NationStates Jolt Archive

I ask that you support the Anti-Conscription act. Conscription is a barbaric practice that requires people (often males in their twenties) to serve in a force that may violate their beliefs. The Anti-Conscription act would end this practice. The military may be for some people, but it's up to the people themselves, and not the government to decide this for themselves.


peace and love,
Mandie
Princess of Inya

The draft may be for some nations, but it's up to the nations themselves, and not the UN to decide this for themselves.

~The Great Thesisme

Sorry Princess but this is a decision that should be made at the national level not at the UN level.

Conscription is allready in violation of many of the principles of human dignity and rights; including but not limited to the rights to: life, freedom of expression, liberty, pursuit of happiness, bodily integrity and freedom of religious belief. Quite how such violations are not the UN's buisness is beyond me, but please explain.

Have a nice day

Well I'm sure some people didn't bother reading all the choses they had when answering the questions that determine what your nation will be like at the start of the game. One of those being "compulsory military service" which kind of puts it out of the UN's hands, also lets not forget that this is a means for some nations to built up a defense against foreign invasion and some nations use it to teach dicipline and a few other life sills to there citizens. The UN is already unpopulor with the moderate and conservative nations so it would be wise to leave this issue be unless you don't mind alienating them further.

If a nation wants to introduce Liberal pansy feel good legislature in thier own country they should be able to do it. Its just that they shouldn't come whining to the rest of the world when they become involved in a major war or invasion.

Its Issues Like These that have encouraged me NOT to join the UN. My nation has mandatory National Service, and I have no intention of changing that (ever).

Remember Kiddies - even your much vaunted Socialist Utopia - Germany - has compulsory National Service . . .

We are against Automatic Conscription, (Having to Join the army, at a certain age, even when in Peace time) But we do beleive that if it ever came to it, we would begin conscription.

We have been in 2 Wars since the Birth of Great Boogie, but we never began conscription, because it fortunatly never got to that point, The Amount of people joining the army was sufficient Before, and at the time of War.

While we understand the motives behind this proposal, we believe that making the choice whether or not to enforce conscription is down to the nation and should not be forced upon us.
Krenshkov supports conscription as it allows us to build up a defense force big enough to protect our civilisation. It also teaches our people patriotism and comradeship and a sense of duty to their country which has, thus far, resulted in a pleasingly low crime rate.

Krenshkov would, under no circumstances, support this proposal.

Well I'm sure some people didn't bother reading all the choses they had when answering the questions that determine what your nation will be like at the start of the game. One of those being "compulsory military service" which kind of puts it out of the UN's hands, also lets not forget that this is a means for some nations to built up a defense against foreign invasion and some nations use it to teach dicipline and a few other life sills to there citizens. The UN is already unpopulor with the moderate and conservative nations so it would be wise to leave this issue be unless you don't mind alienating them further.

I doubt the moderates feel alienated. And as for the Cons... I say alienate away.

I think in cases of invasion or other threats to the vital national interest, a draft may be the only way to portect the nation.

I ask that you support the Anti-Conscription act. Conscription is a barbaric practice that requires people (often males in their twenties) to serve in a force that may violate their beliefs. The Anti-Conscription act would end this practice. The military may be for some people, but it's up to the people themselves, and not the government to decide this for themselves.

peace and love,
Mandie
Princess of Inya

I agree completely. No government that enslaves its own citizens for its own purpose has a RIGHT to exist. Especailly not in today's world, where numbers don't really matter nearly as much as training, technology, and morale. In Iraq for example, the all-volunteer American army exacted a 500-1 kill ratio against the mostly-conscripted Iraqi army.

And this MUST be done on the International level, as unilateral abolition of the draft works in much the same way unilateral disarmament does.

Conscription is a horrible atrocity completely unworthy of civilized nations. It is the ultimate insult against individualism and against liberty.

...resulted in a pleasingly low crime rate...

By making government the criminal.

Nazi Germany had a really low crime rate too.

Well I'm sure some people didn't bother reading all the choses they had when answering the questions that determine what your nation will be like at the start of the game. One of those being "compulsory military service" which kind of puts it out of the UN's hands, also lets not forget that this is a means for some nations to built up a defense against foreign invasion and some nations use it to teach dicipline and a few other life sills to there citizens. The UN is already unpopulor with the moderate and conservative nations so it would be wise to leave this issue be unless you don't mind alienating them further.

As I said before a nation that will enslave its own citizens, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE EXIST. It should be overrun, it's government dissolved, and the coordinators of the draft shot for war crimes. Okay, maybe not that extreme, but you get the point. Drafting people to "teach them discipline" is also totally unacceptable. What if I forced you to be my slave and said that it was teaching you discipline? ANYONE who supports teh draft but is opposed to slavery as practiced in the Nazi concentration camps or the American South before the Civil War is a statist hypocrite.

Conscription educates all citizens of a nation in the basic skills needed in case of war on home soil. A secure nation is a prepared one.

Conscription educates all citizens of a nation in the basic skills needed in case of war on home soil. A secure nation is a prepared one.

A nation that uses conscription is a dictatorship. It has no right to exist.

"He who is willing to sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety will recieve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

I think the liberty NOT to be forced to join the army is pretty essential. And the safety you get from the draft only lasts until the other guy develops a better ICBM.

We are prepared to sacrifice "liberty" permanently so we can focus more on our near fanatic drive to expand, create, and dominate. Safety is also low on our list of priorities. But it is comforting to know that should some warmongerer invade our peaceful nation, little Suzy and little Billy will be able to put on their gas masks before they die of inhalation, and have as good a chance at shooting the enemy as the enemy has of shooting them. Oh, and in our collective national opinion, BF was a quack.

We are prepared to sacrifice "liberty" permanently so we can focus more on our near fanatic drive to expand, create, and dominate. Safety is also low on our list of priorities. But it is comforting to know that should some warmongerer invade our peaceful nation, little Suzy and little Billy will be able to put on their gas masks before they die of inhalation, and have as good a chance at shooting the enemy as the enemy has of shooting them. Oh, and in our collective national opinion, BF was a quack.

Of course the biggest army in the world won't do anything when the other guy has nuclear ICBMs...

Take it easy, we've only got a population of like 6 million right now. We'll get all those fun toys eventually (for defense purposes, of course...).

Take it easy, we've only got a population of like 6 million right now. We'll get all those fun toys eventually (for defense purposes, of course...).

We stockpile large amounts of WMDs as a viable alternative to maintaining a much more expensive large conventional army. Our army is only about 3-million-strong (this is only 0.25% of our population, which is actually very tiny) and uses a small budget equal to 0.6% of our GDP.

"The Free Land of Slagkattunger employs conscription; every individual male or female does 4 years of military training once they finish high school. This provides the nation with a large source of trained personnel, as well as providing a comming of age trial for these young adults. As a result of all our citizens knowing basic defence techniques we can afford to maintain a much smaller military, furthermore we get less calls for military action from the people against other nations as they all know what such action entails.

Because we benifit so much from conscription we will always vote no against any proposals that call for its ban. If the people of Slagkattunger didn't want this for our nation they would of voted in someone to remove it from our law books."

ooc:- As for nuclear ICBMs.....well my nation has developed (and posted) technology to counter that, further more my nation doesn't own any WMD as they see no justification for owning such items.

http://www.users.on.net/killerkoala/skambass.JPG
Ambassador Jade Purrlinda
The Free Land of Slagkattungerhttp://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif
Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.
Email:- Slagkattunger@hotmail.com
Slagkattunger Nation Profile (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=78165)
My Nations GDP (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Slagkattunger)
Covered by DRI (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83705)

"The Free Land of Slagkattunger employs conscription; every individual male or female does 4 years of military training once they finish high school. This provides the nation with a large source of trained personnel, as well as providing a comming of age trial for these young adults. As a result of all our citizens knowing basic defence techniques we can afford to maintain a much smaller military, furthermore we get less calls for military action from the people against other nations as they all know what such action entails.

Because we benifit so much from conscription we will always vote no against any proposals that call for its ban. If the people of Slagkattunger didn't want this for our nation they would of voted in someone to remove it from our law books."

ooc:- As for nuclear ICBMs.....well my nation has developed (and posted) technology to counter that, further more my nation doesn't own any WMD as they see no justification for owning such items.



You see no justification for developing weapons to discourage war... yet you do see a justification for enslaving your own citizens?

Here's a quote I think you should all be aware of, pertaining to the draft.
War is hell,
Life is sin,
As younger men die in wars,
That older men begin.

That's my opinion.

And now women too.

In fact, my opinion goes deeper.
All in favor of fighting, fight. All those not, don't. Where's the flaw in that? Nobody wants to go fight in another country because of a few Fat Cats in Congress are paranoid.

Edit:- Stupid double post.

You see no justification for developing weapons to discourage war... yet you do see a justification for enslaving your own citizens?

"We have yet to see WMD detter a war (ooc:- On Nationstates anyway), indeed we have seen nations trying to use their WMD to intimidate their neighbours to standby while they slaughter sections of their populations. No WMD don't discourage wars, they just become another tool to kill the masses without risking your own troops.

And as to enslaving my population.........I do no such thing, indeed I am providing them with the knowledge to defend themselves from dictators and the like. They know that should the government become evil and outlaw elections they can overthrow it with armed resistance as they outnumber the military."

Compulsory state recruitment of civilians into armed forces is necessary only as a protection for the state itself. Armies of the people, to protect the people in times of crisis and for purposes of self defence, do not need to be drafted.

Conscription is an obscenity which forces a citizen to become a killer on behalf of the state.

States feel the need to issue threats of violence against another people, even when couched in terms of self defence, because the power-crazed leaders have dominion over their own populace and seek fresh meat to bully.

You see no justification for developing weapons to discourage war... yet you do see a justification for enslaving your own citizens?

"We have yet to see WMD detter a war (ooc:- On Nationstates anyway), indeed we have seen nations trying to use their WMD to intimidate their neighbours to standby while they slaughter sections of their populations. No WMD don't discourage wars, they just become another tool to kill the masses without risking your own troops.

In real life, WMDs prevented WWIII between the USA and USSR.

And as to enslaving my population.........I do no such thing, indeed I am providing them with the knowledge to defend themselves from dictators and the like. They know that should the government become evil and outlaw elections they can overthrow it with armed resistance as they outnumber the military."

