Libertarianism 101: Corporate Welfare

Editor's Note: This post was originally published in 2007. As such, it does not deal with the current issue of government bailouts for private, or even semi-private, financial institutions. Needless to say, we are opposed to these bailouts.

If we cut the federal budget to my proposed 30% of FY 2006's budget, the granting of subsidies and handouts to private businesses would be a moot point ... there wouldn't be any money available to do so. Of course, this is about as likely to happen as what? ... putting a man on Mars?

As I've said in previous posts, I believe in the free market. I believe the federal government sticks its nose into the economy much more than it should. The growth in federal employee jobs is a growth in bureaucracy, not a growth in the vital economy of the nation. The government's habit, and this is yet another example of Congressmen and Senators buying votes, of subsidizing private business operations is not only expensive, but laughable. Especially, when one considers that for years farmers have been paid NOT to grow things! If farmers can't compete in the free market, then the market will determine how many farmers there should be. With the increased productivity of American farmers, we should be using the surplus as a means of diplomacy. Let the government buy up the surplus and sell it to the United Nations to use in it's drive to end world hunger. This is probably one job I don't mind letting the UN handle ... they certainly can't protect anyone from violence. Then again, let the UN buy the food directly from the farmers. Why should the government take a loss?

And while I may be unduly harsh on farmers, there are other government handouts that deserve scrutiny. Industries, large and small, receive these subsidies: airline, timber, pharmaceutical, major league baseball, dairy, sugar, and the list can go on and on. In addition to these subsidies, the government frequently places minimum prices on things such as gasoline and milk ... which only results in us paying more for an item than we otherwise would.

Many would argue that some of these handouts to business results in benefits to all. Research into new medicines, telecommunications, agriculture, and biotechnology may allow us to live healthier, longer, and more productive lives. Isn't this a valid use of our tax dollars? I would argue that it is ... with one exception. If some drug company, for example, develops a new drug using government funds, then the government should realize the return on their "investment" (is this what Bill Clinton was talking about?). The patent should be registered with the government and anyone who wishes to license it should pay the government the licensing fee, not the business that did the development. And if something is developed using both government and private funds, the government should receive its fair share. And if this drives private industry into accepting less government funds, great! It most likely will not result in less research and development as these firms are after profit and the best way to make money is to have a competitive advantage over your competition. The profit motive will continue to drive innovation and technology.

But what about items that were initially developed solely for government use that are eventually commercialized? Two items come quickly to mind: Hummers and the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system. Both of these items were developed by Defense Contractors using government funds. Now that these products have gone commercial, is the government receiving any return on their initial investment? I would doubt it. But this isn't about the government receiving a return, it's about all American's receiving a return on their hard earned money. As a free market advocate, I believe we should all benefit when our tax dollars are, believe it or not, invested in an enterprise that can actually make money!

Having supported NASA for many years as a contractor I believe there is a very easy means for NASA to be self-sustaining (much like the Postal Service is suppose to be) ... Don't retire the Space Shuttle ... reconfigure it to carry passengers and sell tickets! I'm all for government operating more like a private business.

Some corporate welfare links:

• Stop Corporate Welfare!


• Ending Corporate Welfare As We Know It


• Corporate Welfare Information Center

Libertarianism 101: Cutting the Pork to the Bone

Editor's Note: This post was originally published in 2007. As such, some of the data is dated.

The Federal Government spends a hell of a lot of money. For fiscal year 2006, the President's budget requested almost $2.6 TRILLION dollars (T$)! With an estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $12.9 T$, the Federal Government contributes nearly 20% towards the total GDP. Of this $2.6 T$, $922 billion of it (that's just over 1/3) is for what is called "Discretionary" spending. This means the government is not required, by law, to expend this money. This includes money for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Transportation, Treasury, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Justice, etc., etc. The remainder, or about $1.4 T$, is for so-called "Mandatory" spending. This includes Social Security ($540B), Medicare ($340B), and Medicaid ($199B), among Other ($331B) things.

