Tag: PTSD

The Tyranny and Failure of Coercive Paternalism

By John Keller | United States

Coercive Paternalism can be defined as intervention in cases where people’s choices of the means to achieving their ultimate ends are confused. An argument of this nature, notably by Sarah Conly, rests on four main points: (1) Such a view promotes individuals actual goals. (2) Coercive Paternalism is effective. (3) The benefits are worth the cost. (4) Coercive Paternalism is efficient. Coercive Paternalism offers an ambiguous and unclear argument that ignores many of the complexities of the issues.

The Argument For Paternalism

A Coercive Paternalist would make an argument such as this: (1) People want to live long and healthy lives. (2) Eating processed foods and consuming drugs hinders people from living long and healthy lives. (3) Thus, the government must ban certain foods and drugs to promote the goal of the individual. Assuming the premise to be true, a rather noncontroversial claim, logically the next step is to examine the second step of the argument. Does consuming drugs hinder people from wanting to live long and healthy lives?

Examine, for instance, veteran suicide and veterans who deal with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Marijuana has been instrumental, if not vital, to veterans dealing with the mental complications involved with going into combat. By denying veterans drugs to promote the ‘individuals’ goals, they are actually exacerbating the mental complications of veterans and creating an environment in which veterans are forced to live shorter, mentally unhealthy lives as they tragically fall victim to the grip of suicide. Is this outcome the promotion of ‘long and healthy lives’? No, and thus Coercive Paternalism is unable to provide the needs of individual citizens.

The Failure of Coercive Paternalism

As it is unable to provide the needs of the individual citizens, it can not be effective. Paternalism itself is the idea in which the government must assume a role similar to that of your parent because the individual is inadequate to take of themselves and make good choices. Are any two individuals the same? Are any two children raised the same? Even siblings are often raised differently as a parent learns more, realizes mistakes, and adjust in real time to the needs of their children. The government, however, can not operate in this way on an individual level. Instead, they institute a policy under the basis of ‘one shoe fits all’. A clear example of this is common core education. With more money in the education system, improvement has been rare to come by. RealClear Education reports, “Between 2013 and 2017, only five jurisdictions logged improvements in 4th-grade math and just three in 8th-grade math.” As no two individuals develop the same, no government program can claim to be for the benefit of every citizen.

The theorized benefits of paternalism, that cannot apply to every citizen due to the nature of individuality, are not worth the cost. From 2013-2017, a total of $375,577,635,000 was spent federally, with an additional $840,757,185,970 spent in the same time frame by the states. In 2013, roughly 62,146,000 children went to school. That means that between 2013-2017, a total of $1,216,334,820,000 was spent on 62,146,000 school age children, or roughly $19,572.21 per student. As a result of paternalism, $1.2 trillion was spent to see only eight jurisdictions see an increase in math skills of America’s youth.

With the cost not being worth the near invisible benefits, Coercive Paternalism fails to also be effective. While it is not effective, it also fails to be efficient. Prohibition has historically failed to be efficient. The Eighth Amendment, passed in 1917 and ratified in 1919, was passed to prohibit the sales, transportation, importation, and exportation of “intoxicating liquors”, also known, more commonly, as alcohol. During the Prohibition Era, drinking remained constant. It is very likely that it not only stayed at the pre-prohibition levels but that drinking increased following the prohibition. When the government stopped sanctioning the legality of the alcohol industry and its services, it was forced to go into an underground state, run by speakeasies throughout the nation. The people reverted to the black market to get the products they desired, proving government regulation of the market to be inefficient. Furthermore, the government prohibition on the use of marijuana proved again to be a failure for the U.S government. Historically speaking, prohibition has always been ineffective.

