Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DEVIL

Raise Taxes, Fire up the Draft.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Clark Griswold said:

 


So you’re saying if something is not specifically mentioned / allowed / prohibited by the Constitution that it is not allowed ?

That’s not a strict constructionist interpretation but an inflexible one

Liberty is great but it only exists because of security & vigilance which are fired that must be constantly tended

 

What I'm saying is forced labor is the exact OPPOSITE of liberty, which is the principle on which this nation was founded. 

That fire is being constantly tended by our all volunteer force. If we have the need for a larger force, then we must offer better incentives for people to join or stay in. Do you not think you'd be degrading our security and vigilance by forcing people to join the military against their will? How much resentment towards the government would some of these people start to harbor? How many would then turn to extremism?

We have enough issues with discipline of those that voluntarily joined, imagine how much time we'd be wasting having to manage those that do not want to be in.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in favor of the draft....right now...in times of national emergency is another discussion.  What I do find interesting is that we as a country continue to discriminate based on race by requiring only young men to register for Selective Service.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

What I'm saying is forced labor is the exact OPPOSITE of liberty, which is the principle on which this nation was founded. 

That fire is being constantly tended by our all volunteer force. If we have the need for a larger force, then we must offer better incentives for people to join or stay in. Do you not think you'd be degrading our security and vigilance by forcing people to join the military against their will? How much resentment towards the government would some of these people start to harbor? How many would then turn to extremism?

We have enough issues with discipline of those that voluntarily joined, imagine how much time we'd be wasting having to manage those that do not want to be in.

you're using the term "liberty" as if it is a unconditional right with no boundaries. surely you must acknowledge that total liberty, total freedom cannot exist when a nation of 350 million individuals want to thrive, advance, and to defend themselves against exterior threats. in the course of those pursuits for the common good, nearly all individuals are going to be required to make some involuntary sacrifices. Every law is a restriction on liberty and freedom of the people whom left to their own devices, would act conversely. but I think you would agree they are required for our nation to endure.

if we agree (and perhaps we don't) that at least some limits to individual liberty and freedom are required for a nation to function, then we only disagree on where the limits are placed, and that's subjective. You can't just point to the Constitution and say it contains the word "liberty". what we seek is a nation that provides the MOST individual freedom and liberty for the most people while still ensuring the nation as a whole continues to succeed.

since the time period immediately after 9/11, i believe we're seeing a breakdown of our national values and our national identity. a thing i've learned from my military service is that overall, the connection in values and identity I shared with my military coworkers far exceeds anything i've ever seen outside the military. Why? because we share common experiences, adversities. the amount of personal sacrifice for something dictates the value you place on it. I think it is no coincidence that we are seeing a decline in appreciation for our nation as we're also seeing a decline in the rate of voluntary military participation (sacrifice).

I will say i do not believe in "serve or prison" in most cases, but I think compulsory national service could be heavily incentivized, and it need not be military. Our security and prosperity was earned through a great deal of sacrifice and a great deal will be necessary to maintain it. A lot of work needs to be done and if you want to enjoy all the great aspects here, you should be required to do more than simply exist. all the free-loading libertarians should be required to do their part.

Edited by torqued
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vertigo said:

What I'm saying is forced labor is the exact OPPOSITE of liberty, which is the principle on which this nation was founded. 

That fire is being constantly tended by our all volunteer force. If we have the need for a larger force, then we must offer better incentives for people to join or stay in. Do you not think you'd be degrading our security and vigilance by forcing people to join the military against their will? How much resentment towards the government would some of these people start to harbor? How many would then turn to extremism?

We have enough issues with discipline of those that voluntarily joined, imagine how much time we'd be wasting having to manage those that do not want to be in.

HOLY SHIT, I agree 100% with you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not for the draft unless we are in a declared war.

However, I agree with the OP that we've lost ownership of our military institutions. This is no longer your Army. Or your father's. Maybe somebody you know has a friend or relative serving, but there's no personal connection anymore.

"But I support our troops."

