No Contradiction

The other day, someone wrote somthing about Billy Beck that could just as easily apply to me and others.

I am constantly both amused and dismayed by those who regularly
ridicule government, then take some supposed ‘long view’ of history to
justify war, which is merely the ace card of government’s stranglehold
upon citizens.

I have never really understood why he trusts government to go to
war, over against those who distrust our government–as much as does he.

I’ve never spent any real time explaining this. I’ve always just said, essentially, that it’s necessary to "kill the bad guys." That’s an imperative, and it happens that the state is the only current practical way of accomplishing such a task. There are all sorts of imperatives in my life, should I desire to live a human life, and many of those imperatives involve dealing with a government that I do not believe has any moral right to exist.

Anyway, Billy went and broad-stroked the whole thing and I encourage you to read it all. Here are some choice excerpts:

At root, there is a crucial difference between the bloody fools running this war and the mindless dipshits who stand against war — any war, in general principle — with their strictly amoral
demands for peace and no regard at all for the prospect that there
really is a right and wrong which must sometimes be resolved by main
force. And there should be no mistake that that difference is where
this thing fundamentally turns. […] …a great deal of opposition to this military episode is founded in the
outrage on the left borne of the simple fact that the White House is
not occupied by someone commie enough to suit the tastes of
creatures like Katrina vanden Heuvel and Michael Moore. Anyone who
thinks that these people are really screaming about the war is deluded.

The matter of the state security apparat is fundamentally separate from the imperative to kill the bad guys.
Read that again, and understand the thirst for blood. I’m talking
rationally applied savagery here, kids, and I don’t apologize for it:
the thing to do is to summarily destroy those who have set out to
destroy us, with all the world-original American aptitude for
going to the extremity of the thing. Nobody who cannot or will not
grasp this imperative is fit for the discussion, because they’re simply
not coming to terms with reality, and I don’t attempt to discuss
anything with insane people. There’s just no percentage in it.

You bet: every time I hear of a dead fourteenth-century throwback, shot
down in the streets of some shitty little pest-hole where actual and actualizing human beings would not live beyond the length of a desperation that would drive them out to something better, I cheer.  "Fuck ’em."  That’s my motto on the thing.  If they would attend their primitive dirt-scratching in peace, then my attitude would be exactly opposite — as it is
the opposite in the individual cases of people who are not interested
to blow me to pieces in order to get their ticket punched into Paradise.

Nothing would thrill me more than to see George W. Bush and his whole
cohort headed across the Fourteenth Street Bridge and out of Washington
D.C. with their shit strapped to the roofs of mini-vans like a bunch of
political hillbillies, as long as — and this is crucial — it would be
the last time such a mess would have to be handled in such a way.

Nobody gets to question my anarcho-cred.  I’m as heavy as anyone in the world, and way heavier than most.

But don’t mistake this: just because I hate this government, it doesn’t mean that I am not interested in the war.

They are two categorically distinct concepts, and anyone interested to
address the matter would do well to handle them competently.

Good, then. I hope it’s now clear. No Contradiction.

7 Comments

  1. Billy Beck on October 28, 2005 at 05:25

    I seem to be failing at making some of this clear.

    I really don't know why. It's really simple: the value of the fight against these animals is in no way contingent on the existence of government. It just happens to be the way that things are arranged right now.

    I do realize that this can be a real stretch for the average person, but people attempting to work with advanced political concepts of the sort that we're talking about ought to be able to make their way through it.

  2. Rich on October 28, 2005 at 06:55

    That's right, Billy. It's no different than it's the way police, prosecutors, and the state go after society's bad guys, like murderers, rapists, thieves and the like. Should bad people who do evil things to others not be pursued because we generally don't like the cops and the state aparatus that supports them?

  3. Kyle Bennett on October 28, 2005 at 09:04

    The thing needs to be done. The state has usurped every available means for getting it done. If they won't get out of the way, then they damn well better do a superior job at it.

  4. John Lopez on October 27, 2005 at 20:30

    Thing is that it's a slippery slope between seeing this government as a means to an end and seeing this government as an end in and of itself.

    The NeoLibertarians serve as an example.

    Not that you, or Beck, or whoever is *necessarily* going to go over the edge, but it's easy to see how inlookers could get the impression that you have.

  5. Billy Beck on October 28, 2005 at 11:16

    Yup.

    Happy to help when I can.

  6. Happy Curmudgeon on October 28, 2005 at 09:35

    Got it now. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the issue, Rich and Billy.

  7. John Lopez on October 28, 2005 at 19:14

    Kyle,

    What do you judge is the best way for an individual to encourage the government to conduct its War On Terror in a superior manner?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.