Why I am not a Libertarian.

[Chris_]

Not even that Bully.

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

It doesn't have to.  It's possible to reinvent the wheel sometimes.

[Chump]

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.

Do you not see the contradiction in your own assertions?  Certainly, the government has the responsibility of national security; it's primary role is a protector of rights, to put it in its simplest terms.  Therefore, the government has the power to maintain an army, for that obvious end: the protection of the rights of its citizens.  In denying the rights of its citizens, there is no logical way you can claim the government is protecting those rights.  Round and round we go, and we end up with the same, inescapable fact: you cannot protect a right by denying it.  Going with your hypothetical, barbarians at the gates and all, then a plurality of citizens who refuse to rise and protect themselves will, appropriately, no longer be able to exercise their right to liberty.  Those who fight will most likely die if the odds are so overwhelming.  But, of course, you have to go to this extreme end, because most people shy away from the thought of government compulsion in any form, and rightly so.  In your hypothetical, is there any difference between life under either aggressor or victim?  Both governments are ostensibly denying the right to liberty.

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.

Again, I'm well aware that the law exists.  Whether or not its reasonable is exactly what we're discussing.  You're essentially taking the stance that because someone(s) else said so, it is.  That's lazy, intellectually, and taking that stance might have even put off the end of segregation, to name one example.

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.

As you said earlier, there is no way to make a distinction between the two issues.  If your premise is that the government has the capacity to compel men to mandatory service in the event of a draft, then there is no way to deny that it can do so for any other reason it deems as a "great need."  You're providing an intellectual foundation for any government compulsion, so long as SCOTUS says it's OK.  We've already seen the folly of that sort of thinking on the issues of abortion, slavery, voting rights, and prohibition, to name a few.

ETA:  Should we really see how far the logical conclusion of your premise takes us under this administration, with this Congress, and when Obama gets to appoint another justice to SCOTUS?

[Chump]

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

I should add here that we've in the past relied on our allies and even mercenaries when need was so great, so the answer is not "none."

As I've said earlier in this thread, George Washington himself held his nose and specifically exempted conscientious objectors from draft orders.  Why do you think that is?  Was he wrong to do so?

[Carl]

Do you not see the contradiction in your own assertions?  Certainly, the government has the responsibility of national security; it's primary role is a protector of rights, to put it in its simplest terms.  Therefore, the government has the power to maintain an army, for that obvious end: the protection of the rights of its citizens.  In denying the rights of its citizens, there is no logical way you can claim the government is protecting those rights.  Round and round we go, and we end up with the same, inescapable fact: you cannot protect a right by denying it.  Going with your hypothetical, barbarians at the gates and all, then a plurality of citizens who refuse to rise and protect themselves will, appropriately, no longer be able to exercise their right to liberty.  Those who fight will most likely die if the odds are so overwhelming.  But, of course, you have to go to this extreme end, because most people shy away from the thought of government compulsion in any form, and rightly so.  In your hypothetical, is there any difference between life under either aggressor or victim?  Both governments are ostensibly denying the right to liberty.

Again, I'm well aware that the law exists.  Whether or not its reasonable is exactly what we're discussing.  You're essentially taking the stance that because someone(s) else said so, it is.  That's lazy, intellectually, and taking that stance might have even put off the end of segregation, to name one example.

As you said earlier, there is no way to make a distinction between the two issues.  If your premise is that the government has the capacity to compel men to mandatory service in the event of a draft, then there is no way to deny that it can do so for any other reason it deems as a "great need."  You're providing an intellectual foundation for any government compulsion, so long as SCOTUS says it's OK.  We've already seen the folly of that sort of thinking on the issues of abortion, slavery, voting rights, and prohibition, to name a few.

There is no contradiction in my assertions as the government has the Constitutional mandate to protect ALL its citizens from enemies of the liberty that was set out by it.
The notion that requiring its able bodied in time of attack to defend it does not infringe on ones rights any more then any other law does.
You have determined in your mind it does to justify your belief but to suggest it is constitutional is a stretch.

Guess if it ever happens where one is enacted you can challenge it again if you want but likely will meet the same conclusion in the courts.

Your attempts to say that since there have been and are bad decisions made by the SCOTUS over our history means this one is inherently bad or to say that agreement with it is lazy is a strawman.
First it is the system put in place by the Constitution and has for the most part been fairly accurate in its application,especially when using a constructionist viewpoint.
When the nation has determined that a change needs to be made then the means proscribed has been used..amendments.

