Long Live Liz?

Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth the Second is a decrepit, ineffectual welfare bludger whose very existence makes a farce out of the egalitarian, democratic and meritocratic ideals that underpin our otherwise vibrant, modern democracy. She is a gross throwback to a time when rampant inequalities and desperate stinking poverty was not just tolerated, but part of the natural, divine order of things. When she eventually shuffles off this mortal coil, liberating the British Taxpayer from the burden of providing a pitiful crone and her inbred, talentless family the ostentious baubles of undeserved office, she will leave behind a legacy mired in conservative mediocrity - the only redemptive feature being that her and her family's inept ability to understand the British public has made the long-term viability of this loathsome Crown virtually untenable. But, for now, the British people continue to undermine their committment to freedom, and here in New Zealand, the face I see on my $20 dollar note is a wretched symbol of colonial oppression sitting on a gaudy throne thousands of miles away. A face who couldn't be bothered showing up to the funeral of the man whose face I see on my $5 dollar note, a true New Zealand hero forced to blot an impeccable lifetime of greatness by swearing fealty, and becoming a Knight, or servant, to a woman not fit to have cleaned his bathroom.

Strong words, and you are encouraged, of course, to disagree as to whether they are deserved. (Maybe even write a comment, or tick the 'sadface' box!) I'm pretty sure if my Nana knew how to use the internet, such a vitrolic opening paragraph would be fast and efficient way to be written out of her will. But today is, after all, a public holiday and a day off work - to celebrate the Anniversary of the Birth of the Reigning Sovereign. (although, its not even her real birthday - it is yet another of the privileges of winning the JACKPOT in the lottery of birth that you get to have TWO birthdays.). On today of all days, strong words - and a strong debate on the constitutional future of New Zealand, dole bludger or sans dole bludger - must be encouraged. A New Zealand republic is one of those issues that rears its hopeful head every few years, blunders about in the form of a poorly worded Garth George article on the issue, before being gently put back to sleep by the twin forces of political apathy and timid politicians. But it is a debate that we, the people, of New Zealand deserve. Because its very easy to write an opening paragraph ripping into Her Majesty for being undemocratic and useless. It's a lot harder to answer the question 'What would we replace her with?' without a more reasoned political discourse. It's why, in the absence of this discourse, I feel compelled - despite the fact it makes me feel ill (you could almost say I have a weak constitution, lulz!) - to support the continuation of the monarchy.

Why? Because I've thought about the Queen a lot lately. Far longer than any red-blooded, testosterone-fuelled 21 year old male should be thinking about any blue-blooded, caviar-fuelled 83-year old women. And having her as the head of state in New Zealand, represented by a Governor-General appointed by the Prime Minister, is just SO easy. The Governor-General, constrained by the fact he isn't elected, will sign any bill created by our elected MP's into law. Most of the time, we get on just fine with that. However, should Parliament turn into a complete constitutional clusterfuck (much like Canada's did earlier this year, if anyone read our joint post on that), the Governor-General can act as a constitutional backstop, can suspend/dissolve parliament, declare the opposition leader the PM if they have the support of the House and/or call an election. Sweeeet. (And if the Governor-General goes batshit insane, the PM can ask the Queen very nicely to remove the GG from office. Like a constitutional fine-leg, if I can be indulged the use of a cricketing term)

What would happen if we ditched her, and replaced her with something a lot more democratically palatable, but a lot more constitutionally difficult? I can think of three options, and all suck.

1. The Prime Minister is also the Head of State. - Sweet Jesusfuck, this would be a nightmare. In our constitutional system, where we have hardly any constraints on what the legislature comes up with (courts can't overrule it etc.), taking away the only person who is capable of stopping 'Slippery Johnny and the Budget Slashers' from passing a law which kills all blue eyed babies, or abolishes elections is patently absurd, and dangerous.

