Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Military Draft Coming Back?

Rate this topic


Olex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Does it not follow that any war carried out at the expense of involuntary taxes is also a contradiction?

It does, but at present the United States is a Pragmatic mixed economy that is full of contradictions. Of course, this does not mean that it is immoral for the United States to presently embrace a foreign policy of rational self-interest, even if it must resort to using involuntary taxation for funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our troop levels are inadequate to the challenges we face.

If that were true...

What to do?

1. Nuke our enemies. This requires minimal manpower, but the collateral damage is horrendous.

or

2. Draft bodies into military service.

or

3. Draft our money (taxes) and pay soldiers more to join and fight.

...and these were our only options, then the choice would be obvious, which is I take it why you left it for the reader to select. Of course, it has taken a tremendous amount of manpower to develop the science behind it, to test it, to build and maintain the high-security facilities from where it operates, and so on ... but now that we have it, it indeed requires minimal manpower to use it. What are we waiting for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very clear contradiction -- you cannot protect reason at the cost of reason. How about "At any cost except that which we are trying to protect". Now, identify what you want to protect.
Yes. The cost I'm talking about is to our enemies.... killing all enemies of the state. Of course, we need to protect ourselves (our state). For example, the movie 300 had a draft and they were fighting as one. Everyone was a professional soldier. Isn't that a good thing? Of course, the economy will have to be a command economy for it to work. But such temporary concessions will have to be made to protect the national security.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. The cost I'm talking about is to our enemies.... killing all enemies of the state. Of course, we need to protect ourselves (our state).
Since the question is whether we should draft ourselves, the consideration of cost to the enemy is irrelevant. We have other threads where collateral damage is discussed: here, the question is whether we ourselves should destroy the basis of what we are trying to protect. Clearly we shouldn't. Clearly, involuntary servitude is exactly what we are trying to prevent.
For example, the movie 300 had a draft and they were fighting as one.
Uh, no. Maybe you saw a different version of the movie. The Spartans were volar all the way. You understand the difference betwen a band of forced, unwilling conscripts and a professional army, don't you? In fact, it was the army of Darius that depended on conscription.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the question is whether we should draft ourselves, the consideration of cost to the enemy is irrelevant. We have other threads where collateral damage is discussed: here, the question is whether we ourselves should destroy the basis of what we are trying to protect. Clearly we shouldn't. Clearly, involuntary servitude is exactly what we are trying to prevent.
Isn't the damage to the enemy (Islam) more important than the "damage" done by the state to the people? The people are just being protected by the government by drafting people into fighting for the national security against Islamic Totalitarianism. I don't see how this is contradictory to a rational policy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the question is whether we should draft ourselves, the consideration of cost to the enemy is irrelevant. We have other threads where collateral damage is discussed: here, the question is whether we ourselves should destroy the basis of what we are trying to protect. Clearly we shouldn't. Clearly, involuntary servitude is exactly what we are trying to prevent.Uh, no. Maybe you saw a different version of the movie. The Spartans were volar all the way. You understand the difference betwen a band of forced, unwilling conscripts and a professional army, don't you? In fact, it was the army of Darius that depended on conscription.

Yes and no. Spartan males were pressed into military service at the age of nine. They were trained to be warriors from the git-go by rather brutal means. Many young Spartan males died as a result of the rigorous military training. To be a Spartan WAS to be a warrior. That was the very essence of Spartan existence. The males fight and the women make babies, and the male babies who are not killed outright because of birth defects were potential future warriors.

The work of the society, growing food, sawing wood, gathering stones etc was done by -slaves-, the helots.

As to the voluntary nature of the 300 Spartans who went out to fight the Persians. The matter of fighting came up during a religious festival when it was forbidden to go to war. As a result any warriors who went out to fight contrary to the religious tradition did so voluntarily.

Under ordinary circumstance fighting was not voluntary. Males who were physically able went out to fight. Period. They did not volunteer.

