Day 131 - The End of My Military Enslavement

To confirm the absolutely arbitrary and tyrannical nature of my former involuntary servitude to the Navy, I was "discharged" this morning at 9:57 AM simply by signing a sheet of paper and having someone else sign it as well. Prior to these ink marks having been made on that paper, others would have deemed themselves justified in throwing me in a cage if I didn't work for them. However, with this magic document the individuals calling themselves the "Navy" suddenly lost the so-called "right" to completely control my productive capacity. The reality is that these people never had, nor could they ever have, the right to own me or anyone else.

The fact that I'm no longer threatened with imprisonment if I don't work for them does nothing to justify the previous 1,516 days during which that was an ever-present reality. The truth is that despite having only filed my written request to be classified as a conscientious objector 131 days ago, I could not have freely left any day prior to today.

While I'm thrilled that the injustice of my forced labor for the Navy has ended, this is not a victory of right over wrong, nor is it proof that, however slowly, "the system does work."

Before praising the Navy for having done the right thing, think of it this way: if a slave-owner suddenly decided to release one of his slaves would you speak well of him even if he never publicly admitted that he was horribly wrong for having enslaved someone in the first place? What if the slave owner did nothing to try and make restitution to the individual he had enslaved? Finally, and perhaps worst of all, would you have kind words for the "Master" if after releasing one slave he continued to threaten hundreds of thousands of other slaves if they quit working?

Sadly, this is not merely an analogy, but it is the reality of what has happened with myself and the Navy. In ending their threat of imprisonment today, those comprising the Navy have never admitted the immorality of having forced me to labor for them for the previous 1,516 days that I did. Additionally, they have not in any way sought to make restitution for this grave injustice. Finally, and one of the major reasons this blog will continue, they continue to threaten hundreds of thousands of other people with imprisonment should they leave their jobs without the "papers" I was given today.

Ultimately, war is immoral, and part of this immorality is the manner in which people are forced to risk their lives, limbs, and property to either fight in it or fund it. Were it not for the perceived legitimacy of military enslavement (generally read "enlistments"), the likelihood and destructive power of war would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated. Therefore, I will continue to apply my talent and effort toward promoting the truth of military slavery and the overall immorality of war. I do this not as a man embittered by his personal experience, but rather as an individual who is inspired by the possibility of creating a voluntary society.

123 Days Later . . . A Verbal Answer Is Given

This afternoon a man identifying himself as my "SEA" (Senior Enlisted Advisor) informed me that I will be discharged from the military within about one week. This individual was not forthcoming with details, but apparently on an as yet unknown day next week, I will no longer be subject to imprisonment should I stop working for the organization known as the United States Navy. I'm unsure what exactly will transpire during my remaining days of involuntary servitude, but I have been told that I will undergo a final physical examination in addition to being asked to sign a lot of paperwork.

For any military members reading this, I hope you're encouraged to file your own request to be discharged as a conscientious objector. The truth is that war is immoral, and it's abhorrent that you're threatened with imprisonment if you stop working in support of it on anything but the military's terms.

Again, here's a link to the organization that has been my biggest asset in seeking discharge:

Center on Conscience & War: http://centeronconscience.org/home.shtml

*They assist military members with many issues beyond conscientious objection, and their toll-free confidential phone number is 1-800-379-2679.

Days 113-119 - Adding Insult to Injury

This week I received my third letter from the "Under Secretary of Defense" via the United States Postal Service. At current postage rates that amounts to $1.32 that has been stolen from someone in taxes to have these letters sent to me. This dollar figure doesn't include the more significant costs that were extorted from other "taxpayers" in order to create the letter and enact the program the letter describes. Bear in mind, I have also received multiple emails regarding the same issue that is addressed in this correspondence.

The waste of resources involved in forwarding such junk-mail is not insignificant, but on a personal level, the real travesty is the slap in the face of what is being asked of me. The letter states:

Dear Petty Officer Lakemacher,

You have been selected to participate in the August 2009 Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members ... It will ask for your opinions on a variety of policies and programs that will improve the workplace and family life for all military members. While your participation is desired, it is entirely voluntary.

I urge you to share your perspective on these important issues. This is your chance to influence the formulation of military personnel policies. These surveys are Official Business and can be completed at your duty station, using government equipment ...

The rest of the legal size card stock page goes on to detail information about accessing the survey online as well as enclosing a perforated tear-out card "designed to fit in your wallet."

Apparently I've been wrong all along about those in the military not caring about me. The reality is that they care so much that despite my having written thousands of words condemning their actions and repeatedly asking to be released from their pool of forced labor, they are giving me the "chance to influence the formulation of military personnel policies."

Oh, but just when I thought they were interested in me as an individual, the truth comes back through the following statements that are found toward the end of the letters:

I assure you that your responses will be kept confidential. All data will be reported in the aggregate and no individual data will be reported.

Whew, for a second I thought I was dreaming and had escaped what I've come to know as the completely communized institution that is the United States Navy. However, just when I had my doubts, they added the reassurance that I had no need to worry about being recognized and respected as an individual because "all data will be reported in the aggregate."

Of course, any adept "Master" knows better than to actually seek individual feedback in a personal way. After all, to do that might end up enabling people to feel justified in some manner of dissent or discontent. No, no, these authoritarians are well-versed in collectivism, and instead provide a computerized form with ready-made options of whether one would rather be forced to do "X" or forced to do "Y".

It's really kind of like voting. If you can convince people that they're somehow making a difference, and thus are personally responsible for their own mistreatment, they call their slavery freedom and persecute their fellow slaves without the "Master" even having to raise the whip. Notice how just like voting, it was explicitly emphasized that my participation is "entirely voluntary." If it's so voluntary, how about I don't give you my feedback and you don't threaten me with force if I don't do what you say. This, of course, is never an option because again like voting, whether you participate or not, people with guns will tell you what to do and claim justification based on your having voted (or at least had the opportunity).

A final similarity is found in the aspects of anonymity and aggregation. Only an individual has volition, and therefore, only an individual can make a decision and enact it. In this way, voting is really no different than an anonymous public opinion survey in which the available choices have been limited to only those options pre-approved by the rulers. For instance, I can present my friends with the chance to anonymously vote over which of two movies to watch, but when they open their eyes it would be a complete misnomer to claim that they chose the film so they have nobody to blame but themselves if they don't like it.

Freedom has nothing to do with voting and opinion surveys, and it has everything to do with not having force initiated against you.

Days 99-105 - In the Absence of Government

I'm pleased to announce the first-ever "War Is Immoral Podcast." Before you continue reading, simply right-click the previous link and begin downloading the mp3. The show isn't yet available through the iTunes Store, so for the moment you'll have to download it directly and then add it to the mp3 player of your choice.

Episode 1 addresses the atrocity of keeping men in cages regardless of their captor's ability to prove their guilt or innocence (The Right to a Guilty Verdict). Additionally, the show exposes the precedent of unlimited executive power that was set by George W. Bush's disregard for both "Constitutional Law" and more importantly natural law (The Sinister Purpose Behind Bush Administration Lawlessness). The final segment is devoted to recognizing the efforts of a number of individuals trying to free themselves from the involuntary servitude that is generally known as "active duty military service" (Afghanistan War Resistor to "Put the War on Trial").

_______________________________

In last week's blog, I again put forward the idea that war is a function of the state, and therefore, if people are to ever stop waging wars, they must first stop enabling people to get away with initiating force under the guise of calling themselves government. As I stated last week:

Without the initiation of force, there can be no state, and without a state, all that will remain is a voluntary society.

As for what a voluntary society will look like, and how exactly it will function, no single person, or even group of people, has all the answers. However, this fact doesn't offer any justification for the evil that is government, nor does it serve as an excuse to claim that government (or war) is a "necessary evil." The reality is, that if anyone believed that she or he had a comprehensive plan for what each person should do in order to create a perfect society, this would only serve as an extremely strong utilitarian argument in favor of an absolute dictatorship.

In contrast, an advocate for anarchy, voluntaryism, agorism, market anarchism, or complete liberty, etc., believes that no individual or group would be either capable of or justified in organizing the nearly limitless interactions that comprise any society. Therefore, it is both moral and practical to refrain from initiating force against others.

The ends do not justify the means, so even if there is no all-encompassing plan that spells out exactly how each interaction in a free society will take place, it does not justify how people calling themselves government currently prohibit others from relating in this manner. If you still think that you are free to voluntarily interact with others because you live in the "land of the free," try to engage in trading $1,500 for a pound of cannabis, or, if you're not interested in such substances, try to give an individual a gift of more than $10,000 in one year without someone else saying that she or he has a rightful claim to part of that money (theft by the "IRS").

Looking at history, numerous "practical" arguments were made against the abolition of chattel slavery in America because it was said that nobody could explain exactly what would happen if tens of thousands of enslaved people were to suddenly become free. Likewise, it's argued today that if the millions of people who populate the geographic area known as America were to suddenly be freed from the tyranny of government, all manner of chaos would surely follow.

While there are myriad resources available about how a free society could flourish, the point is not to focus on whether or not we can properly predict the details of what will happen, but rather, just like the abolitionists of the 19th century, we must call for an end to the subjugation of ourselves and our fellow human beings, regardless of whether or not we have the perfect plan for what comes next.

_______________________________

Another avenue by which you can learn more about the illegitimacy of the state, as well as the values of a voluntary society, is to listen to the Complete Liberty Podcast: Episode 79. This week I again had the pleasure of co-hosting the show with Wes and Brett, and as always the episode is available for direct download by right-clicking here or for free at the iTunes Store.

Days 92-98 - A Website With a Purpose

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009, will be the 100th day since I requested discharge from the military as a conscientious objector. If the claim that America has an "all volunteer military" were true, surely it would not take in excess of 100 days for an individual with a spotless "service record" to be freely allowed to go about his way. To apply this principle in another context, it would require some serious obfuscation and mental evasion to claim that somebody serving soup at a homeless shelter was there as a volunteer, if that person had actually only volunteered once 4 years ago, and had since been threatened with prison if he stopped continuing to "volunteer."

If you regularly read my blog, the contradictory nature of such government slogans is hopefully easily recognizable by now. However, for the newcomers, or those who have only caught bits and pieces along the way, I intend for this post to be a summary of my overarching purpose in maintaining the website WarIsImmoral.com

This site exists to promote the truth that war is always immoral because it inherently involves the initiation of the use of force. For this reason, virtuous people are naturally repulsed by war and compelled to end it. In advocating for peace, it's therefore necessary to address the institutions and ideas that perpetuate war. WarIsImmoral.com differentiates itself from most of the anti-war movement by identifying and condemning the following root causes of war:

Military "contracts": If individuals were free to leave "Active Duty" at will, the military would surely be rendered impotent. This is because a vast number of people would value staying alive, or the prospect of again being a "civilian," far more than the pittance paycheck that they currently receive from following the orders of their "superiors." Regardless, it's impossible to claim that someone is acting by choice, if failure to act will result in incarceration.

Taxation: The military is funded in the exact same manner by which it ensures a ready supply of labor, by force. Just as there would be a conspicuous absence of personnel if they were given the opportunity to leave, there would undoubtedly be an even greater void of funding if people chose for themselves how much they would pay in taxes. Ask yourself, how many thousands of dollars would you voluntarily send to the "Department of Defense"? In your consideration, please remember that you will have no assurance that millions of other strangers will even give anything. Simply put, while "military contracts" are a justification for slavery, taxation is merely a fancy word used to try to legitimize theft.

The State: The above two practices, as well as war itself, would not be possible were it not generally considered acceptable for people calling themselves government to commit the very actions which, in any other context, are almost unanimously condemned as wrong. As many people have aptly identified, government is essentially legitimized force. Therefore, if war is immoral due to its initiation of force, government must also be equally unjustified. The progression of this reasoning, from denouncing war to decrying government, loosely follows what has been my own journey to consistently apply the moral absolute that it's wrong to initiate force.

Unlike the immorality of government, people seem to find it much easier to overcome the massive propaganda scheme that is in place to convince them that war can be justified. This is likely due to the difficulty involved in obscuring the obvious and intentional destruction of life and property that is the hallmark of war. By emphasizing the initiation of force as the explanation for the immorality of war, I hope to encourage people to consistently apply this axiom to every aspect of their life.

One can never control the actions of another person, and therefore, as long as people are autonomous there will always exist the possibility of rights violations. However, by ridding society of its greatest criminals, that is government, there can be vast improvement. As Murray Rothbard said,

"no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state's unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind." (Society Without a State)

Without the initiation of force, there can be no state, and without a state, all that will remain is a voluntary society. This doesn't mean that certain individuals, or even groups of individuals, won't try to hit people and take their stuff, but what it does mean, is that such persons will be denounced as violent thieves instead of praised as "service providers."

_______________________________

If you've been following along, or if you're perhaps interested to tune out the radio and listen to something new, I co-hosted another episode of the "Complete Liberty Podcast." Episode 78 focuses on supernatural contradictions, free will, behaviorism, determinism, and compatibilism.

