We Kill So You Don't Have To.

The difference between Marines and murderers is discipline ~ a Marine Captain ca. 2003

The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his. ~George Patton


Odd thing being a killer. The primary purpose of our military is killing. It is killing for a good reason, but killing nonetheless. We killed a lot of guys in Iraq over these past years. I'd say I'm proud of that. I'm not proud that people lost their lives. I'm proud we provided the ONLY way the Iraqi's were going to be free. Had we not killed most of those guys, Iraq wouldn't have been able to ever determine their own destiny. I may not like what comes out of their self-determination, but I will always be proud we gave them a shot while many in the world hated us for it. People on the pacifist side are all for human rights, until the messy business of what it actually takes (killing that is) to provide them comes around. I'm not saying killing is a good thing. It is now, and always will be, the motive that determines whether taking a person's life is good or bad.

Freedom is really only as good as the people willing to kill for it. The only thing that keeps freedom from tipping into anarchy are men and women willing to kill to maintain the social contract (i.e. police). A government without force is no longer a government. The force can go to far, and we call that tyranny (Syria). If a government did not have force by the implied threat of violence, we'd be free to rape, assault, rob, and murder all we want. The pacifist can scream and rabble all they want about killing and war always being immoral, but if it weren't for moral people being willing to kill on their behalf, there would be no pacifists left. To live anywhere you are free to be a pacifist because of the threat of violence keeping you safe to practice your pacifism, is to be complicit in violence or the threat of violence that provides that safety. If you live in the United States, where brutal and bloody wars had to take place to secure your right to be a pacifist, you've just negated you pacifism. Don't believe in the death penalty? Never call the police, or anyone else you might save you or your family's lives by the use or the threat of violence. If you are a true pacifist, move out of the U.S. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Peace and freedom can only be obtained and maintained by way of killing those who threaten it, by moral men who know their true costs.

He asked

What's wrong with Socialism? Just wondering...
-Gixxer Jon @ swmosportbikes.com

Here is just the short reply:

That's an honest question. In theory is sounds like a great and equitable way to do business. Everybody works for the common good and everybody reaps the benefits equally. The problem is human nature. If you work 12 hours a day and I work 5 hours a day doing the same job doing the same task, and we get paid the same amount of money, what motivation do you have to work the 7 extra hours? You could use the argument, "I like working harder.", but on a national level it doesn't happen that way. Eventually enough people will work the figurative 5 hours until all production goes down. The Russians had a saying in Communist times "We pretend to work because the pretend to pay us".

In the capitalist model, you work the 12 and I work the 5 doing the same task, you should get more benefit for more work. I realize you could "what-if" these to death and it is an simplification of the systems, but the fundamentals are sufficient.

What socialism needs to keep up with capitalism is authority (usually totalitarian). Since the drive to work harder for more benefit is gone, the worker must be forced. The choice is gone, liberty is diminished. The model in practice has always been, and will always be, "more socialism equals less individual freedom".

Remember one thing when caught up in the "eat the rich" mentality I've seen growing within the Left these days. Without the rich or the business owners, who would sign the checks, who would hire the people without businesses of their own?

rePUNKlican

"How can you be punk and be conservative?"
-John Q. Scene wearing black rimmed art school glasses a Dead Kennedys shirt from Hot Topic

Punk has a few established norms. None were more holy to the gods of three chords than "DIY". It means "do-it-yourself". Punk bands made their genre on their own. Punk bands recorded themselves in basements. They distributed those tapes at shows they set up themselves. If a venue wouldn't book them, they'd make their own venue (basement shows). The fans made the magazines that drove the publicity. You bought their music directly from them via mail. They slept in vans or on fans' couches.

They made something themselves that nobody wanted to give to them.

All the while the content of many songs and the political positions they took were, the government should take from the "rich" and give to the "poor". They demanded the sucessful give up what they had gained through the DIY ethic and never demanded the same of everyone else. I've always found that hypocritical. Their actions and goals were "do-it-yourself", but their message was "blame-it-on-somebody-else". Nobody held the bands down, they got up on their own.
They amusing onus of the punk rock story is many of the loudest voices against the wealthy, are now wealthy. The old punk guard says take the rich man's money, just not mine...

I try to live by the DIY. I am a victim or a success of only my own actions. Nobody has their foot on my neck. You deserve the life you work for.

The Lie at the End of the Needle

"Yet while loathing and fearing addiction, many late-nineteenth-century people sympathized with addicts. They condemned the use of drugs for escape or sensual pleasure, but many people believed that addiction was a form of physiological slavery, which alleviated the user's guilt..." -H. Wayne Morgan, Yesterday's Addict

We have a problem in this country's attitudes towards drugs. We do condemn the drug, we condemn the drug dealer, we condemn the all-encompassing "drug trade", and we condemn the effects of drug use (prostitution, broken homes, crime, etc.). However, I rarely hear a condemnation of the root cause of all of those aforementioned things; the user.

There would be no drugs if there was not someone to use them. There would be no dealer is there was not a buyer. There would be no trade (or violence associated with it) if there was no consumer. There would be no adverse effects of drug use if there was no user.

We treat the addict as a victim of the drug. Since the addict is a victim of his or her own choice, the addict is not a victim at all. The addict is the culprit, the cause, the pathogen.

Condemn the user.

Ellis Island, TX

Alot has been made of illegal immigration lately and I think I have a solution.

In the U.S. we have laws to protect workers. We can form unions, we have minimum wage, we can sue our companies for a litany of various abuses or harassments, we have unemployment offices, OSHA to make sure the environments we work in are safe. Mexico and most Latin American countries don't. The biggest reason we have so many people coming north is because they can make a better living working here than they can in their home countries. Why not make life easier for them in their home countries so they won't want (and some cases have) to come here illegally.

Get rid of NAFTA or any other free-trade agreements we have with ANY country that doesn't have protections for their workers on par with ours. Tariff those who refuse. Use American consumerism as leverage, because if there is one thing we do better than any other country it's consume. Make it harder for corrupt governments and companies to provide the supply that we demand.

I believe the OVERWHELMING majority of people here illegally just want to work, provide for their families, and lead honest lives. There is a criminal element coming across our borders, but they seem no more dangerous than the criminals we grow here. I think it should be easier to become a citizen. If you're an honest, hardworking person, that pays your taxes and wants to make his/her part of America better, I say come on in, learn English (not for an elitist reason, it just makes it easier on those of us who are already here), and live it up, regardless of where you were born. On the flip side, if you are already an American and you use every loophole and lie you can to skirt the tax system, take advantage of hardworking people, and then drape yourself in the flag when the subject of immigration comes up I say, kiss my tax paying (censored) and let us get back to work.

First post

I'm starting this blog because I want to refine arguments. I have opinions based on not only personal experiences, but opinions and experiences of others. When I state an opinion I want to hear those who want to disagree, as well as those who agree and can add to it. I like suggestions for further reading. I don't want it to be a bully pulpit. I want to influence as well as be influenced.