For example, Mr Webb could literally mean the “soldiers” – not the war.
“I support the soldiers – I hope they all get home safe after their service” could be the position.
I think the war in Afghanistan is hopeless (establishing democracy there?) I also thought the war in Iraq was hopeless (“Uncle Bill”, long dead now, told me enough about Iraq when I was a child for me to know that the mission there was without hope).
But that does not mean I do not support the soldiers – I hope they all get home safe, that the Islamist savages do not kill or injure them.
Carl – the warriors of Islam (who are all sincere followers of Mohammed – as he brought back the Classical idea that “everyone fights” and used it for his dreams of unlimited conquest for the religion he invented) have only one war.
The war against the Byzantine Empire or the Persian Empire in the 7th century is (to a warrior of Islam) no different from the war against infidels (and “their women”) on the streets of the cities of Sweden today. Or the war anywhere else.
There is only ONE war to the warriors of Islam – the war to bring all the world to “submission” (which is what Islam means).
Probably the least libertarian remark I have ever seen endorsed by a libertarian organisation. “Unconditional” support of “our” troops is as daft as it is nasty. What the fuck does this “support” consist of? Oh, I see you’ve invaded another country with no justification and you’re blowing innocent people to pieces but I SUPPORT YOU because you’re British innit? It’s them nasty politicians what made you do it, soldier. I support you because you follow orders to kill total strangers. It doesn’t protect our country (if anything it endangers us), it isn’t justified, if I were to do it I would be sent to jail, but “I support our soldiers unconditionally” anyway because their weaponry gives me a hard on.
Carl – I am not friend of Sean Gabb (we have had a feud going for seven years), but he did NOT “endorse” what Mr Webb said (and neither did David Davis).
Publishing a comment is not the same thing as “endorsing” it.
Unconditional support? No. Conditional support? Yes.
That is why I wear a Poppy for Remembrance Day. Note the word Remembrance. To remember those killed in the line of duty. To remember those who have lost those killed in the line of duty. Yes war is evil. Yes in an ideal world we would have citizens militia running around rather than national armed forces. But we live in the world as it is. We give power to the dopes in political positions of control. It is up to use to make them accountable for mass murder and policies of war.
I find it hard to personally condemn the choice to join the armed forces, given my own personal history (a decade in the US Marine Corps, which I enjoyed; six months at war, which I particularly enjoyed; and a few minutes in actual combat which in my opinion surpassed anything except really good sex on the enjoyment scale), for which my libertarianism and anarchism is often intended as partial penance.
On the other hand, if soldiery was treated by the community as a pariah profession instead of “unconditionally supported,” the politicians might not so easily build armies to get up to their fuckery with.
I’ve heard many times that combat is fun. When I was a boy, I used to sit on the floor listening to my great uncles glory in wartime dangers that gave me the horrors.
Well, yes, I hope the troops get home safe, but as a member of a real society, I back a soldier who is a member of my nation over someone whose outlook and culture I don’t pretend to understand. People around the world are different, and there is nothing wrong with identifying with your nation. It is quite false to see libertarianism as an individualist philosophy. We are members of a nation that has historically been free – not free individuals, but members of a free nation. We can’t actually be deracinated individuals with no culture background and allegiances. The very fact we’re writing on these blogs is because we are, thankfully, Anglo-Saxons.
No, Thomas, you do have a nation. Did you have a mother and a father? Do you speak a language? Were you raised in any cultural milieu? Your picture shows you are American. And if you’re not a cad, you will be a patriotic American, although possibly a disappointed one as America becomes more state-controlled.
See my reply to your reply to Ian below. I used to have a nation. Gave that up. I certainly still maintain certain sentimental connections to parts of it, but it doesn’t own me, nor do I own it. I speak more than one language, although I only speak one well.
I think you’re trying to pass your strong nationalist preferences off as libertarianism, D.J. Webb.If libertarianism doesn’t favour the primacy of the individual, is it still libertarianism in any meaningful sense?
No political philosophy can change the fact that all human beings do have relatives and ancestors and cultural heritages. We are not isolates beamed down from outer space. Pure individualism would be a non-starter – as we are not individual isolates. In fact, libertarianism presupposes a certain type of society – the Common Law and the Anglo-Saxon heritage, mainly. You are confused by the Establishment’ antinational propaganda and even imagining your buying into state rhetoric is kind of anti-establishment in some way. It isn’t.
“No political philosophy can change the fact that all human beings do have relatives and ancestors and cultural heritages.”
And no political philosophy can change the fact that it is always, in every case and instance, entirely up to each human being what he or she chooses to do with, or about, that.
Contra Donne, every man is an island, and what bridges he chooses to keep open, block off, or even burn, are up to him.
You seem to have confused individualism with atomism.
Libertarianism has always concerned itself with the primacy of the individual. What you promote here is something other than libertarianism, as traditionally understood.