It seems the time to throw off the yoke of your government's tyranny is already at hand.

it'd be ironic if the UN went to war to enforce this, and in the end was forced to use the draft to win

In real life, WMDs prevented WWIII between the USA and USSR.
ooc:- Well this is not the real world...plus don't forget the cuban missile crisis.

It seems the time to throw off the yoke of your government's tyranny is already at hand.

"This from a nation in Anarchy, I think you should get your house in order before you look outside your nation. My people are happy with the current govenment while yours are living in fear, a nation without government is not really a nation but a collection of thugs."

"This from a nation in Anarchy, I think you should get your house in order before you look outside your nation. My people are happy with the current govenment while yours are living in fear, a nation without government is not really a nation but a collection of thugs."

We bitterly resent this comment that without government people are thugs.

Before making such sweeping and offensive statements you should study history more carefully.

Comrade Alan Whicker, international affairs delegate

Gurthark is a peace-loving nation, which has never had and never plans to have a policy of conscription. We fully appreciate the arguments against its practice and hope for a world in which all armed conflict is minimized and conscription is unheard of.

That being said, we are not willing to support a resolution that bans conscription in all cases. In cases of true national emergency, when a country has been attacked within its own borders and the volunteer army is not sufficient to save it, we believe just governments have a right to call on the people they serve and protect to serve and protect them in turn.

We would fully support a resolution banning conscription in all but the most extreme circumstances (in particular, to ban conscription except in cases where a country's borders have been breached by an aggressor), but we cannot support this proposal as written.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

In real life, WMDs prevented WWIII between the USA and USSR.
ooc:- Well this is not the real world...plus don't forget the cuban missile crisis.

It seems the time to throw off the yoke of your government's tyranny is already at hand.

"This from a nation in Anarchy, I think you should get your house in order before you look outside your nation. My people are happy with the current govenment while yours are living in fear, a nation without government is not really a nation but a collection of thugs."

Sorry to break it to you but government IS a collection of thugs. With bigger guns perhaps, but it's still a collection of thugs.

It does everything mob bosses do... it regulates what you can do with your money and what you can put into your body... it sends your kids off to die in wars... it charges protection (taxes if you will) for its services, it is ruled by an exclusive clique that is difficult for laymen to join, etc.

[It does everything mob bosses do, it is ruled by an exclusive clique that is difficult for laymen to join, etc.

"Maybe your government was like this but I can asure you that ours is not."

TGM, you don't RP much here do you? If you did, you would soon find that your country would be quickly enslaved by somebody like Drum Gods or Dark Terror. So instead of a partial enslavement by the government, your people are permanantly enslaved by another country's government. WMD don't help you much, but of course, you don't RP here much, so you wouldn't know that. :roll:

Our Ninjas are our primary defense force, but we still need conscription to fight when necessary, like on the high seas, in the air, and in tanks. Besides, it's better than having bums on the street all the time.

I reserve my Protectorates right to draft, or to not draft, simply because its a matter of national security, in which the UN has no, I repeat; no, I repeat; NO! right to meddle in whatsoever. The Sovereignty of Creutzfeld Jakop shall not be infringed by headless suggestions.

*HMMPF!*

-High Protector CJ

This is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a sovereignity issue. The U.N. has the authority and the duty to protect people and this issue should not be avoided. The people who don't want to become potential killers for the state should not have to do so, regardless of what the state thinks.

peace and love,
Mandie
Princess of Inya

We could certainly support a bill banning conscription for expeditionary forces; ie, military units capable of fighting in overseas wars. But Takeshistan relies on a capable citizen National Guard for defence! This bill would grossly undermine our defensive capabilities, and have a detrimental effect on the spirit of national unity and mutual sacrifice we hold dear. We could not possibly support it.

Perhaps our own Swords to Plowshares resolution currently in the proposal stage would be a more appropriate vehicle to accomplish disarmament?

:!: Hasta la Victoria Siempre! :!:

Takeshistan.

As much as I love supporting radical veiws, a large portion of my defence force is conscripted. And it keeps my crime to zero...which is always a plus.

By making government the criminal.

Nazi Germany had a really low crime rate too.

Possibly. But it would probably help if you looked at my entire quote. I acctually stated a reason for the low crime rate which has nothing to do with the government being a criminal or Nazi Germany.
What I said was that having all young men joining the army instilled a sense of duty to their country that helped with the low crime rate.

I have no problems with draft as long as all citizens are drafted, no matter their wealth, religion or race, but I object to that people who are drafted are sent into wars, that people are expected to defend their country are one thing, being forced into a war that you dont support or you maybe even consider to be illigal are an another thing.

The Free Land of Youghiogheny is in total agreement with The Free Land of Slagkattunger on this matter.

We too employ conscription to provide our nation with a large source of trained personnel, which has the side benefit of providing a comming of age trial for these young adults. As a result of all our citizens knowing basic defence techniques we too can afford to maintain a much smaller active military.

Those two years of service are also a requirement for citizenship in our participatory democracy.

The Free Land of Youghiogheny will vote no against any proposals that call for the ban of the 'draft'.

- Xavier Jameson
The Free Land of Youghiogheny,
UN Delegate and Hoopy Frood

My country also requires two years of compulasry military/civil service after high school.

It has the triple benefit of providing my country a large pool of trained individuals in case of emergency as well as provide valuable opportunities after the service is complete.

In addition to military training, those with the aptitude and desire can enter our corps of engineers and get a head start on their education to become architects and engineers. Those with medical bents can begin by working in EVAC and MASH units as corpmen and assistants as they begin pre-med trainging, thus preparing them also for their career as medical professionals.

There are Legal divisions, police divisions, supply, State Department assignments, currecny specialists, finance and budgetting jobs and the like. It helps us not only acquire SKILLS, but it keeps our population healthier by instilling physical fitness regimes into their daily lives.

After two years, those service men and women can enter college and further their training, they can skip college and go straight to work, or they can choose to enlist in the army full-time.

Consription is by no means evil. Those who do NOT wish to serve at all and have no medical or other legitimate reason to avoid service are free to leave our country. There is NO conscientious objection clause to our service, however, as there are many non-combat and mostly non-military positions available in civil service.

Well spoken indeed Wasra!

Our conscripted troops are also THE VERY FIRST to help areas that are flooded, they are the first to be enrolled as 'civilian firemen' if we have large fires, and many other examples.

It is a duty you pay to the society, and I dont think 2 years work with food, housing (and this food and housing is in general faar better standards then what half the youths would have to live in had they not been conscripted) is too much to ask

Being a citizen of the protectorate is not free. You pay to have the, if I must add; unique and massive, benefits of being one.

-CJ

"Maybe your government was like this but I can asure you that ours is not."

Yes it is. Do you collect taxes? Mob bosses collect protection payments and they offer similiar services. What's the difference?

And Tisonica, WMDs WOULD help in real life. Notice how the United States or Russia or China or the UK or France have never been invaded since they got WMDs.

The difference, mr wantstoargue, is that most stable governments do not use assassination as primary way of career climbing.

CJ

The Honorable Paralevis, chosen speaker and first-among-equals of the Federation of Sentient Individuals, currently 'moonlights' as an airborne soldier in the army of a certain real-world North American superpower that prefers to remain nameless. He advises all leaders considering conscription to MAKE SURE YOUR ARMY IS EFFICIENT AND WELL-RUN, or all that responsibility and patriotism you're trying to instill in your youth will be beaten out of them and replaced with bitterness and an automatic distrust of anyone wearing stripes or bars. Perhaps they will even lie awake on their bunks at night, wishing they could withdraw from your fascist utopia and become a citizen of some land where intelligence and ability are valued over appearance and seniority. Or maybe you'll end up with a legion of blindly obedient drones, or a horde of bloodthirsty demons.
Heed his warning!

By making government the criminal.

Nazi Germany had a really low crime rate too.

Possibly. But it would probably help if you looked at my entire quote. I acctually stated a reason for the low crime rate which has nothing to do with the government being a criminal or Nazi Germany.
What I said was that having all young men joining the army instilled a sense of duty to their country that helped with the low crime rate.

Enslaving young men makes your government criminal.

The Honorable Paralevis, chosen speaker and first-among-equals of the Federation of Sentient Individuals, currently 'moonlights' as an airborne soldier in the army of a certain real-world North American superpower that prefers to remain nameless. He advises all leaders considering conscription to MAKE SURE YOUR ARMY IS EFFICIENT AND WELL-RUN, or all that responsibility and patriotism you're trying to instill in your youth will be beaten out of them and replaced with bitterness and an automatic distrust of anyone wearing stripes or bars. Perhaps they will even lie awake on their bunks at night, wishing they could withdraw from your fascist utopia and become a citizen of some land where intelligence and ability are valued over appearance and seniority. Or maybe you'll end up with a legion of blindly obedient drones, or a horde of bloodthirsty demons.
Heed his warning!

Yeah. Sparta had universal conscription. That worked for a while but eventually Thebes, with a volunteer army that stressed innovation over discipline, easily defeated the Spartans and overran their country.

"Maybe your government was like this but I can asure you that ours is not."

Yes it is. Do you collect taxes? Mob bosses collect protection payments and they offer similiar services. What's the difference?

And Tisonica, WMDs WOULD help in real life. Notice how the United States or Russia or China or the UK or France have never been invaded since they got WMDs.

"The difference...well Mob Bosses do it for personal power and wealth with only a few people deciding that they should be in power. While my government is elected by the people for the people of Slagkattunger, and anyone within my nation can aspire to filling the highest possition within the govenment. Yes we have taxes but none of it goes to making one individual richer like it does with the mob, further more we don't provide unneeded services or force people to uses services we provide for them.

With your fixation with the Mob we cannot help but suspect that there is a sinister purpose behind your argument that the Mob is just like a legal Government. Be assured that all business in our nation that have had contact with your nation will be closely examine for possible criminal connections."

ooc:- Since when has the USA been invaded by another foreign power since the war of independance?

"Maybe your government was like this but I can asure you that ours is not."

Yes it is. Do you collect taxes? Mob bosses collect protection payments and they offer similiar services. What's the difference?

And Tisonica, WMDs WOULD help in real life. Notice how the United States or Russia or China or the UK or France have never been invaded since they got WMDs.