As always the show is available for free download from the iTunes Store, or by right-clicking here and selecting "Save As" or "Download Linked File" (Safari).

Days 71-76 - A Misunderstanding of Contract

In addition to this week's blog, I also wish to call your attention to my first foray into podcasting. Wes Bertrand, (author, psychologist, and podcast host) had me join him as a co-host on Episode 75 of the Complete Liberty Podcast. Wes describes the episode as discussing the evils of militaries, the psychology of identity, selfless statism, and recognizing truth.

You can download the show for free by clicking the following link to the iTunes Store

or

You can listen online by clicking here, or right-clicking to save the file to your computer.

_______________________________

I appreciate the time and effort that Jay Jones put into his critique of my last post “What’s In a Contract.” His response is found uninterrupted in the comments section of last week’s blog. I believe his criticism is largely in response to a combination of misunderstanding what I meant and misapplying the principles advocated by Murray Rothbard. For easy differentiation, Jay's writing will be in red throughout this post.

Although this may not seem to directly address the issue of the immorality of war, I believe it’s both related and relevant. I honestly think that the American military would be rendered impotent were it not for the forced labor of military personnel. Working at the Navy’s only boot camp, I regularly interact with individuals who wish to leave the military after experiencing it firsthand, but instead they are forced to continue to “train” against their will. Only days and weeks after joining the Navy, if given the opportunity, a significant percentage of those who signed “contracts” would undoubtedly leave after discovering the true nature of military “service.”

Considering that the vast majority of military personnel claim that they were lied to by their Recruiters, it would only make sense that after discovering these lies, they would not continue to work under the false pretenses under which those very “contracts” were signed. It’s only after weeks of indoctrination and de-individuation that such persons willingly continue to work or even reenlist.

This is why spreading the truth that the organization known as the Department of Defense uses slavery to carry out its wars is crucial to ending both war and involuntary servitude.

First, to rebut the claim that one cannot “transfer one’s self-ownership”. That begs the simple question: “Why can’t I?” The analogy of someone else animating your body is a false choice.

The empirical fact that someone else cannot animate your body is not a false choice but incontrovertible evidence that one cannot transfer her or his self-ownership. An individual may choose to direct her behavior to fulfill the wishes or desires of someone else, but she is no less in control of her body and mind and, therefore, no less a self-owner because she does this. The reality is that no matter how many contracts you sign or oaths you swear, you cannot have any less ownership in yourself (i.e. control over your mind and body).

Entering into a contract, in any degree, doesn’t imply the loss of all bodily or cognitive function.

I fully agree, and this only serves to further answer the first question of why you can’t transfer your self-ownership.

But to assert that one person, for whatever reason would not be able to choose to limit their choice, freedom or any number of things that binding oneself to a contract inherently implies is a horribly misguided sentiment. If the price was right, who is to say that I should not enter into a bond that said I must not speak about one specific thing for a given time? I think that Dan would assert that this would be separation “from your right to internally control your body”. But why couldn’t I limit myself, for awhile, if I were to choose? To assert that I couldn’t would infringe on my personal liberty and invalidate most, if not all, contracts. .

I did not, nor do I, assert that a person should be prohibited from being able to “choose to limit their choice, freedom” etc. so long as these limitations are self-imposed and self-enforced. I believe it would be absolutely wrong to try and force you to speak about something if you decided to refrain from speaking about “one specific thing for a given time.” However, it would be equally wrong to try and force you to stop saying something no matter what you may have signed or to whom you may have promised that you wouldn’t do so.

As an individual Jay has the right to say, or not say, anything on his own property because exercising this ability does not constitute the initiation of force against anyone else. However, if Jay were to sign a piece of paper promising that he wouldn’t make certain statements for a given period of time, such a document should not be viewed as an enforceable contract. I’m not advocating that Jay should be prevented from signing such a piece of paper but rather that he could not justly be penalized for failing to fulfill his promise.

The reason the hypothetical “no speech contract” cannot be justly enforced is because it involves no transfer of property and, therefore, no implicit theft if not fulfilled. Jay is incapable of transferring his right to speak because it is an inherent part of his self-ownership. Even if he signs a “contract” swearing that he will not speak about something, there is no transfer of this aspect of his self-ownership to the “receiving party.” Ultimately, Jay’s ability to speak whatever he wishes is an unalienable right.

If the “receiving party” in Jay’s contract transfers property ($1) to him in exchange for his promised future action (silence), then such property can be rightly understood to have been transferred conditionally and not absolutely. Should Jay fail to make good on his word, it would be implicit theft for him to keep the $1. What would be wrong, would be for the “receiving party” to duct tape Jay’s mouth shut or to confine him to a cage because he started talking. It is obvious then that if there were no transfer of property to Jay it would also be wrong for him to be forced to maintain his silence.

To directly answer Jay’s question of why he couldn’t limit himself from speaking for a while if he so chose, I would say that he is certainly welcome to do so, and I never implied otherwise. My assertion is that it would be wrong for someone to initiate the use of force against him for failing to live up to his promise.

However, the hallmark of true libertarianism is the mixture of eisegetic views of fanciful writings, the inability to look two steps ahead as well as a widespread failure to apply theories to the real world. “True Libertarianism” works in a world where true libertarians are gods. Dan’s excerpt of Rothbard’s work falls in line with my assertion. He overlooks (because it doesn’t fit with his world view, I suspect) the actual cost of a contract. Rothbard may have had an ethical book published. I doubt he did well in econ though.

That Jay expressed his doubt that Rothbard “did well in econ,” is an unfortunate example of shoving one’s foot deep into one’s mouth. Until his death in 1995, Murray Rothbard was in fact the preeminent economist of the Austrian School. He held a doctorate in the Philosophy of Economics from Columbia and was a distinguished professor at the University of Nevada. In addition to publishing numerous books on economics, he helped found the world center for Austrian Economics (Ludwig Von Mises Institute) as well as the scholarly journal “Review of Austrian Economics.” (Wikipedia: Murray Rothbard)

As for Jay’s claims of failing to apply ideas to the real world, I find this to be in direct contradiction to my condemnation and call for change to the very real world situation in which I’m forced to labor on behalf of others because of a past promise.

Simply put, contracts have both a cost and a price. What Rothbard and Dan both look at is the price. However, the cost may be far more. While an entity may offer pay for a given period in exchange for any number of things (work, silence, sex, whatever) they make the assumption that whatever problem they were trying to fix, or gap they were trying to fill, will be taken care of for that set amount of time. Thus, they can shift resources elsewhere.

