The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: dutch508 on January 04, 2010, 05:02:54 PM
-
The below article is from About.com. My comments are in red.
Like most political platforms, the Libertarian Party platform is turgid, vague, and abstract. It also tends to be a little bit utopian in its approach, which can make it difficult to ascertain where the Party stands on specific issues facing the country right now.
This is not a specific criticism of the Libertarian Party, mind you; the Democratic and Republican party platforms are much, much more turgid (to the point where they can't be read in one sitting), much more vague (to the point where they often sound as if they're advocating the same policies), and much more abstract (relying on Mom-and-apple-pie patriotic rhetoric instead of concrete policy proposals). But the difference is that the Democratic and Republican parties have enough money to pay people to run campaigns that give us an idea of what the parties stand for.
The Libertarian Party doesn't have that much money, so I'm proud to present the world's shortest platform summary of the party that brought you the World's Shortest Political Quiz.
Fiscal Policy: Very right-libertarian. The Libertarian Party opposes taxation in pretty much all forms, and deals with the revenue loss by opposing entitlement programs in pretty much all forms. This means that people keep more of what they earn, but it also means that there is no social safety net. And ambitious new proposals--such as universal pre-kindergarten and universal health care--are obviously not compatible with this objective. Eh ::) I am not too sure about this. No Taxes means more of my money for me- but what about public services for the good of the public, likes schools and hospitals? Some public taxes I think are required.
Corporations: Eliminate all federal subsidies to private corporations, as well as all antitrust laws. OK. I can live with that.
Public Services: Eliminate the Postal Service. Transfer all government services, from public schools to landfills, to private ownership. See my above. Where I think that some public services are good and needed, I don't think that all are. Could the post service be privatized and run better? Yeah...but then who would deliver my HooterLovers catalog?
Property Rights: Would restrict public domain to immediate public use, and sell or give away most public property to private owners. See my above. I think public parks are a good thing and I don't mind spending a bit of money so others can enjoy them.
Criminal Justice: Would eliminate all antidrug laws and legalize prostitution. Would end random police roadblocks. Uh....no.
Free Speech: Would abolish the FCC and allow private ownership of broadcast frequencies. Opposes all restriction of free speech, including free speech restricted in the name of national security. Again, no.
Church and State: Calls for reduced IRS regulation and monitoring of tax-exempt churches.
Second Amendment: Strongly opposes all gun control, as well as regulation of alternative weapon technologies (mace, Tasers, and so forth). eh... :p Some regulation is good- no felons with guns, etc.
The Draft: Calls for the abolition of the Selective Service System and amnesty for any citizen who has ever resisted the draft. Oh, I think all you little ****ers need at least two years nation service. :bird:
Reproductive Rights Pro-choice, but opposes all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, including the child tax credit. Opposes involuntary or fraudulent sterilization. ok.
LGBT Rights: Opposes "don't ask, don't tell." Believes that marriage is a private contract, and should yield no government benefits regardless of the gender of the partners. Hey, I don't care if you **** goats. Just don't think my church is gonna give you a party because of it.
Immigrants' Rights: Argues that borders should be open but surveilled--everyone who does not pose a threat to public health or national security should be allowed to enter the country legally. Would eliminate all federal benefits to undocumented immigrants. I think borders should be a ****ing Iron Wall. You get in if you are safe or ask nicely. No benifits other than a one way ticket home for the wall jumpers.
the rest is from the libertarian's website:
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
If that means pulling our troops out of the world then no. We should kill the enemy on the enemy's soil- not ours.
3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny...we just won't do anything about it.
So, where I agree with a few of the Libertarian's viewpoints, I don't on a majority.
-
I'm not a libertarian because I never ever want to be mistaken for a Paul-tard.
-
Somethings are necessary evils.
I think a case can be made for the FDA considering it was born of a time when some merchants cut flour with chalk dust. I think defining what flour is made of would save both consumer and merchant from a shit-ton of litigation and improve the economy because people have an objective standard. I also think a COTUS argument could be made under the weights and measures clause.
Ditto things like the FCC. It's all well and good to say frequencies should be privately owned but who serves as the registration office so that Company A can broadcast on Frequency X at Wattage Y?
And yes, if water springs on your land you can pee in it if you want but what if your water runs off into the neighboring town's water supply? Who decides how much of an impact you're allowed to have on your neighbors? Many libertarians argue that the town could sue but some poeple/companies can inflict more damage than their bank accounts can cover.
And many social laws may involve "consent" but their effects are hardly private matters. Sorry libertarians but meth effects more than the user.
Don't get me started their whacky national defense ideas. These people could embarrass Neville Chamberlain.
-
True Libertarians (ie capitol T and capitol L) are really scary people, as in homosexual-goat-rape-is-ok-as-long-as-you-do-it-in-your-own-house type of scary. Some of the basic principals are good but they usually go wayyyy overboard. That said; I tend to lean small 'l' libertarian on some issues and conservative on others.
-
Great job dutch.
-
I got into a discussion once on FR with a couple of hard core Libertarians that had taken things to such an extreme that what they were desiring was a lawless wild west anarchy.
They had a fantasy of no government,let the community police itself (of course in the delusion the good guys always win) with a survival of the fittest...the strongest being the last standing and always for the common good.
Combining that with their unrealistic ideals of isolationism which seems to relate strongest to abandoning Israel and their most fervent anti government rhetoric aimed at legalizing drugs I took the whole movement as a utopian liberalism that co opts some conservative elements to achieve its goals of garnering support.
I pretty much moved the whole thing to nutcase category inasmuch as one wishes to adhere to the official party platform.
-
I got into a discussion once on FR with a couple of hard core Libertarians that had taken things to such an extreme that what they were desiring was a lawless wild west anarchy.
They had a fantasy of no government,let the community police itself (of course in the delusion the good guys always win) with a survival of the fittest...the strongest being the last standing and always for the common good.
Combining that with their unrealistic ideals of isolationism which seems to relate strongest to abandoning Israel and their most fervent anti government rhetoric aimed at legalizing drugs I took the whole movement as a utopian liberalism that co opts some conservative elements to achieve its goals of garnering support.
I pretty much moved the whole thing to nutcase category inasmuch as one wishes to adhere to the official party platform.
I met one of those at protestwarrior.com. He was of the opinion that if he caught you on his lawn stealing his newspaper he had a right to shoot you dead. I asked how he would adjudicate between rightful and unlawful killing and he was of the opinion that if you couldn't defend yourself it was your own fault. I told him, "So much for grandma and I'm dusting off the deer rifle to take your dumb ass out."
He was not happy with me.
I seem to have that effect on people.
-
I met one of those at protestwarrior.com. He was of the opinion that if he caught you on his lawn stealing his newspaper he had a right to shoot you dead. I asked how he would adjudicate between rightful and unlawful killing and he was of the opinion that if you couldn't defend yourself it was your own fault. I told him, "So much for grandma and I'm dusting off the deer rifle to take your dumb ass out."
He was not happy with me.
I seem to have that effect on people.
Took a while to find but the old thread and where I jumped into it..the back and forth goes on for quite a while.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1626219/posts?page=81#81
Ahhhhh....the good old days. :cheersmate:
-
Took a while to find but the old thread and where I jumped into it..the back and forth goes on for quite a while.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1626219/posts?page=81#81
Ahhhhh....the good old days. :cheersmate:
See, that's what I don't understand. They want some Nietzschien hell-hole for a planet. The law is there for people who are not able to protect themselves (nevermind getting ambushed or murdered by someone you know/trust). Got a new girlfriend? Off the wife; it'll be her fault for not shooting first...in her sleep...with a pillow over her face...after being drugged.
It's also funny how they peddle this shit and then speak glowingly of the founders who were all molded by a paradigm of transcendent, objective morality.
I think they still want to play out some fantasy RPG of brave new world but in reality they'd be the first to be eaten.
-
See, that's what I don't understand. They want some Nietzschien hell-hole for a planet. The law is there for people who are not able to protect themselves (nevermind getting ambushed or murdered by someone you know/trust). Got a new girlfriend? Off the wife; it'll be her fault for not shooting first...in her sleep...with a pillow over her face...after being drugged.
It's also funny how they peddle this shit and then speak glowingly of the founders who were all molded by a paradigm of transcendent, objective morality.
I think they still want to play out some fantasy RPG of brave new world but in reality they'd be the first to be eaten.
When I see the word Libertarian I often think of the word Anarchist. I believe Anarchist would be a better definition. The more I learn about them the more I find they come from the left more often than the right. Hence why I often call them former or transplant and even perhaps reformed democrats. I have met some that are downright scary. While they preach the Utopian society often enough some of the symbolism they associate with often includes symbols from various supremacist organizations or that are associated in historical supremacy symbolism.
It would be nice if the ideal world could be created, yet the socialist movement already tried it from the other side of the extreme and that failed as well. In order to maintain a moral society there must be a defined right and wrong. In order to maintain order within a society there must be reasonable law that society lives by. I do agree that it should be minimal in nature to not infringe upon freedom. Yet to define freedom does not mean you have the right to impose yourself upon your fellow man whether its, as depicted above, peeing in your creek before the water flows downtown or shooting someone just because he is on your land.
I had a neighbor once that was a strong libertarian. The more discussions I had with her the more convinced I became she was a complete nutcase. It was not a matter of difference of opinion. It was more like something was wrong with her mind. They do not think in logical patterns nor are they capable of understanding real issues within the world. It is almost as if they have what the Bible depicts as a "reprobate mind" if you will. While they would allow drugs to be legalized they say nothing of the implications to other people, children, a drugged out mother having a crack baby or how chaotic of a society they would create with their beliefs.
In my opinion they are some of the most extreme left. What I mean is when they realized that socialism could not achieve the desired effects many hope for they then look and find that anarchy can. Its all still based upon the common good, being fair, allowing each individual to grow like the real flower they are in their own way hippie crap.
-
When I see the word Libertarian I often think of the word Anarchist. I believe Anarchist would be a better definition. The more I learn about them the more I find they come from the left more often than the right. Hence why I often call them former or transplant and even perhaps reformed democrats. I have met some that are downright scary. While they preach the Utopian society often enough some of the symbolism they associate with often includes symbols from various supremacist organizations or that are associated in historical supremacy symbolism.
It would be nice if the ideal world could be created, yet the socialist movement already tried it from the other side of the extreme and that failed as well. In order to maintain a moral society there must be a defined right and wrong. In order to maintain order within a society there must be reasonable law that society lives by. I do agree that it should be minimal in nature to not infringe upon freedom. Yet to define freedom does not mean you have the right to impose yourself upon your fellow man whether its, as depicted above, peeing in your creek before the water flows downtown or shooting someone just because he is on your land.
