The draft

[Chump]

Wish to God they left the original version, as edited above. Life could be very different.

Agreed.  The 'pursuit' part throws hippies for a loop.  They just see 'happiness' and start drooling.

[Carl]

Yes, that semantic argument that ends up your last resort.  And it all hinges on what 'raise' means.  Combining it with the equally weak argument of, "it exists as law, therefore it is reasonable," does not double the strength of either argument.

As to your question: alternative to what?  Certain annihilation from mortal threat?  Every man, woman, and child should rise to meet that threat, willingly and forcefully.  What alternative is there?  Certainly, if the government must compel men to defend their very lives, then the only one committing an act of self-defense is the government.

Enough of this nonsense...you want a discussion then do not try to play idiotic word games.
You know damned well what I was asking and are just trying to cover the fact you have no answer for the inherent contradiction and weak argument you have put forth.

My statement...

We are back to the method of raising,building,fielding,whatever word you want to use.
It has determined at times a draft is required for that and been judiacally reviewed.

In lieu of that then what do you propose as a means and if not sufficient an alternative?

If you are too dense to not understand that basic question of presenting an alternative then you are an idiot.
I don`t think you are but you are clearly trying to redefine everything to suit yourself or deflect from the fact that you cannot argue anything continuously.

Now answer the direct and obvious question I posed if you can.

[Chump]

Enough of this nonsense...you want a discussion then do not try to play idiotic word games.
You know damned well what I was asking and are just trying to cover the fact you have no answer for the inherent contradiction and weak argument you have put forth.

My statement...

If you are too dense to not understand that basic question of presenting an alternative then you are an idiot.
I don`t think you are but you are clearly trying to redefine everything to suit yourself or deflect from the fact that you cannot argue anything continuously.

Now answer the direct and obvious question I posed if you can.

Playing word games?  Your entire argument hinges on one word: 'raise.'  And I'm playing word games?  You want me to believe that the founding fathers, who created an entire system of government with some of the most clear and concise language imaginable, who predicated their beliefs on the premise that man has an inalienable right to life, these men left it up to the definition of 'raise' to define what they intended to be conscription and government disposal of man's inalienable right to life?  No sir, that is one hell of a word game that I am not playing.

Why do you care about being asked to clarify your question?  I would want to be, and try to be, as clear as possible.  Just because you didn't like my answer does not make it any less of an answer.  We have a volunteer military, and it's the best in the world partly due to that very reason.  Your question amounts to, "what if enough people don't volunteer to fight a mortal threat?"  And my answer is: welcome to the dustbin of history.  The other alternative is that the government compels men to dispose of their right to life (fight) against their will.  In that scenario, the government is the entity fighting for its right to exist at the expense of its citizen's right to life.  Welcome to statism.

[Chump]

If you are too dense to not understand that basic question of presenting an alternative then you are an idiot.
I don`t think you are but you are clearly trying to redefine everything to suit yourself or deflect from the fact that you cannot argue anything continuously.

Just as a humorous aside, this is a good example of a contradiction.  If I am an idiot who didn't understand the question, then you actually do think that I am, in fact, an idiot!

But seriously dude, I've been making my case clearly, consistently, and civilly (within reason) against how many of you now for 9 pages and counting.  Let's not start calling my ability to argue continuously into question, deal?

[Carl]

Playing word games?  Your entire argument hinges on one word: 'raise.'  And I'm playing word games?  You want me to believe that the founding fathers, who created an entire system of government with some of the most clear and concise language imaginable, who predicated their beliefs on the premise that man has an inalienable right to life, these men left it up to the definition of 'raise' to define what they intended to be conscription and government disposal of man's inalienable right to life?  No sir, that is one hell of a word game that I am not playing.

Why do you care about being asked to clarify your question?  I would want to be, and try to be, as clear as possible.  Just because you didn't like my answer does not make it any less of an answer.  We have a volunteer military, and it's the best in the world partly due to that very reason.  Your question amounts to, "what if enough people don't volunteer to fight a mortal threat?"  And my answer is: welcome to the dustbin of history.  The other alternative is that the government compels men to dispose of their right to life (fight) against their will.  In that scenario, the government is the entity fighting for its right to exist at the expense of its citizen's right to life.  Welcome to statism.

Once again when confronted with a corner you have backed yourself into you try to pretend to either not understand the question asked of you,attempt to reframe the discussion,redefine words or statements to mean something other then what is obvious and then say "I am being so clear".

Here you go then in a way anyone older then a 5 year old should understand.

You have stated that the government has a constitutional duty to protect our rights and freedoms.
When asked how the government is supposed to do that you responded with a military.

