Conscription: Yay or nay? [Archive]

eternaltriangle

03-24-2008, 03:03 AM

Compare this to america where soldiers are given the choice of the army or jail in some cases... Where they're lied to constantly by recruiters... if you throw conscription into that mix as well you're just degrading the stock.

That is bull-crap. American soldiers have a tough job, but they are very well remunerated for what they do. Below this lists the salary chart for the military. If you are fighting in Iraq you get substantially more.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Moreover, recruits do not come exclusively from poor families. This is the income distribution of recruits from 1999-2005. Not only is the bottom quintile not providing anywhere near a majority of troops, that share is decreasing over time.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is higher, not lower, than UK salaries. Moreover, because the UK military is undermanned, deployments are much longer in combat than for the US (or alternately the UK isn't able to involve itself as deeply with overseas conflicts).
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The US does not have conscription, nor does it arrest people just to send them into a war. Please do not make unfounded allegations like this based on Michael Moore films. I have no problem with generalizations, but incredibly false statements like that bother me immensely.

eternaltriangle added to this post, 2 minutes and 9 seconds later...

To be honest, I don't think conscription during peacetime, or during minor imperial wars makes sense. In a WWII-esque war, however, that is another question. Conscription may be "slavery" to some degree, but it is temporary. Being conquered by another state is not temporary, hence it makes sense to have conscription in existential wars.

Moriarty

03-24-2008, 03:05 AM

I give conscription two thumbs down. for too many reasons to list, but chief among them is:

Contrary to individual liberty
Involuntary service doesn't equal service at all
Degradation of morale and discipline

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, nobody in the US Armed Forces was presented the "serve or go to jail" option. It may have been true in the days of the Cold War (I haven't actually found a reliable instance of it occuring), but nowadays you are unable to enlist if you have any form of pending criminal legal action.

thod

03-24-2008, 05:55 AM

I see conscription as cost without any benefits. So the drill seargent says "get down and do 10 push ups". I say "no thanks". Now what? he cant do a thing all that has happened is I have brought down the the moral of enthusiasts and undermined his authority. He puts a rifle in my hand and tells me to do something. Is it wise to tell a man who is holding a loaded gun to do anything? A few shots into the ground near his feet. Of course they can put you in jail, but I have been willing to serve, they rejected me. Instead of production they have incurred the costs of jail, there are simply not enough jail cells.

Ytterbium

03-24-2008, 10:47 AM

I personally believe in conscription but only if after leaving school you are not in Higher Education or a skilled apprenticeship.

I live in Britain and I have to say that the amount of unused potential that I see out on the streets should be utilised.

I have never served in the forces but my girlfriends father is in the RAF, he is ordered and disciplined. I think that if schools and teachers cannot instill discipline then joining the forces would teach discipline. Which would mean a better society, as you take those people off the streets that turn to vandalism and the ever so popular "Happy Slapping" and you give them something to work around, plus if they step out of line it would be a short trip to jail.:thumbsup:
I think it's good for people to serve the country they reside in. They have the chance to meet others from various parts of the country. They encounter people with different outlook on life. They hopefully learn to respect eachother. They have a chance to grow and learn things which they can utilize in the civilian world. I think the argument of invidual liberty is ridiculous. People should learn that nothing comes for free, that includes freedom. How can there be freedom if one don't want to fight for it? Are you just going to flee infringing on other peoples' freedom? The questions are many to get things you have to earn it.
I think conscription definitely has it great sides. The poor and the rich guy are treated the same. The two will just have to cooperate to build a shelter to survive the night. That hopefully will lessen the risk of having whiny ass bitches calling the SOS because their SUV broke down in the middle of nowhere.

thod

03-24-2008, 11:29 AM

I think it's good for people to serve the country they reside in. They have the chance to meet others from various parts of the country. They encounter people with different outlook on life. They hopefully learn to respect eachother. They have a chance to grow and learn things which they can utilize in the civilian world.

Thats sounds like university rather than army.

Ytterbium

03-24-2008, 12:08 PM

Thats sounds like university rather than army.Why?

Homini Lupus

03-24-2008, 12:22 PM

Mass conscription has made its time. The ideas of mass conscription as we know them now were born with tha french revolution. Before the french revolution armies were small professional tools. This means that thanks to conscription individual rights ideals survived (in Europe) because the new idea of "fighting citizen" gave France a clear advantage on the battlefields over its enemies. It was also used by Napoleon I as a tool for his personal power. But even if the French Empire wasn't the ideal land of freedom, it was much better than its neighbours of the time.
Mass conscription was also fundamental in the developement of modern warfare as the industrialised destruction of the enemy. But cold war and the atomic bomb turned that kind of war much less likely; this is why mass conscription is gettin old (for now). It's not useless, it just isn't up to the job right now; maybe we'll need it again soon, or new developement of warfare will turn it totally useless.
This said, I think I woul enroll if my country really needed it (not just for petty interest or for unlikely idealistic crusades).

Dreamer

03-24-2008, 04:17 PM

The benefits of drafting the nescessary skills & the added manpower far outweigh the occasional misfit who might be stupid enough to act the total individualist on a basic army course. For one,the minorities are underrepresented in the army. At this moment, the Army would benefit greatly from having an additional number of arabic speakers. It would give them greater insight in foreign cultures & faciliate integration of immigrants and the promotion of common values(freedom of speech, of religion, secular government,etc). One of the major factor that help bring down racist barriers & promote racial equality are 'coloured' veterans.

It would bring people that do not have a vested interest in the army itself, and as such could hopefully change it for the better while being mentally unrestrained by tradition & military conservatism.

While the usefulness of a very large army in nuclear war might be questionned,I think the reverse is might not be the best answer. The US Army tried to apply some form of anemic division(the name very unfortunatly escapes me) during the 50s but it was quickly abandoned due to its impractibility.

At the moment,I think that training an army for nuclear war is a little bit anachronistic. They should rather focus on fighting the counter-insurgencies for the time being. Types of conflicts that are rather manpower-intensive.

Darkmist

03-24-2008, 05:44 PM

People who do not have a vested interest in the army are less likely to be loyal. If I was forced to serve, I know my own survival would come first. Given the choice between me and the overpopulated masses hell bent on advancing themselves, I will go for me any day. And if the world drops into anarchy, which is highly doubtful, I will reassess my situation and deal with it in the best possible way for me . . . when it comes, depending on how it comes.

However the soldier who willingly joins the military thinks differently. Or I would hope.

Forced service into anything is slavery. No matter whose common 'good' it is supposedly for. (And that freaking word has its meaning mired in greed, power, idealism, fanatical religion and more that has nothing to do with its reality)

To survive, humanity needs to adapt to a changing world. The time for the draft is out and the time for new thinking is in.

The medieval ages had short term conscription variable on the crops. At least there was a variable, however flawed. But we're far beyond swords, castles and armor.

If robots can take over the service industry as is predicted, why can't something be developed to aid the military with less loss of human life and liberty? The answer. As long as the easy way out, as in more and more promises to recruits and conscription, is available, then why bother?

It is all outdated. Come on masterminds, find a solution. (and no, I don't have one. Yet)

Dreamer

03-24-2008, 06:56 PM

Lights

03-24-2008, 08:20 PM

Conscription = No big deal for me. :thumbsup:

The United States military doesn't want non-heterosexuals. :p

I love this country. Because they care so much about where I put my penis, I will never have to go to war against my will. Yay for bigotry!

eternaltriangle

03-28-2008, 07:50 PM

Conscription = No big deal for me. :thumbsup:
I love this country. Because they care so much about where I put my penis, I will never have to go to war against my will. Yay for bigotry!

You should see this Onion clip "Gays Too Precious to Risk in Combat": To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Incidentally, if they had don't ask don't tell and conscription that would be a great way of avoiding the draft (I have a heart murmur so I'm safe anyway).

Ytterbium

03-30-2008, 03:22 PM

Exactly .Those who do not have a vested interest in the military are more likely to challenge the status quo & find innovative solutions to military problems regardless of the consequences to their military career. That assuming that they have a vested interest in society.I have never been interested in the military. As a kid I shunned it and thought it was scary. Then the D-day came like a letter in the mail. A couple of days after I had become 18 I went to the conscription office. I did different tests, talked to a psychologist for the first time in my life. Then they said I'm going to the Air force. Little more than a year later I walked in through the gates to the regiment. As you say I wasn't a model soldier and I was quite critical at times to how things were run. I was certainly not scared of saying what I thought, I could care less what the thought of me.
In a free society, you enjoy certain freedoms because it was paid by the blood of others that came before you. It is only natural that you serve your time and be availble to defend said freedoms. If you are not willing to serve than you should not be able to enjoy said freedoms. Saying otherwise would make you none other than a parasite.Even though I live in a country which never been in war in modern times. I feel that it should be able to defend itself. Unlike the neighbour country Finland which have Russia lurking next to them. They have been in wars and still to this day most Finnish men does their compulsory military service.
I believe that it is very possible to maintain order and dicipline in a conscript army, as evidenced by the performance of the Isreali military.It is. I have been a part of one. That has to do with leadership and not whether the people are there "voluntarily".

HappyMondays

03-30-2008, 10:09 PM

Australia and England have professional armies. Men and women that were not lied to, and had every other choice to leave. It might not be a powerful army based on number of men, resources compared to other nations but it's a strong army.

Compare this to america where soldiers are given the choice of the army or jail in some cases... Where they're lied to constantly by recruiters... if you throw conscription into that mix as well you're just degrading the stock.

I think you greatly misunderstand the stock of the American soldier.

I was not lied to. I always did extremely well in school.

The success of the US military, against extreme conditions, is a measur eof the character of our troops. Measure it against conscripts (Russia). I will not knock our allies (Brist, Aussies, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, French, Canucks, etc), because they are good stock.

I think you rely on too much media interpretation.

Jail? Really, now.

Tual

03-31-2008, 04:11 AM

There is no way I will shoot someone because someone tells me. So I don't think they'll want me. I think conscription during peace time (nation is not under attack) is bad because it's basically forced labor something you shouldn't do to people.
The only exception I'm willing to make is for young small time criminals who might be offered conscription instead of jail time.

Tenacious B

03-31-2008, 04:36 AM

Not everyone is cut out to be a soldier. I want a military made up of those who are.

Ytterbium

03-31-2008, 12:21 PM

Not everyone is cut out to be a soldier. I want a military made up of those who are.Nobody is cut out to be a soldier. Conscription cuts you to become one.

Are there any more who have been conscripts? It would be interesting to read what you think about it. As we all are from different systems.

Uytuun

03-31-2008, 03:17 PM

There is no such thing anymore in my country and that's a good thing in my opinion.

Tenacious B

04-01-2008, 12:35 AM

Nobody is cut out to be a soldier.
I disagree since I have had several friends who live and breath the military. The military is truly the best place for them and how they want to live and work, so I consider them natural soldiers (all volunteers).

Claptonian

04-01-2008, 11:36 AM

So is school too.

Not exactly, though I am against the public school system. But, in most states, parents can take their kids out of that system and put them in private schools or homeschool them (or just let them live and learn, which is what my parents did) without dealing with too much red tape. The same cannot be said for the draft.

Claptonian added to this post, 5 minutes and 12 seconds later...

I personally believe in conscription but only if after leaving school you are not in Higher Education or a skilled apprenticeship.

I live in Britain and I have to say that the amount of unused potential that I see out on the streets should be utilised.

It's not your potential to utilize. Again, this goes back to conscription being slavery.

BloozeGit

04-02-2008, 05:12 AM

When it's a choice for a small country between a mainly conscript army or a pitifully small regular army, conscription is pretty much the only way to go. Putting aside (not ignoring!) civil liberties and the event of war, I believe there are folks who could benefit from a regimented lifestyle and enforced interaction outside their social strata. And a certain minority for whom it is perhaps the only way they can learn some discipline.

