Starchild,
I support anything making it more difficult for people to join the military
and turn into mass murderers.
If DADT will save some gay individuals from this tragic fate, I'm for it.
Warm regards, Michael
Michael,
If people were locked inside their homes 24/7, that would make it more difficult.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
Cute! (-;
I see a giant distinction between getting locked inside your home (you're deprived of your freedom) vs. being prohibited from becoming part of a killing machine (you deprive others of their freedom). Don't you?
Warm regards, Michael
Sure there's a difference. I was just having fun taking your remark literally. But more to the point, I'm unaware of any evidence to suggest that keeping gays out of the U.S. government's military forces will make those forces less likely to kill innocent people. Or is your goal here to protect gay people from themselves by saving them from the possibility of falling into evil ways?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Starchild,
My goal is to reduce the # of individuals in the military. (Admirable goal, right?)
I would also like to reduce the # of individuals in the IRS, DEA, ATF, etc.
So let's prohibit gays (and Jews, anarcho-libertarians, psychologists, vegans, long-distance runners, atheists, people who make poor attempts at humor, etc.) from joining these vicious groups as well.
Warm regards, Michael
Michael,
It seems to me that *prohibiting* certain groups of people from being in the U.S. government's military helps create the perception that belonging to this organization is desirable. Obviously I am with you in wanting to see government employment reduced, but simply prohibiting some groups of people from working for government seems unlikely to me to produce the desired results. It's interesting to see you arguing that prohibition works. 
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
I have nothing against prohibiting people, if it prohibits them from initiating violence.
Are you not in favor of prohibiting gays from initiating violence?
If you don't wish to prohibit them in this compassionate way, are you a homophobe (or worse)?
Warm regards, Michael
Michael,
It's easy to say "prohibit people from initiating violence", but where exactly do you draw the line, and why? Working in the U.S. government's military is not synonymous with initiating violence. Plenty of military employees never kill or injure anyone in the course of their employment.
Obviously my example of shutting people in their homes was extreme and tongue-in-cheek. But many lesser infringements of freedom would at least in theory reduce the likelihood of a person's becoming a soldier and killing people. Banning movies that glorify militarism, for example.
Some people who join the military end up changing the institution's culture to make it less aggressive. Some join in order to become citizens, get money for college, etc. Isn't a pro-war propaganda film more unambiguously harmful? And yet I assume you are not in favor of censoring films.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Dear Starchild,
I agree with you, there are continuum questions here.
However inherently aggressive organizations including the military, IRS, DEA, BATF and many others clearly violate the NAP.
I also agree with you, if someone joins one of these organizations with the intention of undermining it from within, he is not to be considered a threat to individual rights.
Warm regards, Michael
Michael,
What makes an organization "inherently aggressive" in your view? Certainly the U.S. government's military, the IRS, DEA, BATF, etc., can be said to be "inherently aggressive" in the sense that they are funded with stolen tax dollars. But so are other government agencies like the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of Agriculture, the UC Board of Regents, and San Francisco's Recreation and Park Department. Is it whether an organization's mission is aggressive in nature? Seems to me this is not so easy to define. I believe the Postal Service, for instance, will deliver mail to your address whether you give them permission to do so or not.
Back to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Clearly military authorities are not going to admit queers only if they express the intent of changing the institution in a pro-freedom direction! So realistically there will never be an effective way to allow libertarian-minded people to join but not others. And when it comes to the exercise of freedom (in this case the freedom of association, to consensually join an organization), doesn't the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" apply? Since you can't readily distinguish between innocent and guilty at the time of joining, aren't you obliged to treat all recruits as innocent?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
To answer your questions:
1. By "inherently aggressive" I mean the "service" would not be offered on the free market.
2. It's not necessary for an enlistee to state his intention to the military. The key is whether or not he has this intention.
3. Anyone who joins an inherently aggressive organization has some level of guilt (responsibility) in supporting it. However, certainly the chef on a naval base has less guilt (responsibility) than the pilot dropping the bombs.
Warm regards, Michael
Michael,
1. I don't understand how your definition of "inherently aggressive" provides greater clarity in this case. I think most anarchists envision that military services would be offered on the free market.
2. I agree that the key is whether or not a military enlistee has libertarian (peaceable) intentions. But the problem is that the U.S. government's military is not going to screen in favor of such intent, so this doesn't resolve the issue of who is permitted to join and who is not.
3. What level of guilt, if any, do you think a person has who joins an inherently aggressive organization with the intent to make it less aggressive?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
1. A defining aspect of the Govt's military 'service" involves legalized murder (collateral damage).
2. My view is no one should be permitted to join so screening (or not) is not an issue.
3. None, unless he initiates aggression in the process.
Warm regards, Michael
with release of new Pentagon study that says repeal wouldn't hurt
Michael,
It seems to me that in your most recent message below, point #1 is superseded by point #3, suggesting a revision of point #2 is in order. Otherwise how do you justify the initiation of force (prohibiting someone from entering into a voluntary relationship) against people whom you agree are not guilty of anything?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
I don't understand.
Shall we discuss further by phone? Feel free to call me anytime.
Warm regards, Michael
Today is Human Rights Day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Day
The Noble Peace Prize is going to Liu Xiaobo who won't receive it in Stockholm
because he is in prison in China.