The entire premise of this thread has been that the the government can not legally compel anyone to serve as it denies their right to life.

When asked then how the government can provide (maybe you will try to quibble with that word too) the military you have said is their responsibility you refuse to answer.
Once again then..In what ways can the government provide,create,field,establish,build or any other damn word that means the same thing a military?
If the situation is such that a 100% volunteer military is not providing the needed manpower to do its duty of protecting our rights and freedoms then in what way can it get that manpower if conscription isn`t constitutional?
Or at that point should surrender be the option?

Those are direct questions based on your statements and the ramifications that your position would bring.
Answer them or indeed there is no point of this thread and it should be locked as you are being deliberately obtuse to not have to deal with what the results of your untenable premise is.

For clarity...

What is the means the military should use to gain manpower?

If a draft isn`t allowable and a volunteer system is falling short of needed forces what is done then?

If you can`t provide a answer then this is nothing more then any other troll thread.

[Carl]

In that scenario, the government is the entity fighting for its right to exist at the expense of its citizen's right to life.  Welcome to statism.

Yet you say it is the governments duty to provide military protection to ensure your rights and freedoms but if it needs bodies to do that then it is statism?

You have a convoluted sense of thinking which as shown cannot be reconciled with reality.
In short you have decided you are not willing to serve so you construct a mythical super principle of your right to life as being supreme to justify it and then have to hold a dozen contradictory beliefs in your head to maintain it.

[formerlurker]

No it's not.  For all your lecturing, you should know that the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is asserted in the Declaration of Independence, and is not mentioned in the Constitution.

True -- my error, I look to both as one and the same. 

But look, if you want to continue asserting that the draft is reasonable because it does, in fact, exist as a law, then by all means continue.  I'm thankful that had you been having this conversation with Mr. Heller before he brought his case before the courts in D.C. v Heller, he would have rightly told you to go pound sand.  Similarly, never, ever complain about abortion again.  It's the law.

The draft is reasonable?  the draft is Consitutional.    I personally have no issue with the draft.    Your comparisons to abortion are bizarre and really have no place in this argument.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Secure the blessing of liberty.   Such a powerful statement which pretty much makes your "reasonable" argument rather silly.

   

[formerlurker]

Back to the beginning of this thread before it morphed several times:

DAT, it's really difficult for me to believe that I'm reading things like, "It is the nature of government that it must protect the whole over the individual parts, which essentially means the parts are expendable at need in order to preserve the whole," on a conservative political forum.  But, there they are.  The only proper function of government is to protect individual rights.  Essentially, your view asserts that the government, or nation, or society, or "whole," has the right to survive while, and by, denying that very right to its individual citizens!  If the individual does not have the right to life, then it is tautology that the government also does not have that right, unless we're talking about a statist dictatorship (and I am not).  You even allude to this idea when you qualify government disposal of the lives of its citizens as good if done sparingly, and bad if done excessively.  Who decides how many people's lives should be disposed of before it becomes excessive?  I say one is enough, so we're at an impasse.

While I clearly will never match your experience and knowledge of all matters military, I contend that the numerical strength of numbers available to commanders is a limiting variable.  In essence, war tactics should be designed with numbers in mind, not vice-versa.  Take my opinion for whatever it's worth on this particular subject.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Secure the blessings of liberty...  as for without it there are no individual rights.  Now how would we reasonably go about doing that?

[formerlurker]

Yet you say it is the governments duty to provide military protection to ensure your rights and freedoms but if it needs bodies to do that then it is statism?

You have a convoluted sense of thinking which as shown cannot be reconciled with reality.
In short you have decided you are not willing to serve so you construct a mythical super principle of your right to life as being supreme to justify it and then have to hold a dozen contradictory beliefs in your head to maintain it.

Volunteers, and if none then we loose our freedom and our Constitution.   

Although the authors of the Constitution found it clear to provide Congress the authority to raise an army, Chump finds it conflicting to what he believes the Constitution represents. 

Very reasonable right?
 

[formerlurker]

Going back through  this thread -- your response to Hamilton's commentary on raising armies (and his warning that even if a threat is not immediately present, the possibility is eternal):

In many cases, I would agree with you 100% that is craven and cowardly to refuse to serve your country when faced with a mortal threat.  But the rub is in the fact that my opinion holds no weight when we're discussing inalienable rights, namely, the right to life.

We face mortal threats every single day.   Perhaps you missed 9/11?   

[Carl]

Volunteers, and if none then we loose our freedom and our Constitution.    

Although the authors of the Constitution found it clear to provide Congress the authority to raise an army, Chump finds it conflicting to what he believes the Constitution represents.  