And to whoever it was that said conscription should only take place when war is imminent...I think it would be more irresponsible to rush conscripts through boot camp and send them out barely-trained into the front line than to bring them in in peace time (albeit grudgingly) and have them slightly better trained. At least it would give them higher odds of survival. :blank:

A more focused discussion on military life (including my own brief interlude in green) can be found in To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ytterbium

04-02-2008, 01:53 PM

I disagree since I have had several friends who live and breath the military. The military is truly the best place for them and how they want to live and work, so I consider them natural soldiers (all volunteers).But that makes a military of a very small part of the population. It doesn't have the width of a conscript military.

Not exactly, though I am against the public school system. But, in most states, parents can take their kids out of that system and put them in private schools or homeschool them (or just let them live and learn, which is what my parents did) without dealing with too much red tape. The same cannot be said for the draft.But that's not the will of the child. It's the will of the parents. It can become a base of extremism if people shield themselves from eachother. I don't want my parents to rule over me nor I don't want that happen to others.

When it's a choice for a small country between a mainly conscript army or a pitifully small regular army, conscription is pretty much the only way to go. Putting aside (not ignoring!) civil liberties and the event of war, I believe there are folks who could benefit from a regimented lifestyle and enforced interaction outside their social strata. And a certain minority for whom it is perhaps the only way they can learn some discipline.I don't think people can make great solutions without knowing as many parameters as possible. If someone have been shielded from some opinions or ways of life in their life it certainly think in a singleminded way. This causes social grouping in the society. If the people instead were forced to service with all other people they have a chance to see things from other perspectives. I see it as a democratic thing to do. Even if two people don't like eachother they help eachother to express themselves in a free country.
Now the military looks quite different from country to country. I heard some countries have very strict ranks. People don't talk with people because they're lower or higher than themselves. A very high ranked officer talked to a private in my platoon. He said; that's the filthiest uniform ever seen. Then he asked if it was ok if he had a picture taken with him. Just to show the difference of people who works and who's not, he said.

And to whoever it was that said conscription should only take place when war is imminent...I think it would be more irresponsible to rush conscripts through boot camp and send them out barely-trained into the front line than to bring them in in peace time (albeit grudgingly) and have them slightly better trained. At least it would give them higher odds of survival. :blank:

A more focused discussion on military life (including my own brief interlude in green) can be found in To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Then people have different interests and knowlegde. Which can be great to have in the defence. Not everybody spends their days doing push ups.

I read about your experiences in the forces. It was interesting, thanks for sharing.

Claptonian

04-02-2008, 11:28 PM

But that's not the will of the child. It's the will of the parents. It can become a base of extremism if people shield themselves from eachother. I don't want my parents to rule over me nor I don't want that happen to others.

I agree, but the proper behavior of parents is another subject entirely. Not wanting your parents to rule over you (which I assume you're equating homeschooling to?) is not a reason to let the government rule over you (public schooling).

I was fortunate to be raised by freethinkers in nearly every sense of the word. After kindergarten, I was never forced to go to any school--private or public--and past the age of eight I was never on any form of curriculum. I was given carte blanche when it came to what I did and didn't study. The result is that I'm a self-proclaimed genius when it comes to logic, philosophy and English and I'm absolutely horrible at algebra and calculus. It doesn't bother me at all, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that my education was not determined by adminstrators at the cost of taxpayers.

Back to the actual subject of the thread, I find it a little disgusting that people are saying conscription is okay in certain situations, or that it's good for certain people to be forced to serve in the military. Until you can explain how it isn't slavery (or how slavery is not repugnant in all cases), it isn't justifiable.

BloozeGit

04-03-2008, 06:36 AM

Back to the actual subject of the thread, I find it a little disgusting that people are saying conscription is okay in certain situations, or that it's good for certain people to be forced to serve in the military. Until you can explain how it isn't slavery (or how slavery is not repugnant in all cases), it isn't justifiable.

Well Claptonian (great nick and avatar btw) allow me to put it in context...my country is a small island amongst a region of relatively less prosperous countries with vastly larger populations. The ethnic and demographic make-up of our population is also unique within the the region, and you might see some parallels with another country with a renowned conscripted defence force that is constantly in the spotlight.

The unfortunate reality is that without an armed forces of some sort we will always be plump sitting ducks. Nobody (well, not everyone at least...) wants a war to happen and in our region it's not very likely in the near future, but if it's thrust in your face you'd certainly want a comeback of some sort. With a tiny population it would be impossible to support a regular army and conscription is thus a necessary evil. We wouldn't want to if we didn't have to, but...:blank:

As for my comments about it being good for certain people, I should probably elaborate. Right now I'm studying in UK where a minority of youth are out of control, getting drunk and ganging up to kick people to death (no exaggeration). Most studies have identified a lack of parental guidance as the root cause, often because the parents are absent or couldn't care less. Civil liberties and personal freedoms are the right of every citizen and human being, but then the onus is on them to exercise those in a way that does not harm others, clearly that is lacking in these youths.

A great solution would be to get the parents back into the picture and get them counseling and rehabilitation, but if the parents don't want to take responsibility for making sure they don't pose a threat to others then the state will have to assume that responsibility, like it or not, because they owe it to the other citizens to keep them safe.

In my opinion, conscription presents a relatively positive way out for them where they can still make something of themselves while they still can, if they want to (and I have met such characters), as opposed to waiting until they get incarcerated for a serious crime, which pretty much affirms them as criminals and only happens after the deed.

Of course, this on its own does not justify conscription and certainly not as an alternative to penal punishment. However, growing up and living in a country where conscription is justifiable on grounds of self-defence and implemented uniformly across all social strata, seeing how it has helped some (though not all) who could have ended up in a self-destructive life leads me to think that at least a few of these troubled youth could have benefited from it.

One last point that didn't quite fit in anywhere: Slavery implies that one person is being overworked for the profit of another, but in this case governments have to spend money on conscription. The "overwork" element is still there (trust me ;)) but it is certainly not for monetary gain, so technically it isn't slavery. :laugh:

Claptonian

04-03-2008, 12:03 PM

One last point that didn't quite fit in anywhere: Slavery implies that one person is being overworked for the profit of another, but in this case governments have to spend money on conscription. The "overwork" element is still there (trust me ;)) but it is certainly not for monetary gain, so technically it isn't slavery. :laugh:

I don't think that's a proper definition of "slavery." I define it as a person being deprived of their individual freedom and forced to work. If you want to say that it's "technically" not slavery because there's no monetary gain (which is certainly debatable), that's fine.

As for the rest of your post, again, it's just trying to justify something that is, in my mind, unjustifiable. If your country does not contain enough people who would voluntarily defend it, then that might be a problem, but it doesn't justify depriving people of their freedom and forcing them to take up arms.

It comes down to the fundamental idea behind conscription: if you want something done, force other people to do it. It ignores the basic rights of the individual and it's appalling that it not only exists, but is being defended by rational people.

Dreamer

04-03-2008, 12:22 PM

If your country does not contain enough people who would voluntarily defend it, then that might be a problem, but it doesn't justify depriving people of their freedom and forcing them to take up arms.

Is it really better to live under foreign tyranny than having a conscription?

BloozeGit

04-03-2008, 01:31 PM

I don't think that's a proper definition of "slavery." I define it as a person being deprived of their individual freedom and forced to work. If you want to say that it's "technically" not slavery because there's no monetary gain (which is certainly debatable), that's fine.

It was more of a tongue-in-cheek thing, certainly not an attempt at a proper definition. No semantics for me :laugh:

As for the rest of your post, again, it's just trying to justify something that is, in my mind, unjustifiable. If your country does not contain enough people who would voluntarily defend it, then that might be a problem, but it doesn't justify depriving people of their freedom and forcing them to take up arms.

"Might be a problem" is a huge understatement. If you can outline a plan for the viable defence of a country that is 7% the size of Yellowstone National Park against a numerically superior enemy (assuming equal technological footing) without resorting to conscription or robot/clone armies, there are many governments who would be very interested.

That very same freedom that people are entitled to may well be more threatened by a lack of conscription that leaves the country wide open to foreign subjugation. Not everyone has the luxury of someone else to fight for their freedom (in this case I'm using it in the context of a small nation with nowhere to run to, rather than it's modern post 9/11 connotations ;))

It comes down to the fundamental idea behind conscription: if you want something done, force other people to do it. It ignores the basic rights of the individual and it's appalling that it not only exists, but is being defended by rational people.

In view of your statements thus far, if you are not a citizen of a vulnerable nation then I don't think anything I say can change your mind. I hope you do realise how fortunate you are and perhaps someday something might come along to redefine how you look at this (hopefully in a peaceful situation), but until then I think we have reached a point where we should agree to disagree.

And move on to something else which we are more likely to agree on, like how Little Wing is one of the best songs ever written. :thumbsup:

Claptonian

04-03-2008, 01:40 PM

Is it really better to live under foreign tyranny than having a conscription?

I don't support either scenario because both involve the infringement of individual rights. Your position seems less consistent because you're supporting one form of tyranny while apparently condemning another.

The threat of negative consequences does not justify the abuse of individual rights. The government does not have the right to force people to join the military. Once that concept is grasped, it really doesn't matter what the situation is. It doesn't matter if your country's about to be invaded or if you think some people would benefit from military service; the government doesn't have the right to do it, period.

Claptonian added to this post, 3 minutes and 4 seconds later...

In view of your statements thus far, if you are not a citizen of a vulnerable nation then I don't think anything I say can change your mind. I hope you do realise how fortunate you are and perhaps someday something might come along to redefine how you look at this (hopefully in a peaceful situation), but until then I think we have reached a point where we should agree to disagree.

I'm sure we do have very different viewpoints because of the nations we live in, though as I said in my previous post, it's not about how helpful or "necessary" conscription is. Either way, the government doesn't have the right to do it, so it can't be justified.

And move on to something else which we are more likely to agree on, like how Little Wing is one of the best songs ever written. :thumbsup:

Absolutely. :thumbsup:

Ytterbium

04-03-2008, 02:08 PM

I agree, but the proper behavior of parents is another subject entirely. Not wanting your parents to rule over you (which I assume you're equating homeschooling to?) is not a reason to let the government rule over you (public schooling).

Back to the actual subject of the thread, I find it a little disgusting that people are saying conscription is okay in certain situations, or that it's good for certain people to be forced to serve in the military. Until you can explain how it isn't slavery (or how slavery is not repugnant in all cases), it isn't justifiable.No it's not another subject. Instead of having every child live in a open society together. They are in the hands of their parents. Who know what they may do to their children.

I think it's good for everyone. I don't know if you've been through it. But it could change you. Sure it may be a pain in the ass but it's also a gain.
It depends ofcourse how the military is run. If the "slaves" as you calls it dislikes it. There's going to be uproar. Then things have to be changed.
I don't see it as slavery, I see it as a duty for every citizen. To be prepered and learn to handled difficult things in society. I think everyone benefits from it.

Claptonian

04-03-2008, 02:11 PM

I don't see it as slavery, I see it as a duty for every citizen.

This statement suggests that you and I have absolutely no common ground whatsoever when it comes to this subject. :laugh:

Ytterbium

04-05-2008, 12:12 PM

This statement suggests that you and I have absolutely no common ground whatsoever when it comes to this subject. :laugh:So? It's a forum, it's a discussion. If you dismiss what the pontential good consription can have on a population. Because that's slavery in your mind, that's up to you.
I don't know what experiences with any armed forces are. The forces are somewhat different too.

acyckowski

04-05-2008, 03:02 PM

Ytterbium

04-05-2008, 04:27 PM

I don't understand the "moral" opposition to conscription. All nations have a practical need to defend themselves. Whether they conscript, raise a volunteer force, or pay the Hessians to do it for 'em, a government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizenry. An individual's "rights" mean nothing if they are deprived of life. You may as well argue the "morality" of breathing.

