Say "NO!" to the Occupation!

[Ned]

Also, Fireland, Israel totally withdrew from Palestinian areas in April, IIRC, at Bush's insistance.

What happened?

Doesn't Israel have a right to live in peace with its neighbor? If they continue to attack you, don't you have a right of self defense? Are the Jews supposed to submit to permanent victim status?

[Ramo]

If you wish to change something in a Democratic society then the correct procedure is to work with in electoral system to get it changed.

That's why I voted for the Libertarians and Greens. But I don't particularly care about the "correct procedure"; I comply because I have no option.

But you've completely skirted my point. In the examples I mentioned above, the victims of gov't tyranny shouldn't try to resist? They should meekly accept their fate because the gov't calls itself democratic?

If that doesn't work and you still feel you need redress then you go to the legal system to see if they'll make the changes you seek. The constitution spells out very clear avenues which persons can take to redress any grievences they have with the government.

But success in the court isn't based on justice or liberty, but legal precedent, so most problems I have with the gov't wouldn't be resolved in this manner.

If you feel that your cause is so right why don't you try the court system?

I've already explained why.
1. SCOTUS has had a long tradition of defying the 13th Amendment with respect to conscription. Precedent alone makes any challenge futile.
2. Since the draft is so unlikely, challenging current law would be meaningless.
3. I don't particularly care for being locked up in prison given the previous two points.

Or is the reason you don't want to try the legal route because you secretly fear that your cause is wrong or that it is so weak that it will not with stand logic & direct scrutiny?

The courts base their decisions on precedent, not logic.

Honestly, can you tell me how conscription does not violate the 13th Amendment? How is conscription not involuntary servitude? Since you believe logic is on your side, surely you can answer that question.

[Firelad]

Eli:

But if taking this right from them is necessary to keep Israel a Jewish state, then it's only a small price to pay.

I disagree. The demographic "problem" will create a Palestinian majority in Israel in a few decades anyway, so a Jewish state is not viable in any case. Incidentally, I don't place the State or its Jewishness above human life and rights.

Do you really want to live in a neighborhood knowing that your neighbors were chanting "itbah al yahud" songs in Hizballah marches only a few months ago?

Knowing that this is the only thing that might stop the marches, yes.

You can say that we are responsible for their hostility, and that it is our fault that they want to kill us, but it makes no difference. Whether it's 100% our fault or 0%, I dont want 4.5 million brainwashed fanatics in my backyard.

You already have 5... Brainwashed fanatics is as good a description for most of Israel's population as any...

Morals? Ethics? Rights? They are important, but my(in this case Israel's) existence and well being come first.

Unfortunately, your wellbeing and Israel's aren't nessecarily the same. It is this particular notion that is one of the most dangerous products of Israel's brainwashing of its citizens, something that starts from infancy and goes on for a lifetime.

Will you agree that in the Arab states surrounding Israel this problem is much more substansial?

Not really. The problem is about the same... The fact that the regimes in the Arab states are more overtly brutal means nothing except image.

Ned:

Also, Fireland, Israel totally withdrew from Palestinian areas in April, IIRC, at Bush's insistance.

Not really. The withdrawal was not complete nor was it final. It was caused by Bush's insistence and would clearly not last. It was not backed by an agreement with the Palestinians. It does not count. If it was a complete withdrawal (Including settlement garrisons for example)done as a response to repeated pleas by Palestinian organisations (such as even the Islamic Jihad!) - it would have counted and brought positive consequences.

Doesn't Israel have a right to live in peace with its neighbor?

It does, but what can it excpect when it is occupying that neighbour?!

If they continue to attack you, don't you have a right of self defense? Are the Jews supposed to submit to permanent victim status?

This is plain demagoguery. The attacks on Israel are a direct consequence of its actions, and the victims here are only the peoples of both nations, not the State of Israel or the PLO. Unfortunately, both organisations (terrorist organisations!) have done a very good job of identifying themselves with the populations and vice versa.

[Ned]

Ramos, conscription certainly is involuntary, but so are taxes and death. The question is whether service in the armed forces is "servitude." I suspect the Supreme Court has equated "servitude" to slavery in its traditional form, service without pay, no rights as citizens and being the property of the another. Prisoners have these attributes. Soldiers do not.

