By any objective standard, there’s undoubtedly a growing and determined initiative to disarm American citizens. Restrictions, taxes, regulations, and outright prohibitions continue to form a more strangling grip on the firearms industry. Those of us who value firearms for professional, sporting, enthusiast and defensive purposes naturally see the benefits of rallying to a unified cause whereby strength in numbers means a louder voice and more resources to fuel the message. For more than a century the National Rifle Association has been an effective advocate of the second amendment, but in recent years, their lack of sound, explicit principles has become abundantly clear, and will inevitably undermine their essential purpose - it already has.

Individual Rights and America

America’s founding essence is individual freedom. As correctly and explicitly prescribed in the Declaration of Independence, freedom is achieved by establishing a government that protects individual rights to life, liberty and property.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Of course, one’s right to life is the bedrock to any political right regardless of context, but without freedom and property, one really doesn’t maintain the means to sustain his life. Without freedom to think and act, one cannot take the steps necessary to gain knowledge or earn a living. Without rightfully possessing the results of such thought and action in the form of property, one cannot survive in a self-sufficient manner.

Maintenance of each of these rights logically necessitates the sovereignty of the others. If you encroach upon one, you encroach upon them all.

Does The NRA Understand Rights?

Last year, I contacted the NRA-ILA challenging their position in the Florida HB 503 decision. This case centered on an Employer in Florida who prohibited the possession of firearms by employees on company grounds. The NRA, in an astonishingly short sighted manner, sided with the employees, and against the employer - the property owner.

According to the NRA, the employer’s property rights - to determine particular policies which pertain to their legal property - were trumped by the employee’s right to life. Not only is their position presented in an anti-business hue ( phrases such as “Big Business”, “corporate giants” ) that Karl Marx would find comforting, such a stance ignores three crucial facts:

1) No individual has the right to be on the private property of others without prior consent and compliance with any predefined, mutually agreed upon terms. Those who violate this principle are trespassing.

2) Employees of a business are subject to contractual terms which may or may not subject their presence to a particular set of stipulations. An individual seeking employment with a particular employer is free to accept such stipulations, negotiate the terms accordingly, or choose to seek employment elsewhere.

3) Most importantly, the right to property is a fundamental prerequisite to the right to bear arms - arms being a specific type of property - and as indicated above, any movement that undermines property rights also erodes the right to life and liberty.

The NRA-ILA politely rejected my arguments, insisting that the employee’s right to life trumps any trespassing, contractual, or property owner restrictions - a tremendous evasion of the voluntary aspect of employment and the sanctity of property rights.

At Least They’re Consistent

I still get NRA notifications and in just a few minutes browsing the NRA-ILA I stumbled on yet another stance by this “defender of rights” which displays ignorance of the concept of rights.

This time the position is that renters should be immune to a landlords restrictions regarding firearms on leased property. From the NRA’s “Outrage Of The Week” notification:

This week’s second outrage (read about the first outrage of the week here) comes to us via Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper (D), who recently issued an official opinion that landlords can prohibit law-abiding tenants from possessing their legally-owned firearms within the leased premises of their rented apartments, even if the tenants have a valid carry permit!

…

Denying law-abiding citizens their right to self-defense in their home is simply outrageous, not to mention unfair [to whom?] and possible dangerous. [emphasis and comments added]

The error in this statement should be obvious - it’s not their home. They’re renters… leasing property owned by another individual. As such, just as in the case with employers and employees, renters are subject to mutually agreed upon contractual terms. They can accept those terms, negotiate those terms, or seek housing elsewhere. Concerning fairness, denying a landlord the right to determine their own lease stipulations would be unfair.

Without Principles, Crusades are Futile

Many people don’t appreciate my criticism of the NRA, either siding explicitly with their position or citing my observations as insignificant tradeoffs in the quest to defend the right to bear arms.

Why abstain supporting 90% of a cause over 10% that you disagree with?

My response is that adherence to fundamental principles is a vital necessity and that these errors cannot be taken lightly. That 10% strikes a root that will utterly annihilate any benefit from the remaining 90%. What good is the right to bear arms if the abolition of property rights leads to a total destruction of the firearms industry and eventually a total economic collapse? At that point, we’ll have neither rights nor guns.