2. We elect a new head of state, who has the same powers the old Governor-General used to have - Aside from the hilarious situation suggested by a friend that Lyn of Tawa would compete against Sean Fitzpatrick for the nominal position of 'embodiment of everything New Zealand stands for', this seems like the most democratic way forward. After all, a Head of State is supposed to be someone that the citizens of the state are proud to have as thier head, right? The only problem is that, as I've pointed out, the Governor-General is a pretty important part of our constitution, who might just have to (as happened in Canada), decide on some preeeetty major issues - like,whether or not to sack an elected Prime Minister. The last four New Zealand GG's have all been respected judges - perhaps reflecting this need. While Sean Fitzpatrick might be the best New Zealander to cut ribbons, open Parliament and do all the mundane boring crap a GG does - I'm not sure if I'm happy with him making decisions in a constitutional crisis that have the potential to ruin the country. As a secondary point, there would be a great temptation for an elected President, backed by the 'will of the people', to overstep their authority and offer comment on all kinds of issues or even be more willing to interfere with parliamentary sovereignty (maybe refuse to sign a bill they do not like into law.)

3. The PM appoints a new 'President' who is then approved by Parliament - This takes care of the constitutional problems, BUT it feels a lot like the old unelected GG. It would be immensely politically unpopular - giving unpopular politicians the chance to pick the highest representative of New Zealand. Also, under this model we are denied the ability to have the Queen (or more likely, a trusted advisor) step in, should the GG go totally nuts and dissolve Parliament on a whim.

One last reason. Perhaps it is immature to design a new, monarch-free republic of New Zealand while lingering claims with Maori remain. Not only because a new constitutional structure would need to fully address the self-determination and cultural rights of Maori, but it seems desperately unfair to rob Maori of their right to seek grievances against the Crown, the representation of colonial oppression.

So, I have reached a conclusion I find deeply depressing, supporting the Queen because she's the least bad of a range of terrible options. Perhaps a reader can shed light on another possible option for a new Head of State in New Zealand, or even tell me why one of my suggested failmodels is in fact a constitutionalwin. Until then, the Queen might be a haggard symbol of inequality and imperialism, but she's easy.

What 1995 film stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman?

“A private sin is not so prejudicial in this world as a public indecency." (Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra)

The seven deadly sins denote seven characteristics that people can have; specifically, bad characteristics. Sucks to be you, if you're so horrible as to have all of 'em. Everyone probably likes to think that they don't have any of them. People, instead, like to think they embody the seven heavenly virtues (i.e. purity, temperance, generosity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility). But, if you've ever been – or presently are – a student, you're probably wrong. (Really, even if you've never been a student you're probably also wrong. But that's a separate issue... If you've never been a student you just a lost cause.)

I can say that if you've ever been a student you're probably a sinner because, it seems to me, each of the seven deadly sins is summed up by a type of student. Some students (e.g. full-time Arts majors) are innocent and heaven bound. Here I'll try to explain why much of the rest are hell bound.

Gluttony
Gluttony is the sin of postgrad students. They just can't get enough. After they finish one degree they can't help but come back for more. Instead of taking their meager education and contributing to society as best they can, they decide to do frivolous “research” into too often moot topics (which, more often than not, end up being espoused in a never-to-be-read arrogant and elitist thesis). I mean, come on, you've had your fill, now get to work and pay off that fucking student loan.

Greed
Business is the most obvious, and appropriate, candidate here. So appropriate that the buildings in which this so-called faculty is housed are aptly called “temples of greed”. Nothing more represents the downfall of modern society that the degradation of proper academia than the admittance of this trade school into the university community. I mean, really, business/commerce/management/whatever-the-fuck-you-wanna-call-it isn't representative of higher learning or indicative of the pursuit and love of knowledge. Instead it's reflective of the self-interested desire to gain wealth at the expense of others and the world around you. While these beacons of capitalism have done one good thing – defeat communism – they still fall far short of redemption.

Lust
Our local whores come in one pure form at uni: Nursing students. Forever have they taunted us with their sexualized outfits, pursuit of cleanliness, and detailed knowledge of our anatomy. But even though these potential perks enable these students to better society by making us happier, they're all just a bunch of cock teases: Would I like a sponge bath please? Yes. Has a nurse ever bathed me? No. What's even worse is how they try to bullshit about how this objectification is a bad thing; But who's the first to come to the Halloween party dressed as a slutty nurse? A nursing student.

