The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chump on December 07, 2009, 12:02:44 PM
-
I've recently seen the term "draft-dodger" used as an insult (not here) and it got me thinking about the nature of the draft itself.
Personally, were I to be drafted, I would refuse. It's a moot point now - I'm no longer of age - but what say you?
Edited to reflect my retraction, courtesy of Carl.
-
The real answer is "Only if we're fighting," without that stoopid Joooz bullshit on the end of it. A peacetime draft is a particularly wasteful means of fielding a substandard Army. In real wartime it would be a necessity...and I don't mean small wars conducted with tailored forces like 'Major regional contingencies,' I am talking what is called 'General war' in strategic writing.
In such circumstances, refusing to serve based on philosophical objections to the concept, or objections to the drift of current political leadership, is not really an option, unless you want to do a few years of hard time to make your point (Or just having your happy ass put up against a wall and shot, in less enlightened times and places).
ETA: 'Draft dodger' is a slur because it boils down to making someone else go, who doesn't want to do it any more than you do. It's not like the national government is going to draft one less person just because you didn't want to go. The same number of people will be going, you are just making someone else who wouldn't have gone risk his life in your place, avoiding your selection by the society that fostered you and provided benefits to that point in your life. It is actually pretty damned reprehensible, when conscription is truly necessary for national survival.
-
And then there's the whole issue of "quality", it seems to me that a force composed of people that actually want to be in the militery is far superior to one that is full of conscripts........the old USSR would likely be a good example of this.....
doc
-
Answers edited per DAT.
-
DAT, I would submit that if national survival is at stake, a draft would be unnecessary. When given a choice between fight for your survival or sit on your ass and be guaranteed death, the military's ranks would be filled to the brim.
But even if that were not true, the issue at stake is whether or not the government has the right to dispose of your life. Denying someone the ability to make a decision about their personal survival is reprehensible and outside the government's powers by definition of those powers.
The fact that someone else goes "in your place" does not make the draft any more moral or reasonable, nor does it make your refusal any more immoral or unreasonable, because the very act of drafting someone in the first place is immoral. It's akin to saying that fleeing from a serial killer is immoral because he then went on to kill someone else instead of you.
-
And then there's the whole issue of "quality", it seems to me that a force composed of people that actually want to be in the militery is far superior to one that is full of conscripts........the old USSR would likely be a good example of this.....
doc
Absolutely. When one knows what he is fighting for, voluntarily, he is formidable indeed. The nature of war has shifted from brute force through numbers to higher technology, as well.
-
DAT, I would submit that if national survival is at stake, a draft would be unnecessary. When given a choice between fight for your survival or sit on your ass and be guaranteed death, the military's ranks would be filled to the brim.
But even if that were not true, the issue at stake is whether or not the government has the right to dispose of your life. Denying someone the ability to make a decision about their personal survival is reprehensible and outside the government's powers by definition of those powers.
The fact that someone else goes "in your place" does not make the draft any more moral or reasonable, nor does it make your refusal any more immoral or unreasonable, because the very act of drafting someone in the first place is immoral. It's akin to saying that fleeing from a serial killer is immoral because he then went on to kill someone else instead of you.
History would say you are quite mistaken on the willingness of the populace to rise in national defense, since individual and national survival aren't the same thing at all. Nor is that particularly efficient in filling and fielding forces, the timetable and manpower needs of which have to be planned rather than left to chance. The threat of national destruction proved totally insufficient to fill the ranks at the necessary pace for every major nation involved in two world wars, which is a pretty good indicator of the weakness of that argument.
I can't say I agree that the government is outside its powers to call on individuals to put their lives at stake to preserve it. It very much has the power to do that, whether you approve of that or not. It is the nature of government that it must protect the whole over the individual parts, which essentially means the parts are expendable at need in order to preserve the whole. Good government does this only at great need and as sparingly as possible, bad government is profligate with the lives of its people.
As far as the morality of the choice is concerned, you are certainly free to call it as you see it, but don't be surprised when those who see it otherwise beat the crap out of you and send you off sit out the war, plus a few extra years, in a penal institution. My personal evaluation of the morality is that dodging such a grave societal duty for no reason beyond a philosophical objection to it, indistinguishable to the observer from cowardice hiding behind the artful articulation of an excuse, is merely a craven and selfish breach of the social contract, and deserving of very severe sanctions. I cannot respect a person who had enjoyed the benefits of his society and would then behave that way in a time of national peril.
Avoiding a peacetime draft (While hardly laudable), or a victim's flight from forced service in an oppressive political regime's forces, are different situations entirely. Selfish but not cowardly in the first case, and wholly understandable or even praiseworthy in the second.
-
DAT, it's really difficult for me to believe that I'm reading things like, "It is the nature of government that it must protect the whole over the individual parts, which essentially means the parts are expendable at need in order to preserve the whole," on a conservative political forum. But, there they are. The only proper function of government is to protect individual rights. Essentially, your view asserts that the government, or nation, or society, or "whole," has the right to survive while, and by, denying that very right to its individual citizens! If the individual does not have the right to life, then it is tautology that the government also does not have that right, unless we're talking about a statist dictatorship (and I am not). You even allude to this idea when you qualify government disposal of the lives of its citizens as good if done sparingly, and bad if done excessively. Who decides how many people's lives should be disposed of before it becomes excessive? I say one is enough, so we're at an impasse.
While I clearly will never match your experience and knowledge of all matters military, I contend that the numerical strength of numbers available to commanders is a limiting variable. In essence, war tactics should be designed with numbers in mind, not vice-versa. Take my opinion for whatever it's worth on this particular subject.
-
The fact that someone else goes "in your place" does not make the draft any more moral or reasonable, nor does it make your refusal any more immoral or unreasonable, because the very act of drafting someone in the first place is immoral. It's akin to saying that fleeing from a serial killer is immoral because he then went on to kill someone else instead of you.
Wow. Morals in war? The day you start to think about morality in war is the day you lose the war.
We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.
Words our founding fathers uttered on signing the Declaration of Independence. Their intent rather clear.
-
DAT, it's really difficult for me to believe that I'm reading things like, "It is the nature of government that it must protect the whole over the individual parts, which essentially means the parts are expendable at need in order to preserve the whole," on a conservative political forum. But, there they are. The only proper function of government is to protect individual rights. Essentially, your view asserts that the government, or nation, or society, or "whole," has the right to survive while, and by, denying that very right to its individual citizens! If the individual does not have the right to life, then it is tautology that the government also does not have that right, unless we're talking about a statist dictatorship (and I am not). You even allude to this idea when you qualify government disposal of the lives of its citizens as good if done sparingly, and bad if done excessively. Who decides how many people's lives should be disposed of before it becomes excessive? I say one is enough, so we're at an impasse.
While I clearly will never match your experience and knowledge of all matters military, I contend that the numerical strength of numbers available to commanders is a limiting variable. In essence, war tactics should be designed with numbers in mind, not vice-versa. Take my opinion for whatever it's worth on this particular subject.
The Union must survive, i.e. the Constitution.
-
Wow. Morals in war? The day you start to think about morality in war is the day you lose the war.
We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.
Words our founding fathers uttered on signing the Declaration of Independence. Their intent rather clear.
I'm speaking to the morality of denying someone their right to life. Morality is not thrown out the window because a nation is at war. Likewise, that a war is in progess does not entitle a government to enact evil on its citizens.
Our founding fathers all went to war willingly, voluntarily, and through the force of their arguments and the fact that they were fighting for a just cause convinced others to do the same. They did not jail those who disagreed with them and refused to fight.
-
My concern with a draft - is would YOU want someone who really didn't want to be there and wasn't giving their 110% to the effort watching your back in a foxhole ?
-
I'm speaking to the morality of denying someone their right to life. Morality is not thrown out the window because a nation is at war. Likewise, that a war is in progess does not entitle a government to enact evil on its citizens.
Our founding fathers all went to war willingly, voluntarily, and through the force of their arguments and the fact that they were fighting for a just cause convinced others to do the same. They did not jail those who disagreed with them and refused to fight.
Might want to read the entry of Elisha Lawrence. (http://books.google.com/books?id=jtdBAAAAIAAJ&dq=loyalists+american+revolution&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=wYIdS67TDYTENo2O9eUC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13&ved=0CCcQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=&f=false) In fact, the entire Lawrence family has an interesting chronology.
-
DAT, it's really difficult for me to believe that I'm reading things like, "It is the nature of government that it must protect the whole over the individual parts, which essentially means the parts are expendable at need in order to preserve the whole," on a conservative political forum. But, there they are. The only proper function of government is to protect individual rights. Essentially, your view asserts that the government, or nation, or society, or "whole," has the right to survive while, and by, denying that very right to its individual citizens! If the individual does not have the right to life, then it is tautology that the government also does not have that right, unless we're talking about a statist dictatorship (and I am not). You even allude to this idea when you qualify government disposal of the lives of its citizens as good if done sparingly, and bad if done excessively. Who decides how many people's lives should be disposed of before it becomes excessive? I say one is enough, so we're at an impasse.
While I clearly will never match your experience and knowledge of all matters military, I contend that the numerical strength of numbers available to commanders is a limiting variable. In essence, war tactics should be designed with numbers in mind, not vice-versa. Take my opinion for whatever it's worth on this particular subject.
Think what you will, "Conservative" does not mean I hold the individual untouchable by society, or the life of one more valuable than the lives of many just because he wants to stay out of the business of protecting theirs. My Conservativism is founded in concepts individual liberty within the boundaries allowed by reciprocal duties between the individual and society, you seem to think it is all one way and the individual owes his society nothing but what he chooses to give it. That is basically the path of an Anarchist or a spiritual follower of Alistair Crowley, not Conservatism. Providing for the common defense, which you will find mentioned in the Nation's founding documents, has been known to end up occasionally involving dead people, very few of whom wanted to end up dead, I'm sure.
I just don't think you've thought through the consequences of your position. However, if you really are an Anarchist and that is where you are comfortable, far be it from me to shout you down, that freedom of political thought is part of the social contract in this neck of the woods.
-
If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised
to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the
whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the
EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of
the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead
of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was
to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even
of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the
appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period
than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear
to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without
evident necessity.
Though a wide ocean separates the United States from Europe, yet there
are various considerations that warn us against an excess of confidence
or security. On one side of us, and stretching far into our rear, are
growing settlements subject to the dominion of Britain. On the other
side, and extending to meet the British settlements, are colonies and
establishments subject to the dominion of Spain. This situation and the
vicinity of the West India Islands, belonging to these two powers create
between them, in respect to their American possessions and in relation
to us, a common interest. The savage tribes on our Western frontier
ought to be regarded as our natural enemies, their natural allies,
because they have most to fear from us, and most to hope from them. The
improvements in the art of navigation have, as to the facility of
communication, rendered distant nations, in a great measure, neighbors.
Britain and Spain are among the principal maritime powers of Europe. A
future concert of views between these nations ought not to be regarded
as improbable. The increasing remoteness of consanguinity is every day
diminishing the force of the family compact between France and Spain.
And politicians have ever with great reason considered the ties of blood
as feeble and precarious links of political connection. These
circumstances combined, admonish us not to be too sanguine in
considering ourselves as entirely out of the reach of danger.
http://federalistpapers.com/federalist24.html
It is the duty of legislature to raise an army, the intent of which provided for by example by Madison et al.
I can think of a few things that our founding fathers would order on one who refused to fight to preserve the Union. Neither of which would be resultant in that sob continuing to draw breath (of liberty no less).
ETA -- quoted wrong section!
-
I've spoken to several Viet Nam vets over the years about the draft during their time....
The consensus that I have gathered from them is that the draftees that they personally served with fought just as hard as the volunteers when the bullets were flying.
-
Might want to read the entry of Elisha Lawrence. (http://books.google.com/books?id=jtdBAAAAIAAJ&dq=loyalists+american+revolution&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=wYIdS67TDYTENo2O9eUC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13&ved=0CCcQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=&f=false) In fact, the entire Lawrence family has an interesting chronology.
I might. Can you summarize? The only knowledge I have of the draft in relation to the founding fathers and Revolutionary War is that Washington specifically exempted conscientious objectors from the order.
-
Think what you will, "Conservative" does not mean I hold the individual untouchable by society, or the life of one more valuable than the lives of many just because he wants to stay out of the business of protecting theirs. My Conservativism is founded in concepts individual liberty within the boundaries allowed by reciprocal duties between the individual and society, you seem to think it is all one way and the individual owes his society nothing but what he chooses to give it. That is basically the path of an Anarchist or a spiritual follower of Alistair Crowley, not Conservatism. Providing for the common defense, which you will find mentioned in the Nation's founding documents, has been known to end up occasionally involving dead people, very few of whom wanted to end up dead, I'm sure.
I just don't think you've thought through the consequences of your position. However, if you really are an Anarchist and that is where you are comfortable, far be it from me to shout you down, that freedom of political thought is part of the social contract in this neck of the woods.
I absolutely reject anarchy as a different form of tyranny: the tyranny of lawlessness. However, I do hold that an individual does not owe society his life, to be disposed of against his will. I have thought through my premise, and I remain open to new information and arguments. If I truly felt that the individual should pay nothing for the benefits he receives from living in a lawful society, I would not be typing on this computer, having this discussion. That is a far cry, however, from what the draft is. The draft is the government invoking the right to existence while denying that right to its citizens. Because government is formed to protect individual rights, the draft is a perversion of both the government's existence and the inalienable right to life. Remember, your rights stop where another's begin.
I also absolutely reject any sort of idea that the whole is worth more than the individual, as that is a core tenet of statism in all forms. What that amounts to, in relation to the topic, is that some people in society have "more" right to life than others, an indefensible position in a free society.
I do acknowledge that my position may not be popular here, but that makes me all the more appreciate the chance to have the discussion.
-
I'm speaking to the morality of denying someone their right to life. Morality is not thrown out the window because a nation is at war. Likewise, that a war is in progess does not entitle a government to enact evil on its citizens.
Our founding fathers all went to war willingly, voluntarily, and through the force of their arguments and the fact that they were fighting for a just cause convinced others to do the same. They did not jail those who disagreed with them and refused to fight.
Chump, compelling one to serve in a time of need is not the same as denying their right to life. You may be compelling them to risk it their life, but you are not condemning them to certain death.
I wish that all Americans, male and female, loved this country enough to be willing to fight for it and serve a tour of military duty even during peace time.
But unfortunately history has proven that not to be the case. Thus the unfortunate need for a potential draft.
-
http://federalistpapers.com/federalist24.html
It is the duty of legislature to raise an army, the intent of which provided for by example by Madison et al.
I can think of a few things that our founding fathers would order on one who refused to fight to preserve the Union. Neither of which would be resultant in that sob continuing to draw breath (of liberty no less).
ETA -- quoted wrong section!
In many cases, I would agree with you 100% that is craven and cowardly to refuse to serve your country when faced with a mortal threat. But the rub is in the fact that my opinion holds no weight when we're discussing inalienable rights, namely, the right to life.
-
Chump, compelling one to serve in a time of need is not the same as denying their right to life. You may be compelling them to risk it their life, but you are not condemning them to certain death.
I wish that all Americans, male and female, loved this country enough to be willing to fight for it and serve a tour of military duty even during peace time.
But unfortunately history has proven that not to be the case. Thus the unfortunate need for a potential draft.
The right to life does not only entail the right to not be condemned to certain death. Compelling someone to risk their life is the same as denying their right to life because you've taken their ability to dispose of their life as they see fit.
Consider this: if a country is faced with certain doom from a mortal threat if it does not rise to meet it with force, and all but a handful of its citizens refuse to willingly rise to fight the threat, does that country even deserve to exist? Beyond that, who is actually struggling to survive when a government must force its citizens to risk their lives in self-defense?
-
The right to life does not only entail the right to not be condemned to certain death. Compelling someone to risk their life is the same as denying their right to life because you've taken their ability to dispose of their life as they see fit.
