I agree with your statement, enough even to give a thumbs up. However I am of the opinion you did not go far enough.

Even the fool deserves his voice but to ignore what he said is to dishonor what he deserved. To "prove" points contrary to his argument is not dishonor but the ultimate honor as it shows one listened.

What I see in this particular debate (not that it doesn't apply elsewhere but we're not elsewhere) is a lack of listening therefore a debate based on what is desired to be true, closed minds.

In this thread all I have seen are emotional outbursts that purport to support a philosophy that is in reality converse to that philosophy.

While one must always honor another's opinion, that does mean one must honor it as a valid argument and I am of that persuasion.

Your argument illustrates a severe lack of knowledge on the concept of education wherein it attempts to instill indoctrination as the operational concept.

Here we have a teacher, granted out of emotion, that has a single moment of logical clarity that may never happen again and everybody is up in arms. Not because he actually, possibly the only time in his life, had a moment of truth and offered it forward that he is condemned while accepting and endorsing all the lies he has propagated to that point.

If by the conjecture of your argument, I am off base, then I am in excellent company. Even the person that is the center of your arguments worship disagrees with you. So why not let Ayn state it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBmVi...

The soldiers deserve no respect whatsoever. Their actions are based on altruism, not objectivism.

No matter how many times you state an untruth, it does not make it truth. No matter how many people state an untruth, it still is not truth.

So the big question would be to whom you want to base your life? Plato and Kant or Aristotle and Rand. I choose Aristotle and Rand and hold in utter contempt Plato, Kant, Hegel and all those that dismiss the mind.

I am with you there.It is just we need to let all voices be heard, even when we disagree. Thanks.

But there is wrong intent. Your argument is based on the wrong end of the spectrum. You are looking at matters with blinders on and not looking at the big picture.

Of course all the little order followers believe their actions are noble as they can't see past an ill conceived notion. They have been indoctrinated into a world they believe is noble, honorable, and patriotic. There are ingrained into their psyche all their little lives. They are trained to follow authority, not question it. Most are actually incapable of questioning it.

For example, let's use Libya and Qaddafi. While Qaddafi was a tyrannical flake but he controlled the uncontrollable as has been so well documented by his demise.

But what most has failed to recognize is that in regards to us where justified. He was not the aggressor, he was the defender, that makes him right, us wrong. Why, that is the big question?

The answer, petro dollars. He had announced that dollars were no longer acceptable for his oil. Our military placed his nation in jeopardy and ultimately deemed his life void.

That sir is the big picture and why standing armies are dangerous. Tell me sir how you justify in your soul such actions. It took me a decade or more to accept my blame there and restore peace to my soul. It took a lot of soul searching to reach the conclusion I had been duped and accept responsibility for my actions.

My question to you is just what constitution did you defend? I do not require an answer to this as that question needs to be an internal one.

With that I agree that we are in disagreement.

Alfred, your argument is also somewhat skewed, as you assume bad intent. I do not, I assume military people honor their oath, like I did, to protect and defend the Constitution. My point was to illustrate that there are good reasons to keep a standing army. We will just have to disagree and call it good.

Your argument is way off base, what skills are needed to disarm a populace when it is done with a massive force on one at at time. They don't need to be prepared for combat and your argument is ignoring that swap teams are well exercised to handle the task assigned to them.

You are bringing up 1812 in response to my source from 1697, sort of skipped over more than a century there didn't you. You are also totally ignoring both the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers where it was addressed. If real search engines remained in this world I could probably find earlier references that 1697 but Alta Vista went the way of the dinosaur.

Let me address the overall before I come back to 1812.

Your argument proves my point exactly, standing armies are exceeding dangerous and not need. As Amendment II so elegantly states: ...a well regulated militia..." with the key word being regulated.

According to the dictionary of the times, 1828 Websters:

"1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.

2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.

3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet."

While this leaves one trying to decide what is actually implied, I'm quite sure that statist would infer to either 1 or 3 and the people would infer 2.

The constitution is full of ambiguities and open ended statements such as this. That is why it is utterly useless as a control of government, it was never meant to but that is another argument.

The only good thing I can say about that tyrant Jackson is that he killed the second US central bank and would have gone the way of Lincoln but for the misfiring of not one but two pistols.

As to 1812, I would suggest you research the original 13th Amendment. As I've been there and done that, let me state you will discover the inconsistencies of your argument. I will state that your search would be much tougher than mine because today's search engines are not going to allow the search to get to the depth needed.

Ever wonder why that little old war mainly consisted of a short journey up the Potomac to DC and the burning of the capital and that the militia showed up after the deed was done to chase the British back down the Potomac?

