Start the draft or get out appears to be the title of the thread. Since we're not 'getting out" (especially noting how none of the current Dem candidates, including front runner Hillary are pushing that line any longer) leaves us with start the draft. No?? Did you not start this thread? Do you not "stand by what it says"?
Start the draft or get out appears to be the title of the thread. Since we're not 'getting out" (especially noting how none of the current Dem candidates, including front runner Hillary are pushing that line any longer) leaves us with start the draft. No?? Did you not start this thread? Do you not "stand by what it says"?
Yet, instead of reading it and commenting on it. You attack Lanya. I don't know why you all continue to treat her in such a terrible fashion.
Start the draft or get out appears to be the title of the thread. Since we're not 'getting out" (especially noting how none of the current Dem candidates, including front runner Hillary are pushing that line any longer) leaves us with start the draft. No?? Did you not start this thread? Do you not "stand by what it says"?
Lies, lies,lies. Bill Richardson said he'd get out within a year, and Dernnis Kucinich said he'd do it even sooner.
I concur with the article.
Let's begin immediately, as soon as the Services indicate they are ready (DIs trained and ready, facilities ready and available, etc.)
The only deferments available would be for medical disability and perhaps a few others, tightly constrained in numbers.
Evasion would result in incarceration and/or loss in citizenship.
Try FRONT runners, Xo. Try Hillary, then get back to me on her "when"
===================================================
THere are no front runners yet.
I'm not sure which is a worse abridgment of individual rights, military conscription or incarceration. But seeing who is in favor of military conscription is a bit revealing. It is a clue as to who actually gives a damn about individual rights and as to who thinks the government should try to control society.
One of the main purposes for the founding of this government was to protect liberties. At one time all able bodied males were defacto members of the militia. So no, i don't think conscription into the modern military is an abridgment of individual rights. It is part of the social contract.
One of the main purposes for the founding of this government was to protect liberties. At one time all able bodied males were defacto members of the militia. So no, i don't think conscription into the modern military is an abridgment of individual rights. It is part of the social contract.
Maybe my understanding of a militia is different than yours, but seems to me there is a fairly substantial difference between being part of a civilian militia and being conscripted into the modern military. If we still depended on civilian militia for defense of the land, maybe I would be more inclined to agree with your point, but we don't, and I'm not. Your comment seems to me rather like saying, at one time all able bodied males were expected work and earn a living and contribute to society so enslavement isn't an abridgment of rights, just part of the social contract. I cannot agree.
Oh no , you don't advocate a more professional corps of soldiers and more separation between the citizens and the military?
I don't ,our libertys preservation should be our own responsibility.
Our military should be us.
Our military should be us.
Oh no , you don't advocate a more professional corps of soldiers and more separation between the citizens and the military?
No, I did not say that.
I don't ,our libertys preservation should be our own responsibility.
Our military should be us.
So are you saying this in support of conscription or are you advocating a return to civilian militia and the elimination of a standing army?
Our military should be us.
Precisely.
Seems some want liberties protected without having to do any heavy lifting.
Selfish attitude in my book.
What is conscription?
Are we obliged to defend our society , or should we consider its defense optional?
A king woud have conscripts under threat , anopen and free society obliges its own defense how?
What is conscription?
Conscription, in general usage and in the context of this discussion, is the forced enlistment of citizens into military service. But I suspect you knew that already.QuoteOnly citizens? During the war of 1812 one of the issues to be settled was the impressment of sailors into Englands Navy who claimed American citizenship.
Are we obliged to defend our society , or should we consider its defense optional?
Are you obliged to defend yourself? Or is that optional? Can you conceive of a situation in which you might not want to "defend society" through military service? Can you think of ways other than military service to defend what you consider worth defending about society?QuoteI don't consider the defense of society to be optional because with no defense the society will not be able to continue. The effect is that of "The Triumph of the Meme" competing social orders may gain at the expense of a society that defends itself poorly , ultimately to the point of destruction. There may be some substitute for military service for an individual to consider as a means of strengthening his society ,but for the society, there is no substitute for having an armed force adequate to the task of defense.
A king would have conscripts under threat , an open and free society obliges its own defense how?
A king would have conscripts under threat. And incarceration is somehow not a threat? As for defending the nation, we have done a nice job of maintaining a military with voluntary enlistment. A military that would be more than sufficient for defense of society and the nation, if the government would stick to defending society and the nation. I almost hate to ask, but what, exactly, would a draft to supply troops to the conflict in Iraq accomplish regarding the defense of our society?
