I Feel a Draft, Again

by Paul Hein

I suppose that if you live long enough in Wonderland, you grow accustomed to the sight of rabbits with timepieces, or grinning cats. Perhaps that explains the total lack of reaction to the recent trial balloons about the reinstitution of the draft.

The basic premise explaining the operation of all governments is that they possess all property and all persons within their jurisdiction--which they, incidentally, determine. For example: all income is considered government property, and must be returned to them; hence the terms "tax return," or "return of income." The individual may keep a certain percentage, as determined by the property owner (i.e., the government).

You may live in your home, and drive your automobile, so long as you pay annual tribute to their real owner. Should you fail to do so, ownership will revert to government. Moreover, this is not regarded as extraordinary or remarkable, but routine and expected.

You, yourself, are government property. You must behave according to government rules, or suffer the consequences. You earn your living as a privilege granted by government; thus, a portion of that living is the government's as an excise. Thus, whether income is considered property or a transaction, it reverts to its owner one way or another, or, more accurately, by hook or crook. But the clearest and most undeniable proof of government ownership of populations is the draft.

Suppose that your son were drafted to serve in Afghanistan. You objected. You could see no U.S. interest in Afghan affairs, and no threat to this country from Afghanistan. So you ordered your son to remain at home. Uncle Sam, on the other hand, has ordered him to report to camp. Who will win that argument? Who is sovereign over your own flesh and blood? The very basis of conscription is that the corporation called government has control of your son, which control supersedes your own as his parent. Your son may seek to honor your wishes by defying the draft and going to jail, but that is still a victory for government, in that he will be doing what government demands, when it demands it, eating what it serves, where and when it serves it, wearing what it provides, and staying where it dictates, while risking a bullet if he leaves. Just like the armed services, but without the cachet of patriotism.

Moreover, the very existence of a draft, except in wartime, is never questioned. Can it be "wartime" if Congress has not declared war? Oh, of course, that is a niggling question, but if the men and women who comprise the government take an oath to uphold the Constitution, is it nit-picking to ask that they do so? Why can they ignore their clear and obvious duty, while expecting others to do the "duty" which they unlawfully impose upon them?

If our young people are going to be asked to fight, they ought to have a clear understanding of who the enemy is, and direct their weapons accordingly.

January 28, 2002