cobra2411

There's an old tale about German and Swiss ambassadors meeting during WWII. The German ambassador was trying to gain some knowledge about the Swiss's preparedness for invasion and asked how many troops they had in their army. The Swiss ambassador responded that they had 1 million adult citizens that were armed and trained and would respond as needed to an invasion. The German ambassador then asked what they would do if Germany invaded with 5 million troops? Everyone would shoot five times and go home... Germany never invaded Switzerland... In becoming an anarchic society we wouldn't just melt down all arms, in fact we'd probably be better armed. What we would do is stop trying to attack other countries. The concept of a militia army worked very well almost 250 years ago, I'm sure it would work well today. Even the founding fathers didn't want a standing army. That part of the constitution has been tortured pretty well. That's why funding is only for 2 years, then, if not needed the army was intended to be disbanded. Only the navy, which resides at sea, would be allowed to stand. I guess it depends on where anarchy took hold, but I'm sure the other tax farmers would love to crush it and thus would use their propaganda machines and war machines against it. I wouldn't expect a walk in the park, but we'd be far from defenseless against it.

While it's noble to starve yourself rather than support the state, it most likely won't accomplish anything of value. In my mind it comes down to degrees of support. Is there any way you can reduce your support of the state? If you can without causing hardship then you do. I for one have decided to move to lower my cost of living. I'm also scaling back in a number of way like fixing my car vs replacing it. Since I'm pretty handy and can do a lot of work myself it doesn't make as much sense to upgrade vs someone who is dependent on a reliable car and can't afford to do routine maintenance of an aging vehicle. There are lots of ways to reduce your cost of living and then you don't have to work as hard. Which gives you more time to enjoy life... Bottom line if lots of people can do just a little it will add up to a huge amount.

I've been looking at the last 30 years or so of financial history, specifically 1980, around which time we doubled down with fraud. Fraud that was supported and encouraged by the government. Look at how many times banks commit fraud vs how many times they get caught. And when they do, it's a slap on the risk with a fine that's a small percentage of what they've made. No one goes to jail, they aren't forced closed, they just merrily go along all while the media makes Joe Six Pack feel good by talking about the Massive, record setting fines being paid. For those that don't know, banks legally counterfeit money. This has been confirmed many times, including within a Federal Reserve document called Modern Money Mechanics. When you sign on the dotted line, be it a credit card slip, a promissory note or a mortgage, your promise to pay is now an asset on the balance sheet of the bank. They use that asset to justify creating money and since that money isn't going to be placed under a mattress they meet their reserve requirements ex-post-facto when that newly created money is deposited back into a bank. All the banks essentially function as one and for every loan that bank A gives where people deposit in bank B, bank B makes loans that go to bank A. In the event they're short, bank A can borrow from bank B to make things balance out and if all the banks are having trouble they just lower the reserve requirements or even eliminate them. The idea that banks take in deposits and loan those deposits out is an abject fraud. So... From 1980 to present the economy, expressed in GDP, has gone from $2.8 trillion to about $17 trillion. That's about a 6 fold increase in the economy over 34 years, pretty good right? Well the total debt outstanding has risen from about $5 billion to almost $60 Trillion. Or a 12 fold increase - double what the economy increased. If you back out the debt, since it has to be paid off with future productivity, you'll see that the economy has declined by 50% over the last 34 years. Stolen by intentional fraud by allowing the banks to legally counterfeit money. At the same time, due to computers, robotics and the like, worker productivity has increased by almost 70%. The only reason it doesn't feel like a third world country is that 1.) debt is freely available and 2.) worker productivity has increased tremendously. That worker productivity has been stolen however. In constant 1980 dollars, assuming in 1980 we could afford a $100,000 house, we should be able to buy a $170,000 house. It's not that the $100k house would appreciate in value, no, we should be able to afford 70% more house. However, due to the fraud, we can only afford a $50k house. The hidden tax of inflation and the constantly declining interest rates have made it so we don't understand that because everything has increased in price. What would cost $50k in 1980 would cost $140k today. People get confused because they could afford a $100k house in 1980 and now they can afford a $140k house and they think that's an improvement... In today's dollars someone who could afford a $100k house in 1980 should be able to buy a $475k house today when adjusted for worker productivity increases and inflation. That $100k house costs $280k today because of inflation and nothing else. Lets talk about the declining interest rates for a moment and how this all became a vicious feedback loop. It's 1980 and I borrow $1 million dollars at 15% interest. Simplified, my payments are $150k/yr. After some time the rates have dropped to 10% and that million dollars now costs $100k per year if I refinance it. But... Since I'm used to paying $150k a year I can take out another $500k. Now another 8-10 years goes by and rates are now at 5% and I can refinance my $1.5 million for half of what I'm paying. Or... I can borrow another $1.5 million and still pay just $150k per year. 10 years later rates are now 2.5% and once again my interest payments have fallen in half so I borrow another 3 million. I now have 6 million outstanding with the same payment I've had for 30+ years; $150k. I have paid ZERO toward principal and thus owe the entire 6 million. None of that money was ever depositor's money, it was created the moment I signed my name to promise to pay. Our government knows this and they've allowed what is essentially counterfeiting. By allowing all that counterfeiting they've diluted the purchasing power of everyone. It's nothing more than a hidden tax. And speaking of our government... Surely with worker productivity increasing by almost 70% they've had to make some efficiency improvements right? Ha! Government debt has gone from $660 billion to almost $13 Trillion. They've expanded by almost 20 times. I think we can call that a monstrous expansion... It's certainly not sustainable and it's what has been seen at the tail end of any large government institution. Stephan has said multiple times that at the end the looting is monstrous and collapses the system pretty hard. GDP Growth: +6x Debt Growth: +13x Real Growth: -50% Gov Growth: +19x Without government many things would have found their utility cost and would have decreased in response to increases in productivity. We wouldn't have to give over 75% of our productivity to the government and we would likely only have to work part time to enjoy a decent standard of living. Think of the wondrous things would could have accomplished if we didn't have to struggle to survive? Oh, and remember that government that's increased by almost 20 times? We can't get to the moon today. Less than 50 years ago with technology that's easily surpassed by a cell phone today and we can't do it. Progress? By who's definition...