In modern times we don't always call them Kings but there are rulers who reign for their lifespans with the power of kingship and the society's they head have no problem forcing the people available to serve in in anysort of waythe king wants. Should a society that elects its government have no right to demand service of its members? Won' the result eventually be the growth of more repressive society's at the expense of the less?
The strategic value of Iraq has many parts, one of these parts is its role as flypaper for the Al Queda movement. Al Queda has decreed war on the US and their potential for growth is huge , handing them a failure and killing a lot of them is likely the best thing we can do right now to prevent their success in their goals of growth and destruction.
Start the draft or get out appears to be the title of the thread. Since we're not 'getting out" (especially noting how none of the current Dem candidates, including front runner Hillary are pushing that line any longer) leaves us with start the draft. No?? Did you not start this thread? Do you not "stand by what it says"?
Lanya quite clearly condensed the meaning of the article into a simple title. If you read the article, the captains who authored it are very clear that they feel compulsory service is necessary to win in Iraq. They explain Iraq's situation on the ground and why the surge only moves the insurgents, as opposed to destroying them.
It is an interesting article.
Yet, instead of reading it and commenting on it. You attack Lanya. I don't know why you all continue to treat her in such a terrible fashion. We have a few women on this board, whose viewpoints would be very nice to keep, yet for whatever reason you and a few others treat Lanya in the most ungentlemanly of manners.
I concur with the article.
Let's begin immediately, as soon as the Services indicate they are ready (DIs trained and ready, facilities ready and available, etc.)
The only deferments available would be for medical disability and perhaps a few others, tightly constrained in numbers.
Evasion would result in incarceration and/or loss in citizenship.
I'm not sure which is a worse abridgment of individual rights, military conscription or incarceration. But seeing who is in favor of military conscription is a bit revealing. It is a clue as to who actually gives a damn about individual rights and as to who thinks the government should try to control society.
QuoteOur military should be us.
Precisely.
Seems some want liberties protected without having to do any heavy lifting.
Selfish attitude in my book.
Start the draft or get out appears to be the title of the thread. Since we're not 'getting out" (especially noting how none of the current Dem candidates, including front runner Hillary are pushing that line any longer) leaves us with start the draft. No?? Did you not start this thread? Do you not "stand by what it says"?
Lanya quite clearly condensed the meaning of the article into a simple title. If you read the article, the captains who authored it are very clear that they feel compulsory service is necessary to win in Iraq. They explain Iraq's situation on the ground and why the surge only moves the insurgents, as opposed to destroying them.
It is an interesting article.
Yet, instead of reading it and commenting on it. You attack Lanya. I don't know why you all continue to treat her in such a terrible fashion. We have a few women on this board, whose viewpoints would be very nice to keep, yet for whatever reason you and a few others treat Lanya in the most ungentlemanly of manners.
When you say "all", please consider that "all" means "all". In this respect, please pull up a posting of mine where I was derogatory toward any woman. Are you not now generalizing as you indicate many in this forum do already?
well
going to jail for refusing sounds like a threat
but maybe it should be more in the able body kinda thinking.
despite what alot of soldiers think
boot camp is very tough and I know some guys who actually crack under training
we need to rethink who qualify to serve
and how to best use them
we can`t even admit feeding crap(MRE) to our soldiers can be a bad idea.(battlefield anorexia)
Start the draft or get out appears to be the title of the thread. Since we're not 'getting out" (especially noting how none of the current Dem candidates, including front runner Hillary are pushing that line any longer) leaves us with start the draft. No?? Did you not start this thread? Do you not "stand by what it says"?
Lanya quite clearly condensed the meaning of the article into a simple title. If you read the article, the captains who authored it are very clear that they feel compulsory service is necessary to win in Iraq. They explain Iraq's situation on the ground and why the surge only moves the insurgents, as opposed to destroying them.
It is an interesting article.
Yet, instead of reading it and commenting on it. You attack Lanya. I don't know why you all continue to treat her in such a terrible fashion. We have a few women on this board, whose viewpoints would be very nice to keep, yet for whatever reason you and a few others treat Lanya in the most ungentlemanly of manners.
