Objectivism and the Military

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 12 months ago to Philosophy
51 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

"Philosophy: Who Needs It" was delivered at West Point. Ayn Rand. Rand was acutely aware of the tension between the physical military fight against communism and the evil of conscription. Even deeper, almost nothing in military customs and culture speaks to egoism: military service is the epitome of altruism.

Many here were conscripted. Rand's lawyer, Henry Mark Holzer, represented several young men during the Vietnam War who claimed that involuntary servitude in the military violated the Ninth Amendment. The claim failed. (But see here for the arguments: http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/draft_...

I read Atlas Shrugged at age 16 in 1966. I resisted the draft when I was called in 1970. After a full day in the processing center, we all agreed that if the USA were invaded, I would volunteer: 1-Y.

Last November, I enlisted in the Texas State Guard. Twenty states have State Defense Forces (http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... but see also The State Guard Association of the United States here: http://www.sgaus.org/) We do not carry weapons, and we cannot be sent overseas.)

And you might well ask: What if we were invaded? Good question! When was the last time that happened? 1812. (See my post on the "Star Spangled Banner" on the Rebirth of Reason website here: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Gene... But, OK, reality aside, what if - theoretically - the USA were invaded?

OK... what if...

That is easy enough, perhaps, but what about short of that? Is it in your self-interest to prevent invasion? Facing Nazi Germany, Swiss general Henri Guisan, ordered his troops to ignore any order to surrender as enemy propaganda and to find past the last bullet until they had only knives. Germany bitched -- but did not invade Switzerland...

On the personal level, once you enlist (assuming you have a choice) where and to what extent do your loyalties and affirmations apply?

We say that the refusal of the population to support a war is indication that the war in unjust, yet from the Mexican War to Iraq, we have not embraced those who refuse... Indeed, we vilify them.

All Comments

  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hamas and Hezbollah make very good business by blowing up their own people. And it seems that much of the so-called "civilized" world is paying them to do that! The US pays them, the EU pays them and, of course the Saudis and the Emirates pay them. Throughout the 70 and the '80's the Soviets paid them (maybe they still do?). The Hamas' and Hezbollah's existence completely depends on the continuation of the war. Their own people do not matter - they are just cannon fodder and with their birthrate - quickly replaceable. I disagree with you that neither side has the moral high ground and that there are any non-combatants in Gaza. Were there any "non-combatants" in the Nazi party?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not consider any Arabs in Gaza as protected "non-combatants". They are all there due to their choice to wage war against Israel. As such, they are all legitimate enemies to be dealt with as with any other enemy. In my opinion, Israel has been playing the "humanitarian" game way too long - at the expense of it's own citizens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK, I'm not clear on what you've meant by "I don't see any" [judgment] calls in regard to Israeli-Arab issue - whom do you see there as combatants and who is not?

    However, in general, 20th and 21st century warfare is more of an economic battle than purely a feat of arms. Destroying the enemy's industrial base has now been long considered valid warfare. The Allies burned Dresden and Hamburg to the ground because of their industrial capacity. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a demonstration of the power of a new weapon. The Soviet Union unleashed a well documented propaganda war within the US to destroy the morale of the country during the Vietnam war. Al Qaeda attacked the very foundation of American industry, military leadership and government, by taking down the World trade Center, Pentagon and attempted Capitol bombing, respectively. In my view, and I believe in anyone's honest view, these were all legitimate targets (once one makes the jump that anyone's war is legitimate). Of course, we should have been making it very unpalatable for our enemies to wage a war against us, instead of dropping them pretty expensive food and building housing and hospitals for the enemy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    10th Armored Cav - Buffalo Soldiers. 82nd, 101st, 187th PIR and the rest when it wasn't sexy to be SF. 7th, 8th, 5th and 7th. All that time we did what we did out of loyalty to the unit and the Constitution. Nowhere in the oath is the word country to be found.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Martial law was not declared during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. See here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?.... Although you are wrong about the specific fact, your question remains cogent.

    The easy answer is that a single exception does not invalidate the general rule.

    You ask "how would you personally [have] handled..." but that indicates the very personal nature of the problem. How one person rationally and morally decides may be different from how another person rationally and morally decides. In the fiction of Ayn Rand, various heroes took very different approaches to the challenges: Roark and Mallory; D'Anconia and Danneskjo"ld. You can judge them by your own standards, but those, also remain your own. They may be objective, but they are not absolute.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 9 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with Heinlein as well. Not to mention that the draft violates the US Constitution's prohibition on involuntary servitude.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 12 months ago
    There are different forms of invasion, and I would submit that we are in the process of invasion by migration of the poor populations of the Latino countries to our south. The invasion takes the form of the uneducated and criminal elements, for economic reasons. The unskilled because they can work for a lower wage and still live better than in the country of their origin, and the criminal because there's so much more wealth easier taken here than in the autocratic states they left.

    Such invasions helped collapse the Roman empire, and appear to be destroying the European Union and the United States. The question is whether or not we will let misguided compassion guide us to societal suicide. As an Objectivist, I see no gain in ignoring the problem.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 9 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ever since the concept of total war made its debut, EVERYONE is a soldier, whether we like it or not. How many soldiers were in the twin towers? How many were in Dresden, London or Hiroshima? Now, we have military strategies that aim directly at the innocent. It's called terrorism. If you ever thought that you could second guess the government about military strategy, the enemy has taken that option out of your hands. If you really want to have a say in military strategy, go to the Pentagon, and ask for the job. The fact is, military service falls outside any discussion of "rights." By its very definition, a soldier has no rights. Anytime you can be ordered to die, it's obvious that you're not in Kansas anymore. Also, this attempt to hold governments to the same standards as individuals, when they operate in a jungle environment displays a level of ignorance that's unbelievable. Just remember, it's the governments that make the rules, in an environment where they obviously don't have to abide by any at all. The fact that our government made an attempt to create a civilized structure doesn't mean that all governments do, as you can readily see in the newspapers. If you're not willing to defend what little slice of civilization that we have, then resign yourself to the jungle that's creeping up to our doorstep every day. That's the real choice. Do you like the American way, or will anything do? How's Russia, or China, or ISIS? Do you prefer them? If so, then don't defend what's here, and let them take over. See how that will work out for you. I'd suggest that you visit the places where they already hold sway if you're undecided.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 12 months ago
    Guerrilla warfare is the solution to repelling a foreign invader. Small groups can do more than a big army. Look at how effective the tactics are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and even Russia. If Russia tried to take over the US, it would be extremely difficult. They arent going to nuclear bomb us, as that would render their booty worthless in a chernobyl-like scenario. We as citizens need to be as independent as possible of our own government's hold on us.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 12 months ago
    If you aren't willing to defend your right to life, don't be surprised when someone absolves you of that right - permanently.

    Myself, my wife, and my oldest four all know how to properly care for and use a firearm.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The draft like a snake in the grass still lurks ready to be used instantly. The military is in fact asking that women be included since there exists no constitutional ban or exclusion and it fits the equality goal they were ordered to implement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 9 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mike, in answer to your question concerning the end of a national service commitment: Ask any Marine. There are almost no ex-Marines. They call themselves "former" Marines and display their status proudly. You see bumper stickers, car window stickers, t-shirts, jacket patches and just about any other form of display everywhere. Although I am not a former Marine, merely a former AF officer, I display my status proudly just about wherever I go. I am dedicated to this country and the principles on which it was founded and will defend, to the best of my ability, its right to exist. My commitment did not end when I 'retired'.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo