Why I am not a Libertarian.

[formerlurker]

Lol, Germany?  Japan?  Illegal wars?  This has precisely nothing to do with the idea that the government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for any period of time.  Your position is indefensible in a free society.  So, instead, you go on about me not wanting to serve my country, yet more nonsense.

Do you guys like the idea of a Civilian National Security Corps, as "well-funded as the military?"  Do you relish the idea of the government mandating that you buy health insurance?  I seem to remember quite a bit of outrage expressed at this site over those very ideas, yet you're arguing for the same intellectual foundation responsible for producing those ideas.  Apparently, with you, "it's OK when we do it."

No, it's not.

I already said no to that, and you made your position very clear on the draft in your other thread.   You don't want to serve and that has everything to do the topic.

[formerlurker]

I read it as mandatory military service: no.  Mandatory national service of some other sort: yes.

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

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

[Chump]

I already said no to that, and you made your position very clear on the draft in your other thread.   You don't want to serve and that has everything to do the topic.

You caught me being consistent.  But you still throw around words like "want" in a discussion about government compulsion.  If it was simply a matter of wanting to serve, in any capacity, there wouldn't even be a discussion.

[formerlurker]

You caught me being consistent.  But you still throw around words like "want" in a discussion about government compulsion.  If it was simply a matter of wanting to serve, in any capacity, there wouldn't even be a discussion.

The draft is Constitutional.   

[Carl]

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.

[Chump]

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,37537.150.html

[The Village Idiot]

The draft is a form of slavery that presumes we are all owned by government.

[Carl]

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,37537.150.html

I am not sure what that proves other then you think it is a diversion from answering the direct question I asked.

[Chris_]

I am not sure what that proves other then you think it is a diversion from answering the direct question I asked.

The link is to a thread where the draft is specifically debated.  I believe mandatory community service including military service as well as Libertarinism is what this thread is concentrating on.

[Carl]

The link is to a thread where the draft is specifically debated.  I believe mandatory community service including military service as well as Libertarinism is what this thread is concentrating on.

The issue was still brought up here and is a plank in the party platform.

3.1    National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
http://www.lp.org/platform

[Chris_]

The issue was still brought up here and is a plank in the party platform.

Can any of the people who object to this platform explain why they feel we need to do otherwise?  I feel for other countries who can't muster their own power but honestly, America's teat is sore enough from our own suckling.  If we stopped offering "aid" in the form of intervention and occupation these countries would either man up or social evolution would naturally occur.  Either way, really not our problem.  Our problems should be our focus.

At the very least, we should limit our intervention to aiding countries that are truly being massacred by bullies.

[Carl]

Can any of the people who object to this platform explain why they feel we need to do otherwise?  I feel for other countries who can't muster their own power but honestly, America's teat is sore enough from our own suckling.  If we stopped offering "aid" in the form of intervention and occupation these countries would either man up or social evolution would naturally occur.  Either way, really not our problem.  Our problems should be our focus.

At the very least, we should limit our intervention to aiding countries that are truly being massacred by bullies.

It is simply hopeless dreaming and not trying to be sarcastic.
We have national security and economic concerns world wide.
To suggest otherwise or that if we abandoned that to a strictly within our borders existence yet all else will be as we know it is not realistic.

I wish that more of Europe would look to its own defense but that is beyond our control to make happen or at the least to have an honest and realistic discussion of what the impact on our country and economy (regarding trade) would be.

[Chris_]

we abandoned that to a strictly within our borders existence yet all else will be as we know it is not realistic.

I wish that more of Europe would look to its own defense but that is beyond our control to make happen or at the least to have an honest and realistic discussion of what the impact on our country and economy (regarding trade) would be.

If I never housetrained my dog she'd still be poopin' behind the lazy boy.  If I trained her, yet she continued to poop behind the lazy boy, she'd no longer be "my dog."  Fact is, I just can't stand poop.

That said, I realize it's quite more complicated than that.   I don't believe we can be as isolationist as Ron Paul would like, for example.  However, I believe that any impact on our country and economy would be balanced by keeping more business at home.  Is there really so much (for the sake of brevity in subject, let's leave oil out of this) that we need from the rest of the world, that we can't do for ourselves?  On the most basic level, I for one can do without being slowly poisoned by China.

[NHSparky]

Sorry, Sherry--this is 2010, not 1810.  Most of the raw materials we depend upon to run our economy come from overseas.  They're simply not found in sufficient quantities within our borders.  "Keeping more business at home" means little in this day and age, aside from sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the bad guys won't notice us.

[Chris_]

Sorry, Sherry--this is 2010, not 1810.  Most of the raw materials we depend upon to run our economy come from overseas.  They're simply not found in sufficient quantities within our borders.  "Keeping more business at home" means little in this day and age, aside from sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the bad guys won't notice us.

Okay, which raw materials come from well behaved nations, and which don't?  Let's just trade with nice people, whaddya say?   I'd rather have an effective trade embargo than an occupation.

[NHSparky]

Okay, which raw materials come from well behaved nations, and which don't?  Let's just trade with nice people, whaddya say?   I'd rather have an effective trade embargo than an occupation.