I had a neighbor once that was a strong libertarian. The more discussions I had with her the more convinced I became she was a complete nutcase. It was not a matter of difference of opinion. It was more like something was wrong with her mind. They do not think in logical patterns nor are they capable of understanding real issues within the world. It is almost as if they have what the Bible depicts as a "reprobate mind" if you will. While they would allow drugs to be legalized they say nothing of the implications to other people, children, a drugged out mother having a crack baby or how chaotic of a society they would create with their beliefs.
In my opinion they are some of the most extreme left. What I mean is when they realized that socialism could not achieve the desired effects many hope for they then look and find that anarchy can. Its all still based upon the common good, being fair, allowing each individual to grow like the real flower they are in their own way hippie crap.
Excellent post - very well put.
-
I met one of those at protestwarrior.com. He was of the opinion that if he caught you on his lawn stealing his newspaper he had a right to shoot you dead. I asked how he would adjudicate between rightful and unlawful killing and he was of the opinion that if you couldn't defend yourself it was your own fault. I told him, "So much for grandma and I'm dusting off the deer rifle to take your dumb ass out."
He was not happy with me.
I seem to have that effect on people.
Lol. Nothing nauseates me more than people who join a website only to spend their time H5 each other, always saying the right thing, yada yada yada, in some desperate attempt to be liked.... by complete strangers no less. I join because I enjoy healthy debate, articles that are posted that I sometimes may not see elsewhere, and reading opinions of others which I may not have considered before. I, for the most part, am true to myself and will just throw it out there -- I care little if it is the popular opinion or not. There are some extremely intelligent posters here who I enjoying reading very much, you MSB are one of them. I find your posting style to be delicious. Don't ever change.
That said, Libertarians have a tough time debating reality. I have yet to come across one who doesn't turn out to be an absolute puke with the mentality of a 16 year old.
-
The Libertarian platform is for the most part unreasonable, specifically in relation to foreign policy. The idea that we can isolate ourselves and still provide for a national defense is based on an antiquated idea of warfare, and really, reality itself.
The Draft: Calls for the abolition of the Selective Service System and amnesty for any citizen who has ever resisted the draft. Oh, I think all you little ****ers need at least two years nation service. :bird:
:lmao: Plenty of countries out there for you to go enjoy then.
The rest of your objections, with the exception of foreign policy, amount to you accepting "necessary evils" because it's OK with you. Big deal. What if it's not OK with me?
-
I got into a discussion once on FR with a couple of hard core Libertarians that had taken things to such an extreme that what they were desiring was a lawless wild west anarchy.
They had a fantasy of no government,let the community police itself (of course in the delusion the good guys always win) with a survival of the fittest...the strongest being the last standing and always for the common good.
Combining that with their unrealistic ideals of isolationism which seems to relate strongest to abandoning Israel and their most fervent anti government rhetoric aimed at legalizing drugs I took the whole movement as a utopian liberalism that co opts some conservative elements to achieve its goals of garnering support.
I pretty much moved the whole thing to nutcase category inasmuch as one wishes to adhere to the official party platform.
I think the very first thread I got into at FR was with some of these idiots. Talking about how everything from the frings on the flag to the military was a direct violatoin of the Constitution.
Buncha effin retards is what they were.
-
In my opinion they are some of the most extreme left. What I mean is when they realized that socialism could not achieve the desired effects many hope for they then look and find that anarchy can. Its all still based upon the common good, being fair, allowing each individual to grow like the real flower they are in their own way hippie crap.
What? I think you're not fully understanding the philosophy. It's not based upon the common good, being fair etc. The point is that the common good & fairness will naturally result from a Libertarian society.
Most libertarians realize you cannot go without law & order. There must be a justice system and government. However, certain things that are considered criminal offenses (drug use, prostitution, etc) should not be, and more government agencies should be privatized. Clearly a society wouldn't do well with a privatized police force. However a privatized school system, post office, etc would be great and only serve to create common good and fairness.
TRUE libertarians uphold the truest meaning of COTUS. TRUE Republicans do as well. Too many Dems & Repubs have a knee-jerk reaction to Libertarianism (which is, really, just Republican philosophy in its purest sense). I think it's just because they need something to whine about and someone to punch.
Face it, most people are sheep, and too frightened to really let go of big government. So why do you worry at all? As if Libertarians are really going to get anywhere with so many frightened sheep out there.
-
I don't have an issue with Libertarians, per se. I fact I find myself agreeing with several things they say quite often. I just think on some issues they go too far. Holding that belief doesn't make me into some type of "big gov't" lover who can't let go, it just means I see a legitimate need for gov't to step in where they don't. Gov't has a legitimate function, it's just doesn't involve things like making sure everyone has food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. Things like that are up to individual citizens to band together and help each other if for some reason there are those who are going without or have a need they can't meet alone. It does involve discouraging people from taking drugs, upholding other moral laws like traditional marriage, and yes, even collecting taxes for things like providing for the common defense, police, fire, and roads.
.
-
I just think on some issues they go too far. Holding that belief doesn't make me into some type of "big gov't" lover who can't let go, it just means I see a legitimate need for gov't to step in where they don't.
.
The arrogant belief that they are the "true Conservatives" is rather distasteful as well.
-
I don't have an issue with Libertarians, per se. I fact I find myself agreeing with several things they say quite often. I just think on some issues they go too far. Holding that belief doesn't make me into some type of "big gov't" lover who can't let go, it just means I see a legitimate need for gov't to step in where they don't. Gov't has a legitimate function, it's just doesn't involve things like making sure everyone has food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. Things like that are up to individual citizens to band together and help each other if for some reason there are those who are going without or have a need they can't meet alone. It does involve discouraging people from taking drugs, upholding other moral laws like traditional marriage, and yes, even collecting taxes for things like providing for the common defense, police, fire, and roads.
.
Sir you may as well be a Libertarian. BTW I agree people should be discouraged from taking drugs, upholding their own morals and supporting common defense. I just believe that the government shouldn't be the ones mandating the above (at figurative and literal gunpoints no less). Apocalyptic madness won't erupt if the people are left to their own support.
And...Tx - Libertarians aren't the only TRUE conservatives. TRUE Republicans are as well. As you can see from the above discourse, both are much the same with only a small difference in philosophy.
-
The arrogant belief that they are the "true Conservatives" is rather distasteful as well.
Especially when either directly or by default they adopt so many of the lefts positions.
-
Especially when either directly or by default they adopt so many of the lefts positions.
What? explain yourself, please?
-
Come on Bully, sheep? really?
What? I think you're not fully understanding the philosophy. It's not based upon the common good, being fair etc. The point is that the common good & fairness will naturally result from a Libertarian society.
This is where reality is just completely lost in the equation. Utopian dreams.
-
What? explain yourself, please?
Abortion,as you mentioned legalized prostitution and drugs.
Take a wander over to the DUmp and you will see that they are pretty high on the lefts priority list too.
Isolationism with an a special focus on the "evil" of Israel being another.
-
Sir you may as well be a Libertarian. BTW I agree people should be discouraged from taking drugs, upholding their own morals and supporting common defense. I just believe that the government shouldn't be the ones mandating the above (at figurative and literal gunpoints no less). Apocalyptic madness won't erupt if the people are left to their own support.
Cause there are so many countries we can prop up as example where those "who are left to their own support" just thrived and lived the dream baby.
-
Abortion,as you mentioned legalized prostitution and drugs.
Take a wander over to the DUmp and you will see that they are pretty high on the lefts priority list too.
Isolationism with an a special focus on the "evil" of Israel being another.
I think Isolationism is the most compelling argument that TRUE Libertarians (<---- they should think about copyrighting that cool catch phrase) are 1) out of touch with reality; 2) never learned a damn from history; and 3) dabble dangerously close to the extreme left.
-
Abortion,as you mentioned legalized prostitution and drugs.
Take a wander over to the DUmp and you will see that they are pretty high on the lefts priority list too.
Isolationism with an a special focus on the "evil" of Israel being another.
There is something to be said for a measure of "social" conservatism. Abortion is just plain wrong. Therefore, it should be illegal. I can't condone legal drug use and prostitution, either. That's where libertarians and I part ways.
-
Cause there are so many countries we can prop up as example where those "who are left to their own support" just thrived and lived the dream baby.
If you go back to that FR thread I posted I made mention that they seem to think that the moral reasoning to live in an ordered society that the law in place imparts will be there somehow even if the laws are removed.
-
Come on Bully, sheep? really?
This is where reality is just completely lost in the equation. Utopian dreams.
You'd think, right? But 99% of people don't want anarchy, chaos, lawlessness, or riots on the streets. People would organize support for the common defense PDQ. It would operate very similar to charitable organizations, which came to be because of needs that the government cannot/will not not provide for.
Really, it is all about fear.
-
You'd think, right? But 99% of people don't want anarchy, chaos, lawlessness, or riots on the streets. People would organize support for the common defense PDQ. It would operate very similar to charitable organizations, which came to be because of needs that the government cannot/will not not provide for.
Really, it is all about fear.
Uh, charitable organizations.... you mean like ACORN? Come on! Corruption mean anything to you? will you even concede that this would be prime for corruption? would the people take care of that also? (psst, again corruption). I think the mafia would support your proposal most enthusiastically.
-
If you go back to that FR thread I posted I made mention that they seem to think that the moral reasoning to live in an ordered society that the law in place imparts will be there somehow even if the laws are removed.
I honestly can't even begin to wrap my brain around that reasoning.
-
Abortion,as you mentioned legalized prostitution and drugs.
Take a wander over to the DUmp and you will see that they are pretty high on the lefts priority list too.
Isolationism with an a special focus on the "evil" of Israel being another.
TRUE libertarians* would let the states decide their own laws regarding abortion, prostitution, drug use. No one is saying Israel is evil. You're making me laugh.
*thanks for the idea, but I believe in freedom of expression and wouldn't ever dream of copywriting a "cool phrase."
Uh, charitable organizations.... you mean like ACORN? Come on! Corruption mean anything to you? will you even concede that this would be prime for corruption? would the people take care of that also? (psst, again corruption). I think the mafia would support your proposal most enthusiastically.
Note that I never said government should be abandoned altogether, and I specifically stated it would be a bad idea for police forces to be privatized.
-
Sir you may as well be a Libertarian. BTW I agree people should be discouraged from taking drugs, upholding their own morals and supporting common defense. I just believe that the government shouldn't be the ones mandating the above (at figurative and literal gunpoints no less).
And I do, which doesn't place me in the Libertarian camp at all. I want the police keeping drunks and stoners off the road. I want the gov't saying only a man and a woman can be married. Like I said, they go too far for me.
.
-
TRUE libertarians* would let the states decide their own laws regarding abortion, prostitution, drug use. No one is saying Israel is evil. You're making me laugh.
