Det. Bart Lasiter Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Those are all pure political ideals. What WE have, are completely different mongrel systems of governance.I'd call what "we" have a plutocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 If it was part of the national culture, things like scholarships would be held for that person til s/he got done with the service. Are you implying that this draft should only be people around college age? Or the service could be deferred til after school, which would be to the country's advantage in some cases-- having licensed paramedics, nurses, doctors, lawyers, CPAs, etc., doing their service after they finish school would benefit them (with extra experience) and the country (who would have a variety of professionals serving besides the 18 year olds--they need the med and legal pros). Why not just let them do their jobs themselves? If someone graduates from college as a doctor, chances are they're going to work as a doctor. The idea that people would benefit from forced labor I'm skeptical of. It's hard to get a good experience out of something when you're doing it against your will. Anyone not wanting to serve in the military because of objector status could do work stateside, say in public health clinics, legal aid, etc., etc., etc.... And if you just don't want the country to be an American-Communist hybrid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Slave? It's your decision whether to be a moral man or an amoral man. Nobody can compel you to be moral, so slavery is hardly a suitable analogy. You either decide to be moral and accept the responsibilities that go with morality, or you decide to be totally self-interested and therefore amoral. Either way, the burden you carry is self-imposed. I've got plenty of morals, I take responsibility for my own actions and don't expect everyone else to take care of me, whats more moral then that? I'd call what "we" have a plutocracy. More contempt for the Ivy league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTexasPirate! Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 They can very well go and pay their own way like I have, yet they refuse to and and attempt to win the sympathy of those who are not incompetent. The fact they I am successful doesn't make me a slave to those who are not. There are many compitent, and employable people on welfare, that are the drain on our SSI and that is the reason that it is going bankrupt before I am going to be able to collect any of the money I have been putting into it for the last 20 years. I think that had there been compulsory millitary service, there would be less of this burden on our society, that there is today. I think the Draft will be a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Originally Posted by jmac7142: I'd call what "we" have a plutocracy. Elitist oligarchy, Plutocracy, call it what you will. It's not capitalist, and it's definitely not democratic. At best the US can be called "state capitalist" which is extremely far from the pure form. (edit) Originally Posted by Samnmax221: I've got plenty of morals, I take responsibility for my own actions and don't expect everyone else to take care of me, whats more moral then that? Even if you've never partaken of national healthcare or the welfare state yourself, a moral man would wish to provide help to others regardless of whether he HAD been helped in the past, or whether he might need help in the future. The moral man doesn't require payment for fulfilling his own civic responsibilities. Secondly another point is that your opportunity to "make your way" and "succeed" was provided by a society based upon the moral spirit of co-operation. Without society as a whole, your "success" would have been that much more difficult to come by. (/edit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Elitist oligarchy, Plutocracy, call it what you will. It's not capitalist, and it's definitely not democratic. At best the US can be called "state capitalist" which is extremely far from the pure form. Still the freest country on the face of the planet but still not free enough yet. Examples: Incomes Taxes Affirmative Action Tariffs Smoking Bans Abolition of Drugs Bans on Stem Cell Research State Abortion Bans ETC.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 that would suck. not for me, but for all those that don't want in. esp those with undiagnosed conditions such as A.D.D., bipolar, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 We cannot kill people without consequence. What a huge encroachment on our freedoms. There's a big list of people I want dead, we should have the right to kill whoever we want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu Chi Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 There's a big list of people I want dead, we should have the right to kill whoever we want. Now, this is where I can agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTexasPirate! Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 We cannot kill people without consequence. What a huge encroachment on our freedoms. There's a big list of people I want dead, we should have the right to kill whoever we want. Yes that would be a nice right, but there is always the fact that you could be on someones list as well then it wouldnt be such a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I'm willingly joining the Air Guard to pay for my College, if I was being forced to serve my country it would be an entirely different manner. Any Country that will force me to serve is not a country I would want to serve, I am nobodies slave and will not subordinate my goals to the goals of the country.Uh, if you're willingly joining the Air Guard to pay for your college tuition, you're also volunteering to serve your country. That's the whole reason why they're willing to pay for your schooling, remember? If their money's good enough for you, so are their service requirements. Especially as you turn around and say things like this: I'm simply saying a Night watchman State would be much fairer then the **** that goes on now. I'm sick of having to pay for everyone else's Health care, and into a Social Security pool that will go bankrupt by the time I'm 30. I'm sick of the notion that I was born owing anyone else in this world anything, but now it is common to hear people talk about how "We're all in this together whether we like it or not".But everyone else's taxes can pay for your education though, right? Health care and social security are funded from the same source as the military: everyone's taxes. You decry having to pay anything to fund those "incompetent" people who can't make their own way, but you're quite happy to suck at the same public purse when it suits you. Why would you need to do that if you're such a "successful" guy? Just a teensy bit hypocritical. I think it should be like in Israel--everyone should serve their country in some capacity for a year or two, peace or war. Obviously there'd have to be exemptions for something like medical problems. I like the idea of conscientious objectors having the option to do community service, like they have in Germany.Israel's strategic situation in no way resembles the US. It's a vastly smaller country surrounded on all sides by enemies, and has been more or less under constant attack from outside and from within since its formation. The US has no such pressures and a much larger military, so the only reason they would even consider conscription in this day and age is just the sheer incompetent misuse and poor deployment of said military. There are many compitent, and employable people on welfare, that are the drain on our SSI and that is the reason that it is going bankrupt before I am going to be able to collect any of the money I have been putting into it for the last 20 years. I think that had there been compulsory millitary service, there would be less of this burden on our society, that there is today. I think the Draft will be a good idea. And how exactly would spending more money training, equipping and paying all those people as soldiers be less of a drain than welfare? I do believe that military personnel also get pretty good health care deals, far better than your average stiff on social assistance (correct me if I'm wrong, Jae). The current welfare state costs taxpayers far less money than would enlarging the military to absorb it. We cannot kill people without consequence. What a huge encroachment on our freedoms. There's a big list of people I want dead, we should have the right to kill whoever we want.I'm in a good mood, so I'm going to assume that this was a misguided attempt at humour or irony, rather than the most retarded thing I've read all week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I think it should be like in Israel--everyone should serve their country in some capacity for a year or two, peace or war. Obviously there'd have to be exemptions for something like medical problems. I like the idea of conscientious objectors having the option to do community service, like they have in Germany.In addition, in Israel they've actually gotten their sorry butts around to draft women as well as men. Good people. I disagree with this whole "the draft is a violation of my freedom"-deal, but I do have something against the jailing of people who refuse to participate. Prison for political ideology doesn't smell good to me. Conscription is the tool of Stalin's and the Hitler's, it should have no place in country such as ours. Hitler also had a dog. I say we ban all canines. I'm simply saying a Night watchman State would be much fairer then the **** that goes on now. I'm sick of having to pay for everyone else's Health care, and into a Social Security pool that will go bankrupt by the time I'm 30 [...]Yadda, yadda, yadda. Take it to the "Why Socialism is Evil and All Bums Are Lazy" thread. And if you just don't want the country to be an American-Communist hybrid?It'd be nice if you stopped pulling the Communism/Hitler cards. Seriously, it's getting annoying. I'm in a good mood, so I'm going to assume that this was a misguided attempt at humour or irony, rather than the most retarded thing I've read all week.Bet you anything it was sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Reign Posted November 25, 2006 Author Share Posted November 25, 2006 I thought the drafting age was from 18 to 25. The lottery draft starts at the age of 20, and then they proceed to 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. Only as needed. Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 ^^^That's if they institute a draft at all, which I seriously doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle: I disagree with this whole "the draft is a violation of my freedom"-deal, Care to elaborate on your reasoning here? I see no logical nor moral reason for approving of conscription. (edit) Originally Posted by Samnmax221: Still the freest country on the face of the planet but still not free enough yet. Examples: Incomes Taxes Affirmative Action Tariffs Smoking Bans Abolition of Drugs Bans on Stem Cell Research State Abortion Bans ETC.... The US certainly has more freedom for its citizens than some countries do, but I wouldn't be too quick to regurgitate the oft-repeated axiom "the US is the most free country in the world" if I were you. When calculating "freedom", one must assess the impact that the populous has on the electoral system, how much impact the public has on policy, etcetera etcetera. The US doesn't score very highly on these points. In fact, some quite poor, relatively underpriveliged nations have exhibited more democratic electoral practices than the US and the UK. Add to this the fact that the US public is lied to by their rulers on a daily basis, and one must come to the conclusion that it's not all that free as a society. As for smoking bans in public places... your right to wave your arm around ends at the tip of my nose. You can do what you like as long as it doesn't affect me adversely. Passive smoking affects people so smoking bans are the only moral solution. I agree on... yes, all your other bullet points. Even your point on income tax, as taxation as it currently stands is an inefficient way of getting the rich to live up to their responsibilities. Much more efficient taxes could be brought to bear. (/edit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo_92 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Draft??!! As unlikly as me getting nominated for President. I'll edit later, my breakfeast is getting cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I think it should be like in Israel--everyone should serve their country in some capacity for a year or two, peace or war. Obviously there'd have to be exemptions for something like medical problems. I like the idea of conscientious objectors having the option to do community service, like they have in Germany. That's why Israel cannot be considered a free country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I'm in a good mood, so I'm going to assume that this was a misguided attempt at humour or irony, rather than the most retarded thing I've read all week. As DE pointed out it was sarcasm. There are reasons we have laws against killing, obvious ones, like, oh, I dunno, to prevent me from hiring a couple of hitmen and turning someone in America into a big wet spot. But because we have that safeguard in place we lose a degree of freedom. I think just about everyone would be able to live with that, lest chance dieing to have no laws, ultimate freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 As DE pointed out it was sarcasm. There are reasons we have laws against killing, obvious ones, like, oh, I dunno, to prevent me from hiring a couple of hitmen and turning someone in America into a big wet spot. But because we have that safeguard in place we lose a degree of freedom. I think just about everyone would be able to live with that, lest chance dieing to have no laws, ultimate freedom.The questionable part of a draft is that there is no pressing need for one. What exactly would we be giving up our freedom for? People being more patriotic? People doing community service? I think our military is far too effective for a draft to be justified for that need. Besides, the people being drafted would NOT be the ones voting for the draft. I'd think it'd be safe to say that mostly people older than the 42 or whatever it is would vote for it. I daresay they wouldn't want to put down their job at the law firm for a couple of years, and yay! They wouldn't have to. Sounds real fair to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I was discussing freedom here, not the draft, but on that topic, no I don't believe in compulsary enlistment into national service, no way. When do we vote, on the 3rd of November 2008? Well if, going by the large victory the Democrats had that might be change to when, there isn't a Republican in office you can pretty much guarentee the troops will be brought home on the 4th, if they're not trying to do so through the senate right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Reign Posted November 25, 2006 Author Share Posted November 25, 2006 I was told that the Draft maybe instated to prevent World War 3. I guess an unstable Iraq will create a massive regional war in the Middle-East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu Chi Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I was told that the Draft maybe instated to prevent World War 3. I guess an unstable Iraq will create a massive regional war in the Middle-East.:lol:If World War III is inevitable it don't matter, if a damn draft is reinstated. Also, no one is going to win that war, all our asses will be grass. So, a draft to prevent WWIII is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 ^^^Off the top of my head, I don't recall many modern instances of conscription used to prevent wars but rather it's used in response to a war when the military needs to shore up its numbers. I really can't see the US needing to do this unless there's another war brewing somewhere and they need mass amounts of RPG fodder lying around. Conscript armies are never as reliable or motivated as professional volunteer armies anyway. That's why Israel cannot be considered a free country.This I do take issue with. Sometimes the price of freedom is having to fight for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Man Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Everyone, repeat after me: There is no plan for a draft. This is just more fear mongering by people who are trying to turn public sentiment against the Administration. @Samnmax: The last draft was during the Nixon administration, almost 10 years before Reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Everyone, repeat after me: There is no plan for a draft. Gladly, although the main subject of debate here is whether drafts are acceptable or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.