Wholistic Libertarianism is my own home grown blend of libertarian & conservative thought. Libertarian as in...You are the owner of your own adult body and NO DAMN GOVERNMENT has the right to dictate what you can or must do with it, at least in the privacy of your home. I believe all libertarians would agree with that self evident truth...but doubt they would ALL agree with my Conservative belief...Whatever crosses the national borders is subject to the scrutiny and control of the Federal government. The conventional libertarian tends to believe in the absolute and universal (as in everybody, citizen & non-citizen) freedom of the individual. So if you own a company and manufacture goods, you should have the right to sell those goods to whomever you please. What if the goods are guns and you wish to sell them to foreign enemies of the USA. Or what if another country sabotages the currency markets, so as to give their exporters an unfair advantage over American manufacturers. Should the American consumer have the right to buy those foreign goods unimpeded by any U.S. penalty on them? Or here is another one for absolute freedom...do you have the right to PUBLICLY desecrate an American flag you own? Wholistic Libertarianism gives reasonable answers to these and a whole lot more....read on! Wholistic Libertarianism seeks the greatest preservation of liberty. With insight from American history, it asserts there are seven auxiliary principles in addition to LIBERTY, that can help guide the formulation of law
The principles are:
>EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
>CONCENTRATION OF POWER
The principle of individual liberty, or liberty for short, is the premier principle and the raison d'etre for all the others.
Liberty is the first and foremost word in our American political heritage. Why is that so, why is it so important? Well if you are minding your own business and somebody comes up to you and gives you a bloody nose, will you understand then? If the government banned condoms, would you care? Or when the government gives you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt to protect your own safety, would you be offended? Or perhaps if the government takes a third of your hard earned income and gives it to somebody who spends his life getting drunk, high on drugs and fathering illegitimate children he doesn't support, will you be outraged? Now the simple folk amongst us know instinctively about liberty and they will even defend it with their lives. Ah, but the better educated, sophisticated folk know better. And if they pride themselves on their compassion, they know how to pick and choose the liberties worth defending. Yes, they will say, you should avoid the selfish instinct not to share your income with the poor and you should remember the government knows best about your personal safety...it is a foolish instinct to resent being ticketed for driving without your personal seat belt. And when war comes, many of them will know that the higher moral plane demands they abstain from the bloodletting. What is the truth here? The truth is the simple folk who will defend their liberties and those liberties they don't even use are full of valor and virtue. While the sophisticated compassionate folk who will not do so are contemptible hypocrites or mercifully maybe just not as smart as they pretend to be.
Now in the abstract:
Liberty is the natural and rightful condition of a reasoning human being. Centuries of human existence have demonstrated that the least strife and greatest prosperity are achieved only when individual liberty is respected. The victory of the free enterprise system, in the twentieth century gives testimony to that belief. While liberty cannot be easily defined, its loss or infringement is sensed without any training. When you are minding your own business and somebody limits what you can do with your own body or steals the wealth that is the product of your labor, the natural outrage you feel is the consequence of your liberty's violation. When your liberties are violated, you will eventually, if not immediately, naturally retaliate against your oppressor. The ensuing violence usually results in the loss of life and property (wealth). Since the retaliatory response, to the violation of liberty, is natural, it may be concluded that liberty itself is natural. Since a society's health is imperiled by a continual loss of life and wealth it is rightful we protect liberty.
The more each individual, rises to his or her, full potential, the greater prosperity, that nation will attain. The diversity of individuals requires they follow different paths in life. Who knows better the abilities of the individual, than the individual himself. A free society allows the individual to use his self knowledge to rise to his highest potential. Further, the search for the truth moves at its quickest pace when freedoms of opinion,religion, speech, press and assembly are respected. And with truth, comes prosperity.
In these times of do-gooder ordained tyranny that has forgotten LIBERTY, I must point out that there is no more basic liberty than the right to do with your own (adult) body, whatever you please....for better or for worse....certainly in the privacy of your home. You are the owner of your body and there is no more flagrant abuse of power than for government to dictate what you can do with it. Examples of this are of course the ban on controlled substances (their use, possession), prescription laws, also ban on suicide, compulsory medical insurance, seat belt laws and many more. I don't deny that some people will use their freedom to slowly or quickly kill themselves...as in drug addiction. Indeed they do so even now while government denies them their freedom. With freedom many will overdose and drop dead earlier. A blessing for the rest of us who will suffer less from their criminal mayhem.
If an individual is naturally free (as shown above), then the power to control him is something he must have voluntarily allowed. It is an agreement called the Social Contract. That agreement is between the government and its citizens and is the sole conduit for the flow of power from the people to the government. Government cannot claim power which lies outside of the Social Contract and thereby does not originate from the consent of the people.
The Social Contract between the individual and his government is a contract borne of the inability of unorganized individuals to adequately protect their liberty. If there is no organization (government), the weaker individuals will almost certainly be victimized by the stronger. Such a situation will be so intolerable and for so many people, that individuals have banded together and consented to the formation of government. They do so to retain the greater portion of their liberties while realizing that they will never again be totally free. This is a gamble. They hope that government will allow them to retain more liberties than if there was no government. They must obey red lights, pay taxes and share in the responsibility of protecting their nation. In return they expect that government will protect them from assault, criminal and foreign. This defense of liberty is the raison d'etre for the Social Contract and must be considered its primary element. Are there other elements to the Social Contract, besides the defense of liberty? Any other element must not conflict with the primary element. The Social Contract principle defines governmental authority and thereby restrains the governmental tendency to trample upon liberty instead of protecting it. The Social Contract principle is therefore a valid augment to the Liberty principle and an essential part of WHOLISTIC LIBERTARIANISM. Further even if the Social Contract is not written down, not something we actually signed, but only something, we sadly imagine, it is a concept worth examining and drawing wisdom from.
Some people (Socialists and fellow travelers) believe that the insurance of a minimal living standard for everyone is another element of the Social Contract. All the elements of the Social Contract must have been approved by the majority of its signatories, otherwise it wouldn't be a Social Contract. The majority of signatories must have been at least self sufficient (net producers of food or goods or services of equivalent value). If it were otherwise, that society would not have survived... to write a Social Contract. Therefore, if the majority of signatories were self sufficient, they did not sign the contract to obtain their sustenance. It is more likely they sought those things that were lacking in an ungoverned society.
Indeed, the Pilgrims at Plymouth acquired this same wisdom the hard way, after two years of unsuccessful communal farming. In their third year, fearing for their continued survival, they decided to respect private property rights and were consequently rewarded with plentiful production. Read William Bradford's own words for the proof.
Taken from William Bradford's memoir , History of Plimoth Plantation:
The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Plato & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that ye taking away of properties, and bringing it in communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.
For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For yet young men that were most able and fitte for labor & services did repine that they should spend their time & strength to worke for other men’s wives and children with out any recompense.
Yes, isn't that the experience of socialism, wherever it has been tried? SOCIALISM IS CONTRARY TO LIBERTY AND HENCE HUMAN NATURE.
Those who would include a minimal living standard in the Social Contract, dishonestly ignore or belittle the redistribution of private property that such a standard requires. When the self-sufficient are forced to give by the coercive power of government, it violates their liberty....that is the right to keep one's property and the fruits of one's labors. Thus the inclusion of a minimal living standard conflicts with the primary element of the Social Contract and cannot be considered a part of the Social Contract.
And make no mistake about it, a minimal living standard does require redistribution. There is no supply of food, housing and health care that the government can magically call forth into existence. No, it is owned by others and they must be deprived of their ownership, if redistribution is to be realized. So what Socialists are really asserting is that the poor have a right to steal from the self-sufficient. The truth is money and all the things that money can buy, don't grow on trees. The only unowned things you have a right to, are those freely provided by nature...the air you breathe. You cannot have a right, if its implementation means, that someone else's rights will be broken in the process.
Is the US Constitution our Social Contract? First, we didn't get the chance to sign it. The original constitution didn't ban slavery, so it certainly wasn't. Even as currently amended and as interpreted by the Supreme Court, it hasn't stopped the government from routine redistribution of wealth and violation of our freedoms to do with our bodies as we please. However, the existence of the Constitution is evidence, that government derives its power from the governed and of the validity of the Social Contract principle. The Social Contract is not the US Constitution; it is something we must work towards; something that lives in the hearts of a free spirited people.
The Social Contract enables the birth of government. A government that will protect liberty. But it can only do so if it is empowered by the resources of a nation. It is the nation that will provide the soldiers to protect against foreign assault and the police to protect against criminal assault. The nation is not comprised of just any people; they must be united by common features. Our nationhood is marked by the common features of language and a shared appreciation for freedom and democracy. Nationhood is essential for the protection of liberty and therefore is another augment to the Liberty principle. Within reason, that which promotes nationhood, is consequently good for the preservation of Liberty. Alternatively , within reason, that which diminishes or subverts nationhood is bad for the preservation of Liberty.
For example if you own a piece of fabric and wish to destroy it, that is your freedom. But if that piece of fabric is the American flag, should you be allowed (if your intent is desecration)? No , because the principle of Nationalism and the greater preservation of liberty that it promotes, is more important than your individual exercise of self expression. It is here, we see how the concept of WHOLISTIC LIBERTARIANISM better defines the just powers of government. If we just followed the principle of Liberty, we would say you have a right to desecrate the American flag. That is the path of conventional Libertarians. It is a simple and unenlightened path. It is a path that the majority of Americans will never be drawn to, because while they are attracted to Liberty they are also repulsed by the rigid beliefs of that simple path, as in the above example.
Similarly the promotion of a common language, a necessary ingredient for nationhood, sometimes forces us to slight the principle of Equality Before the Law (a principle to be discussed later). That may be the case in laws which call for English only in the public schools or administration of the law. But our nationhood and the liberties it protects is more important than the distress of those who haven't learned English yet.
Equality Before the Law
Equality Before The Law (EBTL) is derived from the principle of the Social Contract that exists between the government and its citizens. "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. Papers, 1:429 . The individual consents to the rule of law in the expectation that the existence of government will allow greater protection of life and liberty than could otherwise be expected. Since each individual has given the same consent, equal treatment by the government is expected in return. How could it be otherwise? Would any man pledge the same things and expect an unequal and inferior return? That's unlikely. But each individual must do more than give his/her consent. There are responsibilities that they must honor too. For example, what about those unwilling to risk their lives during wartime for the defense of this nation? For those women and men who would object to such service, it's logical that their voting rights reflect their lesser commitment. The same could also be said for those who cannot fulfill their tax obligations. That being said, the importance of EBTL cannot be overstated. It is crucial for a nation with our diverse origins. Unfortunately, EBTL is one of the more difficult principles to get right. First, it is confused with the ridiculous notion of equality. People are almost universally unequal in their abilities, their appearances and almost everything else. To seek or demand equality in anything, but our relations with government, is folly. Second, EBTL compliance is almost completely neglected in matters of taxation, while at the same time the principle has been corrupted to demand equality in the voluntary relations between individuals. Is it EBTL to have different income tax rates (percentages) . Is it EBTL for a person whose employer provides a CAFE plan, to have his health benefits go untaxed, while the retired person who pays for his own health insurance, with dividend income, must pay taxes on that income. It must be conceded that the tax code pays little attention to the EBTL principle, and neither does the Supreme Court. Our federal government has demanded that local governments give equal access to the handicapped. That sounds good except when you learn their idea of equality means unequal expenditures. In education, it could mean spending 10 times as much on the handicapped student as the normal student. In public transportation, it means scheduled bus service for the normal population and a (100 times or 1000 times more expensive?) door to door, special bus service with wheelchair lift for the handicapped. Is that EBTL? No, that has nothing to do with EBTL. It has to do with the social agenda of do gooders who impose their charitable objectives on the rest of us. And what if you're a dentist who refuses to take the extra risk of treating people with AIDS. He's not violating EBTL; he's just exercising his freedom to choose his business clients. EBTL is by definition, something, that only the government can violate. EBTL has nothing to do with the relations between individuals. But it has been corrupted in a wholesale way to make all sorts of demands on our private interactions.
Foreign trade policies and tariffs should also comply with EBTL. Frequently the nation's trade policies have been designed to suit the needs of special interests while imposing burdens on the general public or other American groups. Generally the only special interest that should be protected are those connected with national defense. In all other areas we should generally rely upon freely operating currency markets to balance our foreign trade. When other nations sabotage the currency markets by buying up their exporter's American dollars, those nations should be penalized sufficiently to negate any advantages achieved by the currency sabotage. If another nation subsidizes some of their export goods, the damage done to our domestic suppliers of those goods. should be undone by a similar subsidy funded by tariffs on the foreign country's exports. If they impose a tariff on the exports of industry X in the USA, we should grant industry X a subsidy funded by tariffs on imports from that other nation....preferentially first on industry X products but extending to other products as needed.