SCOTUS has determined that conscription is Constitutional via the mandate of providing a military.
Like it or not that does settle the matter unless you can convince another court to overturn it or have an amendment passed that expressly forbids it.
I happen to agree with their reasoning so have no interest in doing either but don`t accuse me of being lazy simply because I would reach the same conclusions as the court did.

[Chump]

There is no contradiction in my assertions as the government has the Constitutional mandate to protect ALL its citizens from enemies of the liberty that was set out by it.
The notion that requiring its able bodied in time of attack to defend it does not infringe on ones rights any more then any other law does.
You have determined in your mind it does to justify your belief but to suggest it is constitutional is a stretch.

Wait, I thought you were saying that compulsory, mandated service is a necessary evil, more or less.  Now you're saying it's not even an infrigement on the basic right of liberty?  How could it be anything less?  If the government has a Constitutional mandate to protect individual rights, then certainly it's failed in meeting that responsibility when it denies the individual right to liberty.  Even if it is just the "able-bodied," they are still unable to dispose of their lives as they see fit.  Whether or not they actually desire to go to war (as I believe a vast majority of those drafted have) is beside the point.

Your attempts to say that since there have been and are bad decisions made by the SCOTUS over our history means this one is inherently bad or to say that agreement with it is lazy is a strawman.
First it is the system put in place by the Constitution and has for the most part been fairly accurate in its application,especially when using a constructionist viewpoint.
When the nation has determined that a change needs to be made then the means proscribed has been used..amendments.

The bolded is a true strawman and does not resemble a single argument I've made.  I've said, summarizing, that holding up a positive Supreme Court decision as evidence that the draft is reasonable is insufficient.  If you believe it to be sufficient, then you also believe abortion rights are reasonable and the idea of segregation was reasonable before Brown v Board of Education.  We're discussing whether or not their moral judgment is reasonable, and you're pointing out that they did, in fact, make a moral judgment.  That fact is already conceded by even having this discussion.

SCOTUS has determined that conscription is Constitutional via the mandate of providing a military.
Like it or not that does settle the matter unless you can convince another court to overturn it or have an amendment passed that expressly forbids it.
I happen to agree with their reasoning so have no interest in doing either but don`t accuse me of being lazy simply because I would reach the same conclusions as the court did.

That's not why I said your position was intellectually lazy.  I said it because you're claiming SCOTUS as the source of your moral judgments on the matter, not your own reason.  I could similarly quote Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and many others and ask you to defend against their arguments.  I'd prefer to use my own reasoning, even if it leads me to their same conclusions.

Continuing, I've raised some questions that have yet to be addressed even in passing.

George Washington specifically exempts conscientious objectors from draft orders...was he wrong, especially in a time when success on the battlefield relied heavily on manpower?

In the spirit of hypotheticals, Obama declares war on Israel after Israel finally defends itself fully and bombs Iran back into the Stone Age.  The draft is instituted (fighting a war with a nuclear power, grave threat, etc.).  Reasonable?

[Carl]

Wait, I thought you were saying that compulsory, mandated service is a necessary evil, more or less.  Now you're saying it's not even an infrigement on the basic right of liberty?  How could it be anything less?  If the government has a Constitutional mandate to protect individual rights, then certainly it's failed in meeting that responsibility when it denies the individual right to liberty.  Even if it is just the "able-bodied," they are still unable to dispose of their lives as they see fit.  Whether or not they actually desire to go to war (as I believe a vast majority of those drafted have) is beside the point.

The bolded is a true strawman and does not resemble a single argument I've made.  I've said, summarizing, that holding up a positive Supreme Court decision as evidence that the draft is reasonable is insufficient.  If you believe it to be sufficient, then you also believe abortion rights are reasonable and the idea of segregation was reasonable before Brown v Board of Education.  We're discussing whether or not their moral judgment is reasonable, and you're pointing out that they did, in fact, make a moral judgment.  That fact is already conceded by even having this discussion.

That's not why I said your position was intellectually lazy.  I said it because you're claiming SCOTUS as the source of your moral judgments on the matter, not your own reason.  I could similarly quote Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and many others and ask you to defend against their arguments.  I'd prefer to use my own reasoning, even if it leads me to their same conclusions.

Continuing, I've raised some questions that have yet to be addressed even in passing.

George Washington specifically exempts conscientious objectors from draft orders...was he wrong, especially in a time when success on the battlefield relied heavily on manpower?

