Mandatory Service

[DesertEagle613]

One of LaPistoletta's main contentions is that he is free to withdraw from action, being under no obligation to be involved in the greater society.

This is making quite a leap. Your very existence as a thinking being is dependent on others, not only your parents but your teachers, friends, the vast network of people who supply your material needs. While there is no legalistic demand that you reciprocate in pursuing the welfare of others (at least, you and others have argued this), it takes little thought to realize that more than your tax-payments sustain this system. The system is also sustained by a social code of ethics and behavior, such that simply paying taxes is insufficent to "do your share."

I say "do your share" because even if you argue that you have no concrete obligation to do violence in defense of your society, surely you should be impelled to do so by honor, and a recognition of the labors of others on your behalf!

To say that you never consented to being part of this system, and therefore need not uphold it, is missing the point. "For against your will were you born, against your will you live, against your will you will die, and against your will you will give an accounting for your deeds" (Ethics of the Fathers). Briefly, that's life.

 

[La Pistoletta]

It is a negation of rights, with an end that can never justify the means. One may claim the right to even murder, if one wishes. Or enslave. Or steal. As an individual or as a collective. Of course, one then loses those respective rights. If the state wishes to murder, it has to prepare to get killed, and if it wishes to enslave, it has to be prepared to be defended against.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Your very existence as a thinking being is dependent on others, not only your parents but your teachers, friends, the vast network of people who supply your material needs.

All those people who sustain my material needs do so either via consent, or for payment. Either way, I have no obligation to them beyond what I, myself, decide to take on.

While there is no legalistic demand that you reciprocate in pursuing the welfare of others...

There are such legalistic demands codified in US law, unfortunately. The argument that I make is that such demands can and should be ignored as immoral.

The system is also sustained by a social code of ethics and behavior, such that simply paying taxes is insufficent to "do your share."

Oooookay. What else, exactly, is on this list of obligations?

The whole social contract concept is a chimpra, intended to allow the government essentially unlimited power. If a social contract exists, where is my signature on it? Where are the terms written down? Why can't I renegotiate the contract? Why can't I opt out of the contract, in exchange for foregoing my benefits under it?

When a person speaks of adherence to a social contract, they usually mean to say, "Do what the state tells you, or else."

To say that you never consented to being part of this system, and therefore need not uphold it, is missing the point.

Quite the contrary - consent to moral obligation is EXACTLY the point. In order for a moral duty to have any weight, it must have been agreed upon by all parties concerned. To claim otherwise is to advocate a slave mentality - I could say that you have a duty to buy me lunch at the Tokyo Cafe every day for the next five years. Do you agree with that? Why not?

- Chris

 

[Foreign Devil]

The constitution and the laws written under it are the social contract - one of those nice written contracts that libertarians celebrate. Your parents contracted for you, the way parents contract for other things for their children. As an emancipated adult you may terminate the contract by renouning your citizenship and leaving the country.

Deserteagle is right. You don't exist as an atom floating off in the void, isolated from everything else. Your actions affect other people. You are in turn affected by the actions of other people, and by the countless people who came before you.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Why can't I opt out of the contract, in exchange for foregoing my benefits under it?

You can. It's called voting with your feet. You are free to depart for the country of your choice immediately.

I suppose being from an older generation that grew up subject to the draft I have a hard time relating to those who have convinced themselves that it's a form of enslavement. It isn't. My father and all my uncles served in WW2, and some of those same uncles also served in Korea. One cousin of my parents' generation served as a figher pilot in WW@ and Korea, and then as a transport pilot in Vietnam.

Being willing to serve in the armed forces for two years out of your life is a small price to pay for living in a country -- any country. The draft laws do not actually require that you serve in the military -- if you are a conscientious objector, you can choose alternative service, such as being an unarmed medic, or working in a civilian hospital. But just deciding that you shouldn't have to give anything back because you didn't "ask" for what the country gives you is a cop-out, and seems to this olde pharte to be right in line with the current attitude of nobody accepting responsibility for anything.

 

[La Pistoletta]

Chris Rhines: excellent post. That's exactly what I was basically trying to say.

A contract is only truly legit and moral if all parts sign it consentually. Forcing a child to sign something that will affect his childhood and even his adulthood - when he is supposed to be able to choose but oh no, too late - is not agreeing to a contract, that's forgery of consent.