Coercive Paternalism fails to promote the individual’s actual goals, is not effective, and is not worth the cost. The theory of Coercive Paternalism offers a simple answer to the complexities of society that fails to respect an individuals rights, needs, and the pursuit of happiness.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Advertisements

End the Wars: The Only Way to Support the Troops

By TJ Roberts | United States

“Support the Troops”: A Siren Song for Warmongers

“Support the Troops” is a mantra by which the neoconservatives pray to their God, the Military Industrial Complex. As the war machine turns its eye toward Iran (and inevitably Russia), you can already hear the same old nonsense from the propagandists for endless war. According to the propagandists, sending young men and women to be maimed, murdered, and traumatized by people who have never wronged them is supporting the troops. But anyone with any hint of common sense would know that this is the polar opposite of supporting the troops.

The True Nature of War

War is nothing more than legalized mass murder, and sending young people to kill and to be killed is not support. War has cost America almost $6 trillion since 9/11. Selling out the entirety of our future into debt slavery is not supporting the troops. It is enslaving them and their children. War is also traumatizing to the brain. It is believed that up to 20% of all veterans have PTSD in some form. We see this in our daily life. 22 veterans commit suicide every day. Opting to subject young Americans to atrocities that will torment their psyche for the rest of their lives is evil. In no way is this supporting the troops.

The impacts of war go beyond this as well. Nearly 40,000 veterans are homeless or were homeless in their lifetime. This is because the military does not prepare you for the real world. It prepares you to take orders and not think for yourself. The military strips you of your individuality. It makes you a slave of the State, literal property to the United States Federal Government.

Rather than advocating for war, or the death, injury, and destruction of our troops, you should Support the Troops… by bringing them home. 1.3 million American soldiers are deployed around the world. That is 1.3 million people who have left their homes and families because the government deceived them into believing that propping up the American Empire will keep us free and safe. But if the Patriot Act doesn’t give it away, war makes us less safe and less free.

So many American soldiers have died for nothing more than government propaganda. When one takes a closer look at reality, we realize that the government has funneled trillions into legal mass murder. The military is no longer used for defense. It is now used as a means to impose the will of America’s ruling elite upon the rest of the world. For America to be free, this must end. For us to truly honor our soldiers, we must bring them home and stop making more of them. If Americans truly support the troops, they would call for an end to the wars.

No matter how the government frames it, war is nothing more than legalized mass murder. Perhaps this is best expressed by the sentiments of Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton’s second Secretary of State. On May 12, 1996, Albright claimed that the 500,000 children killed by US foreign policy in Iraq were “worth it.” The blood of half a million children is a high price to pay. But what did the people receive for that? Control. The US government is willing to kill millions in the pursuit of power throughout the world. Soldiers are no exception. If you are a soldier, the government sees you as nothing more than cannon fodder. You are more than this, but they don’t care.

The government hypnotizes soldiers by claiming that they will spread democracy around the world. This goal is neither honest nor noble nor possible. To spread mob rule to the rest of the world is to destabilize the world, but that isn’t the true intentions of the neocons in power. It is clear that the true goal is domination. When the US military “liberates” a nation, often sacrificing thousands of soldiers in the meantime, they do not allow self-rule. They implement puppet governments. The US expands its hegemony, dominating the world through the war machine. All dissenters meet their end, and it costs the American people hundreds of billions every year.

It is impossible to support war and not support big government. War amounts to the second largest expenditure of the federal government, with welfare in first place. Since 9/11, the war machine has cost more than $6 trillion to the US taxpayer. There is no opting out of this. Either you pay for the government’s organized mass violence, or they throw you in a cage. For one to have a war system as massive as the United States, the government needs to centralized, massive, and authoritarian. This is not freedom. If soldiers were truly fighting for freedom, they would defend America from its government.

Ultimately, war is the health of the State. Without war, the government would not be able to expand in the way it currently does. Defense would largely be private, and there would be no propagandist inducing fear into the hears of the public. The warfare State devastates the economy through inflation, opening the gates to the welfare state. The warfare state leads to the loss of millions of people throughout the world. In the last century alone, government has killed more than 200 million people in acts of war, democide, or genocide. If we are to truly honor the dedication to freedom that a soldier should hold, we would eliminate that occupation from this world. To honor the soldiers that lost their lives, we must stop creating new soldiers. No more should another person kill or be killed for the will of the government.