In the spirit of hypotheticals, Obama declares war on Israel after Israel finally defends itself fully and bombs Iran back into the Stone Age.  The draft is instituted (fighting a war with a nuclear power, grave threat, etc.).  Reasonable?

You can prattle on from now to eternity with what your interpretation of things are.
To me it is ludicrous and on the same lines as saying that since highways are built and maintained by public funds and I pay taxes therefore I have a right to use them without restriction.
To that end a drivers licence,speed limits,rights of way are all an infringement on my self proclaimed "liberty"
Beyond just me I think you will find your concepts to be considered ludicrous to a vast majority of the public and Constitutional scholers.

You can equate a decision on the constitutionality of conscription with Roe v Wade if it makes you feel good but the military is a specified part of the Constitution so interpretation of the legality of a draft was likely in the light of a mandate to provide a military.
Roe v Wade was a divined right to privacy by a Court not interested in the actual wording of the Constitution.
That is more along the lines of what you are doing not me.

[Mustang]

I'm not a libertarian, but I'm starting to like Glenn Beck...these days, he's the only person that makes sense on television. 

I'll take a small "L" libertarian-(conservative) like Glenn Beck over a douche bag like Bill O'Reilly any day.

If Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity are not on TV, I'll turn it off...

[formerlurker]

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

The ability to wage war is quite different.

[formerlurker]

George Washington specifically exempts conscientious objectors from draft orders...was he wrong, especially in a time when success on the battlefield relied heavily on manpower?

Voluntary inlistments [sic] seem to be totally out of the question; all the allurements of the most exorbitant bounties and every other inducement, that could be thought of, have been tried in vain, ... some other mode must be concerted, and no other presents itself, that of filling Regiments by drafts from the Militia. This is a disagreeable alternative, but it is an unavoidable one.

- George Washington, Letter to the Committee of Congress with the Army: Headquarters (Jan. 29, 1778), in THE WRITING OF GEORGE WASHINGTON FOR THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT SOURCES 366 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1931-1944)).

[Eupher]

Voluntary inlistments [sic] seem to be totally out of the question; all the allurements of the most exorbitant bounties and every other inducement, that could be thought of, have been tried in vain, ... some other mode must be concerted, and no other presents itself, that of filling Regiments by drafts from the Militia. This is a disagreeable alternative, but it is an unavoidable one.

- George Washington, Letter to the Committee of Congress with the Army: Headquarters (Jan. 29, 1778), in THE WRITING OF GEORGE WASHINGTON FOR THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT SOURCES 366 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1931-1944)).

Nice job with the research, lurker. Are you saying that Washington did NOT exempt conscientious objectors from enlisting? Just curious.

[formerlurker]

Nice job with the research, lurker. Are you saying that Washington did NOT exempt conscientious objectors from enlisting? Just curious.

I really can't find anything to support it from a credible source, however it is mentioned at several sites that at the beginning he did try to offer them exemption - they had to pay to be exempt however.   I am sure Chump would have no problem with writing a check to remain free from the draft.  

  

[Eupher]

I really can't find anything to support it from a credible source, however it is mentioned at several sites that at the beginning he did try to offer them exemption - they had to pay to be exempt however.   I am sure Chump would have no problem with writing a check to remain free from the draft.  

  

Yeah, he does appear to be adamant with his government-restricting-my-liberty meme.

My own take on all that is quite simple -- if I'm called to go, I go. I don't get wrapped around the philosophy of it all because that's why I hire the elected officials who collectively make that call. Chump calls it "intellectual laziness". I call it accepting the call of my country.

It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

Chump believes that when the bastards are overrunning your property and threatening to shoot up your house, it's time to circle the wagons. It's too late at that point. And as you clearly have demonstrated, not all of our citizenry is all that warm 'n fuzzy about even defending their homes. So a responsible government, regrettably, has to set up a system whereby it can defend itself from not just the enemy, but laziness and failure to recognize the threat from its own citizenry. I call that being responsible, but Chump believes it's a major offense in his life, though he's not served a single day in uniform.

I still maintain that those who serve, irrespective of their motivations for serving, gradually understand the value of service through that service and appreciate the level of sacrifice that occurs. We become stronger that way, more responsible, and yes, in some cases, far less tolerant of those who cash in on the very freedoms that somebody else served, fought, and died for.

But Chump is resolute. That's fine. Others are just as resolute. We arrive at an impasse.

It's time to eat some popcorn and I have a phone conference to take part in.

 

[NHSparky]

It doesn't have to.  It's possible to reinvent the wheel sometimes.