You can't be expected to uphold personal morals while acting under coercion. You can't exist without supporting the state to some degree, so the question really is how can you support them the least. Don't make any more money than you have to and don't buy what you don't need. Do what you can to be healthy so you don't support big pharma and don't go into debt. I do like Ayn Rand's explanation that by giving up they win twice.

There are two facets here. One, talking to normal people and two, trying to "beat them at their own game". The second one requires there to be an actual rule of law in order to have any hope at winning. While there may have been at some point, there isn't anymore. First, they won't give you proof or a get out of jail free card just because you've made the correct argument to them. Our current system is based on case law, so you'll have to go to court. To have standing in court you have to levy charges against someone or be the someone that charges are brought against. The latter is more common and the former, while doable, is extremely unlikely in this case. I think you'd have better luck winning the lotto. So now you are charged with some tax violation and you go into court armed with your Marc Steven's motion to dismiss and scripts questioning the judges authority and questioning the procedure and the judge rejects your motion and gives you the ultimatum "Question my authority or the courts procedures again and you'll find yourself in contempt of court". You may be 100% right on your original argument, but you violated a direct order from the judge and are now in jail. Good luck appealing that one. I'm not saying it can't be done, you just have to be willing to go to jail if you're wrong, you mess up or they simply ignore the rule of law. Ten years ago I would have been more supportive, but over the last 10 years I've been learning as much as I can and I've seen first hand that we no longer have a rule of law. Go to any court you want and just sit and watch. Before you do anything that may have legal consequences, go to that court and watch proceedings. Don't do it just once, do it many times. Then decided if you think you can enter the ring with the MMA style ultimate legal fighters. Again, I believe it can be done, but if you're going to play with tax law you're playing with very high stakes and can quickly find yourself in hell even if you do everything right. My solution: Re-evaluate your life and figure out what you truly need to be happy and only produce to that level. I used to think the fancy house in the suburbs with the fancy new car every couple of years was the answer - look how successful and happy I am! Now that I realized that's not me and it didn't lead to happiness I'm getting rid of all those things that aren't me and don't make me happy. In the end I should be able to reduce my income needs to 1/3rd of my former level. That includes selling the posh suburban home to get away from the property taxes. At least for now, they can't tax what you don't make, so by reducing my income I'm reducing theirs as well... I've got a friend who's got the ultimate deal in regards to reducing his income. He bought a used travel trailer and found a place where he can setup in the driveway behind the house. There's a sewer cleanout pipe for him to dump his waste and he hooks the hose up for his water line. He skirted the bottom of the trailer to get through the winter and for rent he maintains the yard and does some handyman work around the house. He does odd jobs here and there for food and that's it. It's a bit extreme, but if you really want to stick it to them that's a good way in my opinion. As for a watertight argument for other people? You can have the most watertight argument there is and people still won't accept it. You first have to get them to accept that government isn't out benevolent, all loving protector. Once they see the government for what it is, then they'll accept that taxation is theft by force no different than the mob getting it's protection money.