"The difference...well Mob Bosses do it for personal power and wealth with only a few people deciding that they should be in power. While my government is elected by the people for the people of Slagkattunger, and anyone within my nation can aspire to filling the highest possition within the govenment. Yes we have taxes but none of it goes to making one individual richer like it does with the mob, further more we don't provide unneeded services or force people to uses services we provide for them.

With your fixation with the Mob we cannot help but suspect that there is a sinister purpose behind your argument that the Mob is just like a legal Government. Be assured that all business in our nation that have had contact with your nation will be closely examine for possible criminal connections."

The government IS organized crime. It may be DESIRABLE organized crime, but it's organized crime nonetheless! It's using intimidation and physical force to bend the universe to its will. Government is necessary and desirable. That doesn't change the fact that it's evil.


ooc:- Since when has the USA been invaded by another foreign power since the war of independance?

The War of 1812, Santa Anna's War, the US Civil War (Vermont was invaded by Canadians in 1862 .... seriously, like two dozen of them raided the town of St. Albanis), and probably some Indian conflicts.

To: United Nations Proposal Commitee
From: Beve Jates, CEO Incoprorated States of MacroHard
Re: Anti-Conscription Bill

Respected Members:

It has recently been brought to my attention thatdthere has been a debate over the issue of conscription. As the CEO appointed by the citizen-shareholders of the Incorporated States of MacroHard, I must vehimently object to any such resolution. There are several reasons:

1) This is every bit the sovereignty issue as it is the human rights issue. The resolution would dictate how a government defends itself and its people. To say it is one and not the other was ludicrous. The issue is how to balance it.

2) Relying on WMD is ideal for the larger nations that have the budget for such weapons, but what about the smaller nations? Are they to succumb to nuclear bully tactics?

3) What good are WMD if you want to claim the land? not to mention the fact that even though WMD can obliterate territory, they cannot hold it.

4) Conscription does not nessicerily mean foreign military service. It could mean community service. The board realizes that not every citizen-shareholder of MacroHard is meant to stand on a wall with a gun. It is reasonable, however, to compel said citizen-shareholders to give back to the nation-corporation that they so greatly benefit from.

5) With all due respect, upon my recent inspection of the roster, it seems that neither Inya, the KnightsofNI nor The Global Market were elected to the board of adiminstrators by the citizen-shareholders of the Incorporated States of MacroHard. Why exactly are these nations and their respective delegates dictating policy, then?


Respectfully
Beve Jates
CEO Incorporated States of MacroHard

The Neo Communistic Corporation speaker speaks
" For all those that come with civil arguments, exectly the first objections I had, I want to note that the resolution does not argue against that. It only says you cannot send soldiers into battle because they have to. For the neo communistic state with its flexable economy this is not a deadly problem, but we do fear that during and after a war our nation ends up being run by the militairy because of the ridicules wages we have to pay them. But we consider that fair, though it might destabalize everything a bit, since some of those soldiers might not want to go back to peacetime and have such huge salary cuts.
Other than that it might result that the world will be over run by ideological armies that do not fight for money, but for believe.
Other than that we fear that getting you people to support a war might even be more important than it already is. Now I do understand some people like to cheer yea, yea. But I fear they are mistaken. It is no problem for our leaders to motivate people into a war, any war for a matter. The only thing is, we have to lie more. Now some screem free press. Keep on dreaming darling ;). Even in our state there are weakpoints in our free press structure that can be exploited. We in the end cannot force them to reach news papers ;). So there is a risk of making the world more hypocritical too.

Therefore, the increase of fanatic and facistic governements,
the increase of power of the militairy instead of the public during war,
and the increase in lies in the media,
Make us question the usefulness of this law.

Other than that, we few that armies made out of the public have the advantage of being closer to the public and have a considerable less chance of doing a militairy coup.

I don't know if this law will have the desired effect, and we would like the proposer to go over the consequences.

If the person thinks it makes the world saver I like him to think again. There have been times where war was even reserved for only professional soldiers. They forbid all others from fighting. This means there was an easy way for this class to keep the other classes under the tumb. And in no way did reduce war. Most people like to call that time the dark ages. That was not all bad, there were advantages too. But we are not sure if the proposer has realized all the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal. Our corn says he is just proposing this out of blind idealism. Thank you."

1) This is every bit the sovereignty issue as it is the human rights issue. The resolution would dictate how a government defends itself and its people. To say it is one and not the other was ludicrous. The issue is how to balance it.

Conscription is a war crime. Therefore the UN has every right to act against it.

2) Relying on WMD is ideal for the larger nations that have the budget for such weapons, but what about the smaller nations? Are they to succumb to nuclear bully tactics?

The biggest army in the world won't save you when the other guy nukes all of your cities.

3) What good are WMD if you want to claim the land? not to mention the fact that even though WMD can obliterate territory, they cannot hold it.

So you admit, conscription is only useful offensively. This helps prove my point... in a defensive war conscription is useless. It is entirely offensive in application and an illegitimate abuse of government powers.

4) Conscription does not nessicerily mean foreign military service. It could mean community service. The board realizes that not every citizen-shareholder of MacroHard is meant to stand on a wall with a gun. It is reasonable, however, to compel said citizen-shareholders to give back to the nation-corporation that they so greatly benefit from.

It's still slavery.

5) With all due respect, upon my recent inspection of the roster, it seems that neither Inya, the KnightsofNI nor The Global Market were elected to the board of adiminstrators by the citizen-shareholders of the Incorporated States of MacroHard. Why exactly are these nations and their respective delegates dictating policy, then?

Because no government truly represents the interests of all of its citizens. It is logically impossible. Even if everyone can vote, the rights of teh minority are still trampled upon. As free nations, it is our right to defend the Rule of Law and human liberty in the world.

Conscription is a war crime. Therefore the UN has every right to act against it.

According to you. I say imposing your laws on a sovereign nation is a greater war crime. Some might call it an imperialistic action.

The biggest army in the world won't save you when the other guy nukes all of your cities.

It might, if said army is technologically capable of detering such an attack.

So you admit, conscription is only useful offensively. This helps prove my point... in a defensive war conscription is useless. It is entirely offensive in application and an illegitimate abuse of government powers

You do realize that offensive tactics are needed in a defense war, right? Should another nation attack the Incorporated States of MacroHard, the board of administrators has deemed it useful to attack and hold whatever foriegn territory the opposing army was using to move into ISMH and to take and attempt to hold the industrial and resource centers of that nation.

I believe it weas Knute Rockney who once said, "The best defense is a good offense."

It's still slavery.

Actually, the citizen-shareholders of ISMH are generously compensated for their service. It is very much mutually beneficial.


Because no government truly represents the interests of all of its citizens. It is logically impossible. Even if everyone can vote, the rights of teh minority are still trampled upon.

Trampled on? No. They just don't win that particular argument. Its the basic flaw of democracy. If you live in a democratic nation, you must take this bad with all of the goods. And quite honestly, you seem to be advocating appointing yourself dictator.

As free nations, it is our right to defend the Rule of Law and human liberty in the world.

And who appointed you to be the dictator of these supposed laws? Wouldn't national sovereignty be part of your Rule of Law?

As a free nation, it is the right of ISMH to defend said sovereignty.

None of the citizen-shareholders of MacroHard has expressed any desire to have you or anyone other than the elected members (whoever they might be at a given time) to make policy for ISMH.

If conscription is banned, I'll leave the UN. 'Nuff said.

According to you. I say imposing your laws on a sovereign nation is a greater war crime. Some might call it an imperialistic action.

According to the laws of reason and individual liberty.

It might, if said army is technologically capable of detering such an attack.

If you use conscription, you have no right to exist. You deserve to be overrun and shot for war crimes.

You do realize that offensive tactics are needed in a defense war, right? Should another nation attack the Incorporated States of MacroHard, the board of administrators has deemed it useful to attack and hold whatever foriegn territory the opposing army was using to move into ISMH and to take and attempt to hold the industrial and resource centers of that nation.

I believe it weas Knute Rockney who once said, "The best defense is a good offense."

WMDs are better for destroying their industrial centers.

Actually, the citizen-shareholders of ISMH are generously compensated for their service. It is very much mutually beneficial.

They don't have the option of refusing. Therefore, it's slavery.

Trampled on? No. They just don't win that particular argument. Its the basic flaw of democracy. If you live in a democratic nation, you must take this bad with all of the goods. And quite honestly, you seem to be advocating appointing yourself dictator.

I support the RULE OF LAW. The law MUST be above the government. And the law must protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, and property.

And who appointed you to be the dictator of these supposed laws? Wouldn't national sovereignty be part of your Rule of Law?

Governm,ents are only sovereign insofar as it defends individual rights. All true sovereignity lies with individuals. Nations are free associations of individuals. Whenver a government destroys the rights of its citizens, it no longer has teh right to exist and it can legitimately be overthrown.

As a free nation, it is the right of ISMH to defend said sovereignty.

None of the citizen-shareholders of MacroHard has expressed any desire to have you or anyone other than the elected members (whoever they might be at a given time) to make policy for ISMH.

Becuase you killed all the dissenters?

According to the laws of reason and individual liberty.

If you are going to try to argue Locke and Hobbes with me, you better actually read their work. Locke wouldn't approve of what you are doing here anymore than what you think he would of me.

If you impose your laws on the people of another sovereign nation, you have no right to exist. You deserve to be overrun and shot for war crimes. See, I can spit rhetoric, also.

WMDs are better for destroying their industrial centers.

You can't seriously be advocating the use of WMD ahead of conventional forces. What if you actually have use for those centers? You would have to be a fool to use any type of WMD on an oil field.

They don't have the option of refusing. Therefore, it's slavery.

No, slavery requires that the person in question is property of another. Service is for mutual benefit of all citizen-shareholders of ISMH, not some land owner. Even the Board of Administrators all fufilled their obligation.

I support the RULE OF LAW.

You mean the Rule of your Law.

The law MUST be above the government.

And, in ISMH, it most certainly is. However, this is apparently not the case if you would have your way with the UN. This point has nothing to do with the issue

And the law must protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, and property.

Absolutly, that is why the citizen-shareholders of ISMH are required to train to defend these rights.