This thing with New Orleans was but a side show by the British which consistently underestimated their power, saw weakness and opportunity to cut this nation off at the Mississippi. It was actually a totally different war with totally different goals as their original intent had reached it's goal.

Armies are by their very nature offensive and not required for the defense of a nation. Throughout time armies have always been used to further the expansion of some psychopaths realm.

If one can not understand that, then one is destined to repeat history. History is always the best teacher as knowledge by experience is very cruel in and of itself or in latin: malum in se by way of malum prohibitum.

Generally man is ignorant and never learns except by experience much to their grief.

While they have indeed militarized the police, they do not have the skills needed for combat, they do not proctice or think it. The real impetus for a standing army came from the War of 1812 when the vast number of operations were handled by a few professionals and a lot of militia, resulting in really bad losses, especially in Canada. Jackson proved what a good mix of professionals and militia could do in New Orleans, but that was due to a overwhelming application of leadership, skill and his tennessee and kentucky militia who knew how to shoot and fight. WW1 and WW2 showed how bad an amateur army can perform, and what happens when you do a quick build up with civilians. The tech in use today demands a knowledgeable and competent military and a good 50% or so is not worthy. The system is far from perfect.

But the standing army argument goes back a long time, even in the country we threw out to become free.

As argued by John Trenchard, London 1697,

"And if we enquire how these unhappy nations have lost that precious jewel liberty, and we as yet preserved it, we shall find their miseries and our happiness proceed from this, that their necessities or indiscretion have
permitted a standing army to be kept amongst them, and our situation rather than our prudence, hath as yet defended us from it, otherwise we had long since lost what is the most valuable thing under heaven: For, as I said before, our Constitution depending upon a due balance between King, Lords and Commons, and that balance depending upon the mutual occasions and necessities they have of one another; if this cement be once broke, there is an annual dissolution of the government. Now this balance can never be
preserved but by an union of the natural and artificial strength of the kingdom, that is, by making the militia to consist of the same persons as have the property; or otherwise the government is violent and against nature, and cannot possibly continue, but the Constitution must either break the army, or the army will destroy the Constitution: for it is universally true, that wherever the militia is, there is or will be the government in a short time; and
therefore the institutors of this Gothick balance (which was established in all parts of Europe) made the militia to consist of the same parts as the government, where the king was general, the Lords by virtue of their castles and honors, the great commanders and the freeholders by their tenures the body of the army; so that it was next to impossible for an army thus constituted to act to the disadvantage of the Constitution, unless we could suppose them to be felons de se."

Less than a century later, it was debated in this country with the same understanding as presented by both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

And all of these state the same exact thing, no army but a militia of the people for defense.

Cesar in Rome or Cromwell in England, both wrestled from the people their freedom.

But from what we have today, they were rank amateurs. This country has militarized and turned into armies our police and every bureaucratic agency of the government.

This is a very dangerous precedent.

I agree that military is misused, however, it goes back to the seat of power. Should military ever violate their oath, we then have renegades with nuclear weapons, not good, even with fail safes. All fail safes can be over ridden given time...

I have had many of the same experiences, first working for the Navy repairing, including modification of designs, electronic equipment at the depot level as a civilian. I joined the Air Force as the Navy was not my thing and because the draft board let me know I was soon to be taught how to use a rifle. In the Air Force I was part of an air crew battle staff on the flying command post. I had a complete communications platform that once the wheels were up there was only me to keep the platform mission ready. You want complicated, how about a system capable of firing one or a whole squadron of ICBM ballistic missiles. I did fire one and got a permanent pocket on my uniform. But all this was before I became conscious. By the way one of the aircraft that I was eligible to crew has an unclassified call sign of Air Force One. One of the missions I flew quite often had the unclassified call sign of Looking Glass, headquarters Strategic Air Command. Not that any of this is really material but to let you know where I'm coming from.

But none of this changes things, the military is for losers that are of low value in the market. Of course some, especially Navy and Air Force, take the opportunity to do what they couldn't do on their own, obtain skills for life.

But that still does not change the facts. In my case I found a way where I had to exchange value for value in spite of being associated with the military.

Sorry but degrees mean nothing to me as college in today's world is nothing more than what should have been learned in high school. Most with bachelors degrees can't pass an 8th grade test from the late 1800s. Indoctrination is not education. Thomas Jefferson best describes my definition of education.

I went to college but it was after taking the final exam for 2nd year English that the professor asked us to write a critique. I wrote a very critical one but when I was finished I had to stop and analyze where I stood. My result was that to continue in this vein was to get what was before me. I never went back. The rest of my life I looked for a master in what I wanted to be and used their tutelage to obtain a real education. Didn't do much for degrees but as I stated, degrees mean nothing to me, education does.