A free nation is a nation that allows individuals (and private voluntary associations) to be free – to engage in civil (voluntary) interaction.
National independence may well be a precondition for freedom (one can not be free if some entity such as the E.U., can just impose edicts) – but it is not a sufficient condition for freedom.
The domestic government (even a government of Anglo-Saxons – freedom is naught to do with race, although it may well be linked to culture, and the culture of the Saxons was rather different to that of the Angles) must also refrain from molesting people.
One must not make the “freedom of the ancients” mistake – for example of saying “Sparta was not under the rule of any other power, Sparta was free – therefore Spartans were free”.
Spartans were clearly NOT free – and not just the Helots (technically non Spartans).
For example full citizens (other than the two Royal families of Sparta) could not even say “no” to their sons being taken away at the age of seven (not to be even semi free again till they were 30)
“Athens had conscription also”.
18 to 20 (with call up in time of war after this age) is different than 7 to 30.
Due to such an “education” a full Spartan citizen was useless for anything other than killing – even if they had been allowed to privately own gold and silver (essential for private economic activity) which they were not.
I will not get into the position of the “dwellers round about” in Sparta – although I personally believe that they were the real reason the nation lasted so long (I think a nation just made up of full Spartans and “alien” Helots would have been hopelessly unstable).
Mr Webb wrote: “I back a soldier who is a member of my nation over someone whose outlook and culture I don’t pretend to understand.”
What does “back” mean in this context? For someone who goes on and on about being a member of a concrete social order, and not merely a detached individual, this is actually a curiously decontextualised remark. If a British soldier were to rampage through an Afghan village killing innocent people, would Mr Webb “back” him? Why? If a British officer ordered missiles to be launched at a crowded town square in the middle of the day, does he get a pass because he happens to identify with the British nation? Apparently so. Remember: “unconditional support, whether or not the wars are justified”. Is this what the Common Law and the Anglo-Saxon heritage is all about?
The ambiguity comes from that word “back”. I am not in the habit of “backing” anyone until I know what they are up to.
Right on.
Some context would be helpful here.
For example, Mr Webb could literally mean the “soldiers” – not the war.
“I support the soldiers – I hope they all get home safe after their service” could be the position.
I think the war in Afghanistan is hopeless (establishing democracy there?) I also thought the war in Iraq was hopeless (“Uncle Bill”, long dead now, told me enough about Iraq when I was a child for me to know that the mission there was without hope).
But that does not mean I do not support the soldiers – I hope they all get home safe, that the Islamist savages do not kill or injure them.
Mr Webb could have a similar view to mine.
I support Islamic warriors unconditionally, whether their wars are justified or not, as they are sons of Islam.
Carl – the warriors of Islam (who are all sincere followers of Mohammed – as he brought back the Classical idea that “everyone fights” and used it for his dreams of unlimited conquest for the religion he invented) have only one war.
The war against the Byzantine Empire or the Persian Empire in the 7th century is (to a warrior of Islam) no different from the war against infidels (and “their women”) on the streets of the cities of Sweden today. Or the war anywhere else.
There is only ONE war to the warriors of Islam – the war to bring all the world to “submission” (which is what Islam means).
I agree with D.J.Webb. That’s one reason why the idea of prosecuting ex-paras over Bloody Sunday makes me foam at the mouth.
Even these ones?
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/marines-murder-trial-hears-transcript/6426
Unconditional anything is a stupid position to take.
Probably the least libertarian remark I have ever seen endorsed by a libertarian organisation. “Unconditional” support of “our” troops is as daft as it is nasty. What the fuck does this “support” consist of? Oh, I see you’ve invaded another country with no justification and you’re blowing innocent people to pieces but I SUPPORT YOU because you’re British innit? It’s them nasty politicians what made you do it, soldier. I support you because you follow orders to kill total strangers. It doesn’t protect our country (if anything it endangers us), it isn’t justified, if I were to do it I would be sent to jail, but “I support our soldiers unconditionally” anyway because their weaponry gives me a hard on.
Carl – I am not friend of Sean Gabb (we have had a feud going for seven years), but he did NOT “endorse” what Mr Webb said (and neither did David Davis).
Publishing a comment is not the same thing as “endorsing” it.
Unconditional support? No. Conditional support? Yes.
That is why I wear a Poppy for Remembrance Day. Note the word Remembrance. To remember those killed in the line of duty. To remember those who have lost those killed in the line of duty. Yes war is evil. Yes in an ideal world we would have citizens militia running around rather than national armed forces. But we live in the world as it is. We give power to the dopes in political positions of control. It is up to use to make them accountable for mass murder and policies of war.
I find it hard to personally condemn the choice to join the armed forces, given my own personal history (a decade in the US Marine Corps, which I enjoyed; six months at war, which I particularly enjoyed; and a few minutes in actual combat which in my opinion surpassed anything except really good sex on the enjoyment scale), for which my libertarianism and anarchism is often intended as partial penance.