Consider this: if a country is faced with certain doom from a mortal threat if it does not rise to meet it with force, and all but a handful of its citizens refuse to willingly rise to fight the threat, does that country even deserve to exist? Beyond that, who is actually struggling to survive when a government must force its citizens to risk their lives in self-defense?
Perhaps you are correct. If enough people no longer wish to defend the country that nutured them, then the country , as a political entity no longer deserves to exist.
Just let the enemy take over and make up their own new rules. Although history shows us that that very rarely works out well for the conquered.
-
Conscript armies don't work well for democracies.
Also, as modern warfare evolves, you need a better and better class of recruit. Conscription allows the politicians to evade their responsibility to the both the service and the recruits. What works best is an intelligent, motivated military. Conscription tends to damage both parts of that.
Just wanted to point out a couple things here. Several democracies, notably Israel, have conscript armies, but they are in a state of perpetual total war, and the military also serves as an educational tool above and beyond its military function. It is a means of integrating the state which still has a huge immigrant population.
South Korea is also on a perpetual state of total alert. It is worth noting that in ROK, there are no exceptions on service. Famous faces in the news will disappear for two years, sometimes never to come back. I think in ROK, there is also a bit of the same reasoning as in Israel, a means to integrate a particularist population.
Spain forbids volunteer service for weird political reasons that relate to the pre Franco era. Again, Spain has a history of and a problem with regional particularism.
But given US needs, and the fact that the US does not have a real particularist problem, and only US nationals are allowed in, there should be no need for the draft here.
-
But given US needs, and the fact that the US does not have a real particularist problem, and only US nationals are allowed in, there should be no need for the draft here.
What countries military are you talking about, cause that sure as hell a'int the United States military
-
I might. Can you summarize? The only knowledge I have of the draft in relation to the founding fathers and Revolutionary War is that Washington specifically exempted conscientious objectors from the order.
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.
-
I absolutely reject anarchy as a different form of tyranny: the tyranny of lawlessness. However, I do hold that an individual does not owe society his life, to be disposed of against his will. I have thought through my premise, and I remain open to new information and arguments. If I truly felt that the individual should pay nothing for the benefits he receives from living in a lawful society, I would not be typing on this computer, having this discussion. That is a far cry, however, from what the draft is. The draft is the government invoking the right to existence while denying that right to its citizens. Because government is formed to protect individual rights, the draft is a perversion of both the government's existence and the inalienable right to life. Remember, your rights stop where another's begin.
I also absolutely reject any sort of idea that the whole is worth more than the individual, as that is a core tenet of statism in all forms. What that amounts to, in relation to the topic, is that some people in society have "more" right to life than others, an indefensible position in a free society.
I do acknowledge that my position may not be popular here, but that makes me all the more appreciate the chance to have the discussion.
Chump, did you ever serve in uniform? Any kind of uniform? Cop, firefighter, Navy cook, Marine rifleman?
I understand your point, but I could not disagree more with you. Along with DAT, I believe that we all have an obligation to serve and go in harm's way, particularly in times of great threat -- WWII probably being the biggest example.
In a time of our history when our fathers were fighting a global war on two fronts, where the Nazi machine and the Japanese empire truly threatened the entire world, I believe that those who went before us also considered it their duty. Many were drafted and many died performing that service of fulfilling that obligation to their countrymen.
I refuse to accept your notion that statism is driving the train when government -- in a time of genuine emergency -- calls its citizens to war.
That said, I also believe that the draft outlived its usefulness long before it actually ended. Deferments and the rest of the bullshit that allowed a lot of privileged, connected kids like Slick Willie to stay in school or outright lie to avoid service did nothing to level the playing field.
Bottom line is, when the country calls, I believe we as citizens have the duty to respond. You clearly don't believe that, and that's fine.
But I'm interested in getting your answer on whether or not you served.
-
Chump, did you ever serve in uniform? Any kind of uniform? Cop, firefighter, Navy cook, Marine rifleman?
I understand your point, but I could not disagree more with you. Along with DAT, I believe that we all have an obligation to serve and go in harm's way, particularly in times of great threat -- WWII probably being the biggest example.
In a time of our history when our fathers were fighting a global war on two fronts, where the Nazi machine and the Japanese empire truly threatened the entire world, I believe that those who went before us also considered it their duty. Many were drafted and many died performing that service of fulfilling that obligation to their countrymen.
I refuse to accept your notion that statism is driving the train when government -- in a time of genuine emergency -- calls its citizens to war.
That said, I also believe that the draft outlived its usefulness long before it actually ended. Deferments and the rest of the bullshit that allowed a lot of privileged, connected kids like Slick Willie to stay in school or outright lie to avoid service did nothing to level the playing field.
Bottom line is, when the country calls, I believe we as citizens have the duty to respond. You clearly don't believe that, and that's fine.
But I'm interested in getting your answer on whether or not you served.
No, I did not, in any uniform.
As much as you reject my reasoning, I also reject the idea that I'm obligated to do anything other than pay for what I receive. I don't believe that the government, or society (the whole) has the right to life at the expense of my right to life. That says nothing to my opinion about serving in general, or even about my opinion of war. I can voluntarily fight to defend my country and still believe that the government has no right to force me to do so.
Look, also, at the core problem you touched on when you mentioned deferments and the obvious special treatment that "connected," "powerful" people received during the time of the draft. It had nothing to do with the fact that the draft outlived its usefulness and everything to do with the fact that forcing people to dispose of their lives against their will for the sake of others tacitly purports that some people have "more" right to life than others. So what's the outcome of that premise? "Well, I don't want to give up my life, but I want you to. Sign this paper, daddy. Pull these strings." Your very survival has nothing to do with your inalienable rights and everything to do with who you know and how much pull you have. It's disgusting and anathema to a free society.
-
...
Bottom line is, when the country calls, I believe we as citizens have the duty to respond. You clearly don't believe that, and that's fine.
...
I wanted to highlight this because it's not fine. If it were simply a matter of a difference of beliefs it would be fine, but this is an instance in which I'm laying claim to my inalienable right to life, and you're telling me the government can suspend that right because I have a duty or obligation to my fellow citizens. Essentially, my life is disposable, at the government's discretion, in order to preserve the lives of others.
Consider this unlikely scenario: Obama finds some excuse to war with Israel, and gets enough support in Congress for a formal declaration. The draft is instituted because of the grave threat from war with a nuclear power. Do you have a duty to submit?
On edit, the above is a horrible, vague hypothetical. I ask that you look at the broader point I was struggling to put out there.
-
No, I did not, in any uniform.
As much as you reject my reasoning, I also reject the idea that I'm obligated to do anything other than pay for what I receive. I don't believe that the government, or society (the whole) has the right to life at the expense of my right to life. That says nothing to my opinion about serving in general, or even about my opinion of war. I can voluntarily fight to defend my country and still believe that the government has no right to force me to do so.
Look, also, at the core problem you touched on when you mentioned deferments and the obvious special treatment that "connected," "powerful" people received during the time of the draft. It had nothing to do with the fact that the draft outlived its usefulness and everything to do with the fact that forcing people to dispose of their lives against their will for the sake of others tacitly purports that some people have "more" right to life than others. So what's the outcome of that premise? "Well, I don't want to give up my life, but I want you to. Sign this paper, daddy. Pull these strings." Your very survival has nothing to do with your inalienable rights and everything to do with who you know and how much pull you have. It's disgusting and anathema to a free society.
This discussion threatens to go off on a tangent.
For me, it's real simple. The nation calls. If I'm called, I go.
I suspect that those who serve and who have served in uniform understand this very simple premise. We don't tend to get bogged down in "what-ifs" and "it's not fair."
Freedom is not free. Until you've been in a situation where your service makes a difference, you probably wouldn't understand that concept. It's about putting others before self. It's really all about the verb to serve.
Discussions about "inalienable rights" and whether Slick Willie and his cronies are sliding by because they know people are merely side issues. No system is perfect, and God knows that the draft - particularly during Vietnam - was especially vile. Student deferments and splitting hairs were the order of the day. I'd much prefer to keep it simple, because this isn't an intellectual exercise. It's real.
-
I wanted to highlight this because it's not fine. If it were simply a matter of a difference of beliefs it would be fine, but this is an instance in which I'm laying claim to my inalienable right to life, and you're telling me the government can suspend that right because I have a duty or obligation to my fellow citizens. Essentially, my life is disposable, at the government's discretion, in order to preserve the lives of others.
Consider this unlikely scenario: Obama finds some excuse to war with Israel, and gets enough support in Congress for a formal declaration. The draft is instituted because of the grave threat from war with a nuclear power. Do you have a duty to submit?
On edit, the above is a horrible, vague hypothetical. I ask that you look at the broader point I was struggling to put out there.
No, Chump, I'm not telling you the government can suspend your right to your life. The law does, potentially, as a result of instituting the draft. And while the law vis a vis the draft has changed, meaning the military is all-voluntary, registration for the draft is still compulsory. There are some pretty significant consequences for those who choose to ignore registering.
Before I forget to ask, did you register for the draft?
I honestly believe that you're turning this whole point into an intellectual exercise and while you've carefully considered your point and are articulating your point very well, you have little to no sense of obligation to your fellow citizens. You, and others, believe your "inalienable right to life" is sacrosanct and isn't subject to challenge by government, whose Constitutional duty it is to defend our country -- not just defend an individual's liberties.
There are bad guys in the world, and there always has been. To take the kind of position you're taking essentially ignores that fact.
The country, and by definition the government, has to have recourse in calling on its citizens to defend itself. It's really just that simple. The Constitution provides for that, and thus in times of great challenge, gives the power to the Congress to make laws and appropriate money "for the common defense."
-
What that amounts to, in relation to the topic, is that some people in society have "more" right to life than others, an indefensible position in a free society.
And yet you apparently conceive that your life is worth more than that of the person who would have to go in your place. Whether you choose to admit it or not, you are indeed a particular subspecies of Anarchist, with a guiding philosophy which if widely held would quickly break down any higher form of societal organization beyond the family, tribe, or village.
It's been illuminating, in showing just what varied and peculiar meanings people can have in mind when they say 'Conservative,' but I've said about all I've got to say in this thread.
-
This discussion threatens to go off on a tangent.
For me, it's real simple. The nation calls. If I'm called, I go.
I suspect that those who serve and who have served in uniform understand this very simple premise. We don't tend to get bogged down in "what-ifs" and "it's not fair."
Freedom is not free. Until you've been in a situation where your service makes a difference, you probably wouldn't understand that concept. It's about putting others before self. It's really all about the verb to serve.
Discussions about "inalienable rights" and whether Slick Willie and his cronies are sliding by because they know people are merely side issues. No system is perfect, and God knows that the draft - particularly during Vietnam - was especially vile. Student deferments and splitting hairs were the order of the day. I'd much prefer to keep it simple, because this isn't an intellectual exercise. It's real.
I appreciate that we have a difference of opinion here, and please understand that I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and people like you, who served willingly in defense of an entire nation. My reasons for never having served are the real side issue, none of them are good, and I'm more than willing to have a discussion about it in another thread.
But carry your premise out to its conclusion. If the government can dispose of your life at will, regardless of your opinion about the worth of your sacrifice, then you literally have no freedom. Freedom certainly is not free, but negating freedom itself is not the path to attaining nor defending it. I asked earlier: if a free people does not rise willingly to meet a mortal threat, does that country deserve its freedom, or even its existence? Even after our country's conception, when we were faced with fighting the world's greatest military force for our very survival, our military's leader and first President specifically exempted conscientious objectors from the draft order. It's likely he was disgusted by the very idea, but he still did it. Why do you think that is?
I don't think a discussion of deferments and reactions to the draft is tangential. It's very germane to the core premise that the government can suspend its citizens' right to life. The fact that those with political pull can and did preserve themselves at the expense of the "little people" should be among the greatest indictments of a mindset that says some people should be forced to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.
-
And yet you apparently conceive that your life is worth more than that of the person who would have to go in your place. Whether you choose to admit it or not, you are indeed a particular subspecies of Anarchist, with a guiding philosophy which if widely held would quickly break down any higher form of societal organization beyond the family, tribe, or village.
I've already addressed these points. I believe both I and this other person should not be compelled to dispose of our lives against our will. The issue is that either one of us is being forced to do so in the first place.
It's been illuminating, in showing just what varied and peculiar meanings people can have in mind when they say 'Conservative,' but I've said about all I've got to say in this thread.
Fair enough.
-
Chump:
But carry your premise out to its conclusion. If the government can dispose of your life at will, regardless of your opinion about the worth of your sacrifice, then you literally have no freedom. Freedom certainly is not free, but negating freedom itself is not the path to attaining nor defending it. I asked earlier: if a free people does not rise willingly to meet a mortal threat, does that country deserve its freedom, or even its existence? Even after our country's conception, when we were faced with fighting the world's greatest military force for our very survival, our military's leader and first President specifically exempted conscientious objectors from the draft order. It's likely he was disgusted by the very idea, but he still did it. Why do you think that is?
I don't think a discussion of deferments and reactions to the draft is tangential. It's very germane to the core premise that the government can suspend its citizens' right to life. The fact that those with political pull can and did preserve themselves at the expense of the "little people" should be among the greatest indictments of a mindset that says some people should be forced to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.
Again, you're over-analyzing the issue. Somebody up thread has already said that simply because a draft is imposed is not a death sentence. Why do you insist on making it sound that way? Is the idea of you serving others that repugnant that you've got to automatically assume that putting a uniform on means certain death?
I can assure you that when I enlisted to put the uniform on, I did so assuming that whatever would be put in my path, I'd survive it. Others with whom I've spoken in the past who were drafted looked at the whole thing like a 2-year interruption of their lives. Some lives, of course, were permanently interrupted -- but that isn't an overriding factor.
I'll answer your question about a free people willingly rising to meet a threat, but I believe that DAT answered that question as well. History shows that, especially in times of global war, a government just sort of wringing its hands and hoping that enough "little people" sign up to fight the bad guys and that the rest of the "little people" will willingly go without unlimited amounts of tires and gasoline and butter and meat is irresponsible. To meet a demonstrated threat, a government has a responsibility to marshall its resources to meet that threat. If a government fails to do that, and it's defeated, the people who the government represent suffer the consequences. History shows that annexation of territory, involuntary servitude, payment of booty, and subjugation have all happened to those who were defeated in war.
-
Chump:
Again, you're over-analyzing the issue. Somebody up thread has already said that simply because a draft is imposed is not a death sentence. Why do you insist on making it sound that way? Is the idea of you serving others that repugnant that you've got to automatically assume that putting a uniform on means certain death?
My response was that being compelled to dispose of your life against your will by risking it in war is a negation of your right to life. If I, holding a gun, force you to jump off the roof of your house, are my actions any less evil because you might not even break anything and probably won't die? Is the morality of my action determined by the risk to your person?
I can assure you that when I enlisted to put the uniform on, I did so assuming that whatever would be put in my path, I'd survive it. Others with whom I've spoken in the past who were drafted looked at the whole thing like a 2-year interruption of their lives. Some lives, of course, were permanently interrupted -- but that isn't an overriding factor.
No, it's not the overriding factor; it's the only factor. I'm claiming my right to life as paramount. If I choose to serve in the military as my expression of that right, so be it. I'm also laying claim to the ability to not serve in military as my expression of that right. Your opinion of my decision says nothing to do the underlying premise: that the government has no right to suspend my right to life.
I'll answer your question about a free people willingly rising to meet a threat, but I believe that DAT answered that question as well. History shows that, especially in times of global war, a government just sort of wringing its hands and hoping that enough "little people" sign up to fight the bad guys and that the rest of the "little people" will willingly go without unlimited amounts of tires and gasoline and butter and meat is irresponsible. To meet a demonstrated threat, a government has a responsibility to marshall its resources to meet that threat. If a government fails to do that, and it's defeated, the people who the government represent suffer the consequences. History shows that annexation of territory, involuntary servitude, payment of booty, and subjugation have all happened to those who were defeated in war.