The flaw in the thinking here seems to be in the idea that “If I am basically being paid as I go, me breaking the contract is ok. No harm, no foul.” That’s simply not the case. Reneging on a contract causes a shift in resources, time and personnel that the contract was designed to avoid for a set amount of time. This is the de facto theft that Rothbard cannot see. If not for future assurances, why make contracts at all? Thus, if Dan were to break his contract, it would be implicit theft.

Again, Jay fails to address the exchange of property that is essential to any justifiably enforceable contract. The fact that the expectations of people in the military would go unmet if I were to fail to fulfill my promise of labor cannot in any way be seen as my possessing any property that justly belongs to people in the military. Even though I signed such a promise in writing, it does not change the lack of property involved.

Jay is correct that the military might experience losses as a result of having decided to “shift resources elsewhere.” However, any such losses are always a risk when making predictions about human behavior, and they would not equate to theft on my part. If you doubt this, tell me what property belonging to the military I would possess if I were to stop working for them.

The analogy of the baseball player vs. the military is another false choice. I have known Dan for as long as I can remember. I know him to be an intelligent person. I cannot accept the argument that he didn’t know what he was getting into. To do so would imply wholesale ignorance on his part. The same goes for the baseball star. He knows the consequences of his actions when he signs on the dotted line. Dan did as well (as have I 3 times). Consequences are inherently a part of a contract and they vary. Given one’s place in history, indentured servitude could be an excellent option. But the argument of whether the cost was paid up front or in installments is paper thin. If Dan were to have received a bonus, would his arguments really be framed differently? I think not.

Jay does not explain what he means by saying that the analogy of the baseball player and the military is a false choice, so I cannot address this claim.

I’m glad that Jay doesn’t accept the argument that I didn’t know what I was getting into by signing a piece of paper promising to work for the military. I’m the only person who can truly answer as to whether or not I understood, and yet I would not accept this argument either. The fact that I did understand what I was doing when I signed those papers is never something that I have contested, and therefore, I’m unsure why Jay highlighted this truth.

If Jay was pointing this out for the purpose of arguing that a consequence is justified so long as someone understands beforehand what the consequence will be, then I vehemently disagree. I knew when I signed those papers that if I failed to fulfill my promise others would claim justification for imprisoning me. At the time, I agreed with this, but that neither made it right at the time, nor does it justify the threat of such action now that I properly understand it as enslavement.

My overall argument that I am currently enslaved would not be framed differently had I received a bonus tied to a set number of years of work. However, such a bonus would equate to the transfer of property, and therefore, as with Jay and his $1 received in exchange for silence, I would rightly transfer back any property I had conditionally received.

Although these clarifications are important to a proper understanding of what rightly constitutes a contract, it is irrelevant to my current circumstances. Unfortunately, those people identified as the military believe that I can rightfully be forced to fulfill my promise despite the fact that there would not be any implicit theft of property on my part if I were allowed to quit.

Dan’s lack of concern about his future employment adds nothing to this debate; it only shows that others may, whether they agree or disagree with him, find him hirable. The same goes for the persistence of taxes or the military. It has nothing to do with the debate (although everything to do with the failure to apply theory to the world and looking past step two). Neither does using the rape example. That analogy simply preys on our culture’s view on prostitution and other mores. If in another time or place; people wouldn’t look so harshly on said example.

My addressing my future employment was not for the purpose of debate, but seeing as this is my blog, I added it because some readers inquired about my perspective on this issue, and I figured that others who know me would be interested as well. I remain unclear on what is meant by “looking past step two,” and I can only postulate that it is somehow an argument that the ends can justify the means. As for the rape example, it remains pertinent, regardless of the prevailing cultural views on sex because it addresses the central question of our debate: whether or not it’s right to force someone to keep a promise.

In conclusion, who is to say what I can or cannot chose to do or give up? This is the nature of contractual law. Both parties giving up something of value for something they happen to find more valuable. The clauses or timeframe of said contract have no bearing in this debate. Simply that, at the time of signing, both parties accepted the terms. For good or for bad Dan, I and most of you have done the same at some time. The fact that we gave up something whether it be money, goods, time or a combination means little. And to renege is theft on some level. However, the greatest litmus test is to turn the contract around and play devil’s advocate. And here is where Dan’s argument meets its greatest failure: One party is always cheated when the other doesn’t come through.

Jay’s conclusion makes clear that he does not recognize the transfer of property as the key to understanding just contract. Without a transfer of property, as in the case of a promise, reneging cannot be theft because theft requires the possession of someone else’s just property. In cases where property has been conditionally transferred dependent on the fulfillment of some action, the property should be returned if the contract is not fulfilled. However, in no case, is force ever justified to make someone keep a promise. Nevertheless, this is the standard operating procedure for those comprising the “Department of Defense.”

Ultimately, Jay is correct in implying that, apart from initiating the use of force, nobody should be able to justifiably say what a person “can or cannot chose to do or give up.” If this is his belief, I wonder why he does not see the contradiction in then arguing that I should be forced to continue to labor for someone else? Is slavery not one of the worst examples of forcing someone else’s action?

Days 67-70 - What's In a Contract?

The most common reason given to invalidate my claim that I am currently a slave seems to be the fact that I do not deny having once signed a piece of paper that said I agreed to work for the "Navy" for 8 years (5 years "active," 3 "inactive"). If you were unaware, I publicly decried this tyranny in Days 60-64, which was a blog that included my rebuttal to the "Investigating Officer," a paper copy of which is also currently circulating among those who identify themselves as my "Chain of Command."

To argue that the manner in which I'm presently forced to labor under the threat of imprisonment is not slavery simply because I once signed a sheet of paper is to pretend that it is possible to transfer one's self-ownership (or at least, to rent it). It is an easily observable fact that, while alive, you cannot allow anyone else to animate your body and use it in place of you. Simply put, self-ownership is an absolutely inalienable right; you cannot be separated from your right to internally control your own body. Even in slavery then, a person cannot rightly be said to be the property of someone else, but only a forced laborer on that individual's behalf.

The question then becomes, can a person ever consent to being forced to labor? This is, of course, inherently contradictory because force is an action initiated against someone in the absence of consent. For example, a woman cannot consent to be raped, for then it would not be rape, but consensual sex. With this truth in mind, who would argue that if a woman were to sign a contract saying she would have sex with a man whenever he wanted for the next five years, that man would then be justified in having sex with her even after the woman began to protest and say that she no longer wanted to have sex with him? Who would defend the man saying, "Well, she voluntarily signed a contract. Therefore, it's consensual sex, and she has no grounds for complaint. After all, nobody forced her to sign the contract."