Wow! That's a lot of money. And this is just what President Bush is REQUESTING. Congress usually spends more.

If you remove the programs that I consider to be things the federal government should not be spending money on - charity, business subsidies, arts endowments, social security, health care - and eliminated projects that were completely local in scope, I imagine the federal budget would be about 30% of what it is today. And that doesn't include other services that one could argue belong at the local level, such as Education. And what's worse, in my mind, is the government isn't very efficient with its spending. It wastes hundred of millions of dollars each and every year. In many cases, it's encouraged to waste money. For those of us who either are or used to be federal employees or have been contractors to government organizations, what happens during the last quarter of any fiscal year? Gotta spend our money! If we don't spend it all, we won't get as much next year! What do they spend it on? Anything and everything. New computers they don't need, fancy office furniture, picnics, off-site employee development seminars, travel to optimal resort locations for conferences, ... the list goes on and on. And it's not as though there aren't multitudes of government reports investigating this waste. Every Congressional member should be well informed and should, one would hope, want to do something about it. But they don't.

And it doesn't really seem to matter what political party is in power. Democrats always spend and then spend some more. And Republicans, even though they claim to be fiscal conservatives, have continued to increase government spending on massive education and health care programs - programs, one could argue, in which the federal government should have no involvement!

At one point a couple of years ago, President Bush requested that each department head come up with 1% in savings. One percent! One penny on the dollar. And guess what, they couldn't ... every dollar they received was just so critical that it couldn't be given up. The response of the department heads prodded then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to quip, rather tongue-in-cheek I believe, that the budget was as trim as it could be (and I'm paraphrasing here)!

And Republicans, and I think Democrats, too, have realized that a great way to get more money to spend is to cut taxes. The tax cuts of 1964, 1986, and 2001 have all resulted in increased revenues to the federal government. The Republicans support this by saying it will put more money in your pocket. The Democrats oppose it so they can pander to those who don't even pay any taxes. But both parties know it will give them more money to spend.

My local paper, the Winchester Star had a recent editorial on all of the "Bacon" our Congressional representative, Frank Wolf, is bringing home to his district. It cites a number of funded projects to support "... local tourism initiatives, local and regional museums, [and] local community centers ..." and ponders "Should the federal government even be involved in these endeavors?" I, for one, believe the answer to this question should not only be "NO" but "HELL, NO!"

So, what do we do about it? What CAN we do about it? Congressional districts have been gerrymandered in such a way that House incumbents rarely lose. And Senators never seem to want to cut spending of any sort, even when the House of Representatives identifies areas in which cuts can be made. So, what's one to do?

Obviously, getting folks into power who believe in a smaller, more limited federal government would be the ideal solution. Senators like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma have publicly disagreed and voted against wasteful government spending. But when you're only 1 of 4 against 84, can it really make a difference?

It would also be nice to have a President who has the backbone to curtail spending. President Bush didn't veto a single bill in his first 5 years in office ... not one! Given his inability to seek re-election, isn't this the prime time for him to pick up the veto pen and slash this wasteful spending? He has a majority in both Houses of Congress. If not now, when?

It won't be until the American people, as a whole, start telling their representatives what they must do with regards to spending that changes will happen. Make the representatives and candidates respond to your inquiries. Make the sacrifice of foregoing pork at home in order to stop pork in other districts and throw the bums out of office if they don't comply. If you don't think this is an issue, just check out some of these links on how your elected representatives are spending YOUR money.

• Top 10 Examples of Government Waste


• Ready for Reconciliation: The Top Five Items No Fiscal Conservative Could Possibly Support


• 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary


• Drunk With Power, Spending Out of Control


• Katrina and Pork


• Pork: Your Tax Dollars at Work

Libertarianism 101: Government Welfare or Private Charity

When hurricane Katrina slammed into the gulf coast, I went to the Red Cross website and made a contribution. When my closet starts to get overloaded with clothing that I don't wear anymore or have grown out of, I pack everything up and take it to the Salvation Army or the Goodwill. At Thanksgiving, I take a bag or two of groceries to work to be given to the local food bank. And, for every Sunday that I'm in church, I leave a check in the offering plate (to alleviate the guilt I feel for not showing up every Sunday).

