Of course it is. One of the purposes of a society is to band together for mutual self protection.
There's no contradiction there; what are you talking about?
Who said anything about anybody's Right to life? Did you Quote the wrong Post or something?
is it a good ideal to bring back the draft?
- Thread starter drychlick
- Start date
Rii
Rear Admiral
A society that would make slaves of its citizens is not civilised.
Who said anything about anybody's Right to life? Did you Quote the wrong Post or something?
The purpose of the draft is to force citizens to kill and be killed in service of the state. Such an imposition is not within the legitimate purview of any external authority.
If not enough members of that society care enough about it to fight for it, then it doesn't deserve to survive. I'm speaking strictly in terms of a defensive war, of course.
Thanks to the revolution in electronics and communication people are more aware of the global situation and how it actually translates into a threat against their person or borders now than ever.
Besides the whole argument of individual rights, the draft is a bad idea simply because people would not respect it. I think without the imminent threat of actual invasion most people would rather risk jail than go fight abroad. For the most part you'd need to be putting a gun to their heads to get them to fight. I know I certainly wouldn't fight unless my home and family were under a genuine threat of destruction.
Besides the whole argument of individual rights, the draft is a bad idea simply because people would not respect it. I think without the imminent threat of actual invasion most people would rather risk jail than go fight abroad. For the most part you'd need to be putting a gun to their heads to get them to fight. I know I certainly wouldn't fight unless my home and family were under a genuine threat of destruction.
Your 13th amendment argument fails I believe because they are being fairly compensated for their service.
The 14th amendment argument fails because maintaining a fighting force is substantially related to the important government purpose of protecting the US government, the constitution and its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. Plus, it doesn't apply to the fed gov only the 5th amendment does that.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Fear mongering? Um, I think when these subhumans fly planes into buildings it can be a bit concerning.
And what's wrong with honoring our veterans?
I do agree that we don't need the draft at this point. We should just completely pave over the entire Tora Bora region and be done with it.
Because nothing so clearly condemns the massacre of innocents as the massacre of a bunch MORE innocents, right?
People live in the Tora Bora region, and 99% of them had nothing to do with 9/11.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
They make a left!
God, you people are pussies. I had to spend an entire year being a fucking crossing guard (I'm not kidding!) because I didn't want to join the army after high school.
Believe me, going to Afghanistan is a walk in the park compared to that.
Why can't we ever just go straight on?
God, you people are pussies. I had to spend an entire year being a fucking crossing guard (I'm not kidding!) because I didn't want to join the army after high school.
Believe me, going to Afghanistan is a walk in the park compared to that.
I see the crossing guards and trust me, Id rather be in the sand box than have that job
I'm afraid I can accept no compromises here. Forced military conscription is legalized slavery that has its basis in the worst kind of uncivilized thinking, the thinking that young men exist only to be sacrificed in service of others, and that their highest purpose is to submit to a sense of "duty" that disregards their freedom, health, safety, comfort and lives as unimportant. The practice, and the thinking/ideologies that drive it, have been responsible for the appalling suffering, trauma, injury and death of millions of my brothers and sons over the course of our history. More than that, the ideology that there is glory, honour and dignity in military service, combined with an understanding of the disposibility and expendable nature of young adult males (which is rooted in biology) has led to continual warfare among humans for millennia. We must overcome these primitive means of relating to ourselves and our young males in particular. A society that views its young men first and foremost as a resource for war will find a way to wage that war, to the ruination of itself and its neighbours. You should be viewing your brothers and sons as your fellow sapients in need of care, not as a barrier between you and harm. You- we- are all in it together. Throwing your sons- or anyone- in frount of you as a shield is a mode of behaviour no nation can now afford.
On the personal level, seeing as I am among those who, if I lived in such a nation, would be drafted: why would I wish to fight for a society which viewed me as a slave, or viewed my son as a slave? The future of my people and society, and my purpose in life, lies with my future children. Why would I fight for a country that sees my son not as anything precious or important but rather as cannon fodder? Once you break out of the thinking imposed upon our race for millennia- the lie that there is some inherent dignity in being a warrior, a lie designed to justify and legitimate the social role of young men as soldiers- then there is no logic to a draft. It merely damages the cohesion of your society.
True strength comes from unity, from alliance, from caring for and loving and aiding others. Not from imposing on a certain group of people and saying "You. Go and fight for me. It is your duty".
I would, if it were necessary, fight to defend a free society that would guarantee my children's protection throughout life, and recognized my own sacred right to life and worth. It would cause me incredible psychological/spiritual damage to have to be engaged in violence or acts engineered in the name of violence, but if my free society were facing invasion, it must be done. Not because it's dignified, or "my duty" but because I assign value to a society that assigns value to me, and I will act to preserve it. However, I would never fight for any society that would force me to do so. That society does not assign value to me, thus I see no reason to asign value to it. I decide when I pick up a weapon. I decide what is and is not worth me fighting and sacrificing for. I put a value on my life and safety in relation to other concerns. Not a government, not some "traditional" ideology or shared consciousness imposed through centuries of nationalistic propaganda.
