Start the draft, or get out

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Plane]

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.

Lets get more specific then.

What should our military be made of?

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Mr_Perceptive]

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.

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?

[Plane]

Government is an instrument of our society.

Is it? It should be, but is it really?

It indeed should be , and that is enough to make my point.

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.

OK they are diffrent , which one is primary?

[Universe Prince]

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?

Thank you for that.

Depending on how one looks at a situation, yes, some principles can be said to override others. Someone with a principle of non-violence may fight in self-defense. Now you can either see that as the principle of self-defense overriding the principle of non-violence, or you can see it as a principle of non-initiation of violence against another.

Are there issues that trump libertarian principles? Perhaps. Maybe this is one. I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong. That said, from my perspective, certain principles and ideas are fundamental. One of those is the the rights of the individual. In my opinion rights precede government and should therefore not be something the government picks and chooses when to respect. Another principle or idea would be that government should rule with the consent of the governed. If the government can conscript people any time it chooses, then where is the consent of the governed? Another fundamental and one of the most important rights is the liberty to exercise one's rights. If that can be trumped by the government's desire for conscription, then it isn't a right, merely a privilege granted by government. That certainly can be argued, but I don't happen to agree with it.

Are there times when war is moral, and good men should be willing to go and fight? Yes, I think so. Does that give the government authority to decide for others what is and is not a moral war and when they should take up arms and fight? No, I think it does not. Does that mean I would not serve if called in a draft? No, it does not. Unless I had some truly severe moral objections about a conflict, I would probably consent to being conscripted because my moral/religious beliefs tell me to submit to the government authority even if I think the government is wrong.

[Universe Prince]

Lets get more specific then.

What should our military be made of?

Snips and snails and puppy-dog tails.

Now you want me to determine the proper make up of the military? I guess I thought my preference for a volunteer military would have been obvious. What more are you looking for?

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Plane]

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 .

[Plane]

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.

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.

[Universe Prince]

The benefits of citizenship for most of us , most of the time, are worth the duty's that come with the benefits.

No one is arguing against you making that choice. No one is arguing against military service or serving on a jury or (in this thread at least) even taxes.

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

Close, but no. The rights of the individual are the rights of society because society is itself a group of individuals. Therefore the rights of society do not trump the rights of the individual.

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.

Are you arguing for direct democracy? You appear to be.

If the governmnt ever gets less taxes , sevice or whatever than it needs to exist we have to start over.

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.

[Plane]

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.

[Plane]

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

Well some would argue that voting for one of a set of authoritarian candidates is not going to do much stop the government from becoming more authoritarian.

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.

There are those who would argue that the government is less cart and more hobble. I would argue that we don't need government, but having one can serve a purpose. To quote Henry David Thoreau:

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.