If you want to Support the Troops, oppose war, empire, and interventionism in all of its manifestations. This is your duty. If the State still chooses to go to war, it is the duty of any decent human being to encourage the people not to enlist and to resist the war effort in every way possible. And to the neoconservatives that claim this is hatred of the troops, answer this question. Which plan will kill more people: your plan, in which soldiers are sent into a battlefield to kill and be killed; or my plan, where war is a thing of the past and we support the troops by not sending them to die? It’s time. End the wars and bring them home now.


Originally published on freedomandeconomics.org.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

A New Hope for Congress – Jason Hope for House of Reps

By John Keller | United States
Jason Hope is the libertarian candidate for Congress in Texas’ 31st Congressional District.
Keller: What inspired you to pursue a career in politics?
Hope: I have thought about running for office for many years, I was first inspired by Ron Paul.  Ron Paul showed me that you could be a politician and stand on principles.  When I realized that you could be a principled politician and could actually help people in the quest for freedom I was all in!
Keller: With such a political duopoly by the Democrats and Republicans, what made you join the Libertarian Party?
Hope: I joined the libertarian party because it is the party of principle, they believe in the non-aggression principle which means I can live my life as I please as long as I don’t harm anyone else.  This is a great philosophy, which extends to so much that the government has overreached on.  If it is wrong to take something from someone by force than how do we allow taxation of any form?  The only thing the other two major parties believe is how to attain more power and money.  After considering all of that it was a very easy decision.
Keller: In your own words, what is a Libertarian?
Hope: A libertarian is a voluntarist who believes people should be free to live their lives how they choose to live, as long as they don’t try and impose there way of living on anyone else (that’s the best part I think, we can have gun restrictions that I don’t agree with just do it somewhere else away from me and I probably wont go there and visit but that is freedom).
Keller: What policy and change do you hope to bring to Congress?
Hope: There is several things I want to change with congress.  I would like to drastically reduce spending especially on the military budget.  I would like to reschedule Cannabis so it is no longer considered class 1 felony.  I would heavily push to audit the federal reserve so we can take our currency back and end the income tax.  I would also push to reduce regulation on business and commerce to allow the free market to thrive better so we have a better economy. Lastly I would like to end many government agencies including but not limited to the department of education, EPA, DEA, CIA and I’m sure I could go on for a while with this list.
Keller: Although Libertarians tend to believe less laws and less government is better, what is one law you would like to see passed?
Hope: If I had to come up with a law I would want passed it would have to be that the president or anyone who can be held liable that aided in the attack/waging of war on another country without congressional approval would be arrested and subject to criminal trial.
Keller: If elected to Congress, how will you see legislation passed through the duopoly majority?
Hope: The only way I have ever been able to get anyone to aid in the quest for liberty is stand on my principles and speak out hoping the rest will hear the message and realize what they are doing is wrong and correct the mistake.  I was a die hard republican for many years until I was shown there is a better way of liberty and true individual freedom, so if I can hear that message so will others.
Keller: Donald Trump has been very controversial to say the least. In Congress would you work with President Trump to get his agenda passed?
Hope: That is a broad statement, first we have to figure out what his agenda is.  He campaigned on bringing troops home and ending wars abroad but so far I have heard the drums of war only get louder. He has flip flopped on many things just like so many presidents before him.  I would work with him if it was to reduce government or something of the like, but to say I would help get his agenda passed 100% would be a lie.
Keller: What is the key to winning your election? If someone wanted to get involved, how would they do so?
Hope: Getting the message out to the people of District 31 in Texas that they have a principled candidate with their freedom in mind.  Go to my Facebook page you can message me and we can figure something out to help, also like and share it with others in that district tell them to vote libertarian.  I am self funding this campaign so I don’t really have any money for the campaign but if people want to make a sign or whatever I encourage individuals to speak out in their community on my behalf as long as it aligns with what my message is. 
Keller: Do you have any final remarks for the readers?
Hope: I believe the time has come to take our liberties back, the people are tired of politics as usual and Donald Trump being elected speaks volumes to this. Regardless if he has stuck to his word or not, the message he put out of ending wars and eliminating federal overreach with regulation and reducing welfare etc is why he was elected.  If the people realize there are people running for office who really mean what they say, the Democrats and Republicans will have no chance.   Also my district is a military district which has Fort Hood as part of it, so I have decided that if elected I would give $100,000 of the $174,000 congressional yearly salary to help veterans coming home from these illegal wars with PTSD and also help organize local militia to have local protection against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Thank you Mr. Hope for your time. Be sure to visit his website if interested in getting involved.


