Take the Anti-Servitude Pledge!
Jason Kuznicki on Jul 23rd 2008
Here’s a line from Charles Rangel’s National Service Act:
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security . . . .
Ah, homeland security. The only excuse that permits absolutely anything. Just so we’re clear…
Required = involuntary.
Service = servitude.
And…
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
A “homeland” that tolerates involuntary servitude would not deserve “security.” It would deserve… well, we already got that, once upon a time.
I hope I don’t sound like too much of a fire-eater here, but I’m going to take a pledge, and I’m going to encourage others to do the same:
I solemnly swear that I will never take part in any involuntary civilian service at the behest of the federal government, regardless of the consequences.
I know, I know. I worded around the military draft. One battle at a time, and this one’s nearer.
So… Who’s signing up? Anyone under 42 want to burn a draft card with me on the Mall? Feel like being a test case for the first Thirteenth Amendment suit at the Supreme Court in who knows how many years? In The Agora? The Crossed Pond? Snarky Bastards? I’m looking at you guys! You know how fun it would be to watch Justice Stevens squirm out of the Thirteenth Amendment with some nonsense about evolving legal standards. Take the pledge, encourage your friends to do the same, and refuse to be a conscripted slave.
Also — this could be the most important part — refuse to compromise on the terminology. A slave is a slave, even if nice people like Charles Rangel or perhaps Barack Obama are the ones holding the whips.
Barack Obama? Yes indeed. He touts a “universal voluntary public service.” Right on his website. But if it’s voluntary, it won’t be universal, and if it’s universal, it won’t be voluntary. The plan is self-contradictory right down to the details: There’s a “required” 100 hours of service for graduating from college… but it’s apparently not “required,” since you’ll still be able to graduate without it. (Unless you’re poor, in which case you’d lose your financial aid.)
I’m not sure which is more distasteful: Actual involuntary servitude, or a politician who feels he has to pander to the slavery-pushers by promising what they want, and not delivering it. I also find it interesting that whenever you’re running for president, it’s somehow not undignified to ask others to do stuff for you, en masse, unpaid.
Filed in The Barracks, The Bureau
Glad to see this issue raised on this blog!
Thanks Jason.
I solemnly swear that I will never take part in any involuntary civilian service at the behest of the federal government, regardless of the consequences.
Where do I sign up for burning my draft card, Jason?
Right here. If it ever comes to that, right here. Watch this space.
Good for you! You will not want to be voting for Obama then….?
I have not yet decided how to vote. One thing to remember is that because I live in Maryland, it is more than usually likely that my vote won’t matter at all.
But to be completely fair, I do understand that McCain wants basically the same thing — some sort of giant but fuzzy national service program, with at least a strong implicit nod toward compulsion. So even on this issue he doesn’t get any points.
[...] by Mr Obama’s call to service or calling a spade a spade (perhaps). Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking [...]
Concise. Elementary. Brilliant!
Can DownsizeDC.org “borrow” your rhetoric?
Please do. Spread it around!
[...] a recent post to this blog, Jason Kuznicki made the point that we should oppose national service plans… even if nice people like… Barack Obama are the ones holding the whips. Barack Obama? Yes [...]
Unfortunately, I already see myself as being in involuntary servitude - why don’t people see that’s what the combination of income tax + welfare state is? I am effectively spending 20% (just a wild guess at the portion of my income that goes to welfare & subsidies) of my time working for the leeches.
Thank you for raising awareness about this issue, Jason. A lot of people like me, with left-libertarian sympathies, aren’t even aware of this. Obama needs to be called out on this and many other issues.
“Required = involuntary.
Service = servitude.”
What I don’t understand is how anyone can fail to see the reality of this situation. How in the world do the proponents of these “national service” plans blind themselves to the moral degeneracy of their position?
Consider me another signatory to the pledge…
A couple of things:
(1) Is it valid to equate a lifetime of slavery to a few years’ of service in the armed forces? Remember why the 13th Amendment was passed, and when it was passed; I don’t think Congress was looking to prevent the U.S. from forming an army, should the South rise again.
(2) Per Butler v Perry (240 US 328 [1916]) and Arver v US [245 US 366 {1918}], public service such as state road maintenance (1916) or the draft (1918) was judged to NOT be equivalent to involuntary servitude.
More here.
Regarding taxes, this is a valid point. But there are at least two relevant distinctions between taxation and forced labor. First, I may work at whatever I like to pay my taxes. I may even decide to work in such a way that I don’t pay taxes at all, albeit this will mean a highly constrained set of choices.