Property rights are under attack from every conceivable angle in America, the two cases above included. This country cannot exist once they are destroyed. To the extent the sanctity of property rights are encroached upon, this country slides immeasurably closer to oppressive tyranny. The essence of any variant of collectivism (Socialism, Fascism, or Communism) is the obliteration of property rights in favor of collective ownership of resources. We must salvage and protect property rights at any opportunity, not toss them aside in a hypnotic “right to bear arms” stupor.

This latest issue reaffirms the NRA’s lack of principles. Without a principled ideology, any movement is destined for inconsistency and failure. I hate to say it, but with friends like the NRA, who needs enemies? They’re unwittingly aiding the cause of the groups seeking to drag America into stagnant misery.

I should be clear - the NRA has promoted and prevailed many just causes, but regardless of their achievements, even monumental ones, negligence in the realm of fundamental principles will absolutely offset and undermine their stated mission.

You can fix every shingle on a roof but if you ignore (and exacerbate) the tremendous crack in the home’s foundation your shingles are irrelevant.

Individual Rights and The Proper Role of Government

Until the NRA adopts a rational and consistent defense of the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property, they cannot be effective defenders of any other implementation of those rights - especially the 2nd amendment which relies on all three.

The purpose of Government is not to force employers or landlords to adopt rational gun policies (which can only be done by effectively communicating a rational philosophy), but to protect our fundamental rights from encroachment by force or fraud. Objective law is based on a standard to punish and preclude forceful encroachment of individual rights (life, liberty, and property); in the above cases, neither employers nor landlords were forcefully violating the rights of others. Until the NRA abstains from promoting legislation that violates this prescription, they are helping to destroy America - regardless of how honest their intentions.

I urge any of you who support the NRA to voice your concern about this blatant and potentially devastating inconsistency in their advocacy. Until they rectify such a tremendous contradiction, they cannot be justly considered as true allies of freedom or Capitalism.

I certainly hope they refine their course; we desperately need a unified voice in defense of our rights - including the second amendment.

My sentiments echo this excerpt from Ayn Rand’s address to the graduating class of The United States Military Academy at West Point — March 6, 1974.

“You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service — it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one’s country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic.

This is an enormous virtue.

Some of you may not be consciously aware of it. I want to help you to realize it. The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest — as the armies of other countries have done in their histories — only as an instrument of a free nation’s self-defense, which means: the defense of a man’s individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task.

No other army in the world has achieved it. You have”

I certainly do appreciate the freedom fought and died for by patriots of this country, but I fear we’re coming dangerously close to a total abandonment of that virtuous essence which justified the struggle and maintenance of freedom.

This country was founded on individual rights; when those are gone, so is America. The biggest challenge we face is the endeavor to salvage this once great nation as one still worth defending.

Here’s to those who have and will continue to defend it - both militarily as well as intellectually

Becoming a parent brought focus to many new perspectives of my view of man, life, love and human joy. So many common misconceptions about the human mind, learning, knowledge and human nature are revealed as wholly fallacious when you witness first-first hand a child’s transition from the clean-slate of infancy to an individual driven by an insatiable quest to understand and master the world around him.

The expression which I find most endearing, and symbolic of man’s purpose, is that of my son grasping knowledge. The passage below eloquently identifies that expression as well as its significance in a much wider context.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal : Ch. 24 - Requiem For Man

I will ask you to project the look on a child’s face when he grasps the answer to some problem he has been striving to understand. It is a radiant look of joy, of liberation, almost of triumph, which is unself-conscious, yet self-assertive, and its radiance seems to spread in two directions: outward, as an illumination of the world—inward, as the first spark of what is to become the fire of an earned pride. If you have seen this look, or experienced it, you know that if there is such a concept as “sacred” - meaning: the best, the highest possible to man - this look is the sacred, the not-to-be-betrayed, the not-to-be-sacrificed for anything or anyone.

This look is not confined to children. Comic-strip artists are in the habit of representing it by means of a light-bulb flashing on, above the head of a character who has suddenly grasped an idea. In simple, primitive terms, this is an appropriate symbol: an idea is a light turned on in a man’s soul.