The point of this is not to pat myself on the back for all my wonderful compassion and caring. In fact, I'm pretty embarrassed that I don't do more. I know a number of people who work with our local Christmas in April program, have helped build houses with Habitat for Humanity, and took time off from their regular jobs to travel to Mississippi and Louisiana to help with the cleanup of Katrina.

What I and these others have in common is that we feel the desire to help others in need and we've choosen specific areas in which we want to help. Nobody told us we had to do this nor forced us to give our contributions to any particular organization or cause.

Now, what if somebody confronted you on the street, pulled out a gun, and said you had to give some of your money to somebody else? And what if that somebody else was some person or organization you had no inclination to otherwise assist? Would you think that was fair? Well, this is essentially what the federal government does when it uses your tax dollars for "charitable" giving. It forces you to give your money to people and organizations you would not otherwise give to.

And, to top it off, the government's giving is most definitely inequitable. For example, why should the families of the victims of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster have received federal assistance when the families of, say, people who died in automobile accidents or from heart attacks - on that same September 11th - got absolutely nothing? Was a WTC victim somehow more worthy of government assistance? Shouldn't these people, especially the ones with families, have taken some personal responsibility and had life insurance policies to provide for others in the event of such an unforeseen accident? In a similar vein, why do people who have their homes destroyed by floods or hurricanes or tornadoes qualify for federal assistance when someone who's house burns down from faulty electrical wiring does not? Shouldn't all homeowners take personal responsibility for their property by buying insurance?

The federal government is authorized under our Constitution to engage in a specific list of enterprises. It has proven, over its more than 200 years of experience, to be about as inefficient - not to mention ineffective - as one could possibly imagine at most of these enterprises. Why on earth would we want such an organization to:

• get its hands on any more money than is absolutely necessary to accomplish its minimal set of functions, and


• ask it to go into a line of business it has no authority to engage in?

Congressman Davy Crockett, (D-TN), was probably one of the first to understand what happens when you try to legislate charity. Where does the giving stop? And why, as free individuals, should we be forced to give money to government for purposes that are not within it's charter?

If one took all the money the federal government spends on "charity" and gave it to private organizations, who knows how many more people could be assisted and in a more equitable manner? And better yet, if we didn't like the way a private organization was operating, we would all have the choice to give our money to somebody else.

For additional views on private charity replacing government welfare, check out these links:

• What Gives? The Possibilities of Private Charity


• The War on Charity


• What Makes Charity Work?

Libertarianism 101: Terminate Social Security

President Bush's proposal to privatize part of social security is a plan that, unfortunately, has pretty much been killed by Congress. It was killed because Congressmen and Senators want to continue to have the social security "contributions" to spend on vote buying schemes. Surprising? Hardly. Were I a member of Congress, I probably would have rejected the idea, too ... but for a different reason ... the proposal didn't go far enough.

I believe Social Security should be completely abolished. The Federal Government does very few things with any level of adequacy, let alone excellence. The last thing I want them to do is to take my money, invest it for me, and then not be obligated to ever give it back. Assuming I live long enough to receive benefits, the rate of return is about the equivalent of a passbook savings account. In addition to being low, this return must also be viewed as risky. First, the plan is subject to change from future political actions. Who's to say that Congress won't change the rules? Second, to ensure the long-term solvency of the existing program, something will have to be done. And, depending upon where you are in your life, it could mean an increase in "contributions", a reduction in benefits, or both. Some great plan, huh?

Regardless of what you may think about the government providing some type of safety net for the truly needy (see my previous post on Government Welfare or Private Charity), don't we all want to be in control of our own financial well-being? Some would argue that not everyone is able to manage their own finances. To them I say, well, that's the responsibility that comes along with freedom. If you can't manage it, that's what spouses or children or friends or PROFESSIONAL FINANCIAL MANAGERS(!!) are for! How much intelligence does it take to open an online trading account (I use Ameritrade), set up an automatic monthly withdrawal from your checking account, and pick four or five mutual funds to invest in? The Internet is just crawling with sources of information from Yahoo! Finance to MSN's MoneyCentral. A high school student should be able to realize at least a 10% return. In fact, many high school students have class projects where they invest "money" in the market. And, if my son's class is any indication, they do pretty well.

Another common complaint is that transition from the current plan to another plan would be too complicated or too costly or too this or too that. And I agree that this presents a problem. The President's proposal was an attempt, I believe, to address some of these transition issues. Here's my plan for transition to a private system ... and remember, I'm an engineer, not a financial analyst.

1. Current Recipients

Much like winning the lottery, allow current recipients to take either a lump sum payment or continue to receive their current benefits. Emphasize that future benefits may be changed (which is, of course, the case now). The lump sum amount would be based upon the present value of the payments a recipient would be expected to receive over their expected lifetime (this is where age, gender, and other actuary-type statistics would come into play).

2. Current Payees

Give those of us still working and contributing to the system the ability to opt out. The opt out would only include the portion that is directly taken out of our paychecks. Employers would be required to continue to make their portion of the contribution (which we all know comes out of our paycheck one way or another). When we "opt outs" reach retirement age, we'll get the same choice as the current recipients. We can get a lump sum or receive a monthly payment. The amount we receive would be based upon the amount we paid in before we "opted out."

For those who don't opt out ... they continue to participate until they retire and then get the lump sum/monthly payment option.

3. Youngsters Who Haven't Started Working

These folks won't even be part of the system. They're on their own ... with one caveat. As more and more people enter the workforce that won't be making their "contributions" and more and more people are receiving benefits there will, obviously, be a shortfall. I believe A LOT of folks will take the lump sum option as soon as they are able to because they can earn A LOT more investing it on their own. So, some of the shortfall will be made up this way. In addition, for those entering the workforce, their employers will still make some type of "contribution." How much? I don't know ... like I said, I'm not a finance guy. I would expect, however, that this amount would gradually decline and completely disappear once a sufficient surplus has been built up which is sufficient to pay all anticipated benefits. This, of course, also assumes that Congress stops spending the money contributed into the system and allows this to grow. Otherwise, this continued employer "contribution" would be at a higher rate and would probably need to continue until there were no more retirees receiving benefits.

Is this workable? Hell, how would I know? Is it better than what we've got now? How could it not be?"

Libertarianism 101: Free Trade

I'm not an economist ... and I don't pretend to be. When it comes to the economy, I believe in the free market - good old supply and demand. I'm also a consumer. I don't want to pay any more for an item than I have to. Likewise, I want a variety of choices - maybe I don't need a Cadillac and would prefer a Chevy. The best way to ensure the lowest prices and the largest supply is for the government (any government) to stay out of the marketplace. There should be no government-imposed price controls, trade barriers, or supply limitations.

But, some would say, how do we protect our industries from overseas competition where this competition is either subsidized by their government or their labor costs are far less than ours due to their lack of labor laws such as we have? And that's a pretty good question ... and my answer would be ... quality. If we make a better product that is more expensive, people who want that higher quality product will be willing to pay a higher price. Again, if we have choices in the level of quality in a particular type of good, there will always be a market for a high quality item.

My real concern with free trade are twofold:

1. Trade Unions

Trade Unions artificially raise the prices of our goods and services in overseas markets. Seventy-five years ago trade unions were a necessity as there were no labor laws to speak of. In a 21st century economy, trade unions seem to me to be more interested in sustaining themselves than they do in furthering the causes of their members or of their industry. They whine and cry about overseas competition yet appear to have no inclination to improve the quality of either their workforce or their product. Unions also penalize productive individuals and reward mediocrity. It's time for them to go.

