The jackass brays back: Rangel wrangles with National Youth Slavery

presenceofmind.net ^ | December 31, 2002 | Greg Swann

[Greg Swann]

The jackass brays back: Rangel wrangles with National Youth Slavery by Greg Swann

Yesterday I held a colloquy with a braying jackass over New York Democratic Representative Charles Rangel's plan to institute universal military conscription. Today Rangel is back, in an op-ed in the New York Times, insisting that he really means it, that he wasn't just braying at random on CNN. Fine with me. I'm clipping and snipping, so see the original to wrangle this jackass unedited. I believe that if we are going to send our children to war, the governing principle must be that of shared sacrifice. Remember that 'sacrifice' always means blood sacrifice. Politicians tell you the bald truth and you never listen. Throughout much of our history, Americans have been asked to shoulder the burden of war equally. Except for women, children, the elderly, the blind, the halt and the lame. And the children of the elites. And throughout the rest of our history, America has been defended by an all-volunteer military, which is what is in keeping with American principles. Carrying out the administration's policy toward Iraq will require long-term sacrifices by the American people, particularly those who have sons and daughters in the military. They are volunteers. I wish every one of them peace and safety, but they made a choice to risk harm in pursuit of benefits for themselves and for their families. They are not conscripts. Yet the Congress that voted overwhelmingly to allow the use of force in Iraq includes only one member who has a child in the enlisted ranks of the military--just a few more have children who are officers. But a heck of a lot of kids in medical school, I'll bet. Different people make different choices. This is liberty. The choices they make are influenced by their initial circumstances. This is an accretive consequence of liberty. I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve--and to be placed in harm's way--there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq. Could be true, but it won't happen. Children of CongressVermin 'serve' as photographers, like Vietnam 'veteran' Al Gore. What will happen, what always happens, is that politicians will massively waste their 'free' conscripts. There is a monolith in Washington to testify to this fact. A renewed draft will help bring a greater appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war. I love that word 'appreciation.' It's a favorite of educationists. It means sensory awareness without knowledge or understanding. Unfortunately for Rangel, history's plain lesson, perhaps not 'appreciated' but well known, is that conscript armies make the decision to go to war that much easier to make. Cannon-fodder is the food of the warfare state. Service in our nation's armed forces is no longer a common experience. Never was, thankfully. A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military... Now we get to the real issue. I was sure this was what he was saying yesterday, but he didn't come right out and say it. The implication is that the all-volunteer military, by being comprised of a "disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups," is simultaneously racist and bad for defense. Both are false. The military is no more racist than is the National Football League, another place where poor young black males seek to reap the best available benefit from their initial circumstances. If 'disproportion' in the one is racist and not rational, then the same must be true for the other. And an army of volunteers, actively seeking benefits for themselves and for their families, is surely a better defense of American interests than a cadre of seething, resentful slaves. ...while the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent. And the implication here is that the anequalitarian distribution of self-selected volunteers for the military, for medical school and for the NFL is an injustice in se. Many poor young black males don't have the money or the academic preparation to go to medical school. Most pre-med students don't have the athletic ability to play pro football. So what? We are each of us free to choose our own careers, and in so doing, we provide secondary benefits to the society at large. Our only responsibility is to ourselves and to our families. Where the choice to act in our own behalf is usurped by force, we are slaves. The irony, from Rangel's jackass point of view, is that enslaving a pre-med student in a conscript army will hurt poor young black males in two ways: By depriving them of military roles for which they would have volunteered but for which the medical student has better academic preparation. And by depriving them of two years or four years of the life-saving abilities of the physician that pre-med student will ultimately become. This is the broken-window fallacy, only Rangel is proposing to enrich us by breaking our skulls instead. We need to return to the tradition of the citizen soldier--... The citizen soldier was a volunteer. The story of Cincinnatus is fascinating and inspiring, but the point of the story is that the citizen soldier is a volunteer who fights when he must and then returns to his plow. ...--with alternative national service required for those who cannot serve because of physical limitations or reasons of conscience. And there is the call for National Youth Slavery. Those who would lead us into war... Not you, thankfully, you jackass. ...have the obligation to support an all-out mobilization of Americans for the war effort,... Not only are our children to be enslaved, our politicians are themselves obliged. Slavery is pernicious, ain't it? ...including mandatory national service that asks something of us all. It is important to understand that military conscription is a Trojan Horse. The real issue, for which Rangel is probably an unwitting stooge, is National Youth Slavery. The idea has been 'trial-ballooned' for years, by William F. Buckley, among others. And, of course, the people to be enslaved are not the ones who get to vote for their enslavement. Ironically, as with the other truly serious domestic policy issue, the incremental nationalization of medicine, the underlying concern is health care: Buckley and other dotards want to compel your children to change their bedpans. Acquiring 'free' conscript soldiers to be shredded overseas is pure gravy. "O brave new world That has such people in't!" But fear not, for the libertarians, civil and otherwise, understand that the true battle is to prevent John Poindexter from discovering that they wear mis-matched socks. What possible peril is posed by the enslavement of America's young and her doctors, compared to Big Brother? Charles Rangel may be a jackass, but at least he's a straightforward enemy of liberty. May god spare America's freedom from her alleged friends...

---

VISIT MY WEBLOG:

gswann@presenceofmind.net

[silverdog]

Take a look at the novel "In The Wet" by Nevil Shute.

[society-by-contract]

Maybe. Speaking as someone who served both during the draft era and in VOLAR (The Volunteer Army for the acronym challenged) I can state unequivocally that the draft produced a superior force, at least in the case of the US Army. during the early VOLAR years the discipline, and with it the effectiveness, of the Army deteriorated so badly that professional NCOs and officers were leaving in droves. I was one of them. With fifteen years of service I decided to call it quits in 1980.
Thanks for your thoughts. It is always interesting to hear what has already occured and try to learn somthing.
Perhaps renumeration in the military is insufficient to attract the more capable individuals who have other industries they might pursue. For the right price I might even take up arms, but from what I understand those folks at the bottom have trouble getting by.

[Chuckster]

In 1975, a PFC (E-3)the with-dependents pay, including housing allowance was about $650 a month IIRC. At that time it was enough for a young couple providing they had no kids. I do remember that when I enlisted in 1966, a recruit got $75 a month. It doesn't sound like much but it's funny, I always seemed to have enough. As an NCO, SSG and SFC (E-6 and 7) after 1969, I always felt pretty comfortable with my paychecks. I think when I got out in 1980 I was making under a thousand a month but we lived pretty good. I was able to afford a nice pickup and a new Harley in '77 and '78 and by then I had a wife (Who did not work). We lived in gov't quarters on-post that were pretty nice, a two bedroom townhouse type arrangement with a small fenced yard for the ground floor units.

I think the ones who get in $ trouble are likely the ones who aren't married so they do not qualify for the higher with-dependents pay or the quarters allowance. As far as I know, the military does not yet subsidize the popular civilian practice of shacking up and raising kids without getting married. So younger soldiers who refuse the free barracks housing and free meals at the mess hall (They call them "Dining facilities" now I believe) will naturally have a tougher time making it.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the profession of arms has never been about making money and does not easily lend itself to the lifestyle of the popular culture. It is about service to one's country. Since soldiering is a life and death profession requiring real commitment (How popular is that nowadays?) there are always gong to be relatively few who are willing to embrace it.

As a former Non Commissioned Officer my opinion is that a young soldier should be single and live in the barracks. This promotes bonding and unit cohesion which is necessary for combat effectiveness. I was a 25 year old Staff Sergeant when I got married and moved out of the barracks. At that time, getting married required the permission of my commanding officer. I see nothing wrong with that, given the mission of the armed forces.

My comments are necessarily limited to the Army experience but I believe they apply equally to the Marine Corps and, to a lesser extent, the Navy. The Air Force is not really a military arm d;^)

[E Rocc]

Someone send this moron a copy of "Starship Troopers..."

The "moron" is Rangel, right? There's no doubt what Robert Heinlein would have thought of this proposal.

No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and, in the long run, no state ever has.

the draft is involuntary servitude, immoral, and unconstitutional no matter what the Supreme Court says

A nation that cannot find enough volunteers to defend itself will not survive — and does not deserve to.

-Eric

[ZULU]

That idiot Rangel could only get elected in a district like Harlem where the mass of the voters are poor, ignorant, and suffer from congenital DemocRATism.

[Political Junkie Too]

"I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve--and to be placed in harm's way--there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq."

I think that this is Rangel's main goal: he wants to reinstitute the draft in order to influence the vote of his colleagues in Congress. It's really a Congressional power-play, using the youth of America as pawns.

-PJ