What the f---? No, BT, this isn't about wanting liberties protected without doing anything to protect them. This is about wanting liberties protected. Conscription is not a protection of liberty. Duh. BT, you spoke of the purposes of the founding of the government. The government was founded to be a servant of the people. Conscription reverses that and makes the people the servants of the government.
QuoteWhat the f---? No, BT, this isn't about wanting liberties protected without doing anything to protect them. This is about wanting liberties protected. Conscription is not a protection of liberty. Duh. BT, you spoke of the purposes of the founding of the government. The government was founded to be a servant of the people. Conscription reverses that and makes the people the servants of the government.
What rubbish. Certainly the government was founded as the servant of the people and it is constituted of the people. Ron Paul did not give up his citizenship when he went to Washington elected by the people and he is certainly no less a citizen when he speaks for the people. He simply became a member of a body that crafts the laws that serve the people. One of those laws is conscription.
You may disagree with what the collective body determines is the best way to serve the people but to say government is not comprised of the people is nonsense.
It is not an US vs Them scenario. Because we are them.
When you say "all", please consider that "all" means "all". In thisrepect, please pull up a posting of mine where I was derogatory toward any woman. Are you not now generalizing as you indicate many in this forum do already?
We need more female viewpoints in here, yet she is treated very poorly.
When you say "all", please consider that "all" means "all". In thisrepect, please pull up a posting of mine where I was derogatory toward any woman. Are you not now generalizing as you indicate many in this forum do already?
In this case it is just a miscommunication of my Southern dialect.
I was using "you all" as a plural, as opposed to "you" the singular (in the South, at least where I'm from). I, in no way, was accusing everyone from a certain political viewpoint. I was accusing a certain group of individuals, of which Sirs is one.
The "you all" or "y'all" in my statement was indicting those that tend to pick on Lanya in a personal way. They know who they are and I have made this complaint before (you were not involved and my apologies if you felt accused).
Lanya contributes to this forum often and I have never seen her act in an untoward way towards anyone on a personal level. She may get carried away with something she believes passionately about (who here doesn't?) but she does not warrant the treatment she receives from some.
We need more female viewpoints in here, yet she is treated very poorly.
What rubbish. Certainly the government was founded as the servant of the people and it is constituted of the people.
Ron Paul did not give up his citizenship when he went to Washington elected by the people and he is certainly no less a citizen when he speaks for the people. He simply became a member of a body that crafts the laws that serve the people.
You may disagree with what the collective body determines is the best way to serve the people but to say government is not comprised of the people is nonsense.
It is not an US vs Them scenario. Because we are them.
The government is comprised of a relatively small number of people who are elected by a portion of the people, or those hired to work for the government.
Only citizens? During the war of 1812 one of the issues to be settled was the impressment of sailors into Englands Navy who claimed American citizenship.
I don't consider the defense of society to be optional because with no defense the society will not be able to continue. The effect is that of "The Triumph of the Meme" competing social orders may gain at the expense of a society that defends itself poorly , ultimately to the point of destruction. There may be some substitute for military service for an individual to consider as a means of strengthening his society ,but for the society, there is no substitute for having an armed force adequate to the task of defense.
In modern times we don't always call them Kings but there are rulers who reign for their lifespans with the power of kingship and the society's they head have no problem forcing the people available to serve in in anysort of waythe king wants. Should a society that elects its government have no right to demand service of its members? Won' the result eventually be the growth of more repressive society's at the expense of the less?
The strategic value of Iraq has many parts, one of these parts is its role as flypaper for the Al Queda movement. Al Queda has decreed war on the US and their potential for growth is huge , handing them a failure and killing a lot of them is likely the best thing we can do right now to prevent their success in their goals of growth and destruction.
I don't consider the defense of society to be optional because with no defense the society will not be able to continue. The effect is that of "The Triumph of the Meme" competing social orders may gain at the expense of a society that defends itself poorly , ultimately to the point of destruction. There may be some substitute for military service for an individual to consider as a means of strengthening his society ,but for the society, there is no substitute for having an armed force adequate to the task of defense.
So regardless of the society, you would feel obligated to defend it? Are you suggesting that society trumps the individual, that the individual exists to serve society, regardless of the individual's personal morals or will?
Reguardless of the society , th social order fnds some means of self defense elese it ceaces.QuoteThe strategic value of Iraq has many parts, one of these parts is its role as flypaper for the Al Queda movement. Al Queda has decreed war on the US and their potential for growth is huge , handing them a failure and killing a lot of them is likely the best thing we can do right now to prevent their success in their goals of growth and destruction.