Bullshit. The executive branch has been allowed to illegally and unjustly use our military as a force abroad to improve our strategic positions, enhance our standing or ensure our participation in certain marketplaces and make tons of money for their constituent corporations for whom armed conflict of any kind is a very, very good thing.

If we really supported our troops we wouldn't allow them to be wasted so capriciously. And trotted out as an advertising tool at public sporting events, a PSA for increased beer and football profits, all while allowing the public to feel reverent about their military and what it represents. They can see it, but do not have to participate in the sausage being made.

Andrew Bacevich has come up with the best proposal I can think of and that is to require a certain percentage of 18 year olds to serve a two year hitch as Army Infantryman. It would act as a counterbalance to many  of the problems with an all volunteer force. Most notably, if there were active duty grunts with the last name of Trump or Obama or Koch or you-get-the-picture, you can be damn sure we wouldn't be illegally invading other sovereign countries and totally disregarding international law. Slowly, over a generation, it would become our Army again. And taxpayers sure as hell aren't going to allow what's been happening continuously post 1991 to happen with their Army.

 

Edited by LJDRVR
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys advocating for this are crazy IMO.  I get it... you all feel the general public and the politicians are ignorant of the realities of wars and entanglements.  That’s true, and is a valid point.  Yet it is not a reason to bring back the draft.  If you look at history, it proves the opposite.  The less freedom the military has, the more they get screwed over.

Did having more vets in Congress stop us from sending tens of thousands to die in Korea and Vietnam, via the draft?  Nope.  In fact, when the AVF was proposed by at first a minority in Congress in the 1960s, the majority of vets in Congress and the Generals fought against it.  The draft was necessary for national security was the main argument. Having an AVF would mean better pay and QoL, which they did not want to do.  That would make the military a mercenary force, General Westmoreland said.  

The generals liked the steady flow of new troops. Pay was garbage.  QoL was crap and not a concern.  Because who cares?  90% of troops were in and then out of “service” every two years anyway.  No need to keep them happy.  Retention didn’t matter.  You were just a number.  It was today’s problems 100x.  Incidentally, I think the idea of the AVF should be expanded more, because management still uses long ADSCs to get away with crappy pay and QoL.  It’s better then the draft days, but still a joke.  We need folks to be true volunteers every day of their military service, not just on day one.

But you think pay and QoL suck now?  Talk to a drafted Vietnam vet.  

This is a shitty idea that should be immediately shitcanned with prejudice.  You guys need to think with your heads, and stop worrying that the world doesn’t understand you.  Grow a pair. Stop thinking like a whiny entitled millennial.  We are military officers and aviators.  I don’t want a bunch of a pussies being forced into the service, just so I can be understood.  F that.  I want to be professional and elite.  I don’t want a bunch of SJW screwing up the military even more than they have.

Think with your heads guys, and put down the crack pipes.

Edited by flyusaf83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm saying is forced labor is the exact OPPOSITE of liberty, which is the principle on which this nation was founded. 

 

That fire is being constantly tended by our all volunteer force. If we have the need for a larger force, then we must offer better incentives for people to join or stay in. Do you not think you'd be degrading our security and vigilance by forcing people to join the military against their will? How much resentment towards the government would some of these people start to harbor? How many would then turn to extremism?

 

We have enough issues with discipline of those that voluntarily joined, imagine how much time we'd be wasting having to manage those that do not want to be in.

 

I’m not for conscription as I said in my first post I just wouldn’t take it off the table.

 

There would be problems definitely in security, quality of effort, morale and discipline no doubt but IF a surge in manpower was required by military necessity and conscription was the only means to meet it so be it.

 

Conscription may be antithetical to Liberty but the Constitution is not a suicide pact and it provides sanctioned prescriptions to preserve it and the nation should the need arise that in other situations would violate the rights of her citizens.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2018 at 10:24 AM, Vertigo said:

Forced public service under the threat of what? Prison? I mean there would have be to some form of punishment for not complying right? What do you call forcing someone to do a job they didn't agree to do or else you'll throw them in jail? 

Don't pay your taxes and people with guns will put you in jail. I guess everyone with a job is now a slave.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Don't pay your taxes and people with guns will put you in jail. I guess everyone with a job is now a slave.

