75
76

lol no they don't (i.redd.it)

Shitlord_Theology が 投稿

全 76 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]InternetHateDevice 116 ポイント117 ポイント  (35子コメント)

Whatever your thoughts on military service may be, I assure you they are not receiving "free college." They are receiving it as part of fulfilling their contract they signed voluntarily.

[–]randomuser549 47 ポイント48 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Exactly. It's part of the benefits package, just like insurance plans or stock options offered by many employers. "Free" college is an incentive to get people to join the military and accept the generally low pay offered (relative to time commitment, risk, etc.).

Personally, I'm against the military worship that goes on in the US, but "free college" is not one of the problems with it.

[–]InternetHateDevice 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Personally, I'm against the military worship that goes on in the US, but "free college" is not one of the problems with it.

I completely agree. Once my co-workers find out I used to be in the Army, they always thank me for my service and volunteering. I can't stand it, because it's not like I went through all of that shit for free, I was paid to do it. Volunteering, by definition, implies that you did it for free out of the good graces of your heart.

[–]True_KapernicusVoluntaryist 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Volunteering, by definition, implies that you chose to do it. Which you did.

[–]Saidsker 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Something something checks out

[–]AtlasLied 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Personally, I'm against the military worship that goes on in the US, but "free college" is not one of the problems with it.

I don't know that I agree with that. I view it as part of the state trying to get recruits to fight in it's dirty wars. If college weren't a requirement to succeed to be relatively successful without much risk, then the only thing they would have to offer would be money, experience and "prestige".

I think that the State pushes College as a requirement so that they can ransom it to get recruits.

[–]Ariakkas10 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's still a voluntary system.

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (24子コメント)

The taxes paying for that college are not voluntary though. It's essentially a mob hitman expecting society to acknowledge his years of hard work and dedication.

[–]InternetHateDevice 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (23子コメント)

Correct, but there is a giant difference in the kids and single moms getting free college for just breathing oxygen and filling out some paperwork as opposed to someone who served a highly dangerous 3 year contract that involves an astronomical amount of work and an honorable discharge.

In both cases, the money comes from robbery, sure, but the situations are not comparable in a "free" aspect.

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (20子コメント)

I recognize your point as being if we're going to give some free college to someone, then we should give it to the people that deserve it most. Your analysis is that a hard working soldier is more deserving than a lazy liberal parasite.

While I can agree that the lazy liberals don't deserve it, at least they never killed anyone.

Let me ask you this, who would deserve free college more, the lazy drug addict that never left his room in a decade or the hardworking cop that kicked down his door to arrest him over the victimless crime?

[–]ObservantEgo 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The crux of your question is an interesting one: can an agent of the state outweigh their bad actions (enforcing unjust laws through acts of violence against innocent people) with good actions (arresting actual criminals and serving actual justice some of the time)? If so, then assuming the cop goes after a real criminal every once in a while, then probably the cop. But really, what's the exchange rate? Stop three muggings and get a free strip search?

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well said, that is a great way to put it. Can the hard work and good intentions of a government worker ever outweigh the immorality of supporting the state?

In a similar way, can the immorality of voting be outweighed by good actions? I've argued this in the past, that voting is immoral. The argument used against me was that despite voting being immoral, the person could outweigh it with anti-state actions elsewhere.

I suppose what it comes down to is what did they do actually? If these soldiers sabotaged weapon systems or released secret info (e.g. bradley manning), then I suppose it does outweigh. If however the soldier just followed his orders perfectly and upheld the agenda of the state, then not really.

[–]True_KapernicusVoluntaryist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

An immoral action is an immoral action and a moral action a moral action. They are different things and one does not 'cancel out' the other. A murderer is murderer for ever, no matter how many other lives he saves.

[–]InternetHateDevice 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Let me ask you this, who would deserve free college more, the lazy drug addict that never left his room in a decade or the hardworking cop that kicked down his door to arrest him over the victimless crime?

Well if we are talking free college, neither of them deserve it. If having tuition payed for was apart of the police officer's contract, then the police officer isn't receiving free college, and he should be payed it as part of his contract for fulfilling his obligation.

The morality of his obligations established by his employer in this scenario isn't what we are debating and I would likely side with you in that argument. However, soldiers and police would most likely exist in an ANCAP society, just not in the behaviors and form we see them in today.

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The morality of his obligations established by his employer in this scenario isn't what we are debating

I think that is what I'm arguing. Are you suggesting that the immoral act (e.g. killing, robbery) is guilt upon the state and not the soldier? Technically the state doesn't exist, so anything immoral a soldier does is upon the soldier.

I get your point that the soldier earns what he does because it's in a contract, but that doesn't excuse immoral and aggressive actions. If I hire a hitman to kill you, then it doesn't matter that the a contract existed, it's still immoral. If you're a judge on a contract dispute between me and this hitman, isn't it rather absurd that you would be presiding over a trial where the participants both wanted you dead?

