-Caveat Lector-

from:
http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.4/pageone.html
<A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.4/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times
- Volume 3 Issue 4</A>
The Laissez Faire City Times
January 25, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 4
Editor & Chief: Emile Zola
-----
Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on Conscription

by Michael R. Allen




In March of 1967, Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon) proposed legislation
that would abolish the practice of military conscription, or the
drafting of men who are between 18 and 35 years old. Despite its initial
failure, it has been reintroduced in nearly every Congress that has met
since then, and has been voted upon as an amendment at least once.



This bill was an excellent proposal that should have never been needed.
The dovish Hatfield's arguments in promotion of the bill constituted
what is actually the conservative position on the item. In its defense,
Hatfield asserted that we need career military men who can adapt to
system changes within the context of weaponry. Short-term draftees,
maintained Hatfield, would not be particularly adept at utilizing modern
technology. More recent efforts to overturn the Selective Service Act
have similarly stressed efficiency.



This basic logic is the driving force behind the political anti-draft
movement. Others oppose the draft because it represents another
governmental intrusion into the lives of America's young adults. Those
lacking skill or ambition to serve will be greatly humiliated once
drafted, and those without developed skill in search of an alternative
career will be denied an opportunity to choose that direction. The draft
also is a blatant attack on the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits
involuntary servitude. If the federal government fought individual
states over the legalization of private-sector slavery, then should it
not also be equally compelled to decry public-sector servitude? Of
course it should, but an elastically interpreted "living Constitution"
makes all sorts of public schemes safe from legal reproach.



Recruiting students and vagrants is of no use to a competitive military,
since both groups are uninterested in active duty. By contrast, a
volunteer army--assuming the country needs any army at all--will yield
those with an interest in serving their country and those who seek the
military as a place to get that necessary step up into a better life. A
primary partner to draft reform would be to offer an alternative for
those who request not to serve militarily. Non-combatant positions, such
as field doctors and radio operators, might be made civilian positions.
Then, those who wish not to engage in battle will be able to serve the
nation for as long as they need. Additionally, the government can save
some money, albeit not much, by not having to buy uniforms for these
civilians.



Yet the most compelling reason for having volunteer military forces is
the right of a person to own his or her body. The right to
self-ownership must be supreme in a free nation, since without it there
is no justification for government or laws at all. If one does not own
his body, then why should murder be a crime? Why should there be money
for the individual to spend? The self must own itself for there to be
any liberty. And clearly one does have self-ownership. A man controls
his own actions, and efforts to force him to do what he desires not to
do are nugatory. The best the State can do is arrest him after he has
disobeyed the law. It cannot prevent a willful person from committing
illegal acts. The draft ignores the concept of self-ownership and
proceeds to diminish the available benefits of a free society for young
men.



Issues of cost and unfairness can sway those not seeing a moral reason
to oppose conscription. The government spends a lot of money that might
be used in armory for war in order to draft a number of men that would
be similar to the number who might otherwise volunteer. In this way, the
draft is a redundant method that consumes entirely too much money.



It is unfair because those who do not get called remain free while those
called into duty must serve or face charges that will haunt them for the
rest of their lives. This practice, while through chance, is unjust
because it targets those Americans with low draft numbers. Through the
archaic, unjust draft process America once more is embracing
authoritarianism. If the government chose, National Guard forces could
be utilized to alleviate the costs of draft, recruitment, and salary.
The savings could then be used to properly compensate a volunteer army,
which would attract more skillful persons if the pay scale were better.



Draft proponents employ some arguments that would be acceptable if they
had purchased every male aged 18 to 35. However, the United States of
America has not bought -- bought off, tricked and fooled, yes -- any of
her citizens at this time. Some of the stentorian arguments side-step
the question of rights and look at other issues, such as mobility,
emergency readiness, and social outcome.



Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, a Democrat, said in a 1980 US News
and World Report article that "Middle and upper-class America are not
sufficiently participating in the defense of the country today except in
the officer corp. That's one of the tragedies of the volunteer force . .
."



Nunn's provocative statement is not only designed to evoke resentment
towards the "privileged" upper classes, it is also not sound from a
practical point of view. Certainly, the classes with a statistically
higher amount of college education should be involved in positions in
which education can be put to best use. It is apparent that the Nunn
argument involves some sort of "duty" the upper classes have to live the
life of the foot soldier, and amounts to no less than a feeble attempt
at egalitarian blurring of class distinction.



Proponents of the draft continue to ignore their weakest point: namely,
that wars which had the support of the American public would not require
conscription but instead would have a full supply of eager volunteers.
People not only own their own bodies, but a free society also grants
people final say over government policy. War is an area where the voice
of the people is very important, as their security is at stake. And
where else can the people exercise their voice than in the decision on
registering to serve? Denying this decision is in effect creating a
government that does not respect the people's wishes, and instead
dictates to them.



AmeriCorps



There was an effort in June 1997 by President Clinton to use the
Selective Service System to recruit potential volunteers in his
AmeriCorps program. Such a move is a twofold intrusion on civil
liberties: it violates the right of those who were forced to register
for the draft to avoid having their addresses and other private
information released to another agency; and, of course, it is costly to
the taxpayer to pay for a joint system that serves two unconstitutional
agencies. Ultimately, though, the administration deferred its plans.
This issue has not gone away, as national service plans have
considerable support from those people who think that everyone has a
duty to the government.



Free people can resist the draft easily. They need not register at all,
or they can flee the country when they are called to serve. After all,
they still own their bodies regardless of what the law says. But the
change of life necessary to avoid the government allows the government
some control of ones life, even when one does not openly submit. One
does not need to recognize the right of the government to conscript its
citizens for any purpose in order to be disrupted by the institution. If
one pays income taxes and expects to get that money back in the form of
college aid, he must register for Selective Service. If one wishes to
collect the money stolen through the payroll tax for so-called "Social
Security," he must register. Most people are not able to forgo paying
taxes if they wish to work, so if they hope to see their tax dollars
again they must register for the draft.



As a young man of draft age, I could sleep easier if I knew that my life
would never have to be disrupted by a government which has given itself
the legal ground on which it may attempt to violate my right to own
myself. Even as I refuse to recognize the government's powers, the
Selective Service System/AmeriCorps/Department of Education bloc does
not care. To them I am their property, regardless of my feelings. The
military and charity draft is indeed one of the most evil institutions
in the United States government.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael R. Allen is the editor and publisher of SpinTech Magazine. His
regular column is "Strange Disposed Times."

-30-


from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 4, Jan. 25, 1999

-----
Published by
Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc.
Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar
All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer
The Laissez Faire City Times is a private newspaper. Although it is
published by a corporation domiciled within the sovereign domain of
Laissez Faire City, it is not an "official organ" of the city or its
founding trust. Just as the New York Times is unaffiliated with the city
of New York, the City Times is only one of what may be several news
publications located in, or domiciled at, Laissez Faire City proper. For
information about LFC, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to