Death and Desensitization

by Stacy Litz
Center for a Stateless Society
Aug. 12, 2010

If they won't charge him with treason, they ought to charge him with murder," said Congressman Mike Rogers in a recent interview concerning Bradley Manning, the infamous discloser to Wikileaks of the Iraqi war video Collateral Murder and, allegedly, about 90,000 Afghan War documents.

In that simple declaration, Rogers showed that he faced no moral dilemma in condemning a man to death for releasing information to the war-funding public — information on the death of innocent children, journalists, and bystanders. He continued, saying, "We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed." Such efforts to exaggerate or fabricate threats to national security are typically just an attempt to hide any possible embarrassment to the state. It’s a common tactic used to cover up the guilty tracks of the state and bolster the perceived legitimacy of violent state actions. In esssence, what is being said is: "Sure, we have killed a lot of people, but now more are going to die; that's the real problem."

The general public does not seem to be outraged by the Rogers quote, war statistics, SWAT raids, police brutality and other acts of violence from the state. More importantly, the mass media avoids showing the public the gruesome truth about these acts as if it is old news or unimportant. When the media does highlight statist violence, there is no uproar or call for peace by the masses. These acts are not only tolerated, but widely considered acceptable.

There are many possible reasons for why this may be the case, some even going back to our childhood psychological development. Growing up, one watches sanitized death in the media, in games, and in general fictitious situations — death completely disconnected from reality. We seldom see it face-to-face. When encountering real death, many fail to grasp its reality or significance; with resulting emotional impact comparable to a Chuck Norris film.

Training overcomes this disconnect between violent infotainment and real-life acts of violence, using methods such as brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. By the time soldiers make it to a war zone, they are not only craving to act upon all the training they have completed but feel completely "one" with violence. When returning home, about 30% of troops end up with serious psychological problems and many experience withdrawal from the immersion in violence.

Government monopolizes murder but gives its social impact very little serious consideration. Whether it be an individual or genocide, the murder of any innocents is a condemnable act. Political leaders appear to incorrectly believe violence can be used to achieve peace and stability. That’s a very flawed approach that, historically, has not worked at all. Certainly without a government to go about systematically mass-producing death and destruction there would still always be occasional issues of violence. We can say with confidence that practical solutions would arise in an anarchistic society, though, because there would be no tax funding to shift the costs of warfare onto people who don’t make the decision to go to war.

C4SS News Analyst Stacy Litz is an undergraduate at Drexel University, studying political (statist) science. She is the President of the Student Liberty Front, Campus Coordinator for Students for Liberty and founder of her university's chapter of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. She is the winner of the Drexel University Student Leader of the Year award and first place winner of the Campus Freedom Network incentive program. Currently, she writes for Examiner.com, Suite 101, the 2010 Journal of Liberty and Society and other varied publications. She can be found fighting for liberty 24/7 in a relentlessness fashion. Stacy can be reached at [email protected] and more information can be found on her website, www.stacylitz.com.