Another anniversary of the U.S. military’s atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has come and gone, and once again the same rationalizations were repeated especially on the conservative talk radio shows.
But the majority of the American population continue to repeat their defense of murdering innocent human beings, including children. The conservatives, however, suffer especially from the cognitive dissonance of their claiming the importance of “protecting innocent human life” (such as with the abortion issue), yet they support the intentional targeting and mass murders of innocents.
“Well, we had to save the lives of U.S. soldiers…” in their hypothetical future ground battles which otherwise probably would never have happened. But, as a matter of military strategy, they say it was necessary to kill innocent children and their families who were of no threat to anyone.
So the collectivist-minded reasoning is that those innocent children were on “the other side,” not our side. So it’s okay to kill them.
Such rationalization of murdering innocents is out of collectivism, in which, even though those innocents “over there” were not involved in attacking us, because they happened to be within “enemy” territory, “we” had no choice but to disintegrate them.
Many people have a faith in the State that is so strong that they dare not question their collectivist rationalizations of their government’s murders of innocents.
Instant Access to Current Spot Prices & Interactive Charts
But those conservatives who constantly preach about moral relativism in society are themselves guilty of it with that particular issue especially. Their defense of the Bush-Obama wars of the past 15 years is also rife with moral relativism.
This year’s Presidential campaign is another reminder of the denial of a collapsing society and specifically the federal government in Washington. The election is between the two major party central planners-wannabe on steroids, with some other candidates.
On “making America great again,” I don’t know how you can make an entire country or territory great when so many of its inhabitants obediently worship the centralized apparatus that stifles greatness, that kills opportunity, that enslaves the people.
For instance, have you ever really thought about a system such as taxation in which an agency demands something from you without any voluntary agreement, and threatens to put you in a cage or kill you if you don’t comply?
Sounds kinda like a gangster, doesn’t it? Hmm.
But most people are okay with that because they’ve been indoctrinated to be okay with it since their earliest days. But giving the federal government the power to exercise such a criminal racket over the people has certainly enabled further criminality (e.g. getting into two world wars and other subsequent wars, the New Deal, the Great Society, etc).
Unlike businesses in which their consumers patronize them voluntarily and it’s actually illegal to threaten consumers with a jail cell or death if they don’t comply, in contrast, the central planners of government may issue the threats and carry them out as well and they get away with it. You like that?
Speaking of America, should there really be a single entity with a population of over 300 million over a territory of several million square miles? Was it realistic in the first place?
As Friedrich A. Hayek wrote,
Agreement about a common purpose between a group of known people is clearly an idea that cannot be applied to a large society which includes people who do not know one another. The modern society and the modern economy have grown up through the recognition that this idea — which was fundamental to life in a small group — a face-to-face society, is simply inapplicable to large groups.
And I liked Jim Cox’s recent article on 50 seceding states. Decentralization is the answer to society’s problems which are mainly caused by central planning. America is itself a collectivist concept. A large territory of centralization of power.
I know, people rationalize the centralized racket with their hypnotized mantra of “common defense.”
Yeah, that’s working out well. That national defense apparatus in Washington has been starting wars of aggression, poking hornets’ nests and provoking foreigners, and making Americans less safe and more vulnerable.
In fact, I think that people are even worse now in their subservience, denial and ignorance. After Vietnam, especially after the Pentagon Papers, you would think that in 1991 when President George H.W. Bush wanted to start his war of aggression against Iraq, that the American people would not approve of it. But no.
As for “defense” and the federal tax-thieving and spending in general, we’re now talking about money in the trillions of dollars. But there’s no such thing as a “trillion.” It just doesn’t exist. And all those special interest groups in and around Washington are getting rich on phony money handed out by the Federal Reserve and the racketeers of Congress.
Really, the military and security contractors have been getting rich off the feds’ destruction of other countries and mass murders of foreigners. That’s “defense.”
But, after all the years now — decades, in fact — of Ron Paul’s advocacy of monetary freedom, especially during his last Presidential campaign in which his bills in Congress were getting much more media attention, the sheeple still have no idea of such alternatives and they’re fine with the government’s monetary monopoly that enables and empowers the politicians and banksters to fleece and rob them, shake them down and enslave them.
So besides government’s mass murders, wars, and money, my last issue concerning moral relativism, collectivism, and central planning is the immigration issue. I just don’t understand the conservatives who think they believe in free-market capitalism and private property rights, but when it comes to free markets in labor and employment, not so much.
While the conservatives and nationalists say they hate central planning, they love central planning in “national security” as mentioned above. But they also love it in the immigration issue. The opponents of a free market in labor and employment want the central planning bureaucrats in Washington to continue with their socialist immigration controls, regardless of the chaos such controls have caused for a half-century or more. Put armed guards and snipers on the government borders and build a government wall.
I know that some people suggest that the taxpayers “own” the property that is considered “public” property such as that around the nationalized border. But do they really support the U.S. government’s control over the lives of foreigners as well as markets involving labor and employment? Should the government arrest foreigners who are in the territory without a bureaucrat’s permission, and arrest the business people who employ them?
In contrast, in a free-market capitalist world, employers are free to hire whomever they determine to be the best workers for the wages agreed upon by the worker and the employer. Third-parties who interfere with those private contracts are intruders. Again, that’s in the world of free markets, not the world of government-controlled and centrally-planned markets.
When government borders and arbitrary bureaucratic regulations restrict markets, they are no longer free markets, in my view.
Now, as Walter Block noted in his essay, A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration (.pdf), if you are concerned about foreigners getting into the territory and getting on welfare, then that’s a case against the welfare state.
Abolishing the welfare state is what libertarians and conservatives should concentrate on there.
But preventing others from making a better life for themselves, people who have not harmed anyone should be solely the work of the criminal State and its immoral apparatchiks.
And if you are concerned about would-be terrorists infiltrating the territory or being brought in by the government planners themselves, the main contributors to the radical Islamic extremism are those government bureaucrats. Getting rid of those damn bureaucrats would be very helpful in that area as well.
Which brings me back to the issue of decentralization. Secession and decentralization are the morally right and practical answers to the problems society faces right now.
The problem is central planning and socialism. And for me personally, the Left‘s solutions of central planning and collectivism will further contribute to the societal collapse. I’d rather not have to live through that when it’s otherwise quite avoidable.