[Ned]

Fireland, I am not so sure the attacks on Israel are solely related to its actions. I since 1920, many if not most of the attacks have been because if its existence.

I think the continued attacks despite an Israeli-withdrawal earlier this year does tend to illustrate this. The withdrawal was coupled with an effort to revive the peace process. Bush was even then committed to a Palestinian state and so was Israel in principle. The Hamas's of this world did not have to continue the attacks in order to get the peace process rolling. It seemed, rather, that they timed the attacks to disrupt the peace process - consistent with the "existence" of Israel being the issue.

Fireland, you simply cannot deny that there are many in the world of Islam, including Arafat, that want Israel destroyed.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Firelad
I disagree. The demographic "problem" will create a Palestinian majority in Israel in a few decades anyway, so a Jewish state is not viable in any case. Incidentally, I don't place the State or its Jewishness above human life and rights.

In Israel proper? Not at all.

Knowing that this is the only thing that might stop the marches, yes.

So you will be willing to live with people who were taught that you are the devil and should be killed, to stop some marches and hatred?

You already have 5... Brainwashed fanatics is as good a description for most of Israel's population as any...

That's bull**** and you know it.

Unfortunately, your wellbeing and Israel's aren't nessecarily the same. It is this particular notion that is one of the most dangerous products of Israel's brainwashing of its citizens, something that starts from infancy and goes on for a lifetime.

Is that why ~50% of the people share many of your opinions?

You claim that the Israeli population are fanatics while you and the other 15 Jews who support the RoR are sane?

Nope, you are the fanatic. You are the radical lunatic, going after some impossible to achieve ideal that will bring destruction to your country and people, ignoring the most basic faults of your idea, the unwillingness of the other side to cooperate. People like you are worse the the Itzhar settlers, at least their radical messianic ideals and plans harm those who hate them and want to harm them, and not themselves.

All focused on that dream, looking only on it. It's only our fault, if we had only been nicer to them the situation would've been better. Appeasement, submission.
And those who dissagree? Those who dont want 4.5mil mortal enemies in their city, they are the brainwashed fanatics?

Not really. The problem is about the same... The fact that the regimes in the Arab states are more overtly brutal means nothing except image.

I'm talking about education, media, etc.

[Ramo]

The question is whether service in the armed forces is "servitude." I suspect the Supreme Court has equated "servitude" to slavery in its traditional form,

Wouldn't that make the whole "involuntary" part redundant? Slavery in its traditional form is by definition involuntary. And if this were true, why not call "servitude" "slavery?"

BTW, note the root word in "servitude" - "serve." As in military "service." By any reasonable definition, conscription is involuntary servitude.

service without pay, .

Slaves were sometimes paid. Sometimes they in fact bought their freedom.

no rights as citizens and

Last I checked military tribunals, etc. didn't give people rights as a citizen (no trial by jury, for instance). Nor do soldiers have freedom of action that citizens have the right to.

being the property of the another.

How are draftees not property of the state, except nominally? Ownership is by definition legal control, and the state certainly legally controls draftees.

[Shi Huangdi]

How is being a conscript in the military not involuntary servitude? You don't have a great deal of freedom in a military, you have to do what your officers say, you are while in the military in a way the government's slave. So then you have involuntary servitude. And while I think it is honorable to subject yourself to that in defense of your country, I don't think we can morally force that on someone.

Basically, if you support the draft you believe it is the right of the government to come in, take control of a person and their life, and force them into servitude and possibly to die. If you support the founding father's ideas of natural rights at all in the least, even if you don't support them to extent David Floyd does, it becomes very hard to support conscription.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
How is being a conscript in the military not involuntary servitude? You don't have a great deal of freedom in a military, you have to do what your officers say, you are while in the military in a way the government's slave. So then you have involuntary servitude. And while I think it is honorable to subject yourself to that in defense of your country, I don't think we can morally force that on someone.

Basically, if you support the draft you believe it is the right of the government to come in, take control of a person and their life, and force them into servitude and possibly to die. If you support the founding father's ideas of natural rights at all in the least, even if you don't support them to extent David Floyd does, it becomes very hard to support conscription.

Suppose, for a second, it is Dec. 7, 1941.

Would the continued existence of the United States change your views?

I personally support an all volunteer army. However, if this ever become insufficient, I support conscription.

While a conscript does serve involuntarily, he is not a slave. He has civil rights to a degree. (He can vote and has the right to due process.) He gets paid. And he certainly is not someone's property.

[David Floyd]

Basically, if you support the draft you believe it is the right of the government to come in, take control of a person and their life, and force them into servitude and possibly to die. If you support the founding father's ideas of natural rights at all in the least, even if you don't support them to extent David Floyd does, it becomes very hard to support conscription.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul32.html

I posted that link once before, but since you brought up Founding Fathers, it's relevant again

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ned


Suppose, for a second, it is Dec. 7, 1941.

I'd be at the recruiting office the next day. WW II, now how about the undeclared war of Vietnam?

Would the continued existence of the United States change your views?

We have nukes now. The continued existance of the United States is as untouchable as that of Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan, India..... and Iraq if Saddam can get one....

I personally support an all volunteer army. However, if this ever become insufficient, I support conscription.

that's what almost everyone says. But I think the U.S. government has proven itself to be incapable of making such an assertion. Just look at Vietnam. No ballz to declare war, but enough to draft. No, I don't trust my leaders.

While a conscript does serve involuntarily, he is not a slave. He has civil rights to a degree. (He can vote and has the right to due process.) He gets paid. And he certainly is not someone's property.

Do you know the first thing a D. I. says to his recruits?

[NeOmega]

Firelad:

A couple of months ago I had forgotten that Israel was human. I prayed for their destruction.

But as war with Iraq approached, and I felt my voice being drowned out by the nationalistic fervour sweeping the nation, and realized there are also many Jews who feel the same way about their own country.

I admire you greatly. Were I in your shoes I would do the same.

I also find it courageous for you to make a statement as bold as you feel A jewish state and Jewishness should not take precedence over human rights.

I do feel however, that anyone born in refugee camps should have no "re-claim" of their forefather's land. Life sucks, most people are dealt a shoddy hand. If you are born into poverty you should except your fate, or your envy will restart the cycle of violence.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
I do feel however, that anyone born in refugee camps should have no "re-claim" of their forefather's land.

That's not very libertarian of you. If I steal something from your father, and hold on to it 'till he dies, I don't have a legitmate claim to it, you do, at least in capitalist property relations.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So, say you were a German living under the Nazis in 1942. You disagree with the Nazi policies, know they have invaded other countries, know they are practicing "ethnic cleansing." Freedom fighters from the occupied countries are, however, making strikes agains Germany in response to the invasions. Would you still feel morally obligated to pick up a gun and fight for the Nazis, when you believe it is the Nazis' actions which are responsible for this situation?

Not for the nazis, but I would fight to defend my home and my people, yes.

You wouldn't see me rounding up jews or anything like that, but shooting at the allied bombers when they came to destroy whole cities and everyone in them? Yes, definitely. No question about it.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's not very libertarian of you. If I steal something from your father, and hold on to it 'till he dies, I don't have a legitmate claim to it, you do, at least in capitalist property relations.

The violence has to end sometime. We cannot start down the path of giving land to people because their forefathers once lived there, it is impossible. A line has to be drawn where it is said look, we cannot make up for the past we can only promise for a better future.

I mean.... (and I'm probably asking the wrong guy, but) if we were to start returning California to it's forefathers, who would it go to? The Native Americans? The Spanish? The Mexicans? Europe andd the middle east have been divided a hundred fold. Who actually claims the land of Canaan? The Medianites? The Philistines? The Israelites? The Assyrians? The Palestinians?

Those who were born into this world without land really have no claim to land..... Life is not fair. They should, however, have a claim to human rights, freedom of passage (into Israel) and freedom to try and build a life wherever they please, as a human and citizen of the world.

Which is why the Libertarian Party is for open immigration. Americans don't own the USA, it was a gift to the world, until racist sentiment and a war powers bloated government began to restrict how many people were allowed in.