mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
Mandatory Service
- Thread starter Paco
- Start date
- Status
Chris Rhines
Member
Absolutely. How could there be any question about this? Do you think that you have the right to force me to intervene in such a situation?
One reason why I dislike framing liberty in terms of rights. I much prefer to talk about mutually consentual limitations on action, such as the non-aggression principle.
- Chris
CAPTAIN MIKE
Member
I see it working in more ways than one.
First -- Mandatory Military Service is a good thing. It makes citizens re-affirm with their actions and their lives what the SAY when they pledge allegiance. It also makes politicians think twice about 'wasting' our youth needlessly...especially when their sons and daughters are involved and cannot escape.
Second -- There is something to be learned by the Israeli experience, where all men and women of a certain age must serve their country for a minimum of a certain amount of time. It forges a sense of commitment that goes far beyond just serving to get educational benefits.
A nation that EXPECTS commitment and is willing to pay the price for Freedom is a nation that can overcome the pettiness of politics and survive in the long run.
America is a great experiment. Too many of us who were born here take our Freedom for granted. I for one fully support the idea of Mandatory Service.
Very Respectfully Submitted:
CAPTAIN MIKE
First -- Mandatory Military Service is a good thing. It makes citizens re-affirm with their actions and their lives what the SAY when they pledge allegiance. It also makes politicians think twice about 'wasting' our youth needlessly...especially when their sons and daughters are involved and cannot escape.
Second -- There is something to be learned by the Israeli experience, where all men and women of a certain age must serve their country for a minimum of a certain amount of time. It forges a sense of commitment that goes far beyond just serving to get educational benefits.
A nation that EXPECTS commitment and is willing to pay the price for Freedom is a nation that can overcome the pettiness of politics and survive in the long run.
America is a great experiment. Too many of us who were born here take our Freedom for granted. I for one fully support the idea of Mandatory Service.
Very Respectfully Submitted:
CAPTAIN MIKE
Aguila Blanca
Member
What principles are violated by mandatory service?
There has always been provision for conscientious objection, so there's no coercion to violate one's religious beliefs by killing if that is unacceptable to your religion. Sorry ... I don't see any violation.
biere
Member
Military service places a person under military control. The military has their own police, rule enforcers, law system, and so on.
I find the idea of mandatory military service to be mandatory slavery since the people serving their time in the military are not protected with the constitution and bill of rights.
I would never be for a mandatory service of any sort. I consider the USA to be the home of the free.
For some of the ideas others have offered as to why this mandatory slavery would be acceptable I think 2 things would help.
A militia set up the way the founding fathers wanted it. You would have folks trained and armed with modern weapons and tactics and they would be able to help in their normal area. I see this as entirely internal, these folks would not be sent out to fight some war, they would be called up to fight anyone attacking our borders. This would be voluntary and about like the national gaurd these days. And they would be useful for any riots or natural disaster or whatever.
For those who wish to learn a skill and make some money, offer some version of internal military. They can be trained and work at hospitals and in some of the tech jobs and what not, and once again not be used outside the borders. My main consideration for this is that locally they are always willing to hire trained nurses and what not. If someone wants the military to train them then let that person also go work off the debt from the education in some out of the way place that could use more tech or nurses or whatever.
For those who want the politicians kid to limit what choices the politician makes, I agree that would probably work. But I don't like it one bit. The people need to tell politicians what to do. If the people can not do that and they have to rely on some relative of the elected folks to be the limiting factor, then there are some serious problems.
I find the idea of mandatory military service to be mandatory slavery since the people serving their time in the military are not protected with the constitution and bill of rights.
I would never be for a mandatory service of any sort. I consider the USA to be the home of the free.
For some of the ideas others have offered as to why this mandatory slavery would be acceptable I think 2 things would help.
A militia set up the way the founding fathers wanted it. You would have folks trained and armed with modern weapons and tactics and they would be able to help in their normal area. I see this as entirely internal, these folks would not be sent out to fight some war, they would be called up to fight anyone attacking our borders. This would be voluntary and about like the national gaurd these days. And they would be useful for any riots or natural disaster or whatever.