Lewrockwell.com, the internet mecca for TRUE Libertarians. They kind of hate Israel and blame them for all the ills of the world, as does Dr. Ron of course.
TRUE Libertarians would "let" (how good of them) the states decide? the states kind of do now. The Federal Government has laws in place for drug trafficking. Should we just "let" the people transport whatever the hell they want into whatever state they want and let the states sort it all out?
Note that I never said government should be abandoned altogether, and I specifically stated it would be a bad idea for police forces to be privatized.
You never said it. TRUE Libertarians however?
-
The Libertarian platform is for the most part unreasonable, specifically in relation to foreign policy. The idea that we can isolate ourselves and still provide for a national defense is based on an antiquated idea of warfare, and really, reality itself.
:lmao: Plenty of countries out there for you to go enjoy then.
The rest of your objections, with the exception of foreign policy, amount to you accepting "necessary evils" because it's OK with you. Big deal. What if it's not OK with me?
I'm already serving and have been since 1983.
You have your opinion. Now, Shut the **** up and get back to work.
-
What? explain yourself, please?
Well the Left and Liberaltarians share the belief that we don't need to be in Afghanistan OR Iraq. Both are pro abortion...drugs...prostitution anythat makes you feel good.
Both blame their own country for 9/11.
Neither party has a solid and sane financial policy.
A return to the Gold Standard? Really?
Shall I continue?
-
I'm already serving and have been since 1983.
You have your opinion. Now, Shut the **** up and get back to work.
And according to some of the more hard core Paulistas out there you've been illegally serving since 1983.
-
Well the Left and Liberaltarians share the belief that we don't need to be in Afghanistan OR Iraq. Both are pro abortion...drugs...prostitution anythat makes you feel good.
Both blame their own country for 9/11.
Neither party has a solid and sane financial policy.
A return to the Gold Standard? Really?
Shall I continue?
Your paranoid generalizations have me stumped, chum.
-
Your paranoid generalizations have me stumped, chum.
Paranoid Generalizations?
You're only stumped Buylly because you know they aren't paranoid and they aren't generalizations.
And you should remember enough about me from over at SCC to know that when I make statements like that...I can back them up.
-
Your paranoid generalizations have me stumped, chum.
Lewrockwell.com.
-
Michael J. Badnarik,former canditate for President is also a signer of the 9/11 truth statement.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
-
And I do, which doesn't place me in the Libertarian camp at all. I want the police keeping drunks and stoners off the road. I want the gov't saying only a man and a woman can be married. Like I said, they go too far for me.
.
I have a strong Libertarian leanings except for items like what you said above, I don't know exactly what I would categorize myself as. One item I can't get worked up about though is gay marriage. I have tried to understand the conservative/religious view on gay marriage and I just can't get that worked up about it. The government can't force a church to marry a gay couple and most people who are against gay marriage don't have a problem with civil unions which are basically marriage without the church with the exception of a few things that I think are important like tax exemptions, social security benefits when your partner dies, or being able to get on your partners health insurance plan (unless the company you work offers it), etc. I think the average person who is against gay marriage are against it because of religious reasons not because of tax exemptions, etc.
I haven't fully thought through my view on gay marriage yet but something bothers me deep down inside about the conservative view on this that I can't totally grasp yet. I consider myself a Christian but I still don't have any strong feelings against gay marriage. I guess what I'm saying is that I really don't care one way or another.
-
Your right on most of them even when I disagree.
Taxes for schools and hospitals? NOPE!!!
For throwing violent criminals in prison chains, YES
-
Libertarian principles I agree with: minimal (not zero) government, bare minimum taxes, no corporate welfare/subsidies.
Libertarian principles I disagree with: So-called "victimless" criminal activity, foreign policy, economic retardation (i.e., going back to gold standard), and **instant** abolition of IRS, elimination of Social Security, etc. The latter activities would only be able to take place over decades, at the very least.
I disagree with them far more than I agree with them, for many of the same reasons pointed out by others--more leftist than conservative beliefs. To sum it up, Judge Learned Hand said it best, and I've used it often:
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.
-
I'm already serving and have been since 1983.
Awesome, I'm grateful for your sacrifice. Let's leave it at that: a sacrifice through service. This whole "I'd make you ****ers serve for two years," meme is borderline retarded just on its face. "Make you serve." :lmao:
You have your opinion. Now, Shut the **** up and get back to work.
Don't be such a baby.
-
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow.
This is terribly, terribly true.
-
Awesome, I'm grateful for your sacrifice. Let's leave it at that: a sacrifice through service. This whole "I'd make you ****ers serve for two years," meme is borderline retarded just on its face. "Make you serve." :lmao:
Don't be such a baby.
Spare me your pathetic attempt at a contrite 'greatful' meme.
My thought is everyone should do two years of national service, period. You want to then off-set the cost of college, fine. Two years of your life to work on the country's needs doesn't sound retarded to me, ****nuts. You don't want to serve in the military? That's fine. We have a whole bunch more service related organizations for you. Maybe you could do two years in the Forestry Service? Or maybe in a social work role at a hospital? It would kind of depend on what you wanted to do. BUT- what it would do is give you a firm foundation in owning a piece of this nation, rather than expecting it to give you something.
Kids would be getting an education in the real world, working a real job. They'd be better prepared to go to college, or into the regular workforce at age 20 than at age 18. Plus, they may well have a bit of money socked away- not to mention experience.
But...that would mean putting something besides yourself first, wouldn't it?
-
Spare me your pathetic attempt at a contrite 'greatful' meme.My thought is everyone should do two years of national service, period. You want to then off-set the cost of college, fine. Two years of your life to work on the country's needs doesn't sound retarded to me, ****nuts. You don't want to serve in the military? That's fine. We have a whole bunch more service related organizations for you. Maybe you could do two years in the Forestry Service? Or maybe in a social work role at a hospital? It would kind of depend on what you wanted to do. BUT- what it would do is give you a firm foundation in owning a piece of this nation, rather than expecting it to give you something.Kids would be getting an education in the real world, working a real job. They'd be better prepared to go to college, or into the regular workforce at age 20 than at age 18. Plus, they may well have a bit of money socked away- not to mention experience.But...that would mean putting something besides yourself first, wouldn't it?
Isn't what you are advocating a form of paid involuntary servitude? (this is the argument I've seen in the past about it)
FWIW, I agree with you about 2 years serving the country, but I'd make it the military and not just general federal service.
I wouldn't want any young adult being forced to serve in one of Obama's pet projects.
-
Isn't what you are advocating a form of paid involuntary servitude? (this is the argument I've seen in the past about it)
FWIW, I agree with you about 2 years serving the country, but I'd make it the military and not just general federal service.
I wouldn't want any young adult being forced to serve in one of Obama's pet projects.
This is a much more civil and appropriate response than I would have mustered, and it illustrates why mandatory service in any capacity is reprehensible. Dutch, for all his bluster, just wants it for the good of the nation. Hell, think of the young men and the benefit to their development! I even agree that learning a trade and applying yourself as a young adult is a good thing. A mandate to do so is a far different thing. That you would qualify it by restricting it to only military service only means you approve of government compulsion to "serve" as long as purpose of the service is OK with you.
No dice, it's wrong. Love of country, dedication to something higher than yourself, responsibility, care for others; these are all good things. Admirable in nearly every instance I can think of. If you think government compulsion is the path to instilling them, then that's just so wrong it's sad. Reminds me of an earlier quote:
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow.
If you think for one second that mandatory, compulsory, at the end of a gun held by the United States government "service" of any sort were to gain a foothold here, and not end up a tool for the idiotic or worse, then you haven't been paying attention at all.
-
the above two responses are why, in part, I am not a Libertarian.
-
This is a much more civil and appropriate response than I would have mustered, and it illustrates why mandatory service in any capacity is reprehensible. Dutch, for all his bluster, just wants it for the good of the nation. Hell, think of the young men and the benefit to their development! I even agree that learning a trade and applying yourself as a young adult is a good thing. A mandate to do so is a far different thing. That you would qualify it by restricting it to only military service only means you approve of government compulsion to "serve" as long as purpose of the service is OK with you.
No dice, it's wrong. Love of country, dedication to something higher than yourself, responsibility, care for others; these are all good things. Admirable in nearly every instance I can think of. If you think government compulsion is the path to instilling them, then that's just so wrong it's sad. Reminds me of an earlier quote:
If you think for one second that mandatory, compulsory, at the end of a gun held by the United States government "service" of any sort were to gain a foothold here, and not end up a tool for the idiotic or worse, then you haven't been paying attention at all.
Why do I get the sense of deja vu here? Didn't we just debate the draft?
-
Ah yes, we did -- the whole wrap myself in the Constitution, but don't you dare ask me to defend it argument. http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,37537.0/highlight,draft.html
Yet another nonsense argument of the Libertarians.
-
Ah yes, we did -- the whole wrap myself in the Constitution, but don't you dare ask me to defend it argument. http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,37537.0/highlight,draft.html
Yet another nonsense argument of the Libertarians.
It would seem that the basis for this "plank" is that since it would but one under the authority of a federal government that shouldn`t exist it must be eliminated from any thought.
Couple that with the fantasy that the military would only need to exist to defend against direct continental invasion one would not have a military of any size.
That this flies in the face of world realities and economics is notwithstanding but gives rise to the notion that terrorism is the result of our presence in the middle east and support of Israel.
-
Ah yes, we did -- the whole wrap myself in the Constitution, but don't you dare ask me to defend it argument. http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,37537.0/highlight,draft.html
Yet another nonsense argument of the Libertarians.
If anyone were talking about "asking," we wouldn't even be having a discussion. Dutch wants mandatory national service. Mandatory as in, compulsory, forced at the end of a gun held by the United States government. You agree?
-
the above two responses are why, in part, I am not a Libertarian.
Yes... you definitely come off more like a socialist or communist with the "everyone should be forced to serve" argument. Why can't you see that? You are active duty? You are supposed to be defending the right of the American people to be free to choose their own paths, be it annoyingly unpatriotic or willing to serve. WTF dude?? Oh, and to head off any controversy that I don't know what the f2ck I'm talking about, I've served my country, here and abroad, my ENTIRE life, from being a dependent of a 25 year veteran to working for the military since age 16. For me, unlike you it seems, it enforced my belief that Americans should be free from dictatorship.
Ah yes, we did -- the whole wrap myself in the Constitution, but don't you dare ask me to defend it argument. http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,37537.0/highlight,draft.html
Yet another nonsense argument of the Libertarians.
Er..No one is saying you can't ASK them to defend it.
