Reinstitute the Draft?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me that the original post meant less about a draft than rather a comment about some type of national service.

Now, I agree with the remarks that national service can come in various ways in a free society. eg: absorbing a good education, finding a job that is satisfying and contributes to the common good, being a peaceful, engaged and involved citizen, finding ways to share ones blessings with those less endowed etc. etc. It is obvious to me that in a free society anything one does that reinforces personal responsibility, at the end of the day, supports our nationhood. e Pluribu Unum; out of many, one. (Have we forgotten this?)

If we are, as a society, to compel anyone to do anything it ought to be in the educational arena. Unequivical understanding of the Constitution and our form of self government should be mandatory and continued to be taught at all levels of our public and private schools. The teaching of history should be as important. (Both of these subjects are virtually ignored today) Life skills such as tradesman skills, cooking, music and the arts etc are also very important educational musts that are mostly ignored today as well. Instruction in firearms should also be compulsory starting in junior high school. Goblins will learn how to use guns for bad purposes. Our good youth should be shown the value of firearms for their safety, security, sporting, competitive and hunting values. Things like math, science, medicine are skills that may be more interesting to students who have been shown, by having their interests kept alive by learning interesting useful things, that reinforce education can be fun as well as a learning experience, and gravitate to the more disciplined arenas as a result.

No better way to strengthen our country than to be engaged in all that a free society provides. Of course the status quo would have to be shaken to the core in order to accomplish this. Who's up for it?
 
The noble and romanticized militia has always been great in concept and usually poor in the breech.

I think it is no accident that in Article One of the Constitution, Congress is empowered to raise an Army and Provide for a Navy before word one of the militia's role is mentioned.

As early as the French Indian War, the militia was taking potshots for nepotism, cronyism, patronage problems, incompetence, and poor military performance. These complaints carried over through the War of 1812, The Mexican-American War, the Indian Wars on the frontier, and the Civil War, all wars fought in whole or in part on actual American soil or territorial claims.

It is actually evident even today why the militia model would be a military failure at anything more demanding than sporadic guerilla warfare. Look at what is required to motivate its prospective membership to even a most basic committment to a low level of military ineffectiveness.

I am finally convinced. I am against the draft, because I am against serving with a large portion of the human refuse that net would haul in. Just leave the defense of the nation to the professionals thanks, and live out your lives as Walter Mittys.
 
These U.S. presidents need to have the balls in start declaring war.
Click to expand...

Presidents dont have the constitutional authority to declair war, you can blame congress for not doing so.


The concept of a draft is diametricly opposed to the founding principles of this nation.
 
AFhack said:
I disagree 100%
Click to expand...

So you really think that the founding fathers who were against even having a standing military would be happy with a system of military state slavery? Why even have a militia if we could simply draft the citizenry?
 
AFhack said:
From the Federalist Papers (sorry, I can't give you a page number, I'm working off an electronic copy)

"One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and
experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may
be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can
harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members,
and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In
the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole,
and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of
the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the
defense of any particular part, and that more easily and
expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can
possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place
the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their
officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate,
will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby
render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into
three or four distinct independent companies."


Additionally, it may be worth looking at the Oath taken by new Citizens of the USA:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."



As to the explanation you requested, I think I pointed out the basics in my first post, and while it's become regarded as cliche to say that "Freedom isn't free" that doesn't make it untrue.

The main logic is;

1) If you define "militia" as the citizenry (as many people do in support of their right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment). Then I have to wonder how you could call the draft and utilization of that militia in defense of the country as "unconsititutional"?

2) The quote I've chosen from the Federalist Papers is merely one of many that support a basic tenant of our form of government. Basically, the federal government exists at all, only so far as necessary to make the most efficient use of resources that could potential be wasted if their use was left totally up to the individual states.

3) finally, if the draft actually was unconstitiutional then the federal income tax would also be unconstitutional.


xdFan, personally, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I firmly believe that the personal freedoms of some people will, at some times have to be sacrificed for the freedom of the greater population. I believe that living "free" does not mean having the freedom to do absolutely whatever I want to do. Just as I enjoy free speech, I do not have the freedom to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.


Vern Humphrey - thanks for bringing up the point about the debate about a standing army. That debate is one of the most illuminating in US political history!
Click to expand...



where again is the draft....Constitutional???


"I firmly believe that the personal freedoms of some people will, at some times have to be sacrificed for the freedom of the greater population."

Well you and your family first!!!! This is such a reckless and dangerous line of thinking. How could you possibily protect "we the people" from the abuse of power with this logic?????? Listen to what you are saying.......how do you draw the line. The Founding Fathers would roll in their collective graves on this statement. Unbelieveable. Is this the GOP's standard on individual liberty.....in America???? I honestly dont know what else to say to you.....
 
c_yeager said:
So you really think that the founding fathers who were against even having a standing military would be happy with a system of military state slavery? Why even have a militia if we could simply draft the citizenry?
Click to expand...

c_yeager, to the first question, in short, yes. To the second question I think the terms "militia" and "draft" have earned new meanings since the founding fathers wrote about a militia. I think the last line of the quote from the Federalist papers posted above indicates that the founders would have little problem with the concept of a draft. Even in their day, the concept of taking the men of one or more of the 13 colonies, and placing them under a single chain of command. A federal command, would have been seen in the same light as we see a draft today.
 
xd9fan said:
where again is the draft....Constitutional???


"I firmly believe that the personal freedoms of some people will, at some times have to be sacrificed for the freedom of the greater population."

Well you and your family first!!!! This is such a reckless and dangerous line of thinking. How could you possibily protect "we the people" from the abuse of power with this logic?????? ....
Click to expand...


Okay - me first - I've been in uniform for 24 years now and I live under the UCMJ which is a bit more restrictive than the Constitution. Like you said 'you first.' :)

As far as the abuses of power goes... Nowhere in any of my posts have I actually said a draft is a good thing. I believe it's a constitutional thing, and it may (depending on circumstances) be a necessary thing. But we have checks and balences built into our system that I believe would prevent an abuse of this kind of power. Perhaps, if a draft were implemented tomorrow, and a suit was filed, the Supreme Court might actually agree with you and rule the draft unconstitutional (I don't think it would, but it does point out the checks and balences). Of course, if enough people were actively opposed to a draft they could use their power to elect representatives that would reflect that view.


Overall, I agree with you're overall sentiment. I admire your passion but just don't know what to say to you anymore. What do you say to an honorable agreement to disagree and a text mode shake of hands?

:eek:
 
Oh big time on the hand shake!!........

I just think if "the state" views the draft as a thing of necessity.......then somewhere along the line we have lost the cause of freedom. Its the whole Persuasion Versus Force issue. (great article by Mark Skousen titled "Persuasion Versus Force". thinkin Google will have it) If ideas are good even great than no force would be needed. People naturally will find a way and want to do it. If a country is so good and worth of dying for......then you would never have problem finding good men and women to rise up in its defence. On the other hand if "the state" forces a draft.....I see it as a sign that "the people" have no faith in the Govt....and the Govt knows it.....or the Govt does not care what the people think one way or the other. Thats my problem.

Little bit from that article I stated above:

"The creation of the world -- said Plato -- is the victory of persuasion over force... Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals..."


thanks for your service by the way.
me.....I'm just an armed citizen;) :cool:
 
then somewhere along the line we have lost the cause of freedom.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I'm more inclined to think we are just too lazy and want someone
else to do our work, be it fight, raise our children, clean our homes, so we can
simply get fat. Nope, not saying all but enough to affect the future of this
country if not changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top