Governm,ents are only sovereign insofar as it defends individual rights. All true sovereignity lies with individuals. Nations are free associations of individuals. Whenver a government destroys the rights of its citizens, it no longer has teh right to exist and it can legitimately be overthrown.

Then expect of group of citizen-shareholders from ISMH to be overthrowing you once you impose your laws on them.

Becuase you killed all the dissenters?

That is a lie. The report says that because we don't comply to the rediculous ideoligical standards of nations like yours.

But, that is not the issue here.

If you are going to try to argue Locke and Hobbes with me, you better actually read their work. Locke wouldn't approve of what you are doing here anymore than what you think he would of me.

Read Locke. Whenever the government tries to reduce the people to bondage under an arbitrary power, it puts itself in a STATE OF WAR with the people, who are thereby released from any further obligation to obey.

Your people have the right to overthrow your goverrnment.

If you impose your laws on the people of another sovereign nation, you have no right to exist. You deserve to be overrun and shot for war crimes. See, I can spit rhetoric, also.

First of all I'm only imposing my laws on you if I militarily invade you. And the laws ARE NOT being imposed on your people, they are being imposed on your government. Banning conscription limits the rights of government NOT the rights of people. There's a HUGE difference.

You can't seriously be advocating the use of WMD ahead of conventional forces. What if you actually have use for those centers? You would have to be a fool to use any type of WMD on an oil field.

The strength in WMDs is NOT using them. It's called deterence.

No, slavery requires that the person in question is property of another. Service is for mutual benefit of all citizen-shareholders of ISMH, not some land owner. Even the Board of Administrators all fufilled their obligation.

Forced servitude. Better?

You mean the Rule of your Law.

Rule of law is defined by social contract theory as check on government.

And, in ISMH, it most certainly is. However, this is apparently not the case if you would have your way with the UN. This point has nothing to do with the issue

Yes it does. Conscription is arbitrary power.

Absolutly, that is why the citizen-shareholders of ISMH are required to train to defend these rights.

Which violates their right to liberty. You can't force people to be free.

Then expect of group of citizen-shareholders from ISMH to be overthrowing you once you impose your laws on them.

I'm imposing laws ON YOUR GOVERNMENT, not ON YOUR PEOPLE. THere's a HUGE difference.

That is a lie. The report says that because we don't comply to the rediculous ideoligical standards of nations like yours.

But, that is not the issue here.

When you RP a nation at least try to be realistic. There's no way you will have 100% support for something.

If you are going to try to argue Locke and Hobbes with me, you better actually read their work. Locke wouldn't approve of what you are doing here anymore than what you think he would of me.

Read Locke. Whenever the government tries to reduce the people to bondage under an arbitrary power, it puts itself in a STATE OF WAR with the people, who are thereby released from any further obligation to obey. That's a paraphrase of Locke's own words. In addition, Locke also says that illegitimate governments HAVE NO SOVEREIGNITY.

Your people have the right to overthrow your goverrnment.

If you impose your laws on the people of another sovereign nation, you have no right to exist. You deserve to be overrun and shot for war crimes. See, I can spit rhetoric, also.

First of all I'm only imposing my laws on you if I militarily invade you. And the laws ARE NOT being imposed on your people, they are being imposed on your government. Banning conscription limits the rights of government NOT the rights of people. There's a HUGE difference.

You can't seriously be advocating the use of WMD ahead of conventional forces. What if you actually have use for those centers? You would have to be a fool to use any type of WMD on an oil field.

The strength in WMDs is NOT using them. It's called deterence.

No, slavery requires that the person in question is property of another. Service is for mutual benefit of all citizen-shareholders of ISMH, not some land owner. Even the Board of Administrators all fufilled their obligation.

Forced servitude. Better?

You mean the Rule of your Law.

Rule of law is defined by social contract theory as check on government.

And, in ISMH, it most certainly is. However, this is apparently not the case if you would have your way with the UN. This point has nothing to do with the issue

Yes it does. Conscription is arbitrary power.

Absolutly, that is why the citizen-shareholders of ISMH are required to train to defend these rights.

Which violates their right to liberty. You can't force people to be free.

Then expect of group of citizen-shareholders from ISMH to be overthrowing you once you impose your laws on them.

I'm imposing laws ON YOUR GOVERNMENT, not ON YOUR PEOPLE. THere's a HUGE difference.

That is a lie. The report says that because we don't comply to the rediculous ideoligical standards of nations like yours.

But, that is not the issue here.

When you RP a nation at least try to be realistic. There's no way you will have 100% support for something.

"Is just us or does the Global Market sound like an imperialistic warmongering nation when it says you have no right to exist. You deserve to be overrun and shot for war crimes? I suggest that the Global Market cease making inflamatry comments about other nations government because of their stance on this issue.

Just because you refuse to recongise our legal right to rule our nations as we see fit, doesn't immediatly make us wrong because you disagree with our policies. It also does not give you Global Market the right to try and impose your laws on our government, only the UN can do that And only if we agree to the UN decision by staying in the UN after the law passes."

I'm a pacifist nation. My military is entirely defensive and quite small.

The shot for war crimes was hyperbole, I do NOT support the death penalty for war crimes. Though twenty-year sentences for draft board coordinators is a fit punishment for their destruction of the lives of young men. Trough conscription, your government has reduced your young men to a state of forced servitude (or as Locke would call it, bondage under arbitrary power), they have the RIGHT to overthrow your government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

There's really two kinds of war criminals:

The witty kind
The non-witty kind

The witty kind are people like Bismarck, Richelieu, Caesar, and Kissinger, who were evil, but are very quotable and I love using their quotes. Historically, war criminals tend to always have the best quotes :D.

The trouble is that most of you pro-drafters fall under the second category

What about your old position of National Soverignty, TGM?

When did I hold that position?

My position was always pro-individual liberty

Read Locke. Whenever the government tries to reduce the people to bondage under an arbitrary power, it puts itself in a STATE OF WAR with the people, who are thereby released from any further obligation to obey. That's a paraphrase of Locke's own words.

No, its a manipulation. A government is in a social contract. That means the people are expected to particiapte. It is far less tyranical for the elected Board of Administrators of the ISMH to require that the citizen-shareholders help defend the very freedoms you are fronting.

In addition, Locke also says that illegitimate governments HAVE NO SOVEREIGNITY.

The Board of Administrators, who were elected by majority votes of the citizen-shareholders of the Incorporated States of MacroHard, wholeheartedly agree.

Your people have the right to overthrow your goverrnment.

Not yet, they don't.

First of all I'm only imposing my laws on you if I militarily invade you.

There are far more ways. You are going to use the "love it or leave it" mentality of the UN to force your laws on the citizen-shareholders of the ISMH. Its a lot less bloody than by gunpoint, but also far more devious.

And the laws ARE NOT being imposed on your people, they are being imposed on your government.

The government of the ISMH is made up of its citizen-shareholders, just as Locke would have wanted it.

Banning conscription limits the rights of government NOT the rights of people.

It impedes the ability of the government to protect the rights of the people.

The strength in WMDs is NOT using them. It's called deterence.

Great, so either every conflict ends in an unresolved stalemate, or one side realizes no one else has the balls to use their nukes.

Forced servitude. Better?

I really don't care what you call it. Its not your nation, stay out.

Rule of law is defined by social contract theory as check on government.


I'm not arguing about the existence of the Rule of Law, only your manipulation of it.

Yes it does. Conscription is arbitrary power.

So say you.

Which violates their right to liberty. You can't force people to be free.

But, their fellow citizen-shareholders can.

'm imposing laws ON YOUR GOVERNMENT, not ON YOUR PEOPLE.

In the ISMH, they are one and the same.

When you RP a nation at least try to be realistic. There's no way you will have 100% support for something.

OOC: I never said anything about 100%. I was refering to the accusation of killing disenters

There's really two kinds of war criminals:

The witty kind
The non-witty kind

The witty kind are people like Bismarck, Richelieu, Caesar, and Kissinger, who were evil, but are very quotable and I love using their quotes. Historically, war criminals tend to always have the best quotes :D.

The trouble is that most of you pro-drafters fall under the second category

That was just petty. Whats next? Going to call us big doody heads?

You are the one showing imperialistic aggression.

No, its a manipulation. A government is in a social contract. That means the people are expected to particiapte. It is far less tyranical for the elected Board of Administrators of the ISMH to require that the citizen-shareholders help defend the very freedoms you are fronting.

The exact quote is "Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away or destroy the property of the people, or reduce them to bondage under an arbitrary power, they place themselves at a state of war with the people, who are thereupon released from any further obligation to obedience and left to the common refuge that God has provided for all men against force and fraud."

My paraphrase was pretty damn close to that. Either way, the government doesn't have the right to force citizens to fight. You are enslaving people to protect liberty... that's a contradiction in and of itself.

Not yet, they don't.

Yes they do. You've basically reduced all the young men to involuntary servitude.

There are far more ways. You are going to use the "love it or leave it" mentality of the UN to force your laws on the citizen-shareholders of the ISMH. Its a lot less bloody than by gunpoint, but also far more devious.

Since you don't own any of the land that the UN claims ownership of the love it or leave it mentality DOES apply (this does NOT apply on an individual-national level, since that means the individual has to abandon his land, violating his right to property).

The government of the ISMH is made up of its citizen-shareholders, just as Locke would have wanted it.

Locke's idea of the government was far from your tyranny of the majority. He believed in the protection of inalienable rights, which conscription spits in the face of.

It impedes the ability of the government to protect the rights of the people.

You are your own worst enemy. Historically, most violations of liberty have occured by the people's own government. Destroying liberty to protect it is an oxymoron.

Great, so either every conflict ends in an unresolved stalemate, or one side realizes no one else has the balls to use their nukes.

Or nobody starts any major wars in the first place. That worked pretty well for the last fifty years.

I really don't care what you call it. Its not your nation, stay out.

It is the lives of young men who don't belong to either of us.

I'm not arguing about the existence of the Rule of Law, only your manipulation of it.

How am I manipulating it?

So say you.

So if I force you to be my servant and do whatever the hell I tell you and tehre's no way to get out of it, that ISN'T arbitrary power?

But, their fellow citizen-shareholders can.

Tyranny of the people is still tyranny

In the ISMH, they are one and the same.