For those who wish to learn a skill and make some money, offer some version of internal military. They can be trained and work at hospitals and in some of the tech jobs and what not, and once again not be used outside the borders. My main consideration for this is that locally they are always willing to hire trained nurses and what not. If someone wants the military to train them then let that person also go work off the debt from the education in some out of the way place that could use more tech or nurses or whatever.
For those who want the politicians kid to limit what choices the politician makes, I agree that would probably work. But I don't like it one bit. The people need to tell politicians what to do. If the people can not do that and they have to rely on some relative of the elected folks to be the limiting factor, then there are some serious problems.
La Pistoletta
Member
Hawkmoon: it is a violation of the right to life and freedom. And religion has got nothing to do with it. One doesn't need an excuse to live and be free.
mountainclmbr
Member
If I were a shrewd politician, here is what I could do with mandatory service: Exempt my party from service. Send the remaining mandatory draftees to fight a war against al-queida wearing priest robes and armed with crosses and no food or water. What would Hillary do (WWHD)?
DesertEagle613
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2004
- Messages
- 221
" "Society" (being a vague intellectual construct) has no such right; individuals have rights. (They still have to defend them) "
Ok, let me define what I mean by society: the social structure and set of shared assumptions that permits people to cross the street with the nearly complete assurance that nobody will run a red light; that lets supermarkets keep vast open inventories with comparatively little fear of shoplifting; that lets most people live out their lives without being the victim of violent attack, etc. It's called "social capital."
To give you an example of what happens when this breaks down, look at Beirut.
The breakdown of society is precisely what people on this board call SHTF. When this happens, lots of people know hardship. In extreme cases, many people die, usually the young, old, and weak.
Frankly, I suspect that this argument won't sway you, because you seem to fundamentally believe that individuals are essentially and morally independent of each other, i.e. every man for himself. I think that such a belief is not only morally flawed, it is also self-defeating. If everyone believed as you do, the social fabric would rip apart and 99% of humanity would die off. You depend for your well-being on other people not believing what you do.
Ok, let me define what I mean by society: the social structure and set of shared assumptions that permits people to cross the street with the nearly complete assurance that nobody will run a red light; that lets supermarkets keep vast open inventories with comparatively little fear of shoplifting; that lets most people live out their lives without being the victim of violent attack, etc. It's called "social capital."
To give you an example of what happens when this breaks down, look at Beirut.
The breakdown of society is precisely what people on this board call SHTF. When this happens, lots of people know hardship. In extreme cases, many people die, usually the young, old, and weak.
Frankly, I suspect that this argument won't sway you, because you seem to fundamentally believe that individuals are essentially and morally independent of each other, i.e. every man for himself. I think that such a belief is not only morally flawed, it is also self-defeating. If everyone believed as you do, the social fabric would rip apart and 99% of humanity would die off. You depend for your well-being on other people not believing what you do.
Feanaro
Member
Might I remind everyone for mandatory service of something? You are proposing that you send a man with a gun to my house and give me a single choice. Serve in the military/civil service or have my liberties infringed, a chunk of my life taken and forever being branded a criminal. I don't get to "opt out", I either do it or I am put in jail. That isn't a contract, I don't get a choice not to sign. If that sounds fine to you all I can say is thank God this remains a (mostly) free country. Your opinion is yours and I wouldn't take it from you or keep you from speaking it but I'm glad you don't decide policy.
As for "giving back to society", what about taxes? Doesn't a man that holds a job already gives back by producing a commodity or providing a service?
As for "giving back to society", what about taxes? Doesn't a man that holds a job already gives back by producing a commodity or providing a service?
trooper
Member
So far a lot of people seem to agree that mandatory service in some sort of citizen's militia in times of desaster IS an option. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if desaster is already closing in it'll probably too late to equip and train an organized militia or reserve army.
