The draft

[Carl]

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

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

You are changing the context of the argument then to suit you.

"I refuse to submit to a draft because it violates my rights."

When pointed out that action could violate my rights you then say well you would voluntarily serve so it doesn`t apply.
Basically you are attempting to have all sides of a debate as yours so you can say that you "won" it seems.
It is disingenuous and in my opinion has left you looking much like a fool.

[dutch508]

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

You've argued that you should not have to protect others from a mortal threat. I fully support that I shouldn't have to protect your ass from a mortal threat either, you or any other lazy cocksuckers who want to be 'free' of social responsibility.

So, chump (fitting, that), when the zombie hordes decend...and they will... I'll make sure I am in a position not to get in the way of you defending yourself...alone.

 

[Chump]

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

I've actually presented my reasoning as clearly as I can, all throughout this thread.  Where do I contradict myself?

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

You seem to have just pointed exactly how absurd and unreasonable the draft is.  The only way you can present it as having merit is by basing it on your own opinion.

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

How does claiming the inalienable right to life lead to anarchy?

[DefiantSix]

Carl, one point that may clarify things for you is to break it down smaller.

Do you, Carl, have the right to DEMAND that your next door neighbor defend your life and/or your family from a robber, rapist or murderer?  Is it correct that your neighbor can and should be forever branded a criminal - with potential prison term or other punishment determined to be "suitable" -  if he doesn't respond to your demand to protect you and your family?

Legitimate government derives all of its authority from the governed.  If you do not have the authority to demand that your neighbor stand in harms way of you and your family, than neither does your government.  No matter how loud and insistent the voice of the mobocracy is.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.  So do I.  So does Chump.  No one's right to life, liberty or the persuit of happiness supercedes anybody elses.  That means, that you have the right to defend your life with deadly force if necessary from those who would infringe upon your life or liberty, but you DO NOT have the right to demand that someone else defend your right to life or liberty.  Because you do not have that right, neither can government, and that body remain a legitimate government.

[Carl]

I've actually presented my reasoning as clearly as I can, all throughout this thread.  Where do I contradict myself?

You seem to have just pointed exactly how absurd and unreasonable the draft is.  The only way you can present it as having merit is by basing it on your own opinion.

How does claiming the inalienable right to life lead to anarchy?

Claiming that you have a right to determine what exact laws infringe on that leads to anarchy if that ideal was held by all.
I may think that the fact a person has more money or whatever then I do infringes on my right to pursue happiness so therefor laws against stealing are not applicable to me.

Is our system of governence perfect?
No but it still sets out a basic societal organization with the mechanisims for changing itself.

[Mike220]

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

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

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

If you believe that a murderer can forfeit his right to life, the you cannot believe in the inalienability of the right to life. There can be no exception of any kind to the right to life for it to be inalienable. A murderer cannot invalidate his rights using the definition of the word on which you hinge your argument.

I do not want to start another thread about the DP. I'm a proponent. I don't think it's used enough.

Do I hold the right to life inalienable? No. While I would like to think that it could be, the real world doesn't allow that.

[formerlurker]

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I think we are done here.

[Chump]

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

This would be an appropriate response if I had ever argued that there should be no force behind the Constitution to enact its protections, or if I had ever said that I would not fight willingly to defend myself.

I ask, yet again: Can the government protect my right to life by denying my right to life?

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

A mortal threat in this day and age is not limited to invasion by a foreign power.  If you want me to define my terms, just ask.

I don't care to discuss isolationism at this point; it's irrelevant.

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

And again, I don't know enough about Libertarian principles to deny or claim them.

I'm arguing in defense of the inalienable right to life; I must be just like Obama.   

[dutch508]

You use that word all the time. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm

[Chump]

You've argued that you should not have to protect others from a mortal threat. I fully support that I shouldn't have to protect your ass from a mortal threat either, you or any other lazy cocksuckers who want to be 'free' of social responsibility.

Good, then we're in agreement.  You should not be compelled, against your will, to dispose of your right to life.   