And are you willing to pay that kind of price?

I'm guessing you can't even begin to imagine the cost, which is why you're so friggin eager to jump into that shitpile head first.

[Carl]

And are you willing to pay that kind of price?

I'm guessing you can't even begin to imagine the cost, which is why you're so friggin eager to jump into that shitpile head first.

I asked the same question a couple pages back and not surprisingly never saw an answer to the specifics of the impact the dream would have.

[Chump]

Eupher, a responsible government is formed to protect the rights of its citizens.  It cannot exercise that power by denying the rights of its citizens and still be called responsible.

But you're right, I'm resolute, as are you.  Witness where your premise has led, though.  Dutch wants mandatory national service for two years, and IIRC you are against a mandate of that sort.  I am, as well, but I'm the only one that has any grounds to say why.  You can't claim the right to dispose of your life as you see fit, because you believe that right can be negated if the need is great.  From your premise, all the government has to do is attach a tag to mandatory national service that says, "needed for the greater good," and your rights become meaningless.

[NHSparky]

Eupher, a responsible government is formed to protect the rights of its citizens.  It cannot exercise that power by denying the rights of its citizens and still be called responsible.

But you're right, I'm resolute, as are you.  Witness where your premise has led, though.  Dutch wants mandatory national service for two years, and IIRC you are against a mandate of that sort.  I am, as well, but I'm the only one that has any grounds to say why.  You can't claim the right to dispose of your life as you see fit, because you believe that right can be negated if the need is great.  From your premise, all the government has to do is attach a tag to mandatory national service that says, "needed for the greater good," and your rights become meaningless.

And it's only as responsible as the people involved who demand such.

[Chump]

And it's only as responsible as the people involved who demand such.

And so we witness the slow degradation of the greatest economic, industrial, and military superpower ever on the face of this planet.  The responsible people are drowned out by the apathetic, demanding their "gimmes."

[Chris_]

And are you willing to pay that kind of price?

I'm guessing you can't even begin to imagine the cost, which is why you're so friggin eager to jump into that shitpile head first.

My attention span has officially jumped the rail on this.   Distracted by featherdancing kittehs.  Carry on if you must!   

[The Village Idiot]

And it's only as responsible as the people involved who demand such.

Which is a good reason to say no.

[Eupher]

Eupher, a responsible government is formed to protect the rights of its citizens.  It cannot exercise that power by denying the rights of its citizens and still be called responsible.

But you're right, I'm resolute, as are you.  Witness where your premise has led, though.  Dutch wants mandatory national service for two years, and IIRC you are against a mandate of that sort.  I am, as well, but I'm the only one that has any grounds to say why.  You can't claim the right to dispose of your life as you see fit, because you believe that right can be negated if the need is great.  From your premise, all the government has to do is attach a tag to mandatory national service that says, "needed for the greater good," and your rights become meaningless.

This is where we part company, Chump. A government is formed for many reasons, not just the reason you keep harping on, namely that it's "formed to protect the rights of its citizens".

A government also represents the people and, as such, it has an obligation to protect itself through its people. As a government is an entity (though it's staffed by people), it cannot defend itself unless it calls on its people both proactively and reactively. (We get into trouble when the government forgets the "proactive" part and becomes "reactive.")

I also disagree with you when you say you're the only one who can articulate why a national service mandate is a bad idea. I'm saying it's a bad idea for a number of reasons:

1.  Such a mandate increases the size of government to administer, direct, and enforce the mandate. As government is already bloated beyond comprehension, that mandate does not serve us well.

2.  An inevitable fight would ensue due to a perceived conflict with the laws against posse comitatus. This may sound silly, but much energy would be expended in trying to convince a skeptical electorate that a "national service" initiative wouldn't turn into the current administration's personal armed guard. Don't laugh - plenty has been said about Obama and his "thoughts" on such matters.

3.  This mandate actually attempts to legislate morality and personal responsibility. This is where Dutch has it wrong. While I appreciate his POV and understand it completely in that, like him, I've seen all manner of dirtbag people who cannot, as a result of their service to themselves only, cannot seem to get their heads out of their asses. From my perspective, this is DIRECTLY attributed to a decided lack of both a sense of responsibility to community and a sense of duty to others. Most young people I've worked with have no sense of teamwork, no sense of obligation to others, and are utterly selfish. Those who have served in uniform and have once again immersed themselves in civilian life know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. But in the end, this kind of morality and sense of personal responsibility cannot be legislated by the government. It must come from within.

