Conscription

[CorpusScorpius]

Originally posted by Kidicious


How about this? You say that the majority was satisfied with the Constitution, but the propertied class didn't even believe what you believe. Otherwise, it's obivous that they would have put it up to popular vote for every American.

The people in power get to make the rules.........Do you really think that 200 + years ago they would of used a popular vote on something this important when there were still alot of Tories around. Kid do you really believe Communism is the way? Every political system has Pro's & Con's HOWEVER the majority of countires world wide wish they were more like THE USA

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
The people in power get to make the rules.........Do you really think that 200 + years ago they would of used a popular vote on something this important when there were still alot of Tories around.

The same class of people are in power, even though the People have made some gains.

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
Kid do you really believe Communism is the way? Every political system has Pro's & Con's HOWEVER the majority of countires world wide wish they were more like THE USA

The US is at the top of the food chain. They can wish all they want. It's not going to happen, not anytime soon anyway.

And yes, I'm a communist. It's the only path for the future.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You say that the majority was satisfied with the Constitution, but the propertied class didn't even believe what you believe. Otherwise, it's obivous that they would have put it up to popular vote for every American.

Because back in the 1790s, it wouldn't have taken YEARS to get the popular vote of every American? There was a reason that inaugeration day was in March. Because it took months to figure out who won President, and usually it'd be decided in February. That's four months for a simple question of who gets to lead.

Could you imagine the much more complex issue of whether to adopt the Constitution wholesale, reject it, or change a few things (like Virginia and New York, famously, wanted a Bill of Rights)?

Furthermore some states did give it to propertied whites.. which for all intents and purposes was every American. Slaves (most blacks) were considered property (how can property vote?), women and unpropertied males were considered too ignorant to know the complexities of politics (seeing as how we deny the vote to those under 18 for the same reasons, and the fact that most women and unpropertied males... and plenty of propertied males were illiterate, it is hard to critisize it too much, unless you want to fall for the trap of imposing current morality to the past).

So some states set it to the people who were deemed capable of making political decisions and others set to to the representatives of those people.

A true popular vote for every American did not take place, practically, until 1966. Though I'd definetly say that a majority of Americans were satisfied with entry into World War II.

[CorpusScorpius]

Kid....can you name me any succesful communist regimes?

[Kidlicious]

That's a very poor apology Imran.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
Kid....can you name me any succesful communist regimes?

Communism is a future govt. It is the most efficient govt for the later stages of technological development.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Templar, Templar....if you're over-eager to fight, then sure....I'll play.

1) In matters of national survival (real or percieved--and let's face it, if the draft were ever brought back in this country, it would certainly not be to fight some two-bit dictator in the desert), then the market is, and must be, subservient to the state for the duration of the crisis. That is why we had rationing during WWII, for example. Hardly something that the free market appreciates, but nonetheless, given the climate of crisis, something which was done. Same thing with the draft. Yes, it's a "violation" of market principles in the short run to ensure long run survival. That's hardly a new point on this thread.

Again, you are arguing that the social good can trump an individuals rights. How is this any different than a regulation that prohibits building on your beachfront property in order to stop flooding/destruction of animal habitats/what have you. The fact is, any social good can be used to rationalize an intrusion on rights. How is an invasion any worse than ecological damage or inefficient use of finite yet privately owned resources? But then again, I guess giving up your beachhouse to save mother earth isn't as macho as being forced to defend the fatherland.

You fail to make an argument consistent with your usual economic position. Normally you do not allow for the state to extinguish individual rights, yet you make a single ad hoc exception for invasion. I've got a better idea - if the people really want to save the system, let them do it at market rates. After all, if the system is worth saving, why not internalize the cost on all citizens and let each citizen take the financial hit instead of young, poor, and powerless taking the hit alone? Paying market value for soldiers would not only allow each citizen to do his or her duty (via tax revenues) but preserve your beloved free market.

Then again I have a different - and consistent - way of looking at this problem and distinguishing between property takings and conscription. The state can claim your property because property is naught but a creation of the state. Life on the other hand, well, the state has no claim on that - whether it's conscription, picking cotton, or the death penalty.

If the state is so great, don't worry, the people will rise up to defend it. It's not as though the continental army had any way to enforce conscription during the American Revolutionary War. Yet the people showed up. Frankly, if the country is being invaded and nobody is signing up to defend it, then the nation has bigger problems than conscription.

3) You're a supporter of the hammer and sickle flag.....flown at the head of one of the most brutal, bloody regiemes the world has ever known, and you REALLY want to get on my case about the Confederate flag? That's rich!

-=Vel=-

Yes, yes - attack the symbol when you've got nothing to say about the substance!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
You fail to make an argument consistent with your usual economic position.

Pot meet kettle.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
Kid....can you name me any succesful communist regimes?

This is a cop out argument.

Prior to the 1700s can you name one successful constitutional republic? Well then, obviously a successful constitutional republic couldn't exist - so no successful constitutional republic exists now.

I would think even a Houstonian would have been smart enough not to make the argument you made.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Pot meet kettle.

Cute. Except I can argue the inconsistency of the neoliberal/libertarian position and a belief in the morality of conscription without actually taking the neoliberal position.

My position is tenable because I distinguish between property (a social construct) and human life (as a biological reality). These are categorically different despite libertarian dogma to the contrary. Communal property and a planned economy are consistent with respect for human dignity. The trick is not viewing property theory as the basis of human rights.

Pot meet Mississippian!

[CorpusScorpius]

Originally posted by The Templar


This is a cop out argument.

Prior to the 1700s can you name one successful constitutional republic? Well then, obviously a successful constitutional republic couldn't exist - so no successful constitutional republic exists now.

I would think even a Houstonian would have been smart enough not to make the argument you made.

I was just asking a generalized Question........... & if my stoopidity offends U I appolijize in advance

[Kidlicious]

Interesting argument Templar

[CorpusScorpius]

After 1917 can U name a succesful Communist Regime?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
After 1917 can U name a succesful Communist Regime?

Cuba's seems to be going strong, thanks to the U.S.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
After 1917 can U name a succesful Communist Regime?

1) What does that have to do with this thread?

2) Why would a communist who already knows about the failiure of his ideaology and still clings to it care about this question to begin with?