Guest Workers and Immigration: The owners of the USA are its current citizens. We are not obligated
to allow immigration into our country. We only do so as it suits our needs. Conventional Libertarianism
tends to treat all individuals the same, whether or not they are American citizens. EBTL can only be applied to American citizens, as foreigners are not signatories to our Social Contract. Certainly the rate of immigration must be limited so as not to endanger our national security or culture. Culture would include the domination of the English language and the ideals enshrined in our Constitution...including Freedom of Religion / No Established Religion, Equality before the Law. Consequently any would be Muslim immigrants must renounce those sections of the Koran in conflict with our Constitution. Importation of foreign labor as in guest workers is not the same as importation of foreign products. They pose risks that products don't. They should not be allowed to undercut existing American labor or deny opportunity to American unemployed. The effort to enforce that principle has been noticeably deficient. The US must grant preference to its own citizens and limit the number of guest workers so as not to endanger our national security or culture.
The Social Contract provides for the establishment of government; but what type of government? Our American heritage gives the best answer. It is a democracy, meaning the majority rules; and a republic, meaning that rule is achieved through representatives elected by the people. Democracy allows for the satisfaction of the majority and thereby encourages its allegiance. The majority is not always right but no one else has a better track record over the long run. The business of government is conducted by representatives of the people because the complexity of the task demands it. However, in the coming age of the Internet, it will be feasible and beneficial to make more of the legislative outcome directly subject to a vote of the people. While the majority rules, the principles of Liberty and the Social Contract must limit the scope of its authority. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is a good example of these limitations and the protection offered to minorities.
Concentration of Power
Everything has its limits. We cannot allow any individual or non-governmental organization to amass such economic power that its economic power transcends to overbearing political power. At that point its economic and political powers would be mutually reinforcing and perpetuating. The nation faced such a situation at the advent of the twentieth century. The economic power of monopolies in vital industries was such, that they could corrupt the political process and thereby void the protections granted by the Social Contract. Simultaneously, monopolies were an obstacle to economic progress by negating the benefits of a competitive marketplace. An extreme example will serve to illustrate this concept. Say for example, you have a company town where all the services and manufacturing are under the control of the company. The company owns the grocery store, gasoline station and medical facilities, etc. Say one of the employees steps out on a limb and tries to unionize the previously union free workforce. Or, say he decides to run for the part time job of city counselor on an anti-company platform. If that society is true to conventional libertarianism, the company could insure that the employee looses his job and access to all the necessities of life, without any legal recourse. The employee's only other recourse would be to move from town. But if he owns a house, his only buy offer might be one equivalent to forfeiture. If the employee accepts the buy offer, what he receives is equivalent to robbery. If he stays or never steps out on a limb, he will only be as free as the company permits. Effectively the concentration of economic power, that the company enjoys, has permitted it to violate the freedoms otherwise guaranteed by the Social Contract. That is why the run away accumulation of economic power must be denied. Monopolies must either be prohibited or be subject to the close inspection and regulation of government. Wholistic Libertarianism through its principle of the Concentration of Power, recognizes that it is better to circumscribe the right to the accumulation of unlimited economic power, than not to do so and thereby endanger the fundamental liberties and well being of the majority. All non-governmental organizations should be scrutinized by the Concentration of Power principle. That includes unions which monopolize all the labor in a industry, over a wide geographic area. Imagine a union which represented all the hospital workers in a multi state area. If that union went out on strike, it would imperil the lives of millions. The threat of such a strike would allow it to economically blackmail the rest of society. The hospitals, in the face of public pressure, would be forced to grant any demands made by the union. To prevent this, labor monopolies must also be scrutinized by the Concentration of Power principle.