Read above. Tyranny of the majority is just as tyrannical as tyranny of a dictator.

OOC: I never said anything about 100%. I was refering to the accusation of killing disenters

You said earlier that ALL of your citizens support you.

"Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away or destroy the property of the people, or reduce them to bondage under an arbitrary power, they place themselves at a state of war with the people, who are thereupon released from any further obligation to obedience and left to the common refuge that God has provided for all men against force and fraud."

Haven't done that. The Board of Administrators instituted a policy that has been agreed to by the majority of the people. Anyone who is so opposed to this is welcome to leave or propose a better idea.

Yes they do. You've basically reduced all the young men to involuntary servitude.


The majority agrees that it is nessacery for the mutual protection. They have no reason to revolt.

Since you don't own any of the land that the UN claims ownership of the love it or leave it mentality DOES apply

Its almost on par with trade sanctions.

Locke's idea of the government was far from your tyranny of the majority.

Rule of the People. Not everybody is going to get their way. A society must balance between abstract ideals and the desires of its populace. The indivdual agrees to somewhat limit these natural rights in favor of the greater good.

He believed in the protection of inalienable rights, which conscription spits in the face of.

Not nearly as much as dictation from foreign powers.

You are your own worst enemy. Historically, most violations of liberty have occured by the people's own government. Destroying liberty to protect it is an oxymoron.

Destroying it? This is meant to defend it. If I were a tyrant, why arm and train the people I was oppressing?

Or nobody starts any major wars in the first place. That worked pretty well for the last fifty years.

Actually, the massive build up of conventional forces and economic reliance on both sides worked just as well.

It is the lives of young men who don't belong to either of us.

Young men who agreed to the terms of this social contract.

How am I manipulating it?

Warping it to your own ends. Somehow, you can break it to force me to comply to it.

So if I force you to be my servant and do whatever the hell I tell you and tehre's no way to get out of it, that ISN'T arbitrary power?

Again, the people are not my servent, they are mutual defenders of their fellow citizen-shareholder.

Tyranny of the people is still tyranny

It is also democracy.

You said earlier that ALL of your citizens support you.

Where? I said the Board of Administrators were elected, I never said unanimously.

It is not slavery, it is not forced labor.

Maybe you have another theory of what is slavery, TGM. You certainly seem to have other definitions than me of quite many things.

There is nobody forcing anyone to stay in the Protectorate, nor forcing them to be citizens in it. Conscription is a price you must pay... everybody must pay, to be able to reap the rich benefits of our society. Welfare. Health care. Free education.

Of course, we could increase taxes with 10% overall and HIRE of our now rather large unemployed workforce (but what immensive paper milling and inefficiency... I cringe) to obtain the same.

I see it as a greater act of violence to any free nation, to have its national sovereignity and superiority infringed, than any government -> people type regulation (Tax, law, law enforcement).

We did not join the United Nations to be opressed. We joined the UN to help in a common goal of wealth, stability, trade and peace. If this is indeed the will of the UN, then we shall leave it, for the facist opressors of our nightmares you are.

High Protector, CJ

Haven't done that. The Board of Administrators instituted a policy that has been agreed to by the majority of the people. Anyone who is so opposed to this is welcome to leave or propose a better idea.

The majority agrees that it is nessacery for the mutual protection. They have no reason to revolt.

They aren't welcome to leave once they are drafted. IN addition, if they do leave they have to abandon their land which violates their right to property. And as I said before I don't care if all but one person agrees to it, it's still tyranny.


Its almost on par with trade sanctions.

My nation doesn't use trade sanctions. In addition, nations are free associations of individuals. Nations do not have the right to property, government ownership of property is a privilege granted to it by individuals. This is why taxes are bad. Necessary perhaps, but evil nonetheless.


Rule of the People. Not everybody is going to get their way. A society must balance between abstract ideals and the desires of its populace. The indivdual agrees to somewhat limit these natural rights in favor of the greater good.


Natural rights are INALIENABLE. THere IS no social contract left when you follow the principle of the greater good. Using that idea, the Holocaust was justified... since most Germans believed that something had to be done about the Jews. And remember that many states passed laws allowing slavery in the United States by popular vote... just because most people agreed to enslave all the blacks, that doesn't make it right.


Not nearly as much as dictation from foreign powers.


NATIONS DO NOT HAVE ANY INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Only PEOPLE do.


Destroying it? This is meant to defend it. If I were a tyrant, why arm and train the people I was oppressing?


So they can be brainwashed. I know several soldiers. They all agree that the transition BACK to civil society is harder than the transition into the military. The military stresses obedience. Civil society stresses innovation. THe military believes in the rule of force. Civilian society is ruled by laws. Soldiers are easier to brainwash than civilians 99% of the time. I have 200,000 years of human history to back me up on this.


Actually, the massive build up of conventional forces and economic reliance on both sides worked just as well.


Note that hte US didn't use the draft during peacetime. There was a masisve buildup of conventional forces before WWI too, but WWI still happened.


Young men who agreed to the terms of this social contract.


How so? Then it wouldn't be conscription it would be them joining the army of their own free will. Only since they can't refuse, they didn't agree to it.


Warping it to your own ends. Somehow, you can break it to force me to comply to it.


Because nations don't have any inalienable rights. The only social contractarian that really argues for the rights of government is Hobbes, and taking his philosophy to its logical end justifies the Holocaust.


Again, the people are not my servent, they are mutual defenders of their fellow citizen-shareholder.


So... if I got a bunch of my friends together and forced you to be my servant than that would be okay? Since you're serving MANY tyrants instead of one tyrant?


It is also democracy.


So if 51% of the people vote to enslave the other 49% that's OK?


Where? I said the Board of Administrators were elected, I never said unanimously.

So you admit to trampling on minority rights.

It is not slavery, it is not forced labor.

Yes it is. You are physically forced to perform actions that you otherwise wouldn't have performed. What do you consider forced labor?

Maybe you have another theory of what is slavery, TGM. You certainly seem to have other definitions than me of quite many things.

Forced labor is when someone is physically forced to perform labor that he otherwise wouldn't have done. I think that's a logical definition.

There is nobody forcing anyone to stay in the Protectorate, nor forcing them to be citizens in it. Conscription is a price you must pay... everybody must pay, to be able to reap the rich benefits of our society. Welfare. Health care. Free education.

Wrong. Your citizens own the land in your country. Therefore, the 'love it or leave it' stance violates the Right to Property.

Of course, we could increase taxes with 10% overall and HIRE of our now rather large unemployed workforce (but what immensive paper milling and inefficiency... I cringe) to obtain the same.

Or you could maintain a smaller more efficient army... The US hasn't used the draft in thirty years and we're doing fine.

I see it as a greater act of violence to any free nation, to have its national sovereignity and superiority infringed, than any government -> people type regulation (Tax, law, law enforcement).

So the Holocaust was a smaller rights infringement than NATO's intervention in Kosovo?

Nations don't have any inalienable rights. They are FREE ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS and as such only have the rights that those individuals choose to give it.

We did not join the United Nations to be opressed. We joined the UN to help in a common goal of wealth, stability, trade and peace. If this is indeed the will of the UN, then we shall leave it, for the facist opressors of our nightmares you are.

Note that the wealthiest, most stable, and most peaceful countries all DO NOT USE THE DRAFT. YOU are the fascist for enslaving your young men.

High Protector, CJ

No complaint to that.

The Draft is Slavery

What is a draft?
A draft is where the government uses the police to force peaceful citizens to fight in (and die in) wars that the citizens do not agree with. The proper name for such a hideous concept is slavery.

Does capitalism support the draft?
No. Under capitalism any form of "drafting" -- that is slavery -- is illegal. Under capitalism no government can initiate a war against other countries, by forcing its citizens to fight or pay for such a war, if they do not wish to of their own free-will.

In a capitalist country there is no draft, in which governments can force their citizens to fight wars -- since they are prohibited from initiating force against their own citizens -- and by extension citizens of other countries.

What will a capitalist country do if it is attacked?
If a capitalist country is attacked it will retaliate and defend itself, as it does with any tyrant, brute, and monster, by means of the most powerful kind of army possible: a voluntary army of free men who wish to live their lives as free-men and not as slaves.


In addition, volunteer armies DO perform better than drafted armies. At the famous Battle of Marathon in 490 BC between Athens and Persia, Athens (with like 100 soldiers from Plataea) used an all-volunteer army. In addition, it had ten generals who would all be general a different day, so the army had a different commander every day.

On teh contrary, Persia used a mostly-conscripted army under a single commander. They were only slightly worse-armed than the Greeks.

Persian numbers: 25,000
Athenian numbers: 9,000
Persian casualties: 6,000
Athenian casualties: 200 (192 is the exact number recorded)

The Persians were utterly routed in just a few hours of fighting. Volunteer armies tend to have MUCH higher levels of morale than drafted armies, an advantage which can't be underestimated. Volunteer soldiers are less prone to combat stress than conscripts.

It's also why the US army in Vietnam did MUCH better in the early 60s (with no draft) than the early 70s (with a draft). Drafted soldiers would often shoot their commanding officers or othertimes just break down in the middle of combat.

They aren't welcome to leave once they are drafted.

They still own the property, they just don't have all the privaleges a normal citizen-shareholder who fufills their obligation has.

And as I said before I don't care if all but one person agrees to it, it's still tyranny.

You must be joking. You cannot seriously believe that an abstract meant to protect the people can come before an overwheliming choice of the people. I can't even fathom how aperson can so wholeheartidly subscribe to that concept.

In addition, nations are free associations of individuals.

Exactly. It works on behalf of those individuals. In order to do its job, it inherits some of those rights.

Natural rights are INALIENABLE. THere IS no social contract left when you follow the principle of the greater good.

THAT IS THE SOCIAL CONTRACT! You agree to have your rights somewhat limited in order to enjoy the mutual protection of society. You understand a contract has at least 2 sides, right?

Using that idea, the Holocaust was justified... since most Germans believed that something had to be done about the Jews.

You did notice I said "balance" right? Now, if you want to just go rushing to extremes I can do that too.

And remember that many states passed laws allowing slavery in the United States by popular vote... just because most people agreed to enslave all the blacks, that doesn't make it right.

And a minority of people also fought to prevent Jim Crowe laws from being repealed. Do you think they were victims of tyranny?