2. Income Taxes

Our income tax structure keeps foreign employers from operating in the US and causes many domestic companies to set up their headquarters overseas. Requiring domestic firms to pay US taxes on their overseas sales is ludicrous. Other industrialized countries have no such provisions. Requiring our firms to artificially inflate their prices to account for this additional embedded tax raises our prices and hampers the expansion of our industries. Lower prices abroad mean more jobs at home.

For some other sources on Free Trade, check out these links:

• Free Trade FAQs


• North America Free Trade Agreement


• Free Trade & Globalization

Libertarianism 101: National ID Card - I've Already Got Mine

The Libertarians are opposed to a National ID Card. I'm in favor of it, however, and would argue that we already have a National ID Card ... although we don't call it that.

Let's first take a look at what information various governments (federal, state, and local) already know about you. If you were born in the US there is a birth certificate on file in some State's database. This lists your name, your parents' names, and the date and place of birth. If you have a driver's license, some State has your picture, a mailing address, knows whether or not you need corrective lenses, and if you've decided to donate your vital organs. If you've registered to vote, again, some State has a record of your name, address, and, in many cases, political party affiliation. If you've had the opportunity to travel outside the borders of the country, then you probably have a passport. Now the Feds have your picture, place and date of birth, and address information. Do you have a job? If so, then you have a social security card. Again, your name, address, parent's name, phone number, date and place of birth are on record. And lastly, if you have a job and have filed an income tax return, the IRS knows who your children are, who you're married to, how much money you make, to whom you make charitable contributions, etc., etc.

This is a tremendous amount of information ... and this is if you've never been in trouble with the law. If you had run-ins with the law the government can, relatively easily, acquire information on your phone calls, banking history, credit card use, and God knows what else.

So, what would be the added intrusion if there were a National ID card? What would be on that card that isn't already recorded ... somewhere? What would be the impact of requiring that every citizen over the age of 18 acquire a passport? To those who already have passports, this is no added burden. To those that don't have passports, how much of a compliance burden is there? Let's see, you need to have proof that you are a citizen and ... that's it.

Many who oppose the concept of a National ID card make the case that this would violate our civil liberties. The government could demand, at it's own whim, that we produce this card and prove that we are who we say we are. Hey, welcome to the real world ... they can already do this. We don't have to comply now and we certainly wouldn't have to comply if there were a National ID card. In both cases, however, there may be a penalty for not complying. So, what really changes?

I believe there are benefits of everyone having a passport.

1. A Standard Form of ID

A passport is the only definitive proof that the owner is a US Citizen! While some States require proof of citizenship before issuing a driver's license, some don't. A social security card, for the most part, only means you've been authorized to work (and pay income taxes) in the US. Neither of these, or a myriad of other forms of identification, identifies the owner as a US Citizen.

2. Forgery

Any form of identification can be forged ... even passports. Compared with other forms of ID, however, passports are a lot tougher to duplicate. Plus, people who already have passports tend to secure them more than they do a driver's license. And, by the way, I'm NOT advocating that we should be required to carry our passports with us at all times.

3. Voting Eligibility Verification

Just about every state requires that you be a US Citizen to vote. But how does each state verify that an applicant is, in fact, a US Citizen? That, as you might imagine, varies from State to State. If being a US Citizen is a voting requirement, there should be some definitive, standard means of verifying citizenship. Requiring each voting age citizen to have a passport would standardize this process.

4. Employment Eligibility

Many employment opportunities require proof of citizenship. As with voting eligibility, a passport is the ONLY definitive proof of US citizenship.

5. Immigration

Illegal immigration is a serious issue (or, at least I believe it to be). While a passport would not distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants, it would easily distinguish between Citizen and those whose immigration status is questionable.

6. Terrorism

As long as the major threat to our national security continues to be from foreign terrorists, the ability to rather easily determine who is and who isn't a citizen would be extremely helpful. Would it cause an undue burden on legal immigrants ... absolutely. But then again, if I was a legal immigrant, you can be sure that I would already be carrying some proof that I was here legally.

7. International Travel

When you want to go ... you'll already have your passport.

The bottom line from my perspective is this ... I've already got a passport. I think everyone should have one. There is no information required for a passport that doesn't already exist on your driver's license, birth certificate, social security application, or permanent resident card. A system is already in place to process and approve applications. Where a requirement exists to prove citizenship, there should be a standard means of proving it."

Libertarianism 101: Why Drugs Should Be Legalized

Let's get this out of the way first ... Do I use illegal narcotics? Not at all. My last toke on a joint was in 1981 ... I think. Do I want my kids to smoke dope or snort cocaine? Absolutely not! Do I want them around people who abuse drugs ... any drug? Of course not. So, why would I be in favor of legalizing substances that are currently illegal?

Personal Freedom & Individual Responsibility
You come home from a hard day at work and, in the privacy of your own home, decide to have a beer and a joint ... to unwind and relax. Why is the beer legal and the joint illegal? Does one cause more harm than the other? Is there something in the federal or state consitutions that say one type of drug is okay while others are not? As long as our personal drug use does not result in injury to another person or damage to their property, why should smoking a joint in our living rooms be illegal?

A Colossal Waste of Money
Federal, state, and local governments spend an incredible amount of money on the war on drugs. This is our money that is, essentially, wasted. Do people still do drugs, even though they're illegal? Do drugs still enter our country from South America and Asia? Are the drugs still present in our schools? Do I have to even bother to answer these questions? Studies have shown that there are more cost effective means for fighting drug abuse ... and, after all, that really is our goal, isn't it? We want to move people off debilitating drugs and toward a produtive life. A non-violent drug offender does not belong in a cell. He belongs in a treatment program that will return him to his family and his workplace.

Some Links of interest:

• Economic Consequences of the War on Drugs


• Drug War Crimes, The Consequences of Prohibition


• Controlling Cocaine: Supply Versus Demand Programs

Criminal Activity
Think of the crime and violence that result from making drug use illegal. Think of the non-violent drug offenders who are incarcerated at the public's expense. What about the gang activity and violence associated with drug trafficing? If you want a striking parallel, think back to the days of alcohol prohibition. What were the results of this prohibition? The Valentine's Day Massacre, Al Capone, Gangster Activity, the foundation of the Kennedy fortune (I just had to add that one ...) ... For an excellent comparison, please read this article, Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

Libertarianism 101: Consenting Adults & Marriage

Another tenant of the Libertarian philosophy is there should be no laws regulating what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. The key words here being "consenting" and "adults." As long as there is no unconsentual harm to anyone's person or property, why should the government (a) care or (b) be the arbitrator of morality? In my opinion, the government needs to get out of the bedroom ... or the living room or the kitchen or wherever else one prefers to engage in mutually agreeable activity.

A discussion of consenting adults generally leads to the topic of marriage ... straight or gay. In my opinion, the government should get out of this discussion as well. I believe marriage to be a religious institution ... not a civil one. Why the government cares who's married to whom is beyond me. If some religious denomination wants to "marry" two men, two women, two woman and one man, etc., what do I care? It's not like these people would be doing anything they weren't already doing while they were single ...

Given the government's current policy of enacting laws that endow certain privileges and benefits based upon one's marital status (e.g., income tax, right of survivorship), I can understand the philosophy of those in favor of gay marriage. Why shouldn't a gay partner have the same rights as a heterosexual partner? Well, in most cases ... they can.

A power of attorney can be granted to a gay partner in order for them to make medical decisions for their partner. A life insurance policy can have a gay partner as a beneficiary. Many private health insurance policies permit one additional adult (of either sex) to be included. It is only where the government gets involved (especially income tax and social security benefits) that these same partner benefits are denied. This is why the government needs to repeal/revise all laws that use martial status as a litmus test.

