This is a pretty old video, but very good. Thanks for reminding me.

Comment by Isaac — October 19, 2007 @ 4:10 pm

[…] The Liberty Papers   […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Life, Liberty & Property Explained — October 19, 2007 @ 4:22 pm

Great piece, tarran. I will keep a copy on hand at all times.

Comment by Jeff Molby — September 8, 2007 @ 3:13 pm

Very interesting analysis! I think that it would be clearer if you observed that the non-interventionist approach is effective, but it also takes a lot more time. It took forty+ years to defeat the Soviet Union without attacking it. The same thing would have applied with Hitler or any other aggressor. They would eventually have been thrown out, but it might have taken several generations.

But there is a weakness in your logic. The most common way for tyrants to control a population is to share the loot with a minority large enough to control the majority. This is what Mr. Hussein did in Iraq. By appropriating the property of the majority and giving it to his Sunni cronies, he insured their loyalty. Since they constitute a quarter of the population, they can live quite well without starving the Shia+Kurd majority. This basic pattern is the system of aristocracy, and the system works so long as you have a large enough fraction of the population in the aristocracy.

I would therefore argue that there are times when military resistance is justified.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 8, 2007 @ 3:50 pm

Chepe, I actually agree with you. The point I am making is that if you want to overthrow a dictator you are welcome to try it. If you confine your resistance to fighting the tyrant and his minions, and you only use resources acquired legitimately through trade and your own production I won’t speak against you.

It is military action supported by resources coerced from uninterested parties that I am opposed to. Not military action per se.

Comment by tarran — September 8, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

I think Ron Paul may clear some of the conundrums up at his speech on the 11th.

Comment by FullyAlive — September 8, 2007 @ 4:01 pm

Tarran, I agree with much of your logic with a few exceptions. I believe you are correct when you say that Reagan’s military did not end the cold war. My argument would be that Reagan’s military buildup hastened the end of the cold war. The arms race forced the Soviet Union to spend more on weapons than their Communist system could handle. The Soviet Union probably would have fallen eventually but it would have taken longer. China could be an example of what I mean; their Communist system is slowly giving way to free markets and a freer system.

I would also point out that England tried the non-interventionalist approach and paid dearly for it. The English also apparently thought there would be some sort of internal resistance before England would fall victim to the Nazis or simply thought it was “over there” and not their problem. Whenever there is a direct threat to a nation’s survival, the nation must rise to defend it or be destroyed. If the nation is worth defending, free men and women will voluntarily rise up to defend it.

Comment by Stephen Littau — September 8, 2007 @ 4:17 pm

As a person who’s experience the Chinese system first hand, I would say that the Chinese Communist party made a conscious decision to move away from central-planning and socialism towards a market driven economy. It started happening the moment Deng Xiao Ping took office.

Economic freedoms accelerated after Tian An Men square incidents, basically buying off the masses in the cities for political power. The people in rural districts are somewhat screwed, since they are locked out of legitimate high paying jobs in China’s many prospering cities. They still emigrate to the cities and fill many necessary jobs. Think of this as illegal immigration except it’s about 2 million Chinese people every month.

The political situation of the Communist party in China is rather precarious. They have to maintain economic expansion or political issues will be lodged in the minds of Chinese citizens, front center. Right now everybody is more or less preoccupied with improving their lives and making a living with rather minimal government involvement. In a way the people living in China’s cities have more freedoms than those living here in the United States. But eventually, the Chinese people will be unsatisfied by mere economic freedoms and will want free political expression.

China is playing out much a lot like Chile. Although the Chinese government may bring prosperity through its policies of economic freedom, the growing middle class in China have no love for the party that presides over it.

Comment by TanGeng — September 8, 2007 @ 5:26 pm

Tarran,

Excellent post.

Comment by UCrawford — September 8, 2007 @ 7:10 pm

Tarran, the point of my argument is that there are situations in which it is clearly to society’s benefit as a whole to expend resources to offer military resistance to an aggressor — and that this benefit is likely to accrue to each and every individual within society. In such a case, I consider it entirely fair and reasonable for society to demand that each person contribute to the war effort because it is in their own best interests.

Of course, an awful lot hinges on that last clause (’in their own best interests’). Most of the time, it isn’t. The war in Iraq is a perfect example of a war that really wasn’t in anybody’s best interest (except some military contractors and some politicians). But I believe that the expenditures on World War Two by America were justified — that each and every American at the time could reasonably believe that he would suffer greater economic loss, in the long run, if the USA were not to enter the war.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 8, 2007 @ 7:21 pm

there are situations in which it is clearly to society’s benefit as a whole to expend resources to offer military resistance to an aggressor — and that this benefit is likely to accrue to each and every individual within society.

But who decides when it is such an instance?

And it’s important to remember that there was little, if any, dissent relating to WWII and individuals gladly sacrificed a lot. I think when the cause is so just that it fits your aforementioned scenario, you won’t need to coerce anyone.

Comment by Jeff Molby — September 8, 2007 @ 10:18 pm

Jeff, the problem here is that fighting a war benefits everybody, and so there will always be lots of people wanting to get a free ride on other people’s efforts. This matter is fundamental to the notion of society: there are some responsibilities that are communal, not individual. I think it absolutely proper for society to demand contributions from individuals for efforts that are beneficial to the entire society.

