The draft

[Mike220]

And, apparently, neither do our founding fathers.

They probably didn't. I would surmise that they structured the Constitution as a starting, not ending, point in the drive for the most perfect government that imperfect men could create and one day be able to say that the right to life was "truly" inalienable. That's why there's a mechanism for amending the Constitution. But unfortunately we went the opposite way and started going toward the government of aristocrats and centralized power that they fought against.

[Chump]

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

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

The means are the military forces.  If the government were not granted the power use force to protect the rights of its citizens, then this argument would have merit.  The government is granted that power.

"I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force.  Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole)."

I don't see the contradiction.  If the government exists to protect my rights, then how can it do so by violating my rights.  It's illogical.

[Carl]

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

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

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

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

There has been this discussion and the point of view you have taken has been determined to be false.
You seem to be saying that since it would be perfect for there to be no army we shouldn`t have one.

Do I think a draft is a legitimate way for the federal government to uphold its mandate to provide for the nations defense?
Yes.
Do I feel that somehow such a thing would infringe on my right to life?
No.

So there you have it.
If enough think as you and elect Congressmen and women then that will become the law of the land.
If challenged and the judical system upholds the law then it stands.

Other then that what is the point?
You have said you won`t abide by the law..now modified somewhat so that is what the debate is about.
If you have a right somehow to do that then everyone else does too and the result is anarchy.
It isn`t rocket science.

[Chump]

They probably didn't. I would surmise that they structured the Constitution as a starting, not ending, point in the drive for the most perfect government that imperfect men could create and one day be able to say that the right to life was "truly" inalienable. That's why there's a mechanism for amending the Constitution. But unfortunately we went the opposite way and started going toward the government of aristocrats and centralized power that they fought against.

I disagree.  They declared their (and our) independence by beginning with the premise that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is inalienable.  If that were not true, then the Declaration of Independence is a charade.

[Carl]

The means are the military forces.  If the government were not granted the power use force to protect the rights of its citizens, then this argument would have merit.  The government is granted that power.

"I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force.  Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole)."

I don't see the contradiction.  If the government exists to protect my rights, then how can it do so by violating my rights.  It's illogical.

Illogical is saying that the government protects our rights by having a military but does not have the ability to build that military.

I don`t know what more can be said and if you don`t see the contradiction to your statement I can`t help you.

[Mike220]

I disagree.  They declared their (and our) independence by beginning with the premise that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is inalienable.  If that were not true, then the Declaration of Independence is a charade.

The Declaration is not the law.

[Chump]

There has been this discussion and the point of view you have taken has been determined to be false.
You seem to be saying that since it would be perfect for there to be no army we shouldn`t have one.

What?  Where have I ever said this, or even implied it?

Do I think a draft is a legitimate way for the federal government to uphold its mandate to provide for the nations defense?
Yes.
Do I feel that somehow such a thing would infringe on my right to life?
No.

I understand that.  I'm disagreeing both with your opinion and with your reasoning.

So there you have it.
If enough think as you and elect Congressmen and women then that will become the law of the land.
If challenged and the judical system upholds the law then it stands.

Consider this: I think Carl should have to pay me 12 dollars a month.  I got a lot of people that agree that Carl should pay us 12 dollars a month and we petitioned to have our opinions codified as law.  Upon challenge, it's upheld.  I don't know if welfare has been Constitionally challeneged or not, but I think you get the gist of what 'government by consensus' really entails.  We are not a mob democracy, nor were we intended to be.

Other then that what is the point?
You have said you won`t abide by the law..now modified somewhat so that is what the debate is about.
If you have a right somehow to do that then everyone else does too and the result is anarchy.
It isn`t rocket science.

The debate is about whether or not the draft is reasonable.  Should we continue?

[Chump]

The Declaration is not the law.

I know.  You argued that the founders didn't really know what they were saying when they layed claim to the inalienable right to life.  I showed you how that makes the Declaration of Independence a charade.

[Chump]

Illogical is saying that the government protects our rights by having a military but does not have the ability to build that military.

I don`t know what more can be said and if you don`t see the contradiction to your statement I can`t help you.

It does have the ability to build that military.  It's an explicit, enumerated power.  By all means, resort to a semantic argument over the word 'raise.'

Or, show me the reasoning in the following: the government can protect your right to life by denying you your right to life.

[Carl]

It does have the ability to build that military.  It's an explicit, enumerated power.  By all means, resort to a semantic argument over the word 'raise.'

Or, show me the reasoning in the following: the government can protect your right to life by denying you your right to life.

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

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

[Chump]

I need a break gentleman.  I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion so far, and appreciate your responses.

