Is drafting people into the military a form of slavery?
Yes
60.3% (135)
60.3% (135)
No
37.9% (85)
37.9% (85)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is drafting people into the military a form of slavery?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Mortai Gravesend:

LetalisK:

Mortai Gravesend:

That doesn't seem to logically follow. It isn't a given that he would fight for a country that he lives in.

If a country is repugnant enough not to fight for, then why is it not repugnant enough to live in?

That's not a very good argument. If you want to say they are you should demonstrate they are, not ask anyone who doesn't buy it why you aren't right.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question.

Edit: I just noticed something, in your previous quote, you said "It isn't a given that he would fight for a country that he lives in". Correct, it's not a given, nor was that asserted. It is a given that he's not fighting for the country he lives in because he finds the ideology behind it reprehensible.

LetalisK:

Mortai Gravesend:

LetalisK:
If a country is repugnant enough not to fight for, then why is it not repugnant enough to live in?

That's not a very good argument. If you want to say they are you should demonstrate they are, not ask anyone who doesn't buy it why you aren't right.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question.

Why should I bother to answer this question then? It sure looks like you're trying to use it to defend your position. I said it doesn't look like what you said earlier logically follows and you ask me a question? Where's the defense of your logic if you aren't trying to use this question as some kind of argument?

Mortai Gravesend:

LetalisK:

Mortai Gravesend:

That's not a very good argument. If you want to say they are you should demonstrate they are, not ask anyone who doesn't buy it why you aren't right.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question.

Why should I bother to answer this question then? It sure looks like you're trying to use it to defend your position. I said it doesn't look like what you said earlier logically follows and you ask me a question? Where's the defense of your logic if you aren't trying to use this question as some kind of argument?

You're right, you shouldn't answer this question because it wasn't directed at you. And I have no position to defend, I'm asking him to answer a question.

edit: also, see the edit in my previous post if it matters at all

LetalisK:

Mortai Gravesend:

LetalisK:
It wasn't an argument, it was a question.

Why should I bother to answer this question then? It sure looks like you're trying to use it to defend your position. I said it doesn't look like what you said earlier logically follows and you ask me a question? Where's the defense of your logic if you aren't trying to use this question as some kind of argument?

You're right, you shouldn't answer this question because it wasn't directed at you. And I have no position to defend, I'm asking him to answer a question.

edit: also, see the edit in my previous post if it matters at all

You said "So logically, you wouldn't live in a country that espouses an ideology you disagree with, right?". I'm wondering why that would logically follow.

The edit kind of would have changed an earlier reply, but what I am wondering about still stands.

Mortai Gravesend:

You said "So logically, you wouldn't live in a country that espouses an ideology you disagree with, right?". I'm wondering why that would logically follow.

The edit kind of would have changed an earlier reply, but what I am wondering about still stands.

Well, that's what I'm asking him. I'm assuming he has a rational reason, since from my perspective a nation you're not willing to fight for under the gravest of circumstances because the nation itself is a horrible nation is a nation that evidently doesn't have enough redeeming qualities. Why live in such a nation? I mean this both practically and hypothetically.

(I also noticed another grammatical error in the previous reply that completely changes what was intended, and I'll edit it, but it doesn't really matter at this point.)

LetalisK:

Mortai Gravesend:

You said "So logically, you wouldn't live in a country that espouses an ideology you disagree with, right?". I'm wondering why that would logically follow.

The edit kind of would have changed an earlier reply, but what I am wondering about still stands.

Well, that's what I'm asking him. I'm assuming he has a rational reason, since from my perspective a nation you're not willing to fight for under the gravest of circumstances because the nation itself is a horrible nation is a nation that evidently doesn't have enough redeeming qualities. Why live in such a nation? I mean this both practically and hypothetically.

(I also noticed another grammatical error in the previous reply that completely changes what was intended, and I'll edit it, but it doesn't really matter at this point.)