Very reasonable right?
 

That is why I want him to state what the ramifications of his premise should be.
I will go out on a limb and predict now that he wont but will continue his pattern of dodging and circular arguments where you take one position one time and another a different one.

He has already alluded to what we all know the outcome to be.

And my answer is: welcome to the dustbin of history.

In essence Chump has stated that he considers his "right to life" so supreme that defeat,surrender and capitulation to an enemy are acceptable to preserve it even if that comes at the expense of the loss of freedoms or life for his fellow citizenry.

[Chump]

Carl:

"If the situation is such that a 100% volunteer military is not providing the needed manpower to do its duty of protecting our rights and freedoms then in what way can it get that manpower if conscription isn`t constitutional?"

~It can't.  That's my entire point throughout this thread.  A Constitutional duty to protect the rights of its citizens does not entitle the government to deny the rights of its citizens.  That should be so clear.  If the citizens who formed together a government to protect their inalienable rights refuse to also provide the means to protect those rights, then so long folks.

"Or at that point should surrender be the option?"

~Heck if I know.  The government can go ahead and surrender at that point, in your scenario.  I wouldn't.  Would you?

Now, I've answered your questions plainly and to the best of my ability, so please answer one of mine.

Can the government protect your right to life by denying your right to life?

[Chump]

True -- my error, I look to both as one and the same. 

The draft is reasonable?  the draft is Consitutional.    I personally have no issue with the draft.    Your comparisons to abortion are bizarre and really have no place in this argument.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Secure the blessing of liberty.   Such a powerful statement which pretty much makes your "reasonable" argument rather silly.

They're very appropriate, because what you're telling me is that because the draft law exists, it is therefore reasonable.  I didn't only apply this view to abortion.  I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall while you were arguing from this stance with Mr. Heller of D.C. v. Heller.

Seriously, never complain again about any law that you feel is unjust.

As with Carl, I've answered your questions plainly and to the best of my ability, so please answer two of mine.

Can the government protect your right to life by denying your right to life?

Prior to SCOTUS ruling on D.C. v. Heller, was the gun ban enacted by Washington D.C. reasonable in your opinion?

Continuing, let's look at what you quoted:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Simply put, if no one volunteers to, well, provide for the common defense, then clearly the very premise that the Constitution is based on is out the window.  How can the government secure the Blessings of Liberty by denying the basis for them?

[Chump]

That is why I want him to state what the ramifications of his premise should be.
I will go out on a limb and predict now that he wont but will continue his pattern of dodging and circular arguments where you take one position one time and another a different one.

Let's look at my premise:

The government cannot protect my inalienable rights by denying my inalienable rights.  It reads the same as, the government cannot protect your inalienable rights by denying my inalienable rights.

The ramifications of that are, personal liberty, freedom, and limited government power.  I think these are all good things, and I hope you do too.

He has already alluded to what we all know the outcome to be.
In essence Chump has stated that he considers his "right to life" so supreme that defeat,surrender and capitulation to an enemy are acceptable to preserve it even if that comes at the expense of the loss of freedoms or life for his fellow citizenry.

I consider my right to life so supreme that I would die before giving it up.  I would much rather die than live under a government that denies my very right to life in the first place.  And, I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't agree.  If the entire country refuses to volunteer and fight a mortal threat then all is lost anyway.  In that scenario, the state is existing purely for the sake of the state, and nothing else.

[Carl]

You continue to talk in obtuse circles that only make rational sense to you...

A Constitutional duty to protect the rights of its citizens does not entitle the government to deny the rights of its citizens

It has to have a military but cannot do anything to man that military.
That is not clear or principled.
I can`t help if it somehow makes sense to you but it doesn`t to anyone else.

You then say your right to life is so supreme you would die fighting for it (huh) then also say that you cannot be compelled to though.
You seem to operate under the presumption that 100 % of the citizenry is capable of fighting on the front lines of conflict.
This is foolishness as that is impossible for age and other reasons so what of their rights?
They simply don`t count and should be forced to accept the defeat and consequences handed to them by a generation of like minded as you that has for decades been called on to defend the Nation.

There is no escape the obvious no matter how much you wish to live in a world of make believe so as to satisfy your concience.
We may agree on all other matters political but I have no respect whatsoever for you as a citizen of this country.
You are selfish and don`t deserve the freedom you live in that others before you have willingly fought to preserve.
You have it still so enjoy it and I hope to God our country never has to hope you are the best it can rely on to preserve our freedoms and rights.

[Chump]

Now, I've answered your questions plainly and to the best of my ability, so please answer one of mine.