It is the steady, confident reflection of that light that you look for in the faces of adults - particularly of those to whom you entrust your most precious values. You look for it in the eyes of a surgeon performing an operation on the body of a loved one; you look for it in the face of a pilot at the controls of the plane in which you are flying; and, if you are consistent, you look for it in the person of the man or woman you marry.

That light-bulb look is the flash of a human intelligence in action; it is the outward manifestation of man’s rational faculty; it is the signal and symbol of man’s mind. And, to the extent of your humanity, it is involved in everything you seek, enjoy, value, or love. [emphasis mine]

It is precisely that spark of light that is misunderstood, neglected, and under assault from every cultural front today. That spark is what life is all about. That spark keeps a man alive. Man can benefit tremendously from human relationships, but his core existence is driven from and towards that spark. Meaningful relationships, i.e., ones based on explicitly identified common values, are only possible as derivative manifestations of that spark.

Not only have those who evade, ignore or are oblivious to “the look” missed what I consider the most valuable thread of life, they’re also the ones leading the assault, either directly or by ignorant default, against man, against man’s mind, against joy, against life.

It’s those who, never knowing the spark or all that it leads to, resort to force when dealing with others - uncivilized misfits stuck in a civilized society.

When men hold differing opinions, effective communication of rational ideas is a civilized form of persuasion, whereas an anonymous late-night call threatening my 8-month pregnant wife that her husband should “watch what he writes on the internet” is not.

History illustrates it is precisely those individuals who resort to the latter that have always endeavored to destroy those embodied by the former - and despite centuries of human progress, it’s obvious there are still those who’ve failed to rise above a barbarians view of existence.

For me to abandon usage of the only proper tool of persuasion available to a civilized man - rational communication - would constitute a betrayal of my principles, a surrender my values, and a failure to protect myself and my loved ones from cultural (and inevitably physical) assault.

Given our present course, there will likely be a time where brute force will suppress opposing ideals; and when that time comes, if keeping my views to myself might enable our escape then I’ll do so - but as long as there’s still a chance to escape that desperate reality; I’ll continue to foster the spark in man, I’ll continue to speak, I’ll continue to clown ignorance and those who enable it, I’ll stand by every word, and I’ll defend myself and my family by any means necessary.

Gun owners continue to shoot their own feet - this time in Texas.

While it may seem like a positive advancement at face value, the Texas Senate bill is an unjust effort - as are all similar measures. Any law that trumps property rights can only lead to the inevitable erosion of self-defense rights, since firearms are, in fact, a specific type of property.

When employees are hired they voluntarily agree to a specific set of terms set forth by the employer. Unfortunately, many employers include irrational guidelines pertaining to firearms on their premises, however, the sanctity of property rights demand that we respect those guidelines.

As an individual in a free society, we can accept those tenets or refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

For government to encroach upon a property owner’s wishes, within the context of a voluntary relationship according to voluntary terms, is an unjust trampling of the American essence. Telling a property owner that he must allow weapons on his property is no different in principle than telling a restaurant owner he must not allow them - both destroy property rights.

Such bills are short-sided attempts which in effect chop down the tree to get to the apple.

Well-intentioned proponents of these measures claim that employees have property rights that trump those of the employer.

…your property rights end at my car doors. That car is MY property, not yours.

It is your property, but it’s subject to my terms when you’re on my property. You are free to accept and accommodate (or violate, as I’ve done in the past), or you may refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

If you don’t want to chance what could be in your employee’s cars on your property, you have a remedy. Don’t allow any parking on your property. However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

That’s certainly one option. Or, you could rely on contract law and property rights by simply specifying restrictive covenants in an employment contract.

However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

Like I said above, if the restriction is “no firearms”, then the context is irrelevant. “No firearms” doesn’t mean “no firearms except for where you have an emotional (or even practical) justification for them”, it means “no firearms”, regardless of how you rationalize it.

Keep in mind, I completely disagree with these types of restrictions, but I’m much more adamantly opposed to using government force to counter them in a way that can only injure the cause of freedom.

Property rights must adhere to a hierarchy to some degree - a chain of command amongst voluntary participants - where each link (acting as a host) possesses the right to impose restrictions on the next (acting as the guest) according to voluntary terms.

