Conscription for military service often is discussed as though it were the only or at least the major instance in which the compulsory power of government is directed against peaceful citizens. Scarcely a second thought in that direction is given to some 45,000,000 youngsters drafted annually for school attendance in the United States. and who ever bothers to count the millions of taxpayers drafted for terms ranging from one to nine months of every year in the war against poverty or to help maintain the supply lines for invasion of the moon?
The foregoing listing is illustrative rather than exhaustive. The typical American citizen is, in effect, drafted for five months of each year to serve the various purposes of governments at all levels. In other words, that is the proportion of his earnings taken in taxes. In principle and in reality, the draft is a form of taxation.
To acknowledge reality is not necessarily to approve. One may object to a particular war, or to the way it was declared or fought—may indeed object to war altogether. But that is not the same thing as objecting to the principle of the draft. When the Mayor of Metropole wants American troops out of Vietnam so that the resources otherwise used there can be diverted to various welfare programs for the citizens of Metro-pole, the Mayor is advocating rather than opposing the principle of the draft. He simply wants to be the one to disburse the resources drafted.
Whether the youth of America are better protected and prepared for life by the waging of war in Vietnam or by the construction and staffing of a Center for African Studies at National University may involve a difference of opinion. But there is no difference in principle between drafting men and materials for the one purpose rather than the other. Both projects rely upon the coercive power of government to accomplish the objectives of some persons, at least partly—if not primarily—at the expense of others who do not approve. In principle and in reality, government is a process of taxation, a form of the draft—compelling individuals to conform to the will of the ruling body.
What Are the Rules?
The great question confronting the people of America in 1970—and it’s the same major question man always has pondered—is not who should rule and who should be ruled. The question is this: What are the rules? How far do we trust one another, trust ourselves, each to act of his own volition? Where do we draw the line, with penalties and punishment of those who trespass? For what purposes will we tax and draft one another instead of leaving each to achieve his own purposes as best he can in open competition with other peaceful persons? In the final analysis, the question is whether men will live by the rules of peace or submit to the rules of war.
The distinction between peace and war seems to have become blurred in our time. From time immemorial, the first rule of war has been that "might makes right." But in the latter half of the twentieth century, the United States finds itself fighting foreign wars without a will to win. And what strange outbursts of violence we see at home in the name of peace! "Peace" suddenly seems to cover any form of human action antagonistic to governmental law and order, as though there were no acceptable rules of peace.
Men ought to know by now the first rule of peace: "I’ll respect your life." And its corollary: "I’ll respect your property." Those are the rules essential to peaceful production and trade and the growth and development of civilization. Such rules are voluntary in the sense that they stem from the individual with enough self-respect to control himself in his actions toward others. But none of us is perfect; and those who accept this fact are inclined to look to government to help enforce the basic rules of self-control if individuals or groups forget or neglect to follow those rules.
So, the difference between war and peace does not hinge upon the presence or the absence of government. Law and order is as much a part of the one condition as of the other. Whether one believes in a maxi-government or in a mini-government is the sort of ideological difference that begins to get at the distinction between war and peace. If one accepts the rule that "might makes right," he’ll see no logical limits to the things the government can do for him by coercing others. But if he respects the dignity of the individual and believes in private ownership and control of property, then he may understand why governmental force ought to be limited to defending the lives and property of peaceful persons.
The government that prevails among imperfect men will inevitably be a compromise that probably does not correspond to the ideal of any one of them. But it will be what individuals of their caliber deserve. And the only effective way to improve upon the prevailing government is to elevate the characters of the individuals comprising the society. Those who believe in maxi-government will expect the government to reform the characters of other persons. Those who believe in mini-government will understand that self-improvement is the only method consistent with their objective.
So long as the advocates of maxi-government predominate, as in our own society, we may expect such manifestations as interminable foreign wars and all sorts of domestic wars on poverty, population, pornography, profit, prudence, pride, and other "deadly sins." And fully consistent with the rules of war is the drafting of manpower and other resources to conduct these campaigns of coercion.
If we would effectively rid ourselves of the consequences of government intervention, such as burdensome inflation and taxation and the draft, then we first must rid ourselves of the habit of running to the government for aid every time a personal problem arises or we feel an urge to reform society or want to be "charitable" with other people’s property.
If we seriously propose to stop drafting 19-year-olds to see the world through the peep-sight of a rifle, we first must reconsider the practices of drafting 5-yearolds into operation "Head Start" and compelling every wage-earner to contribute toward the livelihood of retirees. Even if he wanted to, the policeman we hire to plunder others cannot very well serve at the same time to protect the lives and property of peaceful persons. Except as we individually and voluntarily resolve to respect the lives and the property of others, there is little chance of our having a government that will not draft us to conduct wars. We first must understand and observe the rules of peace if we want to be rid of the draft. This is strictly a do-it-yourself project. Until it succeeds, there is little prospect of mustering the political majority needed to repeal the draft laws. When it succeeds, the draft laws will be dead letters anyway.