I know a lot of my FB friends don’t see my posts or I would catch a lot more heck than I do. For those of you who do see my posts, here’s another you will probably not like regarding “The Draft”. I’ve already written on this recently but I wanted to approach it from another angle. So let’s try an analogy.
Okay, George has an enemy who lives in another subdivision down the road, let’s call him Freddie. George feels that Freddie is a threat to his and his family’s safety so he decides the best thing to do is to strike first. After all, his dad always said “Son, if you know there’s going to be a fight, make sure to get in the first punch”. But in this case George decides that he doesn’t want to do the “dirty work” himself so he’s going to enlist the help of a fellow who lives in his subdivision, John, to do it for him.
Now John says that he doesn’t want to do it. He thinks that attacking someone who hasn’t actually attacked you is wrong and besides that, Freddie has never threatened him. But George insists that he might and that since he’s the president of the homeowner’s association that John must do as he says and if he doesn’t he’s going to revoke his membership and he will no longer be able to live in the neighborhood because he will no longer be a member of the association. (This is a make believe association where George is the final authority as it has been delegated to him by the other members)
John is faced with a tough decision. He can’t afford to move and George is holding a proverbial gun to his head. What’s he going to do? He’ll lose his home and his family will be out on the street if he doesn’t follow George’s orders.
So in the above story is there anyone who thinks that what George is doing to John or to his enemy down the street is in any way morally justifiable? I’m going to assume that most people with average intelligence will say no. That being the case how can anyone of average intelligence possibly justify the Draft?
Do we all agree that we own ourselves and our property and that our bodies are our property correct? If that is the case then can we agree that nobody has a right to aggress or commit an act of violence against our property unless we are aggressing against them? (all have a right to self defense) So, if I can’t aggress against you and you can’t aggress against me then upon what authority are we able to appoint someone else to do the aggressing for us?
If individuals have no moral authority to aggress against their neighbors then individuals appointing others to aggress upon their neighbors on their behalf have no moral authority either. You can’t delegate authority that you don’t possess.
Back to George. Now George has become the President of a country. He says that you must go halfway around the world and kill some people that he and the “others” have determined to be a threat to his and his fellow countrymen’s safety and if you don’t agree to do this he will lock you up and throw away the key.
President George has now “aggressed” against you by conscripting you; taking away your freedom to choose; restricting your movement, so on and so forth and has pressed you into service to aggress against other people who have not actually aggressed against you. If you resist this enslavement you’ll be locked up and branded a traitor.
What will you do?
by 