Envy
Engineers are the wannabes of the university community; more often than not to their own detriment. Sure, engineering has been part of proper universities for ages. But they, unfortunately, try to make themselves out to be a “professional degree”. (As if that's something desirable in and of itself.... But that's a whole other bag of worms.) It's like, come off it already. You're not law and you're not medicine. And you're never gonna get there. At the end of the day an electrical engineer is little more than a glorified computer science graduate. At least the latter accepts the fact that she's a life long loser.

Pride
While Medicine has the potential to aid society and it's people in a meaningful and worthwhile way, it's students are no better off then engineers. Pride is their folly. The elitist self-worth of those who strive to be doctors is palpable. Despite the hallow victories of having fought through a competitive field of study, they aren't any better than anyone else. Sure, they might know how to fix you when your broken; but my mechanic knows how to fix my car when it's fucked, and ain't about to call her doctor. “Baby docs” (read: med students) might just be overcompensating for their lack of a social life, but that's just conjecture on my part.

Wraith
Hell hath no fury like a lawyer scorned. The best way to win a battle and get what you want is to have a better understanding of they rulebook than your adversary. And, like it or not, the law is our societal rulebook. And, like it or not, lawyers know the law better than most. So if you piss off a lawyer, she will fuck your shit up... proper. It doesn't help matters that lawyers (starting when law students) are angry lil folk. But it is understandable: all they deal with is people at their worst. But you signed up for it, Mr. Lawyer-man, so you got no excuse.

Sloth
Last, but certainly not least, we've got the lazy ones: part-time students. Get real already guys. Taking 6 years to do 1 lousy undergrad degree is reprehensible. Can you handle a full course load like the rest of us? No, then go work as a janitor (the world always needs more janitors). Ya know what if they're too lazy to be full-time students, it's not worthwhile for me to spend any more time talking about 'em.


I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

A Dopey Campaign.

Society is littered with rules that are unprincipled, counter-productive and dumb - and the continued criminalisation of marijuana is one of them. Firstly, it seems a glaring and vapid inconsistency within our legal system that we deem it fit for the government to take away our right to choose what to do with our own bodies here (cos weed is heapz bad 4 u), but yet seems to have no problem with 18 year olds skulling back bottles of absinthe, losing all their money by betting on the All Blacks to win the Rugby World Cup, before selling themselves on the street for sex so they can continue to pay for their lung cancer treatment caused by a 5-pack a day cigarette addiction. And even you're someone who believes choices rot your brain (Paul D?) , and think that the answer is not give people any choice over things that are objectively bad for them (and so the government should also ban smokes, absinthe and the All Blacks), surely you must concede that people are going to find ways to do this 'bad stuff' anyway (often because it's addictive), and therefore legalisation becomes the best way to deal with the inevitable harms. Once something is legalised, the government can concede it exists, it can start to regulate it. The government ,unlike your current local supplier, has no interest in getting you addicted. It can ensure that when marijuana is legitimately sold, it can be taxed at a level which takes into account the negative externalities (social costs for non-economics kids) caused by dope. This will hopefully discourage first time pot smokers from trying the stuff, but at the very least will allow the government a pool of resources to deal with the inevitable bad stuff from marijuana use - like the self-induced brain damage or the general damage an addiction causes to finances and familial relationships. The legalisation of marijuana would be smart, responsible politics - conceding a problem exists, and determining that the best way to deal with it is not jail time for addicts (allowing them to hook up with more suppliers), but more funding to rehabilitation centres.

On the back of that rather marathon first paragraph, it should be noted that society is also littered with behaviours that are counter-productive and dumb - and the smoking of marijuana is again high up on this list. For all the protestations that 'it's fun' and 'it's not even as bad as drinking alcohol lol', its still got a truckload of harmful long-term effects, which I can't be assed going into here, because you should have taught them by a nice, well-meaning social worker while in high school. Legalisation of marijuana isn't the 'good' option, or even the 'morally principled' option. It's just the 'least bad' option for dealing with a bad, socially harmful thing that is a bane to society.