So, chump (fitting, that), when the zombie hordes decend...and they will... I'll make sure I am in a position not to get in the way of you defending yourself...alone.

Ok.

[Carl]

Carl, one point that may clarify things for you is to break it down smaller.

Do you, Carl, have the right to DEMAND that your next door neighbor defend your life and your family from a robber, rapist or murderer?  Is it correct that your neighbor can and should be forever branded a criminal - with potential prison term or other punishment determined to be "suitable" -  if he doesn't respond to your demand to protect you and your family?

Legitimate government derives all of its authority from the governed.  If you do not have the authority to demand that your neighbor stand in harms way of you and your family, than neither does your government.  No matter how loud and insistent the voice of the mobocracy is.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.  So do I.  So does Chump.  No one's right to life, liberty or the persuit of happiness supercedes anybody elses.  That means, that you have the right to defend your life with deadly force if necessary from those who would infringe upon your life or liberty, but you DO NOT have the right to demand that someone else defend your right to life or liberty.  Because you do not have that right, neither can government, and that body remain a legitimate government.

That is a very silly extrapolation of how our legal system works.
Fwiw in some instances there are laws compelling one to act in certain ways to protect fellow citizens against crime.
You see a crime committed and don`t report it then you can be charged as well.
What you are talking is at the most local level of our legal and govermental system.
There is no comparison to the protection of our national soverignty.

That is why we do have a tiered system of governence.
Your example of saying a person should not be compelled to act in my direct protection is not a reasonable basis for saying that a draft is illegal.
The Constituion lays down a system to provide for the common defence and we have systems in place to provide for local personal defence.

[Chump]

Claiming that you have a right to determine what exact laws infringe on that leads to anarchy if that ideal was held by all.

I don't claim that right.  I claim that I cannot be compelled to dispose of my right to life by the government through threat of force.

This is yet another variation of, "it happens or exists, therefore it is reasonable."  So, since I've still received no answer: Is abortion reasonable?  Were the gun control laws of Washington D.C. reasonable before SCOTUS decided on District of Columbia v. Heller?

[formerlurker]

I ask, yet again: Can the government protect my right to life by denying my right to life?

The authors of the Consitution provided Congress with the right to raise an Army.  They did so.  If your number is up, then you serve.   SCOTUS has opined that the draft is Constitutional.   Your argument is coffee house babble that Obama subscribes to and surrounds himself with.   It has no place in reality.  

If you feel you are somehow validated for refusing to serve your country if called then Godspeed.   We have enough good men and women who will do so for you.  You should thank God everynight for that.  

[Carl]

I don't claim that right.  I claim that I cannot be compelled to dispose of my right to life by the government through threat of force.

This is yet another variation of, "it happens or exists, therefore it is reasonable."  So, since I've still received no answer: Is abortion reasonable?  Were the gun control laws of Washington D.C. reasonable before SCOTUS decided on District of Columbia v. Heller?

That is simply a lie..you have said that you won`t respond to a draft call if sent.
A draft would be an established law.
You are saying you would refuse to obey that law.
Enough trying to play word games to escape the reality of what you have proposed.

[Chump]

Do I hold the right to life inalienable? No. While I would like to think that it could be, the real world doesn't allow that.

Ok.

[Mike220]

Ok.

Ok what?

[formerlurker]

The restriction of the draft to just men was challenged in the Supreme Court in Rostker v Goldberg (453 U.S. 57 [1981]). In this case, men brought suit against the SSS, because women were not included in the draft. The Supreme Court ruled against the men, stating that the sole purpose of draft registration is the accumulation of a pool of names of eligible men to serve in combat. Because women were excluded from combat by the armed services, the draft registration as it stood met the need. The Court also said that since the Congress is given exclusive constitutional authority to raise armies, it was disinclined to overrule Congress on this point. The last time the SSS notes that the issue was taken up was in 1994. It concluded that though women, at that time, made up 16 percent of the armed force personnel, and the combat roles for women were expanding, the need to register women for the draft was still not sufficient. It noted that such expansion might be prudent in the future.

From my previously posted link.  