And yet, Al-Qaeda is growing. Why is apparently a mystery because no one wants to consider that our military presence in the Middle East could be a cause of resentment. And no one seems to want to consider that creating a live training ground for terrorists with targets they can kill might not be the best way to combat Al-Qaeda. I do realize that many people think the fighting in Iraq is somehow about protecting American society, but as best I can determine, those many people are not correct. The conflict in Iraq is about American hegemony. Whether that is needed is another discussion for another time.
Indeed, I heard somewhere that most of the US Government is run by 6 families. Notice how Bush, Kerry, and Gore are all related (and all related to British royalty)? Today's news that Obama and Cheney are cousins kinda reinforces the point...
No, it is constituted of representatives, politicians elected by a portion of the people. Don't confuse the government with the public. They are not the same.
QuoteSo regardless of the society, you would feel obligated to defend it? Are you suggesting that society trumps the individual, that the individual exists to serve society, regardless of the individual's personal morals or will?
Reguardless of the society , th social order fnds some means of self defense elese it ceaces.
Isn't Al Queda shrinking at a rate slightly greater than the rate we shoot them?
QuoteNo, it is constituted of representatives, politicians elected by a portion of the people. Don't confuse the government with the public. They are not the same.
The portion of the people who vote. Not voting is a voluntary action. The government is comprised of representatives elected by the people who vote and these are the same representatives who pass conscription laws. Of the people for the people and by the people.
My pragmaticism is based on a best effort win or lose proposition. If my candidate loses so be it. If my candidate wins and doesn't turn out to be who i expected them to be i won't vote for them next time. But i do vote and i do accept the results of all the votes. I am pragmatic enough to realize i won't get my way all the time.
You seem to be the type that takes the ball home if they lose. Selfish.
I have never been in favor of an all volunteer military. I saw the transition. I think the military needs "temps" if for no other reason than to establish a closer connection to the people they defend. It's not a matter of aptitude or quality, it is a matter of mindset.
What makes you think conscription did or would have that result?
I have already made my argument. I have been in favor of the draft for years, done by lottery, no gender or fortunate son exemptions. You get a low number pack your bags.
I have never been in favor of an all volunteer military. I saw the transition. I think the military needs "temps" if for no other reason than to establish a closer connection to the people they defend. It's not a matter of aptitude or quality, it is a matter of mindset.
Are you suggesting that conscription helps to form a national identity?
As i said i was in the service when the draft was winding down and the all volunteer military was cranking up.
As i said i was in the service when the draft was winding down and the all volunteer military was cranking up.
Oh. Well, obviously then it must true.<--sarcasm Is that all you've got?
QuoteSo regardless of the society, you would feel obligated to defend it? Are you suggesting that society trumps the individual, that the individual exists to serve society, regardless of the individual's personal morals or will?
Reguardless of the society , th social order fnds some means of self defense elese it ceaces.
That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.
Yes it does , it is needfull to a society to continue , all societys that have not continued are now gone. A society that assists individuals in the maintenience of their rights is a very good idea , but does it have to die young to do so?
Isn't Al Queda shrinking at a rate slightly greater than the rate we shoot them?
Is it? Last I heard the N.I.E. suggested that Al-Qaeda is not only growing but that the conflict in Iraq is a recruiting tool. Possibly things have changed, but I haven't seen anything to suggest it has.
Um yeah. First hand participation usually trumps riding the bench.
What do you have?
and in case you missed it there is no sarcasm intended.
I have a reasoning mind that requires more than "because I said so" style comments to be persuaded.
Apparently your reasoning mind can not come up with any conclusions that would counter my first hand observations.
And i am not here to persuade you. I am here to state my opinion and consider the opinions of others.
Nope . I am saying the reluctant bring a tempering to the military mindset, and not just to the enlisted ranks.
Your reasoned thinking seems to be inconsistent.
Apparently your dislike of loss of liberty is based on cause, duration, source and ease of shirking rather than principle.
I understad Jury duty as a very simular duty to military service , identical in principal.
Yes it is very diffrent n consequnces to the person , but the principal of the society haveing a right to demand the service that the society needs is he same.
I understand Jury duty as a very similar duty to military service , identical in principal.