Second, there are certain public goods I honestly can’t be sure would be provided without taxes. I regard this as mostly a failure of imagination on my part, but it does suggest that eliminating them more slowly is the wiser course of action.
Ontario Emperor raises two distinct points. I’m not discussing the military draft here, but a civilian draft, which is what this proposal amounts to. The military draft touches on some very different issues, namely emergency situations, national defense, and — ultimately — an argument for self-protection via the draft, which all would have to be treated individually. In the end, I don’t think the arguments based on these distinctions could stand, but that’s a different question from this one.
As to conscripted peacetime service — involuntary servitude — I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Congress would declare itself fit to run the life of a 42-year-old adult, and make these sorts of major decisions for him — when no emergency exists, and when the country is at peace. More than hard to believe, I find it insulting. We were not made to serve the state, but the state was made to serve us.
I doubt very much that the precedent regarding state road maintenance could be sustained nowadays. At least, I hope it could not. Butler v Perry was decided narrowly, as I read it, in part because a broad decision might have implicated Jim Crow laws, which the courts had no wish to address at the time.
Clearly, there is no shortage of paid professional labor to do roadwork today. Yes, it’s paid for by taxes, but this is far more agreeable to me than having to quit my job and take up construction. A line is crossed there. Maybe it’s not a line standing starkly between justice and injustice, but there’s a meaningful difference here, and one worth fighting to preserve.
Jason said:
“Second, there are certain public goods I honestly can’t be sure would be provided without taxes. I regard this as mostly a failure of imagination on my part, but it does suggest that eliminating them more slowly is the wiser course of action.”
I didn’t mean to imply that was against *all* taxes, merely the use of taxes as benefits to people (or businesses, in the form of subsidies) who do not pay taxes (such as welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security).
There is no middle gound regarding taxes or national service. Either the government has the power to force individuals to pay taxes and render services under penalty of prison or death (statism), or goods and services are offered in the free market where each individual is free to accept or refuse them (voluntarism). There is absolutely nothing that couldn’t be provided by voluntary trade between individuals and groups of individuals. Limited government is itself a contradiction. And I think that 230 years of American government shows that to be undeniable.
Steven,
We’re faced with an interesting choice here. We can either oppose an obviously wrong initiative, or we can argue about a state of affairs that neither you nor I will ever live to see.
Which one will it be?
As to conscripted peacetime service — involuntary servitude — I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Congress would declare itself fit to run the life of a 42-year-old adult, and make these sorts of major decisions for him — when no emergency exists, and when the country is at peace.
No emergency exists? The country at peace? I think you’re watching a different news service than me… or another campaign for that matter.
Greyson –
This is not a military draft, and not envisioned as a temporary one. When the war ends (and it will end), the conditions I mention will apply.
Also, it’s worth asking: How long can a never-really-defined state of “emergency” exist across the entire globe? And what legal implications does it have?
Why can’t we do both, Jason. You and I may never live to see a voluntary society, but perhaps our grandchildren and great grandchildren can. For me, that makes it worth fighting for (for posterity). Besides, I see involuntary servitude as a natural consequence of involuntary government.
Of course, this is your blog and I will follow your rules.
[...] On The Other Hand I don’t like or trust John McCain, but I don’t think I can vote for a guy who does not believe in the Thirteenth Amendment. [...]
Jason, I’ve met very few people in life who were more optimistic than me, but I guess you’re among that number. I’m not quite as sure that this “war” and “emergency” have an end, at least not in Charlie Rangel’s lifetime. The country hasn’t seen peacetime for any real length of time since the interwar period in the ’30s, if then.
Then again I’m not sure how an “emergency” matters, even if it were a real emergency. Involuntary servitude is involuntary servitude no matter what conditions exist. I don’t think an emergency exists until people are inspired to volunteer in order to address it.
So add me to the list of pledges… and I won’t even wiggle away from avoiding the military draft (though I fully understand your reasons for doing so,) and add to that the pledge that I’ll be the first to the front lines if Canada ever decides to invade.
“I solemnly swear that I will never take part in any involuntary civilian OR MILITARY service at the behest of the federal OR ANY STATE OR LOCAL government, regardless of the consequences.”
How’s that?
[...] friend Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty is inviting supporters to pledge the following: I solemnly swear that I will never take part in any involuntary civilian service at the behest of [...]
[...] a follow-up to my Anti-Servitude Pledge…. I solemnly swear that I will never take part in any involuntary civilian service at the [...]
[...] I’d take the pledge. There’s more here. [Huge hat tip to [...]