So one young beneficiary would “dread to think where I’d be without the Army” – says it has done “amazing things” for him and the rest of his family of beneficiaries– and on that basis wants conscription, compulsory military service, for all young people.
As if the lives of all young people were the property of the state, to dispose of as they wish.
Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.
Fuck him and his whole thieving family.
17 comments:
Yes, it's particularly galling when you think about it - this particular young man, who could find nothing useful to do with his life other than join the army, thinks all young people should be enslaved to the state for what could otherwise be one of the most productive periods of their lives. Someone ought to tell him most other young people are busy earning a living (or obtaining qualifications in order to do so), something that he will never have to do.
Israel not only has a military draft; it receives billions of US taxpayer dollars each year. Yet criticising Israel is anathema for right wing libertarians. Funny that.
@Barry: So, just to be clear, are you against Israel, conscription, or right wing libertarians (whatever that might be) ?
@PC This is exactly what I'm talking about: Instead of answering with "No Israel shouldn't force its citizens to join the military" or "US taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund a foreign military" you facetiously dodge the question.
See John T Reeds take on the Draft. he is a Vietnam Vet- but very anti military. http://www.johntreed.com/militarydraft.html
My reasons in favor of the draft:
•fairness regarding the distribution of in-person responsibility for national defense to all categories of Americans including age, economic status, education, regional, religious, and ethnic groups
•better quality military personnel including non-criminals and people used to getting results in the business world
•to increase our chances of winning the war through better military personnel
•avoidance of persons attracted to military service for inappropriate reasons
•to acquire persons with skills that are needed but which the military cannot teach
•to ensure that the military is representative of the American people
•to make every family more interested in whether we should go to war thereby reducing the number of our wars
•to minimize bureaucratization of the military
•to avoid our military personnel being dominated by one region, currently, the Southeast
•to avoid our military being dominated by one religious group, currently, Christian fundamentalism
•to avoid outsourcing our defense to a “day-labor” military of alien, would-be U.S. citizens
•to make the U.S. less reluctant to use military force when necessary
•lets the military leaders focus on winning the war rather than keeping recruitment and re-enlistment rates high
•lack of a draft lets young men veto a Congressional declaration of war by “voting with their feet” not to volunteer, an intolerable transfer of responsibility and authority by the Congress
•lack of a draft turns our military increasingly mercenary and intolerably expensive as more and more money is required to induce adequate numbers of enlistments and reenlistments
•lack of a draft forces us to rely on mercenary security contractors who are far more expensive and may be less disciplined and less reliable in battle than U.S. military personnel subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and representing the American people rather than a for-profit corporation
•lack of a draft forces such unfair, inappropriate policies as preventing volunteers from leaving when their enlistment is up, longer combat tours, promotions of unqualified personnel, forcing non-infantry to become infantry and non-Army military personnel to be assigned to the Army, extraordinarily strict discipline to stop increased AWOLs and desertions
•to end our current all-volunteer system which is actually literally indentured servitude—an arrangement that was outlawed in all developed countries for good reason—and is unfair to young men and women because they lack the self-knowledge and knowledge of the military to enable them to make decisions wisely about committing extended portions of their lives to the military
•to avoid relying on non-U.S. citizens to staff our military
•to end the image (and too often, reality) of military personnel as addicts, dopes and incompetents
IvanK
@Barry: No, I've just scoured that post against the military draft to see if I could uncover some mention of Israel, or US funding of Israel. I couldn't find it. Nor could I find any reference to the US Civil War, the Rothschild family, the moon landings, or the assassination of John F Kennedy. But if you'd care to give me a full list of things to denounce that I haven't otherwise mentioned, I'll see what I can do.
@Kiwiwit: Yes, 'Creature of State Calls For Enslavement to State.' Possibly the appropriate headline.
@PC: Another facetious reply. If you're happy to rip into a beneficiary for advocating conscription, yet unwilling to criticise a state that actually enforces it, then how do you expect to be taken seriously?
"Israel should not enforce conscription, and its military shouldn't receive taxpayer money from other countries."
That's all you have to say to be consistent with libertarian values. Why can't you say it?
