Debating the Merits of the Military Opens a Huge Can of Worms...

Today, I found myself in a debate with others over how much respect is due to members of the military. I know my train of thought angers many people, and they tend to respond with, "Well if you don't support the troops, feel free to stand in front of them," or some variant of, "Love it or leave it!"

I do not want to present this as an attack against anyone, but many people cannot separate questioning their actions or beliefs from a personal affront. Please remember that I arrived at my current position as a former flag-waving Young-Marines-Instead-of-Boy-Scouts kid who chose to examine his core beliefs when contradictions arose. I ask my readers to do me the favor of reading my arguments in good faith with an open mind and willingness to explore the possibility that their opinions could possibly be in error.

Image credit

Military members claim to have honorably served me and protected me from those who threaten my liberty. The core dispute arose because I don't believe the military is an honorable profession because soldiers are paid with stolen money to enforce the will of politicians who objectively do not represent the people they govern, and insist that soldiers surrender their consciences in the name of obedience. One cannot have honor without virtue, and obedience is not virtue, but rather its absence. The obedient surrenders his conscience to the dictates of others who claim "authority."

Government is presented as a legitimate authority, but I contend that governmental authority is usurped. Of course, democracy is presented as the mechanism for delegation of authority by the people to government, and the means to redress grievances against the government. In response, I must point out that government is not representative. There isn't even an agent-principal relationship between a politician and the people who voted for him, much less between the politician and those who voted for someone else or did not vote at all. So how does any form of governmental representation of the general populace really exist? Even setting aside the question of representation and instead taking the idea at face value, if individuals do not have authority over the life, liberty, or property of others, how can they rationally delegate such authority to a third party by any process, much less through elections every few years?

Image credit

Further, the military is funded by government through taxation. Taxation is extortion under color of law. How is it different from a mafia racketeering operation, other than in scope? A government official says, "pay us what we demand, or we will hurt you." This is clearly not a voluntary exchange, because voluntary exchanges are mutually beneficial according to the value scales of those involved. Coercion is only necessary when one party does not see a benefit to the exchange without such coercion. There is no honor or virtue or honor in this process, and as demonstrated already, government does not represent the people, and thus it cannot be argued that the people have chosen to tax themselves.

I must conclude that government is wholly illegitimate, operating as a parasite upon society rather than an agent for it, and is the destructive force that presents the greatest threat to human progress. It violates every rights it claims to protect, and stands as a false messiah for the dangers we face. The military is therefore a dishonorable institution that cannot confer virtue upon those who participate in its operations, no matter what the intentions of those who joined may be.

Of course, there are many who disagree with my assessment. If you can show that government does in fact represent the people, taxation is voluntary, and the military is virtuous, please do so in the comments below. I just ask that you keep it civil.