There are three types of people in society. There are those who don't smoke pot, who (rightly) think pot is bad and (wrongly) see it as being immoral, and who see the legalisation of pot as the first step on the road to Mad Max-ian anarchy. Then there are those who do smoke pot, cant see what all the fuss is about and wish the government would stop declaring them criminals for putting something in their bodies that may cause harm to them, but causes no harm to others. Then is a tiny minority of people like me, who don't smoke pot (on the grounds that my diet of pie sandwiches and cheap wine already has me hurtling towards an early grave without any additional help, thank you very much), but who think it should be legalised on the grounds of personal choice and/or 'its the best way to deal with the problem'. The problem is that while the first type of person is armed with a whole bunch of arguments that are rubbish and irrational (FACT: At a town hall meeting I attended in Mangawhai once, an old lady stood up and said 'We can't legalise this drug, there will be more young people growing dreadlocks!), which stems from never having really thought the issue through...the first group of people significantly outnumber the second and third groups. So how do we make them see the light?

And thats why this post isn't really about the legalisation of marijuana at all. Rather its a bitter rant against the NORML campaign currently being run by pro-legalisation advocates. This campaign (at least as it appears to an ignorant member of the public) seems to be little more than organising events in seedy public parks for large numbers of stoners to actively flout the current law and get stoned in large numbers. It's baffling, and a testament to the wear-and-tear continued marijuana usage has on the mental faculties, that the organisers think it will win over the hearts and minds of the Reefer Grinches. All these 'J Day protests' (as they have been coined) acheive is to alert the anti-marijuana lobby to their 2 biggest fears that arise from legalisation - that it normalises and makes 'fun' a substance with harmful effects, and that its 'normalisation' in society will get more people addicted. The argument that 'Marijuana usage is fun' will not end the Drug Wars. An acknowledgement that marijuana is bad, but legalisation is the best way to deal with the harms. just might. The NORML campaign must really hammer the inefficiency and inadequacy of 'prohibition', while playing up the fact that legalisation does not, and should not equate to social acceptance.

This may go some way to defeating the strongest argument that can be mustered by the anti-pot lobby - that more people will become addicted. Firstly, if marijuana usage retains some sort of 'taboo' status, people will be less likely to take it up. Secondly, smart, effective regulation allows for those who are addicted to have better access to care, and also makes it harder for the industry's current heavy hitters, which relies on a business model of pushing the drug onto as many new and naive users as possible.

It's sad that the people most committed to marijuana reform are the people who are doing the most to damage its political acceptance. But that doesn't have to be the case. Once stoners acknowledge the harms of their product of choice, the case against marijuana becomes about as pathetic and pointless as Dragonball:Evolution. After all, a model of 'criminal ban - no questions asked' has been a policy disaster, both on the taxpayer who must bear the brunt of the 'war on people putting they stuff they want to put into their own bodies' and the addicts themselves. I think NORML are conducting their campaign in a boneheaded way that will ultimately fail, but overall - they sit on the right side of the argument. Its time for a change.

Alex

NOTE: Had I have been braver, I would have written this post about the legalisation of ALL drugs, not just marijauna. But I'm not entirely convinced on this - with some drugs (say P), the fact that you are more likely to lose control and cause harm to others after taking the drug seems a convincing enough reason for their continued criminalisation. But I'm really not sure, and theres convincing stuff that says that acknowledging the problem through legalisation is still a better means of harm reduction than criminalisation. Check out this article on Portugal, which has a legalise all drugs policy. My mate Will has also considered this issue on his blog. If anyone wants to argue for the legalisation of ALL drugs, I'd be happy to hear/read it.