As for the practical benefits of conscription, it depends on the nation. Israel could not defend itself without conscription, larger and wealthier industrialized nations can afford to do so. A professional volunteer army is a higher quality army, but much more expensive and smaller in numbers. As the Soviets used to believe, Quantity has a quality of its own.There's nothing saying that a "voluntary" service is a better service or the opposite. There's nothing saying that all men just suddently would hate running around in the bush with guns. Just because they were selected and "forced" by conscription. If conscription is utilized you have a wider selection of people. If it's voluntary it's narrowed down to gun-loving nutjobs who thinks men in uniform is a huge turn on. If there's not enough people applying for a certain service. It can become desperate and take whoever shows up. Then we have a decrease of quality. Then we have the fact that I can "voluntarily" choose to work at McDonalds, flipping burgers. It doesn't mean I like my job or that I do it good.

acyckowski

04-05-2008, 06:02 PM

There's nothing saying that a "voluntary" service is a better service or the opposite. There's nothing saying that all men just suddently would hate running around in the bush with guns. Just because they were selected and "forced" by conscription. If conscription is utilized you have a wider selection of people. If it's voluntary it's narrowed down to gun-loving nutjobs who thinks men in uniform is a huge turn on. If there's not enough people applying for a certain service. It can become desperate and take whoever shows up. Then we have a decrease of quality. Then we have the fact that I can "voluntarily" choose to work at McDonalds, flipping burgers. It doesn't mean I like my job or that I do it good.

Right. For reasons of practicality or neccessity, a government may use conscription to fill the ranks. For smaller nations, it may be the only viable alternative. For larger nations with more resources, however, a smaller army composed of volunteers offers an opportunity to train said army to a higher level of proficiency. Even faced with the massive Soviet threat, many NATO countries opted to transition to a smaller volunteer force. It was largely an economic decision, not a moral one.

Claptonian

04-05-2008, 06:29 PM

I don't understand the "moral" opposition to conscription. All nations have a practical need to defend themselves. Whether they conscript, raise a volunteer force, or pay the Hessians to do it for 'em, a government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizenry. An individual's "rights" mean nothing if they are deprived of life. You may as well argue the "morality" of breathing.

1. Conscription has been used many times to fight wars that did not involve a direct, realistic threat to the citizens being conscripted. Threats can only be determined and rated through human judgement, which we all know is imperfect. I prefer to put my life in the hands of politicians and generals as little as possible

2. It's ironic that in this case, the government's way of protecting "its citizenry" involves forcing them to go into a war zone where they will be attacked and ordered to kill people.

3. The value of an indiivdual's rights is up to the individual. If an individual would prefer to die when their nation is conquered by a foreign nation or terrorists over risking their lives by going into the aforementioned war zone, then that's their choice; not yours, not the government's, theirs.

I think it's so misguided when people talk about how people are better off when forced to do something, or how, when someone is killed in a war, it's "worth the sacrifice." These are not your decisions to make. You are in no position to judge how valuable someone's life and rights is to them. The foundation of individual rights is the principle that the individual owns himself and is therefore responsible for his own life. No one else can judge what the individual's life is worth, and no one else has the right to force them to do something that would make them "better off."

acyckowski

04-05-2008, 10:48 PM

1. So? Conscription was used to defeat Nazi Germany, ending the Holocaust. Germany did not declare war on the U.S. until after we declared war on Japan. I'm sorry, are humans smart or stupid? I ask because your argument for freedom is that people are smart, but your argument against securing freedom is that people are stupid.

2. Yes, it is. Life is full of little ironies.

3. No, it is not. Either we have a common understanding of rights, or we have no understanding at all. You do have the right to prefer death over fighting, but you do not have the right to impose that choice on your fellow citizens. The government must consider the rights of all its citizens.

I think it's misguided to talk about rights as if they are absolute and not secured through force. How much you value your freedom and life are irrelevant to the debate: without a military securing your life and liberty from external threats, and a police force securing your life and liberty from internal threats, your rights and your feelings about them amount to diddly and squat, respectively. Try claiming a right to free speech if there is nothing preventing your neighbor from hitting you in the head with a baseball bat every time you open your mouth.

Claptonian

04-05-2008, 11:19 PM

1. So? Conscription was used to defeat Nazi Germany, ending the Holocaust.

Conscription was also used by Hitler to bolster Nazi Germany and carry out the Holocaust, so what's your point?

I'm sorry, are humans smart or stupid? I ask because your argument for freedom is that people are smart, but your argument against securing freedom is that people are stupid.

I think people are, in general, smart enough to live their lives and take care of themselves (though I have my doubts from time to time). That doesn't mean that a small group of people is smart enough to solve global crises and decide whether or not a threat requires attention. Furthermore, history shows that politicians and other government employees often exaggerate threats due to ulterior motives.

It's really about decentralization. I don't trust a small group of politicians enough, nor do I consider them smart enough, to use such a huge amount of power responsibly.

3. No, it is not. Either we have a common understanding of rights, or we have no understanding at all. You do have the right to prefer death over fighting, but you do not have the right to impose that choice on your fellow citizens. The government must consider the rights of all its citizens.

Then it becomes a case of the minority being the slaves of the majority. 60% of people prefer Option A, so 100% of people have to go with Option A.

I think it's misguided to talk about rights as if they are absolute and not secured through force. How much you value your freedom and life are irrelevant to the debate: without a military securing your life and liberty from external threats, and a police force securing your life and liberty from internal threats, your rights and your feelings about them amount to diddly and squat, respectively.

I disagree that the military is necessary to secure my life and liberty from external threats and I disagree that a police force is necessary to secure my life and liberty from external threats. Furthermore, I know that conscription (and, to a lesser degree, the police) infringes on my liberty and threatens my life.

As cliche as this quote may be, it's too approriate:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Try claiming a right to free speech if there is nothing preventing your neighbor from hitting you in the head with a baseball bat every time you open your mouth.

Just because there's no police force, doesn't mean there's nothing to prevent my neighbor. I could prevent my neighbor, or I could ask or even hire others to prevent my neighbor. Policemen and soldiers aren't the only people capable of protecting rights.

Ytterbium

04-06-2008, 03:59 PM

Conscription was also used by Hitler to bolster Nazi Germany and carry out the Holocaust, so what's your point?Voluntarily mobs, soldiers raided and did ethnical cleansing in the Balkans. No matter how you twitch and turn, there's two sides of the coin.
I think people are, in general, smart enough to live their lives and take care of themselves (though I have my doubts from time to time). That doesn't mean that a small group of people is smart enough to solve global crises and decide whether or not a threat requires attention. Furthermore, history shows that politicians and other government employees often exaggerate threats due to ulterior motives.People aren't smart enough but they shall not be shielded from those who leads them.
These are another problem based in the system you live in.

It's really about decentralization. I don't trust a small group of politicians enough, nor do I consider them smart enough, to use such a huge amount of power responsibly.You trust other people more than politicians? If they happen to become politicians you don't trust them anymore?

Then it becomes a case of the minority being the slaves of the majority. 60% of people prefer Option A, so 100% of people have to go with Option A.No matter have you do it's never going to get fair. The seller wants as much as possible and the buyer wants to have it for free. It can never compute.

I disagree that the military is necessary to secure my life and liberty from external threats and I disagree that a police force is necessary to secure my life and liberty from external threats. Furthermore, I know that conscription (and, to a lesser degree, the police) infringes on my liberty and threatens my life.

As cliche as this quote may be, it's too approriate:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Just because there's no police force, doesn't mean there's nothing to prevent my neighbor. I could prevent my neighbor, or I could ask or even hire others to prevent my neighbor. Policemen and soldiers aren't the only people capable of protecting rights."Please sir mister enemy I'm an individual with rights and I thi...*headshot*
I will fight for my freedom and I know all other men in my country will do too. As they were "slaves" like me during their time as conscripts. I know my freedom to roam is restricted to certain areas, radar stations whatever. That's something I can accept because they're there as surveillance against pontential threats to my freedoms.

Yes you could hire gangs protecting you. A own militia maybe, being a warlord. What a freedom but is it good?

Claptonian

04-07-2008, 01:19 AM

Voluntarily mobs, soldiers raided and did ethnical cleansing in the Balkans. No matter how you twitch and turn, there's two sides of the coin.

But that's not what we're debating. We're debating conscription. Obviously people can do horrible things voluntarily, but that isn't an argument for forcing people to do horrible things.

You trust other people more than politicians? If they happen to become politicians you don't trust them anymore?

The average individual may want to infringe on my rights just as much as the average politician, but they are not as well equipped to do so and therefore I prefer them to the politician.

No matter have you do it's never going to get fair. The seller wants as much as possible and the buyer wants to have it for free. It can never compute.

I believe that the seller has the right to want as much as possible. I do not believe that the aforementioend 60% of the population have the right to force me to do something I don't want to do. It's not a matter of fairness in the egalitarian sense, it's a matter of individual rights.

"Please sir mister enemy I'm an individual with rights and I thi...*headshot*

Are you suggesting that an individual can only fight for their rights through verbally claiming those rights? An individual is potentially just as capable of wielding a gun as the enemy. An organized group of individuals is potentially just as capable of protecting land as a military.

I will fight for my freedom and I know all other men in my country will do too. As they were "slaves" like me during their time as conscripts. I know my freedom to roam is restricted to certain areas, radar stations whatever. That's something I can accept because they're there as surveillance against pontential threats to my freedoms.

But you're sacrificing freedom in the process. That might be fine with you, but it's not fine with me. You can give up that portion of your freedom if you want to, but I would prefer to take a risk and keep mine. Why is that a problem?

Yes you could hire gangs protecting you. A own militia maybe, being a warlord. What a freedom but is it good?

Freedom > Good

But those are just my values. I'm not trying to force them on you. Your value system, however, does require coercion.

Jon

04-07-2008, 01:20 AM

I can't take this seriously with "yay or nay" in the title.

Ytterbium

04-07-2008, 01:27 PM

But that's not what we're debating. We're debating conscription. Obviously people can do horrible things voluntarily, but that isn't an argument for forcing people to do horrible things.Conscription doesn't make people do horrible things. People makes people do horrible things. That's why no matter how you look at it there's good and bad sides. It all is just down to how it's run, not what it is or supposed to be.

The average individual may want to infringe on my rights just as much as the average politician, but they are not as well equipped to do so and therefore I prefer them to the politician.In your political views you and other people will have that power instead. That means that the problem still exist but come from other sources instead. instead of having a goverment who is your enemy you have warlords instead. Which may limit your freedom far more than a goverment could ever do.

I believe that the seller has the right to want as much as possible. I do not believe that the aforementioend 60% of the population have the right to force me to do something I don't want to do. It's not a matter of fairness in the egalitarian sense, it's a matter of individual rights.So you don't want to defend your country if it gets attacked? What would you do then?

Are you suggesting that an individual can only fight for their rights through verbally claiming those rights? An individual is potentially just as capable of wielding a gun as the enemy. An organized group of individuals is potentially just as capable of protecting land as a military.No. You say it yourself a organized group is better than a man alone. Those who never encountered military training or similar is just bunch of cattle. Not knowing what to do or how.

But you're sacrificing freedom in the process. That might be fine with you, but it's not fine with me. You can give up that portion of your freedom if you want to, but I would prefer to take a risk and keep mine. Why is that a problem?

Freedom > Good

But those are just my values. I'm not trying to force them on you. Your value system, however, does require coercion.Yes I sacrificed my freedom for almost a year, to be able to live the rest of my life in freedom. I helped a friend with his computer, he welded some rust on my car. You have to give to earn.
You can say how much you want about your freedom. The problem is that it will intrude on other people's freedom.

sriv

04-07-2008, 01:30 PM

I think a better option than conscription would be asking bums off the street to join the war. They can then be educated and severly disciplined into nonrebellion and morality before training as a soldier.

Claptonian

04-07-2008, 03:21 PM

Conscription doesn't make people do horrible things. People makes people do horrible things. That's why no matter how you look at it there's good and bad sides. It all is just down to how it's run, not what it is or supposed to be.

Wrong. Conscription infringes on individual rights, therefore I consider it to be a bad thing. It doesn't matter how it's run.

In your political views you and other people will have that power instead.

Not necessarily, but this is leading to a debate on anarchism which isn't really the point of this thread.

So you don't want to defend your country if it gets attacked? What would you do then?