As a young man, and almost certain to be drafted if a draft were initiated in my country, I can only say this to those who would support such a thing: My life is precious. I am not a thing put on this Earth to serve you or (if "you" are yourself a young man) to have your self-concept applied to me. You have no business trying to tell me what I should be willing to sacrifice and suffer for your benefit.
It upsets me greatly how many people still refuse to grasp this.
On the personal level, seeing as I am among those who, if I lived in such a nation, would be drafted: why would I wish to fight for a society which viewed me as a slave, or viewed my son as a slave? The future of my people and society, and my purpose in life, lies with my future children. Why would I fight for a country that sees my son not as anything precious or important but rather as cannon fodder? Once you break out of the thinking imposed upon our race for millennia- the lie that there is some inherent dignity in being a warrior, a lie designed to justify and legitimate the social role of young men as soldiers- then there is no logic to a draft. It merely damages the cohesion of your society.
True strength comes from unity, from alliance, from caring for and loving and aiding others. Not from imposing on a certain group of people and saying "You. Go and fight for me. It is your duty".
I would, if it were necessary, fight to defend a free society that would guarantee my children's protection throughout life, and recognized my own sacred right to life and worth. It would cause me incredible psychological/spiritual damage to have to be engaged in violence or acts engineered in the name of violence, but if my free society were facing invasion, it must be done. Not because it's dignified, or "my duty" but because I assign value to a society that assigns value to me, and I will act to preserve it. However, I would never fight for any society that would force me to do so. That society does not assign value to me, thus I see no reason to asign value to it. I decide when I pick up a weapon. I decide what is and is not worth me fighting and sacrificing for. I put a value on my life and safety in relation to other concerns. Not a government, not some "traditional" ideology or shared consciousness imposed through centuries of nationalistic propaganda.
As a young man, and almost certain to be drafted if a draft were initiated in my country, I can only say this to those who would support such a thing: My life is precious. I am not a thing put on this Earth to serve you or (if "you" are yourself a young man) to have your self-concept applied to me. You have no business trying to tell me what I should be willing to sacrifice and suffer for your benefit.
It upsets me greatly how many people still refuse to grasp this.
Last edited:
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
Slave soldiers seem bad on paper, but Jannisaries and Mamluks started out as slaves and became legends. (Of course, being indoctrinated from youth had a lot to do with that.)
Also, as to the quality of a drafted army, Israel requires men and women to serve in the IDF, and their armed forces seem competent (whether you agree with their deployments or not).
Not that I support such a move. Seems to me, the bigger the army, the more temptation to use it. AND CANADA LOOKS MIGHTY TEMPTING.
Also, as to the quality of a drafted army, Israel requires men and women to serve in the IDF, and their armed forces seem competent (whether you agree with their deployments or not).
Not that I support such a move. Seems to me, the bigger the army, the more temptation to use it. AND CANADA LOOKS MIGHTY TEMPTING.
Last edited:
True. Good thing we outlawed that a hundred and forty plus years ago.
Of course a society has a right to defend itself. That's just silly.
Again, you can carry this nonsense to ridiculous extremes. If not enough people care to pay taxes, if not enough people care to vote, if not enough people care to obey traffic laws et cetera. By your logic we should just do away with all laws and see if enough people "care enough" to maintain society.
That was the attitude of the 1930s-Era Right Wing. As a result, the United States' entry into WWII was delayed several years and more than six million people died that may have been saved.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Because nothing so clearly condemns the massacre of innocents as the massacre of a bunch MORE innocents, right?
People live in the Tora Bora region, and 99% of them had nothing to do with 9/11.
Obviously you missed the part where they're "sub-human", i.e. Muslim, or, perhaps, simply not American.
It is not. Slavery is "the state of being a slave" or "the practice or system of owning slaves." A slave, in turn, is either "a person who is the legal property of another" or "a person who works very hard without proper renumeration or appreciation." Neither of those describes a conscripted soldier.
There is a case to be made against a social contract which includes conscription (though I disagree with it), but this particular argument is definitionally untrue.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Society is an abstraction, it has zero rights outside those attendant its constituent citizens. In violating the fundamental rights of its citizens - rights which are recognised by society, not granted - the government has abrogated any and all claim to legitimate authority. The only reasons not to oppose the institutional and individual instruments of such injustice with lethal force are pragmatic.
Fair enough. But, the distinction is semantic. Not that I'm disagreeing with your statement of linguistic fact, but morally it is no different. To me, having your freedom taken from you without criminal charges having been leveled and being put to work doing disagreeable and dangerous tasks is slavery. Legally, semantically, maybe not, but it is really the same thing, whether we choose to define it officially as such or not.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
Doesn't some countries have mandatory military service like Finland?
Similar threads
