In a free society when men volunteer to fight and they die on the battle field, they have not sacrificed their lives. They have fought for their freedom. They have said: I died fighting for my freedom because I refuse to live as a slave.
A soldier drafted into service dies a slave of the state. He has truly been forced to make a sacrifice: He has sacrificed a higher value, his unalienable right to his life, for a much lesser value, the goals of the political leaders who forced him into service.
The only moral army in a free society is a volunteer army. If there is a shortage of volunteer soldiers, the government has several moral options at its disposal to increase enlistment. They are:
PERSUATION:
Propaganda—The government may work to “sell” the war to the media and to the citizens. If the war is just, the government should have no trouble gaining enlistees. In fact, going to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan required very little selling on the part of the Bush Administration. The righteous cause for which that war is being fought was apparent to nearly all Americans. The Iraq War was sold to the Congress and the American people and was executed [the first three weeks] with the overwhelming support of the public. Right up until images of the un-policed Iraqi streets, widespread looting and mayhem, reached into America’s living rooms, the Bush Administration could claim Mission Accomplished. Support for the war eroded over time. After the lawlessness and looting, Don Rumsfeld had to explain why nobody could find any weapons of mass destruction. The media began to turn against the war. Then Abu Ghraib. [The Bush Administration’s failure here was to apologize for the criminal behavior of a few individuals, empowering our morally bankrupt adversaries in the Middle East by declaring our own moral bankruptcy.] Then the Democrats on Capital Hill found their collective voice in John Murtha, and for the first time since 9/11, seized an opportunity to recapture power in Washington: They would be the party against the war. How would they explain their votes supporting the invasion? Bush lied...he tricked us into supporting the invasion. Harry Reid, the Democrat, Majority Leader in the Senate actually declared the war lost even as the Democrats won their first majority in the House since 1994.
Most Americans are now against the Iraq War. Still, young men and women enlist to serve in the U.S. armed forces.
The Bush Administration failed to close the deal with the American people. They allowed support for this war to erode. They fought a limited war to appease Europe and our “friends” in the Middle East and sacrificed victory. They permitted the Iraqis to draft a ridiculous constitution [declaring Islam the official religion of the state] and sacrificed any hope for liberty in the new Iraq. Now, our government is divided and the Democrats on the Hill—with the help of CNN, MSNBC, and Bill Maher—are winning the propaganda war.
Financial incentives—A volunteer army must be paid well. A soldier’s work is very dangerous and necessary work. Dangerous and necessary work must be duly compensated. According to the U.S. Census Bureau the median annual household income in the United States was about $48,000.00 in 2006. Soldiers, like police officers and fire fighters, should be paid a salary above the median. In today’s Army an enlisted man would have to serve about 12 years before his salary even approached the U.S. median. A soldier on the ground in Bagdad can expect a few hundred dollars more each month in what the military calls “imminent danger pay,” about the same stipend a teacher can expect for achieving a Master’s degree completing on-line courses in the comfort of their own home. Putting your life on the line has to be worth more than that. A soldier should pay nothing for health care for life, and as Senator McCain proposes, go to any doctor, any clinic, any hospital. A soldier should never have to worry about being homeless in old age. If America took better care of her soldiers our government would never have to contemplate the immoral use of force, conscription. Politicians must stop glorifying sacrifice in order field an army on the cheap. Pay professional soldiers what their dangerous work is worth.
CREATIVE RESTRUCTERING:
Reduce educational requirements for service—Currently, one must have good grades and a high school diploma to serve in the military. If the armed forces determine that more bodies are needed on the battle field, they can make military service available to people who are currently not accepted.
Grow up!—If I were gay, the last thing I would do is join the military. It’s the only career I can think of where a person is not free to be themselves…even off duty! “Don’t ask, don’t tell” means that if they find out you’re gay, you will be discharged. If the military didn’t actively discriminate against homosexuals, gays would probably be more inclined to choose a career in the military.
Admit women—There is no objective reason why women who want to serve should not be admitted. Women should be permitted to perform any and all military tasks for which they can be trained… including combat.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Draft: Part I
However you feel about the Iraq War, in one respect it is a more moral war than any other war fought by the United States. In Iraq every American soldier fighting today is a volunteer, an enlistee, a professional soldier. Every soldier on the ground in Iraq chose their difficult and dangerous work. Even the American Revolution was fought in part by soldiers who had been conscripted into military service, forced to fight against their will.