-
Yes... you definitely come off more like a socialist or communist with the "everyone should be forced to serve" argument. Why can't you see that? You are active duty? You are supposed to be defending the right of the American people to be free to choose their own paths, be it annoyingly unpatriotic or willing to serve. WTF dude?? Oh, and to head off any controversy that I don't know what the f2ck I'm talking about, I've served my country, here and abroad, my ENTIRE life, from being a dependent of a 25 year veteran to working for the military since age 16. For me, unlike you it seems, it enforced my belief that Americans should be free from dictatorship.
Er..No one is saying you can't ASK them to defend it.
Active duty, enlisted when I was 17. 28 years and counting. Suck it bitch.
-
Active duty, enlisted when I was 17. 28 years and counting. Suck it bitch.
Um, yeah, about that...I'll pass. :not:
-
Bully, you ever serve in uniform? That's a straight up, yes or no question.
-
Er..No one is saying you can't ASK them to defend it.
Oops, my bad..... force them to defend it. Read the thread I linked.
-
If anyone were talking about "asking," we wouldn't even be having a discussion. Dutch wants mandatory national service. Mandatory as in, compulsory, forced at the end of a gun held by the United States government. You agree?
Although I think Israel has a good military service program that involves the two year mandatory service, I would probably pass on this. I would like to keep our military voluntary unless necessary to draft.
-
For the record, public school honor societies mandate community service.... oh the horror.
-
For the record, public school honor societies mandate community service.... oh the horror.
Not at all. They are children and therefore subject to dictatorship. :hyper:
-
Not at all. They are children and therefore subject to dictatorship. :hyper:
Very true. :-)
-
Public school honor societies mandate community service therefore let's have the government mandate national service? What the **** is going on here?
Look, I'll concede. You guys are totally right about this compulsory, civilian national service idea. Just come up with a catchy name like the Civilian National Defense Corps or Civilian National Service Corps, something along those lines. I'm sure everything will be fine, especially since the government is running it. It's for the children!
-
Public school honor societies mandate community service therefore let's have the government mandate national service? What the **** is going on here?
Look, I'll concede. You guys are totally right about this compulsory, civilian national service idea. Just come up with a catchy name like the Civilian National Defense Corps or Civilian National Service Corps, something along those lines. I'm sure everything will be fine, especially since the government is running it. It's for the children!
Didn't say that, but you need to rant so have at it.
-
Didn't say that, but you need to rant so have at it.
Why would you offer up such nonsense as a defense?
-
Chump: I have a right to life, liberty and all things me with someone else ensuring I maintain that right.
Sounds a wee bit leftist to me sport.
-
Why would you offer up such nonsense as a defense?
As a defense? no. Simply pointing out that mandatory service is infused into our very public society on some levels.
-
Very true. :-)
My son's school system has mandatory community service for all students, not just honor society. It's a graduation requirement.
-
My son's school system has mandatory community service for all students, not just honor society. It's a graduation requirement.
we should do that in our District. I think it is good for the students, who are kind of pampered for the most part.
-
My son's school system has mandatory community service for all students, not just honor society. It's a graduation requirement.
Quite a few colleges are requiring it now.
-
Quite a few colleges are requiring it now.
I know most of the private schools are (especially the Catholic and Jesuit Colleges). I didn't know that state colleges were too, which is very interesting and good.
-
Chump: I have a right to life, liberty and all things me with someone else ensuring I maintain that right.
Sounds a wee bit leftist to me sport.
formerlurker, dutch, et al: The government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for a period of time, because we think it's a good idea.
Sounds bat-shit crazy fascist to me.
As a defense? no. Simply pointing out that mandatory service is infused into our very public society on some levels.
I wouldn't hold up anything about the public school system as a defense of anything, to me at least. But while we're at it... You're talking about children in school while I'm talking about government compulsion as a matter of course in how it treats its citizens. You're comparing apples and purple.
-
Spare me your pathetic attempt at a contrite 'greatful' meme.
My thought is everyone should do two years of national service, period. You want to then off-set the cost of college, fine. Two years of your life to work on the country's needs doesn't sound retarded to me, ****nuts. You don't want to serve in the military? That's fine. We have a whole bunch more service related organizations for you. Maybe you could do two years in the Forestry Service? Or maybe in a social work role at a hospital? It would kind of depend on what you wanted to do. BUT- what it would do is give you a firm foundation in owning a piece of this nation, rather than expecting it to give you something.
Kids would be getting an education in the real world, working a real job. They'd be better prepared to go to college, or into the regular workforce at age 20 than at age 18. Plus, they may well have a bit of money socked away- not to mention experience.
But...that would mean putting something besides yourself first, wouldn't it?
Works for me.
-
formerlurker, dutch, et al: The government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for a period of time, because we think it's a good idea.
Sounds bat-shit crazy fascist to me.
Where did I say that?
I wouldn't hold up anything about the public school system as a defense of anything, to me at least. But while we're at it... You're talking about children in school while I'm talking about government compulsion as a matter of course in how it treats its citizens. You're comparing apples and purple.
Point too complicated to grasp?
You don't want to serve your country. We all totally get it. Stop trying to validate it by wrapping the Constitution around your argument as the Consitution is just a piece of paper if there is no force behind it to enforce it. Perhaps Obama should throw the keys to Germany and Japan with many apologies... so sorry, the war was an illegal one as we drafted soldiers to fight it. Here take our country as we retained it with misbegotten means.
-
Quite a few colleges are requiring it now.
It's a really great thing, because the kids can choose whatever they want to concentrate on, it has to be approved by their homeroom teachers but there is no predesignated list of approved services. One kid volunteers at the little league snack bar, another in the community garden, another at the nursing home where her relative is. I think it shows kids you can give back to your community and have it be a fun experience. It doesn't have to feel oppressive to help others.
Chump: sorry to bring the school service up. I realize it's slightly veering off topic but I do feel it is related somewhat. My point is that if we raise our children to appreciate community service and country, they may feel compelled to serve it as adults. If we take responsibility for our children they won't 'need' the government to 'rule' them as adults because they'll be making their own decisions to give back to the community or serve their country.
-
Works for me.
It works for me too. As long as it's voluntary.
-
The mandatory thing isn't a good option.
But there are plenty of incentives that can sweeten any national community service activity.
To be clear, I absolutely advocate the idea of service. You can't have served in a uniform for an extended period and not believe that.
But in the interest of less government intrusion into my life, I can't see mandating such service.
Incentives are the answer. Such that any kid who isn't already strung out on meth or coke or isn't already in jail couldn't possibly pass up a deal like 50% paid tuition for 4 years for 2 years of national service of some type.
Or something along those lines.
-
Where did I say that?
Point too complicated to grasp?
You don't want to serve your country. We all totally get it. Stop trying to validate it by wrapping the Constitution around your argument as the Consitution is just a piece of paper if there is no force behind it to enforce it. Perhaps Obama should throw the keys to Germany and Japan with many apologies... so sorry, the war was an illegal one as we drafted soldiers to fight it. Here take our country as we retained it with misbegotten means.
Lol, Germany? Japan? Illegal wars? This has precisely nothing to do with the idea that the government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for any period of time. Your position is indefensible in a free society. So, instead, you go on about me not wanting to serve my country, yet more nonsense.
Do you guys like the idea of a Civilian National Security Corps, as "well-funded as the military?" Do you relish the idea of the government mandating that you buy health insurance? I seem to remember quite a bit of outrage expressed at this site over those very ideas, yet you're arguing for the same intellectual foundation responsible for producing those ideas. Apparently, with you, "it's OK when we do it."
No, it's not.
-
The mandatory thing isn't a good option.
But there are plenty of incentives that can sweeten any national community service activity.
To be clear, I absolutely advocate the idea of service. You can't have served in a uniform for an extended period and not believe that.
But in the interest of less government intrusion into my life, I can't see mandating such service.
Incentives are the answer. Such that any kid who isn't already strung out on meth or coke or isn't already in jail couldn't possibly pass up a deal like 50% paid tuition for 4 years for 2 years of national service of some type.
Or something along those lines.
Sure, I can get behind that. I hate the idea of yet more government funds being redirected to helping people do what they already should be doing, but whatever. I'll take that over government compulsion any day of the week.
-
Lol, Germany? Japan? Illegal wars? This has precisely nothing to do with the idea that the government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for any period of time. Your position is indefensible in a free society. So, instead, you go on about me not wanting to serve my country, yet more nonsense.
Do you guys like the idea of a Civilian National Security Corps, as "well-funded as the military?" Do you relish the idea of the government mandating that you buy health insurance? I seem to remember quite a bit of outrage expressed at this site over those very ideas, yet you're arguing for the same intellectual foundation responsible for producing those ideas. Apparently, with you, "it's OK when we do it."
No, it's not.
I believe formerlurker is on record as being "nay" on the mandatory service issue.
-
I believe formerlurker is on record as being "nay" on the mandatory service issue.
I read it as mandatory military service: no. Mandatory national service of some other sort: yes.
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.
-
It works for me too. As long as it's voluntary.
Then it doesn't work for you because making it voluntary defeats the purpose.
But then you already knew that didn't you bully.
What mandatory service would do is give some of these young punks coming out of H.S. and college these days...a much better appreciation for what this country is...has to offer and stands for.
Not to mention it would show them in some very realistic terms just how full of sh8t their professors and teachers are that have been shoveling them a load of crap known as the Socialist utopia.
-
I read it as mandatory military service: no. Mandatory national service of some other sort: yes.
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.
dutch said...and I agree...that it doesn't have to be military.
-
dutch said...and I agree...that it doesn't have to be military.
I know, I was referencing formerlurker's position on whether or not it be mandatory, regardless of the actual service performed.
-
Then it doesn't work for you because making it voluntary defeats the purpose.
But then you already knew that didn't you bully.
What mandatory service would do is give some of these young punks coming out of H.S. and college these days...a much better appreciation for what this country is...has to offer and stands for.
Not to mention it would show them in some very realistic terms just how full of sh8t their professors and teachers are that have been shoveling them a load of crap known as the Socialist utopia.
Not sure if there's a personal jab in there somewhere, but whatever. You are much more valid than I because your service is active and mine civilian. ::)
I just can't get over the fact that you and dutch are appalled by the idea of a "socialist utopia" yet you want to force people into service. WTF?
-
For the record, public school honor societies mandate community service.... oh the horror.
And while you're at it, don't forget the requirements to become an Eagle Scout.
-
I know, I was referencing formerlurker's position on whether or not it be mandatory, regardless of the actual service performed.
If at some point it's not mandatory...all we're doing is creating more generations of X-Box playing lazy people who think everything should just be given to them.
It would be a Liberal wet dream.
-
formerlurker, dutch, et al: The government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for a period of time, because we think it's a good idea.
Sounds bat-shit crazy fascist to me.
"You take the king's gold, you do the king's bidding."