Hence the theft piece...thank you for making my point.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I entered active duty in November, 1974.  The draft was just winding down.  The USAF never drafted anybody, but both the officer and enlisted groups were full of people who joined only to avoid the draft.

You don't want to go back to the draft!   These 'avoiders' didn't want to be there, most hated the service, and most did the minimum required to get by.  Insubordination was rampant, and nothing could be done about it.

It was bad in the Air Force, and I'm sure it was much worse in the Army.

The military isn't some kind of reform school or social experiment.  Baring some existential threat to the CONUS the last thing the military needs is a bunch of draftees!!!!!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2018 at 11:59 AM, torqued said:

you're using the term "liberty" as if it is a unconditional right with no boundaries. surely you must acknowledge that total liberty, total freedom cannot exist when a nation of 350 million individuals want to thrive, advance, and to defend themselves against exterior threats. in the course of those pursuits for the common good, nearly all individuals are going to be required to make some involuntary sacrifices. Every law is a restriction on liberty and freedom of the people whom left to their own devices, would act conversely. but I think you would agree they are required for our nation to endure.

if we agree (and perhaps we don't) that at least some limits to individual liberty and freedom are required for a nation to function, then we only disagree on where the limits are placed, and that's subjective. You can't just point to the Constitution and say it contains the word "liberty". what we seek is a nation that provides the MOST individual freedom and liberty for the most people while still ensuring the nation as a whole continues to succeed.

since the time period immediately after 9/11, i believe we're seeing a breakdown of our national values and our national identity. a thing i've learned from my military service is that overall, the connection in values and identity I shared with my military coworkers far exceeds anything i've ever seen outside the military. Why? because we share common experiences, adversities. the amount of personal sacrifice for something dictates the value you place on it. I think it is no coincidence that we are seeing a decline in appreciation for our nation as we're also seeing a decline in the rate of voluntary military participation (sacrifice).

I will say i do not believe in "serve or prison" in most cases, but I think compulsory national service could be heavily incentivized, and it need not be military. Our security and prosperity was earned through a great deal of sacrifice and a great deal will be necessary to maintain it. A lot of work needs to be done and if you want to enjoy all the great aspects here, you should be required to do more than simply exist. all the free-loading libertarians should be required to do their part.

One's liberty extends until it infringes on the rights and liberty of another. That's the boundary.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2018 at 7:17 PM, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:


Also, Devil, would you recommend implementing a selective draft or mandatory service for all? Significant difference.
 

 

In my perfect little world  that won't ever exist, if you graduate high school and enlist in the military, you get college paid for, if you want to go back in after college, you go in as an Officer. If you don't want to join the military, but you still want college paid for, you do some sort of peace corps for America. You go be a part of civil service programs all across the country, just like the military you don't get a choice where you go, then you go to college.

Either way, we pull Americans out of their sheltered little lives and expose them to the rest of this country, while simultaneously serving the country and it's diverse population and needs. What does this do? Maybe after working side by side with people of different ethnicities, skin colors, religious etc, people get more tolerant. Vice just staying in their town surrounded by the same ol same ol. 

More buy in, more tolerance (hopefully), more leaders and generations who feel like they did something for the US and they want to protect what they invested in.

:flag_waving:

Edited by DEVIL
Obviously this is kind of like the GI Bill and Job Corps and Teach for America, I, as always, just want more.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DEVIL said:

More buy in, more tolerance (hopefully), more leaders and generations who feel like they did something for the US and they want to protect what they invested in.