Sure, if you don't mind turning back the clock a century, maybe a century and a half.  Make the Great Depression look like a picnic.  Whoopie!

[dutch508]

Can any of the people who object to this platform explain why they feel we need to do otherwise?  I feel for other countries who can't muster their own power but honestly, America's teat is sore enough from our own suckling.  If we stopped offering "aid" in the form of intervention and occupation these countries would either man up or social evolution would naturally occur.  Either way, really not our problem.  Our problems should be our focus.

At the very least, we should limit our intervention to aiding countries that are truly being massacred by bullies.

I already have. You dissagree. End of logical discussion.

[Carl]

If I never housetrained my dog she'd still be poopin' behind the lazy boy.  If I trained her, yet she continued to poop behind the lazy boy, she'd no longer be "my dog."  Fact is, I just can't stand poop.

That said, I realize it's quite more complicated than that.   I don't believe we can be as isolationist as Ron Paul would like, for example.  However, I believe that any impact on our country and economy would be balanced by keeping more business at home.  Is there really so much (for the sake of brevity in subject, let's leave oil out of this) that we need from the rest of the world, that we can't do for ourselves?  On the most basic level, I for one can do without being slowly poisoned by China.

Fair enough on the keeping business at home..what is the economic impact of that alone.
What will be the change in the costs of goods?
How will that affect our standards of living,disposable income?

What will the divestment in foreign companies or USA companies that have foreign plants do to 401Ks etc?

[TheSarge]

Socialist utopia is now equil to national service?

It is to those that don't understand the true meaning of what a Socialist Utopia is.

[Chump]

I am not sure what that proves other then you think it is a diversion from answering the direct question I asked.

It's not a diversion because I answered you and provided you a link to that debate.  We can have the same discussion in two different places if you'd prefer.  I rather think the issue of mandatory national service, whether or not it be military-based, is different than the issue of the draft.  It does have its place here; as you said this thread is on the Libertarian platform in general.

So, to that end, what is your position on compulsory national service outside of a draft situation?  You can further qualify it by differentiating between compuslory service in a military or civil setting.

[Carl]

It's not a diversion because I answered you and provided you a link to that debate.  We can have the same discussion in two different places if you'd prefer.  I rather think the issue of mandatory national service, whether or not it be military-based, is different than the issue of the draft.  It does have its place here; as you said this thread is on the Libertarian platform in general.

So, to that end, what is your position on compulsory national service outside of a draft situation?  You can further qualify it by differentiating between compuslory service in a military or civil setting.

No,you have never answered what means a military would be staffed if a draft was not an option and enlistment rates were not meeting required manpower needs to fight an enemy.

On edit..

To say that national service is a different matter is making a distiction without a difference in its basic premise.

[Chris_]

Sure, if you don't mind turning back the clock a century, maybe a century and a half.  Make the Great Depression look like a picnic.  Whoopie!

Yeah, because war and lead poisoning are so 21st century!

[Chump]

No,you have never answered what means a military would be staffed if a draft was not an option and enlistment rates were not meeting required manpower needs to fight an enemy.

On edit..

To say that national service is a different matter is making a distiction without a difference in its basic premise.

There are no means to staffing a military outside of voluntary enlistment.  So, once again, the answer to your question is: none.

You are right that the premise is the same in both discussions, which is why you'll find me consistently against both the draft, and any other sort of compulsory national service mandated by the government.  I was willing to make a distinction to provide some clarity, but placing the two issues side by side only hurts your position. 

Am I to take your response as meaning that you are both for the draft and for some other sort of compulsory national service, whether it be military or civil?

[Carl]

There are no means to staffing a military outside of voluntary enlistment.  So, once again, the answer to your question is: none.

You are right that the premise is the same in both discussions, which is why you'll find me consistently against both the draft, and any other sort of compulsory national service mandated by the government.  I was willing to make a distinction to provide some clarity, but placing the two issues side by side only hurts your position.  

Am I to take your response as meaning that you are both for the draft and for some other sort of compulsory national service, whether it be military or civil?

Then the natural conclusion to your position is as I stated...

The government has a Constitutional mandate and responsibility to protect the freedom and liberty afforded by that Constitution.
The government has no power or ability to ensure it has the means to do that.
Result...defeat or surrender to an enemy.

As I said two mutually opposing beliefs yet held together with no regards to the inevitable conclusion.

I am in favor of a draft if needed simply because the Constitution does mandate or assume the existence of a military force.
The constitutionality of a draft in light of that has been tested and adjudicated.
A national non military compulsive service would be in addition or would have to find its constitutionality elsewhere if challenged.

As far as the premise then again it is a matter of the merits or needs of such and of that I am of no real opinion having given it no thought really.
I am inclined to think it may however have a positive impact on todays society if it helps instill a sense of order and responsibility that the welfare system has destroyed in our inner cities.

[TheSarge]

Yeah, because war and lead poisoning are so 21st century!

Not even that Bully.

More like fiscal and foreign policy that would take us back to the pre WWI years.