The draft

[formerlurker]

Raising an Army
Historically, during times of tension, America has often relied on volunteers to fight its wars. But, even in colonial times men were sometimes conscripted to serve in local militias (army of citizens called together in emergencies). Though colonies sent local militia troops to fight in the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), they denied George Washington's (1732–1799) request to gather a national army by conscription. The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1789, gave Congress the "power to raise and support armies" but it neither called for nor prohibited conscription.

Not until the American Civil War (1861–1865), did the need to maintain massive armies bring a taste of national conscription to America. In April of 1862, the Confederate Congress (Southern states) passed a conscription law requiring every white man aged eighteen to thirty-five to serve for three years. However, the law exempted men in certain occupations such as teachers, ministers, and overseers of large plantations. Congress followed with the Union Draft Law of 1863 making every male citizen between twenty and forty-five years of age subject to the draft. Avoiding the unpopular occupational exemptions allowed in the Confederate states, the Union (Northern) law allowed draftees to hire a substitute or pay $300 to escape service. Three hundred dollars was roughly equal to a worker's yearly wages.

In both the North and the South the principle behind the draft laws was the same. In a democracy when the security of a nation is in danger, every citizen has the duty to serve his country. On both sides a majority of citizens accepted the draft as necessary, but much opposition persisted. Many objected to exempting some men from the draft. Others claimed the draft was unfair to the poor because a man with money could hire someone else to fight for him or simply pay off his obligation. Draft riots broke out across the country with the worst occurring in New York City in July of 1863. Although very controversial, the draft laws were never tested in the Supreme Court. The legality of a national draft remained unchallenged until World War I.

.....

The Selective Draft Law Cases established the clear right of Congress to conscript citizens.

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/selective-draft-law-cases

[Eupher]

That's a great resource, lurker, but Chump is still arguing the basic premise - that the government doesn't have the right to do what the law says it can - "deprive" an individual of his/her inalienable right to his/her life.

It's a philosophical, pointless discussion that consumes many pages on this forum but accomplishes little else.

 

[Hawkgirl]

Ronald Reagan, writing in Human Events back in 1979, made a clear case against the draft:

Conscription rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.

America was founded on the principle of individual liberty — that the government exists to serve, not enslave, the people. Yet conscription is a form of slavery, a horrible and costly exception to America’s founding principle. It is morally repugnant to the ideals of a free society.

Without the draft, unpopular wars are very difficult to fight. The ability to use conscription actually encourages politicians to wage even more wars — the massive resources are a temptation that is hard for the war-lover to resist. When the draft was finally undermined in the 1970s, for example, the Vietnam War ended.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0801h.asp

[formerlurker]

In 1980 Carter resumed military draft registration.  Reagan extended it, and had his justice department prosecute those who did not comply.

[Hawkgirl]

In 1980 Carter resumed military draft registration.  Reagan extended it, and had his justice department prosecute those who did not comply.

So he changed his mind once he became President?  I hear GWB is against it as well.

[formerlurker]

I think it depends on the context.  GWB does not want a military of non-volunteers (nor does the DoD) if possible, however if China or Russia ever went over the deep end and declared war against us, there probably could be (and should be) a draft - I think all prior military, which is extensive, would be tapped first however.

[Carl]

So he changed his mind once he became President?  I hear GWB is against it as well.

What you are talking about now is the merits of a draft which is a matter of debate.
That is different then talking about the constitutional legitimacy of having one.

The merits of a draft may change as the circumstances change but the legitimacy of one as the Constitution allows does not.

[Hawkgirl]

What you are talking about now is the merits of a draft which is a matter of debate.
That is different then talking about the constitutional legitimacy of having one.

The merits of a draft may change as the circumstances change but the legitimacy of one as the Constitution allows does not.

My thoughts on the matter....

Is it desirable? No...

Is it necessary(and legal) if a war were to develop with a formidable nation in which the country as a whole was serioulsy threaghtened,  absolutely.

[Carl]

My thoughts on the matter....

Is it desirable? No...

Is it necessary(and legal) if a war were to develop with a formidable nation in which the country as a whole was serioulsy threaghtened,  absolutely.

Agree completely.

[Chump]

Yeah you are wrong, and you know you are as I debated you on the draft in the other thread.

I guess if you take "getting the last word" as winning, then I can see how you'd think that.  From where I stood it ended up being repetitious.  At any rate, as your argument relies on the ruling of the Supreme Court, I suppose I'll officially concede provided you host a Roe v Wade day.  It's Friday the 22nd, so you should hurry.  Concession is contingent on pics.

