‘Conscription and Mr. X’

Ronni Shalit takes issue with my view that Mr. X’s advocacy of conscription is contrary to the principle of individual rights [“Conscription and Mr. X,” Letters, November 2, 2004] in response to my “What I’d Really Like to Hear,” October 28, 2004]. She then proceeds to ignore the issue of rights, while advocating conscription for various non-military endeavors, e.g., working in schools or hospitals.

Let’s be clear, both Ms. Shalit and Mr. X advocate involuntary servitude, i.e., a degree of slavery. Whether one is forced to empty bedpans or to die in a war one does not support, the principle remains that the initiation of force violates an individual’s right to his own life.

As I said, “An individual’s life is not the property of the collective, to be disposed of for any allegedly worthy cause. No cause justifies violating the right to life.”

Conscription in any form does not benefit society as Ms. Shalit alleges. Rather, it subverts it by violating the basis for moral government, namely, the protection of individual rights, i.e., “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,” from the Declaration of Independence.

Ours is not a democracy as Ms. Shalit suggests. It is a constitutionally limited republic. Democracy means mob rule, e.g., three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But rights are neither to be voted away nor violated by decree. That’s what I meant by “making a mockery of the principle of the right to life.

We must never loose sight of the fact that America was founded as the instrument for banning the initiation of the use of force.

EDWIN R. THOMPSON
Manhattan

Nets Arena Opponents Seek Aid

Julie Satow’s column bypassed some obstacles in the way of those who oppose construction of developer Bruce Ratner’s proposed arena in Brooklyn [“Nets Arena Opponents Seeking Aid,” New York, October 18, 2004].

Consider some of the recent closed private meetings hosted by Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz as reported in a recent article by Jess Wisloski from the weekly Brooklyn Papers.

Mr. Markowitz a former liberal reformer and state senator, has completed his metamorphosis into a Democratic Party clubhouse borough president in the tradition of his Brooklyn predecessors, such as former borough presidents Sebastian Leone and Howard Golden.

Everyone knows when government officials conduct closed door meetings, it usually means that they have something to hide from the general pubic and press.

Opponents of both Mr. Ratner’s Nets stadium and Robert Woods IV Jets stadium on Manhattan’s West Side have much in common.

You have to wonder how many City Council members have endorsed one or both projects and received campaign contributions from the Nets owner, Mr. Ratner, or the Jets owner, Mr. Johnson, and their friends. It will be interesting to read about future financial campaign reports prior to Mr. Markowitz’s re-election effort in 2005 to see if there was a political quid pro quo.

Consider Queens New York City Council member David Weprin’s clear conflict of interest in his support of the proposed Manhattan West Side Jets Stadium. His July 16 public campaign finance report disclosed that as New York City Council Finance Committee Chairman, Mr. Weprin has raised $366,000 to date. This included $2,000 in donations from the Jets owner shortly after endorsing the project.

Independent observers of municipal government know that there is a political quid pro quo expected by lobbyists who represent various special interest groups doing business with the city in ex change for financial donations.

How can any public official represent the interest of taxpayers when accepting campaign contributions from those doing business with the city, by either seeking contracts or direct subsidies for construction projects such as the new Nets or Jets Stadium? The appearance of a conflict of interest is obvious. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Construction of the new Nets Brooklyn facility will cost taxpayers several hundred million dollars.

How many public officials in Kings County have accepted campaign contributions from Jets owner Bruce Ratner, his family, employees, consultants, players, construction unions, or construction contractors who also support building a new Nets Stadium?

There are other avenues lobbyists can use to influence elected officials. Consider the age-old tradition of purchasing access and support by taking tickets or dinner journal ads to local political clubhouse or Kings County Democratic Party fund-raising events. All of these activities could appear to be more than a coincidence. How many other members of the City Council and other elected officials face this moral dilemma?

All borough presidents and members of the New York City Council should want to avoid conflicts of interest. Preserve the integrity of public office and come clean with voters. Make public and return any campaign contributions from the Nets and their affiliates.

The local Brooklyn citizens group – Develop Don’t Destroy – even with raising $10,000 to $20,000 – is like David in a battle with Goliath, i.e., developer Bruce Ratner, with his millions of dollars.

LAWRENCE PENNER
Great Neck, N.Y.

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007.Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.