Badnarik campaign challenges another Democrat about conscription

[tpahl]

http://www.badnarik.org/PressRoom/archive.php?p=728

When asked how he felt about Udall's statement, Howard responded, "This is yet another case where the Democrats and the Republicans seem to see the draft as a foregone conclusion. Our only hope to get out of this situation is to vote for the Libertarian Party."

Udall joins a growing list of politicians of both major parties making statements which are somewhat supportive of the military draft or other forms of mandatory national service. Others on this list include Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Senator Ernest Hollings (D - S.C.), and Congressman Henry Rangel (D-N.Y.).

While Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, on the campaign trail in north Florida, was unavailable for immediate comment, campaign spokesperson Stephen Gordon prepared a brief statement on his behalf. "He [Badnarik] already stated his position on the draft most eloquently with 'Imagine! People are not volunteering to go to foreign countries and die the way they used to! Imagine that!'"

In a Rasmussen poll (1) of likely voters from New Mexico released yesterday, Kerry led with 50 percent of the vote, with Bush at 43 percent and Badnarik at five percent. Independent candidate Ralph Nader is not on the ballot in New Mexico. Badnarik will be campaigning in New Mexico from August 8 to August 13, 2004.

 

[tpahl]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/tuccille5.html

To be an equal oppurtunity critizer, this article questions the republicans plans for a draft.

Without much fanfare, $28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS is charged with reporting back to Bush by March 31, 2005 (conveniently after the election), that the selective service system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.

 

[tpahl]

I just noticed todays position statement on badnariks homepage is on the draft. It goes into more detail on his opposition to the draft.

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/Draft.php

If a free America were ever subjected to attack, most Americans would be more than willing to defend themselves, their homes, and their families against the foreign aggressors. The very fact that too few Americans are volunteering to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates that too few Americans view the actions being taken by our government as integral to the preservation of our freedoms. This is simply the free market working.

Ronald Reagan said it best: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." He understood that conscription assumes our nation's young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle; that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

 

[Annie]

I just noticed todays position statement on badnariks homepage is on the draft. It goes into more detail on his opposition to the draft.

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/Draft.php

Thanks for the link! I found some other things here that I think are worth taking a look at.

If a free America were ever subjected to attack, most Americans would be more than willing to defend themselves, their homes, and their families against the foreign aggressors. The very fact that too few Americans are volunteering to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates that too few Americans view the actions being taken by our government as integral to the preservation of our freedoms. This is simply the free market working.

I guess one of the things that bothers me in 'debates' has been the attempt to 'shrug off' a point one knows is not winnable. Note the use of the hightlighted 'regardless' in the Badnarik quote below? In effect, that is an acknowledgement that more money would, in all probablility, render a draft unnecessary. Which contradicts the original message that people are not supporting the war.

I read yesterday that the Army, the only branch which enlistment numbers were falling short of need, is more than doubling, the sign-up bonuses available: You can read more here: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=23648

Another thing that is missing from the entire discussion of the military benefits and salaries being too low, which I still do concur with, is the admission that the case has been grossly misrepresented, based on what I've heard from friends and read. Here is one explanation, from a woman who served for a number of years:

http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2004/08/my_how_some_peo.html

The hue and cry about military personnel qualifying for food stamp betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how GIs are paid. First of all, only their basic pay is taxable and subject to scrutiny when it is decided whether they qualify for food stamps or not. However, a GI with a family doesn’t get merely his/her base pay. She/he gets BAS (food payments for the military member), BAH (housing allowance if the member lives off base, calculated by the area in which the GI is assigned and family lives) and various other extras. (When I was married—to a civilian—I got paid more than I did when I was single. It would have been even more had we had children).

There are a myriad of other non-taxable allowances that a GI may receive, depending on his/her job/position/duty location: combat pay, foreign language proficiency pay (FLPP), flight pay (not just for pilots and navigators), dislocation allowance, etc.

Additionally, all Active Duty members and their dependents are allowed to shop at any base commissary. (Recently, the privilege was extended to Guard personnel and Reservists.) At an average commissary, $200 will buy a two person household a month’s worth of food and that’s without stamps or coupons. Can you imagine how much a GI would save were he/she to qualify for and use food stamps?

Are some GIs taking advantage of this very legal little loophole? You bet. I’m not sure if it's an ethical practice, however. What I am sure of is that the mainstream media’s (and other's) surface knowledge of the military is rampant, purposeful and demonstrable regarding this and many other matters. It only took a little Google-action to refresh my memory on how military pay worked. As I said earlier, if you don’t know, you don’t want to know.

from Badnarik's position paper

Of course, some draft advocates would claim that the only reason America needs a draft is because we don't pay our military personnel adequately. Regardless of what the market rate would be in a "free market" for military personnel—probably closer to what the private security forces in Iraq are making than what America's military men and women are making—the draft would only lead to more military adventurism abroad. After all, the draft is nothing more than the government stealing services from its citizens because it does not want to pay a market rate for them.

Now the following I personally agree with. While I believe that service is something that we should all do, I do not think anyone but parents should be able to 'coerce' anyone into forced labor. Parochial schools certainly have the right to make it part of their curriculum, you can opt out of that school. I don't think the public schools should though. (Note: my district's Middle Schools and High Schools do require service hours). As far as WHERE are troops are stationed, well I guess I am comfortable letting DOD and State argue it out.

from Badnarik's position paper

Even more disturbing than the draft is the fact that some in Congress would like to expand the draft beyond military service to also include "national service." You see, for many of our leaders, bringing back the draft has less to do with providing needed soldiers for combat—America has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in peaceful nations from Japan to Germany—than it does expanding the size and power of government.

I just thought this might broaden the discussion a bit.