NATIONS DO NOT HAVE ANY INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Only PEOPLE do.

Nations are people of a region who agree to live together in a society.

Civil society stresses innovation.

No, the civilian world is just as happy with conformity.

I have 200,000 years of human history to back me up on this.

Out of over 2 million years we have actually been around? Color me unimpressed.

Note that hte US didn't use the draft during peacetime.

What about a country that doesn't have a $100 trillion economy and can't afford to flush money on the Star Wars program like it was nothing?

There was a masisve buildup of conventional forces before WWI too, but WWI still happened.


And you think nukes would have prevented that?

How so? Then it wouldn't be conscription it would be them joining the army of their own free will. Only since they can't refuse, they didn't agree to it.

We have a deal. You are granted the full privaleges of a citizen-shareholder by your fellow C-S in exchange for protecting the rights of said C-S.

Because nations don't have any inalienable rights. The only social contractarian that really argues for the rights of government is Hobbes, and taking his philosophy to its logical end justifies the Holocaust.

If you take any ideal to an extreme you will be able to pick out some horror. If you adopt total pacafism, you still get the Holocaust. Ever heard of Neville Chamberlain?

So... if I got a bunch of my friends together and forced you to be my servant than that would be okay? Since you're serving MANY tyrants instead of one tyrant?

1) I never agreed to be part of your group, therefor, none of my rights can be limited by your group to such an extent.

2) Again, all you can do is go to the farthest extreme imaginable. It just shows how weak your argument is.

3) If I am being so opressed, I'm going to do something about it. You certainly aren't going to give me aclub to beat myself, are you?

So if 51% of the people vote to enslave the other 49% that's OK?

What? I can't hear you! You're too far down that extreme side!

Again, we have the balancing act. We have an abstract ideal that must be tempered with pragmatism.

So you admit to trampling on minority rights.

So, you believe in tyranny of the minority? What ahappy little facist state you must run.

In addition, volunteer armies DO perform better than drafted armies. At the famous Battle of Marathon in 490 BC between Athens and Persia, Athens (with like 100 soldiers from Plataea) used an all-volunteer army. In addition, it had ten generals who would all be general a different day, so the army had a different commander every day.

No need to cite Persia's logistical problems or poor leadership under Xerxes.

And how well did Athens do against Sparta?

Volunteer armies tend to have MUCH higher levels of morale than drafted armies, an advantage which can't be underestimated.

What about a competent commander with a number advantage?

It's also why the US army in Vietnam did MUCH better in the early 60s (with no draft) than the early 70s (with a draft). Drafted soldiers would often shoot their commanding officers or othertimes just break down in the middle of combat.

Again you are oversimplifying the issue by ignoring many other facts.

They still own the property, they just don't have all the privaleges a normal citizen-shareholder who fufills their obligation has.

Such as...?

You must be joking. You cannot seriously believe that an abstract meant to protect the people can come before an overwheliming choice of the people. I can't even fathom how aperson can so wholeheartidly subscribe to that concept.

I can't fathom how you can subscribe to a principle of slavery.

Exactly. It works on behalf of those individuals. In order to do its job, it inherits some of those rights.

No. It only gets the rights that EACH INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES to give it.


THAT IS THE SOCIAL CONTRACT! You agree to have your rights somewhat limited in order to enjoy the mutual protection of society. You understand a contract has at least 2 sides, right?

Only a social contract is supposed to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE. Conscription violates this.

You did notice I said "balance" right? Now, if you want to just go rushing to extremes I can do that too.

A balance is drafting all of your young men in times of peace?

And a minority of people also fought to prevent Jim Crowe laws from being repealed. Do you think they were victims of tyranny?

No because the Jim Crow laws VIOLATED liberty. Just like the draft.

Nations are people of a region who agree to live together in a society.

Then the people should be allowed to retain their own rights if they so choose. This means that the draft is slavery.


No, the civilian world is just as happy with conformity.

Perhaps, but it doesn't punish innovation nearly as much as the military world. When a soldier invents a new approach to doing something a general usually laughs. When a civilian does, he is given a patent and rewarded handsomly.

Out of over 2 million years we have actually been around? Color me unimpressed.

Modern biology dates Homo Sapiens' existence to 200,000 years. Homo erectus appeared about 2 million years ago.

What about a country that doesn't have a $100 trillion economy and can't afford to flush money on the Star Wars program like it was nothing?

You mean $10 trillion, not $100 trillion. But China hasn't had any conscription since the Korean War. Nobody's invaded it. Tiny South Africa used to have a nuclear arsenal, most viable states can afford one. As long as we lift the bans on nukes that is.

And you think nukes would have prevented that?

Yes.


We have a deal. You are granted the full privaleges of a citizen-shareholder by your fellow C-S in exchange for protecting the rights of said C-S.

But those people's RIGHTS exist without having to go to draft right? (still equal protection of hte laws, allowed to retain property, etc.)

If you take any ideal to an extreme you will be able to pick out some horror. If you adopt total pacafism, you still get the Holocaust. Ever heard of Neville Chamberlain?

When did I advocate total pacifism?

1) I never agreed to be part of your group, therefor, none of my rights can be limited by your group to such an extent.

Once again nations don't have inalienable rights.

2) Again, all you can do is go to the farthest extreme imaginable. It just shows how weak your argument is.

YOu haven't presented any credible arguments other than "sometimes it's necessary". You haven't refuted anything I've said about it being forced labor. You've taken my position to the extreme through 'total pacifism'.

In addition I haven't taken your posititon to the extreme. What's the difference between taking somebody and forcing him to be your servant because hes black via slavery as opposed to taking somebody and forcing him to be your servant because he's young via conscription?

3) If I am being so opressed, I'm going to do something about it. You certainly aren't going to give me aclub to beat myself, are you?

??

What? I can't hear you! You're too far down that extreme side!

Again, we have the balancing act. We have an abstract ideal that must be tempered with pragmatism.

So I have the right to enslave you... as long as I benefit from it?

So, you believe in tyranny of the minority? What ahappy little facist state you must run.

No I believe in NO TYRANNY WHATSOEVER. EVERYONE'S rights must be protected.

The US hasn't used the draft in thirty years and we're doing fine.

You think this may have something to do with having two huge oceans on either side and no real military rivals?

No need to cite Persia's logistical problems or poor leadership under Xerxes.

The battle of Marathon occured six years before Xerxes became emperor.

And how well did Athens do against Sparta?

Not very well, but remember that Athens's navy was largely conscripted from the poor too.

After the Peloponnesian War, Spartan occupation of Athens lasted for LESS THAN A YEAR before they were forced to withdraw in 403 BC.

After just one generation, the all-volunteer Theban army invaded the Peloponnesus and kicked Sparta's ass at Leuktra before marching over to Messene and freeing all of Sparta's protectorates. Over 50% of Sparta's regular soldiers were killed in one year of fighting.

What about a competent commander with a number advantage?

Actually from 1900 onwards smaller armies defeated larger armies over 50% of the time in battles. Numbers no longer matter.

Their effect was overly amplified earlier as well. From 1700 to 1900, smaller armies had a 45% win rate against larger ones (source is Barnes & Noble's World Atlas of Military History)

Again you are oversimplifying the issue by ignoring many other facts.

And those facts would be...?

The US hasn't used the draft in thirty years and we're doing fine.

You think this may have something to do with having two huge oceans on either side and no real military rivals?

China hasn't had conscription for almost 50 years.
The UK hasn't had it for 55 years.
France hasn't had it for 55 years.
Russia hasn't had it for 15 years.

Sweden and Switzerland haven't been in any wars since 1814.

Any nation protesting conscription on the grounds of "slavery" better be prepared to eliminate taxation, as well.

Confiscation of wages by the state through taxation is no different than demanding time with compulsary service. If you want to be an absolutist about individual rights, you better be prepared to apply your libertine idealism consistantly to all issues, social and economic.

But we should all know absolutism is a slipperly slope towards extremes. The wiser of us realize that a healthy nation is a moderate compromise of individual rights and citizen responsibility, and that matters such as the draft thus ought be left to each nation's descretion, so they may seek the mix that best suites their needs.

Notice that my country has zero income tax.

In real life a tiny (I'm talking 1-2% FLAT RATE) income tax might be necessary for the day to day, but this is still a far cry from physical enslavement. I see tax as robbery and the draft as slavery. They are both evil, but slavery is the greater of the two evils.

Sometimes there ARE necessary but corrupt compromises. GOVERNMENT IS A COMPROMISE. It's definitely evil. It does everything organized crime does. In fact, the government is just a street gang with bigger guns! Only it's a desirable street gang.

But bondage is one moral compromise I'm not willing to make.

It's refreshing to see a few libertarian types in the mix. Better to be extreme than a hypocrite. But do you honestly believe individuals get the most out of near-anarchy? Not only in terms of dollars, but justice and fairness?

As for being the worst of two evils, that all depends on what you consider evil. Some might argue that taxation is an obligation, not a sin, a debt we owe to the society that helped make our profits possible. The same logic can apply to compulsary service. Is it not reasonable to expect citizens to give a mere fraction of their time on this Earth to assist oneanother in protecting each other for a lifetime?

It's refreshing to see a few libertarian types in the mix. Better to be extreme than a hypocrite. But do you honestly believe individuals get the most out of near-anarchy? Not only in terms of dollars, but justice and fairness?

As for being the worst of two evils, that all depends on what you consider evil. Some might argue that taxation is an obligation, not a sin, a debt we owe to the society that helped make our profits possible. The same logic can apply to compulsary service. Is it not reasonable to expect citizens to give a mere fraction of their time on this Earth to assist oneanother in protecting each other for a lifetime?

I think that an individual should be allowed to do whatever the hell he wants as long as there's no clear and direct harm to others.

The Harms Principle [JS Mill]

I think that the individual is the ultimate end of society, not vice versa. THe individual should never be used as a means by society, only as an end. It's refreshing also to see a logical opponent :D.

As a member of a society you have the obligation to defend it. If you feel it is so corupt that you cant then you have the obligation to over throw it.
It's cowardly to scream about your rights then oppose aiding the very goverment that protects those rights. I think the draft is unfortunate in that more people should be willing to fight for the country's. However I support the draft if a nation is in danger. Indeed the goverment main role is to protect its people. And to that end it must take all nessecary steps to do so. Up to and includng the draft. Calamshan will not be supporting this measure.