Seems to me that if we did in fact have more people in public service (and it doesn't have to be military), there would be a great deal more appreciation for the function of the government, even more for the people, and even an incentive for the goverment to do LESS, not more.
-
Not sure if there's a personal jab in there somewhere, but whatever. You are much more valid than I because your service is active and mine civilian. ::)
I just can't get over the fact that you and dutch are appalled by the idea of a "socialist utopia" yet you want to force people into service. WTF?
That's because we actually want people to work for what they have versus living and dying under the belief that the Government is there to provide for them from cradle to grave.
Socialist Utopias are cradle to grave propositions that is what dutch and I are against.
If you apply some gray matter to what we're saying...it's really not that hard to understand.
-
"You take the king's gold, you do the king's bidding."
Seems to me that if we did in fact have more people in public service (and it doesn't have to be military), there would be a great deal more appreciation for the function of the government, even more for the people, and even an incentive for the goverment to do LESS, not more.
Especially when they realized just how much the Government was taking from their paychecks and how little they were getting in return for it.
-
"You take the king's gold, you do the king's bidding."
Seems to me that if we did in fact have more people in public service (and it doesn't have to be military), there would be a great deal more appreciation for the function of the government, even more for the people, and even an incentive for the goverment to do LESS, not more.
You took the words right out of my hands. :cheersmate:
-
If at some point it's not mandatory...all we're doing is creating more generations of X-Box playing lazy people who think everything should just be given to them.
It would be a Liberal wet dream.
So how about this: instead of creating yet more government bureaucracy, spending more, compelling citizens to involuntary servitude, we just stop giving stuff to lazy people. You're bemoaning the effects of a welfare state, and instead of dissolving entitlement bullshit, you'd rather expand government and force people to "serve" in any capacity you approve of. Seriously, wtf is up with that?
-
So how about this: instead of creating yet more government bureaucracy, spending more, compelling citizens to involuntary servitude, we just stop giving stuff to lazy people. You're bemoaning the effects of a welfare state, and instead of dissolving entitlement bullshit, you'd rather expand government and force people to "serve" in any capacity you approve of. Seriously, wtf is up with that?
Consider, Chump--by putting younger folks to work doing "grunt" stuff, we get rid of the permanent GS-4's, -5's, etc., who are little more than human cholesterol, pulling down a welfare check in the guise of being a "civil servant". Seems to me that by paring down the permanent government employment rolls, that goes a long way to what we both seem to be seeking--smaller, less intrusive, more responsive government.
-
Consider, Chump--by putting younger folks to work doing "grunt" stuff, we get rid of the permanent GS-4's, -5's, etc., who are little more than human cholesterol, pulling down a welfare check in the guise of being a "civil servant". Seems to me that by paring down the permanent government employment rolls, that goes a long way to what we both seem to be seeking--smaller, less intrusive, more responsive government.
Sparky I would be behind you except for two points:
1. A government intrusion into your life, compelling you to national service involuntarily, is not a smaller government by any means. By even putting the idea forth, it allows that the government has the capacity to do that in the first place. It makes a bloated behemoth even larger.
2. Government is inefficient in nearly every instance. Those worthless public servants you mentioned would still be on the payroll, even if they were redundant. Hell, they're redundant now by and large and they're still around, right?
This idea places far too much faith in government management that there simply is no basis for in reality. This site has loads and loads of examples of well-intentioned government bullshit that ends up being just that: bullshit.
-
"You take the king's gold, you do the king's bidding."
Seems to me that if we did in fact have more people in public service (and it doesn't have to be military), there would be a great deal more appreciation for the function of the government, even more for the people, and even an incentive for the goverment to do LESS, not more.
Appreciation? Maybe. Resentment? Most definitely.
Seems to me that by paring down the permanent government employment rolls, that goes a long way to what we both seem to be seeking--smaller, less intrusive, more responsive government.
I also agree that the civilian payroll is bloated and inefficient. Too many people doing too little for too long. Proven when they tried to implement a pay-for-performance system and people were practically jumping off buildings in terror...that they may be held accountable to earn what they were paid. I for one was all for it! (And this is coming from a civilian payrollee.)
-
I read it as mandatory military service: no. Mandatory national service of some other sort: yes.
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.
If you read my damned post you would have seen that's exactly what I said. BUT- you didn't read it and went off on a tangent.
dumbass.
-
If you read my damned post you would have seen that's exactly what I said. BUT- you didn't read it and went off on a tangent.
dumbass.
I know that's your position, because I read your post. But, if you read my post, you'd know I was asking in reference to formerlurker's position.
So, you can have this back, dumbass.
-
I know that's your position, because I read your post. But, if you read my post, you'd know I was asking in reference to formerlurker's position.
So, you can have this back, dumbass.
Oh. well, then....carry on.
dumbass.
-
Oh. well, then....carry on.
dumbass.
:cheersmate:
-
As a defense? no. Simply pointing out that mandatory service is infused into our very public society on some levels.
Like jury duty as one example.
-
Not sure if there's a personal jab in there somewhere, but whatever. You are much more valid than I because your service is active and mine civilian. ::)
I just can't get over the fact that you and dutch are appalled by the idea of a "socialist utopia" yet you want to force people into service. WTF?
Socialist utopia is now equil to national service?
Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.
However, I did not say that all property should be held in common. I said that all should complete two years of national service, in a field of their own choosing, afterwhich they would be rewarded with compensation for continued education. That is the socialist utopia which you think I meant?
The United Federation of Planets in the popular television series Star Trek is depicted as a socialist utopia where there is no money, no want, no poverty, no crime, no disease or ignorance in human society; a large corruption-free state/military apparatus that serves society's best interests, and virtually everyone works for the advancement of all humanity as well as the rest of the Federation.
where as Star Trek may well be a ronulan wet dream, I don't think you believe I call for: no money, no want, no poverty, no crime, no disease or ignorance in human society; a large corruption-free state/military apparatus that serves society's best interests, and virtually everyone works for the advancement of all humanity.
6 of 9 was smoking, though...
(http://www.pinkraygun.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/jeri_ryan-7of9_005.jpg)
-
Lol, Germany? Japan? Illegal wars? This has precisely nothing to do with the idea that the government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for any period of time. Your position is indefensible in a free society. So, instead, you go on about me not wanting to serve my country, yet more nonsense.
Do you guys like the idea of a Civilian National Security Corps, as "well-funded as the military?" Do you relish the idea of the government mandating that you buy health insurance? I seem to remember quite a bit of outrage expressed at this site over those very ideas, yet you're arguing for the same intellectual foundation responsible for producing those ideas. Apparently, with you, "it's OK when we do it."
No, it's not.
I already said no to that, and you made your position very clear on the draft in your other thread. You don't want to serve and that has everything to do the topic.
-
I read it as mandatory military service: no. Mandatory national service of some other sort: yes.
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.
Yeah you are wrong, and you know you are as I debated you on the draft in the other thread.
-
I already said no to that, and you made your position very clear on the draft in your other thread. You don't want to serve and that has everything to do the topic.
You caught me being consistent. But you still throw around words like "want" in a discussion about government compulsion. If it was simply a matter of wanting to serve, in any capacity, there wouldn't even be a discussion.
-
You caught me being consistent. But you still throw around words like "want" in a discussion about government compulsion. If it was simply a matter of wanting to serve, in any capacity, there wouldn't even be a discussion.
:whatever:
The draft is Constitutional.
-
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.
-
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,37537.150.html
-
The draft is a form of slavery that presumes we are all owned by government.
-
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,37537.150.html
I am not sure what that proves other then you think it is a diversion from answering the direct question I asked.
-
I am not sure what that proves other then you think it is a diversion from answering the direct question I asked.
The link is to a thread where the draft is specifically debated. I believe mandatory community service including military service as well as Libertarinism is what this thread is concentrating on.
-
The link is to a thread where the draft is specifically debated. I believe mandatory community service including military service as well as Libertarinism is what this thread is concentrating on.
The issue was still brought up here and is a plank in the party platform.
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
http://www.lp.org/platform
-
The issue was still brought up here and is a plank in the party platform.
Can any of the people who object to this platform explain why they feel we need to do otherwise? I feel for other countries who can't muster their own power but honestly, America's teat is sore enough from our own suckling. If we stopped offering "aid" in the form of intervention and occupation these countries would either man up or social evolution would naturally occur. Either way, really not our problem. Our problems should be our focus.
At the very least, we should limit our intervention to aiding countries that are truly being massacred by bullies.
-
Can any of the people who object to this platform explain why they feel we need to do otherwise? I feel for other countries who can't muster their own power but honestly, America's teat is sore enough from our own suckling. If we stopped offering "aid" in the form of intervention and occupation these countries would either man up or social evolution would naturally occur. Either way, really not our problem. Our problems should be our focus.
At the very least, we should limit our intervention to aiding countries that are truly being massacred by bullies.
It is simply hopeless dreaming and not trying to be sarcastic.
We have national security and economic concerns world wide.
To suggest otherwise or that if we abandoned that to a strictly within our borders existence yet all else will be as we know it is not realistic.
I wish that more of Europe would look to its own defense but that is beyond our control to make happen or at the least to have an honest and realistic discussion of what the impact on our country and economy (regarding trade) would be.
-
we abandoned that to a strictly within our borders existence yet all else will be as we know it is not realistic.
I wish that more of Europe would look to its own defense but that is beyond our control to make happen or at the least to have an honest and realistic discussion of what the impact on our country and economy (regarding trade) would be.
If I never housetrained my dog she'd still be poopin' behind the lazy boy. If I trained her, yet she continued to poop behind the lazy boy, she'd no longer be "my dog." Fact is, I just can't stand poop.
That said, I realize it's quite more complicated than that. I don't believe we can be as isolationist as Ron Paul would like, for example. However, I believe that any impact on our country and economy would be balanced by keeping more business at home. Is there really so much (for the sake of brevity in subject, let's leave oil out of this) that we need from the rest of the world, that we can't do for ourselves? On the most basic level, I for one can do without being slowly poisoned by China.
-
Sorry, Sherry--this is 2010, not 1810. Most of the raw materials we depend upon to run our economy come from overseas. They're simply not found in sufficient quantities within our borders. "Keeping more business at home" means little in this day and age, aside from sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the bad guys won't notice us.
-
Sorry, Sherry--this is 2010, not 1810. Most of the raw materials we depend upon to run our economy come from overseas. They're simply not found in sufficient quantities within our borders. "Keeping more business at home" means little in this day and age, aside from sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the bad guys won't notice us.
Okay, which raw materials come from well behaved nations, and which don't? Let's just trade with nice people, whaddya say? I'd rather have an effective trade embargo than an occupation.
-
Okay, which raw materials come from well behaved nations, and which don't? Let's just trade with nice people, whaddya say? I'd rather have an effective trade embargo than an occupation.