You're absolutely right about the effects of war on a conquered people. If the country in question is not filled with dread when faced with those consequences and does not rise voluntarily and willingly to meet that mortal threat, let it be swept into the dustbin of history as a disgusting display. With that said, the government, society (the whole) has no more right to life than I do. The government derives its very powers from the consent of the governed, and it exists to protect the rights of those it governs. It simply cannot do that by negating any of those rights. It's an illogical premise.
Edit: typo.
-
My response was that being compelled to dispose of your life against your will by risking it in war is a negation of your right to life. If I, holding a gun, force you to jump off the roof of your house, are my actions any less evil because you might not even break anything and probably won't die? Is the morality of my action determined by the risk to your person?
No, it's not the overriding factor; it's the only factor. I'm claiming my right to life as paramount. If I choose to serve in the military as my expression of that right, so be it. I'm also laying claim to the ability to not serve in military as my expression of that right. Your opinion of my decision says nothing to do the underlying premise: that the government has no right to suspend my right to life.
You're absolutely right about the effects of war on a conquered people. If the country in question is not filled with dread when faced with those consequences and does not rise voluntarily and willingly to meet that mortal threat, let it be swept into the dustbin of history as a disgusting display. With that said, the government, society (the whole) has no more right to life than I do. The government derives its very powers from the consent of the governed, and it exists to protect the rights of those it governs. It simply cannot do that by negating any of those rights. It's an illogical premise.
Edit: typo.
This discussion is going nowhere, I'm afraid. I tend to agree with DAT - you're an anarchist. Government, as detestable and disgusting as it's been over the years, does have a role. The Constitution defines that role. Your own words pretty much confirm that, in your world, the Constitution does not empower the government to take measures necessary to defend itself. As the government cannot allocate itself toward its own defense, it must rely on the people. And if the people cannot or will not see the threat, the government has an obligation to prepare itself for that possibility. That means calling on you, me, and others who are able-bodied and of sound mind to do what's necessary -- even if the government has to compel the people.
I submit that once you take measures and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it doesn't take long to recognize a potential enemy. You're sounding very much like one of those, Chump.
And I noticed you didn't answer the question I asked earlier -- if you had registered for the draft. I believe I remember you saying some weeks ago that you're past that age.
-
This discussion is going nowhere, I'm afraid. I tend to agree with DAT - you're an anarchist. Government, as detestable and disgusting as it's been over the years, does have a role. The Constitution defines that role. Your own words pretty much confirm that, in your world, the Constitution does not empower the government to take measures necessary to defend itself. As the government cannot allocate itself toward its own defense, it must rely on the people. And if the people cannot or will not see the threat, the government has an obligation to prepare itself for that possibility. That means calling on you, me, and others who are able-bodied and of sound mind to do what's necessary -- even if the government has to compel the people.
I have not once said the government has no right to defend itself. I have not even implied it. I have said consistently that the government has no more right to life than I do. I do not exist for the sake of the government, and the government has no right to compel to me to dispose of my life against my will. Carrying that premise further, you or any number of people who agree with you have no right to compel me to dispose of my life against my will. This does not mean I think war is wrong or that people should not defend themselves and their country. Rather, I think they should be allowed the decision to defend themselves or not. Again, I do not think people should be compelled, against their will, to exist or die for the sake of the existence or death of anyone else, or their government
I submit that once you take measures and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it doesn't take long to recognize a potential enemy. You're sounding very much like one of those, Chump.
Do you really believe that, or are you attempting to begin an ad hominem line of attack against me for no reason other than that we're in disagreement? I would submit that if I felt you were a potential enemy to the United States and Constitution, I would not even be having this discussion with you. I have nothing to say to enemies of the U.S.
And I noticed you didn't answer the question I asked earlier -- if you had registered for the draft. I believe I remember you saying some weeks ago that you're past that age.
Yes, I did. When I said I was past that age, I was referencing the range from which men are selected for the draft. IIRC, that's 18-25. I registered for Selective Service at 18 as required by law.
ETA: I didn't respond to the post in which you posed that question because you had already made a later post by that time. I felt it would've disrupted the discussion. If there's anything else I missed then feel free to bring it up again.
If this is devolving I'm willing to just drop it. However, calling me an anarchist of any sort is silly and I'll continue to dimiss it out-of-hand unless you have some sort of basis for that accusation. Referring to me as a potential enemy to the U.S. and COTUS is completely out of line, untrue, and insulting.
-
You've got to keep it in context, Chump. Anybody who scoffs at the Constitution and what it empowers the government to do is a potential enemy to me -- but that doesn't make you one.
Anarchy is, by definition, "absence of government." In this instance you're insisting the government does not have a right to compel military service and, presumably by extension, a possible death sentence :whatever: . You're wrong, because the Selective Service Act provides that right. The SSA was passed by Congress and thus became law decades ago.
No SCOTUS that I'm aware of has declared SSA unconstitutional.
Therefore, you're railing on about something that is a non-issue. By law, the government does have the right to require registration for the draft and even to conscript people for compulsory service. That's the way it is.
We can burn up tons of electrons in discussion, I suppose, but for me, this thread has run its course.
-
Fair enough. Imagine if I were to say to you that you were beginning to sound like a potential enemy to the U.S. and COTUS. I imagine my reaction was rather tame in comparison.
Let's examine what the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to do in relation to the military:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html
As explicit as those enumerated powers are, you would have to resort to a semantic argument over the word "raise" in order to argue that Congress has the power to compel men to dispose of their lives against their will. I have very little doubt that that power doesn't exist in the Constitution because it specifically negates the very first God-given, inalienable right our Founders mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. And again, compelling men to risk their lives against their will suspends their right to life. The final outcome does not matter at all because the initial compulsion by force is the issue. Remember, just because you might not break your leg after I force you to jump from your roof does not make me any less evil.
Yes, I'm well aware that Selective Service is the law of the land. If your argument is that the government has the right to compel men to dispose of their lives, against their will, for the sake of the lives of others simply because it does, in fact, do that, then you're right that this thread has run its course.
As to the accusation that I am an anarchist: it's laughable at face value because I've said repeatedly on these boards and in this thread that anarchy is the tyranny of lawlessness. Any group of looters with more guns than me is my de facto ruler, and I have no recourse. I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force. Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole). The very core tenet of statism is that the citizen is beholden and belongs to the state.
-
If I, holding a gun, force you to jump off the roof of your house, are my actions any less evil because you might not even break anything and probably won't die?
You point a gun at me, I will make you use it, else I will take it from you and beat you death with it or die trying.
I'm claiming my right to life as paramount.
So you would run away if one of your loved ones were in danger? Your life is worth more to you than their's is?
Would you have me die in your stead?
-
Hey Chump, if you so vehemently disagree with the draft, why did you register with the selective service when you were 18, as required by law?
You do know that the sole purpose of that registration is to maintain a "draft pool" right?
-
Is the draft reasonable?
not in this day and age....
-
Is the draft reasonable?
not in this day and age....
Based on what in your opinion?
-
For Chump and those like him.
For those too cowardly to serve regardless of how they spin the reason.
http://thewarriorsong.com/video.html
-
Hey Chump, if you so vehemently disagree with the draft, why did you register with the selective service when you were 18, as required by law?
You do know that the sole purpose of that registration is to maintain a "draft pool" right?
I never registered with Selective Service, even though I turned 18 in 1979. I didn't get a letter reminding me to until March of 1980 just after I got out of boot camp .
-
You point a gun at me, I will make you use it, else I will take it from you and beat you death with it or die trying.
The hypothetical I posed was in response to the argument that because one might not die in war, one can be compelled to risk their life. You are right with this response though. Compulsion through threat of force at the end of a gun is an evil worth fighting, which has been my position throughout this thread.
So you would run away if one of your loved ones were in danger?
No.
Your life is worth more to you than their's is?
No.
Would you have me die in your stead?
What? Of course not.
-
Hey Chump, if you so vehemently disagree with the draft, why did you register with the selective service when you were 18, as required by law?
You do know that the sole purpose of that registration is to maintain a "draft pool" right?
I obeyed the law and thought very little of it at the time. I was more interested in graduating high school and heading off to college than I was in my philosophical stance on inalienable rights and how they are expressed in a free society. My stance has since changed over the years.
-
For Chump and those like him.
For those too cowardly to serve regardless of how they spin the reason.
http://thewarriorsong.com/video.html
I'm offering no reasons as an excuse to not serve. I'm saying, over and over, that no one can have their life disposed of against their will. Your response above - attempting to convince someone by appealing to their patriotism - is the only proper way to recruit. Compulsion through threat of force is not.
Put it another way, if I reject the theme found in the warrior song and still refuse to serve in the military, is it reasonable for you, with other agents of the government, to handcuff me and send me anyway? You can call me a coward as much as you'd like, it still does not give you the right to suspend my right to life.
-
I never registered with Selective Service, even though I turned 18 in 1979. I didn't get a letter reminding me to until March of 1980 just after I got out of boot camp .
Registration with Selective Service was suspended from about mid-1975 until about 1980. There was no requirement to register during those years. But the gubmint fired it up again and it's been a requirement since 1980. It looks like you didn't miss a thing!
-
Registration with Selective Service was suspended from about mid-1975 until about 1980. There was no requirement to register during those years. But the gubmint fired it up again and it's been a requirement since 1980. It looks like you didn't miss a thing!
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.
-
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!
-
Don't worry, Chump. I'd much rather have you stay home and drink a lemonade than man a fighting position with me anytime.
-
Only 4 more months of worrying about being drafted.
But I'll volunteer again in a heartbeat. Actually considering it at the moment.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :cheersmate:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
You are changing the context of the argument then to suit you.
"I refuse to submit to a draft because it violates my rights."
When pointed out that action could violate my rights you then say well you would voluntarily serve so it doesn`t apply.
Basically you are attempting to have all sides of a debate as yours so you can say that you "won" it seems.
It is disingenuous and in my opinion has left you looking much like a fool.
-
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.
You've argued that you should not have to protect others from a mortal threat. I fully support that I shouldn't have to protect your ass from a mortal threat either, you or any other lazy cocksuckers who want to be 'free' of social responsibility.
So, chump (fitting, that), when the zombie hordes decend...and they will... I'll make sure I am in a position not to get in the way of you defending yourself...alone.
-
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...
I've actually presented my reasoning as clearly as I can, all throughout this thread. Where do I contradict myself?
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? :cheersmate:
You seem to have just pointed exactly how absurd and unreasonable the draft is. The only way you can present it as having merit is by basing it on your own opinion.
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.
How does claiming the inalienable right to life lead to anarchy?
-
Carl, one point that may clarify things for you is to break it down smaller.
Do you, Carl, have the right to DEMAND that your next door neighbor defend your life and/or your family from a robber, rapist or murderer? Is it correct that your neighbor can and should be forever branded a criminal - with potential prison term or other punishment determined to be "suitable" - if he doesn't respond to your demand to protect you and your family?
Legitimate government derives all of its authority from the governed. If you do not have the authority to demand that your neighbor stand in harms way of you and your family, than neither does your government. No matter how loud and insistent the voice of the mobocracy is.
You have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. So do I. So does Chump. No one's right to life, liberty or the persuit of happiness supercedes anybody elses. That means, that you have the right to defend your life with deadly force if necessary from those who would infringe upon your life or liberty, but you DO NOT have the right to demand that someone else defend your right to life or liberty. Because you do not have that right, neither can government, and that body remain a legitimate government.
-
I've actually presented my reasoning as clearly as I can, all throughout this thread. Where do I contradict myself?
You seem to have just pointed exactly how absurd and unreasonable the draft is. The only way you can present it as having merit is by basing it on your own opinion.
How does claiming the inalienable right to life lead to anarchy?
Claiming that you have a right to determine what exact laws infringe on that leads to anarchy if that ideal was held by all.
I may think that the fact a person has more money or whatever then I do infringes on my right to pursue happiness so therefor laws against stealing are not applicable to me.
Is our system of governence perfect?
No but it still sets out a basic societal organization with the mechanisims for changing itself.
-
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.
If you believe that a murderer can forfeit his right to life, the you cannot believe in the inalienability of the right to life. There can be no exception of any kind to the right to life for it to be inalienable. A murderer cannot invalidate his rights using the definition of the word on which you hinge your argument.
I do not want to start another thread about the DP. I'm a proponent. I don't think it's used enough.
Do I hold the right to life inalienable? No. While I would like to think that it could be, the real world doesn't allow that.
-
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I think we are done here.
-
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.
This would be an appropriate response if I had ever argued that there should be no force behind the Constitution to enact its protections, or if I had ever said that I would not fight willingly to defend myself.
I ask, yet again: Can the government protect my right to life by denying my right to life?
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.
A mortal threat in this day and age is not limited to invasion by a foreign power. If you want me to define my terms, just ask.
I don't care to discuss isolationism at this point; it's irrelevant.
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?
And again, I don't know enough about Libertarian principles to deny or claim them.
I'm arguing in defense of the inalienable right to life; I must be just like Obama. :whatever:
-
You use that word all the time. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: \(ËŒ)i-ˈnÄl-yÉ™-nÉ™-bÉ™l, -ˈnÄ-lÄ“-É™-nÉ™-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm
-
You've argued that you should not have to protect others from a mortal threat. I fully support that I shouldn't have to protect your ass from a mortal threat either, you or any other lazy cocksuckers who want to be 'free' of social responsibility.
Good, then we're in agreement. You should not be compelled, against your will, to dispose of your right to life. :cheersmate:
So, chump (fitting, that), when the zombie hordes decend...and they will... I'll make sure I am in a position not to get in the way of you defending yourself...alone.
Ok.
-
Carl, one point that may clarify things for you is to break it down smaller.
Do you, Carl, have the right to DEMAND that your next door neighbor defend your life and your family from a robber, rapist or murderer? Is it correct that your neighbor can and should be forever branded a criminal - with potential prison term or other punishment determined to be "suitable" - if he doesn't respond to your demand to protect you and your family?
Legitimate government derives all of its authority from the governed. If you do not have the authority to demand that your neighbor stand in harms way of you and your family, than neither does your government. No matter how loud and insistent the voice of the mobocracy is.
You have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. So do I. So does Chump. No one's right to life, liberty or the persuit of happiness supercedes anybody elses. That means, that you have the right to defend your life with deadly force if necessary from those who would infringe upon your life or liberty, but you DO NOT have the right to demand that someone else defend your right to life or liberty. Because you do not have that right, neither can government, and that body remain a legitimate government.
That is a very silly extrapolation of how our legal system works.
Fwiw in some instances there are laws compelling one to act in certain ways to protect fellow citizens against crime.
You see a crime committed and don`t report it then you can be charged as well.
What you are talking is at the most local level of our legal and govermental system.
There is no comparison to the protection of our national soverignty.
That is why we do have a tiered system of governence.
Your example of saying a person should not be compelled to act in my direct protection is not a reasonable basis for saying that a draft is illegal.
The Constituion lays down a system to provide for the common defence and we have systems in place to provide for local personal defence.
-
Claiming that you have a right to determine what exact laws infringe on that leads to anarchy if that ideal was held by all.
I don't claim that right. I claim that I cannot be compelled to dispose of my right to life by the government through threat of force.
This is yet another variation of, "it happens or exists, therefore it is reasonable." So, since I've still received no answer: Is abortion reasonable? Were the gun control laws of Washington D.C. reasonable before SCOTUS decided on District of Columbia v. Heller?
-
I ask, yet again: Can the government protect my right to life by denying my right to life?
The authors of the Consitution provided Congress with the right to raise an Army. They did so. If your number is up, then you serve. SCOTUS has opined that the draft is Constitutional. Your argument is coffee house babble that Obama subscribes to and surrounds himself with. It has no place in reality.