Well presumably because when speaking practically it isn't easy to just move to another country. You'd presumably want citizenship for one. And you'd be moving away from friends and family, thus removing those who can help you if there is trouble as well as meaning you'd have to start your social life over. May be leaving a job to go to an area where you're unsure if you can find one. Could be that you don't have a lot of skills so leaving your job is particularly unwise. Then there's the fact that maybe there isn't any country you think is worth dying for. Why would you leave one of them for another? And in the end, I think the criteria for living in and fighting for a place are different. For living there it's quality of life that matters. But I'm not sure I'd be willing to die for such a thing.

Mortai Gravesend:

Well presumably because when speaking practically it isn't easy to just move to another country. You'd presumably want citizenship for one. And you'd be moving away from friends and family, thus removing those who can help you if there is trouble as well as meaning you'd have to start your social life over. May be leaving a job to go to an area where you're unsure if you can find one. Could be that you don't have a lot of skills so leaving your job is particularly unwise.

(I just spent the last 15 minutes trying to phrase a question about this part that I realize now would be pointless to ask because of what seems like a categorical disagreement on the next part, so I may come back to this later if it is warranted.)

And in the end, I think the criteria for living in and fighting for a place are different. For living there it's quality of life that matters. But I'm not sure I'd be willing to die for such a thing.

Why is there a difference? Wouldn't the same reasons that make a place good to live, if it were, also be reason enough to try to preserve it for your kin?

LetalisK:
If a country is repugnant enough not to fight for, then why is it not repugnant enough to live in?

If he is unwilling to die on the whim of the government, why should it follow naturally that he doesn't want to live in the country? It can be a perfectly good country, and yet he doesn't want to die for the political or financial aims of the government.

senordesol:
Oh? So was Abe Lincoln a tyrant or an idiot?

Well...yes. He did want to suspend habeas corpus and imprison anyone who disagreed with him, that's pretty tyranty stuff to do.

Elcarsh:

LetalisK:
If a country is repugnant enough not to fight for, then why is it not repugnant enough to live in?

If he is unwilling to die on the whim of the government, why should it follow naturally that he doesn't want to live in the country? It can be a perfectly good country, and yet he doesn't want to die for the political or financial aims of the government.

We're talking about a scenario where said country is being invaded, so I think to classify it as a "whim" is incorrect.

LetalisK:
We're talking about a scenario where said country is being invaded, so I think to classify it as a "whim" is incorrect.

Even if you like that country, having the option to rebuild your life in another country with similar, maybe even worse conditions, rather than risking and losing your and your family's lives makes more sense from an individual standpoint.
From the country's point of view, a successful draft is much more desirable, of course.
But why would that mean that one would necessarily not want to live in that country during peace-time? I fail to see the connection.
"Living there" and "risking death" are on very different levels.

Skeleon:

LetalisK:
We're talking about a scenario where said country is being invaded, so I think to classify it as a "whim" is incorrect.

Even if you like that country, having the option to rebuild your life in another country with similar, maybe even worse conditions, rather than risking and losing your and your family's lives makes more sense from an individual standpoint.
From the country's point of view, a successful draft is much more desirable, of course.
But why would that mean that one would necessarily not want to live in that country during peace-time? I fail to see the connection.
"Living there" and "risking death" are on very different levels.

I'll refer you to one of my previous posts and to the on-going discussion I'm having with Mortai, which involves many of these same themes. I apologize if this feels dismissive, but I'm juggling a few projects at the moment, so I'm trying to keep myself from spinning in repeated circles in five different directions when possible.

I'm assuming he has a rational reason, since from my perspective a nation you're not willing to fight for under the gravest of circumstances because the nation itself is a horrible nation is a nation that evidently doesn't have enough redeeming qualities. Why live in such a nation?

Edit: Feel free to jump in after my last post to Mortai though. I don't want it to seem like I'm just blocking you out or anything.

OneCatch :

Shaoken:

Batou667:
Only if being made to pay taxes is theft.

False comparison is false; taxes is payingfor services the government provides for you. Conscription is the government literally taking your body and demanding you do what they tell you to.

Not to mention it goes against thatwhole "freedom" thing democracies are spposed o be made of.

Not a false comparison - if you are drafted, you are protecting the nation that provides services for everyone, yourself included. In a manner of speaking, conscription is a tax, just not a financial one.

