Guest Post by Ron Paul
The Senate Armed Services Committee approved last month a National Defense Authorization Act that includes a requirement that women register with Selective Service on their 18th birthday. If the bill becomes law with this provision included and a military draft is reinstated, women will be forced to join the military, and America will have equality in slavery.
Proponents of drafting women argue that since women can now serve in combat it makes sense to make the draft “gender neutral.”
Some conservatives have made moral arguments against drafting women, saying 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 sex, to fight, kill, and even die in war is the worst violation of individual liberty a government can commit. Those who support the military draft implicitly reject the Declaration of Independence. How can someone support forced military service and still claim to believe all individuals are endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
While commonly thought of as a “left-wing” position, opposition to the draft has historically united Americans across the political spectrum. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater both opposed the draft while running for president. Russell Kirk, the scholar who helped popularize the term “conservative,” opposed conscription.
Some progressives oppose a military draft but support other forms of mandatory 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 warfare state.
Some conservatives join progressives in supporting mandatory national service. These conservatives claim that mandatory national service provides young people a way to “pay back” the debt they owe society. But these are moral obligations owed to families, churches, and communities, not legal obligations owed to, and properly enforceable by, the government.
Libertarians are consistent opponents of all forms of mandatory service. This is because libertarians apply the prohibitions against violence, theft, and fraud to governments as well as private citizens. So, if it is wrong for your neighbors to force your children to mow the neighbors’ lawn, it is wrong for government to force your children to serve in the military or perform any other type of “national service.”
The nonaggression principle is why libertarians oppose taxation, nationalized healthcare and education, and military crusades in the name of “democracy” or “human rights.” It is also why libertarians oppose laws telling people how to raise their children, limiting access to “extremist” websites, telling business owners who can and cannot use what bathrooms on their property, or prohibiting someone from gambling online, smoking marijuana, or drinking raw milk.
Some libertarians urge their liberty movement compatriots to not talk about the nonaggression principle. These “pragmatists” think the focus should be on making the “practical” case for liberty. But those who embrace liberty because it “works” better than statism will make “exceptions” if they think an authoritarian idea like mandatory national service is a more practical way of achieving their political, economic, or social goals. Only those committed to the moral case for liberty can be counted on to defend all liberty at all times.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
One of the things you find out when becoming a naturalized citizen is that you may be called upon to serve in the armed services. Right now we have enough people voluntarily joining and our government is good at going around rules and laws. Pull out of a country and don’t mention the private army taking its place.
Just how big is that private army now, by they way? Are they big enough to pull off a “Night of Long Knives” during a grid failure?
Just asking, not predicting. It would just be a hell of a scare, wouldn’t it?
This will only end badly. Very badly.
I notice you said “will” and not “could.”
Tragically, end it will.
I had a lengthy discussion with a local business owner, explaining the problems with gender issues in the military.
I told her how I’d been elevated into a Wing Evaluator position in the late 1980s, when women started earning leadership positions as a matter of rite and ritual. Then, I told her that within five years of my promotion to role model, all of the squadron commanders save one were women in the Wing.
She said “Hmmmmmm.”
Because it is one of those things that make you go Hmmmmm.
I was qualified, but so were a dozen NCOs who’d done the job longer than I.
It was “time” I was told. To be honest, I should have turned it down, but bragging rights were my Achilles heel. Hopefully, I’ve mended that torn ligament.
In his autobiography, US Grant expounded on how they were waiting in 1846 and 1847 (Mexican War) for the Volunteer Forces upon which we used to rely through the War of 1898 with Spain. He said the Volunteers were always of a higher caliber people than the Regular Army troops of that time and better soldiers.
But the conscripts make great cannon fodder though. Just ask the Russians.
Have women really fought in combat? Not by pushing a button, being hit with an IED in a convoy,or just serving in a combat theater. I mean a 2-3 hour firefight. Is there a new definition? Having served in an infantry squad. This is gonna bring big problems.
There have been some very good female snipers in Russia and I think Finland.
If it’s OK on the battlefield, then we should be seeing women fight the men in the UFC. NOT. The whole visual psychology of seeing that isn’t something you want to perpetuate. Then it becomes ok for knock-down drag-outs at home between couples, and the family paradigm, the respect for what women bring to society, all of that is gone. Real Women are the glue that holds a family together. Drafting women for combat roles is just one more chink in the wave of chaos to create opportunities for the parasites.
Exactly why they’ll do it.
https://newspunch.com/disney-executive-pedophile-ring/
I just watched The Dam Busters last night. The squadron dog was named “Nigger”, a black lab.
I guess cancel culture has not found out about that tidbit yet as I have not heard any cries for it to be censored or have a trigger warning.
Yup. A case of strict, sanitary logic leading to a distasteful conclusion.
So, are women willing, able and ready to fulfill the natural roles now? Didn’t thing so.
In a high trust, homogenous community (nation) national service is is logical and necessary. In a low trust multicultural cesspool, national service is tyranny.