 

Politicians Are Standing In The Way Of Our Veterans

By Michael Kanter | United States

Once soldiers go off to war, the focus shifts to the diagnosis of PTSD. Amongst other views on the subject during WWI, PTSD was not taken seriously by doctors performing diagnoses. The symptoms related to PTSD were widely misdiagnosed as the concussive effects of shells landing near soldiers and were often attributed to general insanity. However, after noticing similar symptoms from soldiers who had never been within range of artillery shells, they realized that there must be another cause.

By the time WWI ended, it was called Combat Stress Reaction (CSR) and was soon inducted into the brand new 1952 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which included a protocol to properly diagnose (and treat) CSR. In 1980, as a result of research on Vietnam War victims, holocaust survivors, and victims of sexual assault, the DSM created the diagnosis known as PTSD (Friedman).

Today, soldiers are regularly assessed for PTSD upon return from war, and can also be recommended for screening by commanding officers based on unusual behavior or other concerns. For someone to be diagnosed, however, there must be an identifiable “Stressor Criterion,” or a stressful event that one can link to the disorder (Friedman). This makes it harder to seek support since it can be difficult to identify one particular event as the cause.

Despite apparent improvements in the diagnosis of PTSD, there are still many roadblocks to fully address the problem. Firstly, the “toxic masculinity” that is often core to military culture creates a stigma around the diagnosis, and soldiers are often reluctant to properly describe their symptoms. In addition, many wish to avoid formal diagnosis because it might ruin their military career. Lastly, politicians are cost-averse when defining the levels of severity of PTSD for which government funding is available.

As with diagnosis, the treatment of PTSD has developed immensely over the past century. During WWI, treatment was virtually non-existent. In fact, when soldiers complained, doctors’ objective was to quickly and efficiently return them to the front lines (Reid). Treatment options ranged from shaming the soldiers to electroshock therapy (“Shell Shock Through the Wars”).

However, today, with the abundance of new information and changes in social understanding, treatment has improved. The increased emphasis on the value of soldiers’ quality of life caused governments and corporations to invest in research for treatments. The government has a new framework of programs to help veterans suffering from PTSD, and has created an extensive guide to the disease designed for veterans, including coping strategies and useful resources accessible online. Canadian Armed Forces members are also offered therapy and counseling in order to help them cope with the PTSD.

Notably, 18% of all benefits received by veterans are for mental health conditions, and more Afghanistan veterans received benefits for PTSD support than any other ailment or disability (Veterans Affairs Canada, “Mental Health”). Programs, though, are criticised for long wait times; some veterans have had to wait as long as three months to get an appointment for PTSD diagnosis, during which time treatment was unavailable (Bogart).


Featured Image Source.


Works Cited.

The Cost Of War In The Everlasting Echo Of The Battlefield

By Michael Kanter | United States

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night, and feeling as though you are under fire during operation Apollo in Afghanistan. Imagine the intense fear fills you and the crushing depression follows. Now imagine this happens every single night, preventing you from sleeping. Imagine you can’t get the feeling, the fear out of your body. These are just some of the horrors of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a mental illness caused by war.

Although since the First World War (WWI), our societal empathy and medical science have improved our understanding and diagnosis of PTSD; both preparation and prevention — as well as treatment and support for PTSD sufferers — are still largely inadequate and ineffective. Our understanding of PTSD has evolved since WWI, and that paradigm shift has changed both preparation and diagnosis of this condition during WWI and subsequent Canadian military conflicts, such as Afghanistan and Rwanda. The treatment of PTSD, both during and after the wars, has evolved, and suggest what additional changes and improvements can be made.