Hawkmoon: I'm sure your people did a good job at those places. But could you explain exactly how you think draft is not slavery? How is "work for us or we'll throw you in a jail cell" not slavery and extortion? If your relatives agreed to go to war, that should be a good thing for them. But if they didn't want to, and were then sent to prison for their opinions, would you still have the same stance on the conscription? I'm not necessarily saying saying you're biased, but it should have had a very real impact on your life, would that have been the case, wouldn't it?

 

[Chris Rhines]

The constitution and the laws written under it are the social contract - one of those nice written contracts that libertarians celebrate.

The Constitution is not, and has never been, a valid contract. Read Lysander Spooner's No Treason; it's available on the web for free.

If the Constitution were a valid contract, then I could indeed renounce it by leaving the country. Since it is not, well, I'm not going to pretend it requires me to do anything. I'm not one of those libertarians who worships the Constitution.

You don't exist as an atom floating off in the void, isolated from everything else. Your actions affect other people. You are in turn affected by the actions of other people, and by the countless people who came before you.

I have truly no idea what point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that because my life interacts with that of some other people, that I bear some obligation towards them? No.

Being willing to serve in the armed forces for two years out of your life is a small price to pay for living in a country -- any country.

It's an unacceptable price, if it is extracted from me by force. Keep in mind that I'm not given a choice, under the USG draft laws, of serving or leaving. I serve, or I go to prison.

But just deciding that you shouldn't have to give anything back because you didn't "ask" for what the country gives you is a cop-out, and seems to this olde pharte to be right in line with the current attitude of nobody accepting responsibility for anything.

You're confusing 'accepting responsibility' with 'being forced into responsibility.'

Again, if someone wants my service, let them ask. I'll decide who I'll give up my life for, because it is my life.

- Chris

 

[Foreign Devil]

Why exactly is the constitution not valid?

If you don't like the deal you are free to find a better one. Is someone stopping you from hopping on the next flight to the libertarian paradise of your choice? Oh wait there isn't one, I wonder why that is...

Parents choose a child's social contract by determining place of residence. They also chose your language, school and religion or lack of religion. Once you are an emancipated adult you can choose to leave the country and renounce your citizenship, thus ending the social contract.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Why exactly is the constitution not valid?

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them."

There's plenty more. Read and learn - No Treason is not very long.

If you don't like the deal you are free to find a better one. Is someone stopping you from hopping on the next flight to the libertarian paradise of your choice?

Because I don't want to, and because I don't have any moral obligation to. I plan on hanging around the US and annoying the state right up until it becomes an urgent threat to my life.

- Chris

 

[Foreign Devil]

Fair enough, I will read it.

 

[Art Eatman]

I've been in this argument since around 1965, off and on...

To me, this country is a package deal. My life has been pretty good because of the mix of government, economic system, people in general and their decisions regarding me, and my own efforts.

For all that "The harder I worked, the luckier I got," seems true to me, I don't pretend that others didn't either contribute in some manner, or help make it possible.

The idea of a couple of years of service as an obligation just doesn't seem unreasonable, given that background of ideas.

I will say one darned thing about the Draft in general: It takes a bunch of spoiled-brat prima donas and turns them into reasonable approximations of grownups.

, Art

 

[artherd]

This is a cappitolist democracy, not a socialist dictatorship.

Make it financially and emotionally atractive to take up a gun in anger for politics.

If you can't convince enough people that the fight has merit with today's advanced communications systems, maybe there shouldn't be a war going on in the first place.

 

[Art Eatman]

"This is a cappitolist democracy, not a socialist dictatorship."

Nope. It's a representative republic with a capitalistic economic system.

My own opinion, overall? If a Draft is needed because The People are unwilling to meet the required numbers for their defense, the Republic probably ain't worth saving.

Art

 

[Chris Rhines]

If a Draft is needed because The People are unwilling to meet the required numbers for their defense, the Republic probably ain't worth saving.

Well, there ya go.

- Chris

 

[vi9er]

It seems to me that two issues are being argued as one. Mandatory service for everyone past age X, and the draft in time of national emergency.

Mandatory service, for everyone, is BLATANTLY WRONG. Lets say the the class of 2004 is ordered into service, and must report to boot. And we will argue that 10%, a relatively small percentage, of the 4,186,015 of 18-19 year old males don't want to be there at all. How do you propose that we discipline this group?
Pushups? Screw you, I ain't doing em.