Well I had a run in with my mother today... I gauge my frustration/anger about the same as burning a piece of toast - so that's good. Anyway, she's a hard core manipulator who I've recently extricated from my life. We had a short conversation the other day about why I was doing this to her and I simply said "because I'm tired of all the manipulation" and walked away. So today I run into her and say "Morning" in a cordial and reserved way and it starts... "{hmmf} Hi. You know I'm still really upset that you accused me of manipulating you, that really hurt me. I have never manipulated you in your life, but if that's what you have to do to justify exiling your mother from your life then go ahead. Unlike you I have thick enough skin to handle it." Here's where I'm pretty sure I made my mistake, I got drawn into explaining my actions to her - something I know I have no obligation to do. ME: "Well you do manipulate. This conversation, all the times you accused me of not caring, etc... You do it to get an emotional response from me - that's manipulation." FOO: "That's not manipulation, that was for attention. I felt you pulling away from me; which you have every right too - it's your life. I just wanted your attention so you could understand what you were doing to me. That's not manipulation... You forget, I was in the mental health field, I know what manipulation is." ME: "It is manipulation. If you felt there was something wrong with our relationship you could have just talked to me." FOO: "I didn't do it intentionally - therefor it's not manipulation. Manipulation is when you intentionally do those things. Don't you know how upset I am with myself for doing those things? Then you go and make it worse by exiling me from your life. You're the only thing in this world I care about and to not be in your life really hurts me." ME: "Well then you should strongly consider therapy if it's that important for you to be in my life. Until then I have somewhere else to be." And I walked away. I would like some input on how I handled that. I know I have to work on a few things because there should be no reason for me to feel compelled to respond to her. I'm assuming it's just that it's too fresh and there's still some part of me left that wants to placate and sooth the soon to be unruly monster. Any tips for how I can handle things like that better? I'm a nice guy and have all the tire tracks over my back to prove that - it's hard for me to simply ignore her or dismiss her - but I'm working on it. I just don't want to feel like a jerk afterwards. Lastly, while I'm very suspect, is there any validity to her statement that it's not manipulation if it's not intentional? The effect is the same so it's not like I'm going to run back to her with open arms, I'm just curious if there was anything that came out of her mouth in that conversation that wasn't meant to manipulate. Thanks

The whole premise of Kenyacare was that they would get all the young, healthy people who normally forgo insurance to join and pay for all the sick people. Well the sick people showed up, but the healthy people haven't. Due to the rising costs and the availability of "free" healthcare I'm not surprised employers are dumping their formerly insured workers. Workers need to return move value to a company than what they cost. That's simple. Since the customer will ultimately decide what a company can charge for it's products and services there are little options for said company who is stuck in the middle. I say this not to paint the companies as victims, but to show that sometimes business decisions are done in a calculated way with little emotion. Workforce reduction and simple shuttering of said business is IMO the only answer. The people who think we're going to get into an armed conflict are deluded. Simply stop producing and you'll cut off their food supply. I'm making changes in my life to reduce my income needs to approximately 1/3rd of what they were in 2012. It started in 2013, it continues this year and by 2015 I want to reach my goal. Since I'm self employed, once I make my annual limit I'm simply going to sit out the rest of the year.

Yes. Manipulator: "Can you do me a favor and change the flat tire on my car?" Me: "Not right now, I'm super busy with work, maybe later?" Manipulator: "Just great. Thanks for ruining my hole day. I can't believe how selfish you are. Thanks alot, I'll get someone else do to it." This is pretty simple, but the dishonesty is that you had anything to do with the flat or any obligation to fix it. Therefore, since you had nothing to do with it and no obligation to fix it you in no way ruined their day. But, you end up feeling like crap because you now believe you're selfish...