[formerlurker]

I guess if you take "getting the last word" as winning, then I can see how you'd think that.  From where I stood it ended up being repetitious.  At any rate, as your argument relies on the ruling of the Supreme Court, I suppose I'll officially concede provided you host a Roe v Wade day.  It's Friday the 22nd, so you should hurry.  Concession is contingent on pics.

???

Roe vs Wade.   

Yeah that is a fair comparison isn't it?   wait wait, my bad - no it is not.   We pretty much in painstaking detail discussed the SCOTUS cases on the draft (note there is more than one).   It's not just the decision, but what led to the decision.

SCOTUS can certainly get something wrong, however their ruling stands.   That is the power afforded them by COTUS.   In the cases on the draft we demonstrated how they are correct.  If your argument is screw SCOTUS, then you are cherry picking the language of the Constitution that suits your argument. Kind of a liberal way of doing things.

[Chump]

???

Roe vs Wade.   

Yeah that is a fair comparison isn't it?   wait wait, my bad - no it is not.   We pretty much in painstaking detail discussed the SCOTUS cases on the draft (note there is more than one).   It's not just the decision, but what led to the decision.

SCOTUS can certainly get something wrong, however their ruling stands.   That is the power afforded them by COTUS.   In the cases on the draft we demonstrated how they are correct.  If your argument is screw SCOTUS, then you are cherry picking the language of the Constitution that suits your argument. Kind of a liberal way of doing things.

Simple repetition doesn't strengthen your argument.  Your premise is that the law exists and has been ruled on positively by SCOTUS (more than once), therefore it is reasonable.  Take that stance if you'd like, but that means in your view the idea that a woman has a right to kill a human being growing inside of her is reasonable.  The law exists and has been ruled on positively by SCOTUS.

Similarly, if I had come to you in the 40s and asked, "Say brother, is this whole "segregation" thing reasonable?" would your response really have been yes?  I mean, the laws existed and SCOTUS had set precedent with Dred Scott v Sanford and Plessy v Ferguson.

[Chump]

What it pretty much boils down to is having to believe two mutually opposing beliefs at the same time...namely that one of the mandates of the federal government is to protect our liberties through a military force yet it has no Constitutional authority to provide that if the need for manpower arises beyond what a volunteer military has generated.
However that is a needed talent to be a Libertarian so expected.

The merits of a draft can be debated and they are subject to change as the situations arise.

I will put forth what I always do and never get an answer...propose an alternative to a draft if our manpower needs were to exceed enlistment rates.
Don`t give me the crap that "if it was important then everyone would sign up"because that is intellectually vacant given that some can`t for physical reasons and of course there still has to be production of goods and services in a country.

Tell me by what method a military would be staffed if a draft were not available.

What you're asking for doesn't exist.  If your alternative is to deny a man's rights then you don't have any alternatives.  You're mistaking raising an army for conscription.  The government's proper role is to fund and train its army, not create it out of thin air by denying the basic right to liberty.  Its proper role, the core premise of its powers and creation, is that man has that right in the first place.  The reason you see anything here as contradictory is because your very premise is an oxymoron.

[formerlurker]

Simple repetition doesn't strengthen your argument.  Your premise is that the law exists and has been ruled on positively by SCOTUS (more than once), therefore it is reasonable. 

Nice try, but no.   What I said was:

We pretty much in painstaking detail discussed the SCOTUS cases on the draft (note there is more than one).   It's not just the decision, but what led to the decision.

....  In the cases on the draft we demonstrated how they are correct.

[formerlurker]

What you're asking for doesn't exist.  If your alternative is to deny a man's rights then you don't have any alternatives.  You're mistaking raising an army for conscription.  The government's proper role is to fund and train its army, not create it out of thin air by denying the basic right to liberty.  Its proper role, the core premise of its powers and creation, is that man has that right in the first place.  The reason you see anything here as contradictory is because your very premise is an oxymoron.

Carl, he honestly doesn't see himself in this rant. 

[Carl]

Carl, he honestly doesn't see himself in this rant. 

I know and he continues to talk in circles...so be it.

[dandi]

Wow, what a dizzying thread.

Chump, I've got to say that this has been one of the most microed-out arguments I have ever read.  Well done for taking it to the nth power of cranial nit picking and word smithing.

I believe your position is one that is established from a point of ignorance.  Since you have never served anything in your life, I don't find it too particularly surprising that conscription in the time of dire national emergency is somehow or another an infringement upon your right to life.

I, on the other hand, gave 22 of the best years of my life to my country and it's citizens and can speak with a little bit of experience and authority on what I think of forced conscription.  I will only give this to you from my perspective as I would not pretend to speak for other veterans of Conservative Cave.