AGuestOnFailure: How they would move -- Footnotes on the Masterworks of Ludwig Wittgenstein

Imagine that Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus was a person.
He was a young man – driven, entrepreneurial and shaved clean. He woke up early in the morning without setting an alarm clock. He ate quickly, dressed quickly and opened his front door onto the hustle and bustle of a busy sidewalk.
The Tractatus was a young man who always arrived at work on time. Many of his colleagues appreciated his punctuality and always made a point of saying positive things about him. Some tried to imitate his behavior. But those who only witnessed his arrival missed something important. Those who watched the Tractatus on his journey had a better understanding of his character.
When The sidewalk was empty The Tractatus would glide over the pavement with long, elegant strides, covering much distance in little time. When the sidewalk became congested with doddlers and window shoppers his strides would shorten. They became faster and impossibly precise. He wove in and out of the crowd rhythmically; side stepping a leashed dog to the left, lifting his briefcase over the head of an old woman to the right. To some, the Tractatus was not walking at all; rather he was dancing through pedestrians to strange rhythms and beats that only he could hear.
If he was forced to endure the nuisance of waiting at a crosswalk he would observe his environment and try to bring order to his surroundings by naming its constituent parts. He saw a flock of birds in the sky: Branta canadensism, he said to himself. He saw a plucky weed bursting through a crack in the pavement: Taraxacum officinale.
When the light changed and it was his turn to walk he strode confidently into the street, leaving a group of awe-struck pedestrians in his wake.

Imagine that Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations was a person.
He was an old man with a bent back and a house that smelled vaguely of mildew. His house was cluttered with things he found interesting – African wood carvings, out-of-circulation currency, antique golf clubs, etc.
He always woke up slowly and stretched his tired body before going for a walk. Philosophical Investigations left his house with no specific purpose except to continue the endless task of exploring the back alleys and nooks of his city. He tried to avoid the main streets. After all, the treasures he sought were usually in the hidden shops, the types of places where old Chinese men sold mysterious curios from forgotten times.
He wandered through narrow paths, taking his time and investigating everything thoroughly. Even still it was not unusual for him to backtrack, convinced he missed something important. It never bothered him to return to places he'd been before. In fact he was always secretly excited to end up at a place that he had already been, but to have arrived there from a different direction.
He never failed to find things of interest on his walks. It was not unusual to find him looking at brick work at a crumbling building, or reading a declaration of love that had been etched into a bench with a jack-knife. He carried a magnifying glass in his coat pocket. Sometimes when he got tired he would stop at a pond to feed the Branta canadensis. Philosophical Investigations did not know that Branta canadensis was the Latin term for the birds he was feeding (he called them “Honkers”), but he had keenly observed how they were; how they existed in the world. He knew that each bird found just one partner and stayed with that partner until separation by death. He liked that. Once his strength returned, he continued on his way, shuffling towards his next discovery.

It was inevitable that the young Tractatus and the old Philosophical Investigations would cross paths. All the walkers in the city eventually bumped into one another. They approached each other on the sidewalk and between them lay a patch of glimmering ice. Philosophical Investigations recognized this as a hazard and stepped onto the dirty ground beside the pavement in order to avoid the ice.
The Tractatus thought he saw something else in the patch of ice. To the Tractatus the ice looked beautiful – perfect. Its had a smoothness and a grace that was intoxicating to the young man. He wad finally found a surface to match his style. He strode onto the ice and all his elegance could not save him. He fell and slid to the feet of the old man, who watched the whole ordeal with amusement. Philosophical Investigations extended his arm to the young man who took it. They smiled at each other. Between them was a sense that despite traveling in opposite directions, and appearing to have little in common, there was a deeper bond, an unstated understanding between them.
“Son, you can't walk on ice. You need friction, you need rough ground,” the old man said.
“Sorry, no time to chat,” the young man said. “I've got places to be.”
The Tractatus took off, walking even faster than he had been before (presumably to make up for lost time). Philosophical Investigations chuckled to himself, and then bent down to investigate a dandelion.

Peter Jickling
July 16, 2008

As (once) demanded - A word on Kittens and Sandwiches.

Gah, I had abandoned this blog for a while. A combination of uni life and trying to join the workforce meant there was no time for the internet to recieve the sad, poorly reasoned opinions of a sad, reasonably poor man. And now I have to take part in Paul's muppetsurvey09 and give my opinions on kittens and sandwiches, 2 wholly unrelated things, neither of which I care about. I hate the democratic process. Oh well, here lieth a perfunctory post on Kitten Sandwiches, and I should be back to my normal blogging shortly....