Bob Kolker

With it or On it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the damage to the enemy (Islam) more important than the "damage" done by the state to the people? The people are just being protected by the government by drafting people into fighting for the national security against Islamic Totalitarianism. I don't see how this is contradictory to a rational policy.

The only rational basis on which to form a government is the recognition and protection of individual rights. A rational government does not enslave its own citizens.

You cannot save a state by destroying it -- by destroying its moral foundation.

If you can find no one to voluntarily defend a state is it really worth saving? Obviously the citizens wouldn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Kolker:I am not well read on Spartan history so I will not be able to argue some of the specifics you mention. However, weren't the Spartan warrior class able to leave Sparta at any time? If so, then they were volunteers.
Travel for the younger males was discouraged. The older males, too old for active service, sometimes went on state business. In any case the psychological pressure on young males (who survived their training) was intense. To shirk the fight was to be rejected by everyone they knew if not killed outright. Do you consider that voluntary?The Spartans were xenophobic. They feared being contaminated by outside influences. In many ways the Spartans were like the people in Stalinist Russia. Bob Kolker
The only rational basis on which to form a government is the recognition and protection of individual rights. A rational government does not enslave its own citizens.
Right. We do not draft young men anymore. We only draft (i.e. tax) the wages of citizens to pay for the armed forces. Your contributions to the armed forces are NOT voluntary. They are compelled by law. Think of taxation as the user friendly form of the draft.You and I serve the State from Jan 1 to about May 15. After that we are free.Bob Kolker Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travel for the younger males was discouraged.

So they could leave, thus they were free.

Right. We do not draft young men anymore. We only draft (i.e. tax) the wages of citizens to pay for the armed forces. Your contributions to the armed forces are NOT voluntary. They are compelled by law. Think of taxation as the user friendly form of the draft.You and I serve the State from Jan 1 to about May 15. After that we are free.

I agree that forcible taxation is a form of slavery and completely immoral, however we are here talking about the military draft.

How do you know that my contributions to the armed forces are not voluntary? Just as willing draftees of WWII were not slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they could leave, thus they were free.I agree that forcible taxation is a form of slavery and completely immoral, however we are here talking about the military draft. How do you know that my contributions to the armed forces are not voluntary? Just as willing draftees of WWII were not slaves.

I don't. But the way things are run, I have no idea of what you either volunteer or would volunteer if you were given the option. I do know that funding of the military takes place within a non-voluntary context. If we were given a box to mark on our income tax returns as to how much of our money we want to go to the military, you might have a point.Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only rational basis on which to form a government is the recognition and protection of individual rights. A rational government does not enslave its own citizens.
What do you mean by "rational basis". Why isn't a proper government (that drafts people who refuse honorable service) a rational one?

You cannot save a state by destroying it -- by destroying its moral foundation.

If you can find no one to voluntarily defend a state is it really worth saving? Obviously the citizens wouldn't think so.

Suppose that a state is "not worth saving", will the state agree with the people? Who really applies "morals" to the state? It has a monopoly on force and it has every opportunity (be it "moral" or "immoral") to guarantee its survival. Also, it is true after all that the state is meant to protect the people and naturally, the people have a solemn duty to protect their protectors. Also, there is every chance of the enemy (Islam) to penetrate the country and enslave the people. Which would be more desirable: an American government (be it a dictatorship) or an Islamic totaltarian regime, since these are the only two choices present to the free world as of today? The only solution is to physically eliminate all enemies of the state both at home and abroad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main reasons for having a draft is not because of the lack of available soldiers but because politicians (mostly democrats) believe that the military contains a disproportionate number of people with lower incomes.

I think everyone would agree that if the full potential of our voluntary armed forces was unleashed (that is by easing restrictions on the rules of engagement) there is no need for a draft.

Edited by The Guru Kid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Military officials should be able to use nuclear bombs to kill all the enemies of the state.

It was tried in August of 1945. Damn if it didn't work!

