James Madison once said:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes..., known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. (via Quoty)

Continual warfare pretty much sums up the history of our nation.  Whether great or small, there have been battles in nearly every year of this nation's history.  For this reason, and as Madison noted, freedom is on the decline.

How eager are we to support war?  Are we a warlike people or advocates of peace?  Do we believe the propaganda that is promoted through the mainstream media, or do we do our homework to understand the principles and reasons behind military conflict?  Do we believe that extremist individuals living half a world away pose more of a threat to our security and prosperity than individuals within our own government?

I was recently in a meeting where war, speaking in general terms, was the topic of discussion.  The conversation shifted toward the current wars we are in, and the reasons we are fighting them.  Many present seemed to agree that the military conflict in Iraq is all about toppling a dangerous dictator, liberating an oppressed people, and fighting those who want to kill us because of our religion.

I shook my head in dismay, raised my hand to offer a comment, and proceeded to explain my point of view that our greatest threats are internal ones, not external ones.  I am supported in my belief by men who I believe are called of God, who have repeatedly stated that our internal threats are more dangerous.  Consider one example, in a letter written by the LDS First Presidency to the U.S. Treasury in 1941:

We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe ... (via Quoty)

The scriptures emphatically declare that previous civilizations have fallen not because of their enemies, but because of the domestic erosion of virtue, morality, and civic duty.  In such instances of societal collapse, it was conspiring men, scheming leaders, and domestic insurgents that posed the greatest threat to their countrymens' liberty.  I am of the belief that the same threat presents itself today.  We will not be defeated by any external foe, but by those individuals who use their power to subvert the Constitution, debase the currency, spread our military thin, foment hate for America around the world, and encourage and allow decaying morals at home.  

War is ever-present, and we should be prepared. But we must not forget the threat of domestic foes whose actions will cause far more harm and loss of life (not necessarily lives) than men living in caves half a world away.  

Connor Boyack is a blogger , husband, web designer, Latter-day Saint, constitutionalist, paleocon, classical liberal, preparedness practitioner, budding philanthropist, and master's student of political economy. He's from Poway, CA but lives in Happy Valley.

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Patrick said:

	Where should we draw the line of defending those who are weaker and letting things go their course?
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 26, 2008
Votes: +0

hwk said:

This is the TOUGHEST of questions. The confilcts beleaguring nations large and small are complicated. I think in this global environment it's sometimes hard to tell who's in bed with whom. Sometimes it's not as black and white as it would appear in the Media. Another concern is.... where would you begin, and where would you end the never ending defense of "weaker vs stronger" nations. Who decides? Our corrupt government leaders? Our Media? Our Corporations? Your question is valid, thought provoking and difficult to answer. I hope someone smarter than me answers this post. I will say this, I have read some pretty strong words from David O. McKay in his book "Pathways to Happiness." In the chapter entitled: War; David O. McKay says "there are conditions when entrance into war is justifiable, and when a Christian nation may, without violation of principles, take up arms against an opposing force. Such condition, however, is not a real or fancied insult given by one nation to another. When this occurs proper reparation may be made by mutual understanding, apology, or by arbitration. Neither is there justifiable cause found in a desire or even a need for territorial exlpansion. The taking of terriorty implies the subjugation of the weak by the strong - the application of the jungle law. Nor is war justified in an attempt to enforce a new order of government, or even to impel others to a particular form of worship, however better the government or eternally true the principles of the enforced religion may be. There are, however, two conditions which MAY justify a truly Chrisitan man to enter - mind you, I say enter, not begin - a war; (1) An attempt to prevent a nation from dominating another or depriving it of its free agency, and (2) Loyalty to country. " This book was published in 1957. If I'm interpreting this correctly, is it possible that according to David O. McKay the Viet Nam war was more justified than Iraq. Of course, personally I would emphasize (in a super-sized way) the MAY JUSTIFY portion. I also find it interesting that in the MAY JUSTIFY category his uses the term "Christian man" and not "Christian Nation". Perhaps that means if a Christian man wanted to personally volunteer to defend a weak nation from tyranny, it would be his perogotive, and he would not be held accountable to God. But, perhaps to compel United States military personnel to do ones bidding when it is not in direct DEFENSE of our United States may be unjustifiable. Again, I hope someone more informed and intelligent answers this post.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 04, 2008
Votes: +0

Crusty said:

The answer to this question seems pretty simple to me. Defending yourself, and your family, is vital to preserving your own ability to continue taking advantage of your opportunity to live. It's your duty. Helping someone else defend their life is a very noble endeavor, if you're sure you are actually helping someone defend their live. However, FORCING someone else to help defend you or someone else is undeniably evil. Force is always evil, except in the case of defending your life, liberty, and property. So, defend yourself, volunteer to help defend others, but do not force other people to help defend you or other people, either through funding or direct involvement. In fact, if YOU are attempting to FORCE me to help you defend someone, I would consider it my righteous duty to defend myself against YOU.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 29, 2008 | url
Votes: +0

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment