Three Point Outline of my Political and Moral Philosophy First submitted to CPT Kilgore, BN Chaplain, shortly after 29MAY96 to give him an idea in writing of the points I wished to make to best represent my views at that time.

1. The Basis of my Claim
 

I am not a conscientious objector in the usual or stereotypical sense. I am a conscientious objector in the literal sense. I object to behavior which is contrary to my moral philosophy. I could not in good conscience participate in this behavior nor could I in good conscience willingly support those who participate in this behavior. I believe that without just cause or explicit consent it is wrong to harm or kill another person, it is wrong to take, damage or destroy another person's property, it is wrong to exercise arbitrary control over another person, that is to say, require him to do what he would not voluntarily do or impede him from doing what he chooses so long as it affects only himself and such persons as voluntarily submit to the effects of his behavior, and it is wrong not to honor the terms of a contract voluntarily agreed upon so long as the terms do not adversely affect any non-consenting parties. The crossing of national borders is viewed by some as a natural right. Others consider it their natural right to impede such migrations. On the one hand, the mere crossing of a national boundary does not kill or harm anyone. By itself it does not damage or destroy anyone's property. It does not rob or steal anything from anyone despite the claim that jobs are being "stolen." It does not rob or steal another man's freedom by imposing upon him some arbitrary control. On the other hand, to impede someone's crossing is to deprive him of some of his natural liberty. Further, the enforcement of this arbitrary rule gives rise to daily incidents of loss of property, health and life. I could not in good conscience deprive a person of his natural liberty to cross an imagined border nor could I in good conscience support those who by their enforcement efforts deprive people of their health and life who refuse to submit to their arbitrary rule. The sale, purchase, possession and use of psychoactive substances have for centuries been viewed as a natural right. Now-a-days, the right to prohibit the sale, purchase, possession and use of these substances is considered by many to be self-evident irrespective of the fact that they normally consider the sale, purchase, possession and use of alcohol and cigarettes as a natural right. On the one hand, the sale, purchase or possession of any item with the possible exception of explosives, viruses and other volatile and dangerous substances do not harm or kill anyone, it does not damage or destroy anyone's property, it does not deprive anyone of his property or freedom. The mere use of drugs does not deprive anyone of their property or freedom, it does not damage or destroy a person's property, it harms and kills no one except the individual who voluntarily exposes himself to that risk and even then it does not necessarily harm or kill. The issue of robbery, assault and murder do not apply to mere use since they are criminal acts independent of the person's motives. Drug use does not lead to crime any more than drinking leads to drunk driving. The issue of children using drugs does not apply since, not having reached the age of consent, they cannot voluntarily consent to expose themselves to the dangers of drug use and it will always be immoral to sell or give them drugs just as it is immoral to sell or give alcohol or cigarettes to children. On the other hand, prohibiting the sale, purchase, possession and use of drugs, and imposing draconian fines and penalties does several things to which I am morally opposed. It deprives people of their ancient and natural right of self-medication. Imprisonment deprives people of nearly all their remaining rights. The fines imposed deprive people of their property even if they are not charged with a "crime." No-knock raids damage and destroy countless amounts of property. People are injured and lives are taken all in the name of enforcing a law which is immoral, a law which legalizes robbery, vandalism, assault, enslavement and murder. I personally consider the use of drugs unwise, but compared to the outrages of the War on Drugs, it is most benign. I could not in good conscience enforce such outrageous and immoral laws and to support them for my is tantamount to supporting robbery, vandalism, assault enslavement and murder. Drug interdiction and border control were the two issues of policy which lead me to reconsider my moral principles.

2. The Source of my Belief

In January of 1995 I began an investigation of the issues of immigration and drug prohibition. I read several books on these and other related topics including general moral philosophy and ethics. I also paid careful attention to news stories relating to drugs and immigration and discussed these stories with friends, family and to a limited extent with my classmates at Goodfellow AFB and my colleagues here at Ft. Drum in order to discover their reasoning and how they justified their support of these laws. It was primarily these books and the lack of sound reasoning amongst the majority of people with whom I spoke who opposed the ideas in these books I was reading which ultimately convinced me that what the laws which we are tasked with enforcing are hypocritical and immoral.

3. Any Comments about the depth and sincerity of my convictions

As proof of the sincerity of my convictions, let us suppose for a moment that my intentions are not sincere, that I simply want to get out of the Army and on with my life. I submit that claiming to be a conscientious objector on these ground would be the most obscenely stupid way of achieving my goal that I could have imagined. I would have been better off simply failing the weight and PT standards which I find hard enough to maintain as it is, or in the least I could have converted to the Amish, Mennonite, Jehovah's Witness or other faith which has some precedent for members claiming to be conscientious objectors. To my knowledge, no one has claimed to be a conscientious objector on grounds that they morally oppose a law they may be tasked with enforcing. And chances are that though there must be a precedent somewhere none of those judging my case will have been familiar with it. Furthermore, it has been my experience that the laws to which I object are supported with passion by virtually everyone with religious, conservative or liberal convictions. Were I not sincere it was certainly folly to choose the path I've chosen. My own family, though they would like to see me out of the military, are disturbed by my reasons. I am a person of extreme convictions. I realize that my claim will be unprecedented at least on the level of this command if not in the entire Army. Yet for me there is no option. I must follow my convictions, I cannot live with that level of hypocrisy. I cannot falsify my reasons for seeking separation. If I am not granted this request, I will have to continue by any honest means I can conceive of to resist supporting and participating in the enforcement of these and any other laws or actions I discover to be by my standards immoral.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

© 1996 golwis@yahoo.com