Sure, if you don't mind turning back the clock a century, maybe a century and a half. Make the Great Depression look like a picnic. Whoopie!
-
Can any of the people who object to this platform explain why they feel we need to do otherwise? I feel for other countries who can't muster their own power but honestly, America's teat is sore enough from our own suckling. If we stopped offering "aid" in the form of intervention and occupation these countries would either man up or social evolution would naturally occur. Either way, really not our problem. Our problems should be our focus.
At the very least, we should limit our intervention to aiding countries that are truly being massacred by bullies.
I already have. You dissagree. End of logical discussion.
-
If I never housetrained my dog she'd still be poopin' behind the lazy boy. If I trained her, yet she continued to poop behind the lazy boy, she'd no longer be "my dog." Fact is, I just can't stand poop.
That said, I realize it's quite more complicated than that. I don't believe we can be as isolationist as Ron Paul would like, for example. However, I believe that any impact on our country and economy would be balanced by keeping more business at home. Is there really so much (for the sake of brevity in subject, let's leave oil out of this) that we need from the rest of the world, that we can't do for ourselves? On the most basic level, I for one can do without being slowly poisoned by China.
Fair enough on the keeping business at home..what is the economic impact of that alone.
What will be the change in the costs of goods?
How will that affect our standards of living,disposable income?
What will the divestment in foreign companies or USA companies that have foreign plants do to 401Ks etc?
-
Socialist utopia is now equil to national service?
It is to those that don't understand the true meaning of what a Socialist Utopia is.
-
I am not sure what that proves other then you think it is a diversion from answering the direct question I asked.
It's not a diversion because I answered you and provided you a link to that debate. We can have the same discussion in two different places if you'd prefer. I rather think the issue of mandatory national service, whether or not it be military-based, is different than the issue of the draft. It does have its place here; as you said this thread is on the Libertarian platform in general.
So, to that end, what is your position on compulsory national service outside of a draft situation? You can further qualify it by differentiating between compuslory service in a military or civil setting.
-
It's not a diversion because I answered you and provided you a link to that debate. We can have the same discussion in two different places if you'd prefer. I rather think the issue of mandatory national service, whether or not it be military-based, is different than the issue of the draft. It does have its place here; as you said this thread is on the Libertarian platform in general.
So, to that end, what is your position on compulsory national service outside of a draft situation? You can further qualify it by differentiating between compuslory service in a military or civil setting.
No,you have never answered what means a military would be staffed if a draft was not an option and enlistment rates were not meeting required manpower needs to fight an enemy.
On edit..
To say that national service is a different matter is making a distiction without a difference in its basic premise.
-
Sure, if you don't mind turning back the clock a century, maybe a century and a half. Make the Great Depression look like a picnic. Whoopie!
Yeah, because war and lead poisoning are so 21st century!
-
No,you have never answered what means a military would be staffed if a draft was not an option and enlistment rates were not meeting required manpower needs to fight an enemy.
On edit..
To say that national service is a different matter is making a distiction without a difference in its basic premise.
There are no means to staffing a military outside of voluntary enlistment. So, once again, the answer to your question is: none.
You are right that the premise is the same in both discussions, which is why you'll find me consistently against both the draft, and any other sort of compulsory national service mandated by the government. I was willing to make a distinction to provide some clarity, but placing the two issues side by side only hurts your position.
Am I to take your response as meaning that you are both for the draft and for some other sort of compulsory national service, whether it be military or civil?
-
There are no means to staffing a military outside of voluntary enlistment. So, once again, the answer to your question is: none.
You are right that the premise is the same in both discussions, which is why you'll find me consistently against both the draft, and any other sort of compulsory national service mandated by the government. I was willing to make a distinction to provide some clarity, but placing the two issues side by side only hurts your position.
Am I to take your response as meaning that you are both for the draft and for some other sort of compulsory national service, whether it be military or civil?
Then the natural conclusion to your position is as I stated...
The government has a Constitutional mandate and responsibility to protect the freedom and liberty afforded by that Constitution.
The government has no power or ability to ensure it has the means to do that.
Result...defeat or surrender to an enemy.
As I said two mutually opposing beliefs yet held together with no regards to the inevitable conclusion.
I am in favor of a draft if needed simply because the Constitution does mandate or assume the existence of a military force.
The constitutionality of a draft in light of that has been tested and adjudicated.
A national non military compulsive service would be in addition or would have to find its constitutionality elsewhere if challenged.
As far as the premise then again it is a matter of the merits or needs of such and of that I am of no real opinion having given it no thought really.
I am inclined to think it may however have a positive impact on todays society if it helps instill a sense of order and responsibility that the welfare system has destroyed in our inner cities.
-
Yeah, because war and lead poisoning are so 21st century!
Not even that Bully.
More like fiscal and foreign policy that would take us back to the pre WWI years.
-
Not even that Bully.
More like fiscal and foreign policy that would take us back to the pre WWI years.
It doesn't have to. It's possible to reinvent the wheel sometimes.
-
Then the natural conclusion to your position is as I stated...
The government has a Constitutional mandate and responsibility to protect the freedom and liberty afforded by that Constitution.
The government has no power or ability to ensure it has the means to do that.
Result...defeat or surrender to an enemy.
As I said two mutually opposing beliefs yet held together with no regards to the inevitable conclusion.
Do you not see the contradiction in your own assertions? Certainly, the government has the responsibility of national security; it's primary role is a protector of rights, to put it in its simplest terms. Therefore, the government has the power to maintain an army, for that obvious end: the protection of the rights of its citizens. In denying the rights of its citizens, there is no logical way you can claim the government is protecting those rights. Round and round we go, and we end up with the same, inescapable fact: you cannot protect a right by denying it. Going with your hypothetical, barbarians at the gates and all, then a plurality of citizens who refuse to rise and protect themselves will, appropriately, no longer be able to exercise their right to liberty. Those who fight will most likely die if the odds are so overwhelming. But, of course, you have to go to this extreme end, because most people shy away from the thought of government compulsion in any form, and rightly so. In your hypothetical, is there any difference between life under either aggressor or victim? Both governments are ostensibly denying the right to liberty.
I am in favor of a draft if needed simply because the Constitution does mandate or assume the existence of a military force.
The constitutionality of a draft in light of that has been tested and adjudicated.
A national non military compulsive service would be in addition or would have to find its constitutionality elsewhere if challenged.
Again, I'm well aware that the law exists. Whether or not its reasonable is exactly what we're discussing. You're essentially taking the stance that because someone(s) else said so, it is. That's lazy, intellectually, and taking that stance might have even put off the end of segregation, to name one example.
As far as the premise then again it is a matter of the merits or needs of such and of that I am of no real opinion having given it no thought really.
I am inclined to think it may however have a positive impact on todays society if it helps instill a sense of order and responsibility that the welfare system has destroyed in our inner cities.
As you said earlier, there is no way to make a distinction between the two issues. If your premise is that the government has the capacity to compel men to mandatory service in the event of a draft, then there is no way to deny that it can do so for any other reason it deems as a "great need." You're providing an intellectual foundation for any government compulsion, so long as SCOTUS says it's OK. We've already seen the folly of that sort of thinking on the issues of abortion, slavery, voting rights, and prohibition, to name a few.
ETA: Should we really see how far the logical conclusion of your premise takes us under this administration, with this Congress, and when Obama gets to appoint another justice to SCOTUS?
-
There are no means to staffing a military outside of voluntary enlistment. So, once again, the answer to your question is: none.
I should add here that we've in the past relied on our allies and even mercenaries when need was so great, so the answer is not "none."
As I've said earlier in this thread, George Washington himself held his nose and specifically exempted conscientious objectors from draft orders. Why do you think that is? Was he wrong to do so?
-
Do you not see the contradiction in your own assertions? Certainly, the government has the responsibility of national security; it's primary role is a protector of rights, to put it in its simplest terms. Therefore, the government has the power to maintain an army, for that obvious end: the protection of the rights of its citizens. In denying the rights of its citizens, there is no logical way you can claim the government is protecting those rights. Round and round we go, and we end up with the same, inescapable fact: you cannot protect a right by denying it. Going with your hypothetical, barbarians at the gates and all, then a plurality of citizens who refuse to rise and protect themselves will, appropriately, no longer be able to exercise their right to liberty. Those who fight will most likely die if the odds are so overwhelming. But, of course, you have to go to this extreme end, because most people shy away from the thought of government compulsion in any form, and rightly so. In your hypothetical, is there any difference between life under either aggressor or victim? Both governments are ostensibly denying the right to liberty.
Again, I'm well aware that the law exists. Whether or not its reasonable is exactly what we're discussing. You're essentially taking the stance that because someone(s) else said so, it is. That's lazy, intellectually, and taking that stance might have even put off the end of segregation, to name one example.
As you said earlier, there is no way to make a distinction between the two issues. If your premise is that the government has the capacity to compel men to mandatory service in the event of a draft, then there is no way to deny that it can do so for any other reason it deems as a "great need." You're providing an intellectual foundation for any government compulsion, so long as SCOTUS says it's OK. We've already seen the folly of that sort of thinking on the issues of abortion, slavery, voting rights, and prohibition, to name a few.
There is no contradiction in my assertions as the government has the Constitutional mandate to protect ALL its citizens from enemies of the liberty that was set out by it.
The notion that requiring its able bodied in time of attack to defend it does not infringe on ones rights any more then any other law does.
You have determined in your mind it does to justify your belief but to suggest it is constitutional is a stretch.
Guess if it ever happens where one is enacted you can challenge it again if you want but likely will meet the same conclusion in the courts.
Your attempts to say that since there have been and are bad decisions made by the SCOTUS over our history means this one is inherently bad or to say that agreement with it is lazy is a strawman.
First it is the system put in place by the Constitution and has for the most part been fairly accurate in its application,especially when using a constructionist viewpoint.
When the nation has determined that a change needs to be made then the means proscribed has been used..amendments.
SCOTUS has determined that conscription is Constitutional via the mandate of providing a military.
Like it or not that does settle the matter unless you can convince another court to overturn it or have an amendment passed that expressly forbids it.
I happen to agree with their reasoning so have no interest in doing either but don`t accuse me of being lazy simply because I would reach the same conclusions as the court did.
-
There is no contradiction in my assertions as the government has the Constitutional mandate to protect ALL its citizens from enemies of the liberty that was set out by it.
The notion that requiring its able bodied in time of attack to defend it does not infringe on ones rights any more then any other law does.
You have determined in your mind it does to justify your belief but to suggest it is constitutional is a stretch.
