COMensarations
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Freedom Is Free….Wait…Maybe It Isn’t
A fisking of Brad Edmonds.
Brad Edmonds, who posted something on LewRockwell’s blog, has ‘issues’. Mostly, from what I see, with his concept of how much we should have to ‘pay’ for ‘freedom’.
Here are my thoughts on his article....
Freedom is free, and the military not only is one of the elements threatening our freedom in the US, but was never intended to protect our freedom in the first place.
Free? Every major philosopher has said that we must all struggle to maintain freedom. Sure. It’s God’s gift to man; ‘free will’, if you will. But every now and again, some cretin comes along and wants to remove that free gift of God. And in this fallen world, they have the opportunity, if there are not enough courageous men and women to ‘struggle’ against them to preserve it.
Our framers decided that the natural right of each individual to own weapons, and to form a militia with his neighbors, was the best guarantor of freedom.
So. We have a conflict already? In the second paragraph, no less. First we’re told that freedom IS ‘free’, but that we need not defend it. Providing for the common defense being a function of the military; Army, if you will.
Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for a permanent, standing army – to the contrary, the framers considered a standing army a constant threat to liberty.
What’s this? Brad does not understand English, as in ‘provide for the common defense”? I do believe that is IN the constitution. And to not have a military structure that is ready to respond, within minutes, to defend and/or attack an enemy is worse then ‘silly’. It’s positively suicidal and THAT is insanity. That is, unless we’re going to accept suicide as a ‘normal’ human behavior. Then we should all move to Oregon and save our current enemies the trouble of eliminating us and our children.
...a standing army requires support via taxation. As we have seen recently; as Eisenhower warned when leaving office; and as General Smedley Butler revealed a generation before Eisenhower: If you start with a standing military, replete with high-ranking officers anxious to further their careers; add a presidential administration and a few hundred Congressmen eager for bloc support, campaign contributions, and cushy jobs after leaving office; then add a few dozen large corporations armed with lobbyists and poised to make huge profits from war; you get wars.
Makes sense. However, how does Brad plan to ‘provide for the common defense’, in a high-tech world, without a ‘standing army’.
So, we have something of a conundrum. We need to provide for the common defense. However, we’ll have Seven-Days-In-May-esque officer who covet power above their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies; foreign and domestic.
What do we do?
Perhaps we have to ‘struggle’? Freedom is NOT ‘free’, to be doled out by some authority more powerful than ourselves.
The moment it becomes that, it is not freedom. It is slavery. Is that what Brad wants? And who will be the slave master in this brave new world of his?
Note that children of Congressmen, military officers, and corporate executives rarely are killed in these wars.
Can’t speak for the Congressional and corporate sides, but my life, son of a professional officer of the United States Armed Forces, was on the line for 27 years, by my reckoning. Where was yours? Where are your children? Either will do....
This is the worst transfer of wealth imaginable – the lives of the poor and young are snuffed out to line the pockets of the rich and conscienceless.
This is moronic. Not to mention divisive, or worse. Sure, there are cretins that think like believe. They’ll always be with us. Not much we can do about it. But, still and all, if you know God, you know their ultimate reward is less than they currently enjoy in this venue. But, if you don’t know God, and Christ, you’ll probably behave the way you are now.
Each time there is a war, elected officials raise your taxes, and most of the additional money confiscated from you goes to the corporations who provide the planes, bombs, and tanks that kill innocents abroad and destroy their property and infrastructures. The latter, of course, are rebuilt later with more of your tax money.
And, in the meantime, we still remain a free nation. I don’t see the Nazi or the Imperial Japanese flags flying over government buildings.
What do you think? That freedom is ‘free’?
Taxes raised during war generally are not lowered afterward. Remember that the practice of withholding income tax from your paycheck was instituted as a temporary measure during WWII. The GW Administration has not raised taxes, but in increasing US debt profligately while printing money, has assured you will suffer a virtual tax increase soon in increased inflation, and a nominal tax increase sometime in the future to deal with the debt load.
I’ll let the economists address this idea. However, I do seem to realize that with each new war ups the ‘anti’ vis-a-vis preparing to defend against a future aggressor. Or do you propose that we defend ourselves against nuclear attack with rifled muskets?
What do you think? That freedom is ‘free’?
Where in all of this is the military protecting our freedom?
Are you really that blind? Or is this some sort of rhetorical trick?
US military forces have not successfully defended Americans against an attack since the War of 1812, which itself was brought on, in part, by Jefferson’s idiotic embargo against the UK. Remember also that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because of FDR’s strangling embargo. Our Navy was caught by surprise because FDR didn’t have the decency to inform them that the Japanese were on the way. That didn’t fit into his plans; a “surprise” attack was better to enrage the US populace and get us to support entry into WWII.
I guess it’s the latter.
What can the US military do to protect our freedom in the future? Nothing.
Riiiiight....