Yes, the problem of ‘who decides’ is a serious one. And we certainly need a system for deciding that is fair. However, there will always be decisions in which a strong majority favors a course of inaction, and a small minority opposes it. In such cases, I think it proper for society to impose the will of the majority onto the minority. Yep, it’s a pain — but I don’t see any other practical solution.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 8, 2007 @ 11:16 pm

Chepe,

War benefits everyone? Really? Because I think that there are several thousand American families and even more Iraqi families who will disagree. There’s certainly no payoff for us in the war in Iraq…all of the proposals being tossed around now are basically plays on how to minimize loss, not discussions how we’ll benefit.

We have a system for determining the justness of war. The Constitution. The president has ignored it in regards to the war in Iraq.

No point in arguing about your comment on society being right to impose the will of the majority on the minority when it comes to fighting a way. Anyone who believes that obviously likes the idea of being a slave.

Comment by UCrawford — September 9, 2007 @ 8:49 am

You use the collapse of the Soviet Union as an example of bad regimes collapsing from the inside baring outside interference.

That is a fairly large misrepresentation. A big lie.

But it suits the needs of this article nicely.

The assumption that you understand the collapse of the Soviet Union did not happen in a vacuum is a given. So why forward that example as an example of non-interventionism being successful?

You only hurt your argument when you lie to support it.

Comment by Roughedge — September 9, 2007 @ 9:52 am

War benefits everyone? Really?

Let me rephrase that: the benefits of a war are enjoyed by all members of society. Those benefits may not be evenly distributed (some people benefit more than others), and the costs are certainly not distributed evenly.

I will certainly not defend the war in Iraq — I opposed it from the very beginning (even dismissing the early rumors of Mr. Bush’s plans to go to war with the comment that he could not possibly be that stupid.) I am defending the principle that a society can chose to go to war by majority vote and then rightly impose the consequences of that choice upon the minority.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 9, 2007 @ 11:03 am

I think your article was in somewhat bad form. This is because RP is giving a speech on the very topic in 2 days, and I really don’t see why you couldn’t have waited until that speech to see

Comment by oilnwater — September 9, 2007 @ 4:01 pm

Mr Roughedge,

Before accusing me of lying, you might want to actually pay attention to what I wrote.

The thesis of my post was that the Soviet Union collapsed without having been attacked militarily.

They collapsed because the population stopped listening to the Soviet leaders. As the standards of living between the Soviet Union and the outside world increasingly diverged, as the leaders’ claims and promises became less and less credible the populace became less and less willing to obey orders.

You could call Rock and Roll, foreign radio and television broadcasts interference if you want, but that has nothing to do with inter-state warfare.

Next time you might want to read the post instead of just scanning it quickly.

Comment by tarran — September 9, 2007 @ 5:47 pm

Chepe, I don’t but the free-rider effect as being a legitimate excuse: When you hold a door open for someone, do you demand payment for the service? Is Walmart stupid when they allow customers to park for free in their parking lot, even when they (the customers) browse the shelves without buying anything? Forcing everyone who benefits from something to pay for it is, frankly insane.

Either an enterprise has enough backing to support it or it does not. If it does, then it will go ahead even if not everyone who benefits is in the list of supporters, simply because it has the support needed.

When A decides that he wants do do X, but B is not sufficiently interested to help pay for it, forcing B to pay for it anyway is a crime. B obviously wants to spend his time and resources on accomplishing something else, perhaps Y. If A to points a gun at B and forces him to forego Y so that A can enjoy the benefits of X, then A is injuring B for A’s own benefit.

When you claim that ’society’ is making a decision, you are wrong. There is no ’society’ to decide. Only a bunch of people who have decided to be A’s preying on a bunch of people who want to be B’s.

Comment by tarran — September 9, 2007 @ 5:58 pm

Mr oilnwater,

I don’t work for Ron Paul. He is not the center of my universe.

I’ll publish whatever interests me on whatever schedule suits me, thank you very much.

If this bothers you, you are quite welcome to go read something else and ignore my writings.

Good day.

Comment by tarran — September 9, 2007 @ 6:05 pm

Oh, I mean don’t get too butthurt by it :)

Comment by oilnwater — September 9, 2007 @ 7:32 pm

tarran, no society could long survive the adoption of your principles. Such principles are ideal for a collection on non-interacting individuals, but the more people there are in a society, and the more they interact with each other, the greater the need for common responses to common problems.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 9, 2007 @ 8:02 pm

Actually tarran, you specifically said it wasn’t because of the Reagan arms build up.

You imply very strongly that the people simply got sick of the status quo.

Yet without the resources poured into the arms race, the soviet union might be alive and kicking today.

Comment by Roughedge — September 9, 2007 @ 10:24 pm

Chepe,

Actually our society has survived for the last 40 years without conscription and appears in no danger of collapsing because of Iraq or the War on Terror.

As for “society”, you rightly note that the Iraq was was wrong, yet under your standard others would be forced to fight in it under your idea of societal “good”. You’re honestly saying that you don’t recognize that the “will of society” is often just an excuse for a self-interested decision by a group of individual leaders, and conscription is just their way to force their decision on everyone who doesn’t want to go along? Iraq’s been opposed by a majority of Americans for awhile now, yet the president still claims that the majority of Americans see this war as being in their interest. You seriously want to give him the power to reinstate the draft?