Hopefully nobody would make this argument, and yet this same logic has repeatedly been the rationale given to me for why it is right that I be forced to continue working for the organization known as the "United States Navy." What is different? For both the hypothetical woman and myself, we signed pieces of paper agreeing to engage in certain behavior at a future point in time. At a later point, we both no longer desire to perform the previously agreed to behavior. If the previous logic would not be applied to a woman who promised she would engage in sex, why then is the argument applied to me? How is it right for others to force me to act against my will? The principles involved are the same; the only difference is the promised action.

Additionally, I suspect that not only would the hypothetical man be generally condemned for forcing the woman to fulfill her "contract," but the very piece of paper that the woman signed would be considered invalid and barbaric, certainly not a binding contract. Why then are "enlistment contracts" considered to be anything different? They are surely nothing more than promises of future action, just as the hypothetical woman's contract was such a promise.

Whether or not such "contracts" involve the transfer of benefits to the individual making the promise of future labor is irrelevant. Ultimately, the reason such "contracts" are not valid is that no person can alienate her or his right of self-ownership in the present, let alone can they rightly contract to do so in the future.

I don't mean to imply that there are no such things as promises. I do mean to emphasize that it is most definitely wrong to initiate the use of force against people simply for breaking a promise. With these clarifications in mind, the natural question arises as to how one differentiates between a contract and a promise. The answer is based on whether or not there was an exchange of property.

A promise is a statement of intended future action; a contract involves a real-time exchange of property. In his book, Ethics of Liberty (available free online), Murray Rothbard makes the following critical specifications regarding the nature of contracts:

“Unfortunately, many libertarians devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society. Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party. In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts.” (page 131)

From this, I believe that if I were to break my "contract" with the Navy (something I don’t intend to do), it would not result in the implicit theft of any property. The Navy has not given me bonuses, advanced pay, or any fringe benefits such as a car, or a vacation home in the Hamptons, which could rightly be considered property and understood to be in exchange for my agreed upon future labor.

Each month that I work, more money that was stolen from other people is deposited into my bank account. Make no mistake, this is not a voluntary exchange (either between myself or the people from whom the money is expropriated), but it does occur in the present. Hypothetically, if I were to fail in fulfilling my contract by no longer laboring or reporting for duty, there would not only be a lack of moral or ethical grounds for imprisonment, but there would also be no legitimate reason to attempt to extract any type of repayment for my failure.

As to the pragmatic question of how the "military" could continue to operate without enslaving people to it, that's easy: it couldn't, and so it would cease to exist. Thus would end yet another form of slavery, and liberty-loving people everywhere would undoubtedly cry, "Good riddance!" No other employer forces people to continue to work for them under the threat of imprisonment. In these other industries that don't force people to labor, one’s reputation becomes immensely more important. Going back to an analogy I've used in other blogs, if I were a baseball player who failed to live up to his contract, I would legitimately have to return any property that had already been transferred to me in exchange for my promised future labor. Worse, I would face the extremely forbidding prospect of trying to convince another ball team to extend me an offer that I really would keep this time.

As for my own future employment, I have little concern that I will fail to find work because of a tarnished reputation. Going forward, I'm confident that there are myriad individuals who will gladly exchange their property for my labor. These are the type of persons who are of such character that they acknowledge that it is definitely better not to persevere in wrongdoing, merely for the sake of keeping one’s word.

In conclusion, I did sign a piece of paper promising to work for those calling themselves the "Navy." But which is immoral: that I no longer want to live up to my word in this regard, or that those same people are threatening me with incarceration if I don't continue laboring for them?

*My role in the process of seeking discharge as a conscientious objector ended when I filed my rebuttal last week. From this point forward, I'm simply waiting for a decision as to whether or not my "request" will be granted. Given this new set of circumstances, I expect that there will be few, if any, progress reports to give until a decision is made.

In the meantime, I intend to cut back to posting only on a weekly basis. Hopefully, this reduction in quantity will result in higher quality content that more effectively dispels the deadly memes that justify war. Of course, if an urgent issue develops, I won't hesitate to keep you apprised via a midweek blog.

Thanks for reading, and please, keep questioning.

Daniel

Days 65 & 66 - Words & Flags

Much like the comments section of my last blog, My Rebuttal to the report of the "Investigating Officer" has been met with silence. After having read what I submitted, one of the doctor's with whom I work did the easily recognized gesture for "over their heads" as explanation for why there was no reaction from the powers that be.

Unfortunately, I think the idea that forced labor = slavery is not a concept that pushes the limits of anyone's mental faculties, and thus ignorance is not a valid excuse. Instead, I believe the problem is one of conscience. If those who demand my labor under the threat of imprisonment were to objectively evaluate their actions in light of this simple truth, the result would be such an extreme level of cognitive dissonance that a change in behavior would be unavoidable.

As Stefan Molyneux has pointed out, once a behavior is recognized as evil, it ceases to continue. Evil can only flourish when that which is evil is presented as that which is good. And what facilitates the illusion that juxtaposes evil and good? Language.

Think of the worst atrocities that you can recall from human history or your own personal life? How did those who perpetrated such deeds describe their actions? Did those who called themselves the American government advocate an unparalleled slaughter of the brown-skinned indigenous peoples who lived on the land they wanted? Of course not. Instead they spoke of "Manifest Destiny." Sounds glorious, right? Well, apparently it was an effective enough illusion that the murder of millions of people was passed off as the righteous enactment of a loving God's will.

Sadly, the mass extermination that took place within "America's" borders gets quickly glossed over in favor of horrors for which people who flew a different flag can be blamed. Most frequently the Nazis. If you've always thought the Nazi Holocaust was worse than anything "America" has done, think again, or redefine worse so as not to include the possibility of multiple times more people dead.

Independent research has shown death totals between "10 million and 114 million indians (sic) as a direct result of US actions. Please note that Nazi Holocaust estimates are between 6 and 11 million; thereby making the Nazi Holocaust the 2nd largest mass murder of a class of people in history." Neither Hitler's minions, nor those who committed genocide under the banner of the American Flag, were able to do so while plainly stating their actions. One group had advocated a "Final Solution," and another carried out their "manifest destiny," both sound like something any good person would want, and yet both resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

The atrocities carried out under the banner of the swastika have likely forever designated that emblem as a symbol of the worst evil. Honestly, I've never encountered a person that said, "Yes, the Holocaust was horrible, but look at all the good things the Nazis did. The roads were improved, the garbage was taken away, and for a while, national defense was at an all-time high."