I hasten to add, I don't think it should be enacted except in the most dire of circumstances (i.e. if the nation itself is at risk of being destroyed) but I don't think a slavery comparison is reasonable.

You could argue that conscription in the case of the nation itself being at risk is still not justified. After all, if the people (those who make the country more than a slab of land) are not willing to protect their country, then it could be argued that the country does not warrant protecting. After all, who does conscription help? It certainly doesn't help those conscripted (either they'd volunteer, meaning this wouldn't be a problem, or they'd be forced to risk their lives even if they don't think it is worth it). The ones who are protected by conscription are those with the power to avoid being conscripted in the first place(or at least, they'd be conscripted into a low-risk desk-jockey leadership position), or those who are physically/mentally unable to defend their country.

So conscription doesn't 'help the country' because if the 'country' wanted to protect itself it wouldn't need conscription, it helps those who enforce it in the first place (i.e. the ones who probably won't be conscripted into a high-risk position anyway).

OT: I think conscription is a form of slavery, and I hope I've explained it in the bit above.

No it's not slavery, urgh that's needless hyperbole. No I don't support conscriptation but it isn't slavery.

You can protest conscription with conscientious objection, they might lock you up but that don't beat you till you work or kill you. You can often defer conscription for study or do alternative duties like clerical work for the army (if you're a conscientious objector). You can also avoid conscription by volunteering for the army, seems counterproductive but most conscription lengths are two years, the usual enlistment minimum is three, but if you enlist you have some say in what training or branch you go into.

Slaves can't do any of that.

Danyal:
Ad hoc claim [with irritating graphic]

Listen up, boy. YOU brought up "technically". I have appropriately tackled you therefore on YOUR premise of technicality, and you are way out of line dishonestly snipping that fact to pretend otherwise. The exchange went as follows:

Agema:

Danyal:

It technically is.

No, it technically isn't.

If you're going to say tax is "technically" theft, you mean according to fact/ rules/ practical application/ scientific evaluation. None of these usefully hold up to any form of general sense.

I'm sorry, but "What dictionary says">"What Agema says without backing it up with proper sources" [another irritating picture]...

I'm not disputing the dictionary definition. I'm disputing your cherry-picking and selective interpretation of dictionary definitions to fraudulently "prove" your point.

What I have explained are some pretty basic theories of semantics; lexicology/lexicography in particular with relation to dictionaries. You can google all those three words and educate yourself at your own leisure.

Ah, is this... [more picture wankery, this time about design fallacy]

I am not using beautiful words to logically prove a point. If you don't understand what a fallacy is, don't bother mentioning them. And certainly stop those dumb pictures, no-one here is 5 years old to need illustrations of simple concepts.

Dictionaries and Wikipedia claim that it's "without right or permission"... And thus I said, "Taxes are technically theft".

And I say again: screw your pointless semantic sophistry. Repeating it multiple times does not resolve its inadequacies.

This debate in any meaningful sense boils down to a principle of what rightful ownership is. Something to which you have contributed nothing of any value whatsoever, despite it being the core of the issue.

Danyal:
*snip*

I won't get into the discussion. The only thing I want to say is that I fucking called the incoming overuse of those banners when they were introduced. And this isn't just directed at you, Danyal, although you are one of the folks who like using them the most.

image

Agema:
If you're going to say tax is "technically" theft, you mean according to fact/ rules/ practical application/ scientific evaluation. None of these usefully hold up to any form of general sense.

According to the Wikipedia & dictionary definitions, taking stuff without permission of the owner is theft. Thus, taxes is theft. You know, technically, according to fact/rules/practical application.

Agema:
This debate in any meaningful sense boils down to a principle of what rightful ownership is. Something to which you have contributed nothing of any value whatsoever, despite it being the core of the issue.

That's what I said.

Danyal:
If we say that theft is taking something while you don't have the 'right' to do this, and the government is the one who can decide who has the right and who doesn't have the right to do this, well, tax isn't theft.
If we say that theft is taking something while you don't have permission from the owner, taxes can be theft very often.

Dictionaries and Wikipedia claim that it's "without right or permission"... And thus I said, "Taxes are technically theft".