Comment by UCrawford — September 10, 2007 @ 9:53 am

Whoa! There are several logical conflations going on here that are not justified. What I am rejecting is the notion that society has no right to take resources from individuals for communal projects such as roads, disease prevention, flood protection, or war. If tarran wants to be more precise about the principle he is enunciating, then we can take it from there. But so far his declarations seem to me to be this broad.

Nor am I defending the abuse of the public will exemplified by Mr. Bush. So far, this discussion has been on a highly abstract plane. Let’s resolve the broad theoretical issue before we get into the dirty specifics.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 10, 2007 @ 10:10 am

…What I am rejecting is the notion that society has no right to take resources from individuals for communal projects such as roads, disease prevention, flood protection, or war… the abuse of the public will exemplified by Mr. Bush…

One follows the other. It just so happens Dubya’s in charge now. It could be any one else. Why does society have such a right, and is that the most effective way to achieve societal goals?

Comment by js290 — September 10, 2007 @ 10:37 am

Just taking a break! What’s it?

Comment by Chris — September 10, 2007 @ 10:40 am

If you think that you think that the abuses of the Bush administration against individuals are an aberration, you haven’t studied much history. “Society” does not choose what works for the “common good”, the individuals in charge of our government do. And the rich and storied history of America has featured a great number of elected officials in powerful positions who have abused the system for personal gain, political currency, or just out of plain stupidity. Nixon, Bush 43, Truman, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson…and those are just guys from the 20th and 21st centuries.

If you recognize the abuses of the Bush administration, but still seriously believe that the old socialist chestnut about how “government would work if only the ‘right’ people were placed in charge” then there’s not really a point in debating either the broad theoretical issues or the dirty specifics because you’re obviously not paying attention to the realities of how government fails.

Comment by UCrawford — September 10, 2007 @ 10:43 am

Oh, boy, are you up for a big surprise!…Little “bush” is just responding/and trying to accomplish what “big bush” wasn’t able to accomplish on his tenure as a “president”? Let’s eliminate the oil competition-[on a personnal level], do you know what they own as an individual or the differents C-corps, they are associated with?

Comment by Chris — September 10, 2007 @ 11:06 am

js290, I have already answered the question as to why society has a right to take resources from individuals for communal projects such as roads, disease prevention, flood protection, or war: any society that does not do so will surely and quickly collapse.

UCrawford, I cannot imagine that you are responding to my post, but I’d like you to confirm my supposition.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 10, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

This administration was “elected” by all the American people. This administration got us into this ill-conceived adventure in Iraq. I think it only fair that all the American people have a chance to effectuate the policies of the “elected” government, and not have them carried out mostly by the least fortunate among us whose other choices for employment are limited. A draft is totally appropriate.

Comment by Rob Mahoney — August 11, 2007 @ 6:54 am

Coming from a draftee who at age 23, along with Elvis P, was drafted and served from in 1958-1960 in the Army, my advice is bring back the draft! There was no problem then in inducting and training draftees and volunteers side by side and I see no reason why this should be different now. In fact the military discipline will do everyone a lot of good in their later civilian life, as I experienced.
It’s the only equitable way to defend this nation against the mounting international threats that will not only require more US and UN military intervention as police forces or combatants.
The draft has been used throughout most war periods in this nation’s history and we need it NOW. The military has a 200 year history of operations and from, my own experience in basic training and thereafter, they are doing a good job.
I further suggest that draft dodgers or well to do folk who wish to opt out be given the option to buy their way by paying a flat $100k fee into an insurance pool for volunteer soldiers, but not draftees, dying in defense of their nations.

Herman Rutner, chemist; proud to have served and lucky it was in peace time

Comment by Herman Rutner — August 11, 2007 @ 7:10 am

Institute the Draft Immediately. Why? Because a country with a “volunteer” professional army soon becomes another ancient Rome. When voters and the greater population can avoid fighting a war that they have condoned, then it is far too easy to wage war. Iraq is a perfect example. Not a single Republican in Congress has a son or daughter in the armed services. Is far too easy to be a hawk if you never have to take up arms yourself.

A 2-year draft requiring everyone (male and female) to serve this country in some capacity (a non-military public service should be an option when not at war) would be extremely valuable to many youths, especially inner-city kids who have had horrible public education.

Comment by Ace Tracy — August 11, 2007 @ 7:21 am

Two things are necessary to make a Soldier:
1. The Ability to Serve, and
2. The Willingness to Serve.

Many have the Ability; few the Willingness.
Some have the Willingness, but not the Ability.

Those of Ability not Willing to serve in the honorable and noble capacity of Fighting Men when it is absolutely necessary for the survival and continuance their Society’s Culture, Heritage, and Traditions, can serve in other ways; they can be used as Shields.

Comment by Steve Savage "King of the Beasts" — August 11, 2007 @ 7:35 am

The most efficient an effective army in the world is the British Army. They do not want conscripted troops, because they are of no real use! Has the US really forgotten the turmoil caused by the draft of the 60’s and 70’s combined with inept foreign interventions?

Comment by Iain Buchanan — August 11, 2007 @ 8:11 am

Are you kidding me, why should we institute the draft for a “war” that we should not be involved in anyway! The current administration lied to the country in order to gain support for the invasion of Iraq, to remove a government that “we” once supported. How is this “war” preserving our freedom and way of life? As someone who served as a volunteer I believe the Draft is a big mistake.