PTSD has existed since Ancient Greece with different names, such as “Soldier’s Heart” (in the American Civil War), “Shell Shock” (during WWI), and “Combat Stress Reaction” (during WW2). During WWI, victims were not treated for their PTSD, rather they were persecuted for it. Some British officials initially refused to consider victims disabled; some generals even suggested  they “should be shot for malingering and cowardice.”(Simkin) The definition of PTSD has changed enormously over time. Today, according to Veterans Affairs Canada, “PTSD is a psychological response to the experience of intense traumatic events, particularly those that threaten life.” In contrast to the WW1 stigma, it is now understood just like other mental conditions, PTSD is an affliction and not a weakness of character or an excuse.

In addition to its psychological harms, PTSD can make integrating into post-military life difficult. Veterans with PTSD may have difficulty providing for their families or participating in family life, disrupting their relationships as spouses, parents, and engaged community members. Although the Government tries to support veterans and their families, offering family counseling and publishing a guide for veterans coming back to family life, it remains a tough struggle.

When it comes to dealing with PTSD, it all starts with proper preparations. For WWI, Canada’s preparation, both physical and psychological, was inadequate at best, with a 59,000-strong militia of so-called “weekend warriors” who only trained on weekends, drilling, marching, and occasionally shooting, without ever scrimmaging in large groups (Cardwell). The disastrous results of inadequate military preparations were almost 60,000 Canadians casualties and a life expectancy of new pilots in combat in 1916-17 that was just 20 minutes (Wyatt).

Since prior to WWI, PTSD wasn’t formally recognized as a significant issue, there was no preparation for the illness. Today, preparation is looked at as a way of preventing or avoiding the illness, although it is usually ineffective, or worse, counterproductive because some of the ‘triggers’ of PTSD are inherent in a military engagement, and thus cannot be eliminated (Robson and Manacapilli 7-27). Military training systems dehumanize the enemy, turning humans into targets. This attempts to avoid the guilt and hesitation and makes soldiers willing to pull the trigger. This approach, used for centuries, doesn’t protect soldiers.

A big difference is a guilt caused by conflicting messages. Society is more focused than ever on protecting civilians and treating the enemy humanely, while soldiers are taught in basic training to dehumanize and kill their enemy (Junger). This increases the guilt felt by soldiers because they now are judged for every emotional decision they make, through a moral contradiction. Despite attempted changes, the epidemic of PTSD among soldiers suggests we still cannot “prepare” for the emotional trauma of war.


Featured Image Source.


Works Cited

Bogart, Nicole. “PTSD: What Happens When Canadian Military Members Ask for Help?” Global News, 8 Jan. 2017, globalnews.ca/news/3162225/ptsd-what-happens-when-canadian-military-members-ask-for-help/.

Canada, Veterans Affairs. “Mental Health.” Veterans Affairs Canada, 19 Feb. 2018, www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/news/vac-responds/just-the-facts/mental-health-facts.

Canada, Veterans Affairs. “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the Family.” Veterans Affairs Canada, 29 Nov. 2017, www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/health/mental-health/publications/ptsd-families.

“Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan – Mission Timeline.” National Defense and the Canadian Armed Forces, Government of Canada, www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-past/afg-timeline.page.

Cardwell, Mark. “The Valcartier Tour De Force.” Postmedia’s World War 1 Centenary Site, The Montreal Gazette, 20 Nov. 2014, ww1.canada.com/home-front/the-valcartier-tour-de-force.

Chai, Carmen. “Invisible Wounds: If Mental Health Help Is There, Why Aren’t Soldiers Getting It?” Global News, globalnews.ca/invisible-wounds/1254729/invisible-wounds-mental-health-resources-for-canadian-soliders.