In fact, the United States government drafted soldiers to fight in the U.S. Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Any drafted soldier who was injured or died fighting during any of those wars, died a victim of his government’s immoral use of force.
Forced service, whether it is military service in wartime or community service in peacetime, is an immoral use of government power in a free society…but especially military service that could result in the forfeiture of your life. If you have a right to your life, then government can not force you to put your life in peril.
Americans recognize a human beings unalienable right to his own life. It is what our volunteer army is fighting to preserve. Unalienable means that the right can not be taken away without due process of law. Selective Service law is not objective law. It is subjective, i.e. subject to the needs of an administration in crisis, to hell with man’s unalienable right to his own life. Consistent with the altruistic justification of every immoral law, the rights of draftees are sacrificed in the name of some “greater good.”
If there is a greater good, I’m sure people would be enlisting to defend it.
Most would agree that the American Revolution, the Civil War, WWI and WWII were fought for just causes. Victory in each instance was imperative. U.S. interests—even the existence of the United States—were undeniably on the line. The same cannot be said for the Korean War or the Vietnam War. These wars were fought to stop the spread of an ideology, an economic system, communism. No such war need ever be fought. Communism destroys the lives of any people who adopt it. Americans never had anything to fear. Communist regimes across the globe were doomed to fail from the beginning. We should have known this. [Ayn Rand knew. She told them so. Our political leaders should have listened to her.] Over one hundred thousand young Americans would have survived the 50’s and 60’s. With regards to the other wars listed above, the just wars, there are always alternatives to government’s use of immoral force.
If some country were foolish enough to attack the US, we’d have no problem finding 21st Century minutemen. We’d all volunteer.
The issue of the draft is, in my opinion, no longer even relevant. The days of huge standing armies facing off against each other on the battle field are long since over. Technology makes the need for million-man armies a thing of the past. If the U.S. insists on policing the world, then we must do it the same way we police our own streets: hire people willing to do the dangerous work and pay them well.
In fact, the United States government drafted soldiers to fight in the U.S. Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Any drafted soldier who was injured or died fighting during any of those wars, died a victim of his government’s immoral use of force.
Forced service, whether it is military service in wartime or community service in peacetime, is an immoral use of government power in a free society…but especially military service that could result in the forfeiture of your life. If you have a right to your life, then government can not force you to put your life in peril.
Americans recognize a human beings unalienable right to his own life. It is what our volunteer army is fighting to preserve. Unalienable means that the right can not be taken away without due process of law. Selective Service law is not objective law. It is subjective, i.e. subject to the needs of an administration in crisis, to hell with man’s unalienable right to his own life. Consistent with the altruistic justification of every immoral law, the rights of draftees are sacrificed in the name of some “greater good.”
If there is a greater good, I’m sure people would be enlisting to defend it.
Most would agree that the American Revolution, the Civil War, WWI and WWII were fought for just causes. Victory in each instance was imperative. U.S. interests—even the existence of the United States—were undeniably on the line. The same cannot be said for the Korean War or the Vietnam War. These wars were fought to stop the spread of an ideology, an economic system, communism. No such war need ever be fought. Communism destroys the lives of any people who adopt it. Americans never had anything to fear. Communist regimes across the globe were doomed to fail from the beginning. We should have known this. [Ayn Rand knew. She told them so. Our political leaders should have listened to her.] Over one hundred thousand young Americans would have survived the 50’s and 60’s. With regards to the other wars listed above, the just wars, there are always alternatives to government’s use of immoral force.
If some country were foolish enough to attack the US, we’d have no problem finding 21st Century minutemen. We’d all volunteer.
The issue of the draft is, in my opinion, no longer even relevant. The days of huge standing armies facing off against each other on the battle field are long since over. Technology makes the need for million-man armies a thing of the past. If the U.S. insists on policing the world, then we must do it the same way we police our own streets: hire people willing to do the dangerous work and pay them well.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Censorship: Part II
Republicans like to criticize Democrats for growing the government of the United States, for creating the welfare state and for promoting the lie that a government has the responsibility to take care of its people from the cradle to the grave. Republicans run on these criticisms, and I agree with them. Once in office, however, Republicans go to work growing government, empowering executive entities like the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to big stick the communications industry and to police the market place of ideas.