Comment by James Young — August 11, 2007 @ 8:52 am

Steve Savage,

Being the killers for a criminal enterprise is profoundly dishonorable.

Comment by Joshua Holmes — August 11, 2007 @ 10:22 am

So I guess Lute is hinting that the administration’s position is “The people won’t volunteer in sufficient numbers to fight an unjust war run by a colossal idiot…maybe the key is to force them to do it.” Classic Bush administration logic.

No wonder most of the generals who were offered the “war czar” position turned it down. What reputable officer would want to be the mouthpiece for a useless hack like Bush?

Comment by UCrawford — August 11, 2007 @ 10:25 am

And for all those who like the draft as a form of social welfare, the military’s already starting to have problems from lowering standards for recruitment, those problems will only get worse when you stick more troubled kids in the service and give them guns. I think you’d be surprised to find how many soldiers are actually opposed to a draft, partly on principal, partly because they know how much trouble social engineering causes for the military.

That’s certainly the opinion I had while I was serving.

Comment by UCrawford — August 11, 2007 @ 10:31 am

The draft is an inequitable claim on your life and liberty. It also requires a significant bureaucracy to manage all the malcontents who do not want to be there or who are physically unfit for service. It also a waste of time for a lot of people who would rather invest there time for things like science, technology, or the arts.

Yes, we have a volunteer army. Yes there is propensity by presidents and congress to use it in conflicts that do not represent national security threats. If there was a draft wouldn’t there be the same propensity except the army gets to select which units to use in each conflict.

The solution to the temptation is not to bring back the draft. The solution is not to have a standing army. Downside the size of the military force - especially the army - significantly, and we’d be rid of this problem.

Comment by TanGeng — August 11, 2007 @ 11:49 am

Oh my, all these pro-draft arguments remind me of last day of a college history class where all the liberals argued that the draft was necessary so that everyone had to sacrifice something, and not just those who saw the military as their only hope in life. People seems to forget the basics of liberty. When one argues that the draft is necessary they are arguing that the state owns them. No voluntary contract is signed. That is slavery. There are also many practical reasons for not re-instituting the draft, such as ill fit soldiers and the ability of the government to wage war more easily. This debacle in Iraq would have been easier to commence with a draft, not harder.

Comment by somebody — August 11, 2007 @ 11:51 am

Actually, I think the volunteer Army is fine as is. The recruitment problems and manning problems they’re experiencing are a result of overcommiting our forces with an interventionist foreign policy and are a reflection of the disdain from society at large to support that policy. How can the president tell when the people don’t back his foreign policy? Because fewer and fewer people want to work for him and help him to carry it out. Conscription merely insulates the president from the consequences of his own poor choices and enables him to continue with them.

Comment by UCrawford — August 11, 2007 @ 11:55 am

Does this mean that Bush has decided to attack Iran before his term in office expires ? He never worried about the troops before, so that couldn’t be it.

Comment by DukeSaco — August 11, 2007 @ 3:07 pm

A country worth defending doesn’t want for willing soldiers.

Oh wait…we need soldiers who are willing to invade someone else…well, maybe we do need a draft.

(Someone tell me again where the WMDs were?)

Comment by Ben — August 11, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

I totally do not support the draft, and Rob Mahoney is full of baloney. I am American, but I DID NOT elect play any part in electing our current president. I didn’t vote for him so I disagree that ALL the American people elected this administration. No WE didn’t. The sooner “W” is out of office the better. Come on Hillary!!!!!!!!!

Comment by Tigger — August 11, 2007 @ 3:50 pm

The main underlying argument (in favor) is that the Iraq war is a matter of national security; the security and integrity of the United States itself.

It is not. Not in the least bit.

The draft should be a last resort measure to protect the United States, not a tool to carry out poorly planned and executed foreign excursions for ambiguous reasons (What were they again? I forget..)

Attempts to portray the Iraq war as a matter of national security is blatant propaganda by right-wing individuals and manipulative politicians with hidden agendas. Most specifically, it’s these individuals that are part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove personality cult that has infested Washington since 2000.

Comment by Ken — August 11, 2007 @ 4:29 pm

To quote:

“Oh my, all these pro-draft arguments remind me of last day of a college history class where all the liberals argued that the draft was necessary so that everyone had to sacrifice something, and not just those who saw the military as their only hope in life. People seems to forget the basics of liberty. When one argues that the draft is necessary they are arguing that the state owns them. No voluntary contract is signed. That is slavery. There are also many practical reasons for not re-instituting the draft, such as ill fit soldiers and the ability of the government, to wage war more easily. This debacle in Iraq would have been easier to commence with a draft, not harder.”

What “liberal” argues for a draft?? Any and every left-standing liberal citizen I’ve encountered (and my part of the country is primarily liberals) believes fully that a draft violates basic civil liberties, forcing bystanders (or protesters) to become unwillingly active participants in a conflict that if they wished to support, they would have volunteered.

I do, however, agree with the rest of your commentary - that a draft will institute state ownership of people, ill-fit soldiers, drastically increased bureaucratic management, etc. I have never handled a gun, and I don’t intend to point one at an Iraqi because GW tells me to. I certainly don’t intend to allow my life and liberty to be stripped away from me for a “cause” that began with deception, continues unjustly at the expense of innocent lives (both military and civilian), costs the American and global economies billions of dollars per week, and can and will only end with further losses of innocent life, all the while being run a continent away from the leather chairs of a rancher who has ignored the polls of the people for the last 4 years, perpetually deceives the nation in the current state of affairs, and who openly thought an electoral campaign was more worth his time than the very draft he seeks to implement.

