[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10680-10681]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         CONSCRIPTION POLICIES

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 13, 2001

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend to my colleagues the 
attached article ``Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on 
Conscription'' by Michael Allen. This article was published in the 
Internet news magazine Laissez Faire Times. Mr. Allen forcefully makes 
the point that coercing all young men to register with the federal 
government so they may be conscripted into military service at the will 
of politicians is fundamentally inconsistent with the American 
philosophy of limited government and personal freedom. After all, the 
unstated premise of a draft is that individuals are owned by the state. 
Obviously this belief is more consistent with totalitarian systems, 
such as those found in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, or 
Castro's Cuba, than with a system based on the idea that all 
individuals have inalienable rights. No wonder prominent Americans from 
across the political spectrum such as Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, 
Gary Hart, and Jesse Ventura oppose the draft.
  Selective Service is not even a good way of providing an effective 
military fighting force. As Mr. Allen points out (paraphrasing former 
Senator Mark Hatfield), the needs of the modern military require career 
professionals with long-term commitments to the service, not short-term 
draftees eager to ``serve their time'' and return to civilian life. The 
military itself recognizes that Selective Service serves no useful 
military function. In 1993, the Department of Defense issued a report 
stating that registration could be stopped ``with no effect on military 
mobilization, no measurable effect on the time it would take to 
mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.'' Yet the 
American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million on a 
system ``with no measurable effect on military mobilization!''
  I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1597, which repeals the Selective 
Service Act, thus ending a system which violates the rights of millions 
of young Americans and wastes taxpayer dollars for no legitimate 
military reason. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Allen's article then 
cosponsor HR 1597 and join me in ending a system which is an affront to 
the principles of liberty our nation was founded upon.

         Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on Conscription

                         (By Michael R. Allen)

       In March of 1967, Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon) proposed 
     legislation that would abolish the practice of military 
     conscription, or the drafting of men who are between 18 and 
     35 years old. Despite its initial failure, it has been 
     reintroduced in nearly every Congress that has met since 
     then, and has been voted upon as an amendment at least once.
       This bill was an excellent proposal that should have never 
     been needed. The dovish Hatfield's arguments in promotion of 
     the bill constituted what is actually the conservative 
     position on the item. In its defense, Hatfield asserted that 
     we need career military men who can adapt to system changes 
     within the context of weaponry. Short-term draftees, 
     maintained Hatfield, would not be particularly adept at 
     utilizing modern technology. More recent efforts to overturn 
     the Selective Service Act have similarly stressed efficiency.
       This basic logic is the driving force behind the political 
     anti-draft movement. Others oppose the draft because it 
     represents another governmental intrusion into the lives of 
     America's young adults. Those lacking skill or ambition to 
     serve will be greatly humiliated once drafted, and those 
     without developed skill in search of an alternative career 
     will be denied an opportunity to choose that direction. The 
     draft also is a blatant attack on the Thirteenth Amendment, 
     which prohibits involuntary servitude. If the federal 
     government fought individual states over the legalization of 
     private-sector slavery, then should it not also be equally 
     compelled to decry public-sector servitude? Of course it 
     should, but an elastically interpreted ``living 
     Constitution'' makes all sorts of public schemes safe from 
     legal reproach.
       Recruiting students and vagrants is of no use to a 
     competitive military, since both groups are uninterested in 
     active duty. By contrast, a volunteer army--assuming the 
     country needs any army at all--will yield those with an 
     interest in serving their country and those who seek the 
     military as a place to get that necessary step up into a 
     better life. A primary partner to draft reform would be to 
     offer an alternative for those who request not to serve 
     militarily. Non-combatant positions, such as field doctors 
     and radio operators, might be made civilian positions. Then, 
     those who wish not to engage in battle will be able to serve 
     the nation for as long as they need.
       Additionally, the government can save some money, albeit 
     not much, by not having to buy uniforms for these civilians.
       Yet the most compelling reason for having volunteer 
     military forces is the right of a person to own his or her 
     body. The right to self-ownership must be supreme in a free 
     nation, since without it there is no justification for 
     government or laws at all. If one does not own his body, then 
     why should murder be a crime? Why should there be money for 
     the individual to spend? The self must own itself for there 
     to be any liberty. And clearly one does have self-ownership. 
     A man controls his own actions, and efforts to force him to 
     do what he desires not to do are nugatory. The best the State 
     can do is arrest him after he has disobeyed the law. It 
     cannot prevent a willful person from committing illegal acts. 
     The draft ignores the concept of self-ownership and proceeds 
     to diminish the available benefits of a free society for 
     young men.
       Issues of cost and unfairness can sway those not seeing a 
     moral reason to oppose conscription. The government spends a 
     lot of money that might be used in armory for war in order to 
     draft a number of men that would be similar to the number who 
     might otherwise volunteer. In this way, the draft is a 
     redundant method that consumes entirely too much money.
       It is unfair because those who do not get called remain 
     free while those called into duty must serve or face charges 
     that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. This 
     practice, while through chance, is unjust because it targets 
     those Americans with low draft numbers. Through the archaic, 
     unjust draft process America once more is embracing 
     authoritarianism. If the government chose, National Guard 
     forces could be utilized to alleviate the costs of draft, 
     recruitment, and salary. The savings could then be

[[Page 10681]]

     used to properly compensate a volunteer army, which would 
     attract more skillful persons if the pay scale were better.
       Draft proponents employ some arguments that would be 
     acceptable if they had purchased every male aged 18 to 35. 
     However, the United States of America has not bought--bought 
     off, tricked and fooled, yes--any of her citizens at this 
     time. Some of the stentorian arguments side-step the question 
     of rights and look at other issues, such as mobility, 
     emergency readiness, and social outcome.
       Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, a Democrat, said in a 
     1980 U.S. News and World Report article that ``Middle and 
     upper-class America are not sufficiently participating in the 
     defense of the country today except in the officer corp. 
     That's one of the tragedies of the volunteer force . . .''
       Nunn's provocative statement is not only designed to evoke 
     resentment towards the ``privileged'' upper classes, it is 
     also not sound from a practical point of view. Certainly, the 
     classes with a statistically higher amount of college 
     education should be involved in positions in which education 
     can be put to best use. It is apparent that the Nunn argument 
     involves some sort of ``duty'' the upper classes have to live 
     the life of the foot soldier, and amounts to no less than a 
     feeble attempt at egalitarian blurring of class distinction.
       Proponents of the draft continue to ignore their weakest 
     point: namely, that wars which had the support of the 
     American public would not require conscription but instead 
     would have a full supply of eager volunteers. People not only 
     own their own bodies, but a free society also grants people 
     final say over government policy. War is an area where the 
     voice of the people is very important, as their security is 
     at stake. And where else can the people exercise their voice 
     than in the decision on registering to serve? Denying this 
     decision is in effect creating a government that does not 
     respect the people's wishes, and instead dictates to them.


                               AmeriCorps

       There was an effort in June 1997 by President Clinton to 
     use the Selective Service System to recruit potential 
     volunteers in his AmeriCorps program. Such a move is a 
     twofold intrusion on civil liberties: it violates the right 
     of those who were forced to register for the draft to avoid 
     having their addresses and other private information released 
     to another agency; and, of course, it is costly to the 
     taxpayer to pay for a joint system that serves two 
     unconstitutional agencies. Ultimately, though, the 
     administration deferred its plans. This issue has not gone 
     away, as national service plans have considerable support 
     from those people who think that everyone has a duty to the 
     government.
       Free people can resist the draft easily. They need not 
     register at all, or they can flee the country when they are 
     called to serve. After all, they still own their bodies 
     regardless of what the law says. But the change of life 
     necessary to avoid the government allows the government some 
     control of ones life, even when one does not openly submit. 
     One does not need to recognize the right of the government to 
     conscript its citizens for any purpose in order to be 
     disrupted by the institution. If one pays income taxes and 
     expects to get that money back in the form of college aid, he 
     must register for Selective Service. If one wishes to collect 
     the money stolen through the payroll tax for so-called 
     ``Social Security,'' he must register. Most people are not 
     able to forgo paying taxes if they wish to work, so if they 
     hope to see their tax dollars again they must register for 
     the draft.
       As a young man of draft age, I could sleep easier if I knew 
     that my life would never have to be disrupted by a government 
     which has given itself the legal ground on which it may 
     attempt to violate my right to own myself. Even as I refuse 
     to recognize the government's powers, the Selective Service 
     System/AmeriCorps/Department of Education bloc does not care. 
     To them I am their property, regardless of my feelings. The 
     military and charity draft is indeed one of the most evil 
     institutions in the United States government.

     

                          ____________________