As a member of a society you have the obligation to defend it. If you feel it is so corrupt that you cant then you have the obligation to over throw it.
It's cowardly to scream about your rights then oppose aiding the very goverment that protects those rights. I think the draft is unfortunate in that more people should be willing to fight for the country's. However I support the draft if a nation is in danger. Indeed the goverment main role is to protect its people. And to that end it must take all nessecary steps to do so. Up to and includng the draft. Calamshan will not be supporting this measure.

An individual is never a means, only an end.

Any other system is slavery.

It is a fundamental contradiction that liberty can be protected by destroying it.

In addition, NO dissenssion-free governments have been able to protect rights so long... complaining about the government is NOT an act of cowardice but rather an act of love for the nation and a desire not to see it fall into tyranny.

Plus an individual doesn't necessarily agree with the war... forcing him to fight is depriving him of his right to life and liberty.

Individualism is a very noble cause. While this limited introduction of ours may make me seem like an opponent of it, belief in the individual actually forms much of the foundation of my views. However, in a complex, modern society, I feel we need to make some compromises to ensure elements necessary for all individuals. Getting back to taxes for example, I oppose "progressive" Robin Hood rates, because redistribution blatantly disregards the principle of personal ownership. But a sizable flat tax I welcome because revenue is needed to make streets safe, schools effective, and our borders secure. The individual ought to be the ends policy, but it at times must also be the means, for the existance of an effective individualist state sometimes rests upon sacrifice.

Individualism is a very noble cause. While this limited introduction of ours may make me seem like an opponent of it, belief in the individual actually forms much of the foundation of my views. However, in a complex, modern society, I feel we need to make some compromises to ensure elements necessary for all individuals. Getting back to taxes for example, I oppose "progressive" Robin Hood rates, because redistribution blatantly disregards the principle of personal ownership. But a sizable flat tax I welcome because revenue is needed to make streets safe, schools effective, and our borders secure. The individual ought to be the ends policy, but it at times must also be the means, for the sake of the existance of an effective individualist state sometimes rests upon sacrifices.

I agree. Which is why my ideal society in real life WOULD have some level of taxation. If found out a way to handle the US Federal government on about 4-5% flat tax rate (this is a military almost double the funding of the second best funded military, which still represents a 50-60% budget cut, the current level of police, and current level of education funding (though a tax credit/private school system would yield MUCH better results because of better management).

However, as I said before, slavery is not necessary in today's world, and is one moral compromise that free peoples should not be willing to make.

Aegonia requires all citizens to spend one year in the military at age 18 as part of a military supplement and training program. Our citizens come out of this program with job skills that people of other nations can barely afford to learn through educational systems. Many of them choose to go into volunteer programs to help the less fortunate - eliminating the need for government-provided social services. The military skill of our nation keeps our military spending down, and we have the smallest military in our region. And because everyone at that age serves their time together there is no "lost time". Our citizens have never organized any serious complaints about this practice; in fact, it has become a deep-rooted tradition.

So who the hell are you to tell me that our country can't continue compulsory military service?

Calamshan would like to propose this issue should be up to the individual nation to decide and does not fall under UN jurisdiction.

Not all nations have the technology to counter the threat of war without great manpower. We also cannot anticipate future volunteer participation in the armed forces. Conscription has been necessary in the past, and it might again be down the road. In real life, at this point in time, I'd be against any sort of draft given today's circumstances, but I still think it isn't a possibility we ought to rule out forever.

Not all nations have the technology to counter the threat of war without great manpower. We also cannot anticipate future volunteer participation in the armed forces. Conscription has been necessary in the past, and it might again be down the road. In real life, at this point in time, I'd be against any sort of draft given today's circumstances, but I still think it isn't a possibility we ought to rule out forever.

Actually historically most battles in the 20th century have been won by the SMALLER army. Numbers are no longer important.

In addition, the US has no conscription, but we still have a 2-million-man army. There will always be ample volunteers for modern warfare since there is a certain charm about the military, yes?

So long as the military is seem as a force for GOOD than there will be ample recruits. But when it is seen as a force for EVIL as the draft may depict it then there will not be ample recruits.

Decent of a nations policy towards an issue may not be cowardice, but refusesing to aid in national defense is.

Decent of a nations policy towards an issue may not be cowardice, but refusesing to aid in national defense is.

No it isn't. Many Israeli soldiers are refusing to enter the occupied territories because they know they will be asked to commit war crimes... is that cowardice? There have been stories of SS Officers who have fled the field rather than kill civilians... are they cowards? A friend of mine is related to a family with a member drafted into the Soviet Army in WWII, the same Soviet Army that killed much of his family and friends, and rather than join, he risked fleeing to Finland where he was killed by border guards... was he a coward?

Many people who fought in Vietnam, including Pulitzer Prize finalist Tim O'Brien and my AP US History teacher... believe that Draft-Dogers were braver than the people who actually went and fought. In one of his books, O'Brien said that he lacked the COURAGE to cross the border to Canada even when he was right across the border from it.

Joining the army... you surrender your free will to the state, but remaining as an individual and capable of thinking about the situation... that is usually the greater act of courage.

Dodging the draft is civil disobedience... many of the world's greatest heroes such as Martin Luther King and Gandhi were people who perfected the art of civil disobedience. It's the alternative to violent uprising.

aNice try Global. However were not talking about going off and murdering millions of Jews in the name of the Furher. Im talking about national "DEFENSE". Surely you know the diffrence. As for an Israli who wont go into Palstine to hunt terrorists... YEP HE'S a COWARD.

aNice try Global. However were not talking about going off and murdering millions of Jews in the name of the Furher. Im talking about national "DEFENSE". Surely you know the diffrence. As for an Israli who wont go into Palstine to hunt terrorists... YEP HE'S a COWARD.

THe Nazis thought they were the ones who were defending too. You know the SS staged a raid by Polish troops on a border radio station to make it look like the Poles were the ones who attacked Germany?

And Israel has killed 6 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli killed. I personally think neither Israel nor Palestine should exist (both are an ETHNIC CLAIM TO STATEHOOD... which doesn't work... a "Jewish state" or a "Palestinian State' is no more valid than an "Aryan State").

They are hunting terrorists, but nobody can deny that they've committed significant amounts of war crimes as well.

"THe Nazis thought they were the ones who were defending too"

BS and you know it. If your not smart enough to know what is and what is not defense I cant help youi there. Stop spinning and get real. You cant say you love your nation then turn your back on it once it is attacked. The Nazi's INVADED POLAND they knew what they were doing. And a soldier has the moral obligation NOT to commit autrocity's this is a matter of International law after WW2 so cut the crap. If your not willing to defend your country your a coward pure and simple. Can't defend due to religious or health is one thing, won't is another.

"THe Nazis thought they were the ones who were defending too"

BS and you know it. If your not smart enough to know what is and what is not defense I cant help youi there. Stop spinning and get real. You cant say you love your nation then turn your back on it once it is attacked. The Nazi's INVADED POLAND they knew what they were doing. And a soldier has the moral obligation NOT to commit autrocity's this is a matter of International law after WW2 so cut the crap. If your not willing to defend your country your a coward pure and simple. Can't defend due to religious or health is one thing, won't is another.

Hitler knew he was invading Poland. But your average German civilian and your average Nazi soldiers thought it was a defensive war... they were throughouly brainwashed.

Part of the military is indoctrination.

"There's is not to question why, there's is but to do or die."

Militarism stifles innovation and individualism.

As far as the /ooc goes, I'd be vary by calling one side terrorists and the other side defendants in the israeli / palestinian conflict. IMO Israel is constitutionalized terror against the palestinian people

/shrug. They got in that mess themselves. The region will never be stabilized, both sides will suffer great losses, if both sides continue to avoid compromise.

Back to the discussion... TGM, you say that the nation is made up by the individuals, but where you and I disagree is that I mean that a majority of these individuals do have a right to make a representative choice, if that is the right word, for the whole nation...

This means, that one man does not by right 'own' a piece of the nation. Nu-uh.

I mean, that one mans individual freedoms(not all of them), cannot stand in the way of the welfare of the nation. This is part of the Government contract. You have to give up some personal freedom, to gain a better society. Of course, this is wrong for you, and I respect that. My social-democratic view will never be appliable to your puritan-libertistic ideal society, and vice versa.

CJ

As far as the /ooc goes, I'd be vary by calling one side terrorists and the other side defendants in the israeli / palestinian conflict. IMO Israel is constitutionalized terror against the palestinian people

/shrug. They got in that mess themselves. The region will never be stabilized, both sides will suffer great losses, if both sides continue to avoid compromise.

Back to the discussion... TGM, you say that the nation is made up by the individuals, but where you and I disagree is that I mean that a majority of these individuals do have a right to make a representative choice, if that is the right word, for the whole nation...

This means, that one man does not by right 'own' a piece of the nation. Nu-uh.

I mean, that one mans individual freedoms(not all of them), cannot stand in the way of the welfare of the nation. This is part of the Government contract. You have to give up some personal freedom, to gain a better society. Of course, this is wrong for you, and I respect that. My social-democratic view will never be appliable to your puritan-libertistic ideal society, and vice versa.

CJ

Puritan?? I hate puritans. They are fascist/moralists.

Anyways I still think your argument is inviting the yoke of tyranny :).

But I'm logging off for tonight.l

The Nazi crimminals where put on trial and found guilty. "Just following orders" is not a valid excuse. A despite what the average German says he or she thought, they couldn't miss the fact that millions of jews were being rounded up violently by the SS. Im of german decent, but i say there WAS NO excuse. And the Germans could not have missed the fact that thier army invaded poland. Your argument is weak at best. The military makes sure that hostile nations dont come kill your wife and children at night. You should thank them not make them out to be villians. Were talking nation defense here. And every citizen who claims to support and love thier nation is obligated to defend her. Other wise it's just lip service. God bless the military. We owe the very exsitance of the United States to them. And this is one American who didn't have to be drafted to serve. Shame on the cowards who run

The Nazi crimminals where put on trial and found guilty. "Just following orders" is not a valid excuse. A despite what the average German says he or she thought, they couldn't miss the fact that millions of jews were being rounded up violently by the SS. Im of german decent, but i say there WAS NO excuse. And the Germans could not have missed the fact that thier army invaded poland. Your argument is weak at best. The military makes sure that hostile nations dont come kill your wife and children at night. You should thank them not make them out to be villians. Were talking nation defense here. And every citizen who claims to support and love thier nation is obligated to defend her. Other wise it's just lip service. God bless the military. We owe the very exsitance of the United States to them. And this is one American who didn't have to be drafted to serve. Shame on the cowards who run

Wait... so how were we defending your wife and children by invading Iraq? How were we DEFENDING the US in Vietnam?