If you feel you are somehow validated for refusing to serve your country if called then Godspeed. We have enough good men and women who will do so for you. You should thank God everynight for that.
-
I don't claim that right. I claim that I cannot be compelled to dispose of my right to life by the government through threat of force.
This is yet another variation of, "it happens or exists, therefore it is reasonable." So, since I've still received no answer: Is abortion reasonable? Were the gun control laws of Washington D.C. reasonable before SCOTUS decided on District of Columbia v. Heller?
That is simply a lie..you have said that you won`t respond to a draft call if sent.
A draft would be an established law.
You are saying you would refuse to obey that law.
Enough trying to play word games to escape the reality of what you have proposed.
-
Do I hold the right to life inalienable? No. While I would like to think that it could be, the real world doesn't allow that.
Ok.
-
Ok.
Ok what?
-
The restriction of the draft to just men was challenged in the Supreme Court in Rostker v Goldberg (453 U.S. 57 [1981]). In this case, men brought suit against the SSS, because women were not included in the draft. The Supreme Court ruled against the men, stating that the sole purpose of draft registration is the accumulation of a pool of names of eligible men to serve in combat. Because women were excluded from combat by the armed services, the draft registration as it stood met the need. The Court also said that since the Congress is given exclusive constitutional authority to raise armies, it was disinclined to overrule Congress on this point. The last time the SSS notes that the issue was taken up was in 1994. It concluded that though women, at that time, made up 16 percent of the armed force personnel, and the combat roles for women were expanding, the need to register women for the draft was still not sufficient. It noted that such expansion might be prudent in the future.
From my previously posted link.
Congress is given exclusive constituional authority to raise armies. What part of that is the most difficult to understand?
-
That is simply a lie..you have said that you won`t respond to a draft call if sent.
A draft would be an established law.
You are saying you would refuse to obey that law.
Enough trying to play word games to escape the reality of what you have proposed.
That's a good point. I should have simply stuck with the question, "Is the draft reasonable?" because refusing to submit to the draft is tantamount to claiming that I have the right to determine which laws I will obey and which I won't. I do not have that right, nor do I claim it, so I retract my previous statement.
-
Ok what?
Ok, you don't hold that the right to life is inalienable. What do you want me to say to that?
-
Ok, you don't hold that the right to life is inalienable. What do you want me to say to that?
I don't know. But it appears you don't either, is all.
-
formerlurker, from the last time I responded that argument:
Fair enough. Imagine if I were to say to you that you were beginning to sound like a potential enemy to the U.S. and COTUS. I imagine my reaction was rather tame in comparison.
Let's examine what the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to do in relation to the military:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html
As explicit as those enumerated powers are, you would have to resort to a semantic argument over the word "raise" in order to argue that Congress has the power to compel men to dispose of their lives against their will. I have very little doubt that that power doesn't exist in the Constitution because it specifically negates the very first God-given, inalienable right our Founders mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. And again, compelling men to risk their lives against their will suspends their right to life. The final outcome does not matter at all because the initial compulsion by force is the issue. Remember, just because you might not break your leg after I force you to jump from your roof does not make me any less evil.
Yes, I'm well aware that Selective Service is the law of the land. If your argument is that the government has the right to compel men to dispose of their lives, against their will, for the sake of the lives of others simply because it does, in fact, do that, then you're right that this thread has run its course.
As to the accusation that I am an anarchist: it's laughable at face value because I've said repeatedly on these boards and in this thread that anarchy is the tyranny of lawlessness. Any group of looters with more guns than me is my de facto ruler, and I have no recourse. I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force. Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole). The very core tenet of statism is that the citizen is beholden and belongs to the state.
-
That's a good point. I should have simply stuck with the question, "Is the draft reasonable?" because refusing to submit to the draft is tantamount to claiming that I have the right to determine which laws I will obey and which I won't. I do not have that right, nor do I claim it, so I retract my previous statement.
Thank you and then it becomes a matter of opinions and in our legal and judicial system is what determines whose opinion is the one that is what the law of the land is.
Short of that you either have to argue for anarchy or some other system and form of government.
-
I don't know. But it appears you don't either, is all.
And, apparently, neither do our founding fathers.
-
Thank you and then it becomes a matter of opinions and in our legal and judicial system is what determines whose opinion is the one that is what the law of the land is.
Short of that you either have to argue for anarchy or some other system and form of government.
Do you see that that's the very outlook I'm arguing against? We should be able to have a discussion about whether or not the draft is reasonable in its premise without the final argument becoming, "it exists, therefore it is reasonable."
I agree that it is the law of the land. I don't agree that it's reasonable, and the only argument prevalent at this point in response to mine is, "it's the law."
If that's the ultimate trump card then this thread should die.
The whole anarchy thing is so tired. I'm the opposite of an anarchist, and I've yet to be convinced that holding the right to life as inalienable sets us on the path to anarchy.
-
As to the accusation that I am an anarchist: it's laughable at face value because I've said repeatedly on these boards and in this thread that anarchy is the tyranny of lawlessness. Any group of looters with more guns than me is my de facto ruler, and I have no recourse. I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force. Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole). The very core tenet of statism is that the citizen is beholden and belongs to the state.
Do you not see the direct contradiction of those two statements?
The goverment has weighed the options and has determined a draft is required to do the first.
It is judicially upheld as not an infringement of individual rights.
How then can it protect that right if it is incapable of providing the means of doing so?
What are its options then?
You should also be proposing a means to do what you declare its function is.
-
And, apparently, neither do our founding fathers.
They probably didn't. I would surmise that they structured the Constitution as a starting, not ending, point in the drive for the most perfect government that imperfect men could create and one day be able to say that the right to life was "truly" inalienable. That's why there's a mechanism for amending the Constitution. But unfortunately we went the opposite way and started going toward the government of aristocrats and centralized power that they fought against.
-
Do you not see the direct contradiction of those two statements?
The goverment has weighed the options and has determined a draft is required to do the first.
It is judicially upheld as not an infringement of individual rights.
How then can it protect that right if it is incapable of providing the means of doing so?
What are its options then?
You should also be proposing a means to do what you declare its function is.
The means are the military forces. If the government were not granted the power use force to protect the rights of its citizens, then this argument would have merit. The government is granted that power.
"I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force. Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole)."
I don't see the contradiction. If the government exists to protect my rights, then how can it do so by violating my rights. It's illogical.
-
Do you see that that's the very outlook I'm arguing against? We should be able to have a discussion about whether or not the draft is reasonable in its premise without the final argument becoming, "it exists, therefore it is reasonable."
I agree that it is the law of the land. I don't agree that it's reasonable, and the only argument prevalent at this point in response to mine is, "it's the law."
If that's the ultimate trump card then this thread should die.
The whole anarchy thing is so tired. I'm the opposite of an anarchist, and I've yet to be convinced that holding the right to life as inalienable sets us on the path to anarchy.
There has been this discussion and the point of view you have taken has been determined to be false.
You seem to be saying that since it would be perfect for there to be no army we shouldn`t have one.
Do I think a draft is a legitimate way for the federal government to uphold its mandate to provide for the nations defense?
Yes.
Do I feel that somehow such a thing would infringe on my right to life?
No.
So there you have it.
If enough think as you and elect Congressmen and women then that will become the law of the land.
If challenged and the judical system upholds the law then it stands.
Other then that what is the point?
You have said you won`t abide by the law..now modified somewhat so that is what the debate is about.
If you have a right somehow to do that then everyone else does too and the result is anarchy.
It isn`t rocket science.
-
They probably didn't. I would surmise that they structured the Constitution as a starting, not ending, point in the drive for the most perfect government that imperfect men could create and one day be able to say that the right to life was "truly" inalienable. That's why there's a mechanism for amending the Constitution. But unfortunately we went the opposite way and started going toward the government of aristocrats and centralized power that they fought against.
I disagree. They declared their (and our) independence by beginning with the premise that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is inalienable. If that were not true, then the Declaration of Independence is a charade.
-
The means are the military forces. If the government were not granted the power use force to protect the rights of its citizens, then this argument would have merit. The government is granted that power.
"I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force. Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole)."
I don't see the contradiction. If the government exists to protect my rights, then how can it do so by violating my rights. It's illogical.
Illogical is saying that the government protects our rights by having a military but does not have the ability to build that military.
I don`t know what more can be said and if you don`t see the contradiction to your statement I can`t help you.
-
I disagree. They declared their (and our) independence by beginning with the premise that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is inalienable. If that were not true, then the Declaration of Independence is a charade.
The Declaration is not the law.
-
There has been this discussion and the point of view you have taken has been determined to be false.
You seem to be saying that since it would be perfect for there to be no army we shouldn`t have one.
What? Where have I ever said this, or even implied it?
Do I think a draft is a legitimate way for the federal government to uphold its mandate to provide for the nations defense?
Yes.
Do I feel that somehow such a thing would infringe on my right to life?
No.
I understand that. I'm disagreeing both with your opinion and with your reasoning.
So there you have it.
If enough think as you and elect Congressmen and women then that will become the law of the land.
If challenged and the judical system upholds the law then it stands.
Consider this: I think Carl should have to pay me 12 dollars a month. I got a lot of people that agree that Carl should pay us 12 dollars a month and we petitioned to have our opinions codified as law. Upon challenge, it's upheld. I don't know if welfare has been Constitionally challeneged or not, but I think you get the gist of what 'government by consensus' really entails. We are not a mob democracy, nor were we intended to be.
Other then that what is the point?
You have said you won`t abide by the law..now modified somewhat so that is what the debate is about.
If you have a right somehow to do that then everyone else does too and the result is anarchy.
It isn`t rocket science.
The debate is about whether or not the draft is reasonable. Should we continue?
-
The Declaration is not the law.
I know. You argued that the founders didn't really know what they were saying when they layed claim to the inalienable right to life. I showed you how that makes the Declaration of Independence a charade.
-
Illogical is saying that the government protects our rights by having a military but does not have the ability to build that military.
I don`t know what more can be said and if you don`t see the contradiction to your statement I can`t help you.
It does have the ability to build that military. It's an explicit, enumerated power. By all means, resort to a semantic argument over the word 'raise.'
Or, show me the reasoning in the following: the government can protect your right to life by denying you your right to life.
-
It does have the ability to build that military. It's an explicit, enumerated power. By all means, resort to a semantic argument over the word 'raise.'
Or, show me the reasoning in the following: the government can protect your right to life by denying you your right to life.
We are back to the method of raising,building,fielding,whatever word you want to use.
It has determined at times a draft is required for that and been judiacally reviewed.
In lieu of that then what do you propose as a means and if not sufficient an alternative?
-
I need a break gentleman. I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion so far, and appreciate your responses.
To those former or current military members who think I'm arguing that the military should not exist, or that I would not fight to defend myself, or that I could care less about your sacrifice: all I can do is say that's not true in any way, shape or form. If you read what I've written, you'll see this. I've said explicitly that I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and others like you.
-
I know. You argued that the founders didn't really know what they were saying when they layed claim to the inalienable right to life. I showed you how that makes the Declaration of Independence a charade.
I never said they didn't know what they were saying. I said they set a baseline for us to build on to one day possibly bring about a government where it was a reality.
The Declaration was a document drawn up to enlist support for breaking away from England and maintaining that separation, not a document for running a government.
Besides, their actions show that they saw it as idealism, not reality. Washington had John Andre hung. Hamilton and Burr took potshots at each other. Many of the FFs were duelists and military men. They sent men to their deaths in battle. They may have wished it to be so, but they obviously knew that it was not so.
-
I need a break gentleman. I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion so far, and appreciate your responses.
Cheers. :cheersmate:
It's been a nice break from studying for finals.
-
formerlurker, from the last time I responded that argument:
Rostker v Goldberg (453 U.S. 57 [1981])
-
Do you see that that's the very outlook I'm arguing against? We should be able to have a discussion about whether or not the draft is reasonable in its premise without the final argument becoming, "it exists, therefore it is reasonable."
I agree that it is the law of the land. I don't agree that it's reasonable, and the only argument prevalent at this point in response to mine is, "it's the law."
If that's the ultimate trump card then this thread should die.
The whole anarchy thing is so tired. I'm the opposite of an anarchist, and I've yet to be convinced that holding the right to life as inalienable sets us on the path to anarchy.
Wow, you jump all over the place. Congress is given the exclusive constitutional authority in raising an Army. This language is included in the same document you are basing your inalienable right to life argument on.
Your question should be instead - is the Constitution a contradiction, and can I pick and choose which parts of it effect me.
-
Wow, you jump all over the place. Congress is given the exclusive constitutional authority in raising an Army. This language is included in the same document you are basing your inalienable right to life argument on.
Your question should be instead - is the Constitution a contradiction, and can I pick and choose which parts of it effect me.
It does become rather dizzying when the premise keeps changing to suit a particular argument regarding a specific post and when a direct statement is declared to not mean what the words mean.
-
:popcorn:
-
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.
Moron .It does not as I stated the odds of most people actually seeing contact with an enemy force is not like your trying to make it sound. Stop being obtuse.
-
Chump wrote:
I voluntarily choose to drive in public right-of-way, and so accept the limitations and consequences associated with it.
You voluntarily reside in the US don't you? As far as I know there is no US law barring you from moving to another country more of your liking, so this particular part of your argument falls on it's face IMO.
-
I never said they didn't know what they were saying. I said they set a baseline for us to build on to one day possibly bring about a government where it was a reality.
The Declaration was a document drawn up to enlist support for breaking away from England and maintaining that separation, not a document for running a government.
Besides, their actions show that they saw it as idealism, not reality. Washington had John Andre hung. Hamilton and Burr took potshots at each other. Many of the FFs were duelists and military men. They sent men to their deaths in battle. They may have wished it to be so, but they obviously knew that it was not so.
I can't get behind that. They asserted, as their premise for breaking free from the Crown and forming an independent country, that man is endowed by his Creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that were not true, then their laundry list of grievances against the king was meaningless, thus making the Declaration meaningless.
Side note: good luck on finals and I feel your pain. I have one tomorrow night, Friday morning, Saturday morning, and Tuesday night. :banghead:
-
Wow, you jump all over the place. Congress is given the exclusive constitutional authority in raising an Army. This language is included in the same document you are basing your inalienable right to life argument on.
Your question should be instead - is the Constitution a contradiction, and can I pick and choose which parts of it effect me.
No it's not. For all your lecturing, you should know that the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is asserted in the Declaration of Independence, and is not mentioned in the Constitution.
But look, if you want to continue asserting that the draft is reasonable because it does, in fact, exist as a law, then by all means continue. I'm thankful that had you been having this conversation with Mr. Heller before he brought his case before the courts in D.C. v Heller, he would have rightly told you to go pound sand. Similarly, never, ever complain about abortion again. It's the law.
-
Moron .It does not as I stated the odds of most people actually seeing contact with an enemy force is not like your trying to make it sound. Stop being obtuse.
I don't care if you're drafted to scrub pots in Wyoming. The issue is not whether or not you'll die.
And you can have this back, moron.
-
Chump wrote:
You voluntarily reside in the US don't you? As far as I know there is no US law barring you from moving to another country more of your liking, so this particular part of your argument falls on it's face IMO.
I am not granted rights simply because I live in the U.S. In fact, I am not granted rights at all.
But, if my right to dispose of my life as I see fit can be invalidated by the government at its discretion, perhaps you're right that I should just GTFO.
-
I can't get behind that. They asserted, as their premise for breaking free from the Crown and forming an independent country, that man is endowed by his Creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. If that were not true, then their laundry list of grievances against the king was meaningless, thus making the Declaration meaningless.
Side note: good luck on finals and I feel your pain. I have one tomorrow night, Friday morning, Saturday morning, and Tuesday night. :banghead:
Wish to God they left the original version, as edited above. Life could be very different.
-
We are back to the method of raising,building,fielding,whatever word you want to use.
It has determined at times a draft is required for that and been judiacally reviewed.
In lieu of that then what do you propose as a means and if not sufficient an alternative?
Yes, that semantic argument that ends up your last resort. And it all hinges on what 'raise' means. Combining it with the equally weak argument of, "it exists as law, therefore it is reasonable," does not double the strength of either argument.
As to your question: alternative to what? Certain annihilation from mortal threat? Every man, woman, and child should rise to meet that threat, willingly and forcefully. What alternative is there? Certainly, if the government must compel men to defend their very lives, then the only one committing an act of self-defense is the government.
-
Wish to God they left the original version, as edited above. Life could be very different.
Agreed. The 'pursuit' part throws hippies for a loop. They just see 'happiness' and start drooling.
-
Yes, that semantic argument that ends up your last resort. And it all hinges on what 'raise' means. Combining it with the equally weak argument of, "it exists as law, therefore it is reasonable," does not double the strength of either argument.
As to your question: alternative to what? Certain annihilation from mortal threat? Every man, woman, and child should rise to meet that threat, willingly and forcefully. What alternative is there? Certainly, if the government must compel men to defend their very lives, then the only one committing an act of self-defense is the government.
Enough of this nonsense...you want a discussion then do not try to play idiotic word games.
You know damned well what I was asking and are just trying to cover the fact you have no answer for the inherent contradiction and weak argument you have put forth.
My statement...
We are back to the method of raising,building,fielding,whatever word you want to use.
It has determined at times a draft is required for that and been judiacally reviewed.
In lieu of that then what do you propose as a means and if not sufficient an alternative?
If you are too dense to not understand that basic question of presenting an alternative then you are an idiot.
I don`t think you are but you are clearly trying to redefine everything to suit yourself or deflect from the fact that you cannot argue anything continuously.
Now answer the direct and obvious question I posed if you can.
-
Enough of this nonsense...you want a discussion then do not try to play idiotic word games.
You know damned well what I was asking and are just trying to cover the fact you have no answer for the inherent contradiction and weak argument you have put forth.
My statement...
If you are too dense to not understand that basic question of presenting an alternative then you are an idiot.
I don`t think you are but you are clearly trying to redefine everything to suit yourself or deflect from the fact that you cannot argue anything continuously.
Now answer the direct and obvious question I posed if you can.
Playing word games? Your entire argument hinges on one word: 'raise.' And I'm playing word games? You want me to believe that the founding fathers, who created an entire system of government with some of the most clear and concise language imaginable, who predicated their beliefs on the premise that man has an inalienable right to life, these men left it up to the definition of 'raise' to define what they intended to be conscription and government disposal of man's inalienable right to life? No sir, that is one hell of a word game that I am not playing.
Why do you care about being asked to clarify your question? I would want to be, and try to be, as clear as possible. Just because you didn't like my answer does not make it any less of an answer. We have a volunteer military, and it's the best in the world partly due to that very reason. Your question amounts to, "what if enough people don't volunteer to fight a mortal threat?" And my answer is: welcome to the dustbin of history. The other alternative is that the government compels men to dispose of their right to life (fight) against their will. In that scenario, the government is the entity fighting for its right to exist at the expense of its citizen's right to life. Welcome to statism.
-
If you are too dense to not understand that basic question of presenting an alternative then you are an idiot.
I don`t think you are but you are clearly trying to redefine everything to suit yourself or deflect from the fact that you cannot argue anything continuously.
Just as a humorous aside, this is a good example of a contradiction. If I am an idiot who didn't understand the question, then you actually do think that I am, in fact, an idiot!
But seriously dude, I've been making my case clearly, consistently, and civilly (within reason) against how many of you now for 9 pages and counting. Let's not start calling my ability to argue continuously into question, deal?
-
Playing word games? Your entire argument hinges on one word: 'raise.' And I'm playing word games? You want me to believe that the founding fathers, who created an entire system of government with some of the most clear and concise language imaginable, who predicated their beliefs on the premise that man has an inalienable right to life, these men left it up to the definition of 'raise' to define what they intended to be conscription and government disposal of man's inalienable right to life? No sir, that is one hell of a word game that I am not playing.
Why do you care about being asked to clarify your question? I would want to be, and try to be, as clear as possible. Just because you didn't like my answer does not make it any less of an answer. We have a volunteer military, and it's the best in the world partly due to that very reason. Your question amounts to, "what if enough people don't volunteer to fight a mortal threat?" And my answer is: welcome to the dustbin of history. The other alternative is that the government compels men to dispose of their right to life (fight) against their will. In that scenario, the government is the entity fighting for its right to exist at the expense of its citizen's right to life. Welcome to statism.
Once again when confronted with a corner you have backed yourself into you try to pretend to either not understand the question asked of you,attempt to reframe the discussion,redefine words or statements to mean something other then what is obvious and then say "I am being so clear".
Here you go then in a way anyone older then a 5 year old should understand.
You have stated that the government has a constitutional duty to protect our rights and freedoms.
When asked how the government is supposed to do that you responded with a military.
The entire premise of this thread has been that the the government can not legally compel anyone to serve as it denies their right to life.
When asked then how the government can provide (maybe you will try to quibble with that word too) the military you have said is their responsibility you refuse to answer.
Once again then..In what ways can the government provide,create,field,establish,build or any other damn word that means the same thing a military?
If the situation is such that a 100% volunteer military is not providing the needed manpower to do its duty of protecting our rights and freedoms then in what way can it get that manpower if conscription isn`t constitutional?
Or at that point should surrender be the option?
Those are direct questions based on your statements and the ramifications that your position would bring.
Answer them or indeed there is no point of this thread and it should be locked as you are being deliberately obtuse to not have to deal with what the results of your untenable premise is.
For clarity...
What is the means the military should use to gain manpower?
If a draft isn`t allowable and a volunteer system is falling short of needed forces what is done then?
If you can`t provide a answer then this is nothing more then any other troll thread.
-
In that scenario, the government is the entity fighting for its right to exist at the expense of its citizen's right to life. Welcome to statism.
Yet you say it is the governments duty to provide military protection to ensure your rights and freedoms but if it needs bodies to do that then it is statism?
You have a convoluted sense of thinking which as shown cannot be reconciled with reality.
In short you have decided you are not willing to serve so you construct a mythical super principle of your right to life as being supreme to justify it and then have to hold a dozen contradictory beliefs in your head to maintain it.
-
No it's not. For all your lecturing, you should know that the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is asserted in the Declaration of Independence, and is not mentioned in the Constitution.
True -- my error, I look to both as one and the same.
But look, if you want to continue asserting that the draft is reasonable because it does, in fact, exist as a law, then by all means continue. I'm thankful that had you been having this conversation with Mr. Heller before he brought his case before the courts in D.C. v Heller, he would have rightly told you to go pound sand. Similarly, never, ever complain about abortion again. It's the law.
The draft is reasonable? the draft is Consitutional. I personally have no issue with the draft. Your comparisons to abortion are bizarre and really have no place in this argument.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Secure the blessing of liberty. Such a powerful statement which pretty much makes your "reasonable" argument rather silly.
-
Back to the beginning of this thread before it morphed several times:
DAT, it's really difficult for me to believe that I'm reading things like, "It is the nature of government that it must protect the whole over the individual parts, which essentially means the parts are expendable at need in order to preserve the whole," on a conservative political forum. But, there they are. The only proper function of government is to protect individual rights. Essentially, your view asserts that the government, or nation, or society, or "whole," has the right to survive while, and by, denying that very right to its individual citizens! If the individual does not have the right to life, then it is tautology that the government also does not have that right, unless we're talking about a statist dictatorship (and I am not). You even allude to this idea when you qualify government disposal of the lives of its citizens as good if done sparingly, and bad if done excessively. Who decides how many people's lives should be disposed of before it becomes excessive? I say one is enough, so we're at an impasse.
While I clearly will never match your experience and knowledge of all matters military, I contend that the numerical strength of numbers available to commanders is a limiting variable. In essence, war tactics should be designed with numbers in mind, not vice-versa. Take my opinion for whatever it's worth on this particular subject.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Secure the blessings of liberty... as for without it there are no individual rights. Now how would we reasonably go about doing that?
-
Yet you say it is the governments duty to provide military protection to ensure your rights and freedoms but if it needs bodies to do that then it is statism?
You have a convoluted sense of thinking which as shown cannot be reconciled with reality.
In short you have decided you are not willing to serve so you construct a mythical super principle of your right to life as being supreme to justify it and then have to hold a dozen contradictory beliefs in your head to maintain it.
Volunteers, and if none then we loose our freedom and our Constitution.
Although the authors of the Constitution found it clear to provide Congress the authority to raise an army, Chump finds it conflicting to what he believes the Constitution represents.
Very reasonable right?
-
Going back through this thread -- your response to Hamilton's commentary on raising armies (and his warning that even if a threat is not immediately present, the possibility is eternal):
In many cases, I would agree with you 100% that is craven and cowardly to refuse to serve your country when faced with a mortal threat. But the rub is in the fact that my opinion holds no weight when we're discussing inalienable rights, namely, the right to life.
We face mortal threats every single day. Perhaps you missed 9/11?
-
Volunteers, and if none then we loose our freedom and our Constitution.
Although the authors of the Constitution found it clear to provide Congress the authority to raise an army, Chump finds it conflicting to what he believes the Constitution represents.
Very reasonable right?
That is why I want him to state what the ramifications of his premise should be.
I will go out on a limb and predict now that he wont but will continue his pattern of dodging and circular arguments where you take one position one time and another a different one.
He has already alluded to what we all know the outcome to be. And my answer is: welcome to the dustbin of history.
In essence Chump has stated that he considers his "right to life" so supreme that defeat,surrender and capitulation to an enemy are acceptable to preserve it even if that comes at the expense of the loss of freedoms or life for his fellow citizenry.
-
Carl:
"If the situation is such that a 100% volunteer military is not providing the needed manpower to do its duty of protecting our rights and freedoms then in what way can it get that manpower if conscription isn`t constitutional?"
~It can't. That's my entire point throughout this thread. A Constitutional duty to protect the rights of its citizens does not entitle the government to deny the rights of its citizens. That should be so clear. If the citizens who formed together a government to protect their inalienable rights refuse to also provide the means to protect those rights, then so long folks.
"Or at that point should surrender be the option?"
~Heck if I know. The government can go ahead and surrender at that point, in your scenario. I wouldn't. Would you?
Now, I've answered your questions plainly and to the best of my ability, so please answer one of mine.
Can the government protect your right to life by denying your right to life?
-
True -- my error, I look to both as one and the same.
The draft is reasonable? the draft is Consitutional. I personally have no issue with the draft. Your comparisons to abortion are bizarre and really have no place in this argument.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Secure the blessing of liberty. Such a powerful statement which pretty much makes your "reasonable" argument rather silly.
They're very appropriate, because what you're telling me is that because the draft law exists, it is therefore reasonable. I didn't only apply this view to abortion. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall while you were arguing from this stance with Mr. Heller of D.C. v. Heller.
Seriously, never complain again about any law that you feel is unjust.
As with Carl, I've answered your questions plainly and to the best of my ability, so please answer two of mine.
Can the government protect your right to life by denying your right to life?
Prior to SCOTUS ruling on D.C. v. Heller, was the gun ban enacted by Washington D.C. reasonable in your opinion?
Continuing, let's look at what you quoted:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Simply put, if no one volunteers to, well, provide for the common defense, then clearly the very premise that the Constitution is based on is out the window. How can the government secure the Blessings of Liberty by denying the basis for them?
-
That is why I want him to state what the ramifications of his premise should be.
I will go out on a limb and predict now that he wont but will continue his pattern of dodging and circular arguments where you take one position one time and another a different one.
Let's look at my premise:
The government cannot protect my inalienable rights by denying my inalienable rights. It reads the same as, the government cannot protect your inalienable rights by denying my inalienable rights.
The ramifications of that are, personal liberty, freedom, and limited government power. I think these are all good things, and I hope you do too.
He has already alluded to what we all know the outcome to be.
In essence Chump has stated that he considers his "right to life" so supreme that defeat,surrender and capitulation to an enemy are acceptable to preserve it even if that comes at the expense of the loss of freedoms or life for his fellow citizenry.
I consider my right to life so supreme that I would die before giving it up. I would much rather die than live under a government that denies my very right to life in the first place. And, I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't agree. If the entire country refuses to volunteer and fight a mortal threat then all is lost anyway. In that scenario, the state is existing purely for the sake of the state, and nothing else.
-
You continue to talk in obtuse circles that only make rational sense to you...
A Constitutional duty to protect the rights of its citizens does not entitle the government to deny the rights of its citizens
It has to have a military but cannot do anything to man that military.
That is not clear or principled.
I can`t help if it somehow makes sense to you but it doesn`t to anyone else.
You then say your right to life is so supreme you would die fighting for it (huh) then also say that you cannot be compelled to though.
You seem to operate under the presumption that 100 % of the citizenry is capable of fighting on the front lines of conflict.
This is foolishness as that is impossible for age and other reasons so what of their rights?
They simply don`t count and should be forced to accept the defeat and consequences handed to them by a generation of like minded as you that has for decades been called on to defend the Nation.
There is no escape the obvious no matter how much you wish to live in a world of make believe so as to satisfy your concience.
We may agree on all other matters political but I have no respect whatsoever for you as a citizen of this country.
You are selfish and don`t deserve the freedom you live in that others before you have willingly fought to preserve.
You have it still so enjoy it and I hope to God our country never has to hope you are the best it can rely on to preserve our freedoms and rights.
-
Now, I've answered your questions plainly and to the best of my ability, so please answer one of mine.
Can the government protect your right to life by denying your right to life?
-
The denying your right to life is a construction of your mind.
If it was a 100% guarantee then it might be a point but since it isn`t it is not a valid argument.
-
You continue to talk in obtuse circles that only make rational sense to you...
It has to have a military but cannot do anything to man that military.
That is not clear or principled.
I can`t help if it somehow makes sense to you but it doesn`t to anyone else.
This would be meaningful if I had ever even implied that the government "cannot do anything to man that military." I'm saying that among the many options available to the government, compulsion through threat of force is not one of them.
You then say your right to life is so supreme you would die fighting for it (huh) then also say that you cannot be compelled to though.
Why is this so confusing? In one instance, my right to life is threatened by an external, mortal threat. In the other, it's threatened by an internal, mortal threat. In both cases, my right to life is threatened. You cannot compel me to protect my right to life by...threatening my right to life. Talk about circular logic.
You seem to operate under the presumption that 100 % of the citizenry is capable of fighting on the front lines of conflict.
This is foolishness as that is impossible for age and other reasons so what of their rights?
What of them? Are they protected at the expense of my own? Am I your slave, or the state's?
They simply don`t count and should be forced to accept the defeat and consequences handed to them by a generation of like minded as you that has for decades been called on to defend the Nation.
In all the arguing I've done here, I've not once said anyone should be forced to accept anything. I've argued the exact opposite. Address that argument, not one you've made up for me.
There is no escape the obvious no matter how much you wish to live in a world of make believe so as to satisfy your concience.
We may agree on all other matters political but I have no respect whatsoever for you as a citizen of this country.
You are selfish and don`t deserve the freedom you live in that others before you have willingly fought to preserve.
You have it still so enjoy it and I hope to God our country never has to hope you are the best it can rely on to preserve our freedoms and rights.
You are right that I am selfish on this point. Why would I fight in the first place? Because I want to enjoy my freedoms! That you continue to enjoy yours is a result of me fighting for my own in the first place. As to the rest, I could not care less, because we do not agree on all other matters political if you're of the mindset that the inalienable right to life is subject to the whim of the government.
-
The denying your right to life is a construction of your mind.
If it was a 100% guarantee then it might be a point but since it isn`t it is not a valid argument.
So then you disagree with the very premise that compulsion through threat of force to dispose of your life amounts to denying your right to life.
It could not be more plain. The risk of dying is irrelevant. If the draft entailed government compulsion through threat of force to walk up and down a set of stairs for two hours, it is still immoral and unreasonable, at least in a society that calls itself free.
-
This would be meaningful if I had ever even implied that the government "cannot do anything to man that military." I'm saying that among the many options available to the government, compulsion through threat of force is not one of them.
Yet you refuse to state what those options are when asked.
Why is this so confusing? In one instance, my right to life is threatened by an external, mortal threat. In the other, it's threatened by an internal, mortal threat. In both cases, my right to life is threatened. You cannot compel me to protect my right to life by...threatening my right to life. Talk about circular logic.
What of them? Are they protected at the expense of my own? Am I your slave, or the state's?
In all the arguing I've done here, I've not once said anyone should be forced to accept anything. I've argued the exact opposite. Address that argument, not one you've made up for me.
You are right that I am selfish on this point. Why would I fight in the first place? Because I want to enjoy my freedoms! That you continue to enjoy yours is a result of me fighting for my own in the first place. As to the rest, I could not care less, because we do not agree on all other matters political if you're of the mindset that the inalienable right to life is subject to the whim of the government.
You have just answered every possible question one could wonder about you and your soul.
Thank you for finally proving yourself to be a blithering idiot.
I am done with you and you can rot in hell as far as I am concerned.
Your precious life is so important that one of the foundations of this country isn`t worth it...fighting not just for your own freedom but for that of everyone else too.
-
So then you disagree with the very premise that compulsion through threat of force to dispose of your life amounts to denying your right to life.
It could not be more plain. The risk of dying is irrelevant. If the draft entailed government compulsion through threat of force to walk up and down a set of stairs for two hours, it is still immoral and unreasonable, at least in a society that calls itself free.
I am denying the premise that it is a certainty which it must be for your point to have any validity.
Once more you think you can determine the definition of things to suit you and you cannot.
Now I am done with you as I just posted...you have proved yourself not worth any consideration.
Live as your own nation in your simple mind.
-
I am denying the premise that it is a certainty which it must be for your point to have any validity.
Ok Carl. Government coercion is cool with you as long as you're not guaranteed to die as a result. I can't say I agree, but I'll damn sure respect your right voice your opinion.
-
That is why I want him to state what the ramifications of his premise should be.
I will go out on a limb and predict now that he wont but will continue his pattern of dodging and circular arguments where you take one position one time and another a different one.
He has already alluded to what we all know the outcome to be.
In essence Chump has stated that he considers his "right to life" so supreme that defeat,surrender and capitulation to an enemy are acceptable to preserve it even if that comes at the expense of the loss of freedoms or life for his fellow citizenry.
:bow: :bow:
Well said.
Much said about our rights in this country, what America owes us. I have yet to hear what our duty's are to DESERVE these rights other then being born on this soil.
Other then paying taxes, our country expects very little from its citizens except to live in peace with each other.
When the government sends out a draft notice it is not absolute, one may be 4-F or in a position where the country will benefit more from them working as a civilian.
It is not just the government we need to repay for our freedom it is the millions who came before us and gave their lives so we today can live with our family's a safe and secure life. We owe it to their gift of their lives to do the same if called upon to do for our own family's that are here only by their sacrifice, and those friends we care about.
Few men will run out of a burning home and abandon their children inside. Complete strangers will face the heat and flames to rescue at their own risk of death to save the children's lives. How anyone can just sit back and watch as their family's suffer and expect someone else to help them is total socopathic behavior. When America is on fire, will be be faced with men that refuse to save their own family, Sure they will then cry because they have a blister on their thumb.
When there is clear an present danger and the government needs anyone to protect and defend not only their own family and life but that of neighbor's "YOU CAN"T MAKE ME DIE FOR ANYONE ELSE," Have over tones of total lack of honor, dignity or the meaning of being a Human.
I believe that you are correct that no one can be ordered to die for their country and future generations. Still men can run to Canada, men can shoot themselves in the foot, men can choose to go into the medical field or noncombatant positions due to their faith.
To simply refuse the draft because you think it could be dangerous to you, with no thought of or caring that others will consider one to be a COWARD and way beneath the social scale of the kids, that at 18 sign up and spill their blood for your family.
Hell, there are quite a few men in their 50's in the National Guard that are years older then your own father.
Duty, everyones responsibility to society, if in the line of that duty an accident takes place and you die for any reason, things happen.
Fighting a war -----bad things happen naturally, it is a roll of the dice. Darn it, one faces sudden death in the freaking bath tub.
As an old woman, an honerable death, is about as good as it gets.
Sure I could die in a nursing home from illnesses I myself brought on. OR I could die pulling a child out of the street as a cement truck is but feet from them.
It won't matter how I die to me, but for my family and friends, it will bring peace to know I passed doing the right thing even for a stranger.
If in fact the government came to my door requesting I learn to do without some of my pleasures in life to help the country, How could I say NO when my grandparents and parents have done so in order for MY future. Long before my parents were even thought of family were prepared to do what must be done for generations in the future.
Each child born is entitled to a life only as far as they can get as they struggle to fight off disease, and survive childhood. All life carrys burdens, they have to eventually begin to look after those that brought them into the world. Later they have to look after their own. Somewhere in there they realise that they cannot survive if their comunity falls apart or over taken.
To refuse to go all out for God, Country, and Family, for either male or female is inconceivable to me.
RANT OVER----FOR NOW
-
Carl:
"If the situation is such that a 100% volunteer military is not providing the needed manpower to do its duty of protecting our rights and freedoms then in what way can it get that manpower if conscription isn`t constitutional?"
It is constitutional. SCOTUS has deemed it so. The Constitution provides for SCOTUS resolve issues surrounding the interpretation of the Constitution. "Raised" has been addressed. You just don't like the answer.
-
They're very appropriate, because what you're telling me is that because the draft law exists, it is therefore reasonable. I didn't only apply this view to abortion. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall while you were arguing from this stance with Mr. Heller of D.C. v. Heller.
Seriously, never complain again about any law that you feel is unjust.
Um, whatever are you talking about? SCOTUS wrote an opininion, which is their Constitutional authority to do so when the interpretation of the language of the Constitution is questioned.
Law was questioned. SCOTUS answered.
I have posted a SCOTUS case on SSS which clearly indicates their opinion on Congress's exclusive constitutional right to raise an army. How about you actually go read that.
Congress deems a draft as Constitutional and SCOTUS has upheld that. There really is nothing more here aside from coffee shop banter which is not based in reality.
-
Raising an Army
Historically, during times of tension, America has often relied on volunteers to fight its wars. But, even in colonial times men were sometimes conscripted to serve in local militias (army of citizens called together in emergencies). Though colonies sent local militia troops to fight in the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), they denied George Washington's (1732–1799) request to gather a national army by conscription. The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1789, gave Congress the "power to raise and support armies" but it neither called for nor prohibited conscription.
Not until the American Civil War (1861–1865), did the need to maintain massive armies bring a taste of national conscription to America. In April of 1862, the Confederate Congress (Southern states) passed a conscription law requiring every white man aged eighteen to thirty-five to serve for three years. However, the law exempted men in certain occupations such as teachers, ministers, and overseers of large plantations. Congress followed with the Union Draft Law of 1863 making every male citizen between twenty and forty-five years of age subject to the draft. Avoiding the unpopular occupational exemptions allowed in the Confederate states, the Union (Northern) law allowed draftees to hire a substitute or pay $300 to escape service. Three hundred dollars was roughly equal to a worker's yearly wages.
In both the North and the South the principle behind the draft laws was the same. In a democracy when the security of a nation is in danger, every citizen has the duty to serve his country. On both sides a majority of citizens accepted the draft as necessary, but much opposition persisted. Many objected to exempting some men from the draft. Others claimed the draft was unfair to the poor because a man with money could hire someone else to fight for him or simply pay off his obligation. Draft riots broke out across the country with the worst occurring in New York City in July of 1863. Although very controversial, the draft laws were never tested in the Supreme Court. The legality of a national draft remained unchallenged until World War I.
.....
The Selective Draft Law Cases established the clear right of Congress to conscript citizens.
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/selective-draft-law-cases
-
That's a great resource, lurker, but Chump is still arguing the basic premise - that the government doesn't have the right to do what the law says it can - "deprive" an individual of his/her inalienable right to his/her life.
It's a philosophical, pointless discussion that consumes many pages on this forum but accomplishes little else.
:whatever:
-
Ronald Reagan, writing in Human Events back in 1979, made a clear case against the draft:
Conscription rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.
America was founded on the principle of individual liberty — that the government exists to serve, not enslave, the people. Yet conscription is a form of slavery, a horrible and costly exception to America’s founding principle. It is morally repugnant to the ideals of a free society.
Without the draft, unpopular wars are very difficult to fight. The ability to use conscription actually encourages politicians to wage even more wars — the massive resources are a temptation that is hard for the war-lover to resist. When the draft was finally undermined in the 1970s, for example, the Vietnam War ended.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0801h.asp
-
In 1980 Carter resumed military draft registration. Reagan extended it, and had his justice department prosecute those who did not comply.
-
In 1980 Carter resumed military draft registration. Reagan extended it, and had his justice department prosecute those who did not comply.
So he changed his mind once he became President? I hear GWB is against it as well.
-
I think it depends on the context. GWB does not want a military of non-volunteers (nor does the DoD) if possible, however if China or Russia ever went over the deep end and declared war against us, there probably could be (and should be) a draft - I think all prior military, which is extensive, would be tapped first however.
-
So he changed his mind once he became President? I hear GWB is against it as well.
What you are talking about now is the merits of a draft which is a matter of debate.
That is different then talking about the constitutional legitimacy of having one.
The merits of a draft may change as the circumstances change but the legitimacy of one as the Constitution allows does not.
-
What you are talking about now is the merits of a draft which is a matter of debate.
That is different then talking about the constitutional legitimacy of having one.
The merits of a draft may change as the circumstances change but the legitimacy of one as the Constitution allows does not.
My thoughts on the matter....
Is it desirable? No...
Is it necessary(and legal) if a war were to develop with a formidable nation in which the country as a whole was serioulsy threaghtened, absolutely.
-
My thoughts on the matter....
Is it desirable? No...
Is it necessary(and legal) if a war were to develop with a formidable nation in which the country as a whole was serioulsy threaghtened, absolutely.
Agree completely.
-
Yeah you are wrong, and you know you are as I debated you on the draft in the other thread.
I guess if you take "getting the last word" as winning, then I can see how you'd think that. From where I stood it ended up being repetitious. At any rate, as your argument relies on the ruling of the Supreme Court, I suppose I'll officially concede provided you host a Roe v Wade day. It's Friday the 22nd, so you should hurry. Concession is contingent on pics.
-
I guess if you take "getting the last word" as winning, then I can see how you'd think that. From where I stood it ended up being repetitious. At any rate, as your argument relies on the ruling of the Supreme Court, I suppose I'll officially concede provided you host a Roe v Wade day. It's Friday the 22nd, so you should hurry. Concession is contingent on pics.
???
Roe vs Wade. :yawn:
Yeah that is a fair comparison isn't it? wait wait, my bad - no it is not. We pretty much in painstaking detail discussed the SCOTUS cases on the draft (note there is more than one). It's not just the decision, but what led to the decision.
SCOTUS can certainly get something wrong, however their ruling stands. That is the power afforded them by COTUS. In the cases on the draft we demonstrated how they are correct. If your argument is screw SCOTUS, then you are cherry picking the language of the Constitution that suits your argument. Kind of a liberal way of doing things.
-
???
Roe vs Wade. :yawn:
Yeah that is a fair comparison isn't it? wait wait, my bad - no it is not. We pretty much in painstaking detail discussed the SCOTUS cases on the draft (note there is more than one). It's not just the decision, but what led to the decision.
SCOTUS can certainly get something wrong, however their ruling stands. That is the power afforded them by COTUS. In the cases on the draft we demonstrated how they are correct. If your argument is screw SCOTUS, then you are cherry picking the language of the Constitution that suits your argument. Kind of a liberal way of doing things.
Simple repetition doesn't strengthen your argument. Your premise is that the law exists and has been ruled on positively by SCOTUS (more than once), therefore it is reasonable. Take that stance if you'd like, but that means in your view the idea that a woman has a right to kill a human being growing inside of her is reasonable. The law exists and has been ruled on positively by SCOTUS.
Similarly, if I had come to you in the 40s and asked, "Say brother, is this whole "segregation" thing reasonable?" would your response really have been yes? I mean, the laws existed and SCOTUS had set precedent with Dred Scott v Sanford and Plessy v Ferguson.
-
What it pretty much boils down to is having to believe two mutually opposing beliefs at the same time...namely that one of the mandates of the federal government is to protect our liberties through a military force yet it has no Constitutional authority to provide that if the need for manpower arises beyond what a volunteer military has generated.
However that is a needed talent to be a Libertarian so expected.
The merits of a draft can be debated and they are subject to change as the situations arise.
I will put forth what I always do and never get an answer...propose an alternative to a draft if our manpower needs were to exceed enlistment rates.
Don`t give me the crap that "if it was important then everyone would sign up"because that is intellectually vacant given that some can`t for physical reasons and of course there still has to be production of goods and services in a country.
Tell me by what method a military would be staffed if a draft were not available.
What you're asking for doesn't exist. If your alternative is to deny a man's rights then you don't have any alternatives. You're mistaking raising an army for conscription. The government's proper role is to fund and train its army, not create it out of thin air by denying the basic right to liberty. Its proper role, the core premise of its powers and creation, is that man has that right in the first place. The reason you see anything here as contradictory is because your very premise is an oxymoron.
-
Simple repetition doesn't strengthen your argument. Your premise is that the law exists and has been ruled on positively by SCOTUS (more than once), therefore it is reasonable.
Nice try, but no. What I said was:
We pretty much in painstaking detail discussed the SCOTUS cases on the draft (note there is more than one). It's not just the decision, but what led to the decision.
.... In the cases on the draft we demonstrated how they are correct.
-
What you're asking for doesn't exist. If your alternative is to deny a man's rights then you don't have any alternatives. You're mistaking raising an army for conscription. The government's proper role is to fund and train its army, not create it out of thin air by denying the basic right to liberty. Its proper role, the core premise of its powers and creation, is that man has that right in the first place. The reason you see anything here as contradictory is because your very premise is an oxymoron.
Carl, he honestly doesn't see himself in this rant.
-
Carl, he honestly doesn't see himself in this rant.
I know and he continues to talk in circles...so be it.
-
Wow, what a dizzying thread.
Chump, I've got to say that this has been one of the most microed-out arguments I have ever read. Well done for taking it to the nth power of cranial nit picking and word smithing.
I believe your position is one that is established from a point of ignorance. Since you have never served anything in your life, I don't find it too particularly surprising that conscription in the time of dire national emergency is somehow or another an infringement upon your right to life.
I, on the other hand, gave 22 of the best years of my life to my country and it's citizens and can speak with a little bit of experience and authority on what I think of forced conscription. I will only give this to you from my perspective as I would not pretend to speak for other veterans of Conservative Cave.
I have had the very distinct privilege of learning from and leading some of the best and brightest America produces. From my view point, an unmotivated DUmbass that is foisted upon me is a burden to me and my troopers. Someone that needs constant attention and watching really detracts from the mission and morale of everybody. As of right now, I do not believe a draft is needed.
Conversely, if this country is ever threatened to the point where we need to throw every resource behind it to survive (yes, human beings are resources), then your "right to life" as you have defined means precious damn little to the survival of the very laws and vehicles of enforcment that give you that "right". If a "right to life" is as important as you believe it to be, then the "right to life" of millions of our fellow citizens are equally as important. That means, very simply, that the government of "we the people" has every right to compel it's able bodied to defend it. Just as we individuals have a right to defend ourselves and our property, the goverment has a right to the same survival mechanisms. That's not statist, nor slavery, it is a fact.
