Conscription

[David Floyd]

That's the nature of our Country David... whether you like it or not... that's the deal. If you don't like it, you can leave.

You are mistaken as to the nature of our country, if you believe it was set up to allow the government extreme power over the individual.

And you must be losing your arguments if you have to mention Hitler in your own defense

I don't see why there is such a problem with bringing up the Hitler argument (or Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, whomever) - it's a simple consistency test. Either absolutism is OK, or it isn't, but it certainly isn't case by case.

In short, answer the damn question

[Al B. Sure!]

in any event, whatever the racial make-up of the US military, it is dominated by lower middle class people... is that fair for the lower middle class to be the only ones fighting wars?

[David Floyd]

in any event, whatever the racial make-up of the US military, it is dominated by lower middle class people... is that fair for the lower middle class to be the only ones fighting wars?

You didn't address the obvious counterpoint that no one made them volunteer.

However, you're right in that it isn't really fair for ANYONE to be fighting all of these foreign wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Germany, etc.).

[Ming]

Our country is what it is... it has evolved over time. You can hide your head in the sand and make all the claims you want about what our country "used" to be, or what the original intent was... but so what. It's not reality.

There are laws... like taxes... and signing up for selective service... that's a fact. And if you don't like it, try to change it in legal fashions... or find another place to live. It really is that simple.

[Ben Kenobi]

The utility of conscription was not my point. It was just as wrong in WW2 as it is today.

Interesting, I find myself on David Floyd's side.

I agree that conscription is a form of coercion, subjecting the individual's rights for the protection of the state. However, the solution is not to oppose the state, but to endure the punishments imposed on the state for those who do not comply with the restrictions, or to leave for a country that will not conscript citizens.

Both approaches have attracted different Mennonites, I am not sure which I would choose. I love my country, but I would not kill another human being just to defend my country. I would rather give away all that I have rather than shoot someone. I feel that while I have a responsibility to obey the laws of the state, I have a higher responsibility to God that must supercede the state when the two are in conflict.

[David Floyd]

Ming,

Our country is what it is... it has evolved over time. You can hide your head in the sand and make all the claims you want about what our country "used" to be, or what the original intent was... but so what. It's not reality.

What IS reality, though, is that whether you like it or not, the US government is limited by the US Constitution, and the US Constitution doesn't allow the government to tell me I have to wear a pink tutu. The US Constitution also doesn't authorize conscription.

There are laws... like taxes... and signing up for selective service... that's a fact. And if you don't like it, try to change it in legal fashions... or find another place to live. It really is that simple.

Laws, though, are subject to the Constitution, wouldn't you say? Further, just because a law is authorized by the Constitution (or if SCOTUS says it is) doesn't necessarily make the law moral, which, again, is the entire point.

Obiwan,

However, the solution is not to oppose the state,

So you agree conscription is immoral, but you won't oppose the entity perpetrating the immorality?

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Not even remotely analogous to the scenario I posited. First, the British weren't really "outside" invaders, hence the term "revolution." Second, a large portion of the colonists remained loyal to the crown, so instituting a draft to fight their troops would have provoked full-scale revolt against the colonial leaders. Third, the victory of the British would not have been a dire situation for most of the colonists, as it would simply maintain the status quo. Nor were the British engaging in wholesale genocide against the population.

You said drafts were necessary to repel invasion and I offered an example refuting your claim. You can point to reasons why the draft wasn't necessary or impossible, but that has no bearing on the fact a draft wasn't used. I think that highlights why drafts aren't necessary, people will volunteer in desperate times. Drafts are used primarily to wage wars that don't have widespread support - and volunteering is the benchmark for determining if support exists. How many people would have volunteered for Vietnam? Not enough to prolong that war for a decade. The term "chickenhawk" comes from the Vietnam War and all the able people who supported the war while finding excuses to avoid fighting.

The fact is, in a real world, a draft might indeed be necessary as a lesser of two evils.

That's true, but David is only saying it's still evil.

The beauty of the representative democracy is that the government IS the people and speaks with the voice and authority OF the people. So conscription is, in fact, a democratically-chosen path. As was said, it's part of the "neighborhood dues," along with taxes. You want to partake in all the great things America has to offer? Fine, but you've got to also do your part when called upon.

That isn't proof of morality.

David -

What are you saying here? It sounds like you are justifying registering for the draft, in which case I agree. Yes, I registered, because if I didn't, it would have caused problems for me. Obviously, I registered with no intention of ever responding to a draft call. The US is ****ing me, so I'll gladly **** the US right back.