Democrats are hostile to reality in the material world and use government to “correct” economic inequality. With force [i.e. the progressive tax code] they extort wealth from its rightful owners to feed, house, and provide heath care for people who consume more than they produce. If one argues that these people are living the lives they chose, Democrats invariably fall back on the argument: “What about their kids? Their kids didn’t do anything to deserve poverty.” Now leaders on both sides are voting to send checks to the irresponsible parents of children living in poverty. Individual rights and justice are sacrificed to create social welfare programs in the name of helping children as if there are no private sector solutions that would preserve those rights. Government power is grown to take over the parents’ responsibility to feed, clothe, and house their children.
Republicans are hostile to reality in the realm of ideas and use government to restrict speech they find offensive. When one argues, for example, that those who find profanity on the radio airwaves offensive are free to change the channel, social conservatives argue that the restrictions on speech are necessary “to protect the children.” Once again, individual rights are sacrificed in the name of the children. Government power is grown in order to take over the parents’ responsibility to monitor their own children, the private sector solution.
I am an adult. I have been for nearly thirty years. Nobody has a right to tell me what I can read, listen to, or watch. Nobody has a right to edit the workings of my mind. What I write, however unpopular, belongs to me. Every adult in existence enjoys the very same rights.
My government has a responsibility to protect me from people who would try to use government to:
>shield me from the consequences of my actions;
>force the dictates of their “commanded moral code” on me;
>demand any sacrifice of me to shield them from the consequences of their actions;
>tax my productivity so that my wealth may be redistributed;
>tell me what consenting adult I may sleep with;
>tell me what I can read or view;
>tell me what I can put into my body;
>force me to acknowledge their God.
My government has utterly failed to protect me from arbitrary censorship in the market place of ideas. I concur with Alex Epstein, "Open Access" and the Tyranny of the FCC, who wrote: Americans need to start recognizing airwaves as the private property they really are, and demand the abolition of the FCC. Then the government can hold a fair and just auction for the 700 MHz spectrum, and the others, in which each spectrum is not licensed but sold--no strings attached.
Democrats are hostile to reality in the material world and use government to “correct” economic inequality. With force [i.e. the progressive tax code] they extort wealth from its rightful owners to feed, house, and provide heath care for people who consume more than they produce. If one argues that these people are living the lives they chose, Democrats invariably fall back on the argument: “What about their kids? Their kids didn’t do anything to deserve poverty.” Now leaders on both sides are voting to send checks to the irresponsible parents of children living in poverty. Individual rights and justice are sacrificed to create social welfare programs in the name of helping children as if there are no private sector solutions that would preserve those rights. Government power is grown to take over the parents’ responsibility to feed, clothe, and house their children.
Republicans are hostile to reality in the realm of ideas and use government to restrict speech they find offensive. When one argues, for example, that those who find profanity on the radio airwaves offensive are free to change the channel, social conservatives argue that the restrictions on speech are necessary “to protect the children.” Once again, individual rights are sacrificed in the name of the children. Government power is grown in order to take over the parents’ responsibility to monitor their own children, the private sector solution.
I am an adult. I have been for nearly thirty years. Nobody has a right to tell me what I can read, listen to, or watch. Nobody has a right to edit the workings of my mind. What I write, however unpopular, belongs to me. Every adult in existence enjoys the very same rights.
My government has a responsibility to protect me from people who would try to use government to:
>shield me from the consequences of my actions;
>force the dictates of their “commanded moral code” on me;
>demand any sacrifice of me to shield them from the consequences of their actions;
>tax my productivity so that my wealth may be redistributed;
>tell me what consenting adult I may sleep with;
>tell me what I can read or view;
>tell me what I can put into my body;
>force me to acknowledge their God.
My government has utterly failed to protect me from arbitrary censorship in the market place of ideas. I concur with Alex Epstein, "Open Access" and the Tyranny of the FCC, who wrote: Americans need to start recognizing airwaves as the private property they really are, and demand the abolition of the FCC. Then the government can hold a fair and just auction for the 700 MHz spectrum, and the others, in which each spectrum is not licensed but sold--no strings attached.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Censorship: Part I
First, for the benefit of my Libertarian friends out there, allow me to explain what is not censorship. When our government hunts down, busts, and imprisons Internet child pornographers, nobody’s Freedom of Expression has been violated. Government has a responsibility to protect us from predators who would destroy our children. We have a responsibility to protect our children. We must protect even our teen-aged children from groups like the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), whose members believe that grown men should be able to sleep with young boys as long as the boys agree. Kids have rights, they say, and we don’t force them. They don’t force these boys into bed with them using knives and guns, to be sure. Rather they coerce the young and vulnerable with sweet-talk, a place to live, spending money...wherever there’s a void, they fill it. Surely, there is a role for government to play here.