giancoli, thanks for the book link, I'll have to check it out. To both of you I'm sorry for what you are going though, I have similar battles and it's been very difficult for me. For me the tell-tale phrase that now sets off alarms is "if you care" or something similar. "If you really loved me you would..." "If you care about your family you would..." "I thought you were someone who cared about..." The other one is where they tell you who you are. "I know you really care about X, that's why I'm surprised that you're acting this way. I really thought you would want to do..." There are other things too that I've dealt with like being told I was no good and was lucky to have the abuser in my life. If I wasn't careful they'd leave and I'd be all alone to fail. When I started to point out the manipulation I was made to look like I was crazy and was acting out. It would also trigger fights, basically to beat me down - don't want to do that again... I know in my case with my mother, her mother is exactly the same person and I'm told my great grandmother was no peach either. So I think it's passed down and after a while it just becomes normal. My mother had her sister and her sister was the one held up on an alter and my mother did all the wrong. My grandmother even told her she tried abortion home remedies of the time because she didn't want my mother. I feel bad but my mother knows better and should not continue the cycle. I'm not. So it's learned but it also takes an easier hold in a damaged mind I believe. FDR 311 comes to mind, but I may have it confused with another one. Basically it says to be completely venerable with you family and let them know how you feel. If they crap on you then you have your answer and you have to protect yourself. FDR 1927 talks about finding a therapist, which I would recommend to make heads and tails of this. I'm the last person to ever think I would need or want a therapist, but I went like 6-8 times to figure everything out and get some external perspective.

You're right, I should have say that they "should" be able to understand that hitting is wrong. You need to find out why they're not acting on something that IMO should be innate to them. That would likely lead to a dysfunctional home / upbringing and once identified they can be worked with. To simply call them monsters places the blame on the child, not the adult that ruined the child.

My first concern is that a child is being labeled rotten, no good, a monster, etc. IMO that must stop first. As for the morality questions, I believe a 5 year old or even a 3 year old has a basic grasp of things and knows hitting another person out of frustrating is wrong. I would say you have to take into account the child's upbringing and home life and explain things in an age appropriate level. "I understand you are angry and frustrated, but hitting someone else is not an appropriate way to handle your frustrations..." Then you can find about their home life and teach them better ways to handle stress.

It makes sense, or at least is starting to. On the surface it does, I just have to integrate it - if that makes any sense. Just in time for me to put it to use. A friend called to tell me his cat had died unexpectedly and my first thought was sorry - which I hesitated on because I was worry it would sound fake. After a brief pause I simply said "I really don't know what to say, I'm sorry." which felt a lot better and more honest and from the heart and consistent with how I felt. He appreciated it too as he responded "I know, I'm in shock too." Now with strangers I'm guessing a simple "I'm sorry for xxx" would be sufficient if I felt like expressing some empathy, even if it sounded a bit forced? I'm not talking about actually forcing myself to say something for someone else, it's just from years of occasionally stepping on land mines I've become a bit gun shy and I'm hesitant to say something because of that. Thanks

On the topic of the moon landing not happening, the technology needed to fake it would have been much more impressive in 1969 than the technology needed to actually go to the moon. In other words, we actually went to the moon. As for 9/11, I firmly believe that the government had at least some involvement in it. I also believe at least one of the buildings was demolished. So what? I'm not surprised that the state would kill it's subjects to further it's agenda. As long as there is a state, there will be those who will do anything to expand their power. It's just more proof that the state is immoral and should be ended.

Voting for a candidate to represent you in the state gives your support and consent. I can't support the state, so I do not vote.

I was raised in an emotionally toxic environment, one papered over with words like family and duty and responsibility... To survive I became a peacemaker and as the peacemaker in the family I usually put the needs of others ahead of mine. Given that the abuse amounted to the same - "you have a duty to your family", it's easy to see why I did that. I see the need to empathize with people and I want to, but I find myself holding back, afraid I may say the wrong thing and hurt instead of help. Saying the wrong thing as a peacemaker would cause an eruption of rage, which I would desperately try and avoid. Sometimes when I do say something it feels like it's forced and not genuine. I think one issue I have is that the abusers in my family abused the words "I'm sorry". I would hear things like "Oh, I'm sorry you can't handle constructive criticism - next time I won't try and be helpful, I'll just keep my mouth shut because you can't handle it." to things like "I'm so sorry, I promise I'll never do that again(*)." (*)At least not before next Tuesday... I guess that's why I feel disingenuous saying "I'm sorry" even though I really feel for what is going on in other people's lives. Any insight, tips, etc would be appreciated.

