Military Recruitment

[qwert65]

Sans, please tell me one civilization which has lasted without a military

 

[cbrgator]

sebastian did you graduate from UM law?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

qwert65 wrote:

Sans, please tell me one civilization which has lasted without a military

qwert65, absolutely. When you tell me what civilization deserves, practically, to continue existing when it refuses to voluntarily fund means to defend itself, but rather forces people to subsidize a separate military that will fight for it.

I don't have a right to force someone to subsidize my bodyguard. Nor do I have a right to force someone to be my bodyguard. Nor do a great number of men suddenly develop that right.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[C-D-P]

Any job in the mil will set you up for success on the outside (unless your a turd). But you have to set yourself up at the same time.

 

[qwert65]

Sans, say I agree that taxes are wrong, say the military is wrong.

I'm not saying these are good things I'm saying that if an army were not neccessary to a nation how come no nation has survived without one?

Carrying that further(using your favorite thing and mine Logic) One can infer that a military is neccessary to a nations existence

Than being that it's necessary for survival it becomes good(like air, food etc)

Now if you can give me one I'll join your side I want to seriously but logic won't let me

 

[strambo]

I'm just glad that being in the Guard, only 1/4 of my monthly income comes from tax dollars. That only makes me 1/4 evil...not too shabby!

I serve for the chance to shoot some bearded smelly guy in the face...they ran from us in Afghanistan...maybe next year in Iraq they'll stay and fight. We'll see, one can only hope.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans, say I agree that taxes are wrong, say the military is wrong.

I'm not saying these are good things I'm saying that if an army were not neccessary to a nation how come no nation has survived without one?

Carrying that further(using your favorite thing and mine Logic) One can infer that a military is neccessary to a nations existence

Than being that it's necessary for survival it becomes good(like air, food etc)

Now if you can give me one I'll join your side I want to seriously but logic won't let me

qwert65, I believe your sincerity. But again, which nation (and I use the term "nation" in the sense of "a group of people sharing the same basic ideas and voluntarily living together") deserves to continue existing if the people will not voluntarily defend themselves, but rather have to be forced to do so?

I understand that logic won't let you agree with me. That is because you are taking a "nation," meaning "a collection of people under a particular government," as a first premiss. But the following flawed premiss is the real cause of your logical conundrum:

Something does not become good for a human because it is necessary. Air and food and water are good because it is a part of nature our nature to utilize them. That they are necessary for us to continue existing is independent of their intrinsic goodness.

Before the Fall, and before Cain killed Abel, there was no violence. Therefore, there was no coercion, and therefore no tax-funded government. [Tax-funded] government is a result of the Fall, as St. Augustine said. Violence is alien to our human nature: its presence is a flaw introduced by original sin.

The fact that violence is sometimes necessary to defend oneself does not make violence a good thing. Violence is morally neutral in itself, but it is always natural evil, when used against a living thing. Violence is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It may only legitimately be used in self-defense or the defense of another. No one may morally initiate an act of violence against another person.

The fact that violence (again, morally neutral in itself) is sometimes necessary does not mean that it is necessary or even moral to provide this violence by means of injustice (taxation.)

That is where your logic is going wrong. You are starting with a false premiss, and are therefore arriving at a false conclusion.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[dm1333]

Sans, you couldn't be wronger when you say

First, the Coast Guard is only considered the military in a time of war, but if Those Who Know Better consider this indeterminate "War On Terror" to be "a time of war," so be it.

Let me just bring up that pesky federal code that makes the Coast Guard a military service. You can argue this all you want but you are wrong. The question is, will you admit it?

14 USC 1.

The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.

As far as a free market service to help mariners in need? It already exists, and they don't respond in the kind of weather that the Coast Guard responds in. You can argue that one all you want to, but I happen to be a subject matter expert when it comes to maritime SAR.

I never killed anybody because I interdicted drugs in "the glorious war on drugs". To say that the people interdicting these drugs before they even cross our border are contributing to the drug fueled violence on our streets is insulting. Where is the personal responsibility of the criminal involved in violence on our streets when you say that the Coast Guard is responsible for the drug violence on our streets?

As for the rest of your post? I couldn't be bothered to read it. You seem to be one of those types who loves to hear himself talk. I have one bit of advice for you, be succinct.

You can't talk about the military the way you do with any credibility because you have absolutely no experience with it beyond what you may have read in a book. You talk about the free market and how great things would be if there was no government messing with everything. So you must think that Ken Lay was a great man, along with the executives at PG&E, and the fine people who brought us Bhopal, India. Get real.

Actually, let me make it REALLY clear for you, without a government to regulate business we would still be living in the same crappy conditions factory workers lived in during the Industrial Revolution.