An example of the same principle taking place one step down the chain could entail you and a co-worker driving to lunch in your car. You would be fully justified in restricting him from getting in your car with a bag of cocaine (or a copy of The Communist Manifesto) in his pocket despite the fact that the coat he’s wearing is his property. He can either choose to accept your rules, or abstain from the ride or even the relationship. What he can’t do however, is hire government to force you to allow him in your car with whatever he chooses, just because he chooses it.

I urge any freedom loving individual who values his right to self-defense to strongly oppose any legality that disrespects our rights to life, liberty or property.

UPDATED: To add thoughts resulting from the comments here.

Unless a principled stance is taken, unless man’s rational and natural rights to life, liberty, and property are defended consistently, this is exactly what will come to America:

I am very concerned this will happen here, not in an isolated sense, but because a ban on weapons will expedite further erosion of our freedoms.

This threat is only a symptom of the underlying issue, our failure to properly regard individual rights. Despite a large segment of our population who’ll resist, the reason organizations such as the NRA will prove to be impotent in the long term is that they don’t crusade on consistent principles, and they’re really only fighting to rearrange Titanic Deck Chairs.

What value is there in a right to a firearm (a specific piece of property) if individual construction is criminal and oppressive regulation and taxes eliminate manufacturing of such property? Many of the same people who’ll boldly proclaim their right to firearms will waffle on (or concede) the “right” to health care, minimum wage, education, or any other phony privilege based on force. Failing to abstract, they won’t object on principle to government intrusion into private business, but fail to see how such injustice threatens them when used for ends they disagree with.

Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it—intellectually and physically. - Philosophy: Who Needs It

I’m most intimidated by gun bans because a government that would ban and confiscate weapons is far enough down the road to tyranny that economic stagnation, and the desperation and violence which accompany it, can’t be far behind.

Desperate and violent times are when I want to be able to defend my family and myself the most.

I’ve become firearm enthusiast. I like the engineering, I like the power, I like the security. Firearms are a tribute to the focus of mans mind on the endeavor to protect his life.

A particularly uncomfortable confrontation in the street out front of our rental house in 2006 prompted my official foray into the world of firearms. We were building our current home and had the opportunity for very cheap and flexible rent through a colleague of my wife. Every deal is a tradeoff and in this case the trade was cheap rent for a somewhat shady locale. There are areas in most towns referred to as the wrong side of the tracks - this home would have been built on the tracks. One side of the street was warm and pleasant, the other dark and risky.

I grew up like many guys with BB and Pellet rifles. We lived on several wooded acres so plinking targets, cans or birds out in the back yards was no big deal. Growing up in a small rural suburb meant I had family and friends that were avid outdoorsman, and through them I gained experience with shotguns and rifles. My father had both and a revolver, but I never really paid much attention to them. He instilled a healthy sense of fear, both in the inherent dangers of guns and especially the dangers of me tampering with his guns. I remained very distant, if not isolated from deadly weapons from my early teens until a few years ago.

A few hair-raising stares in downtown Charlotte on dark early mornings as I walked in from the parking lot initiated my curiosity. The booming, lowered and tinted thug-mobile pugnaciously blocking my driveway at the rental house one late winter night was the deciding factor that led me to a serious approach to self-defense.

I have a tendency to take on new endeavors in a very dedicated manner and this one would be no exception. I very quickly recognized that a firearm in incompetent hands is a liability that can ruin lives. I joined a few ranges, one near work, and one near home and began training a few days per week. I soaked up as much info as I could find. I tapped into a new realm of industry, culture and controversy. I also started to really enjoy shooting and the mechanical aspects of maintenance and part upgrades. I learned that like any market, there were niche offerings for specialize purposes. There are pistols small enough for effective concealment, there are those with upgraded components and tailored for accuracy, there are those optimized virtually every situation one could be in requiring such power at their disposal. As a natural progression I started to look into the rifle market. There are traditional bolt-action rifles and there are the modular, military inspired tactical rifles. The latter are far more interesting to me. The AR-15 platform is a very innovative and flexible weapon. In addition, it’s also the weapon of choice for those who’d prefer me not have the ability to defend myself with deadly force. It’s a powerful, customizable, all-purpose and pleasantly engineered source of anxiety for the irrational - I’ll take two of those.