Wait, I thought you were saying that compulsory, mandated service is a necessary evil, more or less. Now you're saying it's not even an infrigement on the basic right of liberty? How could it be anything less? If the government has a Constitutional mandate to protect individual rights, then certainly it's failed in meeting that responsibility when it denies the individual right to liberty. Even if it is just the "able-bodied," they are still unable to dispose of their lives as they see fit. Whether or not they actually desire to go to war (as I believe a vast majority of those drafted have) is beside the point.
Your attempts to say that since there have been and are bad decisions made by the SCOTUS over our history means this one is inherently bad or to say that agreement with it is lazy is a strawman.
First it is the system put in place by the Constitution and has for the most part been fairly accurate in its application,especially when using a constructionist viewpoint.
When the nation has determined that a change needs to be made then the means proscribed has been used..amendments.
The bolded is a true strawman and does not resemble a single argument I've made. I've said, summarizing, that holding up a positive Supreme Court decision as evidence that the draft is reasonable is insufficient. If you believe it to be sufficient, then you also believe abortion rights are reasonable and the idea of segregation was reasonable before Brown v Board of Education. We're discussing whether or not their moral judgment is reasonable, and you're pointing out that they did, in fact, make a moral judgment. That fact is already conceded by even having this discussion.
SCOTUS has determined that conscription is Constitutional via the mandate of providing a military.
Like it or not that does settle the matter unless you can convince another court to overturn it or have an amendment passed that expressly forbids it.
I happen to agree with their reasoning so have no interest in doing either but don`t accuse me of being lazy simply because I would reach the same conclusions as the court did.
That's not why I said your position was intellectually lazy. I said it because you're claiming SCOTUS as the source of your moral judgments on the matter, not your own reason. I could similarly quote Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and many others and ask you to defend against their arguments. I'd prefer to use my own reasoning, even if it leads me to their same conclusions.
Continuing, I've raised some questions that have yet to be addressed even in passing.
George Washington specifically exempts conscientious objectors from draft orders...was he wrong, especially in a time when success on the battlefield relied heavily on manpower?
In the spirit of hypotheticals, Obama declares war on Israel after Israel finally defends itself fully and bombs Iran back into the Stone Age. The draft is instituted (fighting a war with a nuclear power, grave threat, etc.). Reasonable?
-
Wait, I thought you were saying that compulsory, mandated service is a necessary evil, more or less. Now you're saying it's not even an infrigement on the basic right of liberty? How could it be anything less? If the government has a Constitutional mandate to protect individual rights, then certainly it's failed in meeting that responsibility when it denies the individual right to liberty. Even if it is just the "able-bodied," they are still unable to dispose of their lives as they see fit. Whether or not they actually desire to go to war (as I believe a vast majority of those drafted have) is beside the point.
The bolded is a true strawman and does not resemble a single argument I've made. I've said, summarizing, that holding up a positive Supreme Court decision as evidence that the draft is reasonable is insufficient. If you believe it to be sufficient, then you also believe abortion rights are reasonable and the idea of segregation was reasonable before Brown v Board of Education. We're discussing whether or not their moral judgment is reasonable, and you're pointing out that they did, in fact, make a moral judgment. That fact is already conceded by even having this discussion.
That's not why I said your position was intellectually lazy. I said it because you're claiming SCOTUS as the source of your moral judgments on the matter, not your own reason. I could similarly quote Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and many others and ask you to defend against their arguments. I'd prefer to use my own reasoning, even if it leads me to their same conclusions.
Continuing, I've raised some questions that have yet to be addressed even in passing.
George Washington specifically exempts conscientious objectors from draft orders...was he wrong, especially in a time when success on the battlefield relied heavily on manpower?
In the spirit of hypotheticals, Obama declares war on Israel after Israel finally defends itself fully and bombs Iran back into the Stone Age. The draft is instituted (fighting a war with a nuclear power, grave threat, etc.). Reasonable?
You can prattle on from now to eternity with what your interpretation of things are.
To me it is ludicrous and on the same lines as saying that since highways are built and maintained by public funds and I pay taxes therefore I have a right to use them without restriction.
To that end a drivers licence,speed limits,rights of way are all an infringement on my self proclaimed "liberty"
Beyond just me I think you will find your concepts to be considered ludicrous to a vast majority of the public and Constitutional scholers.
You can equate a decision on the constitutionality of conscription with Roe v Wade if it makes you feel good but the military is a specified part of the Constitution so interpretation of the legality of a draft was likely in the light of a mandate to provide a military.
Roe v Wade was a divined right to privacy by a Court not interested in the actual wording of the Constitution.
That is more along the lines of what you are doing not me.
-
I'm not a libertarian, but I'm starting to like Glenn Beck...these days, he's the only person that makes sense on television.
I'll take a small "L" libertarian-(conservative) like Glenn Beck over a douche bag like Bill O'Reilly any day.
If Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity are not on TV, I'll turn it off...
-
Yeah, because war and lead poisoning are so 21st century!
The ability to wage war is quite different.
-
George Washington specifically exempts conscientious objectors from draft orders...was he wrong, especially in a time when success on the battlefield relied heavily on manpower?
Voluntary inlistments [sic] seem to be totally out of the question; all the allurements of the most exorbitant bounties and every other inducement, that could be thought of, have been tried in vain, ... some other mode must be concerted, and no other presents itself, that of filling Regiments by drafts from the Militia. This is a disagreeable alternative, but it is an unavoidable one.
- George Washington, Letter to the Committee of Congress with the Army: Headquarters (Jan. 29, 1778), in THE WRITING OF GEORGE WASHINGTON FOR THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT SOURCES 366 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1931-1944)).
-
Voluntary inlistments [sic] seem to be totally out of the question; all the allurements of the most exorbitant bounties and every other inducement, that could be thought of, have been tried in vain, ... some other mode must be concerted, and no other presents itself, that of filling Regiments by drafts from the Militia. This is a disagreeable alternative, but it is an unavoidable one.
- George Washington, Letter to the Committee of Congress with the Army: Headquarters (Jan. 29, 1778), in THE WRITING OF GEORGE WASHINGTON FOR THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT SOURCES 366 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1931-1944)).
Nice job with the research, lurker. Are you saying that Washington did NOT exempt conscientious objectors from enlisting? Just curious.
-
Nice job with the research, lurker. Are you saying that Washington did NOT exempt conscientious objectors from enlisting? Just curious.
I really can't find anything to support it from a credible source, however it is mentioned at several sites that at the beginning he did try to offer them exemption - they had to pay to be exempt however. I am sure Chump would have no problem with writing a check to remain free from the draft. :-)
-
I really can't find anything to support it from a credible source, however it is mentioned at several sites that at the beginning he did try to offer them exemption - they had to pay to be exempt however. I am sure Chump would have no problem with writing a check to remain free from the draft. :-)
Yeah, he does appear to be adamant with his government-restricting-my-liberty meme.
My own take on all that is quite simple -- if I'm called to go, I go. I don't get wrapped around the philosophy of it all because that's why I hire the elected officials who collectively make that call. Chump calls it "intellectual laziness". I call it accepting the call of my country.
It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
Chump believes that when the bastards are overrunning your property and threatening to shoot up your house, it's time to circle the wagons. It's too late at that point. And as you clearly have demonstrated, not all of our citizenry is all that warm 'n fuzzy about even defending their homes. So a responsible government, regrettably, has to set up a system whereby it can defend itself from not just the enemy, but laziness and failure to recognize the threat from its own citizenry. I call that being responsible, but Chump believes it's a major offense in his life, though he's not served a single day in uniform.
I still maintain that those who serve, irrespective of their motivations for serving, gradually understand the value of service through that service and appreciate the level of sacrifice that occurs. We become stronger that way, more responsible, and yes, in some cases, far less tolerant of those who cash in on the very freedoms that somebody else served, fought, and died for.
But Chump is resolute. That's fine. Others are just as resolute. We arrive at an impasse.
It's time to eat some popcorn and I have a phone conference to take part in.
:popcorn:
-
It doesn't have to. It's possible to reinvent the wheel sometimes.
And are you willing to pay that kind of price?
I'm guessing you can't even begin to imagine the cost, which is why you're so friggin eager to jump into that shitpile head first.
-
And are you willing to pay that kind of price?
I'm guessing you can't even begin to imagine the cost, which is why you're so friggin eager to jump into that shitpile head first.
I asked the same question a couple pages back and not surprisingly never saw an answer to the specifics of the impact the dream would have.
-
Eupher, a responsible government is formed to protect the rights of its citizens. It cannot exercise that power by denying the rights of its citizens and still be called responsible.
But you're right, I'm resolute, as are you. Witness where your premise has led, though. Dutch wants mandatory national service for two years, and IIRC you are against a mandate of that sort. I am, as well, but I'm the only one that has any grounds to say why. You can't claim the right to dispose of your life as you see fit, because you believe that right can be negated if the need is great. From your premise, all the government has to do is attach a tag to mandatory national service that says, "needed for the greater good," and your rights become meaningless.
-
Eupher, a responsible government is formed to protect the rights of its citizens. It cannot exercise that power by denying the rights of its citizens and still be called responsible.
But you're right, I'm resolute, as are you. Witness where your premise has led, though. Dutch wants mandatory national service for two years, and IIRC you are against a mandate of that sort. I am, as well, but I'm the only one that has any grounds to say why. You can't claim the right to dispose of your life as you see fit, because you believe that right can be negated if the need is great. From your premise, all the government has to do is attach a tag to mandatory national service that says, "needed for the greater good," and your rights become meaningless.
And it's only as responsible as the people involved who demand such.
-
And it's only as responsible as the people involved who demand such.
And so we witness the slow degradation of the greatest economic, industrial, and military superpower ever on the face of this planet. The responsible people are drowned out by the apathetic, demanding their "gimmes."
-
And are you willing to pay that kind of price?
I'm guessing you can't even begin to imagine the cost, which is why you're so friggin eager to jump into that shitpile head first.
My attention span has officially jumped the rail on this. Distracted by featherdancing kittehs. Carry on if you must! :hyper:
-
And it's only as responsible as the people involved who demand such.
Which is a good reason to say no.
-
Eupher, a responsible government is formed to protect the rights of its citizens. It cannot exercise that power by denying the rights of its citizens and still be called responsible.
But you're right, I'm resolute, as are you. Witness where your premise has led, though. Dutch wants mandatory national service for two years, and IIRC you are against a mandate of that sort. I am, as well, but I'm the only one that has any grounds to say why. You can't claim the right to dispose of your life as you see fit, because you believe that right can be negated if the need is great. From your premise, all the government has to do is attach a tag to mandatory national service that says, "needed for the greater good," and your rights become meaningless.
This is where we part company, Chump. A government is formed for many reasons, not just the reason you keep harping on, namely that it's "formed to protect the rights of its citizens".