I have had the very distinct privilege of learning from and leading some of the best and brightest America produces.  From my view point, an unmotivated DUmbass that is foisted upon me is a burden to me and my troopers.  Someone that needs constant attention and watching really detracts from the mission and morale of everybody.  As of right now, I do not believe a draft is needed.

Conversely, if this country is ever threatened to the point where we need to throw every resource behind it to survive (yes, human beings are resources), then your "right to life" as you have defined means precious damn little to the survival of the very laws and vehicles of enforcment that give you that "right".  If a "right to life" is as important as you believe it to be, then the "right to life" of millions of our fellow citizens are equally as important.  That means, very simply, that the government of "we the people" has every right to compel it's able bodied to defend it.  Just as we individuals have a right to defend ourselves and our property, the goverment has a right to the same survival mechanisms.  That's not statist, nor slavery, it is a fact.

I will tell you that, as someone who has stood the line voluntarily so no one had to, reading your comments smacks of narcissim, lack of gratitude, and immaturity of the highest order.  For one individual to claim that their "right to life" is so important that conscription in the time of national emergency is unreasonable sounds like someone who spent their entire lives serving only themselves.  I would not want to imagine what this country would look like if this type of attitude were completely pervasive in the societal fabric.  If it were, your "rights" and the "rights" of others would be a completely moot point because they would no longer exist.

I think that you have to really ask yourself when your "right to life" as an individual overrides your obligation to the survival of not only your "rights" but everyone elses as well.

[Chump]

Wow, what a dizzying thread.

Chump, I've got to say that this has been one of the most microed-out arguments I have ever read.  Well done for taking it to the nth power of cranial nit picking and word smithing.

I believe your position is one that is established from a point of ignorance.  Since you have never served anything in your life, I don't find it too particularly surprising that conscription in the time of dire national emergency is somehow or another an infringement upon your right to life.

I, on the other hand, gave 22 of the best years of my life to my country and it's citizens and can speak with a little bit of experience and authority on what I think of forced conscription.  I will only give this to you from my perspective as I would not pretend to speak for other veterans of Conservative Cave.

I have had the very distinct privilege of learning from and leading some of the best and brightest America produces.  From my view point, an unmotivated DUmbass that is foisted upon me is a burden to me and my troopers.  Someone that needs constant attention and watching really detracts from the mission and morale of everybody.  As of right now, I do not believe a draft is needed.

Conversely, if this country is ever threatened to the point where we need to throw every resource behind it to survive (yes, human beings are resources), then your "right to life" as you have defined means precious damn little to the survival of the very laws and vehicles of enforcment that give you that "right".  If a "right to life" is as important as you believe it to be, then the "right to life" of millions of our fellow citizens are equally as important.  That means, very simply, that the government of "we the people" has every right to compel it's able bodied to defend it.  Just as we individuals have a right to defend ourselves and our property, the goverment has a right to the same survival mechanisms.  That's not statist, nor slavery, it is a fact.

I will tell you that, as someone who has stood the line voluntarily so no one had to, reading your comments smacks of narcissim, lack of gratitude, and immaturity of the highest order.  For one individual to claim that their "right to life" is so important that conscription in the time of national emergency is unreasonable sounds like someone who spent their entire lives serving only themselves.  I would not want to imagine what this country would look like if this type of attitude were completely pervasive in the societal fabric.  If it were, your "rights" and the "rights" of others would be a completely moot point because they would no longer exist.

I think that you have to really ask yourself when your "right to life" as an individual overrides your obligation to the survival of not only your "rights" but everyone elses as well.

Good post, but I really only see three points that need to be corrected.

1.  Human beings are not resources to the government in a free society.  The government is a resource to human beings.  We form it of our own volition.  You probably make this assertion because of your experience in the military, and in that venue you are correct.  Just as a soldier is a resource to the military, I am a resource to my company.  You've made the decision to voluntarily dispose of yourself as you see fit, as have I.
2.  Laws and government absolutely do not grant us rights, as you asserted.  That is so wrong-headed that I don't see the need to elaborate.
3.  My right to life and liberty are held no higher than anyone else's, nor are they held any lower.  That you would see my argument in that light really serves to illustrate that you are holding the right to life of some "others" as being above my own right to liberty.  Simply put, it's not.  The intellectual foundation you're arguing from here is that some people have more rights than others, or that their rights are more valid.  I disagree, obviously.

On a side note, it's really disgusting that the immediate response of any veteran in this discussion is something to the effect of calling me an uncaring coward.  You've gone as far as narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature.