Now, back to the argument. I have no doubt about the skills now needed to deliver death and aggression across the globe. This is no longer for a defense of our nation, this is far aggression against sovereign nations without a declaration of war. As an anarchist I believe in the non-aggression principle. The military is by it's very nature aggression at it's most extreme.

While from what I have read this teacher said what he said in a moment of anger, probably the only time in his life he has ever stated the truth.

Now as a little side line. Did you know the Navy and it's derivative the Coast Guard are the only constitutional military branches. The Marines could be a distinct possibility because of Embassy duty and support of the Navy.

The Army and it's derivative the Air Force are restricted and not allowed any appropriations for a period of more than 2 years.

This was stated by the idiot himself in Federalist 29: "Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper."

Seems the words Army and militia were used somewhat interchangeably on purpose if the occasion dictated it.

I am not sure if NYP ever has had comments....

It would seem that the article is very clear: "...they have argued that many people do not want to join the military and that the quality of those who did join would be lower (because they would have fewer skills valuable in the civilian sector).
Nope, not so. Having been a master training specialist in the Navy, I created, implemented and taught curriculum that took a new sailor through 3 levels of taining in a year, including detailed micro circuit troubleshooting skills, on a sonar system that had 103 cabinets of complex digital circuitry. They are NOT losers. The electronics in a M4A4 Abrams is also of such a level, as is all the other high tech gear. Combat skills alone rate a Masters degree in any of the traditional ideas of education. While every occupation has it's share of "losers" and only imposed upon them by liberal feel good HR idiots, the teachers profession is the only one we have where someone can go to school for years and then turn around and "tech" such acquired knowledge, with never having any life experience beyond a campus. That is what creates such liberal programmed bots like this dude, who spew ideas with no basis in fact. Were we to consider facts, we would have a sealed border and expel every illegal in the country, which is obviously not the case. We also would not have had such creatures as Hillary and BIll and their illegal activities thrust upon us. People like this guy are poor examples, poor teachers and he was suitable fired, as well as thrown off the city council.

The date is not really material to the argument. The argument is based on what is still a working theory by the Congressional Budget Office. The work is based on cost and effectiveness of a voluntary army compared to a drafted army.

It would seem that the article is very clear: "...they have argued that many people do not want to join the military and that the quality of those who did join would be lower (because they would have fewer skills valuable in the civilian sector). Sounds like a definition of losers to me considering the army refuses to accept 10% of the population off the bat due to an IQ less than 83. Seems to also eliminate the upper 60% or so because of their commercial prospects far outweigh the risk for less.

That pretty much covers the losers, those whose only prospects outweigh the risk or more accurately they have nothing else.

As to psychopaths and sociopaths, that should be obvious. Where society rejects their violent tendencies, the military encourages them. Nothing excites the psyche of a social degenerate better than having life and death control over others.

An argument based on what one wants to believe rather than reality is not really an argument.

"Human beings should consider with great care their sources for information. By refusing to present certain information, and by influencing people to dismiss certain information as unimportant or unnecessary to consider, many modern institutions seek to control human perceptions and therefore to limit what human beings may come to understand. - Mark Passio

Why would I need multiple sources when your argument offers no rebuttal to the one? Opinions are not rebuttals just opinions.

Your argument seems to be based on a series of logical fallacies:

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance)

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic)

Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity)

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition)

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization)

I clicked on a few other articles on their website and didn't see any comments sections.

Your argument that conflict exists in everything would be the result of a flawed moral philosophy, that is what I would deem naive. The conflict with supporting the military would be based on requiring others to live their lives for those wanting to avoid having to do so themselves. It is always our young that are used to support the illusions of government against other sovereign nations. Not in defense of the homeland but to benefit others at the expense of the country under attack.

"Altruistic acts include not only those undertaken in order to do good to others, but also those undertaken in order to avoid or prevent harm to them. Suppose, for example, someone drives his car extra cautiously because he sees that he is in an area where children are playing, and he wants to insure that he injures no one. It would be appropriate to say that his caution is altruistically motivated. He is not trying to make those children better off, but he is being careful not to make them worse off. He does this because he genuinely cares about them for their sake." - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al...

Altruism in and of itself is not the detrimental act your argument presupposes it to be. Would you charge through that neighborhood without regard for the children's presence, that would be sociopathic, not based in Objectivism.

How can one ever forget 9/11, a day that cost me directly $300,000 and indirectly more than $1,000,000. How can one forget the Saudi;s that flew home while the people got the Patriot Act. How can one forget those bearer bonds that got swept under the rug and the records in Tower 1 and 2 that got destroyed. How can one forget this little backward nation that wouldn't allow a pipeline was supposedly the source of 9/11 destruction and the resulting protracted war? How can one forget a nation that started transacting oil deals in Euros but no weapons of mass destruction in another protracted war? How can one forget the destruction of Libya as a long term effect because oil was to be sold in other than dollars? Why is there doubt as to why those people are upset and we deem them terrorist but our actions against them, the real terrorist actions, are somehow appropriate.