Well, as an innocent civilian who supports the troops who signed up to defend the nation (NOT invade countries), and who abhors the war, my time and life will be spent supporting and raising my family. I shall not, ever, be forcefully committed to fighting a war I never voted for, I never supported, and I certainly never volunteered for.

Comment by Anonymous — August 11, 2007 @ 4:45 pm

Think of recruitment as a barometer. Were we to see a true threat to our homes, we would have no problem enlisting recruits in a army of defense. Now, seeing our armed forces involved in an act of American aggression, the troops are getting a bit worn and disillusioned. No wonder. If the oil barons and sheiks wish to continue our reign of terror in Arabia and Afghanistan, we must institute a draft. I think that is a good sign. I hope they try it. There is nothing like the threat of getting a letter from Uncle Sam to make you wanna vote with thought, or get out in the streets to make a point. There is nothing like seeing your children dressed in khaki-cammo, bearing arms, and being shipped off to some quagmire to make one think - “Is this really the right thing to be doing?”

Comment by Katherine — August 11, 2007 @ 5:03 pm

Quote:
“What “liberal” argues for a draft??”

Answer:Charles Wrangle, among others. Both sides have draft proponents. Those on the right who advocate in favor of a draft sincerely believe that everyone (not just those with no other choices) has an obligation to serve (e.g. a guy like McCain used to be). Those on the left like Charlie Wrangle (who, unlike Bush, also happens to be a bona fide war hero) who advocate in favor of a draft realize that if a draft were instituted, this ill-advised adventure in the Middle East would continue for about 3 minutes. How did we get into this mess? The real culprits are all of us, not just those who voted for Bush or who supported the idiotic decision to invade Iraq (I never did either). By continuing to live in communities so distant from where we work that we have to commute everyday, by driving alone in a gas-guzzling vehicle everyday, by refusing to use mass transit or to cut out even one unnecessary trip per week, by hiring illegal aliens to tend our gardens and keep our homes, and on and on and on (guilty on all counts). This nation is a shadow of its former self, and we’re going to get exactly what we deserve. We’ll probably wind up being Chinese serfs if things continue going in the same direction. But I digress at the same time as I run out of steam.

Comment by Steve — August 11, 2007 @ 5:35 pm

Ace: “Not a single Republican in Congress has a son or daughter in the armed services. Is far too easy to be a hawk if you never have to take up arms yourself.”

As of 2004, at least 6 Republican representatives had their sons and/or daughters serving in the military. I have not found a complete list but this is what I found so far. The following representatives had their sons and/or daughters serving in the military in 2004:

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, (CO)
Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
Rep. Joe Wilson (SC)
Rep. John Kline (MN)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA)
Rep. Todd Akin (MO)

While this is not exactly a long list, its inaccurate to say that “Not a single Republican in Congress has a son or daughter in the armed services.” You are also being unfair by denying the service of these young men and/or women. Whether you support the war or not, you should at least be honest in your argument.

And to the second part of your argument: because the military is all voluntary, none of these individuals were forced to join. Whether or not this is a “good war” or not is beside the point. These young men and women signed up knowing full well that they may be called upon to go to war. They also had to know that policy can change on each election cycle.

A military draft takes that option away. I agree with Tarran’s assessment on this: conscription is slavery. Regardless of whether or not the war is just, no one should ever be forced to serve. A more reasonable alternative to a draft would be to sweeten the pot by giving volunteer soldiers more money, benefits, etc. If civilization is truley at stake, it should not be that difficult to find individuals to serve. If men and women are required to serve at the point of a gun, such a civilization is not worth saving anyway!

Comment by Stephen Littau — August 11, 2007 @ 11:26 pm

The NEW DRAFT LAW should require ALL the children of all public officials (those living off our tax dollars) to be first on the list of those drafted, starting with the President, Congress, State Governors, etc.

Next would be the children of the officers of the major corporations, followed by those children of families who earn over $200,000 per year. If we still need more troops, then pay those lower income families $500-$1000 a day like the corporatons pay the 1000+ contractors who have died in Iraq.

So, let’s have a national referendum. I am sure the American people would approve the new draft law. Do you think Congress would approve and the President would agree?

Do you think any of the current politicians running for president would agree to support this new Draft law? Can you imagine Mitt Rommey voting to send his 5 sons to the Iraq war, or Clinton sending her daughter to Iraq. So why don’t they ask this kind of question in the Presidential debates, and to those who want to start the Draft.

Comment by Greg — August 11, 2007 @ 11:44 pm

Greg:

It’s not the fault of the offspring of their parent’s decisions. They are soveriegn individuals like anyone else. If anything, such a draft should require the lawmakers themselves to serve.

I do understand where you are coming from though. If there is a draft it should be fair (unlike the Veitnam era). No one should be immune based on his or her attendence at a college, family influence, income level, or anything else. A draft should not violate the principle of equal protection.

Comment by Stephen Littau — August 12, 2007 @ 1:16 am

To equate serving in the military to defend ones country with slavery is a classic example of apples and oranges.

