Alpharatz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Sorry, I don't care how "good for the country" it theoretically is. It's not Liberty to force anyone in a free society into mandatory compulsory service for anything. Ever. Yes, that includes the abominable draft. I cannot think of ANY reason, at any time, for a free citizen to be compelled to perform service in the name of government, under threat of punishment or imprisonment. Well, in sort of the "cooperate to graduate" theme........how about to defend the physical space of the good ol USA? If you won't even defend yourself I guess it would be easy enough to compel you. What would you do then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Sorry, I don't care how "good for the country" it theoretically is. It's not Liberty to force anyone in a free society into mandatory compulsory service for anything. Ever. Yes, that includes the abominable draft. I cannot think of ANY reason, at any time, for a free citizen to be compelled to perform service in the name of government, under threat of punishment or imprisonment. Couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LumberjackAxe Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I cannot think of ANY reason, at any time, for a free citizen to be compelled to perform service in the name of government, under threat of punishment or imprisonment. I don't think absolute statements like that are really logical. For instance, I would consider free citizens being forced to figure out what they owe in taxes to the government to be a service. We are free, we are under threat of punishment or imprisonment, yet we all still have to perform that service for Uncle Sam, and then bow and say "Thank you very much, sir." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I don't think absolute statements like that are really logical. For instance, I would consider free citizens being forced to figure out what they owe in taxes to the government to be a service. We are free, we are under threat of punishment or imprisonment, yet we all still have to perform that service for Uncle Sam, and then bow and say "Thank you very much, sir." Messed up, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LumberjackAxe Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Messed up, isn't it? Biggest travesty in this country, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learjetter Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Paying taxes is not compulsory, mandatory service. It's merely civic duty. Big difference. Besides, you are not compelled to figure out your taxes: exhibit a) H&R Block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Paying taxes is not compulsory, mandatory service. It's merely civic duty. Big difference. Besides, you are not compelled to figure out your taxes: exhibit a) H&R Block. The income tax is theft, regardless of the 16th Amendment. The FairTax is not, and would be much better for the country. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learjetter Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Concur. Fairtax.org for anyone unfamiliar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clouseau Posted August 1, 2014 Author Share Posted August 1, 2014 Concur. Fairtax.org for anyone unfamiliar. Looking at an uphill battle on that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slackline Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Just came off a 3 year exchange with the French. They used to have mandatory service. Worthless, wasted time. Everyone will tell you exactly what's been said. They weren't around long enough to be of any use except for being babysat. If the French can even figure out that mandatory service isn't good, it surprises me to me Americans extolling its illusory virtues! Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herkbum Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Just came off a 3 year exchange with the French. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Tres agreable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ratner Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Sorry, I don't care how "good for the country" it theoretically is. It's not Liberty to force anyone in a free society into mandatory compulsory service for anything. Ever. Yes, that includes the abominable draft. I cannot think of ANY reason, at any time, for a free citizen to be compelled to perform service in the name of government, under threat of punishment or imprisonment. How would WW1 and WW2 have gone in your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tac airlifter Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I cannot think of ANY reason, at any time, for a free citizen to be compelled to perform service in the name of government, under threat of punishment or imprisonment. Hell yea! Fuck jury duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learjetter Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 How would WW1 and WW2 have gone in your mind? Finishing much like they started with Lafayette Escadrille and Chennault's AVF.Hell yea! Fuck jury duty. Civic duty. Not service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ratner Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Finishing much like they started with Lafayette Escadrille and Chennault's AVF. Got it... you think it would have just worked out. I suppose Britain just needed better recruiting posters? Considering they could barely hold together while we dithered on joining the war (with most Americans supporting conscription), you'll pardon my skepticism. The history doesn't support it. The UK, Russia and US, the countries most responsible for winning the war, all relied on conscription, and in the case of the US and UK, conscription efforts were increased when voluntary means didn't raise enough manpower. An elite unit of volunteers is not enough. You don't win wars with Navy SEALs . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clouseau Posted August 2, 2014 Author Share Posted August 2, 2014 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58236778-90/larson-france-war-honor.html.csp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Many countries that have had conscription (national service) have given up the practice (the UK abolished theirs in 1960, as did Australia in 1972; and France "suspended" theirs in 2001 as did Germany in 2011). Note that not all involved military service, my German cousin served as a firefighter for several years in lieu of joining the Army. William F. Buckley wrote an interesting book (more like a long essay) on national service titled 'Gratitude' in which he advocated national service as a prerequisite to receiving government aid (e.g. student loans, college grants, etc.) or other benefits. Thus, it isn't mandatory but somewhat "highly encouraged!" Buckley offered this idea nearly 25 years ago, and while society has changed during that time (we were able to support two MRCs without needing military conscription, and are in the midst of a drawdown of the services), I still see the benefits of such a program. Perhaps not to the extent that Buckley proposed, but something that would work these days... Cheers! M2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Hell yea! Fuck jury duty. First off, I have the same opinion on jury duty as I do when it comes to military service--it should be voluntary as the government should never be in the business of forcing people to do anything under penalty of law. This being said, after a little research, I could not find how someone could be forced into potential jury duty in the same way as conscription laws in the late 1960's. Take Minnesota, for example: Potential jurors are picked from a State database consisted of a list of registered voters and those who hold a drivers license/State ID card (see links below, and this also serves for how the federal courts in MN choose their jurors). So since you are not forced to register to vote and/or have some sort