Father Time:

Katatori-kun:

BrassButtons:

The defining attribute of slavery is not whether or not the person is compensated for their work (one could argue that slaves are paid in food and housing), but whether the person is being forced to work against their will. I'm not sure that limiting the term makes a difference either.

No, it pretty much is only defined by whether or not a person is paid for their work. Whether or not you are forced is a completely irrelevant issue. When I was 16 I didn't want to work a job, I wanted to study, practice my musical instrument, play video games, watch Star Trek TNG after school, and play tabletop RPGs with my friends. My parents made me get a job. I was paid, so despite working against my will I was not a slave.

You're going to compare that to the government forcing adults to work for them?

To demonstrate that it's not slavery, yes. Because if being compelled to work against your will is all it takes to be slavery, any of us who aren't so wealthy that we can afford to never work again are slaves. It's an absurd comparison for an absurd claim.

Katatori-kun:
To demonstrate that it's not slavery, yes. Because if being compelled to work against your will is all it takes to be slavery, any of us who aren't so wealthy that we can afford to never work again are slaves. It's an absurd comparison for an absurd claim.

What you can "afford" to do is a matter of your own evaluation of your situation and thus your own choice: no one is forcing you to live or eat. If someone is kidnapped and then paid some amount that they don't agree on to work in a sweatshop on some island somewhere with no option to leave, they're a fucking slave. The draft is a gray area, certainly, but there is definitely compulsory service that involves payment that is slavery. Black slaves in the United States were provided housing and allowed access to the property of their masters in order to eat; thus they were paid in a sense. That this payment was not a regular 'wage' is not important. A barter economy is not slavery, so the lack of a payment of money by itself obviously can't make something slavery.

Really, the important part of slavery is whether the laborer is treated as property. This can occur whether they are compensated in some way for their services or not.

Danyal:

Danyal:
If we say that theft is taking something while you don't have the 'right' to do this, and the government is the one who can decide who has the right and who doesn't have the right to do this, well, tax isn't theft.
If we say that theft is taking something while you don't have permission from the owner, taxes can be theft very often.

Dictionaries and Wikipedia claim that it's "without right or permission"... And thus I said, "Taxes are technically theft".

... Dude. "Without right or permission" means that for something to be theft requires there to be both no right to take the property and no permission from the owner. "Or" isn't working like you are thinking it is. When you have ~(A or B) it translates to (~A & ~B). Logic.

Biosophilogical:

OneCatch :

Shaoken:

False comparison is false; taxes is payingfor services the government provides for you. Conscription is the government literally taking your body and demanding you do what they tell you to.

Not to mention it goes against thatwhole "freedom" thing democracies are spposed o be made of.

Not a false comparison - if you are drafted, you are protecting the nation that provides services for everyone, yourself included. In a manner of speaking, conscription is a tax, just not a financial one.

I hasten to add, I don't think it should be enacted except in the most dire of circumstances (i.e. if the nation itself is at risk of being destroyed) but I don't think a slavery comparison is reasonable.

You could argue that conscription in the case of the nation itself being at risk is still not justified. After all, if the people (those who make the country more than a slab of land) are not willing to protect their country, then it could be argued that the country does not warrant protecting. After all, who does conscription help? It certainly doesn't help those conscripted (either they'd volunteer, meaning this wouldn't be a problem, or they'd be forced to risk their lives even if they don't think it is worth it). The ones who are protected by conscription are those with the power to avoid being conscripted in the first place(or at least, they'd be conscripted into a low-risk desk-jockey leadership position), or those who are physically/mentally unable to defend their country.

So conscription doesn't 'help the country' because if the 'country' wanted to protect itself it wouldn't need conscription, it helps those who enforce it in the first place (i.e. the ones who probably won't be conscripted into a high-risk position anyway).

OT: I think conscription is a form of slavery, and I hope I've explained it in the bit above.

