Conscription

[David Floyd]

Berz,

Those cases were in 1917-1918, in WW1. Cases during the Civil War are, IMO, irrelevant, as Lincoln would have just ignored any decision he didn't like.

Ming,

No... they didn't "make it up"... they passed a LAW.

So one party passing a law can enforce a contract on other people, who get no direct input? That fails the definition of a contract, you know.

No... it isn't ridiculous. You aren't being FORCED. You have a CHOICE... the FREEDOM TO SAY, I'm not going... and you can face the penality, or leave the country.

Then laws against murder are also voluntary - no one is forced NOT to commit murder. They have the freedom to ignore the law. By your argument, anyway.

But that isn't really accurate, as if someone chooses to ignore a law against murder, they will be punished for it. In that case, no one has the freedom to ignore laws against murder, just the ability.

Likewise, conscription involves FORCE, just like a law against murder, because if you choose to ignore conscription, you WILL be punished.

I fail to see how you can define conscription as anything other than involuntary - your definition fails at every turn.

[Ming]

Well Berzerker... there are indeed some rules/laws I don't follow. However, I don't think the rules are immoral, I just don't agree with them. And I'm willing to pay the penality if caught. (I've paid a "few" speeding tickets)...

[David Floyd]

Ming,

I never said I was "willing to fight"... I said I lived up to my commitment to the state. If I had been called, I would have... but I wasn't.

It sounds an awful like you were willing. You said:

"I didn't get selected, but I would have gone. I would have taken the risk to die for somebody else's security."

This is certainly more willing than people who weren't willing to take the risk. Which brings up the point that if you were willing to take the risk, why didn't you take the place of someone who WASN'T willing.

you have the Freedom to renounce that citizenship if you don't want to live up to what it means by being an American.

I always thought that America was about freedom and liberty, not absolutism and totalitarianism. That's how it was set up, at least.

And by the way, if you believe that military service is a contractual duty, how do you get around the point of COs?

[Berzerker]

And I'm willing to pay the penality if caught. (I've paid a "few" speeding tickets)...

Yes, I saw how you guys drive.

[Ming]

By your definition David... any law implies force and a loss of freedom. So you are saying that every law is immoral... which is just plain silly.

You can't ignore the fact that there is contract between you and the state when it comes to being a citizen.
Your arguments fail at every attempt because you ignore this simple fact.

[Berzerker]

But hey, I've been known to exceed speed limits occasionally.

[David Floyd]

By your definition David... any law implies force and a loss of freedom. So you are saying that every law is immoral...

Most laws we have are immoral. The only ones that are NOT immoral are those that prevent one individual from coercing another individual in some way. If you are going to argue that it is a loss of freedom to have a law against infringing the freedom of another, then I'm afraid you misunderstand the nature of freedom.

You can't ignore the fact that there is contract between you and the state when it comes to being a citizen.

The only contract to which I am bound is a moral contract, which also, in some cases, happens to be codified into law. That moral contract is that I can't take the life, liberty, or property of another.

However, you already know this, at least with regards to life and liberty, because the absolute morals you cited all have to do with infringing someone's right to life or right to liberty.

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ming,
It sounds an awful like you were willing.

This is certainly more willing than people who weren't willing to take the risk. Which brings up the point that if you were willing to take the risk, why didn't you take the place of someone who WASN'T willing.

Doing ones duty, and liking it are two different things.
If duty had required, I would have. And people that weren't willing. left the country and renounced their citizenship.

I always thought that America was about freedom and liberty, not absolutism and totalitarianism. That's how it was set up, at least.

Yeah it was... but conscription isn't totalitarianism or absolutism.. it's a duty... a contract for being an American.

And by the way, if you believe that military service is a contractual duty, how do you get around the point of COs?

I believe that the govenment has the right to pass laws. And that if the law of the land is conscription, than that is a part of the contractual duty. Right now, it's not the law of the land. Morality has nothing to do with conscription. It's a duty. And if called... you serve, leave, or face the penality... just like any other law.

[David Floyd]

Let's condense Ming's argument.

Conscription is OK because there is a contract between the individual and society. This contract exists because the government says it does. Further, conscription can't be immoral because of this contract, and anyone who says it is immoral is simply expressing an opinion. However, absolute morals exist, which, in part, include the notion that murder, rape, slavery, and racism are wrong. But, apparently, even though these things essentially deal with violating individual life or liberty, these absolutes don't exist to certain OTHER violations of life or liberty, but only to what Ming says. The justification for this is *blank* (ie, so far unstated and unaddressed).

Is this accurate, Ming?

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The only contract to which I am bound is a moral contract, which also, in some cases, happens to be codified into law.

Then you don't understand what it means to be a citizen. The rights you have as an American come with a duty...

[David Floyd]

Doing ones duty, and liking it are two different things.
If duty had required, I would have.

But you STILL haven't justified this supposed duty, other than "the government says so".

Yeah it was... but conscription isn't totalitarianism or absolutism.. it's a duty... a contract for being an American.

This is an unproven and unjustified assertion. Show me where a contract such as this is laid forth in the Constitution.

I believe that the govenment has the right to pass laws. And that if the law of the land is conscription, than that is a part of the contractual duty. Right now, it's not the law of the land. Morality has nothing to do with conscription. It's a duty. And if called... you serve, leave, or face the penality... just like any other law.

Sorry, but you dodged the question. Let me ask it again: If national service is a duty when the government says it is, then why do we not imprison or deport conscientious objectors?

Further, you also didn't address the point that in 1800, slaves had a legal duty to obey their masters. Was morality not involved in this?

Of course it was, because you already said that slavery is an absolute moral wrong. So, then, apparently duty is not ultimately the most important thing, but rather morality, right?

[David Floyd]

Then you don't understand what it means to be a citizen. The rights you have as an American come with a duty...

Why do you keep assuming that belonging to a nation state automatically confers some unspecified "duty" on me? This is especially ridiculous in the case of the US, which was founded on the basis of individual liberty and extremely limited federal powers.

If the government changed the rules midstream, didn't the government, then, violate IT'S contract with ME?

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Is this accurate, Ming?

Uhhh no... further proof that you aren't listening.

My arugment is simple... You agree as a member of society/country to follow the rules to remain a member.
If you don't like the rules, you can find another society/country to join.

Your argument is even shorter... It's immoral because David says it is...

[David Floyd]

My arugment is simple... You agree as a member of society/country to follow the rules to remain a member.
If you don't like the rules, you can find another society/country to join.

But you've already said that there are some rules society can't pass. I am simply pressing you on what those are. Further, in the case of the US, this supposed contract was non-existent at the outset, at least in terms of what you think the contract says, and if the government changed the terms midstream, then they violated their contract with each individual.

Your argument is even shorter... It's immoral because David says it is...

Certainly that's my argument, but the "..." after "because David says it is" includes the justification of why I say so, which you have failed to post.

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why do you keep assuming that belonging to a nation state automatically confers some unspecified "duty" on me?

Because it's the law of the land... and our constitution allows laws to be passed... from the beginning the founding fathers knew that change would happen, and that additional laws would be required.

If the government changed the rules midstream, didn't the government, then, violate IT'S contract with ME?

Nope... as a citizen... you follow the rules, as they change. And if you don't like them, nothing is forcing you to be an American. You have the FREEDOM to choose not to be one. The ultimate freedom... Choice.