of a State ID, how can you be forced into jury duty? However, for the draft in the 1960's, all men who were citizens/legal residents between the age of 18-35 were required by law to register. Here is an example of where the difference lies.http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/JuryInfo/juryfaq.shtmlhttp://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/04/23/good-question-how-do-you-get-picked-for-jury-duty/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 How would WW1 and WW2 have gone in your mind? Irreverent--free people with liberty should never be forced by the government to do a certain task. But to answer your question more directly, the Wars would have turned out the way they would have turned out (not necessarily the same way they 'did' in fact turn out). If such a war is so unpopular that you cannot get enough volunteers to sign up for service, or cannot raise sufficient funds via taxes to properly incentivize enough people to volunteer (or fund the logistics for that matter), then do the American people really want to engage in the war? And if a follow up question would be something to the effect of: What if the mainland US was invaded and the volunteer military wasn't large enough to fight off the attack? My answer would be: Is the country, as it currently is, worth having/saving if enough able volunteers will not choose to voluntarily fight to save what we have? My answer to that question would be no. The people is what has made our country great...when the people become more and more 'less great' (as I believe we have been seeing for many decades), then it's no surprise that the country becomes less great. It happened to Rome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ratner Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 The people is what has made our country great...when the people become more and more 'less great' (as I believe we have been seeing for many decades), then it's no surprise that the country becomes less great. It happened to Rome.What exactly makes "the people" great? Most people would cite our actions during the great wars as the primary evidence, but the "greatest generation" was subject to a draft. There are plenty of other compulsory things that make America great. You say we have become less great over the past decades, but those decades are the ones following the elimination of the draft. The evidence just doesn't support the claim. Rome is another great example of compulsory service making a nation strong. The truth is that liberty (or the absolute liberty you speak of) is an illusion. Nature doesn't believe in it, no matter how much we want to. The cave man didn't have to deal with jury duty or selective service; his oppression came in the form of wild predators and rival tribes. Still not free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 What exactly makes "the people" great? Most people would cite our actions during the great wars as the primary evidence, but the "greatest generation" was subject to a draft. There are plenty of other compulsory things that make America great. You say we have become less great over the past decades, but those decades are the ones following the elimination of the draft. The evidence just doesn't support the claim. Rome is another great example of compulsory service making a nation strong. The truth is that liberty (or the absolute liberty you speak of) is an illusion. Nature doesn't believe in it, no matter how much we want to. The cave man didn't have to deal with jury duty or selective service; his oppression came in the form of wild predators and rival tribes. Still not free. Freedom and liberty is being free from oppression...not from being free of having to feed and clothe yourself, fighting off predators (whether they walk on four or two legs), not from having to pay taxes on items you voluntarily purchase, etc. Being forced into labor (eg military service), and worse, at a wage you didn't agree to, is not being free. As for America being great, it was great when people valued their liberty, and that has been steadily decreasing. You don't need conscription when a 'great people' is willing to voluntarily fight for their liberty. I have read that in the early 1940's after the war had already started, the government wasn't allowing much men to enlist because the draft was going so smoothly and the government thought they could control the accessions better with a draft--which means that many of those who were drafted would have voluntarily enlisted anyways (what happened to one of my grandfathers, the other voluntarily enlisted shortly after Pear Harbor was bombed). Either way, you get what you get. By the way, is there any other job you would like to see people forced into? Medicine? Police? Teachers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vprdrvr69 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Irreverent--free people with liberty should never be forced by the government to do a certain task. But to answer your question more directly, the Wars would have turned out the way they would have turned out (not necessarily the same way they 'did' in fact turn out). If such a war is so unpopular that you cannot get enough volunteers to sign up for service, or cannot raise sufficient funds via taxes to properly incentivize enough people to volunteer (or fund the logistics for that matter), then do the American people really want to engage in the war? And if a follow up question would be something to the effect of: What if the mainland US was invaded and the volunteer military wasn't large enough to fight off the attack? My answer would be: Is the country, as it currently is, worth having/saving if enough able volunteers will not choose to voluntarily fight to save what we have? My answer to that question would be no. The people is what has made our country great...when the people become more and more 'less great' (as I believe we have been seeing for many decades), then it's no surprise that the country becomes less great. It happened to Rome. Sadly, this... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clouseau Posted August 3, 2014 Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 Another myth to dispel. The "Greatest Generation" is another bullshit media-hyped phenomenon. They won a morally justifiable World War, which would have fundamentally changed the world for the worse had it been lost, so lots of credit for that. If someone could actually prove that "terrorism" was a real threat before the US exponentially exploded it into what it is today, would that make the current generation the "greatest"? Is any comparison of generations valid, or is it all a stupid attempt at grouping an entire age group into a stereotyped mold? What else did the Greatest Generation do that was so "great" that the current American public, and especially the military, stands in awe of a "generation"? You guys make Tom Brokaw feel awfully proud about himself for coining this phrase. Some might say that the "greatest Generation" spawned the "Worst Generation" of baby boomers, a massive pool of spoiled brats who have FUBARd the entire US beyond repair. How great can the "Greatest Generation" be if they couldn't even raise their children well? Did the Greatest Generation also turn the USA from a Constitutionally minded country into the world's police force? We should honor true military heroes, and our country's participation in the few conflicts that have bettered the world, but we shouldn't wholesale glorify anything. Not generations, not media hyped people like Petreaus, or Colin Powell who helped cover up the mylai massacre, or MLK Jr. These people all have massive skeletons in their closests, as do generational groups. I wonder how many children of boomers have had a discussion with their parents on the screwing they are about to receive form the boomers themselves? I,m guessing dinner conversations of the sort would be short lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now