If you're not necessarily religious, another argument is based upon the idea that marriage is a contractual relationship. Why the government feels it needs to get involved in a contract, entered into freely, between two or more parties is, again, beyond me.

Some would argue the government needs to be involved in marriages in order to protect the interest of any minor children. Given that being married has pretty much been eliminated as a prerequisite for having children, the government needs to be concerned about all children, regardless of whether their parents happen to be married.

What about divorces? One point of view might be that the government, not being a party to a marriage, would not be involved in the dissolution of one. Would this mean that one spouse (or two or three) couldn't sue in civil court for damages based upon this dissolution? Hell, folks sue each other every day for just about any silly reason (spilled hot coffee comes to mind) ... why would the end of a marriage be any siller than what's already happening. Another point of view might be that whatever religious organization that sanctified the marriage would be the arbitrator of its termination.

To summarize:

• Let religious organizations or formal, private contracts determine who "marries" whom.


• Eliminate/revise all government laws that identify marital status as a condition.


• Allow the free market to determine what types of policies are available from insurance organizations.


• Keep the government out of people's bedrooms.


• Privatize Social Security or allow survivor benefits to be paid to any person.

Libertarianism 101: Volunteer Military

As an Air Force veteran, I have a feeling of deep respect, admiration, and gratitude for those who are making extreme personal sacrifices to serve in our armed forces - both in combat and non-combat areas and roles. Being in the military isn't easy. The pay stinks, you are routinely placed in harm's way, you and your family are frequently forced to pack up and move, there are extended periods of family separation, and any retirement compensation is an all or nothing proposition (i.e., 20 years minimum service). Oh yeah, the chance to be wounded, maimed, or killed is a lot greater than in the civilian world.

But, somehow, there are individuals who volunteer for this duty. Some, including members of Congress, would rather we re-institute the draft. Why do they want to do this? Because our forces are depleted and we're not able to recruit qualified soldiers? Nope. They want to re-institute it as some sort of social engineering program ... because there aren't enough rich kids, or white kids, or congressmen's kids volunteering. Is this at all logical? Have you ever coached one of your kid's sports team? Which kids pay attention, follow direction, and cause the least amount of disruption? The ones who want to be there or the ones whose parents forced them to be there? Pretty obvious, isn't it? Likewise, why would we want to force unqualifed, unmotivated, spoiled brats (in many cases) into our military - just because we want the military to represent society as a whole (another Congressional affirmative action argument)? If so, would we have to place caps on the number of, say, Black officers? Say what? Well, Black college graduates comprise some 12 percent of the officer corps in the all-volunteer force, yet only 7.6 percent of all college graduates are Black. Should we insist on a representative force by placing a cap on the number of Black officers? Sounds pretty silly ... doesn't it?

Some additional rationale:

Higher Quality Individuals
When you rely on conscripts, you pretty much get what you get. Yeah, they have to meet the minimum physical requirements, but the mental ability is an unknown. Today's military is extremely high-tech. Sophisticated weaponry and support systems are everywhere. Do we really want high-school dropouts operating this stuff ... even with training?

Higher Rentention
What happens when the service requirements expire for a conscript? More than likely they leave the military. If they had wanted to be there, they wouldn't have been drafted ... they would have volunteered. Volunteers are far more likely to stay in the service ... which results in less recruiting costs, less training costs, and a more efficient fighting force.

Individual Liberty
The Government of a country built upon the concept of freedom and individual liberty shouldn't be forcing it's citizens to do anything ... other than obey the law. Conscription would undermine the very individual liberty that makes our nation worth defending. Do we really want people defending America who aren't motivated to do so without government force?

Check out what some other folks (who are much more intelligent and coherent than I) think:

• The Virtue of an All-Volunteer Force


• The Libertarian Roots of the All-Volunteer Military


• Fighting the War Against Terrorism: Elite Forces, Yes; Conscripts, No