The Draft Should be Abolished for Everyone — Not Just Women

[Muda69]

https://mises.org/wire/draft-should-be-abolished-everyone-—-not-just-women

Quote

On Friday, Federal Judge Gary Miller declared the federal government's policy of male-only conscription to be unconstitutional.  Miller ruled that past prohibitions on women in combat may have legally  justified the all-male policy, but since the military has integrated women into combat positions, the past policy can no longer be constitutionally justified.

The ruling can be taken two ways. It can be seen as a ruling that expands federal powers to conscript through the Selective Service system, and thus expand the military's power over the everyday lives of Americans. This is true in the strictly legal sense. On the other hand, the ruling could be interpreted as a political blow against conscription since the number of voters negatively impacted by conscription is now far higher than before. Apparently sympathetic to this latter interpretation, USAToday described the ruling as  "the biggest legal blow to the Selective Service System since the Supreme Court upheld the draft registration process in 1981." After all, those who brought the lawsuit, an organization called "The National Coalition for Men" was expressly attempting to highlight the injustice — from a male point of view — of being the only group legally obligated to submit to what is essentially registration for possible future slave labor. (Miller, however, does not actually order to the Pentagon to expand Selective Service eligibility. Any concrete legal action will likely come in the future, but those seeking to make such a move will be emboldened by Miller's declaration.)

Experience suggests, however, that an expansion of the Selective Service requirement will manifest itself largely as a matter of "equality" rather than as a ploy to highlight the general injustice of conscription overall.

For example, during a 2016 GOP presidential debate the candidates were asked if they would support mandatory registration for women with the Selective Service System now that women are allowed combat positions in the US military.

Most of the candidates applauded the idea while Ted Cruz denounced the notion. But, as is often the case, Cruz was right for the wrong reasons. Cruz seemed to base his reaction on sentimentalism and gender politics. However, he should have opposed an expansion of the draft not the the basis of some arcane idea of chivalry, but for the simple reason that conscription imposes enormous costs on private individuals by depriving them of control over their own labor.

Chris Christie, on the other hand, pounced on the issue of female conscription and declared it’s important that "women in this country understand anything they can dream, anything that they want to aspire to, they can do."

After hearing this, one is left wondering if Christie is aware that there’s a difference between being a soldier and being forced to be a soldier by the state.

This sort of confusion is likely to continue.

But Make no mistake about it. Expanding Selective Service from 50 percent of young adults to 100 percent is not about equality, or progress, or patriotism. While these notions will no doubt be used to bully people into supporting such a move, the real-world effect will be a massive expansion in government power over the lives of the population. Conscription, after all, is simply a draconian tax on the conscripts who lose their freedom for the duration, but who may also be coerced into being killed in order to promote the state’s policy agendas:

“Conscription is slavery,” Murray Rothbard wrote in 1973, and while temporary conscription is obviously much less bad — assuming one outlives the term of conscription — than many other forms of slavery, conscription is nevertheless a nearly-100-percent tax on the production of one’s mind and body. If one attempts to escape his confinement in his open-air military jail, he faces imprisonment or even execution in many cases.

Conscription remains popular among states because it is an easy way to directly extract resources from the population. Just as regular taxes partially extract the savings, productivity, and labor of the general population, conscription extracts virtually all of the labor and effort of the conscripts. The burden falls disproportionately on the young males in most cases, and they are at risk of a much higher tax burden if killed or given a permanent disability in battle. If he’s lucky enough to survive the conflict, the conscript may find himself living out the rest of his life as disfigured or missing his eyesight and limbs. He may be rendered permanently undesirable to the opposite sex. Such costs imposed on the conscript are a form of lifelong taxation.

Fortunately for those who escape such a fate, the term of slavery ends at a specified time, but for the duration, the only freedom the conscript enjoys is that granted to him by his jailers.

We’re likely to hear a lot about how “fairness” and egalitarianism requires an expansion of the Selective Service System. But those claims are all distractions from the central issue here, which is the state’s power over the citizen.

After all, if women want to go help terrorist groups in Syria (which is what the US is doing there), they are free to volunteer. Whether or not women can be directly involved in blowing up revelers at Afghani weddings is a completely separate issue from conscription and the Selective Service.

