It’s on!

Royal Sargent, a local bozo, calls me names today in my home town newspaper. His letter about me is here.  

He writes:

I suggest that Tom is the one that should emigrate as he doesn’t seem to appreciate living in the USA. He thinks that everyone who believes as he does should be able to sit back and enjoy life and if our country is threatened, others will step forward to protect him ? how pathetic is that?
Tom’s arguments against a draft all assume that being drafted will dictate a person’s entire lifetime ? not true. Two or three years of military service are a small price to pay for the security and freedom of our country. Since Tom wrote his letters, I have not seen any letters which agree with his stance on a draft, but I have seen some letters which don’t. Perhaps Tom has not lived in Tennessee very long and doesn’t understand the meaning of “The Volunteer State.” Again, I suggest that Tom consider moving out of Tennessee ? San Francisco might be a good choice.

My response that I just sent to the newspaper:

Royal Sargent, ever the intellectual, resorts to name calling in his Nov. 30, 2007 letter to the editor, responding to my letters warning of the perils of military conscription.

Royal Sargent did not respond to any of my arguments; he simply resorted to a personal attack, which is the typical response of someone that does not understand the argument presented. To recap, here are my primary reasons for opposing a draft:

• A draft is akin to slavery. Free will is denied the drafted soldier, much like the free will of Mike Vick’s dogs was denied.
• Conscripted soldiers are less motivated than volunteer solders; after all, the U.S. military defeated the world’s most powerful military with an all-volunteer army in order to win its independence.
• Taxes to support these drafted soldiers result in deadweight losses.
• A draft is like a tax in kind, on the time of young persons. This tax hits the most capable workers the hardest, resulting in subsequently lower economic growth, negatively influencing prosperity in the United States.
• Government is not skilled at directing labor to its most efficient places; the price function is the mechanism by which scarce resources can be most efficiently allocated.

I’m confident Mr. Sargent does not understand the above arguments, which is why he resorts to name calling instead of responding with valid counter arguments. Here is what Mr. Sargent wrote in his letter:

• Tom Armstrong “should emigrate” to San Francisco. I can see from his response to my letters that Royal Sargent cannot follow complex arguments, but I’d expect him to at least understand that a person living in Tennessee does not “emigrate” to San Francisco. Incidentally, Mr. Sargent, I offer tutoring; feel free to join my second grade study group on Thursdays.
• He said that my arguments “assume that being drafted will dictate a person’s entire lifetime—not true. Two or three years of military service are a small price to pay for the security and freedom of our country.” Mr. Sargent makes some assumptions of his own, primarily: all soldiers return from battle. Tell the families of 60,000 deceased soldiers that served in Vietnam about their trivial two or three year commitments. In fact, tell that directly to me and my family members that have lost loved ones to warfare. Mr. Sargent, if you have any decency and respect for soldiers that have given their lives for this country, you will issue an immediate apology in this newspaper.
• Finally, Royal says I don’t “understand the meaning of ‘The Volunteer State.’” Wow! Mr. Sargent, you can’t be serious. I, you see, am the one that understands the meaning of “volunteer.” I’m the one that seeks to maintain an all-volunteer military, while Mr. Sargent seeks to eliminate all “volunteers” and replace them with forced labor.

This entry was posted on November 30, 2007 at 1:45 pm and is filed under General post. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.