A government also represents the people and, as such, it has an obligation to protect itself through its people. As a government is an entity (though it's staffed by people), it cannot defend itself unless it calls on its people both proactively and reactively. (We get into trouble when the government forgets the "proactive" part and becomes "reactive.")
I also disagree with you when you say you're the only one who can articulate why a national service mandate is a bad idea. I'm saying it's a bad idea for a number of reasons:
1. Such a mandate increases the size of government to administer, direct, and enforce the mandate. As government is already bloated beyond comprehension, that mandate does not serve us well.
2. An inevitable fight would ensue due to a perceived conflict with the laws against posse comitatus. This may sound silly, but much energy would be expended in trying to convince a skeptical electorate that a "national service" initiative wouldn't turn into the current administration's personal armed guard. Don't laugh - plenty has been said about Obama and his "thoughts" on such matters.
3. This mandate actually attempts to legislate morality and personal responsibility. This is where Dutch has it wrong. While I appreciate his POV and understand it completely in that, like him, I've seen all manner of dirtbag people who cannot, as a result of their service to themselves only, cannot seem to get their heads out of their asses. From my perspective, this is DIRECTLY attributed to a decided lack of both a sense of responsibility to community and a sense of duty to others. Most young people I've worked with have no sense of teamwork, no sense of obligation to others, and are utterly selfish. Those who have served in uniform and have once again immersed themselves in civilian life know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. But in the end, this kind of morality and sense of personal responsibility cannot be legislated by the government. It must come from within.
In the end, I recognize that I am one of 300 million people in this country. If it's necessary for me to give my life in the defense of my country or its interests, I'm prepared to do that. You say you're prepared to do the same, but you're unwilling to let go of the power that actually makes that decision.
So with you, Chump, it isn't the right of self-determination nearly as much as it's got to be your call. You have to have the power and the authority.
Those of us who have served recognize that we are not always best placed to make those judgments. We therefore allow our elected leaders and officers appointed over us to make those decisions. (Words like that go into the various oaths that we take, so I wouldn't expect you to know about that or understand it.)
In short, I choose to climb down off my high horse and work for the common good. You seem to have a problem with that.
Based on my comments above, you'll note that I am exercising my right to self-determination. I am making decisions that are mine to make and not the government's. I am freely stepping aside and am putting my trust in others. That's the essence of teamwork and of sacrifice.
-
Eupher, a responsible government is formed to protect the rights of its citizens. It cannot exercise that power by denying the rights of its citizens and still be called responsible.
But you're right, I'm resolute, as are you. Witness where your premise has led, though. Dutch wants mandatory national service for two years, and IIRC you are against a mandate of that sort. I am, as well, but I'm the only one that has any grounds to say why. You can't claim the right to dispose of your life as you see fit, because you believe that right can be negated if the need is great. From your premise, all the government has to do is attach a tag to mandatory national service that says, "needed for the greater good," and your rights become meaningless.
If we were involved in a large scale battlefield conflict and needed to conscript and we lost the war, the citizens lose their rights under victory of the opposing country.
It's like saying a hypothetical war with China doesn't need a draft, because it's unfair to citizens rights and if we lost that war, your whole argument is negated by the fact that our protected citizens are now living under the flag of Chinese communists.
That being said, I disagree with Dutch. I like a volunteer military unless engaged in a war which needs a draft for victory.
On a slightly unrelated note, what I think our military really needs is major tech upgrades, not universal military service ...we need to start converting our military into plasma/laser riflles + laser anti-missle/air systems , satelite/space warfare (Reagan's star wars, etc.), robotics and power armor.
We are not as backwards on these technologies as some might think we are.
-
If we were involved in a large scale battlefield conflict and needed to conscript and we lost the war, the citizens lose their rights under victory of the opposing country.
It's like saying a hypothetical war with China doesn't need a draft, because it's unfair to citizens rights and if we lost that war, your whole argument is negated by the fact that our protected citizens are now living under the flag of Chinese communists.
If you "need" a draft (assuming that government owns its people like cattle), then maybe the government is too unpopular to survive and should be replaced by something else.
-
If you "need" a draft (assuming that government owns its people like cattle), then maybe the government is too unpopular to survive and should be replaced by something else.
I don`t believe that government owns us but I do believe that each of us who enjoy the freedom,liberty and prosperity this country has provided (until O is done with it anyways) has a responsibility to protect and defend that which we have benefited from.
The government is the organizer and controller of the means to do that,the military.
It would seem having an orderly flow into the the military,presuming a crisis,rather then a call where for a while there may be more then can be processed and trained or another time too few would be beneficial.
That speaks only to the merits not whether it is allowable under the Constitution.
I have never been in the military as there was no draft when I came of age (would have gone if there was) nor any conflicts that were testing the manpower levels.
The merits of conscription beyond that I would leave to them that have experience with the subject,just a thought on that matter.
In case anyone wonders and thinks it is easy for me to say this at my age because I won`t get drafted I would extend service to include someone that could be utilized for some purpose even if it wasn`t on a front line as long as physically able.
That would include me and if in some support such as repairing vehicles or whatever there still would be an element of danger as it may be targeted.
-
Which is a good reason to say no.
No to service? Quite the opposite--if more people knew how their government operated in its current form, the outrage would force, yes, FORCE fundamental change in how government functions. As it is, we're a nation who basically doesn't give a shit as long as the proverbial trains run on time. While I'm normally loathe to quote liberal bumper stickers, it is pretty much true that people aren't outraged because they're simply not paying attention.
-
It doesn't have to. It's possible to reinvent the wheel sometimes.
Have you NOT read anything that Ron Paul has said he wants to do? Did you NOT pay attention to him in the debates?
The only wheel he and 99.9% of the Liberaltarians want to "re-invent" is made of wood with 10 spokes and is encased in an iron hoop.
-
My attention span has officially jumped the rail on this. Distracted by featherdancing kittehs. Carry on if you must! :hyper:
Color me shocked. :whatever:
Faced with answering a question that requires a modicum of thought...Bully runs away.
-
If you "need" a draft (assuming that government owns its people like cattle), then maybe the government is too unpopular to survive and should be replaced by something else.
Really? Did you read what you said before you hit enter?
-
Really? Did you read what you said before you hit enter?
You read my mind.
"Oh look, endless Chinese communist infantry heading our way."
"We can't have a draft, if we lose then it is our destiny to become communists."
-
You read my mind.
"Oh look, endless Chinese communist infantry heading our way."
"We can't have a draft, if we lose then it is our destiny to become communists."
How about raise the pay level? There are other ways to raise an army without resorting to chattel slavery.
-
How about raise the pay level? There are other ways to raise an army without resorting to chattel slavery.
..or they could give away cool appliances like banks used to do.
-
How about raise the pay level? There are other ways to raise an army without resorting to chattel slavery.
How much money would it take to be an incentive to enlist in a war where millions could die?
Then multiply that by millions.
-
How about raise the pay level? There are other ways to raise an army without resorting to chattel slavery.
Dude--have you seen base pay levels lately? I came in as an E-3 when the base pay was $695/mo. By the time I hit my first boat (E-4 over 2), my base was $877/mo, plus $230/mo for sea/sub/nuke pay. $1100 a month for 300 days a year at sea--18-20 hour days, whether in port or at sea. By the time I got out (E-6 over 12) it was $2010 base, I wasn't making sea/sub/nuke pay, but maybe $1000/mo for BAQ/VHA/Comrats.
Fast forward to today. Were I still in, assuming I made E-7 or E-8 (but let's just stick with E-7), my base would be $4283, sea/sub/nuke pay would be at least $1400, and we're not including BAQ/VHA or any reenlistment bonus (not that there would be SRB at this point.)
So we're talking nearly 6K a month PLUS housing allowance, medical, dental, commissary privileges, etc., etc. Fed, state, and SSI taxes are only taken out on pay, not allowances, and SSI is only taken from base pay.
Don't get me wrong--I know when I was on AD I earned EVERY DAMNED DIME I made. But to say those who serve are chattel slaves is quite inaccurate, to put it kindly. If we don't like it, we're free to leave when our enlistments are up--nobody owns us, skippy.
-
I think the draft was being discussed. Another reason we son't need it is that if there is such a major crisis I think volunteers will show up in very large numbers.
-
I think the draft was being discussed. Another reason we son't need it is that if there is such a major crisis I think volunteers will show up in very large numbers.
Once again, incorrect. Even in WWII, over 70 percent of those in uniform were drafted.
-
I think the draft was being discussed. Another reason we son't need it is that if there is such a major crisis I think volunteers will show up in very large numbers.
No- this started when I said I believe national service should be a requirement for everyone. The libertarians jumped in and declared that I am everything from unconstitutional to pro-slavery. Libertarians are the type of people who complain they are not able to smoke heroin when they want but complain if they are asked to provide service to the heroin industry to help dry leaves.
Liberatarians are the type of people why complain that the country isn't safe, then complain that they should have to be dafted to protect it.
Libertarians are the type of people who say the constitution says the government should stay out of their lives, yet complain if support is slow in an emergency.
As I said in my first post- I am not a libertarian because:
This is not a debate on the merits of the libertarian 'party' but my personal beliefs. You, and everyone else, have about as much sway in how I feel as Ron Paul does in getting my vote for toliet cleaner in Las Vegas.
-
No- this started when I said I believe national service should be a requirement for everyone. The libertarians jumped in and declared that I am everything from unconstitutional to pro-slavery.
When government forces people to National Service you'll have high schools assigned to work at abortion clinics and banned from church-related organizations, as an example. There is no way in the world people owe this government years of their lives.
-
When government forces people to National Service you'll have high schools assigned to work at abortion clinics and banned from church-related organizations, as an example. There is no way in the world people owe this government years of their lives.
oh...and I'm not a libertarian because it's full of dumbassed ****s with weak strawman arguementation skills.
-
oh...and I'm not a libertarian because it's full of dumbassed ****s with weak strawman arguementation skills.
There are states that require "public service" to graduate. There was a girl who refused to "volunteer" at an abortion clinic and they refused to change the assignment. They did not give her a diploma. This was in Maryland I believe, and I think she got into Rutgers anyway.
-
There are states that require "public service" to graduate. There was a girl who refused to "volunteer" at an abortion clinic and they refused to change the assignment. They did not give her a diploma. This was in Maryland I believe, and I think she got into Rutgers anyway.
and yet-
that isn't at all like what I spoke about.
-
Once again, incorrect. Even in WWII, over 70 percent of those in uniform were drafted.
I am truly curious what the stats are as to how many of those drafted were packing their bags before they ever even got a letter. What percentage of that 70% were dragged "kicking and screaming?"
-
I am truly curious what the stats are as to how many of those drafted were packing their bags before they ever even got a letter. What percentage of that 70% were dragged "kicking and screaming?"
Thats what we need libtards who want to shoot their superior and flee a battlefield.