Let's let that nonsense stand.  Let's say that I'm a horrible bastard who cares for nothing but myself.

So what?

"I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," translates just as well into "I may not like what you do with your life, but I will defend to the death your liberty to do it."

You all should be the most ardent opposers of government compulsion, and yet you're so quick to say, "what if we're all about to die??"

Well, my friends, I would be busy fighting for my life while you're busy telling me I have to do it.

[Carl]

Yet I believe you are full of crap Chump.

This ridiculous interpretation you have formed is an offshoot of the great Libertarian isolationisim theme that says if we just leave everyone alone they will us and thus we won`t need a military.

You live in a dream world that will never exist dude and rather then face it you try to wash it away with a bunch of babble that only makes sense to a handful.

[Chump]

Yet I believe you are full of crap Chump.

This ridiculous interpretation you have formed is an offshoot of the great Libertarian isolationisim theme that says if we just leave everyone alone they will us and thus we won`t need a military.

You live in a dream world that will never exist dude and rather then face it you try to wash it away with a bunch of babble that only makes sense to a handful.

I know you think I'm full of crap.  You also think I have some sort of rotten soul or something, I don't remember the precise wording.

I don't know where you get the idea that I believe in isolationism or that we don't need a military.  We have one now, it's incredible, and I wish we would use it with full force and fury.  A secure nation requires nothing less.  I think a lot of our foreign policy issues are a direct result from attempting to be too isolated and restraining ourselves far too much when we do go to war.

If this conversation is just a bunch of meaningless babble to you then feel free to drop out at anytime.

[Carl]

I know you think I'm full of crap.  You also think I have some sort of rotten soul or something, I don't remember the precise wording.

I don't know where you get the idea that I believe in isolationism or that we don't need a military.  We have one now, it's incredible, and I wish we would use it with full force and fury.  A secure nation requires nothing less.  I think a lot of our foreign policy issues are a direct result from attempting to be too isolated and restraining ourselves far too much when we do go to war.

If this conversation is just a bunch of meaningless babble to you then feel free to drop out at anytime.

All I know dude is it seems like a lot deny that they are Libertarians and say that they don`t support them and yet defend their ideology whenever it is challenged.
Let the evidence speak for itself.

[Chump]

All I know dude is it seems like a lot deny that they are Libertarians and say that they don`t support them and yet defend their ideology whenever it is challenged.
Let the evidence speak for itself.

Meh, I just said I don't know enough about Libertarians to either say I am one or not.  This conversation has been educational, to say the least.  Let it be duly noted that I strongly object to isolationism and I want nothing less than the strongest military in the world.

[rich_t]

Meh, I just said I don't know enough about Libertarians to either say I am one or not.  This conversation has been educational, to say the least.  Let it be duly noted that I strongly object to isolationism and I want nothing less than the strongest military in the world.

Yet, you don't want to serve in it if your nation needs you.

 

[dandi]

1.  Human beings are not resources to the government in a free society.  The government is a resource to human beings.  We form it of our own volition.  You probably make this assertion because of your experience in the military, and in that venue you are correct.

Yes, Chump, they are.  Human beings are as much a resource as is the raw materials needed to fight and win.  Reality is reality and when the rubber meets the road, anything else is an exercise in mental masturbation.  A government is not a resource, it is a means and a vehicle of enforcement of laws, free society or tolitarian regime.  How the laws are applied separates the two.

Just as a soldier is a resource to the military, I am a resource to my company.  You've made the decision to voluntarily dispose of yourself as you see fit, as have I.

Thank you for making my point.

2.  Laws and government absolutely do not grant us rights, as you asserted.  That is so wrong-headed that I don't see the need to elaborate.

I asserted that?  Really?  Try again.

3.  My right to life and liberty are held no higher than anyone else's, nor are they held any lower.  That you would see my argument in that light really serves to illustrate that you are holding the right to life of some "others" as being above my own right to liberty.

No, I'm not.  I am saying that your "right to life" means precious little when it comes to seeing our way of life end and our "rights" disappear.  If the shit ever hits the fan, and too many are worried about their own "rights" so as not to answer the call when their number is drawn, then the argument about what "rights" anyone has will be no more than a fart in a noisemaker. 

The only thing I am "illustrating" is that you hold yourself above "others" by your own argument.

Simply put, it's not.  The intellectual foundation you're arguing from here is that some people have more rights than others, or that their rights are more valid.

No, I am saying that a goverment has the same right to mechanisms for it's survival to continue to propagate it's way of life for the people it governs. 