That's a really good point, but I still think that you need some impetus to get people to act in the best interest of society as a whole.
We're very good at looking after our families, and to a lesser degree, our friends, neighbours, and associates. We're less good at instinctively looking after a 'nation'.
Most people wouldn't pay taxes if they had a choice. Similarly, people will break the speed limit on the road if there aren't speed cameras. Both of those constructs are in our personal and collective best interests, yet we'd happily flout them given a chance.
That doesn't make us bad people, it just makes us less able to relate to a larger social entity, such as a civilisation or state.
There are many proposed reasons for this; personally I think that it has something to do with the fact that we evolved in small groups, and are mentally 'wired' to interact with a similar sized group.
So there is always a degree of coercion involved in holding a nation together to make up for that fact. This takes many forms:
- You have moral and philosophical coercion in the form of honour, religion, nationalism and others.
- You have legal coercion such as punishments for treason and sedition, tax avoidance, illegal immigration - even the principle of jurisdiction itself lends to a national way of thinking.
- You have coercion even in the form of national identity - I'm personally identified as British, it says so on my passport, on my drivers licence, on my EU health insurance card. I am conclusively not Irish or French, even though there's only a little bit of water between me and them, and very little in the way of cultural differences. I'm not German, even though I'm descended from a German guy who moved to the UK. That stuff doesn't matter because we're taught from a very young age our national identity and that it matters.

So, with all of the above, it stands to reason that sometimes you needs a degree of coercion to get people to defend the country, in the same way you coerce them to pay taxes, and coerce them to stay below the speed limit. After all, military service is the most dangerous thing that a lot of people will ever do. It stands to reason that people might be reluctant - I certainly would be!
But that personal reluctance doesn't meant that the principle is morally wrong. I might be reluctant to intervene to stop three muggers attacking an old woman, on the account of the high risk of me getting the shit kicked out of me. But to try would still be morally praiseworthy.

Lastly; it is surely better, in terms of freedom, to allow a democratic government to temporarily conscript in order to safeguard it's continued existence.
You remove one generation's freedom temporarily - but weigh that against successive future generations; is it really a net loss of freedom?

So, I guess that my point boils down to:

1. Most people are good, but occasionally need a bit of a push to relate themselves to society as whole.

2. Conscription, when done in the defence of the existence home nation, is one of those pushes.

3. If it is both necessary for and guarantees the continued democratic running of the state, it's a burden for those people, but morally right.

Danyal:

Agema:
If you're going to say tax is "technically" theft, you mean according to fact/ rules/ practical application/ scientific evaluation. None of these usefully hold up to any form of general sense.

According to the Wikipedia & dictionary definitions, taking stuff without permission of the owner is theft. Thus, taxes is theft. You know, technically, according to fact/rules/practical application.

The government does not need your individual permission every time it wishes to tax you.

Why?

Because it has rightful ownership of your tax, as encoded by law, through the property rights determined by society. No entity needs permission to claim its rightful property - it's right of ownership suffices.

If theft required both right and permission of ownership, it would say "without right and permission". Instead of "and", it says "or". Because a right of ownership negates the need for permission to take something, and permission negates the need to have a right of ownership to take something.

Danyal:
If we say that theft is taking something while you don't have the 'right' to do this, and the government is the one who can decide who has the right and who doesn't have the right to do this, well, tax isn't theft.
If we say that theft is taking something while you don't have permission from the owner, taxes can be theft very often.

Dictionaries and Wikipedia claim that it's "without right or permission"... And thus I said, "Taxes are technically theft".

The government has the right to take tax because it is given that right, by the populace, in elections. That's what democracy is.

As for permission, you give implicit permission when you are a citizen of that nation. If you explicitly refute that (for example, by scrawling "I ain't paying tax" on your tax return) then you are prosecuted for tax avoidance under the rules that are, every election, agreed to by the population.

If you elect a politician that calls for no government and no tax, you can use that argument when you get taxed. Until you do, you can't!

LetalisK:
So, logically, you wouldn't live in a country that espouses an ideology you disagree with, right?

You know it's not that simple.

PercyBoleyn:

That would imply some sort of alien race from outer space came to Earth and started jacking people. We live in a globalized society. "My people" are the population of the planet Earth and sure, I'd fight to protect them. In fact, I could go as far as to say I'd actually die just to ensure their beliefs and ideas persist. However, that is my decision, MY ideology, and I do not have the audacity to suggest every single person on Earth has to follow and protect it. I will fight to protect my ideas and beliefs, I will not force someone else to help me in that fight unless they want too. To do so is tyranny. Each person is entitled to their own beliefs and the survival of my idelogy, because in the end that's what "fighting for survival" is all about, depends on whether or not people want it to survive.

