U.S. Military Draft

[thebornotaku]

Okay. This has nothing to do with Iraq or any current Military operations, but more asking you all in general.

If the U.S. Military started drafting again, what would you do?

Personally, if I got drafted, I would answer the call, regardless of whether or not I agreed with or even knew the motives for the war. I believe that if the U.S. Military feels that it needs to force people to fight, that we have a serious problem on our hands and I'd be more than willing to answer any call to arms the Military put out. I've also thought about the idea that if the draft is started again and I do not get drafted to join the Military anyways, but that's and iffy subject.

Remember kids, the U.S. was founded on ideals of freedom and equality and so forth, and those are things that you generally have to fight to protect.

[margot]

canada.

[thebornotaku]

canada.

So you mean that if you got drafted (Which you can't, according to current draft rules, because you're female) you would run off to Canada as opposed to standing and fighting for your country? Why so?

[margot]

So you mean that if you got drafted (Which you can't, according to current draft rules, because you're female) you would run off to Canada as opposed to standing and fighting for your country? Why so?

Well actually, my first instinct was to say Canada..but how can anyone really answer that question unless you give the situation? If it was for something like Iraq, then yes I would go to Canada or do whatever to get out of it. If it was for a humanitarian ect reason, then I would join the army.

I don't really believe in things like patriotism. I think this is a good example of why. Why would you join a draft even if it stood for something you disagreed with?

I heard if they have a new draft they'll probably make women join too.

[Samurai Drifter]

My current general plan of action towards a draft is to leave the country, but I doubt there will be one again.

If I determine that the cause is good or the draft at least nessecary for the defense of the country, then I might answer the call. But in general, I would never want to live in a country that tries to control its citizens so closely that it would make them risk their lives for something they may or may not believe in. If America was invaded, you can bet that I'd join the army to fight the invaders. I wouldn't think twice about that.

I'm going to be a student for the forseeable future, though, with one short break from school, though, so I don't think I'd have to worry.

[thebornotaku]

Well actually, my first instinct was to say Canada..but how can anyone really answer that question unless you give the situation? If it was for something like Iraq, then yes I would go to Canada or do whatever to get out of it. If it was for a humanitarian ect reason, then I would join the army.

I don't really believe in things like patriotism. I think this is a good example of why. Why would you join a draft even if it stood for something you disagreed with?

I heard if they have a new draft they'll probably make women join too.

Yeah, I heard the thing about the women too. Not sure of the validity, however.

It's not like you "join" the draft. You're forced to join the draft. The military basically says "We need more troops, and not enough people are enlisting. Time to draft".

Perhaps the fact that you don't believe in patriotism might have to do with the possibility of you leaving the U.S. in the case the draft is started again. Of course, that's perfectly acceptable, you should be allowed to believe what you will, however I am sure that many people would disagree with your views (I know I do, sorry).

[margot]

I know what a draft is.

eh once again it all comes down to personal opinion like everything in here. I do find it sorta weird they force you to fight and possible give up your life to "protect freedom."

[Gundampilotspaz]

Nobody will tell me what to do and where to do it.

[Ceraziefish]

There is no circumstance in which I would answer a draft notice. It doesn't matter what country or for what reason, this is something I definitely agree with GPS and Robert Heinlein about. Drafts are morally bankrupt and probably hurt the military more than help (Vietnam anyone?). If not enough people are joining up, shouldn't the military look at that as the people of the U.S. voting with their feet?

However, there are certain situations where I would join the army. Very few, but I can think of a couple; perhaps if there was another Civil War (I'd be on the revolutionary side); also I probably would have joined the army in a situation like WWII.

But for the current war, and the current government? Never.

[Samurai Drifter]

However, there are certain situations where I would join the army. Very few, but I can think of a couple; perhaps if there was another Civil War (I'd be on the revolutionary side);

Even if, as in the last one, the rebels were fighting to preserve slavery?

If the government instituted martial law and started imprisoning political prisoners, I certainly would join with the state militias that would inevitably rise to fight it. That's a situation in which I'd be on the revolutionary side (and also the most likely of many unlikely situations that could lead to another civil war). In the last one, though, I would certainly have volunteered to join the Union army, to abolish slavery and prevent North America from becoming a permanently war-torn continent.

If there's one thing that's certain about this country by its history, it's that its citizens will not tolerate tyranny.

[Ceraziefish]

Even if, as in the last one, the rebels were fighting to preserve slavery?

I meant if there was another Civil War, not if there was another "Lol let's keep us some slaves" waste of time.