If you support mandatory service in in national emergencies you should support earlier preparations for it, too. That's basically how the draft is organized over here: you get drafted at a certain age (that is, if you don't opt for alternative service), serve for a period of 9 months during which you receive your training and then go home again. When you get out you can choose to remain in the army reserve which means that you'll be called up for exercises and training every now and then, and that you can be reactivated if you are needed for some reason. If you don't enter the reserve you can only be called up again if the nation is attacked by foreign invaders.
During basic military service you can be sent abroad only with your consent.
Regards,
Trooper
If you support mandatory service in in national emergencies you should support earlier preparations for it, too. That's basically how the draft is organized over here: you get drafted at a certain age (that is, if you don't opt for alternative service), serve for a period of 9 months during which you receive your training and then go home again. When you get out you can choose to remain in the army reserve which means that you'll be called up for exercises and training every now and then, and that you can be reactivated if you are needed for some reason. If you don't enter the reserve you can only be called up again if the nation is attacked by foreign invaders.
During basic military service you can be sent abroad only with your consent.
Regards,
Trooper
Garrum
Member
Trooper, that's a whole lot more edible than the "You're in the army now, and if you get sent to die in a bogus war in another land, so what?" that some are pushing. It's also pretty close to what I mentioned. Train the militia, and then pretty much leave 'em be until there is an actual threat our country or area.
Treylis
Member
Threads on the draft in places like this always make my head spin. What kind of major cognitive dissonance must take place for people to say "come and get them!" when it comes to guns, but then heartily approve when it comes to HUMAN LIFE being taken and not just property?
I also note that a good number of folks just totally ignored all the rebuttals and arguments presented in my selection of Rand's essay. Good going, there.
If you believe in the draft, you believe that the State owns your life. I do not believe this to be true. So, if you're going to show up and try to draft me, bring your guns. You'll be needing them. The only way my body is ever going to be put in any sort of uniform involuntarily is when it's cooling on a slab.
I also note that a good number of folks just totally ignored all the rebuttals and arguments presented in my selection of Rand's essay. Good going, there.
If you believe in the draft, you believe that the State owns your life. I do not believe this to be true. So, if you're going to show up and try to draft me, bring your guns. You'll be needing them. The only way my body is ever going to be put in any sort of uniform involuntarily is when it's cooling on a slab.
Heady stuff.....
Especially on Memorial Day
Seems like there are two very different threads here
1. A Draft
2. Some type of mandatory training-service
I approve of number two...can't imagine #1 flying with the national tendency we have towards self-absorption.
I wonder how many of you would squawk if the Dept. Of Homeland Security proposed funding two weeks at Gunsite for all able bodied citizens as part of their war on domestic terrorism???
What...do I see everyones hands up
I see.....
So...what we really rebel against is inconvenience
We will take all the good stuff we can grab.....but nobody wants to "pay" for it.
Especially on Memorial Day
Seems like there are two very different threads here
1. A Draft
2. Some type of mandatory training-service
I approve of number two...can't imagine #1 flying with the national tendency we have towards self-absorption.
I wonder how many of you would squawk if the Dept. Of Homeland Security proposed funding two weeks at Gunsite for all able bodied citizens as part of their war on domestic terrorism???
What...do I see everyones hands up
I see.....
So...what we really rebel against is inconvenience
We will take all the good stuff we can grab.....but nobody wants to "pay" for it.
Joe Demko
Member
I would object to the government making it mandatory for me to attend Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, or Disney Land. Inconvenience has nothing to do with it. The issue, as has been stated over and over here, is that I am not government property to use as they see fit.
La Pistoletta
Member
Treylis and Golgo-13: exactly.
The thing one has to understand is that you either have self-ownership or you don't. You either have freedom or you don't. If anyone, a regular person, a king, a president, a priest, the pope, if anyone can come and drag you into doing something under threat and do it with the support of the law, then you have nothing short of a fascist rule.
So claim your right to enslave. But we will claim our right to defend ourselves from it with every last bit of means available and necessary.
The thing one has to understand is that you either have self-ownership or you don't. You either have freedom or you don't. If anyone, a regular person, a king, a president, a priest, the pope, if anyone can come and drag you into doing something under threat and do it with the support of the law, then you have nothing short of a fascist rule.
So claim your right to enslave. But we will claim our right to defend ourselves from it with every last bit of means available and necessary.
Treylis
Member
Opposition to slavery is self-absorption?
My hand sure isn't.
Number one, I don't think that's something the government should be doing.
Number two, even if they did, can you imagine the INCREDIBLE OVERHEAD that would be via taxes? You'd end up paying in taxes probably at least 10 times as much as you would just forking it over to Gunsite.
Why, next thing you know, people might start suggesting that the government take huge chunks out of your paycheck and put it in a huge, inefficient Ponzi scheme with a snappy name like "Social Security"! After all, it's just more "convenient" that way, isn't it?
I'm always amused when someone compares the draft to slavery, I'm sure
someone who has spent 30 years in a cotton field with a master standing
by with a whip would be glad to take a two year tour.
We do need the draft and it will be used again in time so those in that age
group serve or go either way the country wins. But please don't compare
this to slavery because it is not the same, I think the truth is most have
a fear of a TI/DI telling them what to do.
someone who has spent 30 years in a cotton field with a master standing
by with a whip would be glad to take a two year tour.
We do need the draft and it will be used again in time so those in that age
group serve or go either way the country wins. But please don't compare
this to slavery because it is not the same, I think the truth is most have
a fear of a TI/DI telling them what to do.
Joe Demko
Member
K-12 education can be fulfilled by private or home schooling. Bad comparison.
No, I'm not afraid of DI's. The ones at Ft. Leonard Wood were as loud and bossy as drills anywhere and I didn't wet my pants or cry. Please do make the mistake of assuming that everybody who is against conscription never served.
No, I'm not afraid of DI's. The ones at Ft. Leonard Wood were as loud and bossy as drills anywhere and I didn't wet my pants or cry. Please do make the mistake of assuming that everybody who is against conscription never served.
La Pistoletta
Member
Wingman: can you explain to me how it is not slavery? Remember: only the actual means are of importance here, not the ends ("for your own good", "for society", "for the Führer" and so on. Doesn't matter.)
2 years is less than 30 years, yes. And one leg cut off is less than two legs cut off. What's your point?
2 years is less than 30 years, yes. And one leg cut off is less than two legs cut off. What's your point?
"Molon Labe" applies to both my guns and my body. If you want to draft me to go play policeman somewhere, why don't you come try to get me yourself? 
I will gladly, happily defend my land against a foreign invader, and if I could do so without incurring the wrath of the .gov, I might be willing to fight abroad in for a worthy cause (occupying Iraq isn't one). But if I understand correctly, fighting abroad outside the US military generally gets your citizenship revoked. I will see to my own training for such an eventuality, and I will act as I see fit, not in response to a government demand for my services. I understand that military success requires cooperation and organization, and that's not a problem for me. The problem is that the government (and some people here, it appears) don't understand that my life is mine, only to be put in jeopardy with my consent.
Obi-wan: When children are put in K-12 schooling against their and their parents' will, then yes it is a form of slavery, and abhorrent to the founding principles of this country.
I will gladly, happily defend my land against a foreign invader, and if I could do so without incurring the wrath of the .gov, I might be willing to fight abroad in for a worthy cause (occupying Iraq isn't one). But if I understand correctly, fighting abroad outside the US military generally gets your citizenship revoked. I will see to my own training for such an eventuality, and I will act as I see fit, not in response to a government demand for my services. I understand that military success requires cooperation and organization, and that's not a problem for me. The problem is that the government (and some people here, it appears) don't understand that my life is mine, only to be put in jeopardy with my consent.
Obi-wan: When children are put in K-12 schooling against their and their parents' will, then yes it is a form of slavery, and abhorrent to the founding principles of this country.
The above quote is one of the silliest things I've seen waste bandwidth in a long long time. Rights are an illusion - an illusion permitted to exist by the powers that be in so far as it simplifies their continuance as the powers that be.
Throughout all history one thing has remained true, is true today and will always be true. He who has the gold and carries the biggest stick makes the rules. If you make the rules you get to decide what everyone else can or cannot do (and that's rights - you're granted them by the powers that be whether you believe so or not. The PowersThatBe say march into that shower you do it. The PTB say you must give them your money then you do it. The PTB say you can't build a house over there then you don't. The PTB say we can come in and search you or your house when ever we want and they do. The PTB decide how fast you can drive and even what you can drive and you do. The PTB decide they wanna know how much money you've got and they find out. The PTB say you're in the Army now - you're in the Army now. GET IT! If you don't make the rules then the only rights you have are those the PTB say you have). You say "well that's just not moral"! Say it all you want. Doesn't matter - it may not be moral but it is reality.
You don't like the rules you get more gold or a bigger stick and you change 'em. That's life. That's the way it has been, the way it is and the way it will be. All the moralists, spouters of religion, coulda-woulda-shoulda squawkers, pink sky blue bunny philosphers and other useful idiots aren't going to change that simple truth one iota.
The guys with the gold and big sticks don't really want you to know this of course. They want you to believe all the moralistic, holier than thou, we're all equal and have god given rights crap. Why? Because if everyone caught on to the gold and big stick rule it would complicate the gold and big stick guys problem of remaining the gold and big stick guys.
Pretty simple isn't it?
Hmmmm....
War of 1812
Civil War
WWII (bang - they just woke up and the Japanese were blowing the bejeezus out of Pearl Harbor)
Sept 11, 2001
It's pretty obvious tha the guy who made the above statement [egregious personal attack deleted by Tamara] considers his life more valuable than that of the soldier. He/Her is willing to serve as long as that service doesn't place his/her life at risk.
This person's social group extends only as far as friends. Heck even chimpanzees sense of group extends into the neighborhood. This person might want to do a little evolving - being a member of the species homo sapiens pretty much means having at least a sense of communtity. Obviously his/her sense of group doesn't even make it to the neighborhood level, let alone that of community, city, state or nation. It is no wonder he/she espouse the total disregard for their nation that they have in so many posts in this thread.
How very shortsighted and selfish of this person. Society exists and developed because man can specialize. This person directly benefits from that society every time he eats, sleeps under a roof, wears clothes, is safe from predators etc due to the labors of others in society. Yet this person feels no sense of duty to provide like benefit to society. It almost makes one ashamed to be human.
The one common thread I see from all those agains a draft is that they have a sense of duty only to themselves and maybe their family. They just haven't evolved enough I guess to feel an responsibility to the group from whence their standard of living flows. Shameful - just shameful.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, so because it wouldn't be picking cotton, it's not slavery.
Oh and the master wouldn't have a whip, he would have a gun.
No one has answered how you would discipline the 487,000 some odd people who would resist being made "non-slaves". Outside of Leavenworth, what is an appropriate punishment for disobeyal of orders?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Beuller?
Ed
Oh and the master wouldn't have a whip, he would have a gun.
No one has answered how you would discipline the 487,000 some odd people who would resist being made "non-slaves". Outside of Leavenworth, what is an appropriate punishment for disobeyal of orders?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Beuller?
Ed
And I don't think that most of us here appreciate you questioning our patriotism because we feel that slavery, mandatory service, whatever(a rose by any other name...), in the military is wrong. I realize that I live in the greatest nation in the world, and love this country with all my heart, which is why I am AGAINST the draft.
It terrifies and disgusts me that some here who profess to be against intrusion on our rights, think it is cool to grab someone at gunpoint, and force them to "do good for the fatherland", in the name of preserving the good ole USA. Do you realize that the founders didn't even want a standing army? Much less a forced standing army.
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
Thomas Paine.
"and be prepared for some of the latter yourself"
Ed Harper
It terrifies and disgusts me that some here who profess to be against intrusion on our rights, think it is cool to grab someone at gunpoint, and force them to "do good for the fatherland", in the name of preserving the good ole USA. Do you realize that the founders didn't even want a standing army? Much less a forced standing army.
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
Thomas Paine.
"and be prepared for some of the latter yourself"
Ed Harper
- Status