Well maybe it is some alien race :D, this is all theoretical anyway.

So -if I understand you correctly- fighting for the survival of your nation is an 'ideology' in itself, is it? And no government, despite being charged with the protection of that very nation, should impose that directive on the very citizens of whom they are also charged with protecting? Even if doing would (or at least go a long way toward) fulfilling that directive that their citizens have charged them with?

That really makes me scratch my head...kind of like asking someone to build a bridge with half the materials. If the government is expected to protect the country it governs, and the professional army it fields is apparently insufficient to secure an acceptable victory, the government itself should be able to draw upon a portion of the citizens it is charged with protecting to make up the difference. Yes, many will die, but likely not all of them (provided it is sufficient to achieve victory, or at least end the war). Alternately, fielding what they know is an insufficient force against a foe that will roll through them, then the rest of the country is akin to sentencing their entire populace to death.

senordesol:
So -if I understand you correctly- fighting for the survival of your nation is an 'ideology' in itself, is it

No.

senordesol:
And no government, despite being charged with the protection of that very nation, should impose that directive on the very citizens of whom they are also charged with protecting?

You know very well it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. We the people created the government and we can decide whether or not we want to protect it or not.

senordesol:
If the government is expected to protect the country it governs, and the professional army it fields is apparently insufficient to secure an acceptable victory, does the government itself should be able to draw upon a portion of the citizens it is charged with protecting to make up the difference.

That's stupid. If the people don't want to fight to protect their government then the government has no right to force them to.

senordesol:
Yes, many will die, but likely not all of them (provided it is sufficient to achieve victory, or at least end the war).

They should die so a government they chose not to support in the first place continues to exist? Yeah, no thanks.

senordesol:
Alternately, fielding what they know is an insufficient force against a foe that will roll through them, then the rest of the country is akin to sentencing their entire populace to death.

You keep talking about war as if they are about conquering your foe and comitting genocide against them. If the people do not want to protect your particular belief then they won't, forcing them to do so is moronic. Why should we fight to uphold your ideals?

PercyBoleyn:

No.

Well that's very important. Again, I am talking about the survival of a nation - not ideology. Since you contend the two are separate (thank God), we have something to work from. I am ONLY discussing the use of conscription during a worst-case-scenario, i.e. the survival of the nation is at stake.

You know very well it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. We the people created the government and we can decide whether or not we want to protect it or not.

We The People created the government, yes, but the FUNCTION of that government is to provide for the common defense, i.e. PROTECT US. And it cannot do that without the citizenry it governs.

That's stupid. If the people don't want to fight to protect their government then the government has no right to force them to.

It's NOT about protecting the government (though that will be a side-effect) it is about protecting the COUNTRY and PEOPLE it governs. The COUNTRY and PEOPLE it is expected to protect.

They should die so a government they chose not to support in the first place continues to exist? Yeah, no thanks.

If they die, they die in defense of the nation whose benefits they have long enjoyed that future generations might enjoy the same.

You keep talking about war as if they are about conquering your foe and comitting genocide against them. If the people do not want to protect your particular belief then they won't, forcing them to do so is moronic. Why should we fight to uphold your ideals?

I am using historical precedent to create a worst-case-scenario. I have already stated that there may be circumstances when conscription is unnecessary BUT I contend that there are circumstances when it is. Facing down a genocidal foe, whom you have no hope of repelling otherwise, I contend is one of those times. Whether or not your choose to wipe them out in return is ANOTHER DEBATE, my only contention is that when the country is question is about to lose everything -not some abstract cultural 'value', not miss out on some resource or land- but EVERYTHING is when conscription is justified.

Katatori-kun:

Father Time:

Katatori-kun:

No, it pretty much is only defined by whether or not a person is paid for their work. Whether or not you are forced is a completely irrelevant issue. When I was 16 I didn't want to work a job, I wanted to study, practice my musical instrument, play video games, watch Star Trek TNG after school, and play tabletop RPGs with my friends. My parents made me get a job. I was paid, so despite working against my will I was not a slave.