Comment by Robert — August 12, 2007 @ 5:46 am

Steve said:
“Those on the left like Charlie Wrangle (who, unlike Bush, also happens to be a bona fide war hero) who advocate in favor of a draft realize that if a draft were instituted, this ill-advised adventure in the Middle East would continue for about 3 minutes.”

Steve, yes, you’re right. I hadn’t recognized who had sponsored the Universal National Service Act (HR163 and HR393). I have to confess, I had believed it to be a Republican-sponsored bill. When word of those bills hit the streets in my town, our local college held a forum to raise awareness of it. The overwhelming majority of people in attendance (including myself) were there to find out exactly what was being proposed, and determine how best to fight it. I don’t think person one realized that it had been initiated as a way to deter the continuance of the ‘War’ on terror, with the thinking that forced service will make people think long and hard about military actions.

As you pointed out, Rangle (no W, but an easy mistake) proposes the draft not to help the militaries bolster their numbers to perpetuate our little overseas holidays, but to stop unnecessary active conflict, and to make the military more representative of the entire American populous, rather than the low-income/lower-middle classes that it represents currently.

Rangle’s view, I believe, is a far cry from the views of the likes Lt. Gen. Lute, who call for the draft as a solution to the current enlistment problem, which is putting a dent in the ability to continue the war. Just the other day I remember hearing an Army ad offering around $50g in sign-on bonuses. “Wow, they must be getting desperate” I thought, remembering 10 years ago when that number was (literally) ten times less.

Comment by Anonymous (reprise) — August 12, 2007 @ 1:42 pm

Stephen,

Actually, my point was that there would be no draft if the law makers had to send their own children to IRAQ. Having the lawmakers go themselves is also a great idea. Sending 18 - 20 year olds to kill others when they can’t even legally buy a beer or go to Law Vegas and place a bet is sick.

Let’s draft the 35 to 50 year olds (especially those who never served) and that would stop any talk about starting the draft.

I find it amazing that 15 out 19 of the 9/11 terrorist were Saudi, and NONE were from IRAQ, yet there are still Americans who think IRAQ was involved.

The idea that fightening them over there somehow keeps them from coming here is a deadly joke.
Bush has made it easy for them to kill another 3000+ Americans by sending them to the Middle East. If IRAQ had no oil we would not be there. If the President of any other non-super power country invaded another country without being attacked first they would be tried for war crimes.

Comment by Greg — August 12, 2007 @ 2:30 pm

This administration was “elected” by all the American people. This administration got us into this ill-conceived adventure in Iraq. I think it only fair that all the American people have a chance to effectuate the policies of the “elected” government, and not have them carried out mostly by the least fortunate among us whose other choices for employment are limited. A draft is totally appropriate.

How Orwellian. Fairness is making every 18-year-old a nigger.

Comment by Brian Sorgatz — August 12, 2007 @ 4:25 pm

I think you’re right about the media “softening up” the public for conscription but at the same time it is interesting that any official who utters the word “draft” is put on the front pages and people get hysterical when it comes up!
Lute is a loon if he really thinks the draft is an option!

Would you be willing to spread the word about http://www.draftresistance.org? It’s a site dedicated to shattering the myths surrounding the selective slavery system and building mass civil disobedience to stop the draft before it starts!

Our banner on a website, printing and posting the anti-draft flyer or just telling friends would help.

Thanks!

Scott Kohlhaas

PS. When it comes to conscription, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

Comment by Scott Kohlhaas — August 12, 2007 @ 9:20 pm

Draft. As a military officer who has been in theater, I want no soldier, sailor, airman or marine in my unit who is there against their will.

Milton Friedman helped end the draft with sound logic and economics. Let’s not let idiotic emotion and hyperbole resurrect it. Our military need release from a LOT of government restrictions in order to better execute its mission - including a revamping of the guard and reserve structure.

Our nation was born from free soldiers and should remain defended by free soldiers.

PS - Mr. Holmes, temper your rhetoric with facts or keep them to yourself. You disgrace this nation, Constitution and its people - all of its people.

Comment by Citizen Deux — August 13, 2007 @ 2:12 pm

Fuck the draft. The most “fair” way to do military service is to make it mandatory for everyone. I think Rep. Charles Rangel, Vietnam vet, suggested this. Preference can also be given to those who join voluntarily before some minimum age.

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they’re red, white and blue.
And when the band plays “Hail to the Chief”,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no senator’s son, son.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no,

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don’t they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no millionaire’s son, no.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, “How much should we give?”
Ooh, they only answer more! more! more! yoh,

It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no military son, son.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, one.

It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate son, no no no.

Comment by js290 — March 31, 2007 @ 11:07 am

The most “fair” way to do military service is to make it mandatory for everyone.

In other words, we all need to become slaves to the almighty state to pursue “fairness”.

Comment by Kevin — March 31, 2007 @ 11:16 am

Great Js, so now we all know that you can quote Creedence to a Tee. Good job.

Problem with Creedence though, is they didn’t understand that the correct Patriotic position is Anti-Draft. They got their marbles all mixed up.

Someone should tell Fogarty:

Liberals = Pro-Military Draft

Conservatives/Libertarians = Anti-Draft

Comment by Eric Dondero — April 1, 2007 @ 8:32 am

In other words, we all need to become slaves to the almighty state to pursue “fairness”.

