End Selective Service, No More Draft!

Edward Hasbrouck has this article on Antiwar.com, Congress Is Again Considering Proposals To End, or To Expand, Selective Service.

So, once again I would like to repost what I wrote about that issue here in 2013, More Calls for “National Service” as Americans Are Already Increasingly Enslaved by Government:

September 18, 2013

Jacob Hornberger and Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation had this discussion on the “Libertarian Angle,” regarding calls for “national service.” In this edition, they also discussed Syria and monetary policy.

As part of their discussion on “national service,” Sheldon Richman pointed out that many of those calls for “national service” are not particularly for people to serve other people or their neighbors or the community, but to serve the nation. The implication is that the inhabitants of the territory here owe something to the nation.

The truth is, many amongst the “national service” crowd really believe in the idea of sacrifice. They say you must sacrifice some of your time and labor to “serve” others. But, as Ayn Rand noted, they really mean sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice.

But really, to the nationalists we owe a sacrifice to the State. We have something, such as freedom and opportunity, for which we must show gratitude by being compelled to “serve,” something that the State has given to us or provides for us, and that we owe something in return. That is the underlying premise of the “national service” crowd.

Why there would be a resurgence in calls for “national service” at this time, after 12 long years of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now the tyrannical ObamaCare, is beyond me. You want us to serve THAT? That monstrous Leviathan?

I was very disappointed to read just recently from war and Big Government critic Andrew Bacevich that he supports some sort of “national service” program, or a “citizen soldiers” program. He was interviewed on NPR and stated:

My proposal, to be clear, is not to restore the draft, but to enact a program of national service. National service means all able-bodied young people owe a couple of years of service to the country. Some of them may choose to serve in the military. All the rest will serve in other capacities, you know, whether it’s a renewed equivalent of the Civilian Conservation Corps, or whatever.

And I was also reminded of the extreme disappointment I felt in the early ’90s when William F. Buckley, Jr. came out with his book, Gratitude.

Oh, we should be grateful that the government or the State provides for us our freedom and opportunities, even though it is those damn bureaucrats who are employed by the State who have done everything they can to demolish our opportunities and trample on our freedom!

“Grateful”? Sorry, I would be grateful if Americans decided to shut down the criminal institution that is the U.S. government and unshackle the chains and release its hold on our enslaved lives.

In 1990 the New York Times provided this quote from Buckley’s book:

The objective should be to enroll, by the turn of the century, more than 80 percent of Americans born in 1973 or later. . . . Yes, there needs to be a National Service Franchise Administration. Its primary function should be to gather information for use by the states and indeed by individuals seeking (for instance) a locality that sustains an NSFA program most congenial to their inclination. . . . But the NSFA, observing its mandate, should also recommend appropriate legislation to Congress, legislation having primarily to do with federal sanctions.

These are “freedom-loving conservatives”? (Humph. With “conservatives” like this, who needs communists?)

So the “national service” crowd seem to believe that we should be grateful for our enslavement. That is why so many of the nationalists, collectivists and statists are so resentful toward libertarians. We libertarians actually appreciate the idea of freedom of choice, freedom of movement, self-ownership, voluntary association and voluntary contract. You see, when you let people have their freedom, then the State has less control over your life, and the nationalists, collectivists and statists whose self-identity is closely linked to their love for the State also feel a loss of control.

But  in regards to this call that others serve the nation, to most people the “nation” or the State is really an abstract concept which is based on myths and a religious worship of this god the State.

Sheldon Richman and Jacob Hornberger in their discussion mentioned James Bovard who has written extensively on the sham that is AmeriCorps (a.k.a. ObamaCorps). Here is Bovard’s most recent piece on that.

The truth is, human beings own their own lives, they are not owned by the State, the “nation,” their neighbors, the community. It is not the State or the nation that provides your freedom. Your freedom is a natural thing that you have inherently.

But the only people to whom you “owe” anything are those with whom you have established actual contracts that would involve agreed-to transactions or trades.

In my 2009 response to Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy’s calls to revive Bill Clinton’s “AmeriCorps,” I wrote,

Here are some examples of how people serve others: steel workers and carpenters in the manufacturing sector serve the companies they work for, but are really serving the actual consumers who need the items they produce, such as computers, trucks and office buildings. There are people in the service sector who serve people who need groceries, get coffee at the local diner and clothes at the department store. And of course there are charities who serve the needs of those who can’t afford the daily necessities. And there are professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants who serve many people’s needs.The people in the “social services” sector such as nurses and nurses’ aides serve the needs of medical patients and teachers serve the needs  of children and young adults who need to be educated.

