You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The US Marines at Chosin Reservoir

in #life6 years ago

"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.

If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom — then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

The most immoral contradiction — in the chaos of today’s anti-ideological groups — is that of the so-called “conservatives,” who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher — though not much higher — rung of hell should be reserved for those “liberals” who claim that man has the “right” to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life.

One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.” Obligations, to whom? — and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected.

Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents “involuntary servitude.”

A volunteer army is the only proper, moral — and practical — way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes — if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army — an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why — is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.

It is often asked: “But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?” Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for one of two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War I. (2) If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.

Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft."

Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 226

Sort:  

I got to ask,,, Were you involved in the draft in 1949, '50', 51, '52? How about for WW2? or 1962, Viet Nam? The Draft was abolished between Viet Nam and any subsequent actions so we are discussing a strictly "Volunteer" Armed Forces.
Ayn Rand,imho, is a good fiction writer that has unfortunately garnered audiences in our Senate and House of Representatives (ie, Paul Ryan) and I has really done a lot for our Republic.
Keep writing, though as you might have a calling.

If you are interested in our true history, in what the military can do to help us restore our Republic, please have a look at our links.

The bald Eagle cast his wings upon the sky and beheld below the spraying City. In it was all types of revelry. But, with his eyes, he could see the noble ones among the crowd. Yet they could not see him. Drift he went on the wind to the next small city. There were the horses, the cows, the farmers...and among them was a little boy. The must humble of all. The Bald Eagle swooped down to get a closer look. The little boy sat on the well. Next to him were the chickens, the ducks and some small chicks. The Eagle could see. In the boy he saw a Prince. This Prince he saw, would soon be King of Nations. Only the Eagle has eyes to see such things. And so the Eagle moved on to his next great find..

Mother Liberty.

https://busy.org/@motherlibertynow