Nothing like throwing the lessons of history out the window will solve all our problems. That is, unless there is some other item in Brad’s agenda that he is not telling us about.
Japan had no desire to invade the mainland US – they knew individuals could defend themselves, as in “a rifle behind every blade of grass.” To conquer, you must occupy, which means you must have people on foot and/or an obedient populace. Hence, freedom from invasion is assured by an armed and ready population – not by a military, especially not by one expending most of its resources in foreign countries.
That’s why they attack. I understand. Makes perfect sense. “Look what you made me do.” Rather than giving up on their war of aggression in China and conducting trade with the rest of the world, they tried to conquer their part of the world. Great. Wonderful. Welcome to the Hobbesian world of tomorrow. Dig a shelter and stock it with food, to survive the initial onslaught. Then have plenty of white sheets ready to surrender with. You’ll need them in Brad’s brave new world where freedom is a ‘gift’.
At the time of our founding, the role of the military (such as there was) was to defend our borders. Since then, the military has been used primarily as an enforcement arm of the foreign policy goals of the White House and Congress.
Obviously you’ve never studied military history. Defensive war? Is that it? Don’t you know Napoleon? His truism that, “The logical conclusion of defensive war is ‘defeat’.” Ever hear of the War of Northern Aggression?
The biggest threat to our freedom isn’t foreign invasion anyway. The biggest threat is Washington itself – the presidential administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court. We have lost privacy and civil liberties precipitously since 9/11, and our military can do nothing to stop that. The military forces never were intended to protect us from our own government, nor have they ever been in any nation.
There are always threats to freedom. Not the least of which is foreign powers. However, there are domestic threats as well. Some of these may be in Washington. Some of them scattered around the nation, i.e., corporate cretins. However, what does Brad suggest we do? Nothing? After all, freedom is ‘free’. No requirement for our watchfulness. Nor our struggle to maintain it.
As ominous as the taxation required to support the military, though, is the second reason it’s a potential threat to our liberty:…
I’ll let the economists tackle this one.
...It can be turned against us by Washington. We saw this in the civil-rights upheavals of the 1960s, at Kent State, in Waco, and worst, in 1861.
Both Kent State and Waco were the result of governors who had little concept of how to manage their own responsibilities. Most especially Ann Richards. As for the Civil War, if you want to bring back slavery, you’re welcome to try. But I recommend you try it somewhere where most people would just as soon remove you from this venue as listen to your foolishness.
What can we do, then, to recapture our freedom? Take responsibility for it.
Wait! You said ‘freedom is free’. You changed your tune? Freedom ISN’T ‘free’? We have to work for it? Shock. Horror. Another John Kerry moment; first it is and then it isn’t.
Own a high-powered rifle, and know how to use it safely and responsibly. Educate yourself and your friends about the dangers of forcible government. Make yourself as financially independent of the government as possible – save, invest, buy gold, own land (but not necessarily houses). Urge your representatives at all levels of government to vote against every new law that arises, and to erase laws that are on the books now.
Again? Singing a different tune? Albeit with a more strident tempo? Now we not only have to work for freedom. We actually have to fight for it. Maybe even kill for it. Sounds like a job for the Army to me. Not that we shouldn’t work, or even fight, for freedom ourselves. But it certainly seems to me that Brad has changed his original stance of ‘Freedom is Free’ to ‘You have to work and fight and even kill for freedom’. The latter certainly doesn’t sound like it’s a ‘gift’.
Freedom really is free: Without forcible government in the way, entrepreneurs would provide any military defense required, at far lower costs than the government provides it now…
This is wishful thinking. As if any ad hoc group will provide a coherent system without some from of intelligent design. It’s like expecting a tornado to build a Boeing 747 in a junk yard.
...without the risk of constantly killing innocents around the world and without the risk that that military could turn against you.
More wishful thinking. If the corporations develop the weapons, what’s to prevent THEM from turning them against you? Where was Brad when they taught about the difficulties workers had organizing unions against the wishes of their benevolent corporations. Give the corporations weapons greater than the government and the corporate cretins, think of the attitude of the corporation in the Alien series, will be quicker on the draw to put themselves forward as the ‘government’.
No thank you.....
Freedom is free, and the government’s military does more to threaten it than to protect it. Don’t be fooled by obnoxious road signs.
So, in the end, we’ve come full circle. First freedom is ‘free’, then it requires we work and possibly even kill for it, then it’s free again. How niiiiice. [Note: Anyone here familiar with that Southern Belle joke?]
What is his purpose here? Saying that we should not work to maintain our freedom? Or saying we should trust to the corporations to protect us from those who would wish us harm?
Frankly, I have serious doubts about Brad’s rationality. He reminds me too much of John “I’m for it, but I’m not” Kerry.
One has to wonder about Brad’s mental state, or worse, who is he working for?
Next entry: History 102 Previous entry: Dog-Pile on Pat!!!! Part Deux