If our freedoms and liberties are actually at risk, then everybody should all be prepared to defend it.

Comment by js290 — April 1, 2007 @ 11:13 am

js290,

Saying everyone should be prepared to defend our freedoms is an entirely different thing than saying everyone should be forced into military service.

I agree, everyone should be prepared to defend our freedoms. I don’t see forced military service as a requirement for that to happen.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 1, 2007 @ 12:45 pm

I couldn’t agree more with the idea I found on a Libertarian website a few years back. The premise was that an Nation that cannot raise enough volunteers to defend itself isn’t worth defending in the first place.

Comment by GL Meister — April 1, 2007 @ 3:02 pm

I agree, everyone should be prepared to defend our freedoms. I don’t see forced military service as a requirement for that to happen.

I thought the military was suppose to be protecting our freedoms? Or, is that just more propaganda?

Comment by js290 — April 1, 2007 @ 6:55 pm

The basic question of mandatory military service is truly an interesting one. From it there is arises many considerations, perhaps the most important ones a nation should and must ask itself. The defense of a country is one of its basic functions and, as such, serves to be one of the clearest indicators to what kind of nation one is.

Yesterday and Today, USA’s defense history has not been one of mandatory service. Only in times of war do we have a draft. Regardless of personal belief, this is America’s stance thus far- a history which can be thought of as compromised between military obligation and a lesser-binding one.

And consequently, Jon Murtha’s comment I think almost reminds America of Spartan and Roman-type cultures which, as far as our historical exposure is concerned, was more prided on war and highly stressed military obligations. Maybe it’s the recent ‘300′, but these are the avenues that this comment is travelling through.

Thus, I think that a good majority of Americans will keep with the tradition of history, and will NOT promote mandatory service. Although I do believe that military pride in America is rich, and many, including myself, wouldn’t consider it absolutely outrageous if it were mandatory, the bottom line is mandatory service just dog gone won’t happen.

I do hope though that the presidential campaign will dive into the issue and with it, bring to the table just exactly where America is at right now, and what kind of President (perhaps Commander in Chief is more appropriate) it wants.

What kind of nation is the USA today? One that loves the thrill of military power, but doesn’t neccesarily want the obligations for it. This is why we love rollercoasters and scary movies and headline news!

Comment by Christophogus — April 1, 2007 @ 8:06 pm

I thought the military was suppose to be protecting our freedoms? Or, is that just more propaganda?

Our military does protect our freedoms, some of the time. A lot of the time they’re sent in on “peacekeeping” missions that have absolutely nothing to do with our freedoms, and needlessly get American soldiers killed.

Did Bosnia protect American freedom? How about the first Gulf War? Overthrowing tin-pot dictators like Noriega?

You’re setting up a false choice. You’re saying that the *ONLY* way to protect American freedom is to join the American military establishment, and that it is therefore necessary for every able-bodied person to be a part of the military. However, there are plenty of other ways to defend American freedom, thus it is not true that you must have mandatory military service to protect freedom.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 1, 2007 @ 10:20 pm

One that loves the thrill of military power, but doesn’t neccesarily want the obligations for it.

AKA, a chicken hawk.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers – yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn’t they?

They aren’t running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren’t sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren’t hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Comment by js290 — April 1, 2007 @ 10:44 pm

I really hate socialist. They always try to sneak in the state wherever they can.

Comment by uhm — March 31, 2007 @ 12:24 am

Slavery, socialist, what other extreme words are you all going to use to make your point. What this does is to trivialize those things by changing the language. I am sure even a slave in this modern day would not think their plight the same as being drafted in the military.
Buzz words are dangerous in the long run.

Comment by VRB — March 31, 2007 @ 7:01 am

VRB, if forcing young men and women to risk thier lives with military service is not slavery, I don’t know what is. Who owns you VRB, you or the government? If you own yourself, then the government cannot force you into service. If you do not own yourself, the government can do whatever it wishes with you and your life.

This whole thing is nothing but a stunt on the Left’s part. They don’t have the balls to do what they want to do (which is defund the war). They hide behind these tactics to make the war even more unpopular. I would have a hell of a lot more respect for them if they were honest and took a principled stand without excuses. Let them stand up and be counted as against the war and let the chips fall where they may. These politicians are nothing but cowards.

Comment by Stephen Littau — March 31, 2007 @ 8:35 am

VRB,

What would you call it when someone is taken away from their chosen life against their will, and forced to serve the government’s purposes for two years of their life?

I might accept the term “indentured servitude”, but usually at least those who were contracted for years in order to gain passage to the US did so by choice. Murtha isn’t exactly offering us a choice.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 31, 2007 @ 8:40 am

Murtha isn’t exactly offering us a choice.

Actually he is, join his army or be imprisoned or killed.

Comment by Kevin — March 31, 2007 @ 9:03 am

One would have a choice, serve, volunteer or go to jail; but passive resistance doesn’t seem to be the libertarian way. You wont volunteer, you don’t think anything should be asked of you, but somehow you want all the benefits of freedom without lifting a finger. You would protect your property, but don’t consider that you live in a society and can’t stand alone if the rest is devastated. I do realize that some of you on this platform have been in the military, but it is not the norm. If I have got this wrong, then you should think about how you describe yourselves.