Hi Peter,
I haven't heard you denounce polyandry in northern India or Nepal. So that obviously means you support it, yes? /sarc
Almost a decade ago I had a conversation with a government employee and self-described libertarian who also supported the military draft. On the same grounds as Harry Notspur does in the DailyMail piece. I guess that just proves that anyone can self-describe as libertarian.
@ c papen: The fact that Israel is not mentioned in a rant against conscription is precisely the point. You would think a state (any state) that enforces it would be a more obvious target than a beneficiary no one has ever heard of.
But most telling is his response. Instead of "It goes without saying Israel shouldn't enforce the draft but that's not what I'm talking about here" he dodged the question twice.
Israel is the least libertarian state in the developed world but it is somehow immune from criticism for most libertarians.
I would also add that PC has been utterly silent about Wat Tyler. Libertarian indeed.
@Barry,
So you exclude Russia from the list of the 'developed world'? Or do you consider Putin an enlightened ruler and friend of liberty?
While we're at it, let's criticize Israel for allowing special exemptions to Orthodox Jews of particular sects. I guess that makes Israel a Theocracy too!
@c papen
Yes it has some very substantial theocratic elements. The claim to the land in the first place is based on a promise from god.
This religious background is why Israel has unquestioning support from the American Christian right. But why
does it get the same unquestioning support from so many libertarians?
"It goes without saying Israel shouldn't enforce the draft but that's not what I'm talking about here" he dodged the question twice."
You said it yourself Barry, it goes without saying. Why then are you demanding the author says it, when his post had nothing to do with Israel. Sounds like you have some sort of axe to grind, so why on earth would PC want to help you do it?
@Mark
From a consistent libertarian standpoint it goes without saying. But the author is of the strand of libertarianism that is tainted with Neoconservatism.
These lib/neocons only ever speak in support of Israel no matter what. They'll criticise NZ, USA, UK etc. but Israel is a sacred cow. So the reason he wouldn't confirm criticism of Israel's policy is not that it goes without saying but because he doesn't believe it should be criticised.
Pointing out this obvious inconsistency in a post attacking conscription is entirely appropriate.
@Barry - I seen no evidence for PC's "neocon" tendencies, but I do see in your posts evidence of a fixation on highlighting Israel's faults, given you've raised this matter repeatedly in a post that has nothing to do with Israel. This sort of fixation is usually associated with those who draw moral equivalence between Israel and the savages surrounding them - or worse regard Israel as inferior.
When self described "libertarians" fall into that category, they're of a strand of libertarianism that is more about hatred of the state than it about protection of liberty. Because Israel are more successful militarily (i.e. a more powerful state), it's logical that this flawed thinking leads them to regard Israel in more hostile terms than they do the semi-organised rabble that is Hamas say. In judging a state by these non-fundamentals, these so called libertarians effectively end up being extremely hostile to liberty.
Whatever Israel's flaws, they shrivel in comparison to the barbarity that surrounds them. If you understand the relative liberty that Israeli's enjoy compared to the neighbours, don't evade the geo-political context that Israel sits within, and take into account the daily threat to their security - any libertarian with a rational outlook has to be a strong supporter of Israel, and regard their flaws as secondary.
"Whatever Israel's flaws, they shrivel in comparison to the barbarity that surrounds them. If you understand the relative liberty that
Israeli's enjoy compared to the neighbours, don't evade the geo-political context that Israel sits within, and take into account
the daily threat to their security - any libertarian with a rational outlook has to be a strong supporter of Israel, and regard their
flaws as secondary."
Thats very relativist for an objectivist blog. Right is Right and wrong is wrong is it not? Or does the moral position of (in this case) conscription depend on your neighbours.
Let me rewrite that for you:
"Whatever China's flaws, they shrivel in comparison to the barbarity of North Korea. If you understand the relative liberty that
Chinese enjoy compared to their neighbours, don't evade the geo-political context that China sits within, and take into account
the daily threat to their security - any libertarian with a rational outlook has to be a strong supporter of China, and regard their
flaws as secondary."
You, my friend, are full of shit.
Post a Comment