Can the government protect your right to life by denying your right to life?

[Carl]

The denying your right to life is a construction of your mind.
If it was a 100% guarantee then it might be a point but since it isn`t it is not a valid argument.

[Chump]

You continue to talk in obtuse circles that only make rational sense to you...

It has to have a military but cannot do anything to man that military.
That is not clear or principled.
I can`t help if it somehow makes sense to you but it doesn`t to anyone else.

This would be meaningful if I had ever even implied that the government "cannot do anything to man that military."  I'm saying that among the many options available to the government, compulsion through threat of force is not one of them.

You then say your right to life is so supreme you would die fighting for it (huh) then also say that you cannot be compelled to though.

Why is this so confusing?  In one instance, my right to life is threatened by an external, mortal threat.  In the other, it's threatened by an internal, mortal threat.  In both cases, my right to life is threatened.  You cannot compel me to protect my right to life by...threatening my right to life.  Talk about circular logic.

You seem to operate under the presumption that 100 % of the citizenry is capable of fighting on the front lines of conflict.
This is foolishness as that is impossible for age and other reasons so what of their rights?

What of them?  Are they protected at the expense of my own?  Am I your slave, or the state's?

They simply don`t count and should be forced to accept the defeat and consequences handed to them by a generation of like minded as you that has for decades been called on to defend the Nation.

In all the arguing I've done here, I've not once said anyone should be forced to accept anything.  I've argued the exact opposite.  Address that argument, not one you've made up for me.

There is no escape the obvious no matter how much you wish to live in a world of make believe so as to satisfy your concience.
We may agree on all other matters political but I have no respect whatsoever for you as a citizen of this country.
You are selfish and don`t deserve the freedom you live in that others before you have willingly fought to preserve.
You have it still so enjoy it and I hope to God our country never has to hope you are the best it can rely on to preserve our freedoms and rights.

You are right that I am selfish on this point.  Why would I fight in the first place?  Because I want to enjoy my freedoms!  That you continue to enjoy yours is a result of me fighting for my own in the first place.  As to the rest, I could not care less, because we do not agree on all other matters political if you're of the mindset that the inalienable right to life is subject to the whim of the government.

[Chump]

The denying your right to life is a construction of your mind.
If it was a 100% guarantee then it might be a point but since it isn`t it is not a valid argument.

So then you disagree with the very premise that compulsion through threat of force to dispose of your life amounts to denying your right to life.

It could not be more plain.  The risk of dying is irrelevant.  If the draft entailed government compulsion through threat of force to walk up and down a set of stairs for two hours, it is still immoral and unreasonable, at least in a society that calls itself free.

[Carl]

This would be meaningful if I had ever even implied that the government "cannot do anything to man that military."  I'm saying that among the many options available to the government, compulsion through threat of force is not one of them.
Yet you refuse to state what those options are when asked.
Why is this so confusing?  In one instance, my right to life is threatened by an external, mortal threat.  In the other, it's threatened by an internal, mortal threat.  In both cases, my right to life is threatened.  You cannot compel me to protect my right to life by...threatening my right to life.  Talk about circular logic.

What of them?  Are they protected at the expense of my own?  Am I your slave, or the state's?
In all the arguing I've done here, I've not once said anyone should be forced to accept anything.  I've argued the exact opposite.  Address that argument, not one you've made up for me.

You are right that I am selfish on this point.  Why would I fight in the first place?  Because I want to enjoy my freedoms!  That you continue to enjoy yours is a result of me fighting for my own in the first place.  As to the rest, I could not care less, because we do not agree on all other matters political if you're of the mindset that the inalienable right to life is subject to the whim of the government.

You have just answered every possible question one could wonder about you and your soul.
Thank you for finally proving yourself to be a blithering idiot.
I am done with you and you can rot in hell as far as I am concerned.
Your precious life is so important that one of the foundations of this country isn`t worth it...fighting not just for your own freedom but for that of everyone else too.

[Carl]

So then you disagree with the very premise that compulsion through threat of force to dispose of your life amounts to denying your right to life.

It could not be more plain.  The risk of dying is irrelevant.  If the draft entailed government compulsion through threat of force to walk up and down a set of stairs for two hours, it is still immoral and unreasonable, at least in a society that calls itself free.

I am denying the premise that it is a certainty which it must be for your point to have any validity.
Once more you think you can determine the definition of things to suit you and you cannot.
Now I am done with you as I just posted...you have proved yourself not worth any consideration.
Live as your own nation in your simple mind.

[Chump]

I am denying the premise that it is a certainty which it must be for your point to have any validity.