I would certainly defend myself and my land if it were attacked, but whether or not I would defend other people's land would depend on the circumstances under which it was being attacked. I am not a patriot. I don't do things for "my country." I do things for reasons.

No. You say it yourself a organized group is better than a man alone. Those who never encountered military training or similar is just bunch of cattle. Not knowing what to do or how.

But a privately funded, voluntary group of people could potentially be just as well trained as a military.

Yes I sacrificed my freedom for almost a year, to be able to live the rest of my life in freedom. I helped a friend with his computer, he welded some rust on my car. You have to give to earn.
You can say how much you want about your freedom. The problem is that it will intrude on other people's freedom.

So, if I don't allow myself to be forced to work for an organization I don't necessarily support, I'm intruding on other people's freedom? That's ridiculous.

Dreamer

04-07-2008, 05:22 PM

I would certainly defend myself and my land if it were attacked, but whether or not I would defend other people's land would depend on the circumstances under which it was being attacked. Assuming that you a life outside the field of self-defense and firearms, I think you would be quickly outclassed by any criminal but organized group. I think also that in an invasion scenario, the lone citizen protecting his land will be quickly destroyed by an artillery shell (or if he is lucky merely overrun by an infantry section). Either ways, your freedoms are fucked. Which is better: to have to fight on your own land in Nevada or fight on your neighbor's land in California(or better yet Europe)?

What makes you think you should be entitled to freedoms if you are not willing to participate in the defense of said freedoms? Why should others accept a crappy pay that is in some circunstances below minimum wages, hardships and physical risks in the defense of your liberties while you give nothing of your person? Why should you have as much say as someone who have actively contributed to the defense of democracy?

But a privately funded, voluntary group of people could potentially be just as well trained as a military.Ironically, the best private military companies out there only seek out and employ ex-military or ex-SWAT folks, with extensive training courtesy of the taxpayer.

Claptonian

04-07-2008, 06:47 PM

Assuming that you a life outside the field of self-defense and firearms, I think you would be quickly outclassed by any criminal but organized group. I think also that in an invasion scenario, the lone citizen protecting his land will be quickly destroyed by an artillery shell (or if he is lucky merely overrun by an infantry section). Either ways, your freedoms are fucked. Which is better: to have to fight on your own land in Nevada or fight on your neighbor's land in California(or better yet Europe)?

Maybe, maybe not. This is the conscription thread so I'm not going to get into a debate on war. I did that in the war thread and quickly regretted it. I'll just say that even if freedom would make my life difficult, dangerous or doomed, I still prefer it to slavery.

What makes you think you should be entitled to freedoms if you are not willing to participate in the defense of said freedoms?

Whether or not I'm willing to defend my rights is totally irrelevant, because "conscription" is based on forcing people who are not willing to do it anyway. My willingness has nothing to do with this debate.

Why should others accept a crappy pay that is in some circunstances below minimum wages, hardships and physical risks in the defense of your liberties while you give nothing of your person?

I'm not asking them to do that and I would prefer that they didn't do it. But, again, we're debating conscription, not whether or not I should support the troops (I don't) or join the military (I won't).

Why should you have as much say as someone who have actively contributed to the defense of democracy?

I'm against democracy, so this point seems irrelevant, too.

Dreamer

04-07-2008, 09:06 PM

Claptonian

04-07-2008, 10:02 PM

Remember that if captured by a foreign invader holding totalitarian ideals, you would most likely live as a slave for the rest of your life. So much for draft dodging.

We seem to just disagree on a fundamental point here. You're okay with giving up some freedom for safety, I'm not. It doesn't matter how many times you restate the consequences of my anti-military or anti-conscription beliefs, and it doesn't matter how many times I restate that I don't care about the consequences. So let's avoid the repetition, eh? :laugh:

I actually do sympathise somewhat with anarchocapitalist ideals(minus the living in the woods with one pair of underwear part), but it is simply not feasible in the present conditions(again,ask the Carthiginians how their visions of an army-less state turned out).

You're probably right. I suspect people have become so dependent on authority that anarchy has a slim-to-none chance of being successful these days. But it's still the position I take because it's the only political philosophy that fully respects individual rights.

You may be against democracy, but fortunatly for the rest of us, we aren't living in Claptonian's head. We do live in democracies so it is completely relevant. Most civilians are simply willing to enjoy the free ride that have been paid by the blood of others while proportionally contributing little to nothing of their person to defense of said freedoms.

Why should such a civilian be able to enjoy freedoms that have been paid by other men's blood(that have not been very well compensated financially?)?

I have never asked anyone to pay for my freedom. If some stranger came and re-painted my house without consulting me first, do you think I should be forced to pay them for their work? That's not how the world works and it's not how I believe individual rights work. I do not owe anything to anyone unless I infringed on their rights or made an agreement with them that entailed compensation.

Capwolf

04-07-2008, 10:27 PM

There is simply no way you can discard war while talking about conscription. It is like saying we should discuss the merits of a bullet caliber while dismissing the possible scenarios one may get into.

Remember that if captured by a foreign invader holding totalitarian ideals, you would most likely live as a slave for the rest of your life. So much for draft dodging.

You use a computer remarkably well for someone who obviously comes from a distant century! A slave, really? I don't suppose you think the US is in constant peril at the hands of powerful terrorists, do you? That scenario might be remotely likely--if you're captured while serving in the military, when you are the invader. Possibly if you're inducted into a cult.

In the long run, it is stupidly counter-productive to completely dismiss the military and conscription. Democracy may be a somewhat restrictive system in terms of freedom, but lasting change is possible from inside the system. No changes whatsoever are possible under a socialist/communist or an islamofascist state.

What restrictions on freedom are inherent in democracy, and assuming unwilling service is one requirement, how is that different from being enslaved by someone holding totalitarian ideals? Is it because they use the word 'democracy' to carry out their totalitarian ideals?

I agree that we ought not to completely dismiss the military when we've done so much to piss off other powerful and upcoming nations, but it's stupidly counter-productive to entertain the notion of conscription. No one can be forced into patriotism (but people can easily be soured).

You may be against democracy, but fortunatly for the rest of us, we aren't living in Claptonian's head. We do live in democracies so it is completely relevant. Most civilians are simply willing to enjoy the free ride that have been paid by the blood of others while proportionally contributing little to nothing of their person to defense of said freedoms.

Why should such a civilian be able to enjoy freedoms that have been paid by other men's blood(that have not been very well compensated financially?)?

Leaving aside your ridiculous pseudo-patriotic rhetoric, everyone contributes freely in a society or the society is not just. Very few have a "free ride" in America, and it isn't paid for by soldiers' blood--at least none under the age of retirement. We're not at that point in our history. If the government thinks we need more people than are volunteering, they need to look at who they're governing for, and they need to scale back their actions to a size we're willing to support whole-heartedly.

I'm not going to engage with your argument about soldiers being paid too little, because that's a smoke-screen--that's not anywhere near the issue of conscription. The only people spilling soldiers' blood are the ones who determine their pay out of our pockets, and who (from a comfortable way-too-old-and-rich-to-serve) decide each time they try it that conscription sounds like an awesome idea.

Dreamer

04-08-2008, 12:04 AM

You use a computer remarkably well for someone who obviously comes from a distant century! A slave, really? I don't suppose you think the US is in constant peril at the hands of powerful terrorists, do you? That scenario might be remotely likely--if you're captured while serving in the military, when you are the invader. Possibly if you're inducted into a cult.
Yes Comrade capwolf, the Soviet Union was just an invention by Ronald Reagan to keep hippies from smoking weed.Actually no,it was a kingdom in the distant 14th century who bathed in chocolate rivers. War with that kingdom would have required no more than a platoon of seasoned american riflemen.

By the way,where the fuck did I mention that I backed conscription primarly on the premise that the US was going to be invaded by terrorists? Your imagination,like any other things,should be used in moderation.

The US military should keep up with possible opposition(China...).

What restrictions on freedom are inherent in democracy, and assuming unwilling service is one requirement, how is that different from being enslaved by someone holding totalitarian ideals? Would you rather spend a lifetime in a gulag or 1 year in the military?

To equal military service with totalitarism is lunacy.The military can be stressful at times but it is nowhere near what one would experience in a totalitarian state in length or severity. The vast majority of conscripts do not even get near the front lines.

And the assumption that there are no veterans under the age of retirement have contributed to his country's freedom is an equally lunatic liberal fantasy.In America's case,most wars after WWII have contributed in some ways in re-asserting american power and by extension american freedom.

Military service should be the norm. Those who are against it are often motivated by the same reasons than those backers whom they accuse to be "too rich and too old to serve" .

If the government thinks we need more people than are volunteering, they need to look at who they're governing for, and they need to scale back their actions to a size we're willing to support whole-heartedly. Absolutly comrade,conscription should be a democratic endaevour.

Dreamer added to this post, 8 minutes and 40 seconds later...

And beside conscription is actually a tool strenghtening democracy by providing military training to all citizens.

Isn't it written in your own constitution: a well-armed militia,being nescessary to the security of a free state...

Jon

04-08-2008, 12:15 AM

Isn't it written in your own constitution: a well-armed militia,being nescessary to the security of a free state...

Uh, I think you're missing the point of the Second Amendment. The right to form a militia is supposed to allow us to protect ourselves from the government, not for the government to form us into a militia and use at its discretion.

Also, calling people Comrade hasn't been an insult since we figured out that Communism posed no threat to us. I guess it could still be considered one if you idolize Joseph McCarthy, but if that's the case you have bigger problems than word choice.

Seriously, though, gulags? You really think China is going to put Americans in gulags if we don't have a larger army than them?

Capwolf

04-08-2008, 12:23 AM

Yes Comrade capwolf, the Soviet Union was just an invention by Ronald Reagan to keep hippies from smoking weed.Actually no,it was a kingdom in the distant 14th century who bathed in chocolate rivers. War with that kingdom would have required no more than a platoon of seasoned american riflemen.

So what you're saying is that the Soviet Union commonly abducted American citizens (presumably draft-dodgers) and subjected them to a lifetime of slavery? Source? Obviously my history lessons were full of holes.

By the way,where the fuck did I mention that I backed conscription primarly on the premise that the US was going to be invaded by terrorists? Your imagination,like any other things,should be used in moderation.

The US military should keep up with possible opposition(China...).

Sorry, I assumed that you believed the rest of the Republican fantasies, especially when you used the word "islamofascist".

But, man, I wasn't aware that brinkmanship and the arms race were generally considered successes.

Would you rather spend a lifetime in a gulag or 1 year in the military?

To equal military service with totalitarism is lunacy.The military can be stressful at times but it is nowhere near what one would experience in a totalitarian state in length or severity. The vast majority of conscripts do not even get near the front lines.

I'd rather experience neither! I'm not a fan of any form of unwilling service, no matter the length. Luckily for me, "lifetime in a gulag" is not actually a likely event, and so I only need to worry about one of those. And I don't equate military service with totalitarianism; in fact, I considered joining when I was in high school. I do consider mandatory service to the state to be perilously close to totalitarian, though, whether it's a month or twenty years, and whether the lottery lands you near the front lines or you stay a mile from home.

And the assumption that there are no veterans under the age of retirement have contributed to his country's freedom is an equally lunatic liberal fantasy.In America's case,most wars after WWII have contributed in some ways in re-asserting american power and by extension american freedom.

We'll have to agree to disagree about everything you say here. American power did not need to be re-asserted to ensure American freedom.

Military service should be the norm. Those who are against it are often motivated by the same reasons than those backers whom they accuse to be "too rich and too old to serve" .

I can't even figure out what you mean. What reasons are those, "comrade"? And do you disagree with me that the people who will make the laws are going to be the least likely affected? Do you think that congress is likely to volunteer itself as the first wave of conscriptees?

Dreamer added to this post, 8 minutes and 40 seconds later...

And beside conscription is actually a tool strenghtening democracy by providing military training to all citizens.

Isn't it written in your own constitution: a well-armed militia,being nescessary to the security of a free state...