I will tell you that, as someone who has stood the line voluntarily so no one had to, reading your comments smacks of narcissim, lack of gratitude, and immaturity of the highest order. For one individual to claim that their "right to life" is so important that conscription in the time of national emergency is unreasonable sounds like someone who spent their entire lives serving only themselves. I would not want to imagine what this country would look like if this type of attitude were completely pervasive in the societal fabric. If it were, your "rights" and the "rights" of others would be a completely moot point because they would no longer exist.
I think that you have to really ask yourself when your "right to life" as an individual overrides your obligation to the survival of not only your "rights" but everyone elses as well.
-
Wow, what a dizzying thread.
Chump, I've got to say that this has been one of the most microed-out arguments I have ever read. Well done for taking it to the nth power of cranial nit picking and word smithing.
I believe your position is one that is established from a point of ignorance. Since you have never served anything in your life, I don't find it too particularly surprising that conscription in the time of dire national emergency is somehow or another an infringement upon your right to life.
I, on the other hand, gave 22 of the best years of my life to my country and it's citizens and can speak with a little bit of experience and authority on what I think of forced conscription. I will only give this to you from my perspective as I would not pretend to speak for other veterans of Conservative Cave.
I have had the very distinct privilege of learning from and leading some of the best and brightest America produces. From my view point, an unmotivated DUmbass that is foisted upon me is a burden to me and my troopers. Someone that needs constant attention and watching really detracts from the mission and morale of everybody. As of right now, I do not believe a draft is needed.
Conversely, if this country is ever threatened to the point where we need to throw every resource behind it to survive (yes, human beings are resources), then your "right to life" as you have defined means precious damn little to the survival of the very laws and vehicles of enforcment that give you that "right". If a "right to life" is as important as you believe it to be, then the "right to life" of millions of our fellow citizens are equally as important. That means, very simply, that the government of "we the people" has every right to compel it's able bodied to defend it. Just as we individuals have a right to defend ourselves and our property, the goverment has a right to the same survival mechanisms. That's not statist, nor slavery, it is a fact.
I will tell you that, as someone who has stood the line voluntarily so no one had to, reading your comments smacks of narcissim, lack of gratitude, and immaturity of the highest order. For one individual to claim that their "right to life" is so important that conscription in the time of national emergency is unreasonable sounds like someone who spent their entire lives serving only themselves. I would not want to imagine what this country would look like if this type of attitude were completely pervasive in the societal fabric. If it were, your "rights" and the "rights" of others would be a completely moot point because they would no longer exist.
I think that you have to really ask yourself when your "right to life" as an individual overrides your obligation to the survival of not only your "rights" but everyone elses as well.
Good post, but I really only see three points that need to be corrected.
1. Human beings are not resources to the government in a free society. The government is a resource to human beings. We form it of our own volition. You probably make this assertion because of your experience in the military, and in that venue you are correct. Just as a soldier is a resource to the military, I am a resource to my company. You've made the decision to voluntarily dispose of yourself as you see fit, as have I.
2. Laws and government absolutely do not grant us rights, as you asserted. That is so wrong-headed that I don't see the need to elaborate.
3. My right to life and liberty are held no higher than anyone else's, nor are they held any lower. That you would see my argument in that light really serves to illustrate that you are holding the right to life of some "others" as being above my own right to liberty. Simply put, it's not. The intellectual foundation you're arguing from here is that some people have more rights than others, or that their rights are more valid. I disagree, obviously.
On a side note, it's really disgusting that the immediate response of any veteran in this discussion is something to the effect of calling me an uncaring coward. You've gone as far as narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature.
Let's let that nonsense stand. Let's say that I'm a horrible bastard who cares for nothing but myself.
So what?
"I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," translates just as well into "I may not like what you do with your life, but I will defend to the death your liberty to do it."
You all should be the most ardent opposers of government compulsion, and yet you're so quick to say, "what if we're all about to die??"
Well, my friends, I would be busy fighting for my life while you're busy telling me I have to do it.
-
Yet I believe you are full of crap Chump.
This ridiculous interpretation you have formed is an offshoot of the great Libertarian isolationisim theme that says if we just leave everyone alone they will us and thus we won`t need a military.
You live in a dream world that will never exist dude and rather then face it you try to wash it away with a bunch of babble that only makes sense to a handful.
-
Yet I believe you are full of crap Chump.
This ridiculous interpretation you have formed is an offshoot of the great Libertarian isolationisim theme that says if we just leave everyone alone they will us and thus we won`t need a military.
You live in a dream world that will never exist dude and rather then face it you try to wash it away with a bunch of babble that only makes sense to a handful.
I know you think I'm full of crap. You also think I have some sort of rotten soul or something, I don't remember the precise wording.
I don't know where you get the idea that I believe in isolationism or that we don't need a military. We have one now, it's incredible, and I wish we would use it with full force and fury. A secure nation requires nothing less. I think a lot of our foreign policy issues are a direct result from attempting to be too isolated and restraining ourselves far too much when we do go to war.
If this conversation is just a bunch of meaningless babble to you then feel free to drop out at anytime.
-
I know you think I'm full of crap. You also think I have some sort of rotten soul or something, I don't remember the precise wording.
I don't know where you get the idea that I believe in isolationism or that we don't need a military. We have one now, it's incredible, and I wish we would use it with full force and fury. A secure nation requires nothing less. I think a lot of our foreign policy issues are a direct result from attempting to be too isolated and restraining ourselves far too much when we do go to war.
If this conversation is just a bunch of meaningless babble to you then feel free to drop out at anytime.
All I know dude is it seems like a lot deny that they are Libertarians and say that they don`t support them and yet defend their ideology whenever it is challenged.
Let the evidence speak for itself.
-
All I know dude is it seems like a lot deny that they are Libertarians and say that they don`t support them and yet defend their ideology whenever it is challenged.
Let the evidence speak for itself.
Meh, I just said I don't know enough about Libertarians to either say I am one or not. This conversation has been educational, to say the least. Let it be duly noted that I strongly object to isolationism and I want nothing less than the strongest military in the world.
-
Meh, I just said I don't know enough about Libertarians to either say I am one or not. This conversation has been educational, to say the least. Let it be duly noted that I strongly object to isolationism and I want nothing less than the strongest military in the world.
Yet, you don't want to serve in it if your nation needs you.
:whatever:
-
1. Human beings are not resources to the government in a free society. The government is a resource to human beings. We form it of our own volition. You probably make this assertion because of your experience in the military, and in that venue you are correct.
Yes, Chump, they are. Human beings are as much a resource as is the raw materials needed to fight and win. Reality is reality and when the rubber meets the road, anything else is an exercise in mental masturbation. A government is not a resource, it is a means and a vehicle of enforcement of laws, free society or tolitarian regime. How the laws are applied separates the two.
Just as a soldier is a resource to the military, I am a resource to my company. You've made the decision to voluntarily dispose of yourself as you see fit, as have I.
Thank you for making my point.
2. Laws and government absolutely do not grant us rights, as you asserted. That is so wrong-headed that I don't see the need to elaborate.
I asserted that? Really? Try again.
3. My right to life and liberty are held no higher than anyone else's, nor are they held any lower. That you would see my argument in that light really serves to illustrate that you are holding the right to life of some "others" as being above my own right to liberty.
No, I'm not. I am saying that your "right to life" means precious little when it comes to seeing our way of life end and our "rights" disappear. If the shit ever hits the fan, and too many are worried about their own "rights" so as not to answer the call when their number is drawn, then the argument about what "rights" anyone has will be no more than a fart in a noisemaker.
The only thing I am "illustrating" is that you hold yourself above "others" by your own argument.
Simply put, it's not. The intellectual foundation you're arguing from here is that some people have more rights than others, or that their rights are more valid.
No, I am saying that a goverment has the same right to mechanisms for it's survival to continue to propagate it's way of life for the people it governs.
On a side note, it's really disgusting that the immediate response of any veteran in this discussion is something to the effect of calling me an uncaring coward. You've gone as far as narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature.
What I have said is that your position on conscription during time of dire national emergency is narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature. I did note your first post and the assertion that you would volunteer in the case of dire national emergency. Twas not a personal attack, Chump, so don't treat it as one.
Let's let that nonsense stand. Let's say that I'm a horrible bastard who cares for nothing but myself.
So what?
Your words, not mine. I will say that you don't help your case much to the very people who did spend their time in your place.
"I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," translates just as well into "I may not like what you do with your life, but I will defend to the death your liberty to do it."
And? I did that for 22 years. By your own admission, you didn't. Are you starting to understand what I said about you arguing from a perspective of ignorance?
You all should be the most ardent opposers of government compulsion, and yet you're so quick to say, "what if we're all about to die??"
Reread what I said, especially the part on my views of conscription as of right now. After that, think about what I said and the perspective it's stated from.
Well, my friends, I would be busy fighting for my life while you're busy telling me I have to do it.
Help me out, Chump. How old are you?
-
1. Human beings are not resources to the government in a free society. The government is a resource to human beings. We form it of our own volition. You probably make this assertion because of your experience in the military, and in that venue you are correct.
Yes, Chump, they are. Human beings are as much a resource as is the raw materials needed to fight and win. Reality is reality and when the rubber meets the road, anything else is an exercise in mental masturbation. A government is not a resource, it is a means and a vehicle of enforcement of laws, free society or tolitarian regime. How the laws are applied separates the two.
Just so I get this straight, you're claiming that government in a free society is not a resource to humans. In fact, it's the other way around: humans are nothing more than disposable resources to their government. Does that even deserve a response?
Quote
Just as a soldier is a resource to the military, I am a resource to my company. You've made the decision to voluntarily dispose of yourself as you see fit, as have I.
Thank you for making my point.
Or rather, attempting to illustrate the difference between the two examples...
Quote
2. Laws and government absolutely do not grant us rights, as you asserted. That is so wrong-headed that I don't see the need to elaborate.
I asserted that? Really? Try again.
In your own words:
Conversely, if this country is ever threatened to the point where we need to throw every resource behind it to survive (yes, human beings are resources), then your "right to life" as you have defined means precious damn little to the survival of the very laws and vehicles of enforcment that give you that "right".
Laws and government do not grant or give rights, period. Again, I don't see how I can elaborate.
Quote
3. My right to life and liberty are held no higher than anyone else's, nor are they held any lower. That you would see my argument in that light really serves to illustrate that you are holding the right to life of some "others" as being above my own right to liberty.
No, I'm not. I am saying that your "right to life" means precious little when it comes to seeing our way of life end and our "rights" disappear. If the shit ever hits the fan, and too many are worried about their own "rights" so as not to answer the call when their number is drawn, then the argument about what "rights" anyone has will be no more than a fart in a noisemaker.
The only thing I am "illustrating" is that you hold yourself above "others" by your own argument.
Then you're missing the painfully obvious point that if one person's right to liberty can be negated (or expensed) to preserve another's right to life, then the latter person in the example is having his personal rights elevated by definition, as rights cannot exist at the expense of another's. Making the recipients of some "benefit" derived from negating one person's right to liberty more numerous doesn't make it any less evil or more moral. Individual rights are just that: individual.
Quote
Simply put, it's not. The intellectual foundation you're arguing from here is that some people have more rights than others, or that their rights are more valid.
No, I am saying that a goverment has the same right to mechanisms for it's survival to continue to propagate it's way of life for the people it governs.
What?? If I want to survive when my life is in imminent danger, I have absolutely zero right to grab you by the scruff of the neck and throw you between myself and my attacker. From your own argument, the government has no right to compel anyone to dispose of their right to life.
Quote
On a side note, it's really disgusting that the immediate response of any veteran in this discussion is something to the effect of calling me an uncaring coward. You've gone as far as narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature.
What I have said is that your position on conscription during time of dire national emergency is narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature. I did note your first post and the assertion that you would volunteer in the case of dire national emergency. Twas not a personal attack, Chump, so don't treat it as one.
Fair enough. I feel free to say that your position on conscription during a dire national emergency smacks of sniveling statism and the idea that the government must exist at all costs.
Just remember, when the next dire national emergency comes rolling along (and it's coming, look to the bond market) then your rights are meaningless.
-
Just so I get this straight, you're claiming that government in a free society is not a resource to humans.
What I said, very clearly, was that a government is a means and a vehicle of enforcement of laws. If you wish to call that a "resource", then by all means do.
In fact, it's the other way around: humans are nothing more than disposable resources to their government. Does that even deserve a response?
That is so far off from my point that I'm wondering if you deserve a response. In a case of dire national emergency, survival of not only the government but also the individual is paramount. If the government (vehicle of laws and enforcement) does not survive, neither will individual rights. In a free society, it's a symbiotic relationship, Chump.
Or rather, attempting to illustrate the difference between the two examples...
You are a resource to your employer, nothing else. If you lose your value to your employer, you are gone. I was a resource to the US Navy. When I hit the upper limit of my rank and years of service, I was considered to be no longer of value and was retired.
We are resources, Chump. You can tell yourself whatever you like, but in the end we are resources and that is just reality.
Laws and government do not grant or give rights, period. Again, I don't see how I can elaborate.
They don't? Try breaking some and see how much of your "individual rights" you retain.
But, you completely missed my point. Means and a vehicle for enforcement of laws, see above. If you don't understand what you are reading, then you can't elaborate. I'm not an English Major, Chump, and I write in very clear and concise language.
Then you're missing the painfully obvious point that if one person's right to liberty can be negated (or expensed) to preserve another's right to life, then the latter person in the example is having his personal rights elevated by definition, as rights cannot exist at the expense of another's. Making the recipients of some "benefit" derived from negating one person's right to liberty more numerous doesn't make it any less evil or more moral. Individual rights are just that: individual.
No, Chump, I got your point ad nauseum. You are missing the painfully obvious point that if the goverment does not survive and/or is denied the tools for survival, then your "individual rights" will not exist.
Period.
Not that complicated.
What?? If I want to survive when my life is in imminent danger, I have absolutely zero right to grab you by the scruff of the neck and throw you between myself and my attacker. From your own argument, the government has no right to compel anyone to dispose of their right to life.
Apples and oranges, Chump. A mugger and an invading army are two completely different things. As has been pointed out to you, you are arguing from a perspective of ignorance.
And, again, what you are inferring is not what I said.
Fair enough. I feel free to say that your position on conscription during a dire national emergency smacks of sniveling statism and the idea that the government must exist at all costs.
And if our goverment disappears, Chump, what then? To whom will you whine about your "individual rights"? What means and vehicle of enforcement will you have to ensure that they still exist?
Just remember, when the next dire national emergency comes rolling along (and it's coming, look to the bond market) then your rights are meaningless.
Cute.
Let me give you some perspective. I am currently on Fleet Reserve. What that means is that I am subject to recall until 2017. If the shit hits the fan, and I get called to be "grabbed by the scruff of the neck and thrown in front of your attacker", I will pack up my uniforms and report to my assigned place of duty.
More simply put, I will be a resource to stand the line in case of a dire national emergency. Whether I have a choice in the matter or not.
Why, you may ask? Simply because the preservation of our way (that includes you, and everyone else) of life far outweighs whatever claim I have to my individual "right to life". You have never served, are unwilling to learn from those that have, and will probably never know. That's what I mean, Chump, when I say that you are arguing from a perspective of ignorance.
-
Seems to me that Chump would be one of those draft dodgers that fled to Canada or elsewhere in order to avoid military service. Callin' it as I see it, Chump.
-
I feel free to say that your position on conscription during a dire national emergency smacks of sniveling statism and the idea that the government must exist at all costs.
It was the intent of our founding fathers and authors of the Constitution that the Union be preserved at all costs:
The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, December 18, 1787.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
THE necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union, is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
This inquiry will naturally divide itself into three branches the objects to be provided for by the federal government, the quantity of power necessary to the accomplishment of those objects, the persons upon whom that power ought to operate. Its distribution and organization will more properly claim our attention under the succeeding head.
