The draft

[Eupher]

But they did send me the reminder to register after I had completed boot camp, I was still in BE&E School at Great Lakes.

Well, I guess you were on their hit list!

[dutch508]

Don't worry, Chump. I'd much rather have you stay home and drink a lemonade than man a fighting position with me anytime.

[Mike220]

Only 4 more months of worrying about being drafted.

But I'll volunteer again in a heartbeat. Actually considering it at the moment.

[Airwolf]

What I find interesting is that those that oppose the draft have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to serving in any branch of the military. If you look into the past you will find that not every person drafted was guaranteed to see combat in any form. This is especially true during the more recent wars that had a draft to fill the the ranks the most recent being Vietnam. Thousand were drafted and yet only a small percentage actually got to see combat as the majority of them were stationed in places like Europe and Korea. And of those in Vietnam an even smaller number were in direct action against the VC/NVA.

Also as was stated and has been proven since Vietnam that it is better to field volunteers rather then to have some slacker draftees that don't want to fight for their country. The thing I find sad is everytime we have gone to war during the post Vietnam years,meaning Desert Storm and now with OIF/OEF is that when the military gets people that have served but are above a certain age bracket the military will not at least let them in even though they now have a PFT that goes all the way up to 60 years in the Army. I realize that realistically that there maybe problems with various health issues but those could be taken care of during screening and it could reduce the need for drafting anyone.

[vesta111]

He was a Loyalist and was imprisoned. Several of his family members supported the Revolution or, as the text indicates, the civil war.

We tend to forget that we were in a civil war of sorts as there was a significant percentage of the population that was entirely happy with King George III and his ilk.

We still have a bunch of old homes in this area that have their chimneys painted white with a black stripe around them.   This was a symbol to others that they supported the Crown.

[vesta111]

 Interesting side light, a female very high ranling was on the Howie Carr radio problem.

She told of the mega problems with the draft at the end Nam.

The boot camps for these unwilling recruits were becoming a nightmare.  Biggest problem were the gang actions on base.    Then overseas the problem with gangs taking over the black market, drugs shipped home in caskets with the deceased.

As she said warfare has changed not one bit from the rag tag of the criminals that are forced to join any army.

BTW------At the time from the Revolutionary war to the Civil War, the draft was for the poor.   A wealthy family would support a poor family if one of their members would agree to serve in the place of a drafted member. 

Some of the wealthy had paid scouts to check the area jails for those released after doing time.  These men were prime bait for them to take their place in the draft.

There was no shame attached to this practice, it made sense to them to keep the educated and wealthy alive and send the villiage idiots and those with out a future off to use the skills they had learned in life. 

At that time this seemed to work, the substitute draftee was assured that his family would survive without them.Until they came home on foot or in a box their family was set.   If in a box, the government would give the family a small pension.

Now came in the ingenuity of Americans.

Quite a few men had no desire to go home to a wife and 9 children.     If it could not be proved that he was dead, the family kept collecting from the family of those they replaced. Also the family could claim lost in battle and get a government pension on top.

I found this problem in my own family in the Civil War.  Going through family search and all the off shoots. I found one Ancestor that went that route.   He took the place of a wealthy farmer and somewhere along the line decided he just didn't give a damn.

At one huge battle he deserted and headed out west. There he found a woman, married and had 6-7 kids before he died.    His wife applied for his pension and found out he had a legal wife and another 10 kids allready collecting on his pension from years ago.   Better to pay a pension to a widow when her husband goes missing then to go looking for him------All the unknown buried in mass graves,  If the man disappeared then it was put down as KIW.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

[Chump]

What I find interesting is that those that oppose the draft have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to serving in any branch of the military. If you look into the past you will find that not every person drafted was guaranteed to see combat in any form. This is especially true during the more recent wars that had a draft to fill the the ranks the most recent being Vietnam. Thousand were drafted and yet only a small percentage actually got to see combat as the majority of them were stationed in places like Europe and Korea. And of those in Vietnam an even smaller number were in direct action against the VC/NVA.

This is a variation on the, "you might not die," argument for the draft.  It says nothing to the fact that the government is compelling a man to dispose of his life against his will, suspending his right to life.

[Chump]

All,

As near as I can tell, no one in this discussion has opposed the fact that the draft amounts to the government compelling men to dispose of their lives against their will under threat of force.  Instead, I have seen exactly three arguments why this fact should be acceptable.

1.  It's acceptable because the government does, in fact, do this.

~It should be obvious what this sort of reasoning is capable of justifying, and why it fails logically.

2.  It's acceptable because those drafted might survive whatever war they've been drafted into.

~While this is true, it does not address the very basic situation: a man has had his right to life suspended by the government, an entity formed specifically to protect his inalienable rights.  This amounts to a contradiction based on the shaky ground of probabilities and chances.

3.  It's acceptable because sometimes, individual parts of the whole must be sacrificed for the sake of the whole.

~This is an especially vile argument because it denies that inalienable, individual rights exist in the first place.  "The whole" is nothing more than a group of individuals.  If one individual can be sacrificed for the good of the whole, then that one individual has "less" right to life than the other individuals in that whole.  Since the right to life is binary - you either have it or you don't - the individual being drafted has no right to life.  If you want to make that argument, fine, but don't pretend you're doing anything but arguing in favor of statism.  That you would qualify it by saying, "only in times of war," is meaningless.  Remember, you either have an inalienable right or you don't.

As to the idea that I'm arguing against self-defense, or patriotism, or defense of loved ones, or serving your country:

You are basing these accusations on the fact that I'm arguing vehemently in defense of the inalienable right to life, and that the government cannot force you to dispose of your right to life against your will.  I believe that all of the above are good, moral actions, and I've said as much throughout this discussion.  I do not believe that I have the right to compel any man to dispose of his right to life for any reason, even if I believe the reason is a good, moral thing.  I can attempt to sway him to my point of view, but I cannot simply pick up a gun, point it at his head, and force him to act as I see fit.  I would hope you would agree with me on this.

Also, tacitly, you're performing the very appropriate actions necessary to help goad men to war.  In times of great need and mortal threat, men must be shown that fighting that threat is just and righteous, as just and righteous as defending your loved ones or yourself from a mugger with a gun.  You are appealing in many different ways to a man's sensibilities and intellect.  What you are not doing, very conspicuously, is simply saying, "you have no right to life anyway.  Line up."  So why, then, are you arguing in defense of the draft?

[formerlurker]

In the Libertarian's utopian world of it's-all-about-me-and-me-alone, the "how dare they ask me to risk my life - the Consitution affords me the right to life, liberty and all things me", nonsense reigns supreme.   In the real world however, not so much.      Find a SCOTUS who agrees with you and perhaps there is an argument to be had.  However, history is our professor and our founding fathers had clear intent.    Hang together, or  you will most definitely hang individually.   The freedom you enjoy is provided by the sacrifice of others... the entire argument of "hey, that was their decision", is lame and cowardly.  You want the protection the Constitution provides you, but want someone else to assure that protection (that very document you hide behind means very little without force behind it to afford those protections) -- that is the liberal entitlement mindset.    Not in the market for that here.

Several questions concerning the draft arise each time the United States is threatened with military action, or the United States threatens military action. The first, and most basic, is: "Is the draft constitutional?" The plain answer to this, noted in the introductory paragraph, is that it is. Conscription is clearly anticipated by the Constitution. The Constitution did impose one small but key restriction on a conscripted army - any allocation of funds to support the army can only have a life of two years. Any allocation thereafter must be reauthorized by Congress. Since the House of Representatives is elected every two years, this is a safeguard against runaway armies. If the people are not satisfied with the way a draft is being run, they can elect a House that will not authorize further funding.

The modern draft has its origins in the Civil War, when both the United States and the Confederate States instituted a draft. Prior to that time, the primary source of military might in the United States was the militia, which was maintained by the states. The colonies raised a small paid force to fight the Revolutionary War, but could not muster up enough troops to last the entire war. In the end, the colonies relied heavily on the state militias to prosecute the war. Efforts by President Washington and his successors to have Congress authorize a draft went unheeded, as there was a general fear of a standing army of any size.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_drft.html

[Chump]

In the Libertarian's utopian world of it's-all-about-me-and-me-alone, the "how dare they ask me to risk my life - the Consitution affords me the right to life, liberty and all things me", nonsense reigns supreme.   In the real world however, not so much.      Find a SCOTUS who agrees with you and perhaps there is an argument to be had.  However, history is our professor and our founding fathers had clear intent.    Hang together, or  you will most definitely hang individually.   The freedom you enjoy is provided by the sacrifice of others... the entire argument of "hey, that was their decision", is lame and cowardly.  You want the protection the Constitution provides you, but want someone else to assure that protection (that very document you hide behind means very little without force behind it to afford those protections) -- that is the liberal entitlement mindset.    Not in the market for that here.

I don't know enough about Libertarian principles to either claim them or deny them, but this comes across as blatant ad hominem.  "Oh you silly Libertarian and your utopia..."  From the part I bolded, there is no "asking" about the draft, and that's the entire issue at stake.  Attack an argument I've actually made, not one you've made for me.  The rest falls under the category of '2' from my previous post.  Simply because the government does, in fact, institute the draft does not make it moral or acceptable.

Consider all the gripes we have against both past and present government actions.  Are we wrong simply because those actions did and do happen?  Are we wrong to oppose abortion because SCOTUS has ruled against us?  Were we wrong to oppose the gun ban in Washington prior to SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller?

This was especially illuminating:

"that very document you hide behind means very little without force behind it to afford those protections"

1.  Apparently arguing in favor of the inalienable right to life consitutes hiding behind the Constitution.  If so, then I'm guilty as charged.

2.  You're claiming that the government can act with force to protect the freedoms found in the Constitution...by acting with force to deny the freedoms found in the Constitution.  Absurd on its face.

I did have a good laugh at the "liberal entitlement mindset" crack.  I don't know if that was your intent, but I appreciate it nonetheless.  It's already been a long week.

[Carl]

Chump I have stayed out of this so far but am compelled to ask a couple of questions.

You have stated over and over again that the basis for your argument is that your right to life would be abridged if compelled to serve in a time of conflict.

Let me ask you what elevates that above my right for life and pursuit of happiness in the event that the USA was defeated because it couldn`t raise an army in its protection?

What about your own precious right to life in the event we were taken over by islamists who demanded national capitulation to their ways and practices or be killed?

Now how does your unique,individual right to life be viewed?

[Chump]

Let me ask you what elevates that above my right for life and pursuit of happiness in the event that the USA was defeated because it couldn`t raise an army in its protection?

Simply put, nothing.  I'm not arguing that my right is elevated at all.  I'm arguing that it exists, and that your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be protected at the expense of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Otherwise, the only elevation occurring is that of your rights, above my own.  Do you see where I'm going with this?  We both have the same rights, on equal footing, or else we both have none.  There is no other option.

What about your own precious right to life in the event we were taken over by islamists who demanded national capitulation to their ways and practices or be killed?

It would no longer be a right protected by a government in a free society.  But consider the broader point you're bringing up; it's the same one formerlurker brought up.  Can the government protect my right to life by...denying my right to life? 

Going slightly off-topic: I, personally, would fight until I were dead or the threat were defeated in such a scenario.  I hold that view for myself, personally, and I also hold that no one can be compelled, against their will, to dispose of their life for any reason.  Do you see any contradictions when placing those views side-by-side?

Now how does your unique,individual right to life be viewed?

I don't know what you're driving at.  Are you denigrating the inalienable right to life as being not quite so sacrosanct and paramount as I'm making it out to be?

[Carl]

Simply put, nothing.  I'm not arguing that my right is elevated at all.  I'm arguing that it exists, and that your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be protected at the expense of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Otherwise, the only elevation occurring is that of your rights, above my own.  Do you see where I'm going with this?  We both have the same rights, on equal footing, or else we both have none.  There is no other option.

It would no longer be a right protected by a government in a free society.  But consider the broader point you're bringing up; it's the same one formerlurker brought up.  Can the government protect my right to life by...denying my right to life? 

Going slightly off-topic: I, personally, would fight until I were dead or the threat were defeated in such a scenario.  I hold that view for myself, personally, and I also hold that no one can be compelled, against their will, to dispose of their life for any reason.  Do you see any contradictions when placing those views side-by-side?

I don't know what you're driving at.  Are you denigrating the inalienable right to life as being not quite so sacrosanct and paramount as I'm making it out to be?

You are talking in bizarre hypothtical circles.
In short you are saying that your desire to not serve is greater then my right to be protected from an enemy that wishes to either kill me or remove my freedom.

That attitude would mean that surrender is a viable alternative.
You presume that somehow no matter the outcome your lifestyle as you know it will never be altered and that is simply foolishness and arrogance at its highest.

Think of it..we have laws in this country,some of which the penalty for violating is the loss of freedom,some the loss of life.
Are they against your principles too?

[Chump]

You are talking in bizarre hypothtical circles.
In short you are saying that your desire to not serve is greater then my right to be protected from an enemy that wishes to either kill me or remove my freedom.

Show me what's bizarre about my reasoning.  Be specific, and don't act like posing a hypothetical situation is somehow unreasonable.  You posed two in your last post.  I have not once mentioned a "desire to not serve."  I have said, repeatedly, that the government cannot compel me to dipsose of my life against my will.  I have been clear and consistent on this since the beginning of this thread.  You, however, are holding that because you wish to have your rights protected from a mortal threat, the government should violate my right to life.  It's a completely illogical argument, and does not gain merit through repetition.

That attitude would mean that surrender is a viable alternative.
You presume that somehow no matter the outcome your lifestyle as you know it will never be altered and that is simply foolishness and arrogance at its highest.

Where did you come up with this?  You asked me what would happen in your hypothetical conquest of America by islamofascists, and I told you that my right to life would, "no longer be a right protected by a government in a free society."  How does that mesh with what you just said here?  Why did you ignore my very next side note?

Think of it..we have laws in this country,some of which the penalty for violating is the loss of freedom,some the loss of life.
Are they against your principles too?

It's true that we do penalize those who violate the rights of others.  I would submit that someone who violates someone else's rights has already disposed of his life, willingly, and should suffer the consequences of his crimes.  Of course, there are laws that I disagree with as well.  We're discussing one of them.

[Mike220]

I would submit that someone who violates someone else's rights has already disposed of his life, willingly, and should suffer the consequences of his crimes. 

If the right to life is truly inalienable, then the government could not take it for any reason, including the death penalty.

[Carl]

Show me what's bizarre about my reasoning.  Be specific, and don't act like posing a hypothetical situation is somehow unreasonable.  You posed two in your last post.  I have not once mentioned a "desire to not serve."  I have said, repeatedly, that the government cannot compel me to dipsose of my life against my will.  I have been clear and consistent on this since the beginning of this thread.  You, however, are holding that because you wish to have your rights protected from a mortal threat, the government should violate my right to life.  It's a completely illogical argument, and does not gain merit through repetition.

Where did you come up with this?  You asked me what would happen in your hypothetical conquest of America by islamofascists, and I told you that my right to life would, "no longer be a right protected by a government in a free society."  How does that mesh with what you just said here?  Why did you ignore my very next side note?

It's true that we do penalize those who violate the rights of others.  I would submit that someone who violates someone else's rights has already disposed of his life, willingly, and should suffer the consequences of his crimes.  Of course, there are laws that I disagree with as well.  We're discussing one of them.

You are presenting two mutually opposite issues as being both correct.
Either your right to life as you determine it is greater then my right to have my freedom and life protected or vice versa..they cannot both be true.
It is that simple.
That is why we have a Constituion and a Congress and a Judicial system to weigh in on those contradictions and quite frankly your opinion has been rejected.
Don`t like it then work through the system to elect a political body that agrees with you and forever bans a draft.
You do not have the right as a citizen to pick and choose what laws you are allowed to observe and which you don`t.

You have stated that your individual right to life reigns supreme therefore anything that may endanger that is not allowable.
To take it further then should anyone else be allowed to drive as that poses a direct threat to your existence and so on.

Is your right to liberty constrained by a speed limit while driving?
All laws are in some way are a restriction on an unlimited right.
If a law seems to going beyond a societal benefit of that right then we petition the government to maintain that right.
You do not have the soverign ability to determine those issues on your own.
Anarchy would result.

[Chump]

If the right to life is truly inalienable, then the government could not take it for any reason, including the death penalty.

The right to life is inalienable, and so we reserve the highest punishment in the land for those who violate that right.  You can argue the merits of the punishment itself, and it would be a very interesting discussion.  But, that the right to life is so sacrosanct and paramount is what makes murder such a heinous crime.  I would submit that a murderer has invalidated all of his own rights when he violated the right to life of his victim.  The punishment of that violation is entirely within the realm of proper government, and is, in fact, among the primary reasons government is formed in the first place.

[Carl]

The right to life is inalienable, and so we reserve the highest punishment in the land for those who violate that right.  You can argue the merits of the punishment itself, and it would be a very interesting discussion.  But, that the right to life is so sacrosanct and paramount is what makes murder such a heinous crime.  I would submit that a murderer has invalidated all of his own rights when he violated the right to life of his victim.  The punishment of that violation is entirely within the realm of proper government, and is, in fact, among the primary reasons government is formed in the first place.

So is protecting its citizens from loss of life by an enemy.
You make the argument against yourself at that point.
Your refusal to help protect the nation when called is tantamount to the loss of life for the defeated.

If this nation needed a draft to raise an army to fight terrorism and enough refused based on your arguments then wouldn`t any killed by the ensuing terrorism have had their right to life invalidated in part by you?

[Mike220]

The right to life is inalienable, and so we reserve the highest punishment in the land for those who violate that right.  You can argue the merits of the punishment itself, and it would be a very interesting discussion.  But, that the right to life is so sacrosanct and paramount is what makes murder such a heinous crime.  I would submit that a murderer has invalidated all of his own rights when he violated the right to life of his victim.  The punishment of that violation is entirely within the realm of proper government, and is, in fact, among the primary reasons government is formed in the first place.

So then then the right to life is not truly inalienable and there are exceptions. My dictionary defines inalienable as "that cannot be transferred to another. Untransferable, nonnegotiable; inviolable, sacrosanct, unchallengeable, absolute."

But you say that murders give up this right, when the term "inalienable" makes this impossible. If the right to life is truly these things, then there is absolutely no way for the government to legally take a life through the death penalty or otherwise.

[Carl]

So then then the right to life is not truly inalienable and there are exceptions. My dictionary defines inalienable as "that cannot be transferred to another. Untransferable, nonnegotiable; inviolable, sacrosanct, unchallengeable, absolute."

But you say that murders give up this right, when the term "inalienable" makes this impossible. If the right to life is truly these things, then there is absolutely no way for the government to legally take a life through the death penalty or otherwise.

Hence why (whether he admits it or not) Libertarianism is as unrealistic a utopia as its sister on the left socialism is.

[Chump]

You are presenting to mutually opposite issues as being both correct.
Either your right to life as you determine it is greater then my right to have my freedom and life protected or vice versa..they cannot both be true.
It is that simple.
That is why we have a Constituion and a Congress and a Judicial system to weigh in on those contradictions and quite frankly your opinion has been rejected.

Neither is greater than the other.  Unless you can show me the logic and merit behind protecting your rights at the expense of my own, I will simply dismiss the argument out-of-hand as having no basis, either in logic or reality.

Again I'll ask you:  Can the government protect my right to life (or yours, or anyone's) by...denying my right to life?  If the question seems absurd and bizarre, that's because it is.

Don`t like it then work through the system to elect a political body that agrees with you and forever bans a draft.
You do not have the right as a citizen to pick and choose what laws you are allowed to observe and which you don`t.

If it were to become a pressing issue, I might.  As it is, I'm simply having a discussion about whether or not the draft is reasonable.  Your argument here amounts to, yet again, "it is because it exists."  And so if we accept the merits if this argument, abortion is reasonable, gun control is reasonable, and whatever health care "reform"  laws are passed are also reasonable.

You have stated that your individual right to life reigns supreme therefore anything that may endanger that is not allowable.
To take it further then should anyone else be allowed to drive as that poses a direct threat to your existence and so on.

Am I being compelled by the government to go drive around against my will?  Then yes, my rights are being violated.  Or, am I willingly accepting the risk inherent in driving and exercising my right to dispose of my life as I see fit?  Then no, my rights are not being violated.

Is your right to liberty constrained by a speed limit while driving?

I voluntarily choose to drive in public right-of-way, and so accept the limitations and consequences associated with it.  So, no, it is not.

All laws are in some way are a restriction on an unlimited right.
If a law seems to going beyond a societal benefit of that right then we petition the government to maintain that right.
You do not have the soverign ability to determine those issues on your own.
Anarchy would result.

You're mixing together some truths and falsehoods here.  It is true that I have the right to petition the government and attempt to sway others to my side.  It is true that I, personally, am not some sovereign entity, able to make up the rules as I go.  It is true that a government must be based on objective laws or it will devolve into anarchy.  I am not arguing any of these points.

It is not true that all laws are a restriction on an unlimited right.  In fact, we do not have unlimited rights.  To put it succinctly, my rights stop where another's begin.  In that sense, we have laws that define clear boundaries for the exercising of rights by individuals in our society.  Some of those laws are clear, concise, and entirely appropriate.  Some are convoluted, unreasonable, and inappropriate.  I'm arguing that the laws concerning the draft fall into the latter category.

[Chump]

So is protecting its citizens from loss of life by an enemy.
You make the argument against yourself at that point.
Your refusal to help protect the nation when called is tantamount to the loss of life for the defeated.

Protecting...who?  You and not me?  Protecting you by violating my rights?  Is it not enough that I've already said repeatedly that in your scenario, I would willingly defend myself?  You're belaboring an already addressed point, multiple times in fact, by refusing to make a distinction between willingly disposing of the right to life and government compulsion through force to dispose of the right to life.

If this nation needed a draft to raise an army to fight terrorism and enough refused based on your arguments then wouldn`t any killed by the ensuing terrorism have had their right to life invalidated in part by you?

I have not argued that men should not defend themselves from a mortal threat.  In fact, over and over, I have said they should, that it's a good, moral thing and necessary to maintain a free society.  But as to your question, I would say the one doing the killing is the one to blame, and if a man does not defend himself, he has sanctioned his own death.

[Carl]

Neither is greater than the other.  Unless you can show me the logic and merit behind protecting your rights at the expense of my own, I will simply dismiss the argument out-of-hand as having no basis, either in logic or reality.

Again I'll ask you:  Can the government protect my right to life (or yours, or anyone's) by...denying my right to life?  If the question seems absurd and bizarre, that's because it is.

If it were to become a pressing issue, I might.  As it is, I'm simply having a discussion about whether or not the draft is reasonable.  Your argument here amounts to, yet again, "it is because it exists."  And so if we accept the merits if this argument, abortion is reasonable, gun control is reasonable, and whatever health care "reform"  laws are passed are also reasonable.

Am I being compelled by the government to go drive around against my will?  Then yes, my rights are being violated.  Or, am I willingly accepting the risk inherent in driving and exercising my right to dispose of my life as I see fit?  Then no, my rights are not being violated.

I voluntarily choose to drive in public right-of-way, and so accept the limitations and consequences associated with it.  So, no, it is not.

You're mixing together some truths and falsehoods here.  It is true that I have the right to petition the government and attempt to sway others to my side.  It is true that I, personally, am not some sovereign entity, able to make up the rules as I go.  It is true that a government must be based on objective laws or it will devolve into anarchy.  I am not arguing any of these points.

It is not true that all laws are a restriction on an unlimited right.  In fact, we do not have unlimited rights.  To put it succinctly, my rights stop where another's begin.  In that sense, we have laws that define clear boundaries for the exercising of rights by individuals in our society.  Some of those laws are clear, concise, and entirely appropriate.  Some are convoluted, unreasonable, and inappropriate.  I'm arguing that the laws concerning the draft fall into the latter category.