Soldiers and cops are not our friends. Sure there are probably ancaps that are former soldiers and cops, but they need to recognize that what they did was wrong. If they can't recognize this about themselves, then they'll never be capable of following the NAP or respecting private property.

[–]Ariakkas10 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Do defensive wars not get counted?

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

All wars are considered defensive. It's like god being on both sides of a football game.

[–]Dejyant 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can see where you would think both people are in the wrong, its almost always going to be the classic "but mom she started it". But that doesn't change the fact that one of the sides most likely did violate the NAP of the other, which means the one being attacked can fight back without violating the NAP.

[–]usefulthings 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Not the guy you're replying to, but I'll chime in.

The vast majority of veterans never killed anyone, directly or indirectly. For most of us, it was simply a job. One we couldn't quit. One that paid shit. One that was dangerous, not because someone was shooting at us either. Just a job.

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Do you see anything wrong with the job you were doing? Did you see the property rights you were violating?

I would say it would be hard to trust you if you can't see what you did was bad. Past performance is the best indication of future performance. Sure maybe you're in agreement that private property and the NAP are good going forward, but without recognizing your mistakes in the past, then you might easily slip back into your old habits when the going got tough.

[–]usefulthings 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wow, lots of assumptions there.

While there certainly are problems with how the Iraq War was justified, at the time, a U.N. member nation had been invaded. Other U.N. member nations got together to kick Iraq out of the country. Of course, we didn't "finish the job" which led to other problems.

But, bottom line, the troops on the ground in 1991 believed they were there defending the property rights and lives of another nation's citizens.

Tell me how that was bad.

Edit: I should add that we do not have private security forces in today's world to enforce property rights. All we have is crappy governments. So, to answer your questions, I did not violate anyone's property rights. I helped enforce them.

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

a U.N. member nation had been invaded. Other U.N. member nations

OK, so clearly there are contracts. Contracts however only apply to the members. So are you saying that Iraq got what they deserved for violating a contract?

But, bottom line, the troops on the ground in 1991 believed they were there defending the property rights and lives of another nation's citizens.

Well this is bad because government don't establish property rights, trade and the homesteading principle establish property rights. I mean at one point in time the queen of england said she owned half the planet, so surely you don't think she had a legitimate property claim?

So acting as a soldier to enforce legitimate property rights needs to take into consideration what those property rights are based upon. States don't follow any other property theory than "obey or die".

So, to answer your questions, I did not violate anyone's property rights. I helped enforce them.

You enforced a crime lord's idea of property, not a universal and philosophical approach to property. It's like a drug dealer stealing your car and claiming property rights over it because he has a gun.

So how am I supposed to trust you? your ideals are based purely on "might makes right". you'll take my property as your own the moment you get the upper hand.

[–]usefulthings 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So are you saying that Iraq got what they deserved for violating a contract?

In your response, you unfairly equate me to a drug dealer. Does a drug dealer need to sign a contract with a private protection firm for them to use force against the drug dealer in an effort to protect their clients? In other words, the U.N. had an agreement with Kuwait to protect them against aggressors. We're part of the U.N. Kuwait was invaded. Did we need to go sign a contract with the invader to kick them out?

This is the key element of the soldier's perspective on the Gulf War. We were there to help a smaller country being victimized by a larger one. We were there to protect the citizen's property rights.

Based on the rest of your response, I'm sure you'll respond with a deep philosophical diatribe about the nature of property and whether or not it was legitimate because you don't like the Kuwaiti government, I.e. "crime lords."

Perhaps, instead, you'd like to equate me to a drug dealer in another way. The fact of the matter is that I'm a normal guy. But that doesn't fit your world view. All veterans are bad! If you acknowledge that some of us are kind, carrying, and human, you'll have to acknowledge that the world is gray. Not black and white. And that makes you uncomfortable. It's so much easier to think veteran=bad, you=good.

[–]baronfel66 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Veterans are bad if they believe the state should exist. I would say that is almost all of them.

[–]Lixo76 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Lol do you pay your taxes? Because if you do then you're directly contributing to the war machine. Likewise, have you ever voted in a federal election?

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure I've done wrong in the past, but that is no excuse for continuing to do wrong. I now have acknowledged my wrongdoing and do what i can to avoid it further, including not voting and not paying taxes.

[–]thingisthink 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Payments extracted under duress are not direct contributions to the war machine. There is the crucial intermediate step of being threatened ultimately with being murdered for not contributing. I doubt you would blame your mother for contributing to murder if she gave her money to a mugger who later used the money to buy a weapon that he used to murder someone.

[–]Lixo76 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Totally agree. Most vets are desk jockeys and mechanics. The military also employs nurses, doctors, cooks, mailmen, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and concrete workers. The list goes on and on. They wear the uniform but never carry a rifle. So, are they guilty by association? Or for their indirect support? Because if those are criterion for criminal activity, then every taxpayer in America is guilty.

[–]baronfel66 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not true, taxpayers are under duress. Government employment is completely voluntary.

[–]sfgunner 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, you're right. Totally. One of these people is lazy, the other wants to actively murder brown people for rich men. Guess which one I'd rather send to free college for their actions?