The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.
The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.
This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the MEANS ought to be proportioned to the END; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any END is expected, ought to possess the MEANS by which it is to be attained.
Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the FORMATION, DIRECTION, or SUPPORT of the NATIONAL FORCES.
Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.
The experiment has, however, demonstrated that this expectation was ill-founded and illusory; and the observations, made under the last head, will, I imagine, have sufficed to convince the impartial and discerning, that there is an absolute necessity for an entire change in the first principles of the system; that if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions, as equally impracticable and unjust. The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets; and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy, in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.
If the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government, the essential point which will remain to be adjusted will be to discriminate the OBJECTS, as far as it can be done, which shall appertain to the different provinces or departments of power; allowing to each the most ample authority for fulfilling the objects committed to its charge. Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is the administration of justice between the citizens of the same State the proper department of the local governments? These must possess all the authorities which are connected with this object, and with every other that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction. Not to confer in each case a degree of power commensurate to the end, would be to violate the most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, and improvidently to trust the great interests of the nation to hands which are disabled from managing them with vigor and success.
Who is likely to make suitable provisions for the public defense, as that body to which the guardianship of the public safety is confided; which, as the centre of information, will best understand the extent and urgency of the dangers that threaten; as the representative of the WHOLE, will feel itself most deeply interested in the preservation of every part; which, from the responsibility implied in the duty assigned to it, will be most sensibly impressed with the necessity of proper exertions; and which, by the extension of its authority throughout the States, can alone establish uniformity and concert in the plans and measures by which the common safety is to be secured? Is there not a manifest inconsistency in devolving upon the federal government the care of the general defense, and leaving in the State governments the EFFECTIVE powers by which it is to be provided for? Is not a want of co-operation the infallible consequence of such a system? And will not weakness, disorder, an undue distribution of the burdens and calamities of war, an unnecessary and intolerable increase of expense, be its natural and inevitable concomitants? Have we not had unequivocal experience of its effects in the course of the revolution which we have just accomplished?
Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth, will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers. If any plan which has been, or may be, offered to our consideration, should not, upon a dispassionate inspection, be found to answer this description, it ought to be rejected. A government, the constitution of which renders it unfit to be trusted with all the powers which a free people OUGHT TO DELEGATE TO ANY GOVERNMENT, would be an unsafe and improper depositary of the NATIONAL INTERESTS. Wherever THESE can with propriety be confided, the coincident powers may safely accompany them. This is the true result of all just reasoning upon the subject. And the adversaries of the plan promulgated by the convention ought to have confined themselves to showing, that the internal structure of the proposed government was such as to render it unworthy of the confidence of the people. They ought not to have wandered into inflammatory declamations and unmeaning cavils about the extent of the powers. The POWERS are not too extensive for the OBJECTS of federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of our NATIONAL INTERESTS; nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such an excess. If it be true, as has been insinuated by some of the writers on the other side, that the difficulty arises from the nature of the thing, and that the extent of the country will not permit us to form a government in which such ample powers can safely be reposed, it would prove that we ought to contract our views, and resort to the expedient of separate confederacies, which will move within more practicable spheres. For the absurdity must continually stare us in the face of confiding to a government the direction of the most essential national interests, without daring to trust it to the authorities which are indispensible to their proper and efficient management. Let us not attempt to reconcile contradictions, but firmly embrace a rational alternative.
I trust, however, that the impracticability of one general system cannot be shown. I am greatly mistaken, if any thing of weight has yet been advanced of this tendency; and I flatter myself, that the observations which have been made in the course of these papers have served to place the reverse of that position in as clear a light as any matter still in the womb of time and experience can be susceptible of. This, at all events, must be evident, that the very difficulty itself, drawn from the extent of the country, is the strongest argument in favor of an energetic government; for any other can certainly never preserve the Union of so large an empire. If we embrace the tenets of those who oppose the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as the standard of our political creed, we cannot fail to verify the gloomy doctrines which predict the impracticability of a national system pervading entire limits of the present Confederacy.
http://www.madison-society.org/fed/fed23.html
This is reality. Long recognized by the founders of our country. You can babble all day on inherent rights of the individual, however you only need to look to our, and pretty much any other country, to see that those rights are clearly not free -- and for those lucky enough to have it, please note they were only obtained by the ultimate sacrifice of others.
-
To use some bumper sticker logic, "Freedom isn't FREE"...........
Or; "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a Vet"....
-
Seems to me that Chump would be one of those draft dodgers that fled to Canada or elsewhere in order to avoid military service. Callin' it as I see it, Chump.
That's fine. I've already said I'm disgusted with the tripe I've seen passed off as logical thought here.
Just remember folks, there's a reason people like Rahm Emanuel insist on "not wasting a good crisis." Combine great need with the urgency of the moment, ask people to bend to "reality," and you can force even the most principled person to abandon those principles. Just remember, you're arguing in the same manner.
As to my opinion on serving or not, or its worth, or waging war in general: go back and re-read. Whether or not I want to serve is not the topic. Government compulsion is. Resorting to personal attacks, whether intended to come across as such or not, only serves to highlight the fact that you have no leg to stand on.
-
What I said, very clearly, was that a government is a means and a vehicle of enforcement of laws. If you wish to call that a "resource", then by all means do.
That pretty much fits the definition of a resource.
In a case of dire national emergency, survival of not only the government but also the individual is paramount. If the government (vehicle of laws and enforcement) does not survive, neither will individual rights. In a free society, it's a symbiotic relationship, Chump.
This of course stems from your belief that rights are derived from the government in the first place. My individual rights will still exist in your scenario, but they will most likely be threatened at every turn.
You are a resource to your employer, nothing else. If you lose your value to your employer, you are gone. I was a resource to the US Navy. When I hit the upper limit of my rank and years of service, I was considered to be no longer of value and was retired.
We are resources, Chump. You can tell yourself whatever you like, but in the end we are resources and that is just reality.
You do have to actually argue your point. You can't just say, "that's reality," and leave it at that. You and I have both chosen to dispose of our lives as we see fit, and in doing so we make ourselves useful to our respective employers. From the point of view of our employers, we are of course resources. It does not logically follow that, therefore, humans are resources to their governments. Keep trying.
But, you completely missed my point. Means and a vehicle for enforcement of laws, see above. If you don't understand what you are reading, then you can't elaborate. I'm not an English Major, Chump, and I write in very clear and concise language.
Where do you think rights originate? You said that laws and governments are the source of rights. When I told you you're wrong, you said I missed the point. I'm well aware of how laws and government protect individual rights. I'm not clear on how laws and government provide them in the first place, so enlighten me.
No, Chump, I got your point ad nauseum. You are missing the painfully obvious point that if the goverment does not survive and/or is denied the tools for survival, then your "individual rights" will not exist.
Period.
Not that complicated.
Refer to above, they certainly will.
Apples and oranges, Chump. A mugger and an invading army are two completely different things. As has been pointed out to you, you are arguing from a perspective of ignorance.
And, again, what you are inferring is not what I said.
I'm not the one that made the comparison in the first place. If the government has the same means for survival as I do, then compulsion is not one of them.
And if our goverment disappears, Chump, what then? To whom will you whine about your "individual rights"? What means and vehicle of enforcement will you have to ensure that they still exist?
Don't worry, I'd be doing very little whining. I'd most likely be busy defending myself from roaming gangs and trying to survive. Maybe instead I should be like you, abandon any and all principles, and cry that any action the government takes is OK so long as my "precious rights" are protected. Hopefully the illogical disconnect in that very statement wouldn't bring about an aneurysm.
Let me give you some perspective. I am currently on Fleet Reserve. What that means is that I am subject to recall until 2017. If the shit hits the fan, and I get called to be "grabbed by the scruff of the neck and thrown in front of your attacker", I will pack up my uniforms and report to my assigned place of duty.
More simply put, I will be a resource to stand the line in case of a dire national emergency. Whether I have a choice in the matter or not.
Why, you may ask? Simply because the preservation of our way (that includes you, and everyone else) of life far outweighs whatever claim I have to my individual "right to life". You have never served, are unwilling to learn from those that have, and will probably never know. That's what I mean, Chump, when I say that you are arguing from a perspective of ignorance.
You willingly contracted to dispose of your life as you see fit. Claiming you have no choice is lunacy; you already made your choice. And no, sorry, the preservation of anyone or anything in a free society does not come at the expense of anyone's life or liberty through government compulsion. Saying, "well you've never served," while factually true, is completely irrelevant.
-
You willingly contracted to dispose of your life as you see fit. Claiming you have no choice is lunacy; you already made your choice. And no, sorry, the preservation of anyone or anything in a free society does not come at the expense of anyone's life or liberty through government compulsion. Saying, "well you've never served," while factually true, is completely irrelevant.
Your discussion on inherent rights of the individual does not have a place in this world (of reality) -- there has been no country to date whose residents enjoy such a utopia of individual freedom. The United States of America is certainly not such a place, nor was it ever the intent of our founding fathers and authors of our Constitution.
Save your pennies. Buy an island. Have at it. Until then you are subject to the draft. Such is life.
-
Just remember folks, there's a reason people like Rahm Emanuel insist on "not wasting a good crisis." Combine great need with the urgency of the moment, ask people to bend to "reality," and you can force even the most principled person to abandon those principles. Just remember, you're arguing in the same manner.
Abuse does not abolish the use.
Tyrants will always abuse what is good or necessary for self-serving ends but that doesn't mean we deprive ourselves of what is good and/or necessary. Junkies should not be used as an argument for the abolition of pain management therapies.
But your analogy fails because Emmanuel is not the sole head of state. It would take an act of congress to impose such a thing and right now congress cannot even succeed on something as "benign" as healthcare because the people have resoundingly rejected the schemes of the power-hungry.
As to my opinion on serving or not, or its worth, or waging war in general: go back and re-read. Whether or not I want to serve is not the topic. Government compulsion is. Resorting to personal attacks, whether intended to come across as such or not, only serves to highlight the fact that you have no leg to stand on.
One of my complaints with many aspects of "libertarian" doctrine is that in their quest to say what ought or ought not be done in the name of liberty they confine liberty. They quickly label everything a matter of "rights" so as to exclude all further debate on a subject just as the liberals label everything racist, sexist or homophobic. When everything is labeled a "right" then the genuine right to self-government and public discourse suffers. Libertarians simply have better PR management skills.
I'm not saying this is you but when someone says, "Drugs are a right. Prostitution is a right. Sexual deviancy is a right. Marriage is a right." what they are really saying is, "You have no right to debate policies on how society shall be shaped and governed and you shall not have the right to vote on any so-designated topic."
Our nation is first and foremost a government that governs by the consent of the governed. If those who are governed see a national existential threat of such proportions that they--either by petition or willing consent--accede to the imposition of conscription then that is the will of the governed. To deny them this right is to claim they do not have the wits sufficient to govern themselves.
No government has any legitimacy unless it acts--not only in accordance to the will of the people--but for the sole purpose of defending the people from force and compulsion. If the people deem the only remedy to a given threat is the establishment of conscription then so be it.
IN PRACTICAL TERMS:
In a large enough war conscription allows for the orderly induction of mass amounts of troops. In a peacetime of middle-to-low intensity conflict it serves no practical purpose; only to dilute the overall quality of troops.
-
MSB:
In a large enough war conscription allows for the orderly induction of mass amounts of troops. In a peacetime of middle-to-low intensity conflict it serves no practical purpose; only to dilute the overall quality of troops.
This is correct as I see it. Operative word there is "orderly induction" when/if those troops are needed. Since "mass amounts of troops" is somewhat subjective, it stands to reason that the tool that is conscription is to be used only when and if it's needed.
Not likely in this day and age, even with multiple deployments.
-
That's fine. I've already said I'm disgusted with the tripe I've seen passed off as logical thought here.
You've been given reasoned and thoughtful arguments from people who actually have the perspective you lack, given the words of the very men who founded this country and wrote the very documents that guarantee your individual rights, and you still don't get it.
If after what you have been given, your position is that it's "tripe", then what are we to conclude?
Personally, I think that you are deep in love with your own "voice" on this forum and that is definitely a trait of someone who serves only themselves.
Just remember folks, there's a reason people like Rahm Emanuel insist on "not wasting a good crisis." Combine great need with the urgency of the moment, ask people to bend to "reality," and you can force even the most principled person to abandon those principles. Just remember, you're arguing in the same manner.
And the founding fathers as well? Are they little Emanuels?
Resorting to personal attacks, whether intended to come across as such or not, only serves to highlight the fact that you have no leg to stand on.
Again, how old are you, Chump?
-
My guess would be that were I President, he'd REALLY have a problem with me. I believe in mandatory conscription. :o
-
That pretty much fits the definition of a resource.
Fine, it's a "resource".
This of course stems from your belief that rights are derived from the government in the first place.
Chump, I am beginning to believe that you are either purposefully obtuse and cannot stand to lose an argument or you truly have a reading comprehension. I have stated, very clearly on multiple posts, that goverment is nothing more than than a means and a vehicle to enforce laws. A "resource", as it were. My rights are derived from my natural state and God Almighty, as stated by our founding fathers. The very ones that you called "tripe".
My individual rights will still exist in your scenario, but they will most likely be threatened at every turn.
Wrong. They will not exist at all. You will exercise whatever "rights" our conquerers decide that they wish to bestow upon the vanquished. Historically, it's not very many.
Again, you argue from a position of ignorance.
You and I have both chosen to dispose of our lives as we see fit, and in doing so we make ourselves useful to our respective employers. From the point of view of our employers, we are of course resources. It does not logically follow that, therefore, humans are resources to their governments. Keep trying.
So to our employers, we are essentially tools, but when it comes to the survival of our way of life and our means of propagating it, we aren't?
Really?
Where do you think rights originate? You said that laws and governments are the source of rights. When I told you you're wrong, you said I missed the point.
Government is a means and a vehicle of enforcement of laws. Within that enforcement of laws is the guarantee of individual rights. That way of government comes from (in the US) the consent of the governed.
Now it's been said a fourth time.
Yes, you missed my point repeatedly.
I'm well aware of how laws and government protect individual rights. I'm not clear on how laws and government provide them in the first place, so enlighten me.
Well, I (and many others on just this thread alone) have tried, but you are not listening. Enlighten you? Reread.
Refer to above, they certainly will.
Read some historical accounts of the conquered and try that again.
I'm not the one that made the comparison in the first place. If the government has the same means for survival as I do, then compulsion is not one of them.
How does it feel to be placed at such odds with the very men and documents that you hold so dear?
Don't worry, I'd be doing very little whining. I'd most likely be busy defending myself from roaming gangs and trying to survive. Maybe instead I should be like you, abandon any and all principles, and cry that any action the government takes is OK so long as my "precious rights" are protected. Hopefully the illogical disconnect in that very statement wouldn't bring about an aneurysm.
Honestly, speaking as someone who spent their life in service to you and everyone else in this country, I would rather you stand on your porch, suck your thumb, and stay out of the way if your position is that sacrisanct. As a leader, I would have enough problems getting the conscripts that didn't opt out ready to face contact and survive.
You willingly contracted to dispose of your life as you see fit.
I most certainly did. Of my free will.
Claiming you have no choice is lunacy; you already made your choice.
Do you think that being compulsed to return to active duty after retirement is somehow different?
Perspective, ignorance, etcetera....
And no, sorry, the preservation of anyone or anything in a free society does not come at the expense of anyone's life or liberty through government compulsion.
A lot of good men who were put in the ground to ensure your right to live in comfort and post your thoughts would disagree.
Saying, "well you've never served," while factually true, is completely irrelevant.
No, Chump, it is completely relevant. It gives those who have a much better and informed perspective. Anyone who is so proud to the point of not being able to even consider the wisdom gained from such people is foolish.