No man is an island. We all make use of the common domains: the atmosphere and the water resources of the planet. Our use of the common domain is necessary for our physical and economic survival. But at the same time, that use may be harmful to others. That harm can be considered as an attack on liberty, but the principle of the Common Domain grants us a waiver. When we breathe, we consume oxygen while adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The oxygen is vital for our survival while the carbon dioxide is harmful in excess. We also occasionally, emit other gases which are noxious. And don't forget our body wastes. The point is: even if one only examines our bodily interactions with the environment, we are polluters. It's true for us and for all other animals. To live is to pollute. However we are blessed with an amazing, self cleansing planet which can rid itself of much of our animal and machine emissions. The principle of the Common Domain recognizes that our survival and well being requires the use of the common domain and sets reasonable bounds for that use. Those reasonable bounds vary with: the negative effects of our pollution on the health and well beings of others, the local and world wide ability of the environment to self cleanse itself, the availability of cleaner or pollution trapping technologies and the purpose and/or necessity of our pollution generating activity. The main point about the Common Domain principle is that it seeks the middle ground of optimal well being. It does not absolutely forbid pollution but it does discourage that which is unnecessary and/or poses a distinct health danger.
The Common Domain principle covers any domain or its use, where private use becomes public exposure. Electromagnetic transmissions through the atmosphere (radio and television) are a good example of this. The Common Domain principle also has another side which seeks a reasonable balance between public and private ownership. If all the land was held privately, where would the corridors of commerce (roads) rest? It's likely that such a society would be more backward and prone to conflict. By reserving some land for public use, we avoid the conflicts and the violations of liberty they foster.
The HUMAN REALITY principle deals with the needs and limitations of human beings while simultaneously trying to minimize the loss of liberty incurred by meeting those needs and limitations. If a person is at the verge of starvation, can he be expected to respect the property rights of his prosperous neighbor? For many people, the answer would be no. Thievery, for whatever reason, must be punished. On the other hand, the starving person may have been a law abiding and productive citizen, at other times. Society doesn't gain much by punishing such a person. It would be better for everyone, to prevent the starvation than to deal with the consequences. It is then a matter of expediency, that can and should lead the government to extending a safety net to desperate individuals. On that basis, HUMAN REALITY would allow some elements of welfare policy to continue. Conventional libertarianism would not and thereby ignores human and societal reality. Socialist and liberal thinkers can see no evil in welfare and ignore both liberty and human reality. They think the welfare recipient has a right to such aid while simultaneously denying any injury to the liberty or well being of the taxpayer. They would also ignore the parasitic behavior their philosophies encourage and thereby ignore another side of human reality. The HUMAN REALITY principle allows government aid to the desperate person, but conditionally. Such aid is granted on a basis of expediency and NOT as a matter of right. As such, any conditions that tend to minimize the burden on the taxpayer while keeping the
safety net intact, are welcome. Welfare recipients who are able to work, should be required to perform public service when private employment is unavailable. They will then contribute towards their own support and the support of other recipients, unable to work. Government can also demand that the recipient refrain from unnecessary behavior that increase the taxpayer's burden while taking all actions to decrease the taxpayer's burden. The unnecessary behavior would include drug and alcohol abuse, foolish diet by the unfit obese and sexual reproduction (while on the public dole). The actions meant to decrease the taxpayer's burden would include looking for work, education and relocation if that is the only path to employment.
While the principle of Liberty abhors any restraints on what we can do with our own bodies, the principle of Human Reality does provide some limits. The reality is we are sexual beings, naturally attracted to the opposite sex and that our mental powers to resist such attraction are not unlimited. If a beautiful woman walks down main street, naked, in the evening hours; can she reasonably expect to go unassaulted. In a society where clothing is the norm in public, the principle of Human Reality demands that individuals safeguard their liberties by being appropriately clothed.
Again, is the liberty of our persons absolute; for example, can we voluntarily submit to slavery? The principle of Human Reality says no. While few in this century would consider such a proposition, it is instructive to ponder such a question because it probes the boundaries of our liberty. To become a slave is to surrender future liberty. The slave has no political rights, must submit to all wishes of the master and whatever punishments the master wishes to impose and also be at the beck and call of the master continuously and without end. It is a set of conditions that rankles the spirit of any person and inevitably brings him into rebellion. However good, the intentions of the would be slave, were at the outset, slavery is not a condition he can forever abide by. The spirit demands liberty and because ultimately we do not have dominion over our spirit, liberty is not something we can sell. That is Human Reality. With this knowledge, it is rightful that government prohibit slavery, self imposed or otherwise.
The relationship of government to desperate people must be guided by the principle of Human Reality. People can reach a state of desperation because of the obligations they have incurred. Generally, we have a right to enter into agreements with our fellow citizens and seek legal enforcement if the other party fails to abide by those agreements. But this right should not be seen as unbounded. The previous paragraph discussed one limitation. Additionally, the agreement must be voluntarily made between competent adults. The subject of the agreement cannot involve an illegal activity. You cannot hire someone to kill another person. The terms of such an illegal agreement are null and void from the outset and neither party can demand governmental enforcement of its provisions. That is part of the risk of making an agreement. You must know what is legally enforceable. Also inherent in any agreement is the risk of default by the other party. The competent adult must appraise that risk before entering into a agreement. Accordingly, while he can expect legal recourse if the other party defaults, there are limitations to that recourse. You cannot demand payment of the other party's debts at the expense of his life or liberty. It is here that the principle of Human Reality limits what can be demanded and thereby avoids a state of desperation.
First, it must be realized that a desecration of our American flag is an attack on our whole national identity. It is different
than criticism of a government official or even the whole government. Many libertarians, while upset by the desecration of the American flag, will still insist the desecrater has that right. The following response should assuage those feelings: First it is desecration only if done in view of others or is otherwise communicated to others. Secondly, we don't actually have to punish the desecrater with a jail term or fine. But we must draw a logical conclusion from the act. The act almost proves that the desecrater is disloyal to this nation, that he is in effect renouncing his citizenship. Then the consequence of American flag desecration should be a public and compulsory inquiry into the loyalty of the desecrater. If the inquiry produces any other evidence of disloyalty or bad citizenship, the desecrater should be deported while receiving some measure of compensation.
With respect to other issues, some libertarians will feel that this puts us on the slippery slope of sacrificing liberty for the national good. Not so. We can clearly define the circumstances where national security or welfare is paramount. Activities that cross the national border should be subject to the scrutiny and control of government along with desecration of the American flag or incitement to the forceful overthrow of the government. The Nationalism Principle must prevail when we interact with foreigners. On the other hand the Liberty Principle must still protect domestic personal activities or business activity that are viewed (by the majority) as self destructive and consequently not in the national interest.
When a state of war has been declared by the Congress, the level of scrutiny should increase. Such scrutiny would punish support for the enemy via public demonstrations. To a lesser degree scrutiny should also be increased if Congress has declared a state of enmity (a new concept) with another nation. In that situation the government should be empowered to identify and collect intelligence (wire tapping, etc) on those citizens who have demonstrated their sympathy to our enemies. It would be imprudent and irresponsible of the government to do otherwise considering that a state of enmity might precede a state of war.
During war time or a state of enmity, our national survival and the Social Contract principle can justify the draft of citizens into the armed forces. That contrasts with the conventional and impractical libertarian opposition to the draft under all circumstances. During war time many unselfish citizens will volunteer for military service. But many other citizens will not; however they would willingly abide by their obligation to share in the common defense if they are nudged to do so by the draft. Otherwise, what good would their liberty do if we all fall victim to foreign conquest?
In the natural state those animals and people that are unwilling to defend themselves, will go extinct. During the Frontier era that was probably the case. But now in these more prosperous and comfortable times where the civic infrastructure generally protects against assault, most never need to defend themselves. Additionally we have a volunteer military. This, unfortunately has allowed the growth of pacifist and cowardly sentiment which could not long exist in a natural environment. Like our ballooning national trade deficit, it cannot go on forever without dire consequences. It is unnatural. Ultimately when pacifist sentiment prevails, our nation will not survive. The Social Contract Principle and national survival demand that we provide disincentives to those who will not provide for their own defense or the common defense. Pacifist citizens can be placed into three categories:
1>those who reject any personal effort towards the national defense
2>those who will not join the military but will benefit the national defense by domestic employment in a defense or essential industry
3>those willing to join the military but not as combat soldiers assigned to killing the enemy
Warrior Category > those willing to kill the enemies of the U.S. as authorized by their military superiors
Category Three pacifists should loose their eligibility to be elected U.S. Senator or President, thereafter.
Category Two pacifists should loose their right to vote for U.S. Senator and also suffer the penalties of Category Three, thereafter.
Category One pacifists should suffer the Categories Three and Two penalties. Additionally, during a state of war, the government at its discretion, should be able to revoke their citizenship and then deport them at its convenience.
These categories should be chosen by the citizen when he/she becomes otherwise eligible to vote.