Yes it is very diffrent n consequences to the person , but the principal of the society having a right to demand the service that the society needs is he same.
Neither jury duty or military conscription is about society demanding anything. In any case, the person called to jury duty can call on a multitude of reasons to not serve on a jury. There are not any reasons I know of to get out of military conscription. Even a conscientious objector gets put to work as I recall. Jury duty and military conscription are not the same.
Your reasoned thinking seems to be inconsistent.
Apparently your dislike of loss of liberty is based on cause, duration, source and ease of shirking rather than principle.
"Neither jury duty or military conscription is about society demanding anything."
I don't understand.
"In any case, the person called to jury duty can call on a multitude of reasons to not serve on a jury. "
As can someone who is being drafted , last I heard simply being Gay would not disqualify one from a Jury.
"There are not any reasons I know of to get out of military conscription."
Flat feet , low IQ, Tuberculosis , being Jehovah's Witness , being Gay etc...
" Jury duty and military conscription are not the same."
Difference in detail doesn't change the original principal being similar.
"Neither jury duty or military conscription is about society demanding anything."
I don't understand.
Let me put it this way, the letters don't come from society.
It appears that if your life is threatened, then you disagree, otherwise, as in jury duty, it is not. Interesting. By that reasoning, we wouldn't be the greatest nation on the face of the earth. There are times when your country needs you, regardless whether they ask you or force you, sometiems you jsut gotta get out of your couch and Serve.
It appears that if your life is threatened, then you disagree, otherwise, as in jury duty, it is not. Interesting. By that reasoning, we wouldn't be the greatest nation on the face of the earth. There are times when your country needs you, regardless whether they ask you or force you, sometiems you jsut gotta get out of your couch and Serve.
You quoted BT, but the content of your response seems directed at me. No, the main point of contention is not if my life is threatened. I will point out yet again that this is not about me. I'll also repeat to you something I said to BT. Not once have you seen me complain that I don't like conscription because I might then have to serve in the military. You haven't even seen me say anything regarding what I think about serving in the military. The main point of contention is conscription being the forcible removal of liberty from individuals. Jury duty doesn't do that, imo, so I have less of a problem with it.
Government is an instrument of our society.
I recall a long and unresoved discussion you and I had about how a nation is defined.
I said that a nation is defined by its people , not its government .
You seemed to be saying that a Nation is defined by its government , but now you are drawing the distinction the other way?
It appears that if your life is threatened, then you disagree, otherwise, as in jury duty, it is not. Interesting. By that reasoning, we wouldn't be the greatest nation on the face of the earth. There are times when your country needs you, regardless whether they ask you or force you, sometiems you jsut gotta get out of your couch and Serve.
You quoted BT, but the content of your response seems directed at me. No, the main point of contention is not if my life is threatened. I will point out yet again that this is not about me. I'll also repeat to you something I said to BT. Not once have you seen me complain that I don't like conscription because I might then have to serve in the military. You haven't even seen me say anything regarding what I think about serving in the military. The main point of contention is conscription being the forcible removal of liberty from individuals. Jury duty doesn't do that, imo, so I have less of a problem with it.
Government is an instrument of our society.
Is it? It should be, but is it really?
I recall a long and unresoved discussion you and I had about how a nation is defined.
I said that a nation is defined by its people , not its government .
You seemed to be saying that a Nation is defined by its government , but now you are drawing the distinction the other way?
I vaguely recall the conversation. I do not recall ever saying a nation is defined by its government. And I'm pretty sure I'm making about the same point as I would have made in that previous conversation, that the government is not society. I see no reason to conflate society and the government. The former will influence the latter, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
So, this "force" grates against your libertarian principles? I can intellectually understand that concept, but are not there sometimes issues that might trump that principle such as the survival of your country (in the extreme example)?
After all, what about Sergeant York in WWI?
He was a member of a strict fundamentalist which espoused a strict moral code which forbade drinking, dancing, movies, swimming, swearing, popular literature, and moral injunctions against violence and war. When we declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917, York received his draft notice. Though a would-be conscientious objector, drafted at age thirty, York in many ways typified the underprivileged, undereducated conscript who traveled to France to "keep the world safe for democracy." York is reported to have said to hisrelented to his company commander, G. Edward Buxton, that there are times when war is moral and ordained by God, and he agreed to fight.
Isn't this such an example, namely where one principle overrrides another?
