SECURITY: The Draft

Almost nothing is more controversial or attention-getting then mentioning a draft. How does the Libertarian party plan to deal with such a polarizing issue? A draft is one of the most extreme anti-freedom acts that any government could undertake. In a society that values freedom as much as ours, why would want to have one?

Michael Badnarik believes that America would react to a major attack by a foreign power as an outrage and many Americans would then volunteer to be in the military. He says that people do not view the militaristic actions undertaken by the current administration to be essential to their freedoms and so therefore they do not join the military. People are expressing the fact that the actions the Bush administration is undertaking overseas are, frankly, not that important to America's survival. They are letting American and they world know that by not joining the fight.

If you look at the military in a Libertarian way you see it as a free market. People enlist in the military as they would join any other job, they join for the benefits. Whether those benefits include defending our freedoms, free college, great pay, etc... those enlisted are getting those benefits. By drafting citizens you then remove from them their ability to participate in a free market. The military has to make itself a more attractive option than, say, working for Cisco systems. If we were in a real national crisis, of course the military would then become more attractive. In times where we do not see ourselves on the verge of invasion, it is up to the government to supply top notch conditions for its soldiers if it wishes to get more. It boils down to the fact that the draft is just used as a way for the military to get soldiers without making itself better than other options, therefore taking advantage of America's youth.

Many Republican and Democrat congressmen are even thinking about making military service a requirement for every American citizen, or some other type of "national service". This once again curtails the constitution and defeats the purpose of our founding fathers. One of the beauties of America is that a kid can be born into a family of farmers and grow up and be a doctor. We would become a nation of military people overnight, wanting war all the time, if everyone spent a year or two in the military.

So as you can see, a draft is most certainly wrong for our American way of life. The only time it should ever be used is in an absolute emergency. Look at when the Selective Service system was used in the past... Vietnam was not a cause our young men wanted to fight for, so the military had to force them to go there. WW1 was a war fought over foreign lands and our men did not see a reason to fight there either.. Arguably, WW2 is the only war that the draft was used correctly and puposefully. So, in essence, our government has gotten it wrong 2 out of 3 times. Do we want our government taking a 66% chance of failure with our future?


[edit on 8/6/2004 by lockheed]

[edit on 8-8-2004 by Valhall]

I would like to mention that in the high tech military we have today. It would be almost impossible for draftees to learn how to operate the equipment without proper training. This lack of training led to the Abu Garib prison abuse.

I'm opposed to the draft. Draft leads to unmotivated, unquilified idiots in charge of multi-billion dollar killing machines. From a military stand point the armed forces should have the right to take only the best of the best. I know some people even on ATS who I wouldn't want under my command if I were a general. But I will admit that in the event of a major war that poses a threat to American soil then we can enact the draft. But naturally the best we have should get to use the expensive stuff. The draftees can have their M-16s. What we need is not a lot of soldiers but a few qualitfied soldiers who can get the job done with out a major incedent.

I have to agree with the fact that the draft is not really viable at this time. The US has embarked on a military model that has a small voulenteer military that is lavishly equiped with high technology items. The PLA is the counter example of a large draftie standing army with lower technology requirement so that just about anybody can fight (part in the army). You could not institute the draft and then plug the guy into the seat of an M1A2 and expect them to be effective.

I firmly belive that in a time of national need American citizens would and have risen to the occasion to fight for our nation. One only has to look as far as Pat Tillman..

I think some sort of compulsory service is being developed for men and women in this country.
The Selective Service Budget is being beefed up for 2005, with the support of Democrats such as Hilary Clinton.
Candidiate Kerry has also come out with the idea of a two-year stint or some sort and collefe tuiton credits.

I don't think we will see a Vietnam era draft, but some movement toward a national commitment will happen.

I do not support a draft in this country. I do think that there are enough volunteers to keep a military force as advanced as ours up and running. As Vegemite noted draftees would not have the training and knowledge necessary. Even with a war as controvertial as Iraq we have enough volunteers.

I am also opposed to forcing people to kill others. I know that if I were drafted I would not be able to harm others, even if my life depended on it.

If we must have some sort of compulsary military duty, I think we need to look to examples set forth by other countries. In Germany, for example, young adults have a required military stint. But if they truely believe they cannot do this they may do community service instead.

With the size and sophistication of the US millitary, if you need a draft you've over-extended. Time to pull back. I am against any form of compulsary service.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I think some sort of compulsory service is being developed for men and women in this country.
The Selective Service Budget is being beefed up for 2005, with the support of Democrats such as Hilary Clinton.
Candidiate Kerry has also come out with the idea of a two-year stint or some sort and collefe tuiton credits.

A list of the sponsors and co-sponsors of these bills

House Bill 163 - Sponsor Charles B. Rangel, - NY
Co-sponsors - Abercrombie, Neil - HI
Brown, Corrine-FL
Christensen, Donna M.-VI
Clay, Wm. Lacy-MO
Conyers, John, Jr.-MI
Cummings, Elijah E.-MD
Hastings, Alcee L.-FL
Jackson, Jesse L., Jr.-IL
Jackson-Lee, Sheila-TX
Lewis, John-GA
McDermott, Jim-WA
Moran, James P.-VA
Stark, Fortney Pete-CA
Velazquez, Nydia M.-NY
Norton, Eleanor Holmes-DC(w/drawn)


Senate Bill 89 - Sponsor Ernest F. Hollings SC
No co-sponsors

The full text of the bills can be found here and here

[edit on 5-8-2004 by Bleys]

What we need are intelligent and progressive leaders, able to lead on the world stage without inspiring conflict against us. War is the last resort of a true warrior, and the first choice of the weak. (I wish I could remember who said that, WWI General I think.)