[–]theymoslover 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

honorable discharge.

look closer

[–]convieAnarcho-Capitalist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You could say that about any government employee.

[–]4charismaCommunist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah yes, the soldiers are fulfilling their agreement to expropriate """voluntarily""" of course, the natural resources of third world countries. And those countries """voluntarily""" gave up those resources, because it was better than being utterly annihilated.

[–]modstmsWilliam Buckley Jr. 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hello, /r/forwardsfromgrandma.

[–]tinyfrankAnarcho-Capitalist 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (14子コメント)

No one deserves free college.

[–]halfback910Gay Ancaps: Sticking it to the Man ;) 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (13子コメント)

You mean you won't make an exception for people who murder civilians a world away? /s

[–]RPrevolutionVoluntarist 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Define "deserve" and "free" and we'll start to get philosophical

[–]natermer 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I expect these words are being used in their common definitions for this context.

[–]RPrevolutionVoluntarist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're right

[–]Axds123Hayek 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would not say soldiers get free college. It is part of their pay given that no none would do the job without the offer of free college(for the most part I would assume).

edit: free college means the soldier is not paying for it.(obviously it is through an exchange in which the soldier offered services and is being paid with college tuition.)

[–]bat_mayn 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

By all means, if you believe the GI Bill is "free", then sign yourself up. Don't thank me, thank your recruiter.

[–]CheapShill 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is kind of stupid. The word "deserve" is hoaky but soldiers get "free" college in response to a contractual agreement. They don't "deserve" it in any other sense than someone deserves a paycheck after working. That said, a bunch of leftist parasites sure as shit don't deserve anything.

[–]halfback910Gay Ancaps: Sticking it to the Man ;) 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Apparently murdering people makes you meritorious of free college.

News to me. Fucking statists.

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

one is predator and one is prey.

[–]DerelictionAgorist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nothing is free and no one deserves free college.

[–]dabulls113 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody deserves free college, people have the right to receive donations for college to make it free.

[–]intothekeepVoluntaryist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If it was promised in there contract and collage isn't public then it's cool.

[–]OrdinatioExNihiloIconoclast 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Except that their contract is with a criminal organization that is funded with theft...

[–]intothekeepVoluntaryist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh yea that too.

[–]bertcoxClose Enough 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I hear its better now, but I was stop lossed, then screwed out of my ACF money, because I was stop lossed. I did 11 months longer then my contract called for and because of that the ACF said the GI Bill should pay, and GI said ACF should pay. Ya fun times. You can submit a plea quarterly in DC in person. Just got on with my life, lost out on about 20k doing that.

[–]saxophonefartmasterHayek 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody deserves free college.

[–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]LegatoBlueBare Minimum Minarchist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A lot of the comments here are terrible. We know that the consistent AnCap position is that there is no "free" college. It's taken by violent and coercive means. Okay. You can discuss this with the Alt-right trolls without being an asshole.

Yes, not all troops are heroes and we don't have to worship the ground the walk on.

No, not all troops are murderous monsters.

Most troops are just individuals who made what they considered to be the best moral or financial decision available to them. It's okay to disagree with that decision. It's one thing to not respect these individuals, but it's another to put in the effort to disrespect them.

Try and remember these groups are made of individuals.

[–]Divest1987brutalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

That little shit in front needs to remove that sign from his neck or I WILL look for him, I WILL find him, and I WILL kill him!

[–]eitauisunity -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No you won't. Why make threats?

[–]Divest1987brutalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Calm down girl it's the line from Taken when his daughter gets kidnapped

[–]ReactionaryCatholicNeoreactionary (CRx) -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Um cool, I'll still be sure to take full advantage of any and all benefits after I do 4.

You do realize people in the military make like 20k a year to do some of the most dangerous jobs, right? Free health, college, and housing is the least the govt could supply.

[–]natermer -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I actually think that if Congress passed a bill that made it illegal to attempt to collect on student debt over $5K then that will go along way to solving the majority of issues that plague today's universities.

[–]ancap_throwaway0221 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes I'm sure the pension funds that are invested in these will have no problem losing all of their money.

[–]randomuser549 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If by "solving the [...] issues" you mean make it so only the very rich or gifted can go to college, I suppose you're right. I highly doubt the people making the meme argument would like the increased "inequality" of your solution, however.

[–]EthicalCrackpot<- Got married in that tie 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If only a handful of people went to college that would fix the problem with it. Too many people get degrees in bullshit and it destroyed the value of a degree. Now everyone needs to waste a few years and tens of thousands of dollars to be a standard applicant to a lot of jobs. Bryan Caplan has an article on this I think it's called should education be taxed or something along thoes lines.

[–]eitauisunity 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The state does not "solve" problems, they simply shuffle around who bears the costs of those problems; preferably to a group that is disenfranchised or has no political voice. For example, the billions of unborn individuals who are conscripted into the debt we are borrowing today to pay for shit they will never see. Talk about taxation without representation.