But I am an adult. My government has no right to protect me from myself. Two consenting adults may do whatever they want to each other—however unhealthy, however offensive, however immoral [you may think it is]—and post photos and video for the world to see. I may choose to watch their depravity; I may choose not to, but that choice belongs to me. To censor, hunt down, bust and imprison the depraved would be immoral, offensive, and unhealthy to all who cherish liberty.
The First Amendment exists not to protect the majority, but rather, to protect the unpopular, offensive, minority opinions. Majorities don’t need protection.
Banning racist speech in the market place of ideas is probably not censorship. People have no control over their race. Science has demonstrated emphatically that racial differences are wholly irrelevant: debating those differences serves no useful purpose. Given our history, I think it’s safe to say that racist speech should be labeled “fighting words,” and consequently should not be protected. Cultural differences among people—religion, politics, music, literature, etc.—are a very different thing. People choose their culture. Efforts by some individuals to persuade others to reconsider their choices must be protected free speech however offended some groups may be. I am free to insult your irrational faith; you’re free to hate my blog. If I want to have a Mohammed drawing competition, I can. If you don’t like it, don’t participate. If I want to make a movie depicting Jesus and his apostles as gay lovers, I can. If you don’t like it, don’t go to see it.
The problem of censorship arises when some adults encounter ideas in the market place that they find offensive or immoral. They feel they’re on a mission to rid the world of immorality, and they wrongly assume this means that they have a right to police the market place, banning any speech they find objectionable. These people must know that they have no right to censor the thinking of any other man, yet in their determination to silence certain voices, they willfully ignore the First Amendment. In the name of some “greater good” [e.g. to protect the children] they ban books, declare government ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum, license only broadcasters who pass muster, place countless rules and regulations on television and radio broadcasters, police the air waves, and dump massive fines on individuals who refuse to play by their rules.
The job of monitoring what my kids watch, play, or listen to is mine. I accept that responsibility and reject our government’s unlawful policing of speech in this country.
But I am an adult. My government has no right to protect me from myself. Two consenting adults may do whatever they want to each other—however unhealthy, however offensive, however immoral [you may think it is]—and post photos and video for the world to see. I may choose to watch their depravity; I may choose not to, but that choice belongs to me. To censor, hunt down, bust and imprison the depraved would be immoral, offensive, and unhealthy to all who cherish liberty.
The First Amendment exists not to protect the majority, but rather, to protect the unpopular, offensive, minority opinions. Majorities don’t need protection.
Banning racist speech in the market place of ideas is probably not censorship. People have no control over their race. Science has demonstrated emphatically that racial differences are wholly irrelevant: debating those differences serves no useful purpose. Given our history, I think it’s safe to say that racist speech should be labeled “fighting words,” and consequently should not be protected. Cultural differences among people—religion, politics, music, literature, etc.—are a very different thing. People choose their culture. Efforts by some individuals to persuade others to reconsider their choices must be protected free speech however offended some groups may be. I am free to insult your irrational faith; you’re free to hate my blog. If I want to have a Mohammed drawing competition, I can. If you don’t like it, don’t participate. If I want to make a movie depicting Jesus and his apostles as gay lovers, I can. If you don’t like it, don’t go to see it.
The problem of censorship arises when some adults encounter ideas in the market place that they find offensive or immoral. They feel they’re on a mission to rid the world of immorality, and they wrongly assume this means that they have a right to police the market place, banning any speech they find objectionable. These people must know that they have no right to censor the thinking of any other man, yet in their determination to silence certain voices, they willfully ignore the First Amendment. In the name of some “greater good” [e.g. to protect the children] they ban books, declare government ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum, license only broadcasters who pass muster, place countless rules and regulations on television and radio broadcasters, police the air waves, and dump massive fines on individuals who refuse to play by their rules.
The job of monitoring what my kids watch, play, or listen to is mine. I accept that responsibility and reject our government’s unlawful policing of speech in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)