I'm amazed that even as we travel far down the path to enlightenment it is still so easy to put on the blinders and get caught up in something so trivial and lose sight of the bigger picture. Many people focused on the religious overtones to it, I keyed in on the concept of a government run school trying to erase the history of the last genocide presumable to enable the next genocide. It was different than the herd, but still narrow in focus. Thank you for everyone who posted insightful comments about this; it's been very helpful in many ways.

I had an idea about this when I was transitioning from a constitutionalist to an anarchist, but I never finished thinking it through and it's just sat collecting dust. The idea is this: society comes with benefits, fail to pay restitution for a crime and you lose those benefits. In a stateless society there will be an investigative or police force, a judicial or DRO system where the accused can refute the evidence levied against him and a system for restitution. John steals Larry's law mower. Larry calls the cops, they investigate and it leads them to John and they levy charges against John who now has to show up in court. If John goes and is found guilty then he would be responsible for paying the cost of the investigation, court costs and for reimbursing Larry for his lawn mower and it's loss of use. If John pays for all that then the slate is clean. Now, if John says to hell with all you and ignores the charges then he loses his benefits under society. That will make it more difficult for John to exist though blocking or restricting access to what he needs, but if someone comes by and steals Johns stuff no one will investigate. In the case of a rapist or murderer a victim or someone else could then attack or kill the rapist or murderer and since they did not have the benefits of society available to them it wouldn't get investigated. As I rethink it I feel it's got some flaws in it... Maybe it's got some usable ideas... Anyway, this has been one thing on my mind of how it works in a stateless society as well.

In 2007 or so when I filed mine I actually thought the country could be saved by returning to the rule of law and by holding the politicians accountable to their oaths under the constitution. Yeah, not that naive today... Anyway, mine was focused more on disputing the alleged hidden contracts out there. My idea was to present common or perceived knowledge to them in their own language - as if it was simply a battle of semantics... That's one of the main complaints with the constitutionalists and the sovereignty people is that they've changed the definitions to words so in a legal sense they don't mean what you think they mean. Back to the declaration of sovereignty this again, one of the main differences between Common Law and Uniform Commercial Code is in how contracts can be entered. UCC allows adhesion contracts and I basically disputed all of those alleged hidden contracts like driver's licenses, use of federal reserve notes, filing taxes, etc. It's based on a lot of constitutional law stuff; I'm not sure how it would be affected by my latest understanding of the state... For example, Brady v US 379 US 742 at 748:(1970) states that "Waivers of [Constitutionally protected] Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences." Mudook v Penn. 319 US 105:(1940) states that "No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it." Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Al. 373 US 262: (1962) states "if the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage [in] the right with impunity." Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579 states "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So since the traveling is a right, and the state can not by their own rules convert that to a privilege and issue a license with a fee and I can only waive my constitutionally protected rights knowingly and voluntarily, since I did not waive my rights, I dispute there is any hidden contract and if there is, I revoke, cancel and make void my signature on any and all documents, forms, etc that feature a hidden contract or any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. My continued use of those items, such as a drivers license is done so in duress due to the extreme harassment for not having one. Blah, blah, blah... This all revolves around the idea that if presented properly enough, the state will simply back off and say "well done, you've really done your homework..." In reality, the state loves to find any crack it can and beat you down mercilessly for trying to upset the game. I really enjoy all the study I did on the topic and I believe there is something to be said about believing that you and only you control you, I strongly agree with the others that at this time it's probably best to keep that to yourself...

"States don't have to pay back their debt because they theoretically last forever." No, I guess they don't, but then it would probably be pretty hard for them to borrow more money which could represent a problem given states current spending habits. "If states were to privatize or end public sector it would cause unemployment, which therefore would require these new unemployed people to be supported. So the state would need to borrow even more money to do so." The important and necessary jobs will still need to be done and there will be a great demand for those with experience and expertise to fill those jobs. By removing the unnecessary jobs, or those that are wasteful, it would lessen the tax burden of the community. Lower tax burdens on people and business will likely spur the economy on and create a need for more workers. Additionally, many of those unnecessary jobs likely revolve around unnecessary, overly complicated or otherwise outdated regulations. A reduction in unneeded regulation would make it easier for businesses to survive. "If state is getting in trouble with paying back it's debt, it can simply print more and more money and use it to pay the interest of the debt. He said that inflation would be a better choice than reducing public sector, because it only takes away money from INDIVIDUALS. Public sector provides services to everyone free of charge so it is more important than personal rights." The state can not print money, only the feral government can. And... er... Well, we've gone off the rails here. I was trying to debate those up until he advocated theft by force. If he is a true statist, then you're better off just banging your head against the wall a few times - you'll get the same result. If he's just under their propaganda then you need to ask why it's ok for the government to steal from the people to support wasteful and unneeded regulations. Sure, inflation sounds all neat and good, but it's like watering down drinks at the bar. What would you do if you found the bar you went to watered down it's drinks? Find a new bar probably. What if you tried and the bouncer sat you down and forced you to buy more drinks. Would you argue that it's good that they can stretch out their alcohol to serve as many people as they can?

