And what is more, check these lines out from the same source:
And finally, dropping a hammer:
Wow. Apparently, defending individual rights is OK, but only if you agree with breaking those same rights that you are defending by forcing people to give their life away.
Democrats are back and they are not kidding around.
Our troop levels are inadequate to the challenges we face. What to do?
Nuke our enemies. This requires minimal manpower, but the collateral damage is horrendous.
or
Draft bodies into military service.
or
Draft our money (taxes) and pay soldiers more to join and fight.
I support staying united as one people, killing the enemies of the state and protecting reason, self esteem and national security at any cost.
Staying united as one people? Okay, Mr. Toohey.
You cannot protect reason when you become an irrational beast. No man should ever be forced to defend anything he does not choose to defend. That is completely contrary to what this nation was founded upon. It’s slavery in the worst way.
Protecting at any cost? You sound like you want to sacrifice every value you have, to sacrifice the individual, to the state. Is this true? In that case, you are no better than the enemy you claim to be fighting against
I support staying united as one people, killing the enemies of the state and "protecting reason, self esteem and national security at any cost.
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.
It is a contradiction to protect the country by a military draft because that is a violation of individual rights–the very thing we are trying to protect.
Does it not follow that any war carried out at the expense of involuntary taxes is also a contradiction?
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.
Our troop levels are inadequate to the challenges we face.
If that were true…
What to do?
Nuke our enemies. This requires minimal manpower, but the collateral damage is horrendous.
or
Draft bodies into military service.
or
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Spartans were volar all the way. [emphasis added]
I understand and agree with your post entirely. However I am stuck on this word. Do you have a better dictionary than me? Or is this a metaphor comparing freedom with flight?
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
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.
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
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.