I've posted before on kittens. Or more to the point, why I like kittens and will not eat them, but why I will still be your friend if you decided to eat one. Or, for that fact, if you decide to eat a whale. But I think I would struggle to remain your friend if you decided to get a puppy. Puppies are stupid. They eat shoes, knock over valuable household objects, demand that you take time out of your day to take them for walks, and they are unable to control their bowels. Worse, they grow up into dogs, which are just like puppies only they are not even slightly cute, and may without warning maul the mailman. Or your small cousin. I like dogs in the limited capacity of 'working dogs' - they are an acceptable, if unreliable tool to enhance human labour in the fields of agriculture, security or blind people. But not as pets. They are terrible pets. The only people who keep dogs as pets are control freaks who yearn to return to the days when their children were helpless and needed them to cater to their every whim, or patched gang members. Cats, the grown-up version of kittens, are much better pets - almost entirely self-reliant, and just checking up on you every now and then for a friendly scratch, or to keep you warm by sleeping at the foot of your bed at night. People who own cats are smart, urban,professionals - busy people who want a low-maintenance but comforting pet.

I'm not going to de-friend you on Facebook if I found out you own a dog, but I would think less of you, and say mean things about you behind your back. Owning a dog is, in my opinion, an epic fail character flaw. And you would think I was a jerk, and acting completely unfairly. BUT, if I went one step further - and refused to hire you as an employee at my textile factory because I didn't like the fact you owned a dog, then you would claim I was being unfairly discriminatory. After all, owning a dog bears no relevance to your ability to sew, and be a good maker of textiles, does it?

Now, lets suppose I like sandwiches - which I do. Lets say, hypothetically, after a trip to the the sunny shores of Gisborne, I developed a liking for 'Pie Sandwiches' - a mince and cheese pie between two slices of bread. You may think this weird, a risk to my arteries, evidence of a broken man's retreat into depravity, whatever. I would understand. In fact I realise that my esteemed co-blogger, Paul D, a man who has blogged ad nausem on the issue of fine dining as evidence of a higher being, think pie sandwiches are epic fail. I appreciate this policy difference, and am pleased our friendship has prospered regardless. I am also pleased that Paul D did not refuse to start this co-blog with me, on account of my partiality to pie sandwiches. After all, what foods I find delicious has no bearing on my ability to write concise, witty posts on popular and current issues.

Whats the point of all this? Well, obviously theres a range of things in modern society that require us to choose the best person based on a range of objective criteria - say for instance, a job. And all people would freely agree that some criteria are really relevant for people looking to apply for a job - like your skill level at that particular job, your ability to be available at the required times, your work ethic, whether or not you are punctual etc. And there are some things that you cannot BY LAW, and by any conception of popular morality, take into consideration when deciding who to employ - like race, gender, sexuality, political orientation, age etc. Then there are things that everyone would consider to be ridiculous things to add to a criteria - such as what pets you own, or how you choose to eat your pies.

But theres a fourth category of things. Things that have no bearing on a persons ability to do a job, but which get taken into consideration as relevant, because its socially normal to find them yucky. This post isn't about kitten sandwiches, its about smoking. I think smoking is gross. But it is legal. And whether or not you smoke has no bearing on your ability to drive a forklift, or your knowledge of tax law, or your ability to be President of the United States. And yet, we would find it perfectly acceptable if someone was denied a job because they smoked. We would some way, say it was indicative of a seedy and unsavoury aspect of someone's character, and that it was perfectly justified to not want to hire them. But its wrong.

Our generation likes to think that we are less bigoted than our parents. That's wrong. We are bigoted, just about different things. Just as our grandparents generation thought it ok to discriminate on the basis of race, and our parents on the basis of sexuality, we consider it ok to discriminate on the basis of people making choices we don't like. That's wrong.