The point of that amendment being that we can protest the federal government (backed by force) when they make persistently unjust decisions for us--not to strengthen their argument for unjust ideas. Maybe it would be nice to have military-style training available to everyone, but to require it is fundamentally against freedom and contradicts the idea of a free state.

Dreamer

04-08-2008, 01:36 AM

So what you're saying is that the Soviet Union commonly abducted American citizens (presumably draft-dodgers) and subjected them to a lifetime of slavery? Source? Obviously my history lessons were full of holes. You are so stuck up in your world that you have completely misread what I wrote.

I do believe that wars today require an amount of manpower beyond a seasoned squad of american riflemen. Those who taught that wars might be fought on the cheap were/are wrong.

Sorry, I assumed that you believed the rest of the Republican fantasies, especially when you used the word "islamofascist".
I can make use of the term "Islamic fundamentalist" to not damage your virgin eyes although it means basically the same thing.

But, man, I wasn't aware that brinkmanship and the arms race were generally considered successes. Sure beats rolling up into a foetal position and hoping that whoever is on the other side of the table won't exploit your inferior position.

I'd rather experience neither! I'm not a fan of any form of unwilling service, no matter the length. Luckily for me, "lifetime in a gulag" is not actually a likely event, and so I only need to worry about one of those. It is very unlikely that you will be subjugated to Chinese dictatorship in your lifetime. Nonetheless,it is very important to consider the long term impact of foreign policy.

I can't even figure out what you mean. What reasons are those, "comrade"? What do liberals unwilling to do military service usually accuse the congressman who argues for conscription?

And do you disagree with me that the people who will make the laws are going to be the least likely affected? Yes,I think that the lawmakers ae shielded from military servie. I think the civilian populace is equally shielded from military service by the voluntary system.

Do you think that congress is likely to volunteer itself as the first wave of conscriptees? Probably not. But if conscription is made longterm, inevitably, the politicians will be elected from conscriptees.

The point of that amendment being that we can protest the federal government (backed by force) when they make persistently unjust decisions for us--not to strengthen their argument for unjust ideas. Exactly,conscription makes the military a better reflection of the people. And gives the people the means to enforce the amendment.

Conscription in this case acts as an addition mean of checks and balance. There is a cost associated to it of course, but I think that the additional checks outweigh it.

How can this amendment be put in practice with a civilian populace completely untrained in the artifices of war?

Dreamer added to this post, 31 minutes and 56 seconds later...

Uh, I think you're missing the point of the Second Amendment. The right to form a militia is supposed to allow us to protect ourselves from the government, not for the government to form us into a militia and use at its discretion.Where did you see me that I called for a militia for the government to use at its discretion? Government should always be subjected to democratic checks and balance.

How the hell is your militia going to protect itself from the evil G-men if your most potent candidate is an obese NASCAR fan who has shot a .22 rifle once or twice in his life?

Maybe they should change the second amendment to "A well trained militia..."

Also, calling people Comrade hasn't been an insult since we figured out that Communism posed no threat to us. Yes of course, I figure it was simply American imperialism that prompted the Soviets to interfere in western internal politics,and otherwise try and screw up western interests worldwide during the cold war.

They posed no threat to America whatsoever despite the political interference,only to them untouchable Cambodians,eastern europeans, North Koreans, etc.

Seriously, though, gulags? You really think China is going to put Americans in gulags if we don't have a larger army than them?
I think that a weak army inevitably leads to a diminution of option of any nation in conducting a proper foreign policy(among them it cuts out the option to send an expeditionnary force). With that may(or may not) come the eventual desmise of a nation.

I think that the loss of freedom is far more potent from the American liberal left than the Chinese communist party. And that only gross incompetence from the White house would allow a foreign power to install gulags.

Jon

04-08-2008, 02:06 AM

No, I'd say the Amendment is fine as it is. You're also, clearly, not familiar with American gun culture. There are plenty of gun owners who know how to use their guns very well, and do with great frequency. I figured you meant that the government would form the militias because the alternative would be you meaning that the people form the militias against the government using government training. Clearly you feel otherwise, but if I were forced against my will to go through military training, I would want as little to do with it as possible after being released from my captivity, being that it would remind me of the part of my life that was completely out of my control.

I didn't say that communist countries have never been a threat, I said we figured out that "it wasn't". Meaning at one point they stopped being an imminent threat, capable of destroying our entire country with a barrage of nuclear weapons, and that Communism itself has never been a threat. The dictators who used it as a pretense to rule were. The idea of a "Comrade" isn't harmful at all, and I don't know why people still cling to backwards paranoia surrounding collectivism. The spread of "communism" was the spread of dictatorships and megalomaniacs. Yes, that's harmful. Obviously.

I just don't even know what to say to you. Clearly you have very entrenched opinions about this that seem to align pretty well with the fanatical right--kind of like "Islamofascism", honestly. It seems that it would be impossible to convince you of anything other than what you already believe and that's the way you want it.

The only thing I can think of to ask that would be constructive (everything else I've considered saying constitutes trolling in my mind) is to ask for your definition of "freedom". I read an article once about the meaning of the word and how (like all words), the meaning is highly individualized.

Basically, how do you personally define freedom? What are all of the things you get by being "free", Dreamer?

Capwolf

04-08-2008, 06:46 AM

You are so stuck up in your world that you have completely misread what I wrote.

I do believe that wars today require an amount of manpower beyond a seasoned squad of american riflemen. Those who taught that wars might be fought on the cheap were/are wrong.

And you are so stuck up in your own world that you can't form a coherent sentence, I guess! You're fixated on the idea that unless we're willing to fight, we will be taken prisoner (I suppose you mean by someone other than our own government). I think this is extremely unlikely. Where are your examples, where is the indication that this will ever come close to happening?

Wars must be fought for the right reasons; then people will get behind them with funding and personal enthusiasm. If no one wants to sign up, the problem isn't the people, but the war. Until we have an actual war once again edging up on our own land, there is no need to temporarily enslave anyone, and the only thing you'll build is resentment.

I can make use of the term "Islamic fundamentalist" to not damage your virgin eyes although it means basically the same thing.

Sure, whatever! I'd perhaps be a little more worried about "Islamic fundamentalism" if the people most concerned with what they might do to us weren't generally also the people who want to spy on Americans at home, to deny rights to gay people, and to champion forced pregnancy--and who use scare tactics about foreign threats to pass that legislation.

It is very unlikely that you will be subjugated to Chinese dictatorship in your lifetime. Nonetheless,it is very important to consider the long term impact of foreign policy.

I agree. But I absolutely disagree with the sorts of foreign policy you seem to advocate. The best they do is foster ill will abroad, while disillusioning American youth.

What do liberals unwilling to do military service usually accuse the congressman who argues for conscription?

Accuse them of what? Being hypocrites who also don't want to fight, but who will write themselves out of the requirements?

I don't want legislators to be forced into the fight either. However, if they're going to volunteer the rest of us--them first. They're the ones arguing that someone else can do the dirty work. I'm arguing that the only shit they're smelling is their own, and sending off young people to clean up abroad isn't going to do a thing about the smell.

Yes,I think that the lawmakers ae shielded from military servie. I think the civilian populace is equally shielded from military service by the voluntary system.

Going to be, dude. Going to be. That is, IF they should pass the law, THEN they will be the least affected. We all should be shielded from military service if we don't want to try it. You might consider it only a minor inconvenience, but it's definitely not for everyone.

Exactly,conscription makes the military a better reflection of the people. And gives the people the means to enforce the amendment.

Conscription in this case acts as an addition mean of checks and balance. There is a cost associated to it of course, but I think that the additional checks outweigh it.

How can this amendment be put in practice with a civilian populace completely untrained in the artifices of war?

No, it won't help give people the means to enforce the amendment. After passing an unjust law, people will be given a chance to fight--in a stronger military, which will be used against us if we rise up. There are a lot of SJs who would never rebel against a law, no matter how wrong. Granted there's a morale advantage when your side believes in its cause and the other side is filled with people who want to be anywhere but where they are, but numbers still matter here. It is not an additional check and balance, because these are people who are compelled to follow orders from above, and whose ultimate leader is the executive--already overpowered compared to the other actual 'check and balance' branches.

1OFMANY

04-08-2008, 07:47 AM

Compare this to america where soldiers are given the choice of the army or jail in some cases... Where they're lied to constantly by recruiters... if you throw conscription into that mix as well you're just degrading the stock.

Thats bullshit lol. I am 6 years in the US Army so far and 1 active duty infantry tour in Iraq. Rather than waste time debating and telling you why that statement is full of shit, I'll just say it is and you'll take my word for it.

acyckowski

04-08-2008, 08:43 AM

Thats bullshit lol. I am 6 years in the US Army so far and 1 active duty infantry tour in Iraq. Rather than waste time debating and telling you why that statement is full of shit, I'll just say it is and you'll take my word for it.

Thanks, 1, for reminding me to address that point, which I failed to before. I'll throw my 11+ years in the infantry behind yours. (RLTW!)

Compare this to america where soldiers are given the choice of the army or jail in some cases... Where they're lied to constantly by recruiters... if you throw conscription into that mix as well you're just degrading the stock.

Where the f--- did you get this from? Bad movies about Vietnam? MTV? If you happen to "know" of such a case, the statistical term for it would be "outlier." It just doesn't happen. I'm here to tell you, EVERY Soldier feels like he was "lied to" by his recruiter about something, but invariably it's a case of 1) He didn't listen, 2) He only heard what he wanted to hear, or 3) He didn't ask in the first place.

Your statement leads me to the obvious conclusion that you "couldn't find your ass with both hands and a map," as we say in the U.S. Army.

Claptonian

04-08-2008, 09:53 AM

Wars must be fought for the right reasons; then people will get behind them with funding and personal enthusiasm. If no one wants to sign up, the problem isn't the people, but the war.

Very well put. :thumbsup:

Dreamer

04-08-2008, 12:31 PM

And you are so stuck up in your own world that you can't form a coherent sentence, I guess! Well,you are wrong. You are simply taking an idea of my own and twisting it to fit your ill-conceived view of the world.

You're fixated on the idea that unless we're willing to fight, we will be taken prisoner (I suppose you mean by someone other than our own government). In the United States, it is truth you may get away for decades with neglecting the military.

Mantaining a weak foreign policy will inevitably lead to a degradation of the American living standards and economy(see what happened after the islamofascists took over Teheran) in the very short term. America should try to avoid such disastrous events. It could very seriously hurt it in the long run.

I think this is extremely unlikely. Where are your examples, where is the indication that this will ever come close to happening? True, it has little chance of happening in the next decade.

Wars must be fought for the right reasons; then people will get behind them with funding and personal enthusiasm. If no one wants to sign up, the problem isn't the people, but the war.Absolutly not, I'd say that popular support has little to do with the righteousness of a cause.

It could be argued that Hitler had ample tremendous support for the various violations of international law. Equally,it can be said that the Khmer Rouge was far more popular than the Khmer Republic before the fall of Phnom Penh due to American cowardice.

But reagardless of righteousness and popularity where did I say that I supported sending over conscripts to fight an unpopular war? Government should always be subjected to checks and balance. In fact,I believe that due to conscription, the arguments for war will have to be much stronger, since a large part of the population will be affected by war.

Until we have an actual war once again edging up on our own land, there is no need to temporarily enslave anyone, and the only thing you'll build is resentment. Many european countries have conscription, yet there isn't the huge popular backfiring you are speaking about. In fact,many of those european countries are very stable(i.e Switzerland).

Sure, whatever! I'd perhaps be a little more worried about "Islamic fundamentalism" You are downplaying the threat of Islamofascism in order to promote a weak foreign policy.

if the people most concerned with what they might do to us If Charlie is wrong about the ways to fight the bear. Charlie should be gagged for what he is suggesting,

But does the bear stop existing?

weren't generally also the people who want to spy on Americans at home,Agreed that the War on terror is taking away civil liberties. It does not mean the WOT should not be fought. Only the tactics should be changed.

to deny rights to gay people, The rights to be recognized by the federal bureaucracy and the rights to go through a lenghty legal proceeding to part from one's partner? Homosexuality is fairly minor issue.