Ok Carl.  Government coercion is cool with you as long as you're not guaranteed to die as a result.  I can't say I agree, but I'll damn sure respect your right voice your opinion.

[vesta111]

That is why I want him to state what the ramifications of his premise should be.
I will go out on a limb and predict now that he wont but will continue his pattern of dodging and circular arguments where you take one position one time and another a different one.

He has already alluded to what we all know the outcome to be.
In essence Chump has stated that he considers his "right to life" so supreme that defeat,surrender and capitulation to an enemy are acceptable to preserve it even if that comes at the expense of the loss of freedoms or life for his fellow citizenry.

 

Well said.

Much said about our rights in this country, what America owes us.  I have yet to hear what our duty's are to DESERVE these rights other then being born on this soil.

Other then paying taxes, our country expects very little from its citizens except to live in peace with each other.

When the government sends out a draft notice it is not absolute, one may be 4-F or in a position where the country will benefit more from them working as a civilian.

It is not just the government we need to repay for our freedom it is the millions who came before us and gave their lives so we today can live with our family's a safe and secure life.  We owe it to their gift of their lives to do the same if called upon to do for our  own family's  that are here only by their sacrifice, and those friends we care about.

Few men will run out of a burning home and abandon their children inside.  Complete strangers will face the heat and flames to rescue at their own risk of death  to save the children's lives. How anyone can just sit back and watch as their family's suffer and expect someone else to help them is total socopathic behavior.  When America is on fire, will be be faced with men that refuse to save their own family,   Sure they will then cry because they have a blister on their thumb.

When there is clear an present danger and the government needs anyone to protect and defend not only their own family and life but that of neighbor's "YOU CAN"T MAKE ME DIE FOR ANYONE ELSE,"    Have over tones of total lack of honor, dignity or the meaning of being a Human.

I believe that you are correct that no one can be ordered to die for their country and future generations.   Still men can run to Canada, men can shoot themselves in the foot, men can choose to go into the medical field or noncombatant positions due to their faith.

To simply refuse the draft because you think it could be dangerous to you, with no thought of or caring that others will consider one to be a COWARD and way beneath  the social scale of the kids, that at 18 sign up and spill their blood for your family.

Hell, there are quite a few men in their 50's in the National Guard that are years older then your own father.

Duty, everyones responsibility to society, if in the line of that duty an accident takes place and you die for any reason,  things happen.

Fighting a war -----bad things happen naturally,  it is a roll of the dice.   Darn it, one faces sudden death in the freaking bath tub.
 
As an old woman, an honerable death, is about as good as it gets.

Sure I could die in a nursing home from illnesses I myself brought on.   OR  I could die pulling a child out of the street as a cement truck is but feet from them.

It won't matter how I die to me, but for my family and friends, it will bring peace to know I passed doing the right thing even for a stranger.

If in fact the government came to my door requesting I learn to do without some of my pleasures in life to help the country, How could I say NO when my grandparents and parents have done so in order for MY future. Long before my parents were even thought of family were prepared to do what must be done for generations in the future.

Each child born is entitled to a life only as far as they can get as they struggle to fight off disease, and survive childhood.  All life carrys burdens, they have to eventually begin to look after those that brought them into the world.  Later they have to look after their own.  Somewhere in there they realise that they cannot survive if their comunity falls apart or over taken.

To refuse to go all out for God, Country, and Family, for either male or female is inconceivable to me.

RANT OVER----FOR NOW         
  







 

[formerlurker]

Carl:

"If the situation is such that a 100% volunteer military is not providing the needed manpower to do its duty of protecting our rights and freedoms then in what way can it get that manpower if conscription isn`t constitutional?"

It is constitutional.   SCOTUS has deemed it so.  The Constitution provides for SCOTUS resolve issues surrounding the interpretation of the Constitution.   "Raised" has been addressed.   You just don't like the answer. 

[formerlurker]

They're very appropriate, because what you're telling me is that because the draft law exists, it is therefore reasonable.  I didn't only apply this view to abortion.  I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall while you were arguing from this stance with Mr. Heller of D.C. v. Heller.

Seriously, never complain again about any law that you feel is unjust.

Um, whatever are you talking about?    SCOTUS wrote an opininion, which is their Constitutional authority to do so when the interpretation of the language of the Constitution is questioned.   

Law was questioned.  SCOTUS answered.

I have posted a SCOTUS case on SSS which clearly indicates their opinion on Congress's exclusive constitutional right to raise an army.  How about you actually go read that.   

Congress deems a draft as Constitutional and SCOTUS has upheld that.    There really is nothing more here aside from coffee shop banter which is not based in reality.