In the end, I recognize that I am one of 300 million people in this country. If it's necessary for me to give my life in the defense of my country or its interests, I'm prepared to do that. You say you're prepared to do the same, but you're unwilling to let go of the power that actually makes that decision.

So with you, Chump, it isn't the right of self-determination nearly as much as it's got to be your call. You have to have the power and the authority.

Those of us who have served recognize that we are not always best placed to make those judgments. We therefore allow our elected leaders and officers appointed over us to make those decisions. (Words like that go into the various oaths that we take, so I wouldn't expect you to know about that or understand it.)

In short, I choose to climb down off my high horse and work for the common good. You seem to have a problem with that.

Based on my comments above, you'll note that I am exercising my right to self-determination. I am making decisions that are mine to make and not the government's. I am freely stepping aside and am putting my trust in others. That's the essence of teamwork and of sacrifice.

[Mustang]

Eupher, a responsible government is formed to protect the rights of its citizens.  It cannot exercise that power by denying the rights of its citizens and still be called responsible.

But you're right, I'm resolute, as are you.  Witness where your premise has led, though.  Dutch wants mandatory national service for two years, and IIRC you are against a mandate of that sort.  I am, as well, but I'm the only one that has any grounds to say why.  You can't claim the right to dispose of your life as you see fit, because you believe that right can be negated if the need is great.  From your premise, all the government has to do is attach a tag to mandatory national service that says, "needed for the greater good," and your rights become meaningless.

If we were involved in a large scale battlefield conflict and needed to conscript and we lost the war, the citizens lose their rights under victory of the opposing country.
It's like saying a hypothetical war with China doesn't need a draft, because it's unfair to citizens rights and if we lost that war, your whole argument is negated by the fact that our protected citizens are now living under the flag of Chinese communists.

That being said, I disagree with Dutch. I like a volunteer military unless engaged in a war which needs a draft for victory.

On a slightly unrelated note, what I think our military really needs is major tech upgrades, not universal military service ...we need to start converting our military into plasma/laser riflles + laser anti-missle/air systems , satelite/space warfare (Reagan's star wars, etc.), robotics and  power armor.
We are not as backwards on these technologies as some might think we are.
  

[The Village Idiot]

If we were involved in a large scale battlefield conflict and needed to conscript and we lost the war, the citizens lose their rights under victory of the opposing country.
It's like saying a hypothetical war with China doesn't need a draft, because it's unfair to citizens rights and if we lost that war, your whole argument is negated by the fact that our protected citizens are now living under the flag of Chinese communists.

If you "need" a draft (assuming that government owns its people like cattle), then maybe the government is too unpopular to survive and should be replaced by something else.

[Carl]

If you "need" a draft (assuming that government owns its people like cattle), then maybe the government is too unpopular to survive and should be replaced by something else.

I don`t believe that government owns us but I do believe that each of us who enjoy the freedom,liberty and prosperity this country has provided (until O is done with it anyways) has a responsibility to protect and defend that which we have benefited from.

The government is the organizer and controller of the means to do that,the military.
It would seem having an orderly flow into the the military,presuming a crisis,rather then a call where for a while there may be more then can be processed and trained or another time too few would be beneficial.
That speaks only to the merits not whether it is allowable under the Constitution.

I have never been in the military as there was no draft when I came of age (would have gone if there was) nor any conflicts that were testing the manpower levels.
The merits of conscription beyond that I would leave to them that have experience with the subject,just a thought on that matter.

In case anyone wonders and thinks it is easy for me to say this at my age because I won`t get drafted I would extend service to include someone that could be utilized for some purpose even if it wasn`t on a front line as long as physically able.
That would include me and if in some support such as repairing vehicles or whatever there still would be an element of danger as it may be targeted.

[NHSparky]

Which is a good reason to say no.

No to service?  Quite the opposite--if more people knew how their government operated in its current form, the outrage would force, yes, FORCE fundamental change in how government functions.  As it is, we're a nation who basically doesn't give a shit as long as the proverbial trains run on time.  While I'm normally loathe to quote liberal bumper stickers, it is pretty much true that people aren't outraged because they're simply not paying attention.

[TheSarge]

It doesn't have to.  It's possible to reinvent the wheel sometimes.

Have you NOT read anything that Ron Paul has said he wants to do?  Did you NOT pay attention to him in the debates?

The only wheel he and 99.9% of the Liberaltarians want to "re-invent" is made of wood with 10 spokes and is encased in an iron hoop.