I seriously doubt that Armageddon will come if homosexuals marry in the streets and I seriously doubt that the global economy will be going to shit if the homos aren't given recognition by the federal bureaucracy.

and to champion forced pregnancy--Well I don't know, its the liberals that have been championing the rights of rapists to lighter prison sentences.

and who use scare tactics about foreign threats to pass that legislation. Yep, at times sensationalist medias have overplayed certain aspects of the islamofascist threat.

But then the liberals have ALWAYS made used of scare tactics. Remember how they bitched about nuclear winter during the implementation of SDI(which never materialised)? Or how they keep reminding of school shootings to further anti-firearms legislation?

The best they do is foster ill will abroad, while disillusioning American youth. I think that global popular opinion is less important than it seems. Despite America's unpopularity, Europe did not stop trading with it, nor did most (if not all) asian nations. Free trade agreements were not broken, and military treaties are just as stable as they were before the Bush eras.
I very much doubt that the US' allies would have supported it militarly had it pursued a more accomodative policy. Nations are more driven by practical needs than by ideological zeal to punish America. Even the mullahs provide up to 1/10th of American oil.

While disilussioning American youth. Again take a look at switzerland. I don't see any youth burning banks in Zurich.

Accuse them of what? Being hypocrites who also don't want to fight, but who will write themselves out of the requirements?In other words cowards right?

I don't want legislators to be forced into the fight either. However, if they're going to volunteer the rest of us--them first. They're the ones arguing that someone else can do the dirty work. I'm arguing that the only shit they're smelling is their own, and sending off young people to clean up abroad isn't going to do a thing about the smell. So? Some people will always benefit unfairly from legislation. Pass a legislation breaking up a trust, it benefits a corporation who might not have the best product. However,it does not prevent this legislation from benefiting the greater good.

No doubt some weapons manufacturers got rich in WWII. No doubt that WWII have benefited the whole, despite some getting special benefits.

No, it won't help give people the means to enforce the amendment. After passing an unjust law, people will be given a chance to fight--in a stronger military, which will be used against us if we rise up. There are a lot of SJs who would never rebel against a law, no matter how wrong. Granted there's a morale advantage when your side believes in its cause and the other side is filled with people who want to be anywhere but where they are, but numbers still matter here. No. First of all,Military service should be a 1 or 2 years. The amount of people trained would most likely outnumber the amount of people in the military themselves. Second of all, I think that the US army is largely composed of people who beleive in the second amendment.

I don't have the poll at the tip of my fingers,but I think it was Army Times that found out that 80% of those soldiers polled would not follow orders if asked to disarm american civilians.

There are many examples where conscripted militaries did not work because they didn't have popular support.

Dreamer added to this post, 51 minutes and 9 seconds later...

No, I'd say the Amendment is fine as it is. You're also, clearly, not familiar with American gun culture. There are plenty of gun owners who know how to use their guns very well, and do with great frequency. From my understanding of American gun culture, much of it focus almost exclusively on individual weapons proficiency.

It could be a very wrong impression,so feel free to correct me.
I've never lived in America, its the conclusion I've reached by lurking on the more popular American gun boards.

Few training courses focus on more team-oriented aspects of gun use(and what military force can work if it doesn't focus on team-oriented tactics?).
Without knowing the actual content of the courses, the ones covering subjects such as fieldcraft seems to be very limited in length compared to the training given by the military. There seems to be a lot of focus in American culture on the rifle, but it neglects heavier weapons like the machinegun, who is a fairly important contributor to the firepower of an infantry section(or a guerilla cell).

The only thing I can think of to ask that would be constructive (everything else I've considered saying constitutes trolling in my mind) is to ask for your definition of "freedom". I read an article once about the meaning of the word and how (like all words), the meaning is highly individualized.

Basically, how do you personally define freedom? What are all of the things you get by being "free", Dreamer?
Freedom is the capacity of engaging only in activities that one consented to(and that includes such thing as consenting to contribution to the state ie taxation),as long as these activities does not restrict another man's freedom. The capacity to trade, exchange, make love, hate, learn without restrictions as long as there is consent.
I do not agree with marxists that such a thing as "economic coercion" or whatever they choose to call it exist.It is the capacity to say what one has on his mind without fear of violent consequences.

I don't think that I fundamentally disagree with the libertarian definition of freedom.

What I do disagree with is the lofty ideals that this philosophy should be applied everywhere and in any circunstances,regardless to the long-term consequences.

I see the road to freer state to be full of incremental footsteps. If we take a step backward,its only to jump forward two or three steps. Trying to jump 10 steps ahead will only cause us to fall down.

Capwolf

04-08-2008, 09:01 PM

In the United States, it is truth you may get away for decades with neglecting the military.

Mantaining a weak foreign policy will inevitably lead to a degradation of the American living standards and economy(see what happened after the islamofascists took over Teheran) in the very short term. America should try to avoid such disastrous events. It could very seriously hurt it in the long run.
What's your evidence for that? Our living standards and economy are degrading because of internal economic and governmental issues, not because of weak foreign policy. Draining the country of money and increasing our foreign debt (via war) is not a help. If strong foreign policy equates to large military, which I doubt, then the opposite of your situation is in fact occurring.

True, it has little chance of happening in the next decade.
Not quite what I meant. The next decade is the short/medium run, it is "close to happening". If you think that it's edging anywhere near likely that Americans in America will be enslaved by invaders in the next sixty years, please show me the indicators.

Absolutly not, I'd say that popular support has little to do with the righteousness of a cause. ...
But reagardless of righteousness and popularity where did I say that I supported sending over conscripts to fight an unpopular war? Government should always be subjected to checks and balance. In fact,I believe that due to conscription, the arguments for war will have to be much stronger, since a large part of the population will be affected by war.
A -> B does not translate to B -> A. I never said (nor implied) that all wars with popular support were righteous; I said that if we have a righteous war, it will get support.

I absolutely don't believe that a government that has come to rely on war for supposed economic boons and for every diplomatic dispute would, if given an expanded army, actually scale down war. I wish! Unfortunately, the relationship of responsibility to power is a comic book conceit.

Many european countries have conscription, yet there isn't the huge popular backfiring you are speaking about. In fact,many of those european countries are very stable(i.e Switzerland).
Europeans are not Americans. There are a lot of things they do that wouldn't fly here. Check all the resistance to universal healthcare, or imagine trying to make guns flat-out illegal for civilians. It would not happen. National culture can't be ignored.

You are downplaying the threat of Islamofascism in order to promote a weak foreign policy.
No, I think most of the scare over Islam is ridiculous in itself. And I think that we're going about military strength in the wrong way. You're arguing for it to keep heading there.

Size is NOT strength. Strength comes from soldiers who honestly believe in what they're doing, from a public that trusts that we're pursuing the best option, and from technological and strategic advances. Not from adding mostly untrained bulk.

I'm not responding to the next bits individually because my browser window is too small for this debate. Whether liberals use scare tactics or make decisions that compromise our rights and make political minorities' lives harder (yes) is not relevant to the question of whether conservatives do (yes again). There are wrongs on all sides, and I'm not one to argue that we should ignore one side's wrongs because another side is sooo lame.

In other words cowards right?

...

No doubt some weapons manufacturers got rich in WWII. No doubt that WWII have benefited the whole, despite some getting special benefits.
Um, no. As I said, hypocrites. And, if anyone conscripted dies for any reason, hypocrites who are guilty in my mind (if not in law) of manslaughter. "Some getting special benefits" is one thing; "some legislating special benefits for themselves and the people like them" is a violation of public trust.

No. First of all,Military service should be a 1 or 2 years. The amount of people trained would most likely outnumber the amount of people in the military themselves. Second of all, I think that the US army is largely composed of people who beleive in the second amendment.

I don't have the poll at the tip of my fingers,but I think it was Army Times that found out that 80% of those soldiers polled would not follow orders if asked to disarm american civilians.
Maybe it is full of those who support the second amendment now. It wouldn't be if everyone went. Also, short duration and eventual greater ability to overthrow unjust laws (if only citizens were allowed to own the right weapons!) doesn't justify an unjust law. Service without consent is still wrong. BTW, while I appreciate that soldiers feel that way, I don't believe polls like that are reliable--an image of oneself as a free-thinking civil hero doesn't guarantee that one wouldn't follow the order if it actually came.

Dreamer

04-08-2008, 11:58 PM

What's your evidence for that? Our living standards and economy are degrading because of internal economic and governmental issues, not because of weak foreign policy. Draining the country of money and increasing our foreign debt (via war) is not a help. Many factor can contribute to a degrading standard of living. International factors whether you like it or not is one of them.
Ever heard of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the subsequent energy crisis? Production in the entire middle east dropped by only 4 % but it was enough . And how about the 1973 crisis? Both events plunged the US into a recession. While more accomodative policy toward arabs might have averted the 1973 crisis(I do believe that in certain circunstances it might pay to be accomodative), a more active role in Iran might have prevented the one in 1979.

And by the way,the Iraq war is but a trifle compared to your spending on socialist programs(like public educations,welfare,etc). If there is one thing you must point a finger at,it is it.

However unlike social programs,
War is a nescessary evil and military funding must contine.

Not quite what I meant. The next decade is the short/medium run, it is "close to happening". If you think that it's edging anywhere near likely that Americans in America will be enslaved by invaders in the next sixty years, please show me the indicators.I have not stated that America itself will be enslaved in the next 60 years(I don't think that I have ever given a timeframe or even referred specifically to America).

I think that the loss of freedom in the US will be incremental.
What I know is that the US military is stripped of human ressources(didn't they have to recall a division from Iraq for Katrina?). In times of severe economic hardships, the people may turn to more authoritharian forms of government(I believe membership to the CPUSA was strongest during the Great depression), and in turn to greater opression.

Your most pressing concern is your own government.

I said that if we have a righteous war, it will get support. Such as under the form of a democratically-sanctionned and popularly supported conscription.

I absolutely don't believe that a government that has come to rely on war for supposed economic boons and for every diplomatic dispute would, if given an expanded army, actually scale a down war. I wish! Unfortunately, the relationship of responsibility to power is a comic book conceit. You would be correct if the government was some kind of totalitarian (which I totally disapprove of).

In a democratic state,there IS checks and balance over such overt show of power as the use of the military. Because the citizens who are asked to pay the price in blood,the congressman who goes against the will of his constituents will be VERY hard pressed to find good arguments for war if he is to keep his seat.

No more chicken hawks and freeriding hippies.

No, I think most of the scare over Islam is ridiculous in itself. There is no scare over Islam itself,except maybe in very Christian or xenophobic circles.

There is a lack of awareness of the problem of islamofascism. I think that most of the unwillingness to criticisze Islam is because of the culture reverence in the West for organized religion.

Islamic fundamentalism is disgusting and should not be regarded as merely as a religion,but also as a potent political force.

And I think that we're going about military strength in the wrong way. You're arguing for it to keep heading there.How? The US military have been pursuing a doctrine that required less manpower and more reliance on technology under Rumsfeld. Isn't that the direction you wanted it to be?

Size is NOT strength. Strength comes from soldiers who honestly believe in what they're doing, from a public that trusts that we're pursuing the best option, and from technological and strategic advances. Not from adding mostly untrained bulk.Where did I say that I supported to lower standards ? Geez, if youre too lazy to read my posts, or if you don't understand something I wrote(could be,English being my second language), just point it out or something, or let's just agree to disagree and move on instead of planting a stickman in the middle of the pond and attacking it with a spear.

I'm not going to repeat myself again so read carefully. I've said repeadtly that it was possible to keep a high standard of training then. Conscription would bring the army to a higher technical level. Certain trades are simply in very short supply, and imho it would be more effective to bring people from the civilian world than to retrain them from scratch.

Some conscript militaries have performed exceedingly well. I think that Isreal is a fine example of what is possible with a conscripted military in a western nation. (Some of its reserve units fires quite a healthy dose of ammo monthly, compared to certain of its reserve volunteer counterparts in the western world who do not have the budget, they are doing quite well).