To those former or current military members who think I'm arguing that the military should not exist, or that I would not fight to defend myself, or that I could care less about your sacrifice: all I can do is say that's not true in any way, shape or form.  If you read what I've written, you'll see this.  I've said explicitly that I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and others like you.

[Mike220]

I know.  You argued that the founders didn't really know what they were saying when they layed claim to the inalienable right to life.  I showed you how that makes the Declaration of Independence a charade.

I never said they didn't know what they were saying. I said they set a baseline for us to build on to one day possibly bring about a government where it was a reality.

The Declaration was a document drawn up to enlist support for breaking away from England and maintaining that separation, not a document for running a government.

Besides, their actions show that they saw it as idealism, not reality. Washington had John Andre hung. Hamilton and Burr took potshots at each other. Many of the FFs were duelists and military men. They sent men to their deaths in battle. They may have wished it to be so, but they obviously knew that it was not so.

[Mike220]

I need a break gentleman.  I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion so far, and appreciate your responses.

Cheers. 

It's been a nice break from studying for finals.

[formerlurker]

formerlurker, from the last time I responded that argument:

Rostker v Goldberg (453 U.S. 57 [1981])

[formerlurker]

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

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

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

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

Wow, you jump all over the place.   Congress is given the exclusive constitutional authority in raising an Army.   This language is included in the same document you are basing your inalienable right to life argument on. 


Your question should be instead - is the Constitution a contradiction, and can I pick and choose which parts of it effect me.

[Carl]

Wow, you jump all over the place.   Congress is given the exclusive constitutional authority in raising an Army.   This language is included in the same document you are basing your inalienable right to life argument on. 


Your question should be instead - is the Constitution a contradiction, and can I pick and choose which parts of it effect me.

It does become rather dizzying when the premise keeps changing to suit a particular argument regarding a specific post and when a direct statement is declared to not mean what the words mean.

[Hawkgirl]

 

[Airwolf]

This is a variation on the, "you might not die," argument for the draft.  It says nothing to the fact that the government is compelling a man to dispose of his life against his will, suspending his right to life.

Moron .It does not as I stated the odds of most people actually seeing contact with an enemy force is not like your trying to make it sound. Stop being obtuse.

[rich_t]

Chump wrote:

I voluntarily choose to drive in public right-of-way, and so accept the limitations and consequences associated with it.  

You voluntarily reside in the US don't you?  As far as I know there is no US law barring you from moving to another country more of your liking, so this particular part of your argument falls on it's face IMO.

[Chump]

I never said they didn't know what they were saying. I said they set a baseline for us to build on to one day possibly bring about a government where it was a reality.

The Declaration was a document drawn up to enlist support for breaking away from England and maintaining that separation, not a document for running a government.

Besides, their actions show that they saw it as idealism, not reality. Washington had John Andre hung. Hamilton and Burr took potshots at each other. Many of the FFs were duelists and military men. They sent men to their deaths in battle. They may have wished it to be so, but they obviously knew that it was not so.

I can't get behind that.  They asserted, as their premise for breaking free from the Crown and forming an independent country, that man is endowed by his Creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If that were not true, then their laundry list of grievances against the king was meaningless, thus making the Declaration meaningless.

Side note: good luck on finals and I feel your pain.  I have one tomorrow night, Friday morning, Saturday morning, and Tuesday night.   

[Chump]

Wow, you jump all over the place.   Congress is given the exclusive constitutional authority in raising an Army.   This language is included in the same document you are basing your inalienable right to life argument on. 


Your question should be instead - is the Constitution a contradiction, and can I pick and choose which parts of it effect me.

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

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

[Chump]

Moron .It does not as I stated the odds of most people actually seeing contact with an enemy force is not like your trying to make it sound. Stop being obtuse.

I don't care if you're drafted to scrub pots in Wyoming.  The issue is not whether or not you'll die.

And you can have this back, moron.

[Chump]

Chump wrote:

You voluntarily reside in the US don't you?  As far as I know there is no US law barring you from moving to another country more of your liking, so this particular part of your argument falls on it's face IMO.

I am not granted rights simply because I live in the U.S.  In fact, I am not granted rights at all.

But, if my right to dispose of my life as I see fit can be invalidated by the government at its discretion, perhaps you're right that I should just GTFO.

[bkg]

I can't get behind that.  They asserted, as their premise for breaking free from the Crown and forming an independent country, that man is endowed by his Creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.  If that were not true, then their laundry list of grievances against the king was meaningless, thus making the Declaration meaningless.

Side note: good luck on finals and I feel your pain.  I have one tomorrow night, Friday morning, Saturday morning, and Tuesday night.   

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

[Chump]

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

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

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

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