Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Homespun Symposium XII
Of all the Homespun Bloggers, I might be the laziest. I’ve certainly been lazy about participating in the weekly Homespun Symposium. So it probably doesn’t speak well of me that I waited until it was my turn to propose a topic before I mustered up the wherewithal to write a response. The topic I proposed for this week’s symposium is as follows:
During last year’s presidential election, people began talking about reinstating the draft. Most conservatives, such as myself, simply saw it as an effort on the part of liberals to distance young people from Bush. Many conservatives have responded to the issue by insisting that there won’t be a draft. Yet, I think another question deserves consideration. Do we have the right to insist and expect that the war against terror will not require a draft? The draft was an important element in the winning of the first two World Wars. The war on terror is another global war. What gives our generation the right to abstain from the same duty our grandfathers and forefathers were called to?
I suppose that the way I worded the question makes my answer obvious. No, I don’t believe that anyone in our generation has the inherent right to opt to sit this one out. As a libertarian, I realize that the draft is an ugly concept. It’s counter to most of what I believe to support the government’s right to impose it’s will on it’s citizens. I’m a big believer in individual freedom. However, I’m also a proponent of individual accountability. I believe that my freedom is worth nothing if I'm unwilling to stand up to those who would destroy the society that grants me that very freedom.
My perception is that many of the people who are sure that the Bush administration is moving toward a draft are, by and large, the same people who equate the war against terror with “another Vietnam.” I have a problem with that line of thinking, which is why I worded the question the way I did. I think that the war on terror is more akin to World War II. The Islamofascists want to impose their will on the world. They want to see America fall. They must be opposed. I agree with the President that the best way to oppose them is to spread freedom. As a nation, we have to get out of our “post-Vietnam” mindset and face the reality before us.
That’s not to say that I’m a jingoist, nor am I chomping at the bit to fight in a war. And I certainly don’t relish the idea that one day one of our kids (mine and Wendy’s, that is) might be drafted. Still, I come back to what I see as the crux of the issue: Is anyone really free who isn’t willing to fight to protect his or her freedom? A free nation made up of individuals unwilling to risk anything to protect their freedom is really nothing more than a chicken coop waiting for slaughter.
I hope there isn’t a draft. I hate to think that it might come to that. But it might. The forces we oppose in the war against terror are multi-national and wide spread. The day might come when we or our children are compelled to act on our principles. The freedom we cherish was preserved for us by past generations who were similarly called to duty. If it comes to that, history will define us by our response.
(Be sure and read the responses from other Homespunners... links to their ideas about the draft can be found at the bottom of the page dedicated to the topic.)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
"I believe that my freedom is worth nothing if I'm unwilling to stand up to those who would destroy the society that grants me that very freedom."
-------
As a libertarian you should see that the concept 'granting rights' is an oxymoron, which renders your argument about accountibility null and void. Believe me when I say that I understand your fears and concerns about terrorism, but the draft is truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Your rights are inherent, not granted to you by other people. Whether you choose to exercise those rights does not mean that you do not still have them.
The question I think you should have asked is do you think that instituting a draft would be effective in countering the threat posed by terrorists emanating from the Middle East?
And don't mistake my opposition to a draft or the government's course of action to mean that we should not defend ourselves. We should. The question is, though, what am I responsible for and whom? You? Britney Spears? the Mayor of Boise? No, I'm responsible for me and mine, if that means organizing a defense of Florida come the Islamofascist invasion? So be it. But, ultimately, it has to be my decision. A draft renders my desires null and void, and as a Libertarian you must understand that that is not acceptable.
Thoughtful response, even though I disagree with you.
I blasted your question in my blog based on its faulty premise. It was not meant as an insult, so please don't consider it that way, but it did, I feel, need to be said.
Ta,
-------
As a libertarian you should see that the concept 'granting rights' is an oxymoron, which renders your argument about accountibility null and void. Believe me when I say that I understand your fears and concerns about terrorism, but the draft is truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Your rights are inherent, not granted to you by other people. Whether you choose to exercise those rights does not mean that you do not still have them.
The question I think you should have asked is do you think that instituting a draft would be effective in countering the threat posed by terrorists emanating from the Middle East?
And don't mistake my opposition to a draft or the government's course of action to mean that we should not defend ourselves. We should. The question is, though, what am I responsible for and whom? You? Britney Spears? the Mayor of Boise? No, I'm responsible for me and mine, if that means organizing a defense of Florida come the Islamofascist invasion? So be it. But, ultimately, it has to be my decision. A draft renders my desires null and void, and as a Libertarian you must understand that that is not acceptable.
Thoughtful response, even though I disagree with you.
I blasted your question in my blog based on its faulty premise. It was not meant as an insult, so please don't consider it that way, but it did, I feel, need to be said.
Ta,
Well, as you might have already noticed, I was insulted by your entry at your blog regarding my question. I think you've done a far better job of avoiding rancor and actually addressing the question here. Yes, I disagree with you, but I have a better understanding of your ideas from what you’ve written here than I do from what you wrote at your own blog.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]