Cook, Tim. “The Eager Doomed: The Story of Canada’s Original WWI Recruits.” The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail, 19 June 2017, www.theglobeandmail.com/news/the-eager-doomed-the-story-of-canadas-original-wwi-recruits/article19894761/.

Flanagan, S C, et al. “Preparing Soldiers for the Stress of Combat.” Journal of Special Operations Medicine : a Peer Reviewed Journal for SOF Medical Professionals., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2012, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22707023.

Friedman, Matthew J. “PTSD: National Center for PTSD.” History of PTSD in Veterans: Civil War to DSM-5 – PTSD: National Center for PTSD, US Veterans Affairs Office, 5 July 2007, www.ptsd.va.gov/public/PTSD-overview/basics/history-of-ptsd-vets.asp.

Friedman, Matthew J. “PTSD: National Center for PTSD.” PTSD History and Overview – PTSD: National Center for PTSD, US Veterans Affairs Office, 31 Jan. 2007, www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/PTSD-overview/ptsd-overview.asp.

Griffith, Paddy. Battle Tactics of the Western Front: the British Army’s Art of Attack 1916-18. 1996.

“History of PTSD.” History of PTSD, historyofptsd.wordpress.com/.

Junger, Sebastian. “We’re All Guilty of Dehumanizing the Enemy.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Jan. 2012, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-all-guilty-of-dehumanizing-the-enemy/2012/01/13/gIQAtRduwP_story.html.

Loria, Kevin. “Virtual Reality Is about to Completely Transform Psychological Therapy.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 22 Jan. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/how-virtual-reality-is-used-for-ptsd-and-anxiety-therapy-2016-1.

Marchitelli, Rosa. “’Pure Torture’: Former Canadian Soldiers Say They Were Starved, Humiliated by Own Military.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 11 Apr. 2017, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-soldiers-prisoner-war-training-wainwright-alberta-1.4053351.

“National Defence | Canadian Armed Forces | Backgrounder | The Joint Personnel Support Unit.” Government of Canada, National Defence, Government of Canada Defense Forces , 7 Nov. 2013, www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=the-joint-personnel-support-unit%2Fhnps1uqv.

“Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and War-Related Stress.” Veterans Affairs Canada, Veterans Affairs Canada, 2 Feb. 2017, www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/health/mental-health/publications/ptsd-warstress.

Price, Jennifer L, and Susan P Stevens. “PTSD: National Center for PTSD.” Partners of Veterans with PTSD: Research Findings – PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 25 Sept. 2009, www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treatment/family/partners_of_vets_research_findings.asp.

“PTSD: National Center for PTSD.” Effects of PTSD on Family – PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 9 June 2010, www.ptsd.va.gov/public/family/effects-ptsd-family.asp.

Reid, Fiona. “War Psychiatry.” International Encyclopedia of the First World War, 8 Oct. 2014, encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_psychiatry.

Robson, Sean, and Thomas Manacapilli. “Enhancing Performance Under Stress.” RAND Project Air Force, 2014, pp. 7–27.

“Shell Shock Through the Wars.” Canada’s History, 19 May 2010, www.canadashistory.ca/Explore/Military-War/Shell-Shock-Through-the-Wars.

Simkin, John. “Medical Treatment of Shellshock.” Spartacus Educational, Spartacus Educational, Mar. 2016, spartacus-educational.com/FWWmental.htm.

“Wech Baghtu Wedding Party Airstrike.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Mar. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike.

Whitlock, Craig, and Greg Jaffe. “U.S. Acts Quickly to Tamp down Afghan Video Scandal.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 12 Jan. 2012, www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-acts-quickly-to-tamp-down-afghan-video-scandal/2012/01/12/gIQAFerbuP_story.html.

Wyatt, Nelson. “First World War Flyers Risked Shortened Lifespan but Have Extended Legacy.” Postmedia’s World War 1 Centenary Site, The Canadian Press, 29 Dec. 2014, ww1.canada.com/faces-of-war/first-world-war-flyers-risked-shortened-lifespan-but-have-extended-legacy.