Quality of training is more about organization and leadership than conscription/volunteer groups.

Size is not strength, BUT you still have to have a minimum of men manning the trenches.All the technology in the world will not conduct a search through a middle eastern house. Only soldiers can do that.

While conventional wars will most likely less and less manpower-intensive in the future,insurgencies are espescially manpower-intensive and will remain so for a considerable while.

The military should be able to handle all scenarios ranging from some random peacekeeping operation in Africa requiring to a full scale world war on two fronts.

There are wrongs on all sides, and I'm not one to argue that we should ignore one side's wrongs because another side is sooo lame. Well de facto you were pretty much ignoring liberals' wrongs while highlighting the conservatives' wrong. So while its nice to state that there are wrongs to all side, you seem to tell just the right amount of truth,and then to shut up.
I was merely trying to show a more balanced view since you seemed to think that scare tactics are important to the debate(but hey I was just trying to be nice).

I don't, I believe I've stated it somewhere.

And, if anyone conscripted dies for any reason, hypocrites who are guilty in my mind (if not in law) of manslaughter. "Some getting special benefits" is one thing; "some legislating special benefits for themselves and the people like them" is a violation of public trust.
While I do agree that everyone above the age of retirement somehow gets a free pass, I think that also it is somewhat irrelevant to speak of it.

Let's discuss the merits of conscription itself instead of personal attacks on the congressmen as these do only but distract from the benefits of conscription. The consequences of it are also rather limited when we take a look at the big picture.

It wouldn't be if everyone went. I think that the work athmosphere in the military would relieve most liberals of the hoplophobia they seem to hold. It would certainly help the 2nd amendment to stay on the constitution.

Also, short duration and eventual greater ability to overthrow unjust laws (if only citizens were allowed to own the right weapons!)You are correct that the citizenry should have the right to own weapons nescessary to overthrow an unlawful government.

doesn't justify an unjust law. Service without consent is still wrong. But oh so much more effective.

Life is compromise. An ideologue breaks, a realist bends a little and survive,returning to its former state or a stronger one after the storm has passed. If long term freedom is insured by investing a little bit of one's time and effort, then imho, it is well worth the cost.

BTW, while I appreciate that soldiers feel that way, I don't believe polls like that are reliable--an image of oneself as a free-thinking civil hero doesn't guarantee that one wouldn't follow the order if it actually came.
I think that you under-estimate the ethical qualities of military personnel. I do agree that the . I think that the fact that people willing to speak up during the events leading to the Somalia incident with the Canadian Airborne Regiment,the events leading to Abu Ghraib, and that acts of soldiers threatening to open fire on war criminals during such events as My lai speaks volume on the ethical qualities of the western militaries.

And my first argument still stand. A trained citizenry would still considerably outnumber a conscript military and would have a better chance on the battlefield against said army.

Capwolf

04-09-2008, 06:58 AM

Many factor can contribute to a degrading standard of living. International factors whether you like it or not is one of them.
Ever heard of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the subsequent energy crisis? Production in the entire middle east dropped by only 4 % but it was enough . And how about the 1973 crisis? Both events plunged the US into a recession. While more accomodative policy toward arabs might have averted the 1973 crisis(I do believe that in certain circunstances it might pay to be accomodative), a more active role in Iran might have prevented the one in 1979.

And by the way,the Iraq war is but a trifle compared to your spending on socialist programs(like public educations,welfare,etc). If there is one thing you must point a finger at,it is it.

Yes, I've heard of them, as has everyone who's graduated high school. The current crisis also has to do with international factors, in that our foreign debt is rising & our currency value is falling. Undertaking more wars and heaping on more military personnel is not the solution; it's a continuation of the problem.

The wars we're in are not a trifle. And I'm off to work, but: I am not in government. I don't spend anything. Please don't totally break from reality in this argument.

acyckowski

04-09-2008, 11:24 AM

Bringing the troops home from the War on Poverty might go further, as more money is thrown away at underwriting personal failure and incompetence than in necessary government functions.

A government's primary function ought to be securing the safety and rights (in that order) of its citizens. There's room for legitimate debate in a free society about the defensive value of a good offense, but neglecting defense so that its citizens don't have to develop a work ethic seems like dereliction to me.

Dreamer

04-09-2008, 11:36 AM

Yes, I've heard of them, as has everyone who's graduated high school. The current crisis also has to do with international factors, in that our foreign debt is rising & our currency value is falling
Undertaking more wars and heaping on more military personnel is not the solution; it's a continuation of the problem. Socialism is much more to blame for the American debt than military spending. A balanced budget is possible if America decides to cut back on its socialist programs.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Of all the socialist programs in the US, social security alones accounts for more than the US defense budget.

That the current crisis is not fueled by a mad mullah's ambitions does not mean that history will not repeat itself if the White house let other Islamic nutjob hostile to Western ideals take office in one of the critical middle eastern countries.

The wars we're in are not a trifle. I never said they were a trifle by themselves. I said the wars reprensented a trifle compared to the spending due to socialist programs in the US.

The solution to the foreign debt lays in cutting back socialist government program in the US, not cutting back on the military.

Please don't totally break from reality in this argument. Says the man who has pretty much been throwing stickmen around since the beginning.

Capwolf

04-09-2008, 06:31 PM

A government's primary function ought to be securing the safety and rights (in that order) of its citizens. There's room for legitimate debate in a free society about the defensive value of a good offense, but neglecting defense so that its citizens don't have to develop a work ethic seems like dereliction to me.

I disagree with the order of the government's function, definitely, and I very much disagree that mandatory service will instill a work ethic in anyone.

I don't think we ought to neglect defense. If someone wants to join up, that's fine with me; it can be a good option. If everyone wanted to serve for a year or two, great. The only part of universal temporary military service I am against is the involuntary part.

Capwolf added to this post, 6 minutes and 58 seconds later...

Socialism is much more to blame for the American debt than military spending. A balanced budget is possible if America decides to cut back on its socialist programs.

...

I never said they were a trifle by themselves. I said the wars reprensented a trifle compared to the spending due to socialist programs in the US.

The solution to the foreign debt lays in cutting back socialist government program in the US, not cutting back on the military.
It lies in both. I'm not a socialist. America overspends (and badly spends) across the board. War overspending gets under my skin particularly because it usually doesn't even benefit Americans.

Says the man who has pretty much been throwing stickmen around since the beginning.
Don't begin to pretend it's a one-person game. I'm perfectly willing to be civil, if I think it'll be respected.

acyckowski

04-09-2008, 06:34 PM

Safety is a precondition for rights. Your free speech means nothing if I can punch your teeth in with impunity. Safety is ultimately secured by the force, or the threat of it. Trying to secure rights before safety is a fool's errand.

The primary duty of a government is to secure its people. Voluntary service is not a viable option for all governments. The world is an ugly place fraught with real danger, and a government must take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of its citizenry, no matter whose precious little sensibilities are offended.

Capwolf

04-09-2008, 07:55 PM

Jon

04-09-2008, 08:05 PM

acyckowski

04-09-2008, 08:16 PM

Sure, if you think that rights are in essence "precious little sensibilities", I can see why you think that and I have no argument to make in response to you.

Well, nobody has yet made a case to demonstrate that you can have rights without first having security. I'm open to reasoned debate, but all I've gotten so far is cries of "It's not fair," or, "Hell, no, I won't go."

If you think you can show that rights are a precondition for security, I'm listening. Until then, I will continue to assert that "rights" are nothing but wistful notions until somebody secures those rights with force.

fripping

04-09-2008, 08:43 PM

i'm really so devastated i can't be pressed against my will to kill and be killed by random strangers for reasons i may or may not know about or agree with. it is truly a great loss for our proud country. . .

Claptonian

04-09-2008, 08:54 PM

Well, nobody has yet made a case to demonstrate that you can have rights without first having security.

You always have rights, it's just a question of whether or not they're being respected. This is a common misconception among people, which is why you constantly hear about how soldiers died to "give us our rights." You can't give someone their rights, you can only respect their rights or infringe on them.

ChfMojoRising

04-10-2008, 03:42 AM

I think there's a confusion or lack of consideration for how each system tends to work.

A nation that uses a conscription method may make a call of all citizens of a certain general description(18 y.o., male) to train and/or serve militarily

A nation that doesn't use conscription recruits membership thruogh advertising and staying competitive in the job market through pay-grades and benefits for each person. In the event of an emergency, a draft may be issued.

Out of the two, I like the idea of choosing a military life or not choosing it. Even if it were just for a summer camp training, I wouldn't want to be forced to in a possibly undesired field~ but my opinion might change if there was a significant threat to my way of life (hence the draft)

merid

04-10-2008, 04:24 AM

You always have rights, it's just a question of whether or not they're being respected. This is a common misconception among people, which is why you constantly hear about how soldiers died to "give us our rights." You can't give someone their rights, you can only respect their rights or infringe on them.

I personally disagree with this. Everyone always gives you your rights. The government in increasing minimum wage is giving you the "right" to earn more money.

When soldiers die for a cause, for instance in WW2, soldiers were dying to preserve their way of life and therefore "rights" that they are acustomed to.

No human is born with automatic rights, as soon as you come into a society you have the rights aligned with your society.

Just because China censors the news does not mean that Chinese rights are being infringed. They are only being infringed from our perspective.

ChfMojoRising

04-10-2008, 06:09 AM

merid

04-10-2008, 06:46 AM

Following the US Constitution

That is the matter at hand though. I personally am not American, therefore the constitution is not my "bill of rights" does that make my rights infringed upon because I do not share all the rights that you do?

It does not take that much imagination to think of what life would be like without the second amendment would it?

If you want to see what life would be like in a censored world, try reading 1984.

Edit: I realise this is deviating from the matter of conscription.

Claptonian

04-10-2008, 11:00 AM

ChfMojoRising

04-10-2008, 11:23 AM

Well~ the ideas in the constitution existed long before it was writ~ The founding fathers were strongly influenced by Epicurous, David Hume, and John Locke. Really, it just makes sense... to certain people I suppose. It's just too bad our government doesn't take it seriously~ didn't Bush call say it was "just a piece of paper"?

Basically tho~ this is an argument over personal liberties right?

Claptonian

04-10-2008, 12:00 PM

Right, the Constitution didn't create the concept of inalienable rights. It wasn't establishing rights for the people o America, it was recognizing and confirming them, which is a very different thing.

And yeah, it is a debate on personal liberty. It's a question of security vs. freedom: is it worth sacrificing the freedom of the people of a country for the sake of protecting that county? I would say "absolutely not."

Capwolf

04-10-2008, 06:17 PM

It's just a question of what you believe, I guess. I believe in natural rights, though I don't believe in them because the Constitution says they exist.

As for the minimum wage example, that's not a right, it's a privelege granted through force.

Really, though, if rights are so flexible and subjective, and they only exist if they're secure, is it even possible for anyone to have their rights violated? If my right to speak only exists when it's secure, then any time it's threatened, wouldn't it cease to exist? In which case, whoever is threatening my rights isn't really threatening them. It's more like he's voiding them, and if my rights are void, he's really not doing anything wrong, is he?

In other words, this idea that rights only exist when they're granted by authority and secured by authority leads to rights that are flimsy and almost meaningless.

Yes, exactly. I'd argue too that safety is for the most part illusory--at least as illusory as rights. We can think we're invincible as a nation but the determined can always slip under the radar, and we can every one of us be killed without seeing it coming. Also, if we focus so much on collecting safety tokens from foreigners that we infringe native rights, what exactly are we trying to build up this safety for?

acyckowski

04-10-2008, 08:27 PM

That's a battle of semantics. Following the US Constitution we're all born with inalienable rights. That is to say, they are given at birth, by nature of being a man and not given by any other person, government or group. Minimum wage would be considered a privilege rather than a right.

If you're American, and believe in our constitution~ that's how it's suppose go. Otherwise~ ... ... ... I dunno~ I can't imagine living any other way ^^;;

And yet we fought a war with the British to secure those rights. Before the war, the rights were asserted but did not exist. After the war, the rights existed.