I hope I made some kind of point here. I'm not sure if I have, beyond proving that these poll thingy's are ridiculous. I've managed to wank on for about a thousand words on this stupid topic. And given that a picture says a thousand words...maybe I shall leave you with one that, I think sums up my views on kittens and sandwiches quite nicely, thank you very much.
He still smokes. Lol.


Alex

Killing in the Name... of Money

“The best soldiers are not warlike” (Chinese Proverb)

Mercenaries have been around, in one form or another, for ages.

But getting at what, exactly, a mercenary is and how it's different than your typical legitimate soldier turns out to be tricky. Our intuitions might drive you to say that a mercenary is anyone who wages or participates in war primarily for the remuneration she'll receive for that service. But that definition won't work. It won't work because we can think of someone we'd want to call a mercenary who factors in ideologies when deciding who to work for (for instance, no matter how much you might get paid, you might not be willing to work as a mercenary for someone fighting your own country). And, it could also be the case that someone working as a traditional soldier in a legitimate army is only doing so because of the pay; after all, military service is very often boasted as a career opportunity. So the idea of what a mercenary is can't be based on being paid for military services.

So I'm not sure we can get a completely clear and unproblematic conception of what a mercenary is. Nevertheless I think we can work with the idea that a mercenary is someone who looks out for herself, or her interests, while working outside the legitimate traditional institutions of soldiering (even if that involves working for a legitimate traditional institution of soldiering). I realize there's vagueness in that, but I think it's – coupled with the intuitions backing up the initial attempted definition in the preceding paragraph – clear enough to work with for now.

While you might think that mercenaries are only common is poor lil undeveloped countries, war-torn regions, or your mom's bedroom, they're really all over. Recently, and by that I mean in the last few decades, a new form of mercenarism has develop: the private military industry. These kinds of mercenaries are everywhere, but they're typically based in wealthy developed nations. This industry isn't the same as the military industrial complex (which is the business of making arms for the military). Rather, the private military industry is the business of providing “security services"; The private military industry is the business sector comprised of firms whose primary purpose is to offer services (in one form or another) of the variety of what legitimate state militaries traditionally (or theoretically could) provide. So this includes everything from highly trained combat personnel to logistical support. At the end of the day these firms are the modern variant of mercenarism; they offer the same kinds of services offered by “traditional” mercenaries, but they do so via a contemporary international business model; they are corporatized mercenaries. However, while you distill it, this difference doesn't amount to much of a difference at all: we can't meaningfully (or, at least, morally) distinguish them from other kinds of mercenaries in virtue of the fact that those working for a private military industry firm collect themselves under a corporate banner.

Now, having said all that, what's the problem? I mean, sure, most people seem to have the intuition that there is something morally repugnant when it comes to mercenaries: that waging war through mercenaries is, in some way, the wrong way to wage in war; or that the reasons someone might be motivated to act as a mercenary are the wrong reasons to participate in war. But are our intuitions here right? Even if we assume some sort of Just War Theory doctrine, our intuitions about mercenaries still seem indefensible. For instance mercenarism can't be bad because mercenaries do it for the money since soldiers in the regular army could, just the same, do it for nothing but money (and we don't want to say they're on the same moral standing as mercenaries). Nor can we say that mercenarism is bad because mercenaries are necessarily looking out for themselves; a mercenary could be just as motivated by a legitimate cause as a freedom fighter or patriotic soldier. And the fact that they operate outside legitimate traditional institutions of soldiering seems irrelevant as well – we want to say that freedom fighters, civil war fighters, and the like aren't also necessarily immoral because they, like mercenaries, are outside legitimate traditional institutions of soldiering. So what's the unique problem with mercenaries?

Well, in the end I'm not sure there is one. But if there is one, it might be grounded in how we conceptualize mercenaries - that is, that which makes them unique from other kinds of partciapants in war might be the same grounds for why they're morally repugnant. So, if there is any case against mercenarism, that might be where we need to look (or at least start). In the end, though, I'm not sure how fruitful that would be. In the end, our intuitions here might just be wrong. It could be the case that, most often, mercenaries are motivated by the wrong reasons. Yet that's not enough to say mercenarism is necessarily immoral and never okay. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.