Congress is given exclusive constituional authority to raise armies.    What part of that is the most difficult to understand?

[Chump]

That is simply a lie..you have said that you won`t respond to a draft call if sent.
A draft would be an established law.
You are saying you would refuse to obey that law.
Enough trying to play word games to escape the reality of what you have proposed.

That's a good point.  I should have simply stuck with the question, "Is the draft reasonable?" because refusing to submit to the draft is tantamount to claiming that I have the right to determine which laws I will obey and which I won't.  I do not have that right, nor do I claim it, so I retract my previous statement.

[Chump]

Ok what?

Ok, you don't hold that the right to life is inalienable.  What do you want me to say to that?

[Mike220]

Ok, you don't hold that the right to life is inalienable.  What do you want me to say to that?

I don't know. But it appears you don't either, is all. 

[Chump]

formerlurker, from the last time I responded that argument:

Fair enough.  Imagine if I were to say to you that you were beginning to sound like a potential enemy to the U.S. and COTUS.  I imagine my reaction was rather tame in comparison.

Let's examine what the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to do in relation to the military:


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

As explicit as those enumerated powers are, you would have to resort to a semantic argument over the word "raise" in order to argue that Congress has the power to compel men to dispose of their lives against their will.  I have very little doubt that that power doesn't exist in the Constitution because it specifically negates the very first God-given, inalienable right our Founders mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.  And again, compelling men to risk their lives against their will suspends their right to life.  The final outcome does not matter at all because the initial compulsion by force is the issue.  Remember, just because you might not break your leg after I force you to jump from your roof does not make me any less evil.

Yes, I'm well aware that Selective Service is the law of the land.  If your argument is that the government has the right to compel men to dispose of their lives, against their will, for the sake of the lives of others simply because it does, in fact, do that, then you're right that this thread has run its course.

As to the accusation that I am an anarchist: it's laughable at face value because I've said repeatedly on these boards and in this thread that anarchy is the tyranny of lawlessness.  Any group of looters with more guns than me is my de facto ruler, and I have no recourse.  I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force.  Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole).  The very core tenet of statism is that the citizen is beholden and belongs to the state.

[Carl]

That's a good point.  I should have simply stuck with the question, "Is the draft reasonable?" because refusing to submit to the draft is tantamount to claiming that I have the right to determine which laws I will obey and which I won't.  I do not have that right, nor do I claim it, so I retract my previous statement.

Thank you and then it becomes a matter of opinions and in our legal and judicial system is what determines whose opinion is the one that is what the law of the land is.
Short of that you either have to argue for anarchy or some other system and form of government.

[Chump]

I don't know. But it appears you don't either, is all. 

And, apparently, neither do our founding fathers.

[Chump]

Thank you and then it becomes a matter of opinions and in our legal and judicial system is what determines whose opinion is the one that is what the law of the land is.
Short of that you either have to argue for anarchy or some other system and form of government.

Do you see that that's the very outlook I'm arguing against?  We should be able to have a discussion about whether or not the draft is reasonable in its premise without the final argument becoming, "it exists, therefore it is reasonable."

I agree that it is the law of the land.  I don't agree that it's reasonable, and the only argument prevalent at this point in response to mine is, "it's the law."

If that's the ultimate trump card then this thread should die.

The whole anarchy thing is so tired.  I'm the opposite of an anarchist, and I've yet to be convinced that holding the right to life as inalienable sets us on the path to anarchy.

[Carl]

As to the accusation that I am an anarchist: it's laughable at face value because I've said repeatedly on these boards and in this thread that anarchy is the tyranny of lawlessness.  Any group of looters with more guns than me is my de facto ruler, and I have no recourse.  I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force.  Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole).   The very core tenet of statism is that the citizen is beholden and belongs to the state.

Do you not see the direct contradiction of those two statements?
The goverment has weighed the options and has determined a draft is required to do the first.
It is judicially upheld as not an infringement of individual rights.

How then can it protect that right if it is incapable of providing the means of doing so?
What are its options then?
You should also be proposing a means to do what you declare its function is.