Lets get more specific then.
What should our military be made of?
OK they are diffrent , which one is primary?
OK they are diffrent , which one is primary?
Individuals, which would be society. The government should exist to protect the rights of individuals, not the other way around.
The benefits of citizenship for most of us , most of the time, are worth the duty's that come with the benefits.
This consideration of our rights is moot if the goernment grows too weak to be their guardian .
An individuals rights are indeed the main rights and the rights of society shoud be secondary ,unless the individual needs the society to help him enjoy his rights and the society requires something done in order to exist and then protect his rights.
Unimportant reasons should never allow the government to infringe on our individual rights , when the issue rises to this level of importance should be decided by the people.
If the governmnt ever gets less taxes , sevice or whatever than it needs to exist we have to start over.
This consideration of our rights is moot if the goernment grows too weak to be their guardian .
The consideration of our rights is moot if the government is so authoritarian that it ignores them at its own discretion and desire.
That is why voteing is a duty , I consider an informed vote to be a duty tho I see a lot of shirking going on with that one.
We don't seem to be in any danger of that. The government should exist to protect the rights of the people. If we get to the point where the people exist to protect the government, we've put the cart before the horse.
The situation is a dyamic mutual dependance. The individual needs the government to have strength no less than the governent needs individual support.
Haveing one without the other is like haveing the cart and no horse.
That is why voteing is a duty , I consider an informed vote to be a duty tho I see a lot of shirking going on with that one.
The situation is a dyamic mutual dependance. The individual needs the government to have strength no less than the governent needs individual support.
Haveing one without the other is like haveing the cart and no horse.
| I heartily accept the motto,--"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. |
| But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it. |
| Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. |
An individual lives in his nation and has contract with that nation even if he doesn't understand it.
Someone who hates his nation , or someone who doesn't want to serve his nation because without hate he just consider it wrong, really needs to renounce that contract and his citizenship.
The benefits of citizenship for most of us , most of the time, are worth the duty's that come with the benefits.
For Americans the duty includes being available for the draft , jury duty and taxes.
I hate the taxes , but I pay them and fight their growth through the system , when my favorite candidates loose I accept the result as I wish my opponent would if my side had won.
Jury duty is miserable , but I have done it and probably will again , the operationof my society requires that this work be done and I honor the contract of my citizenship by reporting as required. People who don't register to vote seldom get called to jury duty , this strikes me as appropriate.
Military service seems like a simular duty to me , I volenteered because there was no draft at the time. I like our form of government and I beleive that the people who enjoy its citizenship have dutys to perform which meet the needs of the society we have to keep its government strong .
Of course one of the cheif advantages of our system of government is that it respects the rights of the individual to a great degree and can be improved to safeguard indvidual rights even better . This consideration of our rights is moot if the goernment grows too weak to be their guardian .
I disagree.
People born in this country are its citizens, and even noncompliance with draft, taxes and jury duty are choices.
You seem to want to cull the ranks, removing the undesirables, based on your own chitlist of merit.
Where have I heard that before?
Communism, fascism . . . but not Americanism.
No, he hasn't.
I haven't signed any social contract. Have you?
I would refuse to sign any such contract that would obligate me to fight in colonial adventurism, which is what Iraq is.
If you don't duty, all you have to do is show up for it and start passing out pamphlets you have had printed up from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA).
That, or you tell the judge "Your Honor, you can't unring a bell", when he asks if you can ignore testimony that one side has had objected to and that objection sustained.
Either of these works fine, and is entirely legal.
And no, I haven't done either.
I pay the government taxes. That is what I owe the government. I pay them diligently. Last year I paid the Feds over $5,000, the state 6.5% sales tax, and the county $875 property tax.
The government owes me police protection, street lights and pavement, among other things.
I have never agreed to fight in a colonial war, and I won't do it, either. If there is a contract saying that I must do this, I have never agreed to it.
I have paid into Social Security since I was 16, and I expect the government to pay me starting next year.
here you go , you are in a contract , you even like some of it.
When did any signiture exchange make the government owe you what it owes you?
===========================================================
Er, when I applied for my Social Security Card, I signed a form, and received a description of benefits.
When I applied for Medicare, I also was given a form to sign and received a description of benefits.
I once had a draft card, but I was forced to sign it under duress.
I secretly disposed of it long ago. Or maybe I burned it on my 45th birthday. I don't recall.