Stockade? That's a whole lot of people that you now have to take care of, who are providing no output.

Should we make an example of someone? Beat them if they disobey and make the others fear the leadership? Sounds VERY unconstitutional to me. Grounds for pressing the 2nd Amd. reset button.

In addition, who pays for the food, weapons, uniforms and training for these troops? Those who are paying taxes, which will definitly have to go up.

Speaking of taxes, do these soldiers get paid a wage? If so, again, who pays? If not, please explain how having someone work, against there will, for no pay, isn't slavery?

Outside of the sheer logistical issues, how can ANYONE here complain about the minor(comparably) infringements on the 2nd amd., and think that forced service is the best thing since the 1911?

Ed

 

[La Pistoletta]

Vi9er, you're right, but forced labour is slavery whether or not you get paid for it. It is still "work for us or else". The payment is more of an insult, since it tries to indicate that you're hired, not a slave which you actually are.

 

[vi9er]

I agree that forced labor, paid or not is slavery, but was merely using that in the rather long list of things that is wrong with that idea.
Ed

 

[Oleg Volk]

Let's look at another aspect of it: being drafted means having no choice when told to do things which are harmful to you (such as firing guns without ear plugs). It also means having no choice (or than being court-martialed or killed on the spot) about harming other people when ordered to do so. I have no desire to kill anyone on third party's command.

 

[mercedesrules]

(Art Eatman) I will say one darned thing about the Draft in general: It takes a bunch of spoiled-brat prima donas and turns them into reasonable approximations of grownups.

...some even still alive.

 

[DesertEagle613]

I should clarify that I was talking about a draft in a time of emergency, not a draft as "business as usual." Mandatory service is indeed an imposition on the liberties of the individual, as several of you have pointed out; but society has the right to ensure its own survival, even at the expense of imposing on its members (some of whom would probably be at risk of their lives anyway, if it were a true emergency).

The key is reconciling individual liberty with duty to your fellow. Some of you have stated emphatically that you see no such duty for yourselves, under any circumstance (even claiming that the Constitution is non-binding). I find that disturbing. If you are carrying, for example, and you see a murder in progress that you can stop without serious risk to yourself, do you have the right to "exercise your free will" and walk away?

Granted, the draft involves extreme risk to yourself; but my general point is that to say that you have absolutely no obligation to see to the welfare of others is abhorrent.

Again, whether a draft is justified in the particular case would depend on circumstances.

 

[vi9er]

I don't disagree totaly with the draft. However, I agree with the sentiment that if people aren't willing to defend their country, it's not worth saving.

Frankly, I just don't see there being a need to draft people to directly defend our country. If the time comes to defend from an attack from without, I fully believe that we will rise up, kick ass, and take names.

I think we need be much more fearful of withering from within. We truly are in an almost invincible position, as far as invasion goes. The only way America will fall is from within. Not from foreign invaders running rampant through the country, but our own government, running roughshod on our rights.

Ed

 

[Art Eatman]

Not "some", mercedesrules; "most". Same as with enlistees.

Nobody volunteers to die early. Most guys like Patton's view about who dies; I sure do. In the FWIW department, during the peak of the Vietnam actions the death rate for the average grunt's age-group was higher from car wrecks in the U.S. than from combat. Helluva note...

IIRC, we lost more people from "training wrecks" during Desert Shield than during Desert Storm.

And folks want the world to make sense?

, Art

"He ain't tryin' to change nobody, he's just tryin' real hard to adjust."--Bellamy Brothers

 

[telomerase]

Even mandatory cotton-picking was outlawed by the 13th Amendment. Mandatory meaningless gladiatorial combat with obsolete weapons in Third World swamps and deserts must be even more un-Constitutional.

As far as "giving something back", isn't any useful occupation giving back to society? (Unless you're going to count the deleterious effects from the taxes you pay to the political class... I guess that could be counted as a drain on civil society).

If this country is ever invaded from the outside there will be plenty of volunteers to defend it, myself included.

 

[mercedesrules]

(DesertEagle613) ...society has the right to ensure its own survival,

"Society" (being a vague intellectual construct) has no such right; individuals have rights. (They still have to defend them)

MR

 

[Foreign Devil]

Rights are also vague, intellectual constructs. They are pretty meaningless unless they are agreed upon by people. Those people who accept certain norms, mores, rights etc. start to resemble ... a society.