Comment by VRB — March 31, 2007 @ 10:26 am

VRB,

What are you trying to say? Because I haven’t been in the military, and refuse to be forced into military service, I’m a coward and won’t fight for my freedom?

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 31, 2007 @ 10:38 am

VRB,

Where has passive resistance accomplished anything?

Comment by Kevin — March 31, 2007 @ 10:40 am

VRB wrote,
“You wont volunteer, you don’t think anything should be asked of you, but somehow you want all the benefits of freedom without lifting a finger.”

Now, I may not have joined the military, but I also never owned a garden or butchered a cow. Does that mean I am unfit to make dinner? Am I living off the back of someone else, eating “without lifting a finger,” as you say?

Comment by trumpetbob15 — March 31, 2007 @ 11:41 am

The U.S. military does not defend my freedom. In fact, looking through the long list of wars, you have to go back to the War of 1812 to find one where the U.S. Army was defending the United States.

I am quite happy to pay for my own security. I would not hire the United States government to provide such security since it is an incompetent organization that provides poor customer service and charges high prices.

One can decline to purchase a car made by Ford without being opposed to automobile usage.

Comment by tarran — March 31, 2007 @ 12:41 pm

VRB, as someone who is planning on making a career out of voluntarily serving our country, the call for a draft is a slap in my face.

I can’t remember the exact quote, but Heinlein said something to the effect of a society that does not have volunteers to defend it is not worth defending.

Comment by mike — March 31, 2007 @ 3:47 pm

The greatest argument against the Draft is that we Military guys (and Vets) do not want some weenie geek in the proverbial foxhold with us, who doesn’t want to be there. Draftees, in most cases, make poor soldiers and sailors.

I’m ex-Military. And I don’t think some guy who doesn’t want to be drafted is a coward. Hell, you’re actually doing me and other Military guys a favor by not being drafted. We don’t want you there by our side.

Plus, the more glory (and chics) for us, when we come home as Victors.

After all, girls really do love a man in a uniform.

Eric Dondero, Federal Appointee
Selective Service Board
20-year Appointment

Comment by Eric Dondero — March 31, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

And let’s not forget who gave us a Return to Selective Service.

None other than President James Earl Carter.

And guess what political affiliation “Jimmy” has?

Right-o. You guessed it. DEMOCRAT.

And what’s the affiliation for the 20 or so Congressmen who regularly sign on to Cong. Ron Paul’s yearly bill to abolish Selective Service?

Take a wild guess…

Right!

REPUBLICAN.

So, what was that again, that silly idea that some Libertarians were pushing last year, how we Libertarians ought to “ally” ourselves with Liberals and Democrats?

Run that one by me again.

Comment by Eric Dondero — March 31, 2007 @ 4:07 pm

Kevin,
“Letter from Birmingham Jail”
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/popular_requests/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

Comment by VRB — March 31, 2007 @ 4:34 pm

Brad,
Where would you fight for it?

Comment by VRB — March 31, 2007 @ 4:39 pm

Eric,
Are you calling many of the Viet Nam vets a bunch of slackers?

Comment by VRB — March 31, 2007 @ 4:43 pm

VRB,

If I thought a foreign power honestly was a threat to my freedom, and thought that my use of arms would assist to defeat that threat, I would fight for it.

Would I have gone to Vietnam, if I had been alive? Probably not, if I could have avoided it. Looking back on history, I don’t think that was a war that had any implications for the freedom of Americans here at home.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 31, 2007 @ 4:53 pm

[…] of blog rolls, here’s a good example of why some blogs stay on the blog roll and some do not. Liberty Papers is running this video with a comment giving the impression that this represents the position of […]

Pingback by Hardly News: Two House Democrats Support The Draft - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought — March 31, 2007 @ 5:54 pm

VRB,

The reason why blacks won their freedom is because there would have been and there was violence if Jim Crow was maintained.

Comment by Kevin — March 31, 2007 @ 10:05 pm

Kevin,
I don’t why you think that, there is noting in history that would indicate that. Is that you view because it supports your ideas. Blacks always got the short end of the stick, when it came to violence. The Panthers were murdered
while they slept, students were shot, just protesting. I am not talking about Kent State, but Jackson State. None of this inspired blacks to take to the streets and kill every white person in sight. King’s death caused riots in the black neighborhoods not the white’s. Even Malcolm X only spoke of violence as a means of self defense. There was a lot rhetoric at that time, but we knew that it would have been impossible for an armed revolt. Guns would not have been our solution because we would have been wiped out. Genocide would not be a solution to civil rights. And if you don’t think J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI didn’t know our week points, think again. Almost all Black organizations, including churches, and its members were under surveillance. Many were listed with House of Un-American Activities Committee. Civil rights activities were synonymous with Communist activities. (this is partly why I made the first comment)Under that umbrella, any crackdown on us would have been supported. One thing slavery had taught us, was how to survive. It was not white people’s fear that won part of the Civil Right battle; to some, they were moved to feel it was the right thing to do to, to others it was a matter upon how they were viewed by the world and others it was a matter of government coercion.

The point about passive resistance is that it is a moral stand that one takes, when you break a law that is unjust, you are willing to suffer the consequences. There were some that didn’t flee to Canada when they got drafted, they went to jail. They saw this as a choice. I thought that this is what you would have gotten from reading that letter.

Comment by VRB — April 1, 2007 @ 9:33 am