit, and so forth.
The American founders, though, came up with a rather different idea of the scope and purpose of government: that it should exist only to protect people from each other, and otherwise to not interfere with their right to do as they please. They recognized the danger that any government poses to its people, but theorized that an eternally vigilant people would serve to keep it in check. History has shown that this, too, has not worked out in practice.
So, back to the original question: Is government evil?
The basic philosophy of liberty holds that you own yourself, and no one therefore has the right to murder, steal from or enslave you. Nor do you have the right to delegate murder or slavery to another person or group of people to perform these acts on your behalf.
Today we have a government which ignores the will of its people, tramples their right to be left alone, taxes them so heavily that many people are deeply in debt, confiscates the possessions and real property of people who have done nothing wrong, tortures and kills whoever it wants with impunity, and has performed a long list of other abuses on the people which I don’t have time to get into.
This is exactly what government is: murder, theft and slavery committed in the name of “the people.” In other words, you. The United States has proved to be no exception. You have no right to ask anyone to murder, steal from or enslave anyone else on your behalf, so how can government do it in your name?
By this simple measure, government — any government — is evil. Even the founders of the U.S. recognized this, though they qualified it by calling government a “necessary evil.” If it’s so necessary to have this evil ruling over our lives, why have we failed in our duty to keep a tight lid on it? Why do we allow this evil to run rampant, not only over us, but the rest of the world as well?
While you consider this, also consider the possibility that government is an unnecessary evil, and that most people are basically good enough that involuntary rulers can be dispensed with entirely, and the rare people who feel the need to murder, steal or enslave can be dealt with through voluntary interactions.
Governments go to war because of basic human nature: nobody likes being told what to do, and one government wants to force the other government to do something it wants. As we’ve explored already, this is immoral, wrong and evil. But since government itself is immoral, wrong and evil, it is exactly what we should expect government to do.
There are two ways to eliminate war from the face of the planet. One way is to create an all-powerful totalitarian world government which oppresses everyone and ruthlessly kills anyone who dissents. The United Nations has laid the groundwork for this.
The other way to eliminate war from the face of the planet is to eliminate government from the face of the planet. And the only way to do that is to spread the philosophy of liberty.
Pick your poison.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Q
Jan 08, 2007
I was listening to a rap song the other day that had the best answer to the headline for this article; and I quote:
“I love the place I live, but I hate the people in charge”
Fraud Guy
Jan 08, 2007
Unfortunately, with government eliminated, there is nothing to stop anyone else from taking your life or liberty (i.e., the return of government). I believe that even those who truly espouse the anarchistic creed of full liberty realize this. I have read libertarians who suggest that the vacuum be filled by voluntary contract with corporations to provide security and service, but the assurances that they would not then abuse their position of relative power I have found to be rather unassuring. It’s like reading the fiction of Robert Heinlein or John Varley, with the semi-omniscient computer or light paternalistic leadership, in an age of fantastic technology that allows individuals to create whatever they need, whenever they need, and break free of the bonds of others unless they choose to associate. When we reach that level of technology, then I will believe that we can achieve non-governmental paradise. Until then, that is why government is a necessary evil, and why the Declaration of Independence has the formula for correcting it, when necessary, but never without cost or vigilance.
Michael Hampton
Jan 08, 2007
If you don’t like your security company, you can always get a new one. That’s all the assurance required. The proposition of losing market share in a truly free society is enough to keep the vast majority of businesses honest.
It’s true that a small government society calls for a much greater level of personal responsibility than many people today seem willing to undertake, and a no government society calls for more personal responsibility still. So I doubt it will happen tomorrow.
But it’s sufficient to see reducing government and increasing personal responsibility as a worthwhile goal and working towards it.
Fraud Guy
Jan 09, 2007
But will you have the opportunity to leave? Will another security company fight the one that is oppressing you to free you, and for what payment in coin?
It would take a radical reorganization of society and current human thinking to achieve anything near this level of personal responsibility. Small steps leading to small government (classic conservatism, not neo-conservatism) would be the best start.
On the other side, I think that the same level of reorganization would be required on the corporate side. Companies are currently a cesspit of plausible deniability, or a desire to hide behind what you were told to do. (Does that last sound familiar?) The accountability is currently to the government (barely checking) and the stockholders (but since the sine qua non is now trading, not holding, the perceived need is for “growth” and not returns). Neither has done a good job in reining in corporate malfeasance. (Dilbert is too close to true.)