You're going to compare that to the government forcing adults to work for them?

To demonstrate that it's not slavery, yes. Because if being compelled to work against your will is all it takes to be slavery, any of us who aren't so wealthy that we can afford to never work again are slaves. It's an absurd comparison for an absurd claim.

That's crap, anyone who works can choose to quit, they can choose to be unemployed. If you're drafted you can't quit, that's what makes it slavery.

And forcing a kid to do chores is not the same thing.

Katatori-kun:

We have spent more on the Iraq War than TARP and the bank bailouts put together. I have a sneaking suspicion that if half of the people shouting "Umerikuh, FUCK YEAH!" in support of that war stood a good chance of being drafted and getting to spend a year dodging IEDs, we'd take a more sober view of invading another country.

That's what the Greeks did, wasn't it? A vote had to be passed to go to war, and everyone who voted 'yes' was drafted.

Father Time:

That's crap, anyone who works can choose to quit, they can choose to be unemployed. If you're drafted you can't quit, that's what makes it slavery.

No, actually, he's got a good point. Marx pointed this out. Presuming that you want to survive...

If you have to work to survive, if you quit, you die of starvation. You can't quit.

If you have to fight to survive, if you quit, you are shot. You can't quit.

The only difference is that the employer in the latter case is the government.

*double post arbitrary fluff to prevent prohibitive posting punishments*

senordesol:
Well that's very important. Again, I am talking about the survival of a nation - not ideology. Since you contend the two are separate (thank God), we have something to work from. I am ONLY discussing the use of conscription during a worst-case-scenario, i.e. the survival of the nation is at stake.

What do you define by nation?

senordesol:
We The People created the government, yes, but the FUNCTION of that government is to provide for the common defense, i.e. PROTECT US. And it cannot do that without the citizenry it governs.

Wrong again. It can do so ONLY if the citizenry wants too. Otherwise, it isn't protecting the citizens, it's protecting itself.

senordesol:
It's NOT about protecting the government (though that will be a side-effect) it is about protecting the COUNTRY and PEOPLE it governs. The COUNTRY and PEOPLE it is expected to protect.

And it can only do that with informed consent. Otherwise, see above.

senordesol:
If they die, they die in defense of the nation whose benefits they have long enjoyed that future generations might enjoy the same.

Bullshit ultra nationalistic propaganda. What if the country being invaded is North Korea?

senordesol:
I am using historical precedent to create a worst-case-scenario.

Aha.

senordesol:
BUT I contend that there are circumstances when it is.

There are no situations where a government has the right to force its citizens into the army to protect itself.

senordesol:
Facing down a genocidal foe, whom you have no hope of repelling otherwise, I contend is one of those times.

FYI, Godwin's law never works in your favour.

senordesol:
Whether or not your choose to wipe them out in return is ANOTHER DEBATE, my only contention is that when the country is question is about to lose everything -not some abstract cultural 'value', not miss out on some resource or land- but EVERYTHING is when conscription is justified.

Now you're just being hysterical. You could use that argument to justify virtually anything. Government creates bunkers underground and forces the population of the nation it governs to move in? Well shit, at some point in the future an asteroid might hit and you can never be too careful! Government executes every single person who breaks the law? Well, in the future criminals might end up committing genocide against us since the prisons would overflow with them so, yeah. It's justified!

You're creating extremes and going from there when these extremes simply don't exist.

Your arguments make no sense. Conscription is never justified. If a government has to use tyranny to survive then it's not worth protecting. You don't get to throw my own life away because you think your ideology needs to pull through.

Danny Ocean:

Katatori-kun:

We have spent more on the Iraq War than TARP and the bank bailouts put together. I have a sneaking suspicion that if half of the people shouting "Umerikuh, FUCK YEAH!" in support of that war stood a good chance of being drafted and getting to spend a year dodging IEDs, we'd take a more sober view of invading another country.

That's what the Greeks did, wasn't it? A vote had to be passed to go to war, and everyone who voted 'yes' was drafted.

