SCOTUS Affirms 2nd Amendment

[Alyrium Denryle]

As far as the military worship is concerned, if you look you find the same sort of rhetoric.

While the people in the military have their personalities altered by some rather interesting (and effective) brainwashing techniques, to the point that they become community-centered (their unit at least...) the people back home are each referring to their own individual friend or relative as a hero. He (or she) is the rugged individualist, the Randian Ideal (fuck her in the ear) that they idolize.

No they don't. It's all about SERVING your country. Join the SERVICE. OBEY the chain of command. Become part of "something greater than yourself". Do your DUTY. That is not individualist rhetoric; it is collectivist rhetoric, on a high level. The western way of war has been based on collectivist thinking since the time of the Greek phalanx.

Collectivist rhetoric works wonderfully when it is applied to the military in America, but is rejected everywhere else.

I was referring to the at-home rhetoric at the individual level. The soldier trope we have of soldiers is an individualist. Rambo, Any part ever played by Mel Gibson. Even in more recent works like Band of Brothers you have a story that largely centers on the extra-ordinary (though in this case somewhat true) exploits of one or a few individuals. Think of just about the majority of portrayals of soldiers in US films, and you will find an individualist who is fighting for collectivist ideals. It's the one-man-army trope. And a walking contradiction. (see cognitive dissonance below)

The public perception of the military, and people in the military, is individualistic.

The military itself operates as a collectivist enterprise, and they want to recruit people who operate as collectivists. You want Kantians or people who read too much Aurelius in your military. You dont want someone who mastrubates while reading the rape scene in The Fountainhead (ever, because they will leave you to die...after robbing you blind because they can)

Now it is fair to say perhaps that the american people do the cognitive dissonance things. They hold both sets of values simultaneously. An emphasis on collectivist ideals of duty and service as motivation, with an individualist perception-of-actions. No one, especially not the guy who likes to talk about the dog-and-pony show that is human courtship and mating behavior, is saying that humans have ever been anything but inconsistent rationalizers.

[American Infidel]

Getting recruits to join is about appealing to them as individuals.

Develop your skills for your career. They'll help you when you're out. Assuming you did something other than unload trucks and push boxes.

Get money for your college.

Be all you can be. Look at this guy climbing a mountain, he's a badass. You can be one too.

Be an Army of One. Look at all this high tech gear this guy has on. It looks cool, but you probably won't get to use any of it.

[Darth Wong]

Saying that a soldier is an individual who serves collectivist ideals is mere obfuscation of the point, which is that military service itself is collectivist. This is like saying that a blue car is actually metal-coloured with blue paint. It doesn't change anything.

[American Infidel]

My post wasn't constructed to dispute or obfuscate the point that the military is collectivist. It is and it's supposed to be.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is what I don't like about the American legal system. Everyone has to find a constitutional justification for everything, no matter how tenuous. So much legal discussion in America revolves around semantic interpretation of little pieces of that single accursed document, as if we can't just say "Hey, maybe the fucking Founders never thought of abortion, because the technology didn't exist in their day, so it's idiotic to ask what insights the Constitution gives us into the subject". Similarly, it strikes me as idiotic to continually debate what the Second Amendment says about gun rights in the modern age, because the people who wrote had no idea what conditions would be like two hundred years later. The country is no longer primarily defended by citizen militias; the entire written justification for that amendment falls apart, and it clearly needs updating. But it's a goddamned sacred cow, and nobody will touch it.

Well, as a matter of law, I am against both decisions. Issues where the constitution offers no guidance should be legislated by the stakeholders in the society, or if is a pressing concern to the whole of the polity and its ethical values, the constitution should be amended. The fact is if the majority of retards in Texas want abortion to be illegal, than that's their prerogative. If the inhabitants of the District of Colombia think that the ownership of firearms is an unnecessary risk to life and well-being in their community, they should be allowed to restrict it. The fact is that the constitution does not speak on these issues.

Although there are schools of thought in constitutional law, Mike, which accommodate your viewpoint, essentially arguing the spirit of the law or first principles (i.e., the constitution sets up a republic guaranteeing due process, human rights, etc., etc. - let's discuss whether these laws can be considered compatible with those fundamental goals). Originalism is what you're talking about ("how was the constitution understood when ratified" or "what did the Framers intend for it to mean?"); and it is extremely odious and dishonestly applied. However, I think it is kind of specious to ask why one must seek constitutional justification for something - what else is one to do if they are suing the government for a law they think violates their rights? By what legal justification do you bring suit if not under the constitution or in contradiction with another law? The constitution matters because we're discussing here whether the state is permitted in our republic to legislate certain matters.

Inevitably the problem that arrives is, when is it allowed for the government to make stupid laws, as opposed to it being unacceptable? I abhor to opportunistic dubbing of judges as "activist judges", but at the same time, I don't think high courts should be allowed to dismiss law simply because it ought to be different, even for good reasons. There must be some legal ground to make the decision on. I'd rather we stick with originalism or the plain-language of the document if it gave us smarter legislating and some amendments or constitutional conventions to make up the difference.

The most stupid thing that ever comes out is the endless worship for the brilliance of the Framers and the terror with which anyone approaches amending or replacing their decisions or advice with ideas of our own.