My current crusade (see the germinal article for “forced to pay for charity” here) is starting to get people to notice what is happening locally with major input from the federal level. My wife is now watching Fahrenheit 9/11, which despite its many flaws is still a powerful indictment. Time to go to bed now:
“I dreamt that I was a butterfly; or was I a butterfly dreaming I was a man”
Steve
Jan 09, 2007
As others have pointed out, government *is* a necessary evil. The founders knew this, they knew not everyone would have the ability or the desire to do and be what would be required of the members of a society without government. They also knew that there are other evils much worse than a benign government that in its absence would take over.
The problem is that they high balled the number of people in a large society that *would* be willing to play the role of concerned citizens, and that they would all have the same idea of government as them.
They of course, lacked some more recent understandings of society that we have learned and developed since they founded the nation. One being that as societies grow they become more and more unmanageable and that there are certain sizes that contain the uniformity a government-less society requires, and that at another point societies fringe based upon core beliefs.
Theres also the fact that its not just governments that want to control, but groups of people in general, look at religion, and religious zealots who would have complete control of everyone in a society “if they could”.
These are part of why the Federalists fought so strong for Federalism.
Finally, to say that war would be eliminated with the elimination of government is a poor choice of words. Large-scale war would be, but ask any decent anthropologist and they will tell you that humans have always been a creature of war, even before the formal and informal concepts of government were around. If anything, our violent nature has subdued since the introduction of government, not directly due to government, but do to other changes in human society (like the concept of society itself) that also happened to have brought about the concept of government.
JEFF
Jan 09, 2007
I don’t care how much good they do. They’re imposing themselves at gunpoint on somebody else’s country. Men with guns come in and smile and tell you they’re doing good. The hell you say. Here is a thought. Stay in your own country. Be happy. Don’t invade. Don’t be an immigrant. Don’t do anything. Just stay where you are, in your own country and don’t hurt anyone else, anywhere, ever. That’s a tad too much for God damn humanity. More’s the pity.
buff daddy
Jan 10, 2007
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
“
“If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”
“Those who govern, having much business on their hands, do not generally like to take the trouble of considering and carrying into execution new projects. The best public measures are therefore seldom adopted from previous wisdom, but forced by the occasion.”
———————————
UK-Guy
Jan 10, 2007
The problem with government is two-fold.
1. we elect them to govern us in our best interests according to their ” Promises ”
2. we have a need to be governed by others as we don’t want the responsibilty ofit. Namely, when it goes wrong we have someone to blame.
So taking point 1 we have a situation where we beleive these guys in sharp suits with experts in PR hovering at their elbows will drive us forward and releive us of all the burdens a modern society has regarding and give us the utopia we think we deserve.
Unfortunately, this is not true. They are men( and women ) and as such are just as falable as you and i. Therefore they cannot do as much or do it better than you or i. But we really don’t want to spend our time in pointless discussion with some other suited guy about how much freedom or tax needs to be recognised. Hence the politicians are required.
The checks and balance is that politicians have a term of office, namely a 4 year period or two year period whereby they do their work, then stand in front of the people as say.. ” vote for me if you think i did or will do well next time around”
The problem with this system is the PR people making us believe what they want us to believe. In the UK, we see our US cousin drinking in the propaganda issued by your media. Your media hypes so much and controls much of your daily lives that to us, we see it as when fox or abc reports something that they want to outrage someone, they slant it so that YOU feel outraged. If they want to support someone, they slant it so you ‘feel’ you need to support.
Point two is really about our nature, but what we see here is when someone does something wrong, he/she dosn’t want to take the blame, so will hide it or mis-inform others regarding their role in the matter. Watergate, irangate, melissagate.. you name it.. in all political issues where they screwed up, they make some guy the scape goat and he then prompley gets shafted, sacraficing them for the greater good of the government. We see this in the UK also.. the scape goat, then lays low for a while, maybe years then emerges again and takes up the reigns or power in some way.
To us, it’s strange, to me personally i find it deeply hurtful that these people who are elected can basically get away with anything they want. It makes me feel.. well… hopeless.. that im handing over the reigns of my life to people who don’t care about my needs.
The solution:
6 month reviews of all politicians, like an Appraisal for your employment.
Making sure that any major desicion whereby the security or welfare of the people is put to a vote… so that the few cannot abuse the most.
Steve
Jan 10, 2007
UK-Guy
We have elections every 2,4,6 years depending on office, yet incumbents almost always win, so I don’t think 6month reviews would do much. Sadly, it really comes down to the fact that most people don’t care enough about how they are governed to care, as long as their opinion is forced upon others they’re happy.
Government is a solution looking for a problem, it is an antiquated concept from a bygone era. It is a byproduct of our need for order, structure and boundary in our lives. It is also what allows for our society to work like it does, instead of working as a tribe.