I'd join if it was to change the government for the better. I guess if there was a Libertarian revolution I wouldn't help 'em, but I wouldn't stop 'em either. I'd probably just leave the country so as not to get shot.

[Samurai Drifter]

If there was a libertarian revolution I would join with the government to put it down, unless the state of the government was somehow worse than a libertarian one (if that's possible).

[margot]

If there was a libertarian revolution I would join with the government to put it down, unless the state of the government was somehow worse than a libertarian one (if that's possible).

[Ceraziefish]

If there was a libertarian revolution I would join with the government to put it down, unless the state of the government was somehow worse than a libertarian one (if that's possible).

At this point if there was a major rebellion in the U.S. I'd be more inclined to let that part of the country secede rather than have a war. After all, most states are vaguely self-sufficient (at least as self-sufficient as any country has to be in this age of internationalism).

Basically if GPS becomes General GPS and leads the Great Libertarian War in Connecticutt I'd rather they just cut it off rather than actually spend money trying to kill him with fire.

Besides, if any state seceded and became Libertarian they'd probably want back in in <20 years.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Besides, if any state seceded and became Libertarian they'd probably want back in in <20 years.

Your view is people would rather be controlled than to be free.

I don't know why you aren't for the draft in that respect.

If there was a libertarian revolution I would join with the government to put it down, unless the state of the government was somehow worse than a libertarian one (if that's possible).

I can never understand your reasoning on this.

Basicly what you are telling me is that you trust someone else before you'd trust yourself.

Which seems....irrational.

[margot]

People like it when the poor and disabled don't starve to death.

[Gundampilotspaz]

People like it when the poor and disabled don't starve to death.

People don't have to starve to death.

You can donate or go out and help them. Which if you really cared you'd be doing already. so stop pretending to care.

The government doesn't have to be involved, in fact the poor are starving to death now and the government does nothing about that. Government employees don't run soup kitchens volunteers do. Your whole argument is moot.

Don't make me link back to the thread where I posted the article which described how the Soviets allowed Millions to die of starvation.

[Samurai Drifter]

I can never understand your reasoning on this.

Basicly what you are telling me is that you trust someone else before you'd trust yourself.

Which seems....irrational.

No, what I'm saying is that a Libertarian government would cause living conditions in this country to become terrible. Supporting libertarianism is supporting anarchy, because a government without the strength to enforce the law is a government without a purpose; that might as well not be there at all. And with anarchy, there is still a ruler- the person with the most guns.

People don't have to starve to death.

Welfare prevents people who would otherwise be starving to death from facing that fate. Though I do think that our welfare system needs some serious reforms- if you have the ability to work but choose not to, I'm not going to support your lazy ass. If you were injured, sick, or otherwise unable to work, that's a different story and the government should do what it can to help you.

[Gundampilotspaz]

No, what I'm saying is that a Libertarian government would cause living conditions in this country to become terrible. Supporting libertarianism is supporting anarchy, because a government without the strength to enforce the law is a government without a purpose; that might as well not be there at all. And with anarchy, there is still a ruler- the person with the most guns.

.....no

I am a Moderate Libertarian, you know. But even the most radical libertarians are still separated from anarchy. We believe in the government as it was about 1905-1929. Before that crazy socialist took office.

It is better described as "Rational Anarchy" where Libertarians would want a world without government, but we realize that some people need to be controlled.

[margot]

oh lawd. petty personal attacks. And why randomly bringing up the soviets?

in any case government ran programs are better than having nothing besides private charities which we already have. libertarianism doesn't make any sense anyway. it says the government can't impede on your "rights" but the government also defines your "rights" as the internet says.

[Samurai Drifter]

You can't have it both ways. The government is a double edged sword. Rational people see that and accept its pros as being greater than its cons. You want to keep the government to control some people, but keep it weak so it can't interfere with the populace's freedoms. I ask you a few questions then-

-Who determines which people need to be controlled?

-How will the government control those people without the power or money to have a law enforcement branch, and how would such a branch be funded without taxes?

[Gundampilotspaz]

Welfare prevents people who would otherwise be starving to death from facing that fate. Though I do think that our welfare system needs some serious reforms- if you have the ability to work but choose not to, I'm not going to support your lazy ass. If you were injured, sick, or otherwise unable to work, that's a different story and the government should do what it can to help those people.

...Not so much

People who normally take in large incomes should be able to take care of themselves if they are not able to work for a few months.

Perhaps years, it would be reasonable.

The system is not a bad idea, but really not the governments problem. If they wish it to remain it must become far more selective. Too much do you hear about the guy on medical leave who was seen carrying boards in Home Depo, or has another job.

