cw (11/05/82)
I would like to reply to an article by Tom Roberts about universal
service in the United States. So that everyone will understand my
approach at the beginning, let me say here that I am not concerned
with the utility or merit of universal service. Rather, I am
trying to combat a fairly commonly held and mistaken impression
about the history and legality of universal service (or, as some
would have it, the draft). It is my impression that this misapprehension
is commonly held by Libertarians; the ignorance of our society
that it betrays is one of the things that scares me about the
Libertarians.
Let me begin by quoting from the article in question:
I cannot sit back and let someone advocate slavery without
rising up in anger. Such "national service", and the military
draft in general, are diametrically opposed to the fundamental
goals of this country (supreme-court rulings notwithstanding).
The revolution of 1775 was particularly in protest against such
oppressive measures of the British Crown; this seems to have
been largely forgotten during the past 200+ years.
My first point: drafted government service is not slavery in law or
in fact. Nor has it ever been. It has a long history in English
law which we have inherited.
Second, the Declaration of Independence specifically speaks to the
"captivity" that Roberts presumes we rebelled against. The words are
He [meaning George III] has constrained our fellow Citizens
taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country...
It is well known by historians that Jefferson was not here complaining
about the draft. Rather, he was complaining that colonial (not yet
United States) citizens were being removed from colonial *ships* to
serve in British naval vessels. In England, any landsman was liable
to the press and could be drafted into the Navy. But sailors were
exempt; Jefferson is only asking that colonials enjoy the same rights
as Englishmen. (In fact, the basic claim is that colonials *are*
Englishmen.) This is the burden of the entire central section of
the Declaration. Notice that Jefferson is not denying the King's
right to draft.
Third, where does Roberts suppose the militia that fought in
Revolution came from? Some, at least, were drafted for military service
and it was an understood principle of colonial government, long before
1775, that colonists owed military service in defense of the community.
Fourth, if the goals of our country were to avoid slavery, I would
like Roberts to explain the Constitution. There are at least three
direct or indirect references to the continuation of slavery
in the original articles. They are in Art. 1, Sect. 2, Para. 3,
Art. IV, Sect. 2, Para. 3, and Art. V (although you have to understand
the structure of the Constitution to know that this last refers to
slavery). That is to say, our founding fathers specifically countenanced
slavery in our fundamental articles of government. It took Amendment XIII
to do away with slavery.
Fifth, Art. I, Sect. 8, gives Congress the power "To raise and support
armies" and "To provide for calling forth the militia." In the time
the Constitution was written, this surely included a draft if necessary.
Military service in this way was not regarded as slavery or involuntary
servitude at that time.
Now that I have written on the subject of what slavery is and what
it was when the US was founded, I would like to speak to another issue.
Once again I would like to quote Roberts:
...but surely the draft is the most repulsive example
of government intervention in its citizens' lives. Our government
is supposed to be the servant of the people, not their master...
I submit that the draft, particularly a universal one, is not all that
repulsive. Even if it were, the second point does not follow from the
first. In fact, "our government" is neither our servant nor our master.
As Pogo used to say, "We have met the enemy and they is us." Each of
us is the government. If you don't like something, work to change it.
But don't complain about some faceless abstraction called the government.
Further, when the US was founded, the social contract theory of government
was in vogue (and, with me, at least, still is). That is to say, the
government is formed as a joint contract between the citizens. In the
US, we have decided that the contract is not quite like most legal ones
because it cannot be dissolved (that was the point of the Civil War).
However, both sides owe duty. And it has always seemed perfectly
reasonable to me that one duty might be service in the form of
the draft. I might not like it; I might think the particular job
I had was ill-suited to me; I might not like the policies that led to
the need for my job (remember Vietnam); I might feel that the administration
was poor; and so on. All of these points are good reasons for writing
my representative or hiring a lawyer to see if there is a loophole
I can crawl through. But they are not good reasons for saying that
the draft is, somehow, anti-democratic. In fact, I would have thought
that a universal draft would have been as democratic as you could get.
Finally, I don't think I like to have people in my community who are
not willing to help support the community. Fortunately, there are
enough people who do help that the few who petulantly claim exemption
are irrelevant.
Charles