On a side note, it's really disgusting that the immediate response of any veteran in this discussion is something to the effect of calling me an uncaring coward.  You've gone as far as narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature.

What I have said is that your position on conscription during time of dire national emergency is narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature.  I did note your first post and the assertion that you would volunteer in the case of dire national emergency.  Twas not a personal attack, Chump, so don't treat it as one.

Let's let that nonsense stand.  Let's say that I'm a horrible bastard who cares for nothing but myself.

So what?

Your words, not mine.  I will say that you don't help your case much to the very people who did spend their time in your place.

"I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," translates just as well into "I may not like what you do with your life, but I will defend to the death your liberty to do it."

And?  I did that for 22 years.  By your own admission, you didn't.  Are you starting to understand what I said about you arguing from a perspective of ignorance?

You all should be the most ardent opposers of government compulsion, and yet you're so quick to say, "what if we're all about to die??"

Reread what I said, especially the part on my views of conscription as of right now.  After that, think about what I said and the perspective it's stated from.

Well, my friends, I would be busy fighting for my life while you're busy telling me I have to do it.

Help me out, Chump.  How old are you?

[Chump]

1.  Human beings are not resources to the government in a free society.  The government is a resource to human beings.  We form it of our own volition.  You probably make this assertion because of your experience in the military, and in that venue you are correct.

Yes, Chump, they are.  Human beings are as much a resource as is the raw materials needed to fight and win.  Reality is reality and when the rubber meets the road, anything else is an exercise in mental masturbation.  A government is not a resource, it is a means and a vehicle of enforcement of laws, free society or tolitarian regime.  How the laws are applied separates the two.

Just so I get this straight, you're claiming that government in a free society is not a resource to humans.  In fact, it's the other way around: humans are nothing more than disposable resources to their government.  Does that even deserve a response?

Quote
Just as a soldier is a resource to the military, I am a resource to my company.  You've made the decision to voluntarily dispose of yourself as you see fit, as have I.

Thank you for making my point.

Or rather, attempting to illustrate the difference between the two examples...

Quote
2.  Laws and government absolutely do not grant us rights, as you asserted.  That is so wrong-headed that I don't see the need to elaborate.

I asserted that?  Really?  Try again.

In your own words:

Conversely, if this country is ever threatened to the point where we need to throw every resource behind it to survive (yes, human beings are resources), then your "right to life" as you have defined means precious damn little to the survival of the very laws and vehicles of enforcment that give you that "right".

Laws and government do not grant or give rights, period.  Again, I don't see how I can elaborate.

Quote
3.  My right to life and liberty are held no higher than anyone else's, nor are they held any lower.  That you would see my argument in that light really serves to illustrate that you are holding the right to life of some "others" as being above my own right to liberty.

No, I'm not.  I am saying that your "right to life" means precious little when it comes to seeing our way of life end and our "rights" disappear.  If the shit ever hits the fan, and too many are worried about their own "rights" so as not to answer the call when their number is drawn, then the argument about what "rights" anyone has will be no more than a fart in a noisemaker. 

The only thing I am "illustrating" is that you hold yourself above "others" by your own argument.

Then you're missing the painfully obvious point that if one person's right to liberty can be negated (or expensed) to preserve another's right to life, then the latter person in the example is having his personal rights elevated by definition, as rights cannot exist at the expense of another's.  Making the recipients of some "benefit" derived from negating one person's right to liberty more numerous doesn't make it any less evil or more moral.  Individual rights are just that: individual.

Quote
Simply put, it's not.  The intellectual foundation you're arguing from here is that some people have more rights than others, or that their rights are more valid.

No, I am saying that a goverment has the same right to mechanisms for it's survival to continue to propagate it's way of life for the people it governs. 

What??  If I want to survive when my life is in imminent danger, I have absolutely zero right to grab you by the scruff of the neck and throw you between myself and my attacker.  From your own argument, the government has no right to compel anyone to dispose of their right to life.

Quote
On a side note, it's really disgusting that the immediate response of any veteran in this discussion is something to the effect of calling me an uncaring coward.  You've gone as far as narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature.

What I have said is that your position on conscription during time of dire national emergency is narcissistic, ungrateful, and immature.  I did note your first post and the assertion that you would volunteer in the case of dire national emergency.  Twas not a personal attack, Chump, so don't treat it as one.

Fair enough.  I feel free to say that your position on conscription during a dire national emergency smacks of sniveling statism and the idea that the government must exist at all costs.

Just remember, when the next dire national emergency comes rolling along (and it's coming, look to the bond market) then your rights are meaningless.