Such then, government is the problem of a society and social order that is incapable of what is coined as self-government. Our society requires it to operate now because it required it to get to the point in history we are at now.
The problem then, is that humans resist change in social order, it’s why it takes us so long as a species to allow for and come to terms with political change, we’re still hanging on to these older social tenets that we know are wrong.
It’s what we call a Catch-22. At a certain level we need it, but we don’t know how to properly use, handle, or limit it. Then we argue over how much of our lives we want it to control and influence because we all require different levels of it. Those that argue for more government are those that themselves require it, because they know they, themselves, need it, and they use the guise of social-good to argue for it. They don’t think others are capable of more or different than they are, only less and of the same.
Mike
Feb 27, 2007
The biggest mistake made by society is electing a single leader as a prime minister or president!This has never and will NEVER work.The reason for this is someone who makes it to the highest level of the land NEVER gets their without the help of very powerful groups or individuals who have their own aggendas once the “chosen one” makes it in office! Sure,we may all like to believe that we accually vote them in office,but we all KNOW deep down that this isn’t true.First of all,we only have a select few to choose from who make it to this level to run for the highest office and why is this?Of all the millions out there why are these ones the only ones at that moment running for office?(Yea,yea,many of you out there think you have the answer but most of us are accually in the dark as most don’t have a clue how politics work.The ones that do know,KNOW its a VERY dirty world to be involved in!)How do you exspect that “chosen one” to be for the good of the whole?Also they are voted in and who is counting the votes and how do you know their being honest about the count?Have you all done your adding yourself to check their accuracy?(Ask Al Gore about how he feels about the honesty of these counts as well as the mojority who voted for him!)How many out there vote in ignorance or because they were intimidated to vote for “the right” person?
Untill people start admitting that this system will NEVER work we will never have an honest and just ruler as one person cannot have the “illusion” of having this much power!We need to have a panel of people at the top ruling under strict supervision by the people so they can be held accountable for their actions and decisions.Thats right,we as a society have to take some personal responsability and “help” rule by demanding as a whole,(or as close to it as possible!)how things are run.Remember,the government only has as much power as the people allow them to have! Don’t believe me?!What would happen if the next time a ruler starting making decisions that went against the majority of the peoples wishes and the people went againt the ruler TOGETHER?!!The answer to that is the ruler would have to listen!!!(ie. 50 000+ versus millions is a total mismatch!)
I know this would only work in a more perfect world but as a message to all the millions out there who get bullied by a “few,”we have to start taking more personal responsability for the way society is run and stop bitching about it in small groups,(mostly in coffee shops and pubs)and do SOMETHING about it!It won’t happen overnight,but TOGETHER we can ALL make a difference and make this world a MUCH better place!!!!
Mike
Feb 27, 2007
How many of you have read any writing by Robert Canup?Type “evil people” in your search engines and click on the link “types of evil personalities” and read with an open mind.The guy is a genius!!!
Mike
Feb 27, 2007
Exscuse the lack of paragragh seperation in my first writing,having a problem with my keyboard!
Steve
Feb 27, 2007
Mike,
Ever hear of separation of powers? In the U.S. system the president was never supposed to have all the powers that he currently has. 90% of what Americans currently consider powers the president holds are actually supposed to be powers in the hands of the House and Senate. On top of that 90% of the powers Americans currently consider powers the federal government holds are actually supposed to be powers in the hands of the states.
Of course, in a democracy people get what a majority of them ask for and since at least 50% of the people are below average (tongue in cheek…) that means the majority will always be the less educated populace. This combined with a majority being publicly schooled means the government can mold the minds of its citizens to convince them things are the way they want them to be.
Mike
Feb 27, 2007
Steve,
I have heard or seperation of powers but fail to see this in action for the very reason you have stated.You are right,the reason government seems to get away with the things they do is because the majority of the population lacks the education and understanding of how the system works!That is where I believe its up to the individual to make sure they understand to the best of their ability who they are voting for and why!The age of living in ignorance HAS to come to an end!!!
donald
Apr 14, 2007
I think “cutsie-pie” is a good description of the photos.
Also, I and millions of other freethinking descent people are well aware of the FACT that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is illegal , immoral, a shame to all humanity, and completelyu destructive. And for those of us with with the ability to remember details and think for ourselves, 9/11 (the launching point for the Bush family’s endless and pointless war) was obviously a contolled demolition with people inside and not at all what our current terror based goverment told us. thanks
Dec 31, 2007
The Market for Liberty - Homeland Stupidity