Is there any party that actually supports using a draft in the War on Terror? I don't believe we have heard from Democrats yet.

[edit on 8/6/2004 by lockheed]

Originally posted by Bleys
A list of the sponsors and co-sponsors of these bills

House Bill 163 - Sponsor Charles B. Rangel, - NY
Co-sponsors - Abercrombie, Neil - HI
Brown, Corrine-FL
Christensen, Donna M.-VI
Clay, Wm. Lacy-MO
Conyers, John, Jr.-MI
Cummings, Elijah E.-MD
Hastings, Alcee L.-FL
Jackson, Jesse L., Jr.-IL
Jackson-Lee, Sheila-TX
Lewis, John-GA
McDermott, Jim-WA
Moran, James P.-VA
Stark, Fortney Pete-CA
Velazquez, Nydia M.-NY
Norton, Eleanor Holmes-DC(w/drawn)


Senate Bill 89 - Sponsor Ernest F. Hollings SC
No co-sponsors

Lockheed~~
Perhaps the Democrats have not officially endorsed a raft, but if memory serves, most or all of the above names ARE Democrats.
Actions speak louder than words.

Good point DToM. I really meant above that no democrats here at ATS are speaking about this subject, but if those are mostly Democrats on that list then I don't think any Democrats here at ATS have to say anything more.

[edit on 8/6/2004 by lockheed]

While I feel it would be good for the country for our youth to give a couple of years to serve the country, I am not sure that they should be forced into military service, it should be their choice whether to serve in the armed forces or to serve in another way, be it peace corps or just helping Americans.

The Democrats have already said the reason they introduced the bills in congress, is to make sure that the more affluent would have to participate as well. I don't think this is something you should introduce to send a message.

They have no right to do this. They are playing poker with our children's future and I for one do not appreciate it. That is not the way to make a point, or to quote a southern expression, "that dog won't hunt".

Spending a couple of years in the nation's service does not mean you have to bear arms, and be in the military, there are so many things you could do that would accomplish this, and in my eyes the Democrats have played a bluff, using our children as the bet they made.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
The Democrats have already said the reason they introduced the bills in congress, is to make sure that the more affluent would have to participate as well. I don't think this is something you should introduce to send a message.

The other aspect that has not been discussed is this: could the Dems have introduced this to foster fear in the general population that Bush is a War Monger? It not unprecidented. If you recall Johnson did the same to Goldwater with his girl in a field ad. Its a powerfull tool if used in this manner.

Originally posted by FredT
could the Dems have introduced this to foster fear in the general population that Bush is a War Monger?

For the Democrats to introduce this legislation to foster any kind of influence, shows their disregard for the citizens of the country, you do not use the citizens as pawns in a political chess game.

Originally posted by lockheed
Almost nothing is more controversial or attention getting then mentioning a draft. How does the Libertarian party plan to deal with such a polarizing issue?

 

Many Republican and Democrat congressmen are even thinking about making military service a requirement for every American citizen, or some other type of "national service". This once again curtails the constitution and defeats the purpose of our founding fathers. One of the beauties of America is that a kid can be born into a family of farmers and grow up and be a doctor. We would become a nation of military people overnight, wanting war all the time, if everyone spent a year or two in the military.

[edit on 8/6/2004 by lockheed]

How does the Libertarian platform plan on dealing with the Selective Service issue? The way Libertarians deal with everything: Let the free-market decide. Will this work? HAH! Free-market Capitalism, left to it's own devices,is rife with corruption. It is the tendancy of any business, given free reign, to eliminate competition, exploit labor and resourses, and monopolize markets. Oversight and regulation are nesesary evils that must remain in place lest Capitains of Industry become Tyrants over All.

National Service should not be equated with a Draft. They are not the same. Your conclusion is unfounded, illogical, and emotional at best. One major tenet of the proposed house bill(s) is the exclusion of the previous deferal program that has historicaly allowed the children of The Elite to avoid military service. Closing of this loophole would certainly serve to give our elected representatives pause before sending thier own off on any ill-advised adventure.

Freedom comes with a price. Those expecting free excersise of the vast array of rights that we realize as Americans should expect to be asked to return something of themselves. If you wish to play, expect to pay. National Service includes more choices than just military options. Americorp is just one alternate to military service. "Service" is a virtue to be extolled, not an option to be avoided by those too selfish to know the difference.

What does the Democratic party want to help contribute to this nation through the institution of a national service requirement?

I haven't received any confirmation from Kerry/Edwards as of yet, but I have found some pseudo-confirmation here: bureaucrash.com...
This is another chat forum, but there is evidence therein of organized student protest of what they believe to be the platform of the candidates regards: thomas.loc.gov...:h.r.163: and thomas.loc.gov...:s.89:

I just spoke with the Kerry campaign in N.Y. and was told that the Senator is "against the draft." Of course, the proposed bills are not a "draft" per se. I am told the the platform is not supporting these bills. There has been some mention of instituting a National Service obligation to complete high school graduation requirements. Both Senators are allegeded to be on record for coming out in favor of this. I can find no specific corroboration.

Again, this is unneeded and unwanted. We are overextended as it is and need to rein in our influence. This would enable a huge work program that would be riddled with corruption as is every other section and department the Federal Government operates.

The spending needs to slow or stop to fix the current situation and provide of the civil servants we have at the moment.

Should civil service become attractive (which it once was) then there will be little problem with recruitment or retention.