Now, the people in all these groups are not forced nor coerced to serve others; they do it voluntarily, and yes, most of them are paid for their work. They receive a financial compensation which is in their self-interest and they do a service to others, and their work is not planned or mandated by state authority with the armed force of legal compulsion. At the same time, there are many, many people throughout the population who do volunteer work, also in absence of government mandates or coercion–they do it out of their own genuine concern for others. People who lack that concern will probably not do volunteer work even if it’s mandated by government. You would have to have state-imposed conscription to force them to do such “involuntary servitude.” However, their sacrifice is not needed.

In fact, the “national service” people really don’t like that kind of voluntary trade and association. They seem to need some kind of sense of control over others in which “service” is valid when it is compelled and controlled by bureaucrats, based on some belief that we as individuals are owned by the State (or by the collective of the community). This has been the philosophy behind AmeriCorps, and other kinds of “national service,” as well as being the same kind of philosophy behind many government regulations and bureaucratic intrusions in our personal and economic lives.

Negative Effects of Nationalism

Some whining here. I’m still working on several different posts, but lately some things have been difficult to do. Lack of sleep has not been helpful, and an issue with one of my dietary supplements, and the cold weather. I’m in my late 50s and obviously getting old. Another problem I have is that there have been soooo many issues going on now, from the ongoing Covid scamdemic to the growing fascist censorship and cultural lunacy. It’s too much.

So, I will repost an article from 2017 that has been viewed a few times recently in my blog stats. New readers may find this of interest.

The Negative Effects of Nationalism, which is an article I had on Activist Post at the time. Here is the article:

June 1, 2017

Thanks to the post-9/11 resurgence in nationalism in America, we have the “national security” apparatus turning against the very people who obediently support it, and we have escalating conflicts caused by the immigration debate.

Nationalism is a very bad thing, in my view. It is a form of collectivism, and in America it has destroyed the very basis of what America was founded on: freedom.

In immigration, for example, we have two sides of anti-freedom statists competing against one another.

On the one side are the leftist immigration extremists who want government-controlled (i.e. taxpayer-funded and approved) “sanctuary cities” and so on.

Sadly, many of these people oppose free and voluntary exchange, and they unfortunately believe in government theft of private wealth and property, who believe in wealth and income redistributionism and want to force workers and producers to have to fund the lives and activities of others involuntarily.

Why not let private charities, churches, business owners, and residents provide for and fund to help immigrants voluntarily?

On the other side are the anti-immigration collectivists and nationalists who don’t want foreigners coming to America, who want to continue the socialist, central-planning scheme of government controlling the movements of millions of people. These socialists or fascists (or social fascists) such as the awful attorney general are siccing the government police (including the federal anti-immigration police, “ICE” etc.) on the immigrants, an extremely anti-freedom way of trying to “protect” the American citizen-slaves from foreigners.

But now it seems the debate is becoming overly contentious. The leftist immigration extremists are beginning to react to the violent police state by themselves committing or threatening to commit acts of physical violence against the anti-immigration True Believer government officials, such as with the confrontations or altercations between Texas state reps Matt Rinaldi (R), Ramon Romero (D), and Poncho Nevarez (D).

Now, Rep. Rinaldi (R) claims on his Twitter profile to be “devoted to the cause of liberty,” but apparently he is one of many, many Americans who believe that only “citizens” have a right to their liberty, but not foreigners.

Like many nationalists, Rinaldi seems confused about the concept of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that all human beings have inherently, rights which preexist the formation of any government, and which thus preexist the formation of the concept of “citizenship.” These anti-freedom types believe in government borders far more than they believe in private property and private property rights which apply to one’s labor, business and capital as well as one’s home or wealth. These people want state governments to impose top-down authority on cities, as much as they want the feds to impose their top-down authority on the states, cities, and all the people.

And I heard Dennis Prager recently on the radio criticizing those who consider themselves “citizens of the world,” rather than citizens of their country. He said that an identity with your country should be first and foremost at the top of the list of people’s self identities. For example, as some people would say, “I am an American first. Then I am Italian, then I am a Democrat, then I am a Catholic,” etc.

