The thing is, I’m not coming up with any reasonably good criterion for who gets respect+ and who only gets regular respect. My buddy suggested positive externalities from the work, but that’s so broad a category that I’m not sure it’s useful.

“I don’t think anyone has a positive duty to the state, so I don’t see carrying out the state’s wishes* as particularly noble or ignoble, it’s just another job to be done by somebody.”

I can see how taking orders from the government does not seem that noble, especially if you are not one to support many government functions which play a role in your life. You have the freedom to make that choice and speak freely about it. But like it or not, those freedoms spawn from the same system that you feel no obligation or duty towards. Others feel differently, and some are even willing to put their life on the line to defend that kind of freedom, as they feel that those freedoms exist because of the men and women that came before them that were willing to fight for/defend those rights. It is a personal choice, and one that I know I would never be brave enough to make.

Is it necessary to accept that notion, in order to accord some measure of honor to people who voluntarily risk their lives in jobs that all but the most ridiculous libertarian has to admit are legitimate, necessary functions of “the state”? We’re not talking about venerating the employees of the Consumer Products Safety Commission here.

My point is that I think it’s a little suspect to equate signing up to do what the government says with serving the country in the sense of being useful to one’s countrymen. If you think that one has a positive duty to the state, then okay, it makes sense to equate joining the military with serving the country. I don’t think anyone has a positive duty to the state, so I don’t see carrying out the state’s wishes* as particularly noble or ignoble, it’s just another job to be done by somebody. I reject the notion that the state is the equivalent of “the country” or “the people.” I have a lot of reasons for that, all of which I’m willing to explain at great length with run-on sentences and over use of semicolons. Maybe you don’t share that view, or as extreme a view on the matter as I do, which means we’re basically at an impasse.

And let me be perfectly clear, it’s not that I think joining the military is morally inferior to any other job out there that isn’t as hazardous and doesn’t involve getting shot at, I just reject the claim that it is somehow morally superior. That said, I hope that everybody currently deployed gets home safe. And I hope anybody who wants a successful military career can find one, if it’s what people want to do they should and best of luck to them.

*When undertaken for a relatively benign state voluntarily. There is an obvious difference between, say, folks who REALLY LOVED being in the Red Army and folks who’ve signed up in the modern US. There’s also a pretty obvious difference between volunteers and conscripts, I mostly pity the latter (as in feel badly that they were treated in such a manner, not to imply that they’re particularly pitiful or something) Being coerced into state service is probably the most disgusting practice I can imagine aside from chattel slavery. Really, it basically is chattel slavery.

“Oh, sure, I wouldn’t equate one job with another, but in the sense that it’s completely voluntary, I don’t see it as any more important/noble than going to work serving coffee.”

I think it is pretty damn noble that people like Sean want to serve their country. Sure, it is voluntary, but aren’t you getting a little childish with that kind of argument? That is like saying it is just as noble to watch as someone drowns in the river than it is to jump in and save them, because hell, it’s all voluntary. The fact that military service is voluntary is what makes it so noble, as the people who serve this country do so knowing full well that they can spend years away from their friends and family, and always live with the possibility of coming home in a body bag.

A very close friend of mine served in Iraq, during the push to Baghdad. He didn’t join because he was some psycho who wanted to shoot people. He joined before September 11th so that he could learn a skill to bring into the civilian world. He was told he could even choose his own job in the Marines, but as soon as he joined, he was assigned a job, and eventually sent to Iraq. Sure, he knew of the possible consequences of his actions, but seeing that he did not feel ready for college, he wanted to learn a trade and be eligible for the GI Bill after serving for four years.

He was one of the lucky ones, as he came home without a scratch. One of my old classmates died while serving in Iraq, leaving behind a wife and a small child. He may not have even believed in the mission, but he served his country in the best way he could, which was fighting in the Army. For others, this may take shape in volunteering for local charities and public service groups, while for others it may be partaking in intellectual discourse and research so that we may better understand our place in the new world order. And hell, for some it may be caffeinating our workforce at starbucks.

Yes, we have the freedom to say what we want, but we have that freedom because of people who were brave enough to fight for it.

You have no right to not be offended by speech or print in this country (despite what certain people think), which is good, because finding offense at mere words is largely subjective.

Yikes, dude.

“This is about something else, something closer to my heart…. This speaks of a larger problem with American society.”

Alas, we all tend to find it a bit too easy to get from the first of these statements to the second.

These names are a matter of public record. I reckon Frazier could probably mount a coherent (moral) defense of his shirts without the need for any anti-Halliburton pabulum; the “political message” they send isn’t necessarily anything more objectionable than “these people died, that sucks, and I blame Bush”. It’s not hard to think of shirts that would really cross the threshold of bad taste (and probably get Frazier lynched) but this is not the situation.

When the Arizona legislators passed the law, they did so knowing full well that it was unconstitutional. Think about that for a minute, or two. State lawmakers conspired to violate the Constitution of the United States. In what moral framework does that make any sense at all? If you argument against the t-shirt is based on morality, you haven’t made your case.

Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, and many others have made billions off this war. How much respect do they have for the military? Remember that Halliburton’s former president “had other priorities” when his turn to serve came up. KBR continued to do business in Iran, even knowing it was illegal. The current US administration is pressuring the Iraqi government to pass a law that would guarantee foreign oil companies access to oil contracts, even though that proposed law is a major source of sectarian violence. So if your argument is based upon a rejection of dishonorable profit motives, you have not made your case.

The only case you have made is that what Frazier is doing is something you find offensive. Fine. How about printing a bunch of t-shirts that say “Dan Frazier is a jerk” and giving them away for free. Or selling them for $20. Whatever will make your point.

Yeah, free speech can be a pain in the ass sometimes, Probably all freedoms can be a pain in the ass sometimes. But the alternative is worse.

But, I agree that the military likely does lend itself to a deep sense of commitment to one’s peers that, frankly, is unlikely to develop slinging lattes or ginning up ridiculous reports. Both of which are much more likely, I think, to help one develop a deep commitment to getting one’s peers to shut the hell up and leave one alone.

Sean: Now that I’ve slept, I think we probably have a disagreement over the moral difference between just using folks KIA to make a political point and using them to make both a political point and a buck. I actually don’t think there’s much of a difference. Of course, I don’t really think the military is any more or less respectable than any other profession because, like other professions, it’s voluntary and the people who signed up pretty much knew that their job could turn out to be getting shot at by jerks in some other country. On the whole is it kind of a dick move to use dead folks as a political club? Probably, but I don’t think it’s more of a dick move if you sell a shirt or give it away.