Father Time:

That's crap, anyone who works can choose to quit, they can choose to be unemployed. If you're drafted you can't quit, that's what makes it slavery.

No, actually, he's got a good point. Marx pointed this out. Presuming that you want to survive...

If you have to work to survive, if you quit, you die of starvation. You can't quit.

We have welfare, and it's not meant for the people who just don't want to work but you can use it. Also begging for money can get you fed.

Danny Ocean:

If you have to fight to survive, if you quit, you are shot. You can't quit.

I should be able to quit before I'm deployed but I can't because they're forcing me to do it. Slavery.

Either way the comparison is complete bullshit. First off I CHOOSE to get a job because I think I need it, I don't think I need to be in the military, but that choice is made for me by someone else.

I can quit a job if I don't think I need it. I can CHOOSE to be unemployed, I can CHOOSE to leave. It has consequences but I can still CHOOSE to take those rather than work for someone.

Anyway since paying someone = not slavery, here's $2,000 now pick cotton for me or I'll shoot you in the face.

Glad that you made that OK and not slavery.

Father Time:
That's crap, anyone who works can choose to quit, they can choose to be unemployed. If you're drafted you can't quit, that's what makes it slavery.

By that logic, you do have the right to quit, it just results in prison.

Again, you're confusing the definition of slave as "someone who is compelled to work" with the actual definition of "a human that is considered chattel (property)." A conscripted soldier is not chattel but rather someone who was required, as part of his duties as a citizen, to enlist and work/fight on his country's behalf. S/He retains the rights as a regular citizen (albeit with the standard military restrictions). This is part of the contract one agrees to when they become a citizen of a country.

Skeleon:

I won't get into the discussion. The only thing I want to say is that I fucking called the incoming overuse of those banners when they were introduced. And this isn't just directed at you, Danyal, although you are one of the folks who like using them the most.

image

Yeah. I'm going to remove the short links and do a post going more into logic so that the people who typically overuse them know how they're overusing them; limits of logic etc etc... That can be part 2.

Father Time:

We have welfare, and it's not meant for the people who just don't want to work but you can use it. Also begging for money can get you fed.

The vast majority of people do not have welfare, and begging is more often than not not enough to live on. Especially in areas were unemployment is high. If everyone's poor, beggars don't get anything. They rely on the wealth of those around them.

Danny Ocean:

If you have to fight to survive, if you quit, you are shot. You can't quit.

I should be able to quit before I'm deployed but I can't because they're forcing me to do it. Slavery.

Before you are deployed, you are in training. If you quit, you are shot. If you try and leave before training, you are put in prison and later shot for the equivalent of desertion.

Although, of course, that depends on the brutality of your military courts.

Either way the comparison is complete bullshit. First off I CHOOSE to get a job because I think I need it, I don't think I need to be in the military, but that choice is made for me by someone else.

You might have the luxury of being able to pick a job. Like I said, most people do not.

I can quit a job if I don't think I need it. I can CHOOSE to be unemployed, I can CHOOSE to leave. It has consequences but I can still CHOOSE to take those rather than work for someone.

Yes, you can choose. Many can not.

Anyway since paying someone = not slavery, here's $2,000 now pick cotton for me or I'll shoot you in the face.

Glad that you made that OK and not slavery.

That would be blackmail. That is not OK.

The Gentleman:

Father Time:
That's crap, anyone who works can choose to quit, they can choose to be unemployed. If you're drafted you can't quit, that's what makes it slavery.

By that logic, you do have the right to quit, it just results in prison.

By that logic I have the right to murder or rape someone.

The Gentleman:

This is part of the contract one agrees to when they become a citizen of a country.

Do you actually believe that because if you think about it for 5 seconds you realize it's complete crap.

I am a citizen of the U.S. because I was born here which I had no control over. Nobody has ever handed my a contract that I had to sign or lose my right to be a citizen. No one.

And the whole draft system started before I was born so I had literally zero say in it.

So don't pretend I somehow OK'd the creation of a draft.

Father Time:

By that logic I have the right to murder or rape someone.

That's your logic you're extending to absurdity there, you know?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked