Specialist Goldthwaite, John R., (SSN withheld from HTML)

Required Information per AR 600-43 Appendix B

Submitted 18JUN96

B-1 In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a), as implemented by AR 340-212, applicants will be advised as outlined in paragraph 2-2a. The Privacy Act form will be signed and become part of the record (fig 2-2). also, the following will be provided:

1. General Information
   • (1) Full Name: John Ross Goldthwaite
   • (2) Social Security Number: (not included in html document)
   • (3) Selective Service Number: N/A
   • (4) Service Address and component RA (Regular Army)
   • (5) Permanent home address
     C Co. 2-10 AVN REG #146
     Ft. Drum, NY 13602
   • (6) Schools (not included in html document)
   • (7) Employment (not included in html document)
   • (8) Residences (not included in html document)
   • (9) Parents:
     Father: Walter Scott Goldthwaite (Living)
     Mother: Theopal (Bynum) Goldthwaite (Living)
     
   • (10) Religious affiliation of parents: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
   • (11) N/A
   • (12) N/A
   • (13) N/A
2. Training and belief.

   (1) An express, specific statement as to whether the person requests classification as a conscientious objector 1-0, or as a conscientious objector 1-A-0.

   I am seeking separation from the Army as a Conscientious Objector (1-0).

   (2) A description of the nature of the belief that requires the person to seek separation from the military service or assignment to noncombatant training and duty for reasons of conscience.

   Although there are specific political issues which have brought me to the beliefs I now hold, it is my belief in a higher law, one which has been described as natural law, which compels me to seek separation from the Army. 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 effects 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 United States Army has been tasked with the enforcement of certain laws which I believe are immoral. If anyone should decide to resist or disobey one of these laws, those who enforce it will have to resort to ever more forceful measures to insure that the law is upheld. Ultimately, they will have to threaten or kill those who continue to resist and disobey. I am not willing to kill to enforce immoral laws. I am, in fact, not willing to enforce these laws at all nor do I wish to support their enforcement in any way or form. I do not believe government should be in the business of killing at all.

   Before I continue, it is necessary that I define natural law since so much of my argument depends upon it. Although many philosophers and politicians have written about natural law and although many disagree as to what it really is, the best definition I have found and the one I believe most closely coincides with my own definition was given by Lysander Spooner in his essay, Natural Law.
   

   "Children learn the fundamental principles of natural law at a very early age. Thus they very early understand that one child must not, without just cause, strike, or otherwise hurt, another; that one child must not, either by force, deceit, or stealth, obtain possession of anything that belongs to another; that if one child commits any of these wrongs against another, it is not only the right of the injured child to resist, and, if need be, punish the wrongdoer, and compel him to make reparation, but that it is also the right, and the moral duty, of all other children, and all other persons, to assist the injured party in defending his rights, and redressing his wrongs. These are the fundamental principles of natural law, which govern the most important transactions of man with man."

   (3) An explanation as to how his or her beliefs changed or developed, to include an explanation as to what factors (how, when, and from whom or from what source training received and belief acquired) caused the change in or development of conscientious objection beliefs.

   Having taken the DLPT in both Spanish and Russian at DLI in January of 1995 and having achieved satisfactory scores on both tests, I was allowed to choose which of these was to be my primary language. I chose Spanish thinking that career opportunities would perhaps be more abundant in that field. Related to this field were the issues of immigration and drug prohibition. Although I was already aware and disturbed by the issue of immigration, I was not fully aware of the extent of the Army's involvement until very recently. Drug prohibition was an issue which I had conveniently ignored until this time. I decided to study the issue in detail and accordingly purchased a number of books on the subject and on the subject of civil liberties in general.

   One book which was for me particularly influential was Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams. The arguments presented in this book were not new to me. I had been introduced or confronted with them in previously read books such as On Liberty by John Stuart Mill and John Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government and in conversations with friends and family. It wasn't until I read Peter McWilliams' book that I became convinced that the drug war was immoral.

   Toward the end of my MOS training at Goodfellow AFB in Texas and soon after arriving at the conclusion that all laws prohibiting consensual behavior are immoral, our class was shown a six-part series by Investigative Reports on the drug war. It was like a slap in the face to witness the open lies and deceitful methods of law enforcement officers engaged in depriving people of property, freedom and life for behavior which in and of itself would do no one any harm. This is not to say that the drug dealers and users represented in the series were innocent of real crimes. I'm certain that many of them had committed real criminal acts but they were being arrested, persecuted and imprisoned for possession, attempt to sell, and so forth, acts which in and of themselves harm no one.

   I can't describe the depth of my disgust without first answering two common questions directed at those who advocate drug legalization, "What about the children?" and "What about all of the strung out addicts committing crimes to support their habit?" First, children have not yet the capacity to understand the dangers in drug use. They have not reached the age of consent and are not included in my objection to the prohibition of consensual behavior. It is and should be a crime to sell or give a drug to a child whether that drug is crack or cigarettes. The question is not whether but how best to keep drugs out of the hand of children and it seems that prohibition actually worsens this situation. Second, crimes such as robbery and assault will always be crimes regardless of the criminal's motivations. The assumption is that drug use inevitably leads to crime which ignores two things, namely, legalized drugs don't inevitably lead to crime and prohibition itself escalates crime in two way: one, it makes an otherwise innocuous consensual act a crime; and two, it inflates the price of the substance making crime the only avenue profitable enough to afford the habit.

   Having answered these two questions I can't reasonably believe anyone would be convinced that I'm right. Nevertheless, I hope you can understand how disturbed I was when I watched Investigative Reports that day in Goodfellow. I was so disgusted that I almost got up and walked out of class. I asked one of my classmates what she thought of the lies and deceit of the law enforcement agents and the hypocrisy of celebrating a big bust by going out to the bar (where everyone is smoking) and getting drunk, but of course sober enough to designate a driver. She admitted that it was a bit disturbing but didn't really want to think about it.

   I was so upset that I made an appointment to talk to my company commander, Cpt. Weber, and ask if there were any way he could release me from the Army. He wasn't certain and referred me to the career counselor. The career counselor said that I had already passed the adjustment period and couldn't be chaptered out for that.

   In the end, I knew only that I had been disturbed by a video. I wasn't entirely certain that I had good reason to be disturbed. After all, I had signed a contract and joined knowing that the military was involved with interdiction. I wasn't certain whether I was trying to be morally consistent or just trying to rationalize a way out of the Army.

   I decided that the best thing for me to do was to continue my study of the issue concentrating not necessarily on drugs but on moral and ethical philosophy and politics. The following is a partial list of some of the books I read which helped me significantly in establishing my current moral belief system.

   • Two Treatises of Government. by John Locke. 1690. Reprint. Rutland, VT; Everyman's Library, 1991.
   • On Liberty. by John Stuart Mill. 1859. Reprint. New York; The Liberal Arts Press, 1956.
   • Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society. by Peter McWilliams. Los Angeles, CA; Prelude Press, 1993.
   • Defending the Undefendable, by Walter Block. San Francisco, CA; Fox & Wilkes, 1991.
   • The Lysander Spooner Reader. by Lysander Spooner. with an introduction by George H. Smith. San Francisco, CA; Fox & Wilkes, 1992.
     The works of Lysander Spooner
     • Natural Law
     • Vices Are Not Crimes
     • No Treason
     • Trial By Jury
   • The Principles of Ethics, by Hebert Spencer. 1897. Reprint. Indianapolis, IN; Liberty Classics, 1978.
   • The Man Versus The State: With Six Essays on Government, Society, and Freedom. by Herbert Spencer. 1843 to 1884. Reprint. Indianapolis, IN; Liberty Classics, 1982.
   • The Constitution of Liberty, by F.A.Hayek. Chicago, IL; University of Chicago Press, 1960.
   • The Foundations of Morality, by Henry Hazlitt. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY; Foundation For Economic Education, 1964.
   • Death by Government, by R.J.Rummel. New Brunswick, NJ; Transaction Publishers, 1994.
   • Lost Rights, by James Bovard. New York; St. Martin's Press, 1994.
   • Shakedown: How the Government Screws You From A to Z. by James Bovard. New York; Viking Penguin, 1995.
   • Our Enemy The State. by Albert Jay Nock. 1935. Reprint. San Francisco, CA; Fox & Wilkes, 1992.
   • Civil Disobedience, 1848. by Henry David Thoreau. in Walden and Other Writings. New York: Bantam Books, 1960.
   • Patterns of Anarchy: A Collection of Writings on the Anarchist Tradition, ed. By Leonard I. Krimerman and Lewis Perry. New York: Anchor Books, 1966
   • Native American Anarchism, by Eunice Minette Schuster. 1932. Reprint. Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited, 1983.
   • Philosophy: Who Needs It. by Ayn Rand. New York; Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1984.
   • Hemp Today, ed. by Ed Rosenthal. Oakland, CA; Quick American Archives, 1994.
   • Our Right to Drugs, by Thomas Szasz. Syracuse, NY; Syracuse University Press, 1992.
   • The Myth of Natural Rights, by L.A.Rollins. Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited, 1983.
   • Classics of Free Thought. ed. by Paul Blanshard. Buffalo, NY; Prometheus Books, 1977.
   • The Case For Free Trade and Open Immigration. ed by Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob G Hornberger. Fairfax, VA; The Future of Freedom Foundation, 1995.
   • The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881 - 1908). ed. By Frank H. Brooks. New Brunswick, NJ; Transaction Publishers, 1994.

   (4) An explanation as to when these beliefs become incompatible with military service and why.

   It was not until my last visit home on leave in May of 1996 that I finally decided to seek separation from the service. I discussed the issue with my family and friends and spent some time alone in contemplation, deciding finally that the only honest thing for me to do was to seek separation and procrastinate no longer.

   (5) An explanation as to the circumstances, if any, under which the person believes in the use of force, and to what extent, under any foreseeable circumstances.

   I believe that force is proper only when a violation of natural law has occurred. Force, whether deadly or non-lethal, is justified in time of self-defense or in defense of the innocent. Force, whether deadly or non-lethal, is also justified when bringing a violator of natural law to trial. No amount of force can be justified in enforcing any laws which are not founded in the law of nature.

   Concerning war, I believe that war is justified only in the sense that individuals can voluntarily band together in self-defense or to defend the innocent. To my knowledge, no such war has ever been waged. Always there have been those who were forced into the fight. Always there have been those in power whose motives were other than simple defense. I could never participate in war except as a sovereign individual defending myself or those innocent persons I felt morally compelled to defend.

   (6) An explanation as to what in the person's life most conspicuously demonstrates the consistency and depth of his or her beliefs that gave rise to his or her claim.

   Had I converted to a religious sect which advocates a form of pacifism, it would have perhaps been easier to respond to this request, however, I have converted to a philosophy which can best be described as Individualist Anarchism. The term anarchism has come to mean quite the opposite of what an individualist anarchist believes. Anarchism to an individualist anarchist means, "the theory of a ruler-less society". Violent opposition to all forms of authority is not one of its precepts. In fact, the commission of violent acts for any purpose other than self-defense or defense of the innocent is contrary to its doctrine. The two fundamental principles of Individualist Anarchism are individual sovereignty and equal freedom. These principles are nearly synonymous with Natural Law.

   Anyone who wants to be consistent and sincerely believes in equal freedom must eventually arrive at a belief in these same fundamental principles. "The basis of anarchist society was to be the sovereign individual who would recognize that [his or] her own liberty cold not be absolute, but had to be limited by an equal amount of liberty for other individuals"

   (7) An explanation as to how the applicant's daily life style has changed as a result of his or her beliefs and what future actions he or she plans to continue to support his or her beliefs.

   My daily life has not changed much since my arrival at Goodfellow Air Force Base when I began my study of prohibition. Although I maintain friendly relationships with my colleagues, I don't spend much time with them and I rarely go out to movies and clubs which was a common thing for me while I was in Monterey. I no longer enjoy associating with people because it bothers me to see their lack of interest or their willful ignorance of the issues that I have spent so much time studying.

   Assuming my status as a conscientious objector is recognized and I am discharged from the Army, I intend to return to Arizona and devote myself to the study of biotic communities in the Sonoran Desert which has always been my primary interest. I will need to find honest work, that is, work which neither violates the equal freedom of others nor supports any association which violates the equal freedom of others. I will seek exemption from the Income Tax or attempt to live on a minimal budget so as to pay as little taxes as possible because I believe taxation is robbery and the revenues help support the enforcement of unjust laws.

3. Participation in organizations

   (1) Information as to whether the person has ever been a member of any military organization or establishment before entering upon his or her present term of service. If so, the name and address of such organization will be given together with reasons why he or she became a member.

   I joined the Navy because at the time I needed a career, I needed an income, I felt it was my patriotic duty, I felt it was a moral and religious duty.

   I served on active duty going through the schools and was given an honorable discharge. I served the rest of my obligation as a reservist then transferred to Inactive Ready Reserves n January of 1993.

   (2) A statement as to whether the person is a member of a religious sect or organization. If so, the statement will show

   (a) The name of the sect, and the name and location of its governing body or head, if known.

   (b) When, where, and how the applicant became a member of the sect or organization.

   (c) The name and location of any church, congregation, or meeting that the applicant customarily attends; the extent of the applicant's participation in the church group or meeting.

   (d) The name, title, and present address of the pastor or leader of such church, congregation, or meeting.

   (e) A description of the creed or official statements, if any, of said religious sector organization in relation to the applicant's participation in war and if the creed or statements are known to him.

   (3) A description of the applicant's relationships with and activities in all organizations with which he or she is or has been affiliated, other than military, political, or labor organizations.

4. References. Any more information that the person desires to be considered by the authority reviewing his or her application. Letters of reference or official statements of organizations to which the applicant belongs or refers in his or her application are included. The burden is on the applicant to obtain and forward such information.

Enclosure #1 was submitted on 11SEP96