[Ceraziefish]

Your view is people would rather be controlled than to be free.

I don't know why you aren't for the draft in that respect.

I can never understand your reasoning on this.

Basicly what you are telling me is that you trust someone else before you'd trust yourself.

Which seems....irrational.

GPS, I am not going to build highways personally. I am not going to negotiate international trade relations, assign doctors to work at hospitals, or make sure that criminals are dealt with.

I have to trust someone to do this for me. That's the only way I can do things. People are not self-sufficient. If I want to live in modern society I have to let certain people do things for me. That's all there is.

The difference between us is I place my trust with people put into office by me (in theory, this is democracy), rather than people that are put into office by themselves, and are out to make money rather than serve the public good.

Basically what you are telling me is that you trust a modern day pirate (capitalist) rather than someone who can actually be held accountable? At least people in politics care about something besides money (maybe not much, but if they only cared about money, they'd be in business).

Basically, you can choose to get raped by governments or raped by corporations. I choose governments, because thanks to them we have laws, but really I'd rather not be raped.

[Gundampilotspaz]

You can't have it both ways. The government is a double edged sword. Rational people see that and accept its pros as being greater than its cons. You want to keep the government to control some people, but keep it weak so it can't interfere with the populace's freedoms. I ask you a few questions then-

-Who determines which people need to be controlled?

-How will the government control those people without the power or money to have a law enforcement branch, and how would such a branch be funded without taxes?

-They same way we do today, if someone starts a fight you toss them in jail. The only sin lies in hurting others unnecessarily.

- If we are talking a practical sense, no modern society can survive without taxes. Getting rid of federal taxes we can do, limiting state taxes we can do. Police forces are required to maintain order, that is the sense of control. By "people need to be controlled" just mean that people need to know that they will suffer some consequence if they commit anti-social behavior. You seemed to take it as a permanent type of control, which is insane in a society that values rights and freedom.

Remember, when I talk about Libertarianism I'm talking about a more conservative government that leaves people and business alone. The government at the turn of the century.

A pure Libertarian society with no taxes and no government is utopia. I'd love to see it happen, but if I believed it was possible I'd be as blind an irrational as a Communist.

oh lawd. petty personal attacks. And why randomly bringing up the soviets?

in any case government ran programs are better than having nothing besides private charities which we already have. libertarianism doesn't make any sense anyway. it says the government can't impede on your "rights" but the government also defines your "rights" as the internet says.

So the government can set your rights and than decide when it can take them away?

No, the people decided what our rights were 200 years ago when the constitution was written.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

In that one short paragraph our founding fathers describe a Libertarian nation.

And if you do research Government run programs don't do any better and sometimes are far worse than private charity. Take the Katrina disaster. Who made a bigger positive impact:

Volunteers or FEMA? :rolleyes:

[Gundampilotspaz]

GPS, I am not going to build highways personally. I am not going to negotiate international trade relations, assign doctors to work at hospitals, or make sure that criminals are dealt with.

Why not? You can make a lot of money if you build highways. Everyone uses them!

I have to trust someone to do this for me. That's the only way I can do things. People are not self-sufficient. If I want to live in modern society I have to let certain people do things for me. That's all there is.

Of course you have to let people do things for you. But those things are not given free. I'd rather pay for something freely than have money taken from me because someone in a suit decided that I "needed" a service.

The difference between us is I place my trust with people put into office by me (in theory, this is democracy), rather than people that are put into office by themselves, and are out to make money rather than serve the public good.

Are they? With all the scandals and the private interest money being fed into congress?

I think you've been wearing a blindfold.

Lets look at it this way, lawmakers are going to make money if they screw up or not. But a business man needs to do something right in order to make money.

Who would care more?

Basically what you are telling me is that you trust a modern day pirate (capitalist) rather than someone who can actually be held accountable? At least people in politics care about something besides money (maybe not much, but if they only cared about money, they'd be in business).

If a person commits a crime they shall be held accountable, I don't think I ever said they wouldn't. People in politics don't care about money? Again, take off your blindfold and LOOK at congress.

Again, lawmakers get paid if they make a bad decision. Business man don't. I'd trust the efforts of a business man first.

Basically, you can choose to get raped by governments or raped by corporations. I choose governments, because thanks to them we have laws, but really I'd rather not be raped.

I don't believe in incorporation.

But I'd don't wish to be raped by either.

But your argument is moot, since the corporations are already taking over our government things to special interest money. (But, congress doesn't care about money, right? )