Besides, if fairness is a concern, there’s an easy way to achieve fairness on this issue: abolish the Selective Service for everybody. It’s as easy as that. It wouldn’t even cost a dime of taxpayer money. Simply shred the records, fire everyone who works for Selective Service, and lease out the office space to organizations that do something useful. Then, we won’t have to hear anything about “discrimination” or the alleged sexism implicit in a policy that outrageously neglects to force women to work for the government against their will.

Some who want to expand Selective Service for egalitarian reasons are claiming that it’s all just symbolic anyway, because the draft “will never happen.”

“The US hasn’t had the draft since the early 1970s,” one columnist loftily intoned as if that were evidence that the draft could never return. Wow, the 1970s? Did they even have electric lights back then?

Moreover, it’s a mistake to think that the draft could never return because people would overwhelmingly oppose people being forced into combat. Even if that is the case, there is no reason at all why conscription could not be used to draft people for non-combat positions. After all, only a very small portion of the military ever sees combat. The vast majority of soldiers are involved in logistics, transportation, and desk jobs such as computer programming. According to one report sponsored by the Naval Postgraduate School, "only 17% [of active-duty military personnel] are identified as performing combat specialties."1 Long gone are the days of pouring fresh conscripts into fox holes with little more than a rifle and a shovel.

Only a small portion of military deaths occur in combat. Most deaths in the military are due to accidents.

Additionally, there is no reason that Selective Service could not be modified to be used to draft people for so-called “national service” positions in which conscripts would perform non-combat bureaucratic and manual-labor jobs. Austria and Switzerland (which have conscription) allow this option for those morally opposed to combat. And historically — such as during World War II — “service” was imposed on conscientious objectors who were forced to work on farms or perform other types of manual labor in special camps.

So no, the draft is not “hypothetical,” “symbolic,” or something that “will never happen.”

Numerous countries in Latin America, Europe, and Asia still employ conscription, and it is hardly some kind of never-used relic from the distant past.

Alas, much of the opposition to the expansion of Selective Service has taken the form of National Review’s opposition which is based on the idea that conscripting women is some kind of special unique evil, quite unlike conscripting men. Military service is one thing, the editors write, but forcing women into it is “barbarism,” they admit. They’re half right. It is barbarism to force women to fight wars for the state. But the same is also true of conscription for men.

Agreed.  Conscription is anathema to the concept of a free state. It needs to be abolished.

 

[DanteEstonia]

On 2/26/2019 at 5:44 AM, Muda69 said:

https://mises.org/wire/draft-should-be-abolished-everyone-—-not-just-women

Agreed.  Conscription is anathema to the concept of a free state. It needs to be abolished.

 

A nation that can’t get people to defend it will be abolished.

[Muda69]

22 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

A nation that can’t get people to defend it will be abolished.

So the people need to be forced to defend it, at government gunpoint if need be?  What a way to endear a sense of national pride in an individual.

  

[Impartial_Observer]

The Draft Should be Abolished for Everyone — Not Just Women

I was under the impression the draft was ended in 1973, did I miss something?

[Muda69]

8 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

The Draft Should be Abolished for Everyone — Not Just Women

I was under the impression the draft was ended in 1973, did I miss something?

Then why do we still have a mandated by law Selective Service Registration system?

[gonzoron]

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Then why do we still have a mandated by law Selective Service Registration system?

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the draft act in the Selective Draft Law Cases on January 7, 1918. The decision said the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies.

[Impartial_Observer]

11 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Then why do we still have a mandated by law Selective Service Registration system?

That I can't answer, but no one has been drafted in the last 46 years, nor do I see it happening any time soon.

[Muda69]

Unfortunately the latest SSRS "Report Card" by state i can locate is from 2008: https://www.sss.gov/Portals/0/PDFs/Compliance Rates/CY 2008/ReportCard2008.pdf

Bad, bad Indiana at only 79% compliance.

  

[gonzoron]

12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Unfortunately the latest SSRS "Report Card" by state i can locate is from 2008: https://www.sss.gov/Portals/0/PDFs/Compliance Rates/CY 2008/ReportCard2008.pdf

Bad, bad Indiana at only 79% compliance.

  

Has anyone been arrested, denied federal student aid, denied federal job training, or denied a federal job due to non-compliance?

[Muda69]

3 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Has anyone been arrested, denied federal student aid, denied federal job training, or denied a federal job due to non-compliance?

I don't where to find such statistics, but the denial of federal student aid, job training, and jobs would be fairly straightforward, I suspect it has happened numerous times.

Arrested, charged, then imprisoned/fined is another matter.    I heard on a recent podcast that only six individuals have every been charged as such, but can find no proof of that statement.  Here is an interesting WAPO article from 2014:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/16/america-may-never-have-a-draft-again-but-were-still-punishing-low-income-men-for-not-registering/?utm_term=.c5a634463783

FTA:

Quote

...

So, how many run into the sanctions as Davis did? There’s no good way to track, but the Selective Service System estimates it’s in the tens of thousands every year.  Men such as Davis also make up part of a larger group of suspected violators  of the law whose names the agency turns over every year to the Department of Justice, which hasn’t prosecuted anyone for the offense since 1986.

...

The federal sanctions are just the half of it. According to the Selective Service System, 32 states now have made registration a prerequisite to a variety of benefits, from state financial aid to state jobs to tuition breaks. Tennessee requires males who failed to register to pay out-of-state tuition to attend the University of Tennessee system – even if they are state residents and citizens.  

...

 

 

[foxbat]

5 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Has anyone been arrested, denied federal student aid, denied federal job training, or denied a federal job due to non-compliance?

I don't know if they ever follow through on the financial aid part, but I recall getting a letter from the government back when I was a freshman in college, about three months after my 18th birthday, reminding me that in order to receive financial aid, I had to register with Selective Service.

[gonzoron]

In conclusion, the repercussions/punishments for failing to register are virtually nonexistent and it is potentially saving millions in tax dollars for those denied federal aid. Seems like a win/win for taxpayers.

[Muda69]

2 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

In conclusion, the repercussions/punishments for failing to register are virtually nonexistent and it is potentially saving millions in tax dollars for those denied federal aid. Seems like a win/win for taxpayers.

Yep.  If the Amish get to opt out why can't all of us?

 

[Wabash82]

2 hours ago, gonzoron said:

In conclusion, the repercussions/punishments for failing to register are virtually nonexistent and it is potentially saving millions in tax dollars for those denied federal aid. Seems like a win/win for taxpayers.

I am having a hard time understanding how folks being denied millions of dollars of federal aid they otherwise qualified for is a "virtually nonexistent" punishment.  I'd imagine that someone who couldn't afford college without the federal loan that he was denied solely for failing to register for the draft would not view that as a "nonexistent" punishment. 

[gonzoron]

8 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

I am having a hard time understanding how folks being denied millions of dollars of federal aid they otherwise qualified for is a "virtually nonexistent" punishment.  I'd imagine that someone who couldn't afford college without the federal loan that he was denied solely for failing to register for the draft would not view that as a "nonexistent" punishment. 

Then I suppose those who were denied should simply sign up in the Constitutionally protected program. Problem solved. Otherwise, they should continue their fight against nanny government by not requesting federal student aid to begin with.

Edited February 28, 2019 by gonzoron

[BARRYOSAMA]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Yep.  If the Amish get to opt out why can't all of us?

 

Because libertarianism is considered a cult and not a religion.  Kinda like Scientology in Europe

[Wabash82]

Yes, that's one solution. Another would be to abolish a sexually-discriminatory system that, as IO noted, has not actually been put to use for almost 50 years, and save all us taxpayers even more money. 

[gonzoron]

23 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Another would be to abolish a sexually-discriminatory system that, as IO noted, has not actually been put to use for almost 50 years, and save all us taxpayers even more money.

That was attempted in 2016. Republican Congress failed to pass it. 

[Impartial_Observer]

4 hours ago, gonzoron said:

That was attempted in 2016. Republican Congress failed to pass it. 

Perhaps VOC could add it to the NGD.

[gonzoron]

53 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Perhaps VOC could add it to the NGD.

She should try to resolve this nut milk problem first.

[Muda69]

21 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Because libertarianism is considered a cult

Dear NightHawk,

I found a cult check list below.  Please explain in detail how libertarianism  fits into all of these:

 

1.The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar of the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪12. The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪15. The most loyal members (the true believers) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

 

[BARRYOSAMA]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Dear NightHawk,

I found a cult check list below.  Please explain in detail how libertarianism  fits into all of these:

 

1.The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.  YOU OFTEN COPY AND PASTE FROM THE WEBSITE NAMED AFTER THE GRAND POOBAH OF THE CULT OF LIBERTARIANISM LUDWIG HEINRICH ELDER VON MISES.  

