The Draft in Principle and Practice; P.L. Poirot

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 alto gether. But that is not the same thing as objecting to the princi ple 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 pro grams 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 re sources 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 Afri can Studies at National University may involve a difference of opin ion. But there is no difference in principle between drafting men and materials for the one purpose rather than the other. Both proj ects rely upon the coercive power of government to accomplish the objectives of some persons, at least partly - if not primarily -·at the 165 166 THE FREEMAN March expense of others who do not ap prove. In principle and in reality, government is a process of taxa tion, a form of the draft - com pelling 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 our selves, each to act of his own volition? Where do we draw the line, with penalties and punish" ment of those who trespass? For what purposes will we tax and draft one another instead of leav ing each to achieve his own pur poses as best he can in open competi tion 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 pro duction and trade and the growth and development of civilization. Such rules are voluntary in the sense that they stem from the individual vvith 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 govern ment 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 be lieves 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 1970 THE DRAFT IN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE 167 respects the dignity of the indi vidual and believes in private ownership and control of property, then he may understand why gov ernmental force ought to be lim ited to defending the lives and property of peaceful persons. The government that prevails among imperfect men will inevi tably be a compromise that prob ably does not correspond to the ideal of anyone of them. But it will be what individuals of their caliber deserve. And the only ef fective way to improve upon the prevailing government is to ele vate the characters of the indi viduals comprising the society. Those who believe in maxi-govern ment 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 ob jective.

So long as the advocates of maxi-government predominate, as in our own society, we may expect such manifestations as intermina ble foreign wars and all sorts of domestic wars on poverty, popula tion, pornography, profit, pru dence, 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 our selves of the consequences of gov ernment intervention, such as burdensome inflation and taxation and the draft, then we first must rid ourselves of the habit of run ning 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-year olds 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 muster ing the political majority needed to repeal the draft laws. When it succeeds, the draft laws will be dead letters anyway. @ Socrates addressing the Athenians It Began with THE GREEKS GEORGE CHARLES ROCHE III 168 1970 IT BEGAN WITH THE GREEKS 169 WESTERN. MAN'S search for an un derstanding of himself and of his uni verse began with the Greeks in the sense that they gave the greatest impetus to the classical search for man's identity.