Been reading Heinlein again, eh?  Sound logic and good thinking that will take an existential threat to play out in CONUS before "we" get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are people who voluntarily join the military for their own reasons who are getting out left and right.  The last thing you want to institute is a draft of people who DIDN'T want to be in the military in the first place.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vertigo said:

One's liberty extends until it infringes on the rights and liberty of another. That's the boundary.

that is a great concept when when we're talking about the broad direction we seek to take our society, but it's also an oversimplified ideal that cannot be practically applied to all aspects of life in that society. your personal liberty in daily life is restricted by countless rules and laws that cannot be said to directly infringe on the rights of others, and you accept them. i could argue to restrict a great number of your personal liberties by making a tenuous connection to a threat to my right to life (safety and security) and pursuit of happiness.

a society should seek to find a balance between allowing it's citizens to do whatever they feel like doing (liberty), and providing a structure that requires them to act with discipline and responsibility (law). you can't teach a person to act with discipline and responsibility without forcing them to make a sacrifice. estimating the amount of personal sacrifice needed to guarantee and equitable amount of personal liberty isn't easy, but it also isn't zero.

as a voluntary member of the military, the amount of sacrifices you are making is likely ensuring the liberty of dozens of people (129.24 to be exact). that's noble, but not sustainable. especially when your beliefs are becoming more polarized from the people whom you provide for.

Edited by torqued

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree...we should ban alcohol again--that way no one will die/be harmed of alcoholism or people driving drunk!  Your liberty to rink should not trump my wanting to be safe on the roads or have family members ruin our lives due to alcohol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

reading is hard.

society should seek to find a balance between allowing it's citizens to do whatever they feel like doing (liberty), and providing a structure that requires them to act with discipline and responsibility (law).”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we would just get back to the Constitutional method of declaring war, the arguments for needing a draft lose steam. Right now we are engaged in de facto WW3 against militant Islam, but Congress and the general public have yet to realize that fact. Under an almost 20 year old AUMF, we now have troops and/or have taken action in Libya, Somalia, Niger, Djibouti, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I’m sure I missed a few, and there seems to be no end in sight. The War Powers resolution limits troop commitments to 60 days without further approval from Congress. The 2001 AUMF specifically addressed those responsible for 9/11 and ‘associated forces.’ We’ve gone way beyond that in the last 16 years. If we started making law makers actually vote to send our kids into harms way like they should, they would have more to answer to their constituents for. While drafting Congressmen’s kids into the military may have more effect, at least making them go on the record about military action makes them take a stand and show leadership. We shouldn’t be fighting without a clear mission, a clear finish line, and then a clear exit strategy. If you’ve ready history about our involvement in Afghanistan, it illustrates how we just keep creating monsters unintentionally with short sighted goals. It kills me to see us making the same mistakes every 10 years. I don’t want my kids to have to suffer for that in the next few decades.

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you're willing to give up some of your freedoms and liberties so others can enjoy all of theirs, but you don't expect or trust those same people with the smallest and most necessary tasks. imagine if WWII volunteers rejected draftees. 

imagine if parents never required children to earn the things they enjoy. what would that generation look like?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, torqued said:

so you're willing to give up some of your freedoms and liberties so others can enjoy all of theirs, but you don't expect or trust those same people with the smallest and most necessary tasks.

imagine if parents never required children to earn the things they enjoy. what would that generation look like?

Correct. I don't expect it of others. I made my choice so that they can make theirs. 

You don't "earn" the right to have the freedoms we have in this nation. You are born with it - "endowed by their Creator" and these rights are "unalienable", meaning they cannot be taken away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, torqued said:

your personal liberty in daily life is restricted by countless rules and laws that cannot be said to directly infringe on the rights of others, and you accept them. 

What makes you believe I accept them? How do you know I don't work towards deregulating such laws? Maybe I comply with them, for fear of punishment, but that doesn't mean I accept them in principle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Correct. I don't expect it of others. I made my choice so that they can make theirs. 

You don't "earn" the right to have the freedoms we have in this nation. You are born with it - "endowed by their Creator" and these rights are "unalienable", meaning they cannot be taken away.

as I said, noble, but not sustainable. 

i don't think you can legitimately argue that our freedom was free. it came at a cost. when you obtain something through sacrifice, it is the very definition of having been "earned".

21 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

What makes you believe I accept them? How do you know I don't work towards deregulating such laws? Maybe I comply with them, for fear of punishment, but that doesn't mean I accept them in principle. 

how you think or feel about a law is of no consequence. laws do not govern thoughts or feelings. how you act or behave is of consequence. if you abide by a law you disagree with, you accept it. would you mind giving and example of a law you are deregulating?

Edited by torqued
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×