Interestingly, the Constitution's enumerated rights do not include the three "inalienable" rights claimed in the Declaration of Independence. Why? Perhaps because the Declaration was intended as fiery rhetoric, but when it came down to the practical business of forming a government, we had to be a little more careful about how "inalienable" our rights would be?

Okay, then, what about the big 3 "natural" rights?
Life? Everybody dies, so this is not absolute.
Liberty? How far does my liberty extend before your claim to liberty supercedes it? This is not absolute.
Pursuit of Happiness? Am I free to pursue my happiness at the expense of yours? This is not absolute.

The world of theory and the world of reality are very different places. It feels good to claim that I exist, therefore I have "rights," but when my rights are encroached upon by somebody else exercising their rights, there must be a way to discern whose rights have precedence. This may make some of you uncomfortable, and others will be blinded by the flash of the obvious: men are inherently irrational and self-centered, and it is a practical impossibility to settle all disputes between them by reason and good will.

Claptonian

04-10-2008, 08:59 PM

And yet we fought a war with the British to secure those rights. Before the war, the rights were asserted but did not exist. After the war, the rights existed.

You're wrong. We didn't fight the war to secure the rights, we fought the war because we had those rights and the British were infringing on them. The Declaration of Independence doesn't say that we are attempting to secure the rights, it says that the rights exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If we only have rights when they're secure, then can we really blame any enemy for not respecting our rights? If we didn't already have the rights before the war, then the British weren't really doing anything wrong, were they?

acyckowski

04-10-2008, 09:43 PM

You're wrong. We didn't fight the war to secure the rights, we fought the war because we had those rights and the British were infringing on them. The Declaration of Independence doesn't say that we are attempting to secure the rights, it says that the rights exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If we only have rights when they're secure, then can we really blame any enemy for not respecting our rights? If we didn't already have the rights before the war, then the British weren't really doing anything wrong, were they?

The colonies were mad about the abrogration of their rights, as British citizens, to be represented in Parliament when matters of taxation and troop deployment were at stake. The British levied taxes on the colonies to pay for the Redcoats deployed to secure the colonies. The colonies were miffed at being forced to pay for a service they didn't ask for, at a price they didn't agree to. They did not claim the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness until three years into the revolution.

It does not follow that the same men who truly believed these all-encompassing rights to be inalienable turned around 13 years later and established a set of different and more specified rights. Yet, that's what happened. Why?

One explanation is that this could be because they understood the Declaration as non-binding rhetoric: they were already at war, this was a way of telling King George that they were playing for keeps.

Another explanation is that in the pursuit of power, the founders decided for selfish reasons to give less aggressive rights to the common man....possible, but unlikely in view of the fact that they had already paid for freedom with their own blood and treasure, and the founders were pretty much the ones running the show when they were still colonials.

A third explanation has to do with Masons, rum-running, and British collusion with the Vatican, but I won't get into that here.

Capwolf

04-10-2008, 10:31 PM

thod

04-10-2008, 10:57 PM

Lol. All this talk about fighting for rights and the common man. Its about power, and thats all. They fought the war because they would win and have the power themselves. They speak all the rhetoric to get the common man fired up to fight for them. They couldn't care less about his rights. If you have to promise them gold or land or rights then you do so. The romans had no problems with kicking a bunch of French farmers off their farms and giving it to the soldiers in payment.

Do you seriously think soldiers go to war to preserve their way of life? You were a gardener before the war you will be a gardener after. All that happens is the ruler changes, your life stays the same. They go because they are compelled to by penalties applied if they don't. Only a few zealots believe in the noble cause. The rest just want a quite life. Once there they don't go into battle because they want to kill the enemy. They go because their new found buddies are depending on them and they don't want to let the side down and be seen as a coward.

I recall my grandpa telling me about his time in WW2. He was in North Africa with the British. They knew where the Germans were, and they knew where the Brits were. The spent as much time as they could avoiding each other to stay alive. All that happens if they fight is lots die and more men are sent from home. The guys there know this and realize the best strategy is not to fight. Then a general comes along and orders the fight.

acyckowski

04-11-2008, 09:26 AM

What is conscription but "a service they didn't ask for, at a price they didn't agree to"?

Anyway, another explanation you missed was that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are so clearly rights that there was no need to lay them out anymore than they already had. The bill of rights listed those more likely to be chipped away at by legislation--rights that needed protection from the government, in order that the people could themselves defend and practice the DoI three.

Umm.....last I checked, most western nations have representative democracies in the form of a republic or parliamentary system. So, for these nations, the passage of laws by elected officials necessarily implies the consent of the people. The people's ignorance as to what their representatives are doing is no excuse; a democracy gets the government it deserves.

Okay, let's check how "clear" these rights are.
Life. Abortion is okay; capital punishment is okay. Courts can order the disconnect of life support systems. Since the constitution is mute on these infringements, the rights are reserved to the respective states.
Liberty. What is liberty if it is not defined by as freedoms of (speech, worship, assembly, bearing arms, etc.) and the freedoms from (torture, unlawful search and seizure, quartering, etc.)? Freedom to scratch your ass?
Pursuit of happiness. Prostitution is often illegal. Certain types of consensual sex are often illegal. Gambling is often illegal. Smoking is often illegal. The courts have upheld the States' rights to restrict these liberties as being within the Founders' intent of allowing the people to decide how to self-regulate at the lowest level possible.

acyckowski added to this post, 16 minutes and 47 seconds later...

Lol. All this talk about fighting for rights and the common man. Its about power, and thats all. They fought the war because they would win and have the power themselves. They speak all the rhetoric to get the common man fired up to fight for them. They couldn't care less about his rights. If you have to promise them gold or land or rights then you do so. The romans had no problems with kicking a bunch of French farmers off their farms and giving it to the soldiers in payment.

Do you seriously think soldiers go to war to preserve their way of life? You were a gardener before the war you will be a gardener after. All that happens is the ruler changes, your life stays the same. They go because they are compelled to by penalties applied if they don't. Only a few zealots believe in the noble cause. The rest just want a quite life. Once there they don't go into battle because they want to kill the enemy. They go because their new found buddies are depending on them and they don't want to let the side down and be seen as a coward.

I recall my grandpa telling me about his time in WW2. He was in North Africa with the British. They knew where the Germans were, and they knew where the Brits were. The spent as much time as they could avoiding each other to stay alive. All that happens if they fight is lots die and more men are sent from home. The guys there know this and realize the best strategy is not to fight. Then a general comes along and orders the fight.

Or not. I never wanted to be a gardener, and I certainly didn't sign up for this gig to avoid penalties. In a volunteer force, every soldier, sailor, airmen and marine has his or her own reason for joining up, but it is accurate to say that they fight first for their buddy.

As for a conscripted Army, your grandfather's experience was not uncommon, nor was it universal. My father's experience was different: he volunteered because he wanted to join the Navy, not the Army, and because he was still too young to be drafted. My uncle, however, decided to wait for the draft notice to show up and skip the hassle of dealing with a recruiter. Identical motivation, different ways of doing it.

Your categorization that believers in the nobility of their cause being "a few zealots" simply has no basis in reality, which I know from talking to, living with, and fighting beside those who do. Projecting your personal bias on those around you is fundamentally irrational. Rethink your premises, compare them to reality, and get back to me.

Ytterbium

04-11-2008, 04:33 PM

Looks like someone poured some fuel on the fire.

I'm not American so all this constitution this and that makes no sense to me. Although it's interesting to see that conscription is something which is liked/disliked all over the politcal spectrum.

Capwolf

04-11-2008, 06:45 PM

What's clear at one time is not clear at another, or to another group of people. I really shouldn't be debating this with you as we are arguing from obviously different fundamentals, and that leads to frustration--not understanding.

Lol. All this talk about fighting for rights and the common man. Its about power, and thats all. They fought the war because they would win and have the power themselves. They speak all the rhetoric to get the common man fired up to fight for them. They couldn't care less about his rights. If you have to promise them gold or land or rights then you do so. The romans had no problems with kicking a bunch of French farmers off their farms and giving it to the soldiers in payment.

Do you seriously think soldiers go to war to preserve their way of life? You were a gardener before the war you will be a gardener after. All that happens is the ruler changes, your life stays the same. They go because they are compelled to by penalties applied if they don't. Only a few zealots believe in the noble cause. The rest just want a quite life. Once there they don't go into battle because they want to kill the enemy. They go because their new found buddies are depending on them and they don't want to let the side down and be seen as a coward.
Yeah, it makes me feel smart when I'm at least 50% more cynical than anyone else, too.

Most people obviously want nothing to do with dying or killing. But if you think that it's the penalties that make people go to war, or that no one does things based on noble reasons, you're not seeing everything that's going on. People don't act solely on selfish or rational principles, even if selfish is widened to include family and the goodwill generated by seemingly selfish acts. Most people want to think that they are doing the right thing (whatever that is for them).

acyckowski

04-11-2008, 07:44 PM

Most people obviously want nothing to do with dying or killing.

This is an area where we can agree, then, believe it or not.

I am, and always will be, arguing from the perspective of the sheepdog. The sheep often resent the sheepdog more than they do the wolf, from whom they are protected, because the sheepdog is an unpleasant reminder of a reality they prefer to ignore. (Grossman, On Killing) The sheepdog's function is ugly, often thankless, but ultimately necessary. That's the fundamental I'm coming from.

Capwolf

04-11-2008, 09:23 PM

This is an area where we can agree, then, believe it or not.

I am, and always will be, arguing from the perspective of the sheepdog. The sheep often resent the sheepdog more than they do the wolf, from whom they are protected, because the sheepdog is an unpleasant reminder of a reality they prefer to ignore. (Grossman, On Killing) The sheepdog's function is ugly, often thankless, but ultimately necessary. That's the fundamental I'm coming from.
Of course I believe it. I don't think we're fundamentally opposed on all issues, just that we clearly are on rights vs. safety, and on whether we are now threatened.

I dislike any war that isn't fending off a clear and imminent threat to our country; just as I'm against personal defensive force that is excessive or anticipatory. I don't think mandatory service is justifiable unless it's clearly laid out ahead of time (stated as a condition of citizenship, beforehand, when one can choose to go elsewhere). I believe that rights, and the protection of same, are the primary purpose of government.

I don't think we should have no military, or that soldiers should be paid or treated badly. I don't think they're monsters, or opportunists, or whatever; they're people who agreed for their own (not necessarily selfish) reasons to perform a necessary function.

acyckowski

04-11-2008, 10:51 PM

Of course I believe it. I don't think we're fundamentally opposed on all issues, just that we clearly are on rights vs. safety, and on whether we are now threatened.

I dislike any war that isn't fending off a clear and imminent threat to our country; just as I'm against personal defensive force that is excessive or anticipatory. I don't think mandatory service is justifiable unless it's clearly laid out ahead of time (stated as a condition of citizenship, beforehand, when one can choose to go elsewhere). I believe that rights, and the protection of same, are the primary purpose of government.

I don't think we should have no military, or that soldiers should be paid or treated badly. I don't think they're monsters, or opportunists, or whatever; they're people who agreed for their own (not necessarily selfish) reasons to perform a necessary function.

Well, shoot. Then all we disagree about is the value of a good offense.

Iraq itself posed no immediate threat to the sovereignty of the United States; however, Hussein's survival of ODS and subsequent flaunting of UN resolutions was a destabilizing influence in a region that feeds fresh bodies to a group that DOES pose an immediate threat. Ultimately, though, the war was justifiable as a resumption of hostilities after a prolonged cease-fire: he violated the cease-fire agreement too many times, we needed to go in and finish the job. Too bad we didn't push that point five years ago.

I can't speak for all countries, but in the U.S. the requirement for males to register for the draft is quite clear. You turn 18, you have to sign up with Selective Service, aka the Draft Board. Perhaps because it hasn't been invoked since '72, folks forget about it, but Congress can reinstate a draft at any time.