Selective Service - Keep it or Ditch it?

[David Floyd]

When you get around to raising new arguements, I'll discuss them, (if I'm still around)

I made entirely new arguments - I refuted the 1919 Supreme Court decision. You haven't responded, except to say you don't really care about Constitutional issues and care more about the concept.

Well, fine. I view the concept of forcing someone to fight against their will, for what is, in America's case, most likely a foreign offensive war we shouldn't be fighting, is repugnant to me. It violates my natural, individual rights, and it violates the American Constitution.

Do you believe in the concept of self-ownership, rah? Yes or no answer.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and:

You were the ones that said old people feel entitled to SS.
I just stated that it wasn't entitlement since they have paid most of their life into the system. You have yet to respond to that point, because you can't.

Fine, ignore Social Security. I think it's still valid because they think they are entitled to my money just because the government wasted theirs, but whatever.

Why should they get Medicare? They certainly seem to feel entitled to it. Same with prescription drugs.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd



Well, fine. I view the concept of forcing someone to fight against their will, for what is, in America's case, most likely a foreign offensive war we shouldn't be fighting, is repugnant to me. It violates my natural, individual rights, and it violates the American Constitution.

What natural, individual rights?

What right do you naturally have?

[Boris Godunov]

BILL IS BACK! YAY!

[rah]

Probably for the same reason people think the government should provide elementary education to all children. Or do you think that if people think that, that it's entitlement.

I don't know, we're entering the gray area, but you have succeeded drifting the arguement to a whole new subject matter.

Gotta go.

RAH

[David Floyd]

Let's start with the right of self-ownership.

If I don't own myself, then you can't possibly oppose slavery.

But slavery is wrong, because I DO own myself. That sets up property. It stands to reason that if I own myself, someone has to own the fruits of my labor. Well, since I own myself, and own my labor, then I must own the fruits of my labor.

With me so far?

I can sell the fruits of my labor, or I can contract my labor out - the wage labor system. But then the compensation part of the contract take the place of the fruits of my labor, so I must own my compensation as well.

If I own my compensation, then I have to own what I buy with my compensation, because who else could?

That sets up property rights.

But also, if I own myself, no one else has any claim over me, by definition, nor do I have any claim on anyone else. Therefore, morally, no one can impose their will on me without my consent. Hence the right to both life and liberty.

That's it in a nutshell - very basic, but hopefully understandable.

[David Floyd]

Probably for the same reason people think the government should provide elementary education to all children. Or do you think that if people think that, that it's entitlement.

Public education is certainly an entitlement, and I oppose it.

[Boris Godunov]

But you seem to oppose entitlements from a fairly stubborn and ill-thought out basis of principle rather than realistically looking at the results of what abolishing such things would do, both to society itself and to you as an individual.

Your points are nice in theory, impractical in reality.

[David Floyd]

But you seem to oppose entitlements from a fairly stubborn and ill-thought out basis of principal rather than realistically looking at the results of what abolishing such things would do, both to society itself and to you as an individual.

Funny, I don't recall mass starvation back before social welfare programs.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Funny, I don't recall mass starvation back before social welfare programs.

Perhaps because you weren't around back then?

Social welfare programs arose and were instituted with the consent of the American people as a response to the deplorable conditions suffered by people during the Great Depression. There is a reason Americans supported it, and I think you're being a little naive/idealistic to think society is able to get by fine without it. I point again to the situation I described above in NY, wherein governmental assistance the needy is absolutely, unquestionably necessary. People would die without it.

[David Floyd]

Social welfare programs arose and were instituted with the consent of the American people as a response to the deplorable conditions suffered by people during the Great Depression. There is a reason Americans supported it, and I think you're being a little naive/idealistic to think society is able to get by fine without it.

During the Depression, soup kitchens - private charity - fed more people than federal programs did.

People would die without it.

I doubt it. They might have to get a job doing something they really don't like, such as shoveling ****, or they might have to stoop to getting help from church, charity, or family, but that isn't really my problem.

[civman2000]

Ditch it! A basic human right is to not be forced to murder. It is acceptable to a certain extent to make people die for their country, BUT IT IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE TO MAKE PEOPLE KILL FOR THEIR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
BILL IS BACK! YAY!

Yep! And with a new Chainsaw!!!!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
During the Depression, soup kitchens - private charity - fed more people than federal programs did.

Because the Federal programs were nascent, and you can't easily measure the direct effect of soup kitchens against the less direct effect of additional income past retirement and welfare benefits

I doubt it. They might have to get a job doing something they really don't like, such as shoveling ****, or they might have to stoop to getting help from church, charity, or family, but that isn't really my problem.

Here is where you're being unrealistic. It may not be your problem from a conscience standpoint, but it would turn into a BIG problem for you from a sociological standpoint. Having massive amounts of people in wretched poverty (and yes, SS and Welfare keep tens of thousands out of such conditions) wouldn't lead to any good results. The rise in crime alone would be a disaster.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Let's start with the right of self-ownership.

Oh c'mon. You start a thread way back when to defend your views on natural rights (since people are constantly questioning them), but when you can't defend your views then you abandon the thread. However, instead of revising your views on natural rights (in light of the fact that you couldn't justify them), you just pretend as though the thread had never even existed.