I must get to the point.

I’m going hunting this year for the first time in 20 years. I’m excited - not necessarily about killing an animal, but about the exercise as a whole. The excitement of being outdoors, gearing up to face the weather, acting covert, relying on the technological masterpiece in your hands, the rush of the kill, and the reward of food to show for it in some cases. Depending on the game, there are some I’d actually prefer not to kill. Deer, I appreciate, but if we’re talking about an undeniably ugly and unappealing beast such as a bore, fox or coyote - I’ll have absolutely no reservations about their elimination.

I carried a vague awareness of restrictions around hunting. I knew there were certain times of the year that hunting with particular types of weapons was common. What I had been naively insulated from was the tyrannical invasiveness of our game laws. Given the overreaching club of Government in all other areas of our lives, why would it surprise me that essentially I have to ask the state permission to act within my proper role on the food chain?

I’m required a license to hunt or fish. I can’t go kill a varmint without paying a fee to the State. Even after which I’m only privileged to kill so many, and only during very brief time periods. What weapon I use to kill is restricted. What caliber I use is restricted. What time of day I do so is restricted. The sex of the animal I claim is restricted.

Does the state own all the animals? Or, do animals have rights? What a brilliant concoction of Environmentalism and Gun Control! And consider the potential revenue stream - subjective law always proves to be an adequate means to control men and loot their pockets.

The animals are either property, or they have a right to life. Which is the State implying? All arguments supporting these laws are founded in one of these foundations, neither of which can hold their weight on either moral nor practical grounds (the moral always is the practical).

Laws should be based on rights.

• There is no specific right to have an ample supply of game for hunting.
• Animals have no rights.
• Man has a right to his life, liberty and property.

Who’s right to what am I forcefully violating by hunting according to my own terms? Men have the right to their lives, their liberty and their property - all three of which are violated by this perversion of justice. Hunting to eat, freedom to do so at my discretion and the right to do so unchallenged on my on land are all three dependent on the consent of the State. Once again, another sick inversion of the proper role of government. The supposed protector of rights is the violator.

Anyone surprised?

Can you imagine our founder’s response to the notion that what was a staple of survival in their time has now been criminalized? America, as they envisioned and died for, no longer exists.

I’m still leaning heavily towards not voting in this election, and for the same reasons detailed here. There is only a single issue that stands out as a distinguishing characteristic between these clowns - self defense with deadly force.

The NRA, an organization I can no longer support due to their pragmatic indifference to property rights, is really hammering on the obvious anti-gun (read: anti-property rights) intentions of Obama. Here is a bullet list of their key points:

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17

Sure he does. He wants justices that will legislate his collectivist agenda from the bench in spite of the constitution.

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

I’m sure it was poorly crafted with full intent.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

Sure he did. A subjective legal system is a handy tool for a man of which force is the preferred means to deal with men.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

No surprise here.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

Yes, he is anti-gun - which means no guns, no ammo. An unarmed population is easier to control.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

In a nation riddled with subjective law, a rogue court system who’ll trample the constitution at will, and a population of which the majority doesn’t properly respect rights, this is essentially the only issue that clearly distinguishes Obama from McCain.  If we’re going to be subjected to inadequate protection from people who’ll forcefully violate our rights in a system that only hints at a standard of justice, I want to be able to protect myself and my family by any means necessary.  I want to have the ability to issue deadly force at all times.

My life and the lives of my family are precious and irreplaceable.  One candidate conveys a clear intent to deny me the means to better protect myself, while at the same time promoting policies that will amplify those very threats. The other promotes policies just as vile, and shows disdain for individuals and freedom comparable to his opponent - but, he claims to support my right to self-defense.  With a few exceptions, his record supports the claim.
With either outcome, the sanctity of the individual will further erode into some collectivist variant.  With Either outcome, what’s left of Capitalism will take a tremendous blow.  With either outcome, the irrational philosophies of the majority will yet again have their way.  For the first time since 9/11 and only the second time in my adult life, I have a sense of fear.  I fear that the economic destruction resulting from years of pragmatic ignorance will inevitably become the fissure releasing decades of hatred, panic and misery that’s brewing within our divided population.  When/if that storm erupts, we’ll see savagery from men scrapping for survival that I can’t imagine.  Weapons won’t guarantee survival, but they will provide an increased odds.  The process of disarming us is well underway and this election could enable a substantial boost for such cause.