In contrast, only a few days ago, I encountered hundreds of individuals who were waving the banner under which a different genocide was committed. With a few of these people, I did engage in conversation, and yet they maintained that whatever travesties were committed by those who used the "stars and stripes" as their symbol, they were "proud to be an American."

Are you?

Days 60-64 - My Rebuttal

The following is my rebuttal to the report of the "Investigating Officer." Thus ends any part that I will have in my request to be discharged from the Navy as a conscientious objector.

To Whoever Decides If I Will Be Discharged:

I agree with the recommendation of the “Investigating Officer” that I am a conscientious objector to war and should be discharged. My rebuttal, therefore, is to the legitimacy of the reasoning by which you justify forcing me to labor on your behalf.

I will no longer pretend that I am a member of an “all volunteer” military force. In the previous phrase, the word “volunteer” is used in the present tense; however, I no longer voluntarily work for you, nor do thousands of others whom you call Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines. We follow orders because we ultimately know that if we do not, we will be imprisoned. This is servitude, not volunteerism.

Undoubtedly, like me, all these persons did at one time voluntarily sign a piece of paper promising to work for what is known as the “Department of Defense,” but natural law and logic reveal that a contract of enslavement is a contradiction. A slave is a person who submits to the edicts and threats of another, not a person who freely chooses. We volunteered (past tense), and this fact does nothing to address whether or not our continued labors are voluntary. As for me, I am telling you unequivocally that although I continue to work for you, this is under duress; rather than being voluntary, my work is done to avoid the further restriction of my liberty that would come from imprisonment.

If you consider yourself justified in exercising authority over me, then you inherently deny my self-ownership. Such a blatant usurpation of individual autonomy continues largely unrecognized because of widespread conformity and propaganda that employs false notions of freedom. The result is that people regularly favor the illusion of liberty over the recognition that they are obeying others’ commands to avoid being thrown in cages, or worse.

Who, except those calling themselves “the military,” imprisons people for quitting their jobs? Had I signed a piece of paper promising to play baseball for the Chicago Cubs for five years, I would not go to jail if I quit after three years (although I would likely forfeit the outstanding monetary benefits promised upon fulfillment of the contract). However, you act as if there would somehow be justification for imprisoning me simply because you wear a different uniform than a baseball jersey.

Despite the fact that I only work for you under the threat of imprisonment, I am not without volition. I have therefore chosen to jump through the bureaucratic hoops that you have established by filing this request. However, I do not want this fact to be misinterpreted as my condoning the legitimacy of this process. Slavery has been, and continues to be, an atrocity perpetuated by those who call themselves “the government of the United States of America.” I hope that this will one day change, and I’m working toward that end.

In the meantime, I do not expect that you will allow me to freely leave merely because I have exposed the truth of my involuntary servitude. Deep down, you already know this truth all too well. Most simply, a slave is someone who is forced to labor, incurring harmful consequences for attempting to sever the corrupt relationship with the master. Whether or not you choose to classify me as a conscientious objector, the truth of my slavery (and yours) is plainly evident to people who yearn to be free to make their own choices. Every day that I continue to work for you not by choice but because of your threat of imprisonment, you only add further evidence to the truth that I am indisputably a slave.

(signed)

Daniel J. Lakemacher

Day 32 - Consent, what consent?

One of my very best friends, Noah Marsh, provided the following comment to my post "The Nature of Government." I very much disagree with what Noah asserts, and after his remarks, I have included my response. I hope this exchange prompts you to try and answer for yourself if there is any morally legitimate basis for one individual or group to impose their will by force on another individual or group.

Without further adieu, Mr. Noah Marsh:

_________________________________________________

While I found the entire post thought provoking I will raise one point particularly to the fore:

In paragraph 24 (the final one before the Addendum)you say, "The sad reality is that nobody alive in 'America' today has been presented the option to consent to be governed by those who currently do so anyway."

I disagree.

Every free person alive in "America" today is presented with the option to consent to be governed by those who do so anyway. There are two ways in which you actively provide consent to the government of America to govern you.

First, any person freely living in America chooses to be a denizen and a citizen of America. The free person living in America can choose to go to another country to live or to claim citizenship if he or she chooses. I know that this is not always possible due to political relationships between countries, visa regulations, etc. but I believe many people effectively excercised this "natural right" (?) in protest to the draft during the Vietnam War when they fled to Canada. By remaining in America and retaining your citizenship you consent to be governed according to their laws.

Second, a person living in obedience to the laws of the government acknowledges and provides consent for those laws to govern that person. Accepting and abiding by the laws acknowledges the authority of those laws and consists of consent. During the civil rights movement one of the great catalysts for change in the laws was the peoples' refusal to abide by those laws which they did not consent to govern them. To continue living according to the objectionable law is to continue consenting to its legitimacy.

Everyday, every person who freely lives in America and follows the laws provides his or her consent to be governed by the American government. For those who wish to revoke their consent for a certain law(s), any continuing abiding by that (those) law(s) consists of their active and conscious consent.

_________________________________________________

I don’t believe that Noah provides evidence to validate either of his stated reasons that “every free person” (?) in America “is presented with the option to consent to be governed.”

First, Noah contradicts his own claim that any “free person living in America can choose to go to another country,” when his next sentence says, “I know that this is not always possible due to political relationships between countries, visa regulation, etc.” If it’s “not always possible” because of governmental interference, then people cannot, by his own admission, “choose to go to another country.” This alone invalidates his first argument, but the example he gives is still worth analyzing for another reason.

Noah cites the successful flight of persons to Canada who otherwise would have been enslaved to the American military, as an example of how people are free to leave the self-claimed jurisdiction of those who call themselves the United States government. Highlighting the fact that many persons did succeed in leaving during that time does nothing to address what happened to the tens of thousands of those that did not leave.

Additionally, Noah didn’t comment about the unjust threat of either imprisonment or forced labor that was the reason why these people fled. For one individual or group to tell another individual or group that the first must fight in a war or be imprisoned, doesn’t equate to giving them a choice. The latter is an example of coercion, not freedom.

Secondly, Noah said in regard to government that, “Accepting and abiding by the laws acknowledges the authority of those laws and consists of consent.” To accept a law is entirely different from abiding by it. A quick click of the mouse reveals the Microsoft Word synonyms for the word “accept” as: “believe, agree to, acknowledge, allow,” and most importantly the word “consent” is given as a synonym for accept. With this understanding of terms, I could not rightly disagree with Noah that yes, if someone does accept and abide by certain laws, she or he does obviously acknowledge the authority of those laws and that would consist of consent.

However, I believe that there is a vast difference between abiding by a law and consenting, accepting, or acknowledging the authority of that law. I would be extremely surprised to find anyone outside the KKK who asserted that the millions of darker-skinned persons that were deemed slaves by the laws of the United States, accepted, consented, and acknowledged the authority of these laws, even though they may have “abided” by those same laws in order to avoid even worse mistreatment. To again apply the draft-dodgers example, were those slaves that didn't run away free to leave the country as evidenced by the ability of other slaves to have successfully escaped? Also, did the these peoples obedience to the laws enslaving them equate to their consent to be enslaved?

The reality is that I “abide” by the unjust laws of those who call themselves government, despite my lack of consent, acceptance, or acknowledgment of their authority, because I wish to avoid the worse injustices that would undoubtedly be perpetrated against me if I did not.

If you think that I’m merely playing a game of semantics to generate a non-existent difference, ask yourself if you can honestly say that you’ve never “abided” by a law to which you didn’t agree. Applying this same rationale to the broader issue of the overall “consent of the governed,” is to recognize that people may follow the laws of those who would do them harm if they didn’t. However, such prudential action shouldn’t be misconstrued as consent.

I’ll conclude with what Noah wisely recognized in a previous comment as the imperfect, but useful, tool of an analogy. Imagine that a person with a gun approaches you and demands 50% of whatever money you have or you will be imprisoned. At this point, is it fair to say that you have the choice between paying the money and going to prison? Is it relevant to say that you are “free” to try and run away, and therefore, by not fleeing, you consent to whatever consequences come next? In both cases I answer with a resounding "No!"

The same resounding “No!” is applicable in real-life situations involving those individuals who call themselves government. Noah, you and I were born within the confines of what is commonly called the United States; we didn't choose to be alive within this specific geographic area, nor did we choose or consent to have others classify us as citizens. Both happened as an immediate result of our being born.

During high school when we each first got jobs, certain groups of people began taking a percentage of our income away from us. I believe you agree that the ends do not justify the means, thus making it irrelevant why this was done. What is crucial is that which was rightfully ours was taken from us. At this point, the key difference between us and the hypothetical person being mugged was that we had already had our property (income) extorted, and therefore, unlike the hypothetical person, we didn’t have the opportunity to flee prior to becoming a victim of theft.

The fact that, to my knowledge we both continue to pay income taxes, and neither of us has fled the country, does not signify that we have implicitly or explicitly consented to “be governed.” I believe that this point is incontestable, in that even if you have somehow offered your consent, I know that I have not.

Day 30 - The Nature of Government

As I had hoped, my reference to Roger Young’s article “The Blinding Fog of War” did elicit reader feedback. However, I’m now convinced that before I can address the platitude that “you only get to say what you do because someone else served and died so you could,” I must first establish precisely what I believe the nature of government to be.

Below I have quoted an email I received in response to Mr. Young’s article. It was this excerpt that specifically sparked the reply that follows it. My hope is that by presenting this in the same conversational format in which it was originally written, it will be more enjoyable and easy to read. At the same time I aim to provide a clear and thorough overview of what I understand to be the nature of government.

"First, I take issue with the label of "subject". I am not a voiceless, powerless serf but an armed (well, not yet, but soon) citizen who, with his fellow citizens, chooses people to represent him in government."

I definitely resonate with your sentiment, but I also believe that this is the exact idea that those in government wish to perpetuate. However, despite having felt a similar and wholehearted zeal for this perspective in times past, I now believe that these are not the true dynamics of the situation. I’m glad that you take issue with the label of “subject,” but I think your focus on the word distracts you from realizing that you’re being treated as a subject, even if you’re more often described as a citizen.

First you address the fact (or soon to be fact) that you are armed. I believe that this is (or will be) absolutely true, albeit practically irrelevant. Although I believe that the framers of the Constitution made an obvious and honest attempt to check the power of government via the 2nd Amendment, it little matters for multiple reasons. I imagine that you will agree that what is said in the Constitution does not now, and has not historically, restricted the actions of those called government. I believe that the possible examples of this are so numerous that even entire organizations of liberty-minded individuals such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation are unable to fully exhaust the list of abuses.

Of more practical importance is the reality that even if you’re armed with a handgun, shotgun, or at best a semi-automatic rifle, your ability to either defend yourself or forcefully attempt to stop those in government from doing what they choose is effectively non-existent in comparison with the physical force that government is viewed as being able to legitimately level against you. Again, examples abound of how even the collective physical force exercised by modern day militias or even other state militaries are inconsequential compared with the deadly weaponry utilized by those who are collectively known as the government of the United States.

What consequence does your ownership of a firearm have on the dealings of the State? The State commands millions of individuals who daily walk around with such weapons at their waist. If anything, your having a gun poses a greater risk to your safety than if you didn’t. This is because those in power would find it easier to justify your death if you ever choose to use your gun in defense of your freedoms, as compared to the slightly more complicated task that would be involved in legitimizing your death if you were unarmed. If you think I’m exaggerating, tell me what you honestly think would happen if you didn’t pay your federal income tax, and then attempted to use your firearm to defend your freedom when men with guns came to try and physically apprehend you, as they eventually and undoubtedly would.

Ironically, while I’m here highlighting the absolute power of life and death over the entire world that is at the immediate disposal of those who are the American government (i.e. nuclear weapons), I actually think that their most effective means of subjecting the populace is the perception of legitimacy that you so candidly exemplified in your opening statement.

Now we get into the true nature of our subjugation to those who label themselves as government. This relationship, if that is even an appropriate use of the word, can best be characterized as that of master and slave. While this choice of words may strike you as extremely inflammatory I ask that you stick with me because I have a very logical and rational explanation for this assertion.

Before I say more, I wish to make absolutely clear that I’m neither implying nor stating that those people who currently live within the purported jurisdiction of the United States are more or less restricted in exercising their natural (or as you see them, God-given) rights. However, having fewer restrictions on one’s freedom than are imposed on others doesn’t mean that there is no cause for objection to the injustices of one’s own reality.

Simply put, the master-slave relationship, despite always being unjust, is not uniform in the degree of its abuses. This can easily be seen from America’s own brief history. Some masters, arguably a few of the “Founding Fathers,” are remembered as comparatively benign in exercising their claims to legitimately own other human beings, whereas the torturous artifacts that remain from other slaveholders speak to an entirely different level of inhumanity. That there are drastically different extents to which one can act immorally doesn’t make the less immoral act justified.