All very good points. I was thinking along the lines of it being a question whether a government would slaughter it's own citizens... Thanks for the mental expansion... It's needed from time to time.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/05/california-school-district-gives-students-jaw-dropping-holocaust-assignment-in-attempt-to-meet-common-core-standards/ Guess you need the chattel to forget the last holocaust before you can have the next holocaust...

In honors english you're compelled to read a smutty pop novel... But, if in your free reading time at school you read, say, the Bible you get threatened and told you can't read just "any" book you choose... It's free reading time after all, so we're going to tell you if your choice is ok or not... So what are public schools for again? BTW, I'm not intending to take a left turn into religion, the bible, etc... Just pointing out a little hypocrisy...

Net neutrality isn't new and at it's core isn't a end user issue. It's about the big players on the net. For the most part, the large providers that make up the backbone peer together because they get mutual benefit. Then you have someone like Netflix come along that uses all that infrastructure to serve huge amounts of data while reaping all the profit. When it's service providers, ISP A benefits from the peering arrangement with ISP B and ISP B benefits by peering with ISP A. ISP A or B doesn't get any benefit from peering with Netflix. So, as has been done many times before where there is inequality in the benefit, terms are offered to make that agreement more beneficial. Netflix was given a few choices. Run circuits to peering locations closer geographically to your customers, co-locate distribution servers in our facilities or pay us to transport that data across our network. It costs money to expand networks for greater capacity. Since they get no benefit from Netflix why should they have to pay so Netflix gets better service. Netflix is unique due to the extreme amount of data it takes to stream video. This is not "pay more or we'll bury your site". That's just what it's being called because if Netflix was to pay for capacity to run it's service and drop into peering points across the country they would be bankrupt at their current rates. Why should Netflix be allowed to drop all their data off in California and have other ISP's relay it back to me in Pennsylvania. The argument against net neutrality is that they should have to pay to transfer their data across all the different ISP's in the middle or drop a circuit off in Pennsauken NJ to deliver it to the last mile. That's all I pay for as a customer - the last mile. Everything in the middle is for the mutual benefit of all the "last mile" clients out there.

I have a good friend who was raised a military brat. Her ex husband and her current husband were both military. Her son dreamed of the day he turned 18 so he could enlist. Well, by the time her son was 16 or so she really started to question if this is a country/government that we should be fighting for? She tried to explain that to her son, but he took it as mom's just scared. So he enlisted and it was most everything he thought it would be through basic training. In addition to the obvious, they learned history and the constitution and it was all roses and rainbows. Then he got his orders and went to specialized training and the bloom was off the rose... Before he shipped out he told his mother that she was right. If he stood up he would have been labeled a coward and thrown in jail with a dishonorable discharge. He's simply doing his time till he can get out now. Sending a soldier to another country to initiate force is murder by proxy; the guilty parties are the politicians that send the orders down. I feel very bad for the soldiers; they're all pumped up being told they're doing the lord's work spreading Christianity - er, I mean doing the patriotic thing spreading democracy... Sorry, the similarities between religion and government confused me for a second... Anyway, when they get there they see horrendous things, do horrendous things and have to live with that for the rest of their lives. They're just the abused pawns in the system. I hope some day there will be a shift, where they realize how powerful they are and say "NO!" It has happened before, look up the Christmas truce of 1914. The soldier simply stopped fighting and began playing football (soccer) in the middle of the battlefield. It ended when commanders on both sides ordered the return to hostilities under the threat of court martial.

I mentioned tattoos because they're permanent and I can find no rational reason for getting them. We've established that suicide in and of itself isn't automatically irrational as there are rational and logical reasons for committing suicide. Is it moral to stop someone from making a rational decision simply because you find it repugnant?