On the other hand, if soldiery was treated by the community as a pariah profession instead of “unconditionally supported,” the politicians might not so easily build armies to get up to their fuckery with.
I’ve heard many times that combat is fun. When I was a boy, I used to sit on the floor listening to my great uncles glory in wartime dangers that gave me the horrors.
Apparently the fun lasts up until the point you get your legs blown off.
One reason among many why I never took the Queen’s Shilling.
Well, yes, I hope the troops get home safe, but as a member of a real society, I back a soldier who is a member of my nation over someone whose outlook and culture I don’t pretend to understand. People around the world are different, and there is nothing wrong with identifying with your nation. It is quite false to see libertarianism as an individualist philosophy. We are members of a nation that has historically been free – not free individuals, but members of a free nation. We can’t actually be deracinated individuals with no culture background and allegiances. The very fact we’re writing on these blogs is because we are, thankfully, Anglo-Saxons.
“there is nothing wrong with identifying with your nation.”
If you have one, I suppose not.
Since I don’t, there’s nothing wrong with not identifying with one.
No, Thomas, you do have a nation. Did you have a mother and a father? Do you speak a language? Were you raised in any cultural milieu? Your picture shows you are American. And if you’re not a cad, you will be a patriotic American, although possibly a disappointed one as America becomes more state-controlled.
See my reply to your reply to Ian below. I used to have a nation. Gave that up. I certainly still maintain certain sentimental connections to parts of it, but it doesn’t own me, nor do I own it. I speak more than one language, although I only speak one well.
I like the belt buckle that says: British by birth, English by the grace of God. Now that’s what I call libertarian!
I think you’re trying to pass your strong nationalist preferences off as libertarianism, D.J. Webb.If libertarianism doesn’t favour the primacy of the individual, is it still libertarianism in any meaningful sense?
No political philosophy can change the fact that all human beings do have relatives and ancestors and cultural heritages. We are not isolates beamed down from outer space. Pure individualism would be a non-starter – as we are not individual isolates. In fact, libertarianism presupposes a certain type of society – the Common Law and the Anglo-Saxon heritage, mainly. You are confused by the Establishment’ antinational propaganda and even imagining your buying into state rhetoric is kind of anti-establishment in some way. It isn’t.
“No political philosophy can change the fact that all human beings do have relatives and ancestors and cultural heritages.”
And no political philosophy can change the fact that it is always, in every case and instance, entirely up to each human being what he or she chooses to do with, or about, that.
Contra Donne, every man is an island, and what bridges he chooses to keep open, block off, or even burn, are up to him.
You seem to have confused individualism with atomism.
Libertarianism has always concerned itself with the primacy of the individual. What you promote here is something other than libertarianism, as traditionally understood.
A free nation is a nation that allows individuals (and private voluntary associations) to be free – to engage in civil (voluntary) interaction.
National independence may well be a precondition for freedom (one can not be free if some entity such as the E.U., can just impose edicts) – but it is not a sufficient condition for freedom.
The domestic government (even a government of Anglo-Saxons – freedom is naught to do with race, although it may well be linked to culture, and the culture of the Saxons was rather different to that of the Angles) must also refrain from molesting people.
One must not make the “freedom of the ancients” mistake – for example of saying “Sparta was not under the rule of any other power, Sparta was free – therefore Spartans were free”.
Spartans were clearly NOT free – and not just the Helots (technically non Spartans).
For example full citizens (other than the two Royal families of Sparta) could not even say “no” to their sons being taken away at the age of seven (not to be even semi free again till they were 30)
“Athens had conscription also”.
18 to 20 (with call up in time of war after this age) is different than 7 to 30.
Due to such an “education” a full Spartan citizen was useless for anything other than killing – even if they had been allowed to privately own gold and silver (essential for private economic activity) which they were not.
I will not get into the position of the “dwellers round about” in Sparta – although I personally believe that they were the real reason the nation lasted so long (I think a nation just made up of full Spartans and “alien” Helots would have been hopelessly unstable).
Mr Webb wrote: “I back a soldier who is a member of my nation over someone whose outlook and culture I don’t pretend to understand.”
What does “back” mean in this context? For someone who goes on and on about being a member of a concrete social order, and not merely a detached individual, this is actually a curiously decontextualised remark. If a British soldier were to rampage through an Afghan village killing innocent people, would Mr Webb “back” him? Why? If a British officer ordered missiles to be launched at a crowded town square in the middle of the day, does he get a pass because he happens to identify with the British nation? Apparently so. Remember: “unconditional support, whether or not the wars are justified”. Is this what the Common Law and the Anglo-Saxon heritage is all about?
The ambiguity comes from that word “back”. I am not in the habit of “backing” anyone until I know what they are up to.