Then you have determined this in your own mind...the government and legal system have declared otherwise so what is your point?
You contradict yourself repeatedly...

Neither is greater than the other.  Unless you can show me the logic and merit behind protecting your rights at the expense of my own, I will simply dismiss the argument out-of-hand as having no basis, either in logic or reality.

To put it succinctly, my rights stop where another's begin.

Then by MY determination your right to life as you perceive it violates mine there fore you forfeit yours..see how simple that becomes?
As such I demand that the legal system protect my life by either compelling you to serve or punishing you for refusing.
Kind of fun isn`t it?

That is why we have the system we do as imperfect as it is at times.
You claim your rationalization of things is not or will not lead to anarchy but I have showed how without the system we have that is the result with a wild west survival of the fittest the conclusion.

[Chump]

So then then the right to life is not truly inalienable and there are exceptions. My dictionary defines inalienable as "that cannot be transferred to another. Untransferable, nonnegotiable; inviolable, sacrosanct, unchallengeable, absolute."

But you say that murders give up this right, when the term "inalienable" makes this impossible. If the right to life is truly these things, then there is absolutely no way for the government to legally take a life through the death penalty or otherwise.

Then you have made an excellent argument the death penalty, no?

I do hold that a murderer invalidates his own right to life by doing the same to another person.  But, perhaps I'm wrong.  Do you want to start another discussion about it?

But as to the topic, do you hold that the right to life is inalienable?  If so, how do you justify government compulsion through threat of force to dispose of that right against someone's will?  If not, we have nothing to discuss here.

[formerlurker]

I don't know how much clearer I can make this.  The Constitution is a piece of paper with absolutely no meaning unless there is a mechanism to exact it -- in this world we live in today, this means an extremely powerful military.    You subscribe to the Constitution and interpret the language to suit your needs, which is to not fight to uphold this piece of paper -- or in other words, they must make it look pretty enough for you to want to fight for that piece of paper.   The government in a sense being a great PR firm to kick in some sense of patriotism in you to risk your life so others may be free.

I can spend all day and then some debating the points of isolationism, and how that has proven to be disasterous for the best interests of our Union and the stability of that piece of paper -- but what is the point really?   Your willingness to fight the good fight is limited to someone storming our shores, the probability of which not very likely..how very convenient for you.   The reason of course for the extremely low to non-existent possibility of that being completely lost in your argument.  It is because we have the most powerful military in the world that no other country could get in any type of position to even think of carrying out such a task.  

Ad hominem?  how insightful.   It was an actual skoff and attack on the loony mindset of the Libertarian.   They live in a world of philosophical debates  that when hit the pavement of reality look so silly and childish.    The Messiah fancies himself of that crowd.  That is working out well for us isn't it?

I don't know enough about Libertarian principles to either claim them or deny them, but this comes across as blatant ad hominem.  "Oh you silly Libertarian and your utopia..."  From the part I bolded, there is no "asking" about the draft, and that's the entire issue at stake.  Attack an argument I've actually made, not one you've made for me.  The rest falls under the category of '2' from my previous post.  Simply because the government does, in fact, institute the draft does not make it moral or acceptable.

Consider all the gripes we have against both past and present government actions.  Are we wrong simply because those actions did and do happen?  Are we wrong to oppose abortion because SCOTUS has ruled against us?  Were we wrong to oppose the gun ban in Washington prior to SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller?

This was especially illuminating:

"that very document you hide behind means very little without force behind it to afford those protections"

1.  Apparently arguing in favor of the inalienable right to life consitutes hiding behind the Constitution.  If so, then I'm guilty as charged.

2.  You're claiming that the government can act with force to protect the freedoms found in the Constitution...by acting with force to deny the freedoms found in the Constitution.  Absurd on its face.

I did have a good laugh at the "liberal entitlement mindset" crack.  I don't know if that was your intent, but I appreciate it nonetheless.  It's already been a long week.