CHECK

‪2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.  YOU NEVER CHANGE AN OPINION EVEN IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND IMPECCABLE LOGIC.  INSTEAD YOU USUALLY RESORT TO PETTY SOPHOMORIC PERSONAL ATTACKS.

CHECK

‪3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).  LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY, PARTICULARLY LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY IS SO LOGICALLY FLAWED AND SOUNDS LIKE A 1920s TENT PREACHER/SNAKE OIL SALESMEN.  LIBERTARIANS ARE PRONE TO DENOUNCE THOSE THEY DEBATE WITH WHEN THEY REALIZE THEIR TALKING POINTS ARE SILLY AND ILLOGICAL.

CHECK

‪4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).  LIBERTARIANS SEEM PRONE TO COPY AND PASTING (VERBATIM), ARTICLE AFTER ARTICLE OF BOILERPLATE WOO WITH VERY LITTLE COMMENTARY OR ANALYSIS.  USUALLY JUST SEE A ROBOTIC "AGREED" NOTE AT THE END.

CHECK

‪5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar of the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).  LIBERTARIANS LOVE TO CAST THEMSELVES AS SPECIAL OUTCASTS WHO ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD BY ALL OF THOSE UNENLIGHTENED POOR SOULS ENSNARED BY SOCIETY'S EXPECTATIONS.  WHAT DOES ONE FIND WHEN THEY TRAVEL TO WWW.MISES.COM.  NON OTHER THAN AN AVATAR OF LIBERTARIAN DEITY, MURRY (MR ANARCHO-CAPITALIST) ROTHBARD.

CHECK

‪6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. THAT FRUIT IS LOW ENOUGH FOR A PYGMY MOLE TO GRAB.

CHECK

‪7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).  LIBERTARIAN LEADERS ARE RARELY IF EVER ELECTED TO ANY POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY SO THEY ARE FREE TO LIVE IN AN ALTERNATIVE REALITY OF WOO.

CHECK

‪8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities). ANARCHO-CAPITALISM - NUFF SAID

CHECK

‪9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.  CONSTANT REFRAINS OF "UNI-PARTY" BY LIBERTARIANS ARE AN ATTEMPT TO SHAME THOSE WHO VOTE FOR TRADITIONAL PARTIES AND GUILT TRIP THEM INTO VOTING FOR A LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE.

CHECK

‪10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group. CURRENT PROMINENT YOUTUBE LIBERTARIAN ANARCHO-CAPITALIST STEPHAN MOLYNEUX ADVOCATES THAT A PERSON'S FAMILY OF ORIGIN (FOO) IS OFTEN NOT DESIRABLE AND TO REACH TRUE ENLIGHTENMENT, THAT PERSON SHOULD "deFOO", OR SEVER RELATIONSHIPS WITH FAMILY.  MOLYNEUX IS SEEN BY MANY AS A CULT LEADER.

‪11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. LEAVE THE DARKSIDE (UNIPARTY), COME TO LIGHT.

CHECK

‪12. The group is preoccupied with making money. "TAXATION IS THEFT"

CHECK

‪13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. LIBERTARIANS SEEM TO SPEND AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME ON YOUTUBE MESSAGE BOARDS (AMONG OTHER MESSAGE BOARDS) , PREOCCUPIED WITH BLOVIATING THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MILTON.

CHECK

‪14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. SEE deFOO COMMENT ABOVE.

CHECK

‪15. The most loyal members (the true believers) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

14/14 MAKES ME THINK #15 IS AXIOMATICALLY A TRUTHFUL STATEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO LIBERTARIANISM BEING A CULT.

Even though my original statement was tongue in cheek, that was pretty easy.

Thanks for providing the template.

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Even though my original statement was tongue in cheek, that was pretty easy.

Thanks for providing the template.

You are welcome.  It seems that I do belong to a cult, with myself as the only member.   Would you like to join?  Also I have never heard of the Mr. Molyneux you refer to in #10.  He appears to espouse a flavor of libertariansim that I don't personally agree with, but to each his own.   Do you personally have the exact same opinions and beliefs as every other progressive liberal/democrat?

 

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Muda69

[Muda69]

Portrait of an obsession, from a couple of NightHawk's favorite websites:

, 

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Muda69

[gonzoron]

I think that's #2