Well, I am not an “American” first. I am an individual first. So, I am “me” first. And then I am a member of my family, and then I am a member of my local community. Those are the immediate priorities, in my view.

I don’t understand why people are so anti-internationalist and anti-globalist but then are such faithful and loyal nationalists, like there’s a difference as far as being a faithful member of any large political unit viewed as “important.”

But why stop there? Why is it more important that you identify with the nation in which you live, and not more with your state, town or neighborhood? So I find some inconsistency there. If we reject collectivist, top-down identities, then there isn’t much difference between saying you’re a “citizen of the world,” an “American citizen,” or a “citizen of the European Union.”

In fact, there really isn’t any difference between the European Union and the United States. Both are crumbling and collapsing before our very eyes. Both are centralized collections of nations under the rule of a top-down central-planning authority. In the beginning of the United States of America, or, between the Revolution and the ratification of a Constitution and formation of the U.S. government, the colonies were individual “nations,” or nation-states, without any connecting “national” government ruling over them after they separated from British rule.

In a society in which those unalienable rights to life and liberty, voluntary exchange and free markets, and private property rights exist, any property owner (home or business) can invite anyone else onto one’s own property. Employers would hire whomever they want, with no government permission. Workers can find a job wherever they want. As long as people are peaceful and don’t violate the persons and property of others.

Can you imagine the freedom of living one’s life without having to get a bureaucrat’s permission to do this or that?

Unfortunately, statists, centralists, nationalists, and otherwise authoritarians and collectivists don’t think that way.

And that’s just with the immigration issue.

Another example of why this nationalism and central planning stuff is really bad and very dangerous is the dependence that the masses have on the feds for “national security.”

We now have people such as the “Homeland Security” secretary himself engaging in what I would call a true act of terrorism by saying that if we knew what he knows about terrorists we’d “never leave the house.” What a schmuck, in my view. Talk about a fear-monger. And he’s so full of it, too.

The truth is actually the opposite of what these government propagandists and their media stenographers have been saying, and what most people in America believe about that whole apparatus in Washington. The truth is, U.S. Presidents have been starting wars of aggression overseas, murdering millions of innocents for decades and provoking foreigners to act against innocents in America and the West. “Intelligence” agencies especially in the U.S. and U.K. intentionally radicalize those from an already primitive and barbaric culture in the Middle East. There is plenty of proof of that most recently regarding the Manchester, England bombing. And investigative and spy bureaus have been motivating those hapless patsies within America to commit terrorist acts.

And these government bureaucrats are doing it all on purpose to “create new monsters to destroy,” to justify their government monopolies, their little fiefdoms and power trips, and especially their tax-funded paychecks, benefits and pensions. But after all these decades, they have become careless and so narcissistic in such an extreme that they are now really exposing themselves. That kind of pulling the curtain away is a breath of fresh air, isn’t it? In the end, the truth will set us free, I believe. (I hope.)

Washington bureaucrats and their enforcers are acting more and more treasonously and dangerously. So I find these recent headlines very disturbing:

Is Trump deliberately having ISIS relatives killed? (on Antiwar.com). If so, does this mean that in prosecuting other unjust laws and policies such as the drug war, will Trump have the family members of any suspects killed (as well as having suspects themselves killed, sans due process)?

The reason I’m asking can be understood by another headline: Leaked documents reveal counterterrorism tactics used at Standing Rock to defeat “pipeline insurgencies” (on the Intercept).

The feds, state and local police goons are militarizing local “law enforcement” like they are fixated in another one of their wars that the U.S. government started in the Middle East, apparently.

Besides the anti-immigration fascists and the dangerous leftist college campus purges, the “national security” apparatus has become treasonous as it has used its energies to foment terrorism against its own people. So it is time that more Americans consider a total decentralization, and it is time to stop supporting the ruling criminal racket in Washington. It is time to restore a society of peace and freedom, a society respectful of the individual’s self-ownership, private property and voluntary exchange.

The problem is that so many millions of people are indoctrinated in this nationalism thing that it might have to take an economic collapse to force them to finally let go of their dependence on and obedience to Washington. I wish there were some way to deprogram them.

Activist Post | Creative Commons 2017