Pulling the lever for McCain won’t save Capitalism, it won’t rescue individualism, it won’t promote reason, and in fact it will perpetuate several vile mystical and tyrannical movements.  But, it may enable us to retain our right to self-defense and possibly shift the momentum of a movement that will certainly injure our republic.  A vote for McCain may enable us to survive long enough to see the day of reason.

Men of reason don’t rely on force for survival, but even Hank Rearden appreciated the value of gun ownership.  Is this sufficient motivation to cast a ballot?

Read the rest of this entry »

Great video by Penn & Teller:

I’m slowing becoming a big P&T fan.

What We Owe Our Soldiers by Alex Epstein

Every Veterans Day we pay tribute to our fellow Americans who have served in the military. With speeches and ceremonies, we recognize their courage and valor. But justice demands that we also recognize that we should have far more living veterans than we do. All too many of our soldiers have died unnecessarily—because they were sent to fight for a purpose other than America’s freedom.

The proper purpose of a government is to protect its citizens’ lives and freedom against the initiation of force by criminals at home and aggressors abroad. The American government has a sacred responsibility to recognize the individual value of every one of its citizens’ lives, and thus to do everything possible to protect the rights of each to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This absolutely includes our soldiers.

Soldiers are not sacrificial objects; they are full-fledged Americans with the same moral right as the rest of us to the pursuit of their own goals, their own dreams, their own happiness. Rational soldiers enjoy much of the work of military service, take pride in their ability to do it superlatively, and gain profound satisfaction in protecting the freedom of every American, including their own freedom.

Soldiers know that in entering the military, they are risking their lives in the event of war. But this risk is not, as it is often described, a “sacrifice” for a “higher cause.” When there is a true threat to America, it is a threat to all of our lives and loved ones, soldiers included. Many become soldiers for precisely this reason; it was, for instance, the realization of the threat of Islamic terrorism after September 11—when 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered in cold blood on a random Tuesday morning—that prompted so many to join the military.

For an American soldier, to fight for freedom is not to fight for a “higher cause,” separate from or superior to his own life—it is to fight for his own life and happiness. He is willing to risk his life in time of war because he is unwilling to live as anything other than a free man. He does not want or expect to die, but he would rather die than live in slavery or perpetual fear. His attitude is epitomized by the words of John Stark, New Hampshire’s most famous soldier in the Revolutionary War: “Live free or die.”

What we owe these men who fight so bravely for their and our freedom is to send them to war only when that freedom is truly threatened, and to make every effort to protect their lives during war—by providing them with the most advantageous weapons, training, strategy, and tactics possible.

Shamefully, America has repeatedly failed to meet this obligation. It has repeatedly placed soldiers in harm’s way when no threat to America existed—e.g., to quell tribal conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. America entered World War I, in which 115,000 soldiers died, with no clear self-defense purpose but rather on the vague, self-sacrificial grounds that “The world must be made safe for democracy.” America’s involvement in Vietnam, in which 56,000 Americans died in a fiasco that American officials openly declared a “no-win” war, was justified primarily in the name of service to the South Vietnamese. And the current war in Iraq—which could have had a valid purpose as a first step in ousting the terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American regimes of the Middle East—is responsible for thousands of unnecessary American deaths in pursuit of the sacrificial goal of “civilizing” Iraq by enabling Iraqis to select any government they wish, no matter how anti-American.

In addition to being sent on ill-conceived, “humanitarian” missions, our soldiers have been compromised with crippling rules of engagement that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above their own. In Afghanistan we refused to bomb many top leaders out of their hideouts for fear of civilian casualties; these men continue to kill American soldiers. In Iraq, our hamstrung soldiers are not allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency—and instead must suffer an endless series of deaths by an undefeated enemy.

To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights.

This Veterans Day, we must call for a stop to the sacrifice of our soldiers and condemn all those who demand it. It is only by doing so that we can truly honor not only our dead, but also our living: American soldiers who have the courage to defend their freedom and ours.