Think of what would have happened if the U.S. -invaded- Japan using conventional means. A million casualties at least. At least half of them dead. Think of millions of maimed and crippled Americans, with their limbs shot off or their lungs burned out from poison gas (which the Japanese actually did use on prisoners). The invasion of Japan would have been roughly equivalent to a dozen Normandy landings.

Anyone who sends in a man to do what a weapon or machine can do much better is criminally negligent.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was tried in August of 1945. Damn if it didn't work!
I agree. By killing every man, woman and child who is an enemy of a state or is under a state that is an enemy of our state, we would really be protecting reason and self-esteem. Nuclear weapons are good tools in the hands of politicians and the military-industrial complex.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. By killing every man, woman and child who is an enemy of a state or is under a state that is an enemy of our state, we would really be protecting reason and self-esteem. Nuclear weapons are good tools in the hands of politicians and the military-industrial complex.

When the war is on, the goal is to win it. Perhaps reason and self-esteem figure in, when deciding whether to go to war or not in the first place. The Japanese gave use a reason. The bombed Pearl Harbor. Our self-esteem individually and collectively required that we grind their faces into the mud. Which we did.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our self-esteem individually and collectively required that we grind their faces into the mud. Which we did.
Of course. Pearl Harbor was a good enough excuse. I am wondering why the US government does not similarly nuke the entire Arab and Islamic world, including Saudi (where the hijackers came from), killing everyone, because of the 9/11 attacks? The terrorists who committed the attacks were sponsored by private individuals and governments in the Islamic world. So, we (the state and the military) should nuke each town, village and city of these countries and all other countries and kill everyone. This is most essential to preserve the citizens' collective self-esteem and pride, as well as protecting our national security.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. Pearl Harbor was a good enough excuse. I am wondering why the US government does not similarly nuke the entire Arab and Islamic world, including Saudi (where the hijackers came from), killing everyone, because of the 9/11 attacks?

The fact that the 9/11 highjackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia does not necessarily mean that the Saudi governnment is somehow behind the attacks. (but see below.)

The terrorists who committed the attacks were sponsored by private individuals and governments in the Islamic world. So, we (the state and the military) should nuke each town, village and city of these countries and all other countries and kill everyone. This is most essential to preserve the citizens' collective self-esteem and pride, as well as protecting our national security.

I suspect you are not serious here.

I *do* think that the ability of the governments to wage war on us should have been eliminated by the best means possible. That does not require exterminating the entire populations of the countries. But a nuke on about three carefully chosen cities would probably do the job.

As for Iran, if they persist in enriching uranium I think we should help them out by delivering a fair number of large samples of enriched uranium, simultaneously, to each of the sites doing the work.

Saudi--although the Saudi government is not directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and for that matter any other terrorism, there is no doubt they have been doing everything they can to fund the spread of radical islam, and we should ask them to stop. Ask them very, very, vigorously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I suspect you are not serious here.

I *do* think that the ability of the governments to wage war on us should have been eliminated by the best means possible. That does not require exterminating the entire populations of the countries. But a nuke on about three carefully chosen cities would probably do the job

I am being serious here. The only way to control rogue countries is to kill ALL the people in it. If left to themselves, they will kill each other without a dictator. With a dictator, they will kill us. The best solution is to kill every man, woman and child in all countries. Leave none alive. Also execute those at home who oppose this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to control rogue countries is to kill ALL the people in it. If left to themselves, they will kill each other without a dictator. With a dictator, they will kill us. The best solution is to kill every man, woman and child in all countries. Leave none alive. Also execute those at home who oppose this.

So since I oppose your idea you advocate my execution? Disgusting.

Moderators: have we heard enough from this troll yet? I should think that what he has said in this thread alone is grounds for banning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

In slightly related news, the United States State Department will be drafting diplomats to serve in the U.S. embassy in Iraq, as there is an unsurprisingly drastic shortage of volunteers. This sounds pretty bad. My dreadful prediction is that the next major Islamic terrorist attack on the United States will be on that massive embassy complex that is being constructed in Iraq.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...