Equality in slavery – OpEd – Eurasia Review
The Senate Armed Services Committee last month approved a National Defense Authorization Act that requires women to enroll in selective service on their 18th birthday. If the bill becomes law with this provision included and a military conscription is reinstated, women will be forced into the military and America will have equality in slavery.
Supporters of the Women’s Editorial Board argue that since women can now be used in combat, it makes sense to make the project “gender neutral”.
Some conservatives have made moral arguments against recruiting women, arguing that women should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to serve in the military. It is certainly true that it is immoral to force women into military service, but that is because it is wrong to force anyone into military service.
Forcing young people, regardless of their gender, to fight, kill and even die in war is the worst violation of individual freedom that a government can commit. Those who support the military project implicitly reject the Declaration of Independence. How can anyone support forced military service while claiming to believe that all individuals have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Although commonly seen as a “left” stance, opposition to the project has historically united Americans of all political stripes. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater both opposed the project when they ran for president. Russell Kirk, the scholar who helped popularize the term “conservative,” opposed conscription.
Some progressives oppose military conscription but support other forms of compulsory national service. These progressives fail to understand that forcing someone to serve the welfare state is just as immoral as forcing someone to serve the war state.
Some Conservatives are joining the progressives in supporting compulsory national service. These Conservatives claim that compulsory national service offers young people a way to “pay off” the debt they owe to society. But these are moral obligations towards families, churches and communities, not legal obligations towards and duly enforceable by the government.
Libertarians are constant opponents of all forms of compulsory service. This is because libertarians enforce the prohibitions against violence, theft and fraud on governments as well as private citizens. So, while it is wrong for your neighbors to force your children to mow the neighbors’ lawns, it is wrong for the government to force your children to serve in the military or perform any other type of “national service”.
The principle of non-aggression is the reason libertarians oppose nationalized taxation, healthcare and education, and military crusades in the name of “democracy” or “human rights.” “. This is also why libertarians oppose laws telling people how to raise their children, restricting access to “extremist” websites, telling business owners who can and cannot use which bathrooms on their premises. property, or prohibiting anyone from gambling online, smoking marijuana, or drinking raw. Milk.
Some libertarians urge their compatriots in the freedom movement not to talk about the principle of non-aggression. These “pragmatists” believe that the emphasis should be on the “practical” defense of freedom. But those who embrace freedom because it “works” better than statism will make “exceptions” if they think that an authoritarian idea like compulsory national service is a more practical way to achieve their political, economic goals. or social. Only those who defend the moral cause of freedom can count on them to defend all freedom at all times.
This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.