Returning to the present, I assert that you and I are both mere slaves to those who call themselves government. Even in this situation, the yoke is not equal, as I am less free to act without having my natural (or God-given) rights violated than you are. My answer to the likely retort that I am voluntarily more limited in my freedom, since I chose to be a member of the military, became an invalid argument the day I no longer wished to remain employed by the Navy but was still forced to labor under threat of imprisonment. Note that in this instance the common use of language accurately signifies that my action was done in the past tense. I “chose” to be in the military, that action is done; I no longer willingly choose to be in the military.

These specific delineations aside, I believe we’re both slaves according to the top definition result given by Google as “the state of being under the control of another person.” The extent of this control is not what is at issue in determining slavery. Whether or not we’re under the most lenient master-slave relationship could be rightfully debated, however, the fact that we are slaves, is to me, quite clear. If you think we’re not slaves by this or other similar definitions of the term, I would be eager to hear why you don’t think so.

No master can ever exercise total dominion over a slave; therefore, there exist only differing constraints that define such relationships. What follows is only a small selection of the many ways in which the people calling themselves government have made me a slave by controlling some of the most significant portions of my life through the threat of physical force.

I don’t deny that others have been treated worse and controlled to a greater degree; however, that truth does not make either of our present situations less restrictive. I have intentionally limited my examples to that which would be true even if I weren’t labeled an “Active Duty Sailor.” If you’re not controlled in these ways as well, I’m curious to hear how you have avoided such mistreatment.

As regards the individuals who call themselves government:

1. They control what substances I ingest into my body through drug regulation – legal and illegal, and food restrictions like those restricting access to raw milk

2. They control how much of my income I get to keep as per income tax laws

3. They control what property I own, how I can use it, and how much of it I can keep as evidenced by eminent domain, grass-cutting laws, property taxes, gun laws, automobile regulation, firecracker laws, aluminum bat laws and the regulation of almost any other piece of property imaginable

4. They control if and how I can labor, by requiring licenses as absurd as those regulating if I can cut someone else’s hair

5. They control whether or not I can cross the geographic boundaries in which they claim jurisdiction - thus if I don’t like it here, it’s a fallacy to say that I can freely leave and go elsewhere due to the exit tax among other reasons

Bear in mind that if I ever resist their control by exercising my own volition against their wishes, they will violate my natural (or God-given) rights by initiating physical force against me even if I have done nothing to infringe upon their natural (or God-given) rights or the natural (or God-given) rights of others. I understand that we disagree about whether humans are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” or if they possess them naturally, but I ask you, how could a just God that views humans as equal to each other ever desire for them to relate to each other in any form of a master-slave relationship?

I recognize that this response doesn’t address many of the other statements you made in your email, but I felt that it was more important to first establish what I believe is the true nature of any group (government or not) that uses force to impose its will on anyone else without the continuous consent of every individual involved. Perhaps you would consent to live under the current U.S. government, or maybe you would only acquiesce to a government that continuously abides by the Constitution. I hope you agree that whatever your preference, it wouldn’t make it right to force others to do the same.

The sad reality is that nobody alive in “America” today has been presented the option to consent to be governed by those who currently do so anyway. As I understand you to be a fan of John Locke, I hope that when presented in this manner, you now see that there does not exist the “consent of the governed” in America today, and therefore, at the very least, those claiming to be the United States government are illegitimate and should rightfully be ignored.

*ADDENDUM (8:36 PM): My wife, Heather Lakemacher, made the following statement in regard to what she viewed as my possibly errant attribution to John Locke of an alternative concept of the consent of the governed.

"I think that Locke's idea of the consent of the governed still has collectivist roots. He understands it to be the consent of the majority. He doesn't carry his own ideas about the origin of property to their logical conclusion, that is, that only continuous individual consent could justify government."

Although it may be true that Locke conceptualized the consent of the governed only to be the consent of a majority, this concept provides no more legitimacy to the idea that any one individual or group of individuals can be justified in ruling anyone else. Therefore, if this was Locke's view, it inherently contradicts itself.

Day 16 - Service or Slavery?

Several statements made by Art Carden in his article Conscription of Men, Women, and Resources caught my attention yesterday, and I have quoted the two key excerpts that I credit as the inspiration for today’s post.

“We can sing the praises of the ennobling and embiggening effects of time in the military or time in the peace corps, but this loses its luster when the ennobling and embiggening are done at the point of a gun. "Service" extracted at the point of a gun is not honorable. It is tragic.”

“Some may argue that this is an exercise in incendiary rhetoric, but it is also correct: compulsory service is slavery by definition. Call a spade a spade. Milton Friedman did when he referred to the conscripted army that was fighting in Vietnam as an army of slaves. They were: they went to Vietnam as a result of threats against life and limb. Some who took a principled stand against the war and in line with their convictions, like Muhammad Ali, were stripped of some of the most productive years of their lives.”

As opposed to conscription in American history, I will instead focus on the current nature of military service and the government sanctioned “contracts” that bind members of the Armed Forces to their employer. Specifically, I wish to address the nature of my own "contractual" relationship with the Navy.

First, I wish to unequivocally establish as fact that I, being of sound mind, did enlist into the Navy by my own choice and not as the result of the coercion of any person or group. An equally true statement is that I no longer wish to remain employed by the Navy, yet I’m unable to quit my job without the potential penalty of imprisonment.

I admit and accept that my desire to no longer fulfill the terms to which I agreed may rightly call into question the trustworthiness of my word. I have weighed this potential cost to my reputation, and I’ve found it definitively lacking in comparison with the price required to support an organization and a cause that I believe is unjustified in its termination of countless human lives.

In my own mind, I’ve considered the question of which mistake I would rather confess to any children I may one day have. Would I rather tell them how I failed to live up to the specified number of years that I had promised to labor for a given employer, or that I continued to work for an organization even after I came to believe that it existed for an immoral purpose?

To me the choice is easy, and so I acknowledge that I personally, and no one else, am to blame for my decision to have enlisted in the Navy. I also recognize that I individually bear the responsibility for the fact that I wish to break my word and end my employment. That I have no intent to deny accountability for my desire does not mean that I think the government is justified in holding me to my promise under the threat of imprisonment.

In summary, although I haven’t broken my word, I have definitively expressed that I do not wish to live up to my promised tenure. This expression has been in the form of a request to be released from the terms to which I originally agreed.

Although I no longer desire to do so, each morning I report for duty as ordered, and I complete my assignments without protest. This, however, doesn’t equate to truly being there by choice. A person choosing between prison and work cannot be said to have freely chosen to work. I was not conscripted, but since I now remain employed against my will, is there really any difference?