Just pointing out that some evils are necessary. Since we cannot have a judicial system that never makes mistakes, we have to recognise that we will punish the innocent by mistake or have no system at all and live with the results. The US is blessed with geographic and logistic advantages that make a draft unnecessary, but other countries don't always have those advantages. I don't support the draft for the reason I stated at the beginning of my first post, but if we were invaded, I sure wouldn't look with favor upon those who sat back and did nothing (not that you are in that boat). And I'd view them as immoral even if I still lack the moral authority to force them to join the fight.

[Kramerman]

conscription

If the UNited States is in mortal Danger, it should be all men of age's duty to take up arms and fight. UNfortunately, a lot of men dont have the balls to fight for their way of life and for the ways of life of their loved ones Therefore, I belive, in extreme situations, conscription is good and NECESSARY.

Conscription for offensive crap, like Veitnam, is a little controversial. I havent thought of this much, os i wont say anything yet, but i am kinda against that but can see when it might be good for the country...

[David Floyd]

I sure wouldn't look with favor upon those who sat back and did nothing (not that you are in that boat). And I'd view them as immoral even if I still lack the moral authority to force them to join the fight.

I would think that the proper view of these people would be contingent upon whether or not the US was behaving morally. That is, did the US start the war? Could the US get out of or avoid the war? Questions like that need answering before we can damn people for not defending the nation, because I can't imagine you saying that people should defend immorality.

[David Floyd]

Kramerman,

If the UNited States is in mortal Danger, it should be all men of age's duty to take up arms and fight. UNfortunately, a lot of men dont have the balls to fight for their way of life and for the ways of life of their loved ones

If people aren't willing to defend the nation, why should the nation exist?
Further, the two times the US has been invaded, there have been plenty of volunteers (Revolution, War of 1812). I don't count the Civil War, which was really caused by the US anyway.

Conscription for offensive crap, like Veitnam, is a little controversial. I havent thought of this much, os i wont say anything yet, but i am kinda against that but can see when it might be good for the country...

I fail to see how a war like Vietnam could be good for the country, by which I assume (hope) you mean the good of the people in the country. I also fail to see why the good of the country is important when compared to individual liberty.

[Berzerker]

The US Constitution also doesn't authorize conscription.

Congress has the power to raise armies and pass whatever laws are needed to carry out enumerated powers, so I don't know if a draft is unconstitutional. How would Congress raise an army if no one volunteered? Of course, that ignores the point that people would volunteer if the cause was just and necessary. But how can Congress declare war if it can't even raise an army because no one volunteered?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Boris -
You said drafts were necessary to repel invasion and I offered an example refuting your claim. You can point to reasons why the draft wasn't necessary or impossible, but that has no bearing on the fact a draft wasn't used. I think that highlights why drafts aren't necessary, people will volunteer in desperate times. Drafts are used primarily to wage wars that don't have widespread support - and volunteering is the benchmark for determining if support exists. How many people would have volunteered for Vietnam? Not enough to prolong that war for a decade. The term "chickenhawk" comes from the Vietnam War and all the able people who supported the war while finding excuses to avoid fighting.

Still not analagous. First, I said that that drafts [i]may[/b] be necessary, not always. The scenario I described is one wherein the draft would probably be necessary. I'm not sure why you are bringing up Vietnam, though, as that was not a war in which we were invaded. Our vital national interests weren't truly threatened.

That's true, but David is only saying it's still evil.

But David appears to live in a fantasy world wherein its possible to not commit immoral acts. No such reality exists, and we serve to disillusion him of this notion.

That isn't proof of morality.

Depends. For a utilitarian, it certainly is moral.

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ming,
What IS reality, though, is that whether you like it or not, the US government is limited by the US Constitution, and the US Constitution doesn't allow the government to tell me I have to wear a pink tutu. The US Constitution also doesn't authorize conscription.

Whether you like it or not... the constitution does allow the government to pass laws. And while the government would never pass a law saying you have to wear a pink tutu... it can pass laws that say you must pay taxes or can be conscripted.

Laws, though, are subject to the Constitution, wouldn't you say? Further, just because a law is authorized by the Constitution (or if SCOTUS says it is) doesn't necessarily make the law moral, which, again, is the entire point.

Yes... and the current laws have been deemed ok according to the constitution... your point?

And as far as moral goes... again, only YOUR opinion, so that doesn't make it a fact... just your opinion.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you agree conscription is immoral, but you won't oppose the entity perpetrating the immorality?

Your mind is too narrow, David Floyd. There are many forms of opposition to the state that do not allow force. One of them is conscientious objection, which involves going to jail for your convictions.

"We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

MLK, I have a dream speech

[David Floyd]

But David appears to live in a fantasy world wherein its possible to not commit immoral acts.

Realistically, we all sin, if you believe the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible, you can still make the argument that it's impossible never to behave immorally due to human nature, and you'd be correct.

Either way, though, there is no excuse not to try to behave morally as often as possible.