 

[qwert65]

Before the Fall, and before Cain killed Abel, there was no violence. Therefore, there was no coercion, and therefore no tax-funded government

God who I belive exists nevertheless is not logic and if we took it as logic there would be what one family in your quote?

Unfortunatley goverments and military are neccessary. I can think of a civilization that "deserves" to continue the United States of America we're not perfect and as you admit no place is any better

As for neccessary not equaling good that would mean that there are instances where you can only do bad doing bad displeases God do you belive that God wants us to displease him?

We are way off topic here and should continue this conversation with PMs

To the OP I do not think this drift is all bad if you take it as tinking of all the people you would risk giving your life for

Sans again I kinda see where you're coming from but I don't think that Eden exists anymore(unfortunatley)

 

[dm1333]

strambo,

I'd gladly give up more of my money, even though it is stolen from the honest taxpayers, to give you higher combat pay. I just found out today that my pay has been stolen so why not give more of it to you confused guys in the Army! Gotta go now, more drugs to interdict and more street violence to be responsible for

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans, you couldn't be wronger when you say
Quote:
First, the Coast Guard is only considered the military in a time of war, but if Those Who Know Better consider this indeterminate "War On Terror" to be "a time of war," so be it.
Let me just bring up that pesky federal code that makes the Coast Guard a military service. You can argue this all you want but you are wrong. The question is, will you admit it?

14 USC 1.
Quote:
The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.

You're right. I couldn't have been more wrong. But I was only wrong in my belief on that subject after they made that apparently recent modification of the U.S. Code. The fact that it was rather recent is easily discerned from the mention of the "Department of Homeland Security." I am afraid I must have failed to keep up with the flurry of recent and frenzied changes made to the U.S. Code in the name of "Fighting the War On Terror."

As far as a free market service to help mariners in need? It already exists, and they don't respond in the kind of weather that the Coast Guard responds in. You can argue that one all you want to, but I happen to be a subject matter expert when it comes to maritime SAR.

You're not following. Free market/charitable services don't respond in the kind of weather that the Coast Guard responds in because the Coast Guard has a monopoly on responding in that kind of weather. A monopoly that makes it both economically and charitably fruitless to bother creating an organization that does respond in such weather.

I never killed anybody because I interdicted drugs in "the glorious war on drugs". To say that the people interdicting these drugs before they even cross our border are contributing to the drug fueled violence on our streets is insulting. Where is the personal responsibility of the criminal involved in violence on our streets when you say that the Coast Guard is responsible for the drug violence on our streets?

I am sorry you're insulted, but it is a simple economic fact that decreasing the supply of an illegal drug keeps the violent criminal lifestyle monetarily lucrative by driving up the prices. If you're insulted by economic science, I guarantee that I cannot assuage your feelings, because I cannot make reality change for you.

Where is the personal responsibility for the criminal who actually and personally commits the violence? Totally on the criminal. But the fact that you are enabling his lifestyle by drug interdiction means that it is economically feasible for him to continue to live a violence-based lifestyle. And for that, you are responsible, in part. Are you as guilty as the man who pulls the trigger in a drug war? Not by a long shot. He is the formal cause of his unjust action. But on the same hand, you are a material cause of the violence. In other words, you are not yourself very culpable for his immoral action, but you are, in part, culpable for the fact that you are making his violent lifestyle possible.

You can't talk about the military the way you do with any credibility because you have absolutely no experience with it beyond what you may have read in a book. You talk about the free market and how great things would be if there was no government messing with everything. So you must think that Ken Lay was a great man, along with the executives at PG&E, and the fine people who brought us Bhopal, India. Get real.

I suppose I can't talk about the immorality of theft or rape if I don't steal anything or rape anyone, either?

If you think that fraud is a part of the free market, you're mistaken.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Cosmoline]

What does any of this have to do with the OP? WILL YOU STOP WITH THE HIJACK!?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Qwert, PM sent to continue the discussion.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

What does any of this have to do with the OP? WILL YOU STOP WITH THE HIJACK!?

I'm not a huge stickler for making sure a thread doesn't drift in the slightest. Indeed, in conversations, topics come and go without someone becoming incensed. And I've never complained about it before, but in all honesty, what does the OP have to do with firearms to begin with? Are we hijacking the thread back from the OP?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[dm1333]

You're right. I couldn't have been more wrong, after they made that apparently recent modification of the U.S. Code. The fact that it was rather recent is easily discerned from the mention of the "Department of Homeland Security." I am afraid I must have failed to keep up with U.S. Code in its flurry of recent and frenzied changes in the name of "Fighting the War On Terror."

The only recent change to 14 USC 1 was to insert "Department of Homeland Security" for "Department of Transportation" You can't just admit you were wrong and be done with it. Always gotta have the last word. The US Coast Guard, created in 1915 from several agencies such as the USLSS and the RCS, has always been a military service. If you don't know anything about the subject why argue with somebody who is in the Coast Guard and well versed on service history?

The Coast Guard does not have a "monopoly" on responding to any kind of SAR. If the SAR is non emergency commercial salvors that can respond within one hour get the case. In cases where lives are at risk the Coast Guard responds because of 14 USC 2, the law that defines what my service does. I have personally been on cases in crappy weather where commercial salvors declined the case. You can argue all you want about the Coast Guard having a "monopoly" but you obviously know nothing about how we operate. Please read up on our SAR assistance policies before you demonstrate your ignorance.

I'm not insulted by your comments about drug interdiction. I'm just amazed at your naivete. If I'm culpable then so are you. If you think marijuana is a harmless drug you are off your rocker. Read up on the long term effects of marijuana on the body.

As far as the free market and fraud? If I'm responsible for drug violence on the streets why aren't you responsible, in some little way, for Enron or any of a million other crooked business deals? The only thing that has kept your free market in check lately has been the government. The only thing that kept it in check 100 years ago were unions and agitators. If you blindly defend big business without thinking of the damage it has done to innocent people all over the world you are part of the problem.

I'm not arguing whether or not you have the right to educate yourself about the military and talk about it in a logical manner. The problem is that you really don't seem to know a whole lot about the military that I am serving in. You can respond to this any way you please but your comments about the Coast Guard stand as an example of what I am talking about. You are making statements that are incorrect (not a military service, monopoly on SAR) and demonstrating that you have very little concrete knowledge of what the Coast Guard does. It follows, logically, that you probably really don't know a whole lot about the other services.

 

[strambo]

The OP's question was answered as thoroughly as it could be before the drift FWIW.

Thanks for the offer of more $$ DM1333, but I'd shoot a terrorist for free...would that still be evil?

cbrgator, I'm just an infantry captain so I don't know specifically about JAG stuff. If you have any specific questions PM me and I could probably find out though or point you in the right direction.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

You're right. I couldn't have been more wrong, after they made that apparently recent modification of the U.S. Code. The fact that it was rather recent is easily discerned from the mention of the "Department of Homeland Security." I am afraid I must have failed to keep up with U.S. Code in its flurry of recent and frenzied changes in the name of "Fighting the War On Terror."

The only recent change to 14 USC 1 was to insert "Department of Homeland Security" for "Department of Transportation" You can't just admit you were wrong and be done with it. Always gotta have the last word. The US Coast Guard, created in 1915 from several agencies such as the USLSS and the RCS, has always been a military service. If you don't know anything about the subject why argue with somebody who is in the Coast Guard and well versed on service history?

Mea culpa.

The Coast Guard does not have a "monopoly" on responding to any kind of SAR. If the SAR is non emergency commercial salvors that can respond within one hour get the case. In cases where lives are at risk the Coast Guard responds because of 14 USC 2, the law that defines what my service does. I have personally been on cases in crappy weather where commercial salvors declined the case. You can argue all you want about the Coast Guard having a "monopoly" but you obviously know nothing about how we operate. Please read up on our SAR assistance policies before you demonstrate your ignorance.

You're not following. I am not saying that the Coast Guard has a legal monopoly on rescuing people. I am saying that the Coast Guard, because it is funded by tax dollars, has a practical, economic monopoly on rescuing people in such situations. I am saying that it is not worth it for a business or a charitable organization to step in and create vessels as well-built as those belonging to the Coast Guard, and train personnel, while the Coast Guard already does it. That is a monopoly. Not a legal monopoly, such as the Post Office has on delivering mail, but an artificial, violence (taxation)-based economic monopoly. Kind of like the monopoly the government effectively has on "charity" through its welfare program. People don't feel the need to donate to charities because they think the government is taking care of poor people. (It is doing a very poor job of it, unlike private charities that actually have a limited budget, and a personal vested interest in doing good for people, and as a result, take the time to make sure they are making the most of their money.)

I'm not insulted by your comments about drug interdiction. I'm just amazed at your naivete. If I'm culpable then so are you. If you think marijuana is a harmless drug you are off your rocker. Read up on the long term effects of marijuana on the body.

Read up on the short term effects of drinking a bottle of scotch over the span of half an hour. And this stuff can be bought at any liquor store? The horror!

As far as the free market and fraud? If I'm responsible for drug violence on the streets why aren't you responsible, in some little way, for Enron or any of a million other crooked business deals? The only thing that has kept your free market in check lately has been the government. The only thing that kept it in check 100 years ago were unions and agitators. If you blindly defend big business without thinking of the damage it has done to innocent people all over the world you are part of the problem.

Who is responsible for helping create big business? Who gives out corporate welfare and passes tarrifs to ensure that businesses get an unfair advantage over other businesses for the same (only different in quality) product? What are corporate lobbyists? What do they do?

Now, what has "big business" done that is anything close to on par with what governments have done in the 20th Century?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Cosmoline]

in all honesty, what does the OP have to do with firearms to begin with? Are we hijacking the thread back from the OP?

Questions about joining the services have long been accepted on THR even if not specifically gun-related. Endless and pointless yammering about the WOT has not been accepted since the political forum was closed.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Go Warrant. All the fun of enlisted, with the command of an officer. Billeting is better too.

Technically, a Warrant Officer has NO command authority whatsoever. A WO can assume command under temporary conditions (at one time my company XO was a Warrant Officer and he assumed command when the CO was on leave), but normally WOs are the commissioned officer version of the Specialist grades in the enlisted ranks -- they have a specialty and fill a role, but have NO command authority.)

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Good call. Hey, OP. Join the military. Don't think twice about it. Recruiters are just doing their job. Anyone who is in any military (but only the U.S. military) is, by the very fact that he is in the military, "serving his fellow men."

Is that what you wanted, Cosmoline?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[strambo]

I knew you'd come around!

 

[dm1333]

Sans,

Sea Tow and others are doing quite well on their own, and if they claim a non emergency tow as their own we are required by our policy to let them take it. There is no monopoly on SAR in heavy weather, commercial salvors regularly refuse those cases and defer to us for a myriad of reasons. If we didn't do it with taxpayer dollars it would not get done. Read back through the history of maritime lifesaving in the US.

Don't cloud the drug issue by bringing up alcohol. Sidestepping the argument says a lot.

Are you telling me that government created "big business"? How in the heck do you go there? I can see corrupt government helping corrupt big business, but creating it? As far as comparing what business has done to what government has done in the last century, evil is still evil. Are you saying the evil done by corporations and businessmen is ok because governments were worse? Moral relativism is wrong. Name one large corporation that has the consumers best interest at heart. Corporations, and business, serve only to make money and as much of it as they can.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Ah, the lukewarm waters of ignoring truth and embracing what the majority thinks, sweeping over and embracing me, telling me I'm a very special person, as long as I agree with what eveyone else believes.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[dm1333]

Don't make snide remarks about others ignoring the truth when you've been doing the very same thing with me. You should come down off your high horse once in a while and mingle with us smelly commoners. We really aren't that bad.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans,

Sea Tow and others are doing quite well on their own, and if they claim a non emergency tow as their own we are required by our policy to let them take it. There is no monopoly on SAR in heavy weather, commercial salvors regularly refuse those cases and defer to us for a myriad of reasons. If we didn't do it with taxpayer dollars it would not get done. Read back through the history of maritime lifesaving in the US.

If you didn't do it with taxpayer dollars, it wouldn't get done? Aye, that's what people say about welfare and hundreds of other government programs that never existed before 1900, including the FDA. "Well, if it weren't for the FDA, businesses would be able to keep selling their customers rat-feces encrusted food that made them sick, because the people are too stupid to not buy from shady companies."

It's not true.

Don't cloud the drug issue by bringing up alcohol. Sidestepping the argument says a lot.

Alcohol is a dangerous drug. More dangerous than marijuana. How is saying that marijuana should be treated like alcohol "sidestepping" the argument?

Are you telling me that government created "big business"? How in the heck do you go there? I can see corrupt government helping corrupt big business, but creating it?

After you used "big business" as a quasi-perjorative term, I assumed I could use it as you did. Government does not create big business qua successful, voluntarily-funded entrepreneurial undertakings. It is its worst enemy. Government may help subsidize them sometimes, and give unfair advantages to them because they have more money and therefore more campaign contributions and bribes than the little guy. But good businessmen create big businesses. Government helps corrupt them.

As far as comparing what business has done to what government has done in the last century, evil is still evil. Are you saying the evil done by corporations and businessmen is ok because governments were worse? Moral relativism is wrong.

I am absolutely not saying that the evil done by corporations and businessmen is OK because governments are worse. I am saying governments are worse, so we should worry about their power more. Governments can force you to buy their "products" and "services" at gunpoint, with a foul air of "legitimacy." Businesses cannot.

Name one large corporation that has the consumers best interest at heart. Corporations, and business, serve only to make money and as much of it as they can.

Why is it wrong to make the most money they can? If they offer the consumers a quality product that they like, what is wrong with that? Both the consumer and the business profit by a voluntary exchange of wealth. There's nothing wrong with a reasonable expectation of gain from one's honest, voluntarily-funded labor. Why are you expecting corporations to act like selfless charities? (Even though businesses do give billions per year to charities.)

-Sans Authoritas