The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens... A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least.

~Henry David Thoreau

I find it strange, to say the least, that among those who call themselves anarchists, anti-statists, radicals and individualists, there are so many who are quick to defend soldiers who fight for the state while condemning those who take joy in the soldier's demise.

The most common arguments are that we cannot blame the soldiers for the wars they fight because most of them are young and impressionable, brainwashed, impoverished or otherwise well-intentioned. It is demanded that the state is squarely to blame and, in fact, the soldiers themselves are additional victims. For this, we should compassionately give our sympathy and support to those who fight while reproaching that which they fight for. Now, I would expect these arguments from a dyed-in-the-wool statist or even a minarchist but again, from a self-described enemy of the state, such arguments are bizarre.

First, there are many who are young and impressionable and yet do not engage in violent and destructive behavior. There are many who can see through the lies and the myths of those in power. There are many amongst the poor who have pulled themselves out of poverty without resorting to violence. There are many who are able to see that good intentions do not justify atrocious actions. For those of us beyond any reasonable age of accountability, not youth, belief, economic status nor good intentions can acquit us of our misdeeds, regardless of whether or not our crimes are committed while wearing a uniform.

But setting that aside for now, what about the argument that the state ought to be answerable for warfare while the troops, who very well may be victims, ought to be supported?

Would any who oppose the Ku Klux Klan argue that individual Klansmen are not to blame for lynching and church burning but the Klan itself? Would any denounce slavery while holding slave-owners spotless?

The Klan, slavery etc. are ideas, fictions. They do not exist save through the actions of men. Slavery ceases to be an idea when one individual is enslaved to another. The KKK ceases to be a fiction when individuals decide to serve, to follow the idea.

The state, too, is an idea, a fiction, a set of beliefs and opinions; it is a moral code. The state exists only as an idea; it has no body, no corporeal form. Through the actions of individual men and women, the state appears to be animated. Judges, legislators, presidents, premiers, tax collectors, bureaucrats, soldiers and sailors are the state; they bring it to life just as Klansmen, the Klan and slave-owners, slavery.

Now, if one is to give compassionate sympathy, support and forgiveness to those who fight wars then should not the same be offered to those who declare wars? After all, it is entirely possible that political leaders could be young and impressionable, brainwashed, previously impoverished or well-intentioned. Perhaps those who declare war are also victims of the state? Indeed, and perhaps Klansmen are the victims of the Klan and slave owners the victims of slavery?

Soldiers are just as much a part of the state machinery as the politician or the tax collector. Should we curse the state for legislating poorly and excuse the political class that legislates? Should we curse the state for taxation and bless the man who performs the tax audit? Likewise, should we curse the state for waging war while declaring our good-willed support for those who wage it? Soldiers make war possible; they add bite to the otherwise powerless bark of the political class.

I for one refuse to recognize soldiers as anything but what they are: The embodiment of an idea. They are the enforcers, the hit men, the thugs; it is soldiers who fight, kill, maim and facilitate violent coercion. If the state is my enemy then so are the soldiers that serve it. Soldiers are the state.

The state does not fight wars, levy taxes or pass legislation; individuals acting collectively do all that is done and then hide their personal responsibility behind its façade. This is the worst kind of collectivism and the fact that so many self-proclaimed anarchists, anti-statists, radicals or individualists fail to see it as such, serves to show how deeply ingrained the statists' fiction is.

[note] By soldiers I am referring to all military personnel regardless of their branch of service or military occupation.