Standing armies are not for defense, that is the militia. Standing armies are for aggressive violent actions against other sovereign nations like Syria in trying to goad Iran into a war that could result into total nuclear holocaust. This is not an Objectivist idea as subjective opinions are just that, subjective.

Your argument then supposes that it is the fault of the politicians while totally ignoring reality. The reality of an immoral society that believes the sacrifice of our young is justified to punish others that will not bend to their will.

I would say it is not that teacher that is vile scum but those that judge based not on facts but emotional responses.

The only other question I have is why you feel the need to end the argument with an apology? Lack of faith in the argument?

Hmmmm. July of 2007, that is very accurate and up to date info, and still does not support your statement:

"People that join the military are of two different types, losers and sociopaths/psychopaths."

Sounds like a pretty unjustifiable position based on emotional rhetoric to me, sir.

Also, one would learn one does NOT trust the government for any information unless corroborated by a couple other sources. They have a bad track record of skewing data to fit the crime.

Your argument is based on ill conceived opinions not fact. Seems the government doesn't agree with your opinion.

"Critics of the AVF have raised questions about the likelihood that the military could attract enough volunteers in peacetime and wartime to meet its requirements and about the quality of those volunteers. They have argued that many people do not want to join the military and that the quality of those who did join would be lower (because they would have fewer skills valuable in the civilian sector) than the quality available through a draft. Proponents of the AVF have countered that historically, many people have volunteered for military service during both peace and war. They argue that others were discouraged from serving during the draft era because military compensation was set at below-market levels."

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/file...

You, sir, sound like a Socialist Democrat, manipulating big words for obtuse meaning. Your statement "People that join the military are of two different types, losers and sociopaths/psychopaths." is proof you have no factual basis for discussion and are justifying your own emotional insecurity with made up "facts". Get real.

There is conflict in everything, To say there isn't is naive. There is no conflict is supporting the military, in that no matter how altruistic your philosophy may be, the hard reality is that there are others who do not subscribe to it (Remember 9/11? The numerous terrorist attacks across the world in the last 50 years? Everyone of them to protest a perceived slight on a religion, a theft of land, stolen resources?) The military is the protection of the state, and enforcer of borders, which is an Objectivist idea. The fact politicians, who do not subscribe to that philosophy, choose to use them to impose their political will on other nations, is a separate issue. In every group there are less than honorable people, some have a majority of them. This teacher was a POS scum bottom dwelling creature. Sorry, but thats my take on it.

To me you are but a young man, I have children your age.

While most at some point have desires to use violence to correct what they perceive as wrongs, to put it into the public domain is a matter of moral ineptitude. The question being when one has gone this far, what stimulus would drive one to take the next step? Two wrongs do not a right make.

So what you are actually stating is that without rulers and penalties you would follow through with your desires.

What you espouse is not a philosophy but a desire that is driven by a philosophy. Not a good philosophy but one based on violence. I would suggest you examine the metaphysics of your philosophy as your premises are in error.

No my philosophy of life is to enjoy myself and make the best of everything that I do. And part of enjoying myself is fantasizing about stomping the guts out of pompous little shit's who push my buttons. It is only a fantasy mainly because they are not worth the jail time I would have to spend if I allowed myself to actually have that bit of fun. Of course at 50 years old I am still able to back up the physical exertion required but then would require at least a week to recove.

Let an old man vent.

So your philosophy of life is to live but not let live. Well there goes any objective view based on reason and logic.

You are trying to use rhetoric and innuendo as proof of your conviction.

People that join the military are of two different types, losers and sociopaths/psychopaths.

You are trying to justify an unjustifiable position using emotional rhetoric because it goes against what you want to be true. Ignorance is a choice, the choice to ignore what is available to be known. Your proclamation is based on emotions, not facts.

Not really, that would be a compromise of principle. I never blindly followed orders. All it takes is knowledge of that most magic word, know and no.

Just because someone was appointed does not mean I had to accept them as a god.

Again, you are referring to an unthinking soul that has no ability to determine right and wrong, a condition called moral relativism. As an example from the Vietnam era, I offer Lt Calley and Mai Lia. What happened to all his little order followers?

I will also draw your attention to Nuremberg? I was just following orders didn't keep the evil from being hanged did it?

Government by it's very nature is violence, ideas so good that are backed by armed thugs. The military are those thugs.

You say you follow the non-aggression principle because your principle of life is Objectivism. Then how can you support the most aggressive organization known to man, the military? I would suggest you reexamine your premises as some are in error. There can be no conflicts.