Is it just me or is distaste for Libertarianism contradictory to discordianism?

[Verbal Mike]

Cain, is that diss available somewhere for reading?

[rubickspoop]

ok assholes, I know I might die, i know there's a decent chance I'll end up in the desert, but I'll probably just play my french horn in one of the many bases stateside or in japan. they have so many people that CHOOSE to be infantry i don't really have to worry.

[Template]

ok assholes, I know I might die, i know there's a decent chance I'll end up in the desert, but I'll probably just play my french horn in one of the many bases stateside or in japan. they have so many people that CHOOSE to be infantry i don't really have to worry.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

ok assholes, I know I might die, i know there's a decent chance I'll end up in the desert, but I'll probably just play my french horn in one of the many bases stateside or in japan. they have so many people that CHOOSE to be infantry i don't really have to worry.

Please tell me you don't really  believe this.

[Bruno]

Military recruiters are notoriously honest people.




No, really.

[Cain]

Cain, is that diss available somewhere for reading?

I'm not sure exactly where it is, at the moment.  Here are some extracts from it, however.

While the Westphalian system of states seems to be the favoured political method of organization right now, the above cases cast doubt on how long this can continue for.  Globalization, both in its 'dark' manifestations (insurgents, organized crime and terrorism) and its more benign forms, such as regional integration of states and transnational corporations, are making the modern state increasingly irrelevant.  Even the need for security, which I have posited is a major aspect of the success of violent sub-national actors, is being outsourced, with private military companies being contracted to various companies or governments.  

Martin Creveld notes this trend in his closing chapter to The Rise and Decline of the State.  Increasingly, "individuals, neighbourhoods and corporations have tried to protect themselves from terrorism and crime by hiring private guards, erecting security fences, installing alarm systems and close circuit television..." and taking other countermeasures as well.

The result could well be what Hedley Bull refers to as "new medievalism", a term Creveld is almost in agreement with when he posits that violence will return to a 17th century condition, namely "a capital enterprise little different from, and intimately linked to, a number of others."  Either way, it would seem logical that if globalization is forcing terrorism against the community to evolve in this way, then allowing security services themselves to adapt to the current system may improve their efficiency and ability to provide those basic services.

That said, some in the military and academia have claimed that such measures can only stave off state collapse, and do not address the underlying problems, which they see as fundamentally one of organization.  These groups, from terrorist organizations to multinational corporations are far more flexible than the states they work in (or against) which gives them a decisive ability both in decision making and in their resiliency.  Many of the most advanced states still seek to fight such violent actors "an organizational doctrine characterized by a ladder hierarchy, top down command and control, bureaucratic layering and jurisdictional complexity, and stove pipes, that at are best cumbersome and at worst lead to bureaucratic competition and immobilization."

This raises important questions about how states should structure themselves, as well as equally important ones about democracy and accountability.  Robert Kaplan states that war can only be subject to democratic controls when "it is a condition distinctly separate from peace."  The state of "quasi-war" in which terrorist groups and organized crime tend to operate, require instead quick and covert responses "marked by commando raids and electronic strikes".  In which case, war moves further away from democratic control "unsanctioned by Congress and the citizenry"and instead being in the hands of experts, the military and political executive.

In other words the state, which was formed in a particular international climate and under certain economic and cultural conditions, is at least in some senses no longer fit for its primary purpose, that of defending its citizenry, in the current international climate.  Whether that is a structural problem which will do away with that particular form of political organization, or one that will require substantial, yet limited readjustments in how the state is organized, remain to be seen.  Because of the emerging and contemporary nature of this change, it becomes very hard to get the data necessary to be able to make definitive predictions about how current trends will unfold.  While we have the past, as well as current philosophy, to guide us, they cannot and do not take into account things we cannot know about or anticipate.  New inventions, like the atom bomb, or unforeseen ideologies and religious groups may suddenly come to prominence under exceptional circumstances and change the entire nature of the political system in one way or another.

[rubickspoop]

Military recruiters are notoriously honest people.


No, really.

This isn't from my recruiter, this is anecdotal evidence gathered from the 60 other people at my recruit station waiting to ship out. At least 2/3 are signed up to be infantry, and are proud of it.

[Verbal Mike]

Thanks, Cain. Be sure to link me up if a pdf becomes available somewhere, I'd like to read it.

[LMNO]

Hey, wait a second:  Doesn't playing the French Horn violate the "don't ask, don't tell" rule?

[Cramulus]

 

[Fuquad]

Military recruiters are notoriously honest people.


No, really.

This isn't from my recruiter, this is anecdotal evidence gathered from the 60 other people at my recruit station waiting to ship out. At least 2/3 are signed up to be infantry, and are proud of it.

60 people from ONE recruit station that ALL play the French Horn?

Somehow I don't believe it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Military recruiters are notoriously honest people.


No, really.

This isn't from my recruiter, this is anecdotal evidence gathered from the 60 other people at my recruit station waiting to ship out. At least 2/3 are signed up to be infantry, and are proud of it.

You talked to all 60 of them?

"Infantry" is code for "too stupid to do anything but die", sadly.

So, here is my question. Did you audition? If you auditioned and were accepted into the United States Marine Band, holy shit congratulations, that is spectacularly prestigious!

If not, enjoy Afghanistan.

[Elder Iptuous]

"Infantry" is code for "too stupid to do anything but die", sadly.

How sweeping of you, Nigel....

[Fuquad]

Military recruiters are notoriously honest people.


No, really.

This isn't from my recruiter, this is anecdotal evidence gathered from the 60 other people at my recruit station waiting to ship out. At least 2/3 are signed up to be infantry, and are proud of it.

You talked to all 60 of them?

"Infantry" is code for "too stupid to do anything but die", sadly.

So, here is my question. Did you audition? If you auditioned and were accepted into the United States Marine Band, holy shit congratulations, that is spectacularly prestigious!

If not, enjoy Afghanistan.

I'm still trying to figure out how other recruits repeating what the recruiting officer told them means that they have any idea what they are talking about. We are talking about people that still haven't gone to boot camp.

[Fuquad]

"Infantry" is code for "too stupid to do anything but die", sadly.

How sweeping of you, Nigel....

can you explain how something being a code for something else means that the code is true?

because I'm having a hard time making your accusation work unless a code has to be correct.