Also you said in the abortion thread that it is wrong to kill innocent people... what about the innocent young men called to serve?

You are also completely ignorant about the nature of the Nazis. Most of Germany did not know about the Holocaust until after the Allies forced them to view many of hte concentration camps. The Nuremberg court found that 90% of GENERALS in the Wehrmacht had no idea about the Holocaust... much less the individual soldiers.

You seriously underestimate the power of propaganda. I'm of Chinese descent and my mother lived through the former Maoist regime... I can assure you that patriotism is an extremely powerful force that can cause people to ignore their government's war crimes.

Once again you choose to avoid the issue with politically rhetoric global. I SAID IN DEFENSE OF! Vietnam was not a defense it was an offensive move to slow communism (a noble goal but not draft worthy IMHO) and Iraq was not defense either (though I agree with it and support it whole heartedly, a man who commits kills millions of his own people using seren gas must be stopped and removed).
I am in support of the draft if we are invaded I am in support of the draft if our national security is at risk and the military pool is to small to handle it. And if you are agains it even when the nation would be in danger of ceaseing to exist, then Im ashamed to call YOU an american

Actually historically most battles in the 20th century have been won by the SMALLER army. Numbers are no longer important.

They may not alone win you the fight, but an understaffed, overworked military would not be an effective form of defense. There are many more deciding factors in modern warfare, but of them, sufficient manpower is still very requisite to national security.

In addition, the US has no conscription, but we still have a 2-million-man army. There will always be ample volunteers for modern warfare since there is a certain charm about the military, yes?

Times like today are a good example of why we cannot make assumptions like this. Other things besides public opinion can affect the size of voluntary forces. Many of America's servicemen overseas are having to stay on extended deployment, and while the situation is still managable, it's hurting morale, and that may seep into reenlistment attitudes. Without a draft, we might one day find ourself in a situation where even an ample supply of new volunteers can't replace rapidly-tiring existing forces.

And then you've always got to make room for the curveballs life throws you. Say another conflict is opened, if the Korean situation were to flame up, for example. There is no way our current forces alone could fight three fronts and prevail. We are spread very thin as it is.

You never know what the world has in store for you down the road. It's best not to close doors to something like the draft because it's not ideal, when you may very well need to depend on it down the road.

Calamshan YOU are ignoring my point. It is EASY to convince people that a throughouly aggressive war is actually a defensive war. most of the people in Germany believed they were defending themselves when they invaded Poland.

Freemensland, the solution to your dilemma is to not police so many countries, not to draft people. We should definitely withdraw from most of Europe, Japan, and Indochina which are all stable at the moment

The Korean situation won't flame up because that would involve nuclear weapons. There has never been a nuclear war and chances are there won't be. Kim might be evil and psychotic but he's still relatively sane.

Besides Korea is Korea's, China's, and Japan's fault. The US shoudl only act as a negotiator, massive US troop presence in the DMZ is only going to hurt relations in Northeast Asia. In fact, most South Koreans think that the US is a bigger threat than North Korea is.

I ask that you support the Anti-Conscription act. Conscription is a barbaric practice that requires people (often males in their twenties) to serve in a force that may violate their beliefs. The Anti-Conscription act would end this practice. The military may be for some people, but it's up to the people themselves, and not the government to decide this for themselves.


peace and love,
Mandie
Princess of Inya

Layarteb has compulsary military service but does not have a draft because a volunteer army is the best.

Freemensland, the solution to your dilemma is to not police so many countries, not to draft people. We should definitely withdraw from most of Europe, Japan, and Indochina which are all stable at the moment

It's already being done to some degree. U.S. troops are pulling out of a handful of old strongholds, Germany in particular. And where we remain generally is not without purpose: stability in East Europe and deterrence in the Pacific. While our precense in already stable areas may be less than appreciated by folks like the South Koreans, it does play an important role in world affairs: curbing agression. An attack on Japan, for example, would in effect be an attack on America. And preventing such an attack is our business even beyond negotiations, if you believe in friendly alliances at all.

And about Korea, BTW, I was only using it as an example of trouble down the road, but while we're on the topic, do realize there is more of a risk there than an improbable and inpracticle nuclear war. The North Korean conventional army is one of the largest in the world, and with thousands of artillary pieces within miles of the DMZ and Seoul, poses a definite threat to South Korean independance. There is much speculation that if America were to be be brinksmanned into a nonagression pact and troop withdrawel, Kimmy wouldn't hessitate to seize power in the South. But I digress... Likely or not, a Korean war is only one possible conflict down the road. No doubt, there could be others and so we need to keep our options opened.

The practice of a government forcibly conscripting members of the population into the armed forces is a violation of the right to life, an initiation of force by the state against the individual, and a betrayal of the purpose of the government.

A free nation will have no lack of volunteers to defend their freedom against aggression. A person will fight for freedom but not for some cause he/she doesn't understand or believe in. Volunteer armies are an excellent check on statist governments declaring arbitrary and unnecessary wars -- if there is no conscription, the statists will have no army for their power-lust causes.

I ask that you support the Anti-Conscription act. Conscription is a barbaric practice that requires people (often males in their twenties) to serve in a force that may violate their beliefs. The Anti-Conscription act would end this practice. The military may be for some people, but it's up to the people themselves, and not the government to decide this for themselves.

peace and love,
Mandie
Princess of Inya

I agree completely. No government that enslaves its own citizens for its own purpose has a RIGHT to exist. Especailly not in today's world, where numbers don't really matter nearly as much as training, technology, and morale. In Iraq for example, the all-volunteer American army exacted a 500-1 kill ratio against the mostly-conscripted Iraqi army.

And this MUST be done on the International level, as unilateral abolition of the draft works in much the same way unilateral disarmament does.

Conscription is a horrible atrocity completely unworthy of civilized nations. It is the ultimate insult against individualism and against liberty.
oh gee someone feels like he runs the world, hate to break it to you but all your doing is weaknening UN, as for conscription at a moral level, who are you to judge, besides there are "worse" practices arround the world. Did you ever think that maybe conscription is a strong part of someones culture? that this is the same as banning certain foods or religions? geee whos inhumane now? I just want you to run through an obstacle course for a few months, you wanna rule the world...

A free nation will have no lack of volunteers to defend their freedom against aggression. A person will fight for freedom but not for some cause he/she doesn't understand or believe in.

Like the army of conscripts who freed the slaves in the American Civil War? Or the army of conscripts who put a stop to the Holocaust?

I also like the argument that this is a human rights issue, not a sovereignty issue. I'm confused, please explain to me how foreign nations forcing a smaller nation to do something against the collective will of its people, as expressed through popular democracy, is NOT a sovereignty issue? People complain about the "statists" seeking only to secure power. This motion is nothing but a naked power grab by the UN, taking still more power from the member states and by extension their people as well. The UN should concern itself with transnational issues and promoting peaceful coexistence. While Aubreyad does not support the recent spurt of environmental legislation (and let's stop beating around the bush people, if it is binding on those who oppose it, it is legislation not a resolution) we do support the UN talking about such issues. The condition of the oceans, as a shared resource and a part of the global commons, is a perfect example of a transnational issue. But delving into strictly domestic affairs such as how a nation chooses to staff their armed forces, that is beyond the mandate of the UN, as interpreted by Aubreyad. Once nations accept that the UN can impose whatever it may wish on the domestic front the door is opened to wider abuses. This time it may be conscription, a policy easy to vilify. But who is to say that the UN will not next say that abortion violates the same right to life of unborn embryos as they currently say is violated in the case of young men by conscription, and thus ban all abortion? Perhaps the UN will take offence at Aubreyad's liberal euthanasia laws and seek to stamp out that practice next. Once the UN is allowed to intrude on purely domestic affairs, that allowance will become a "right" and no one can tell where that road will lead. The growth in UN power is leading to a tyranny of the Majority, a tyranny where those who dissent are crushed under the boot heel of the Majority. Aubreyad has no wish to be part of such a tyranny, and it is for that reason alone that we withhold from UN membership. But despite our position outside the UN we still maintain a keen interest in the development of the institution and fervently hope that the UN will evolve into the emblem of peaceful coexistence we have always hoped it would be. Good day.

Sir Joseph Blaine
Foreign Minister, Aubreyad

The Dictatorship of Griffindon is in large support of military. However, ours is not compulsory. It is heavily suggested, and those that serve in our First Year program out of high school recieve extraordinary benifits through life.
However, we do have a draft, only for times when military is needed. We believe that people's abilities can be better used elsewhere sometimes. A scientist may serve the country better by finding cures for SARS than he would wielding a gun, but when it comes time that the nation MUST fight, and the military is short handed, a draft is necessary for the good of the country.
The representatives that have been voted into congress show that our people are whole-heartedly in support of this plan.

I agree with whoever said that it would take more courage to object to an immoral war than to shut up and fight. I am in the US Army right now and will either go to Iraq in January or Korea in April... am I willing to die to protect South Korea? No. If I were I would have tried to join the South Korean army. Do I want to go to Iraq? No. Is it because I'm afraid of getting shot? That's part of it, but I also think our Occupation is horribly misguided, and will only create more enemies for us.
Wouldn't it be nice if every soldier in every army had the courage to stand up and say "This war is wrong, I won't participate?" If everyone did that, there would be far fewer wars (I'm not saying soldiers are particularly moral or intelligent, but don't forget I'm talking about THEIR OWN LIVES, so we can assume they'd be picky about what cause they'd support).
But will I stand up and object? No. I'm sure objectors in Hitler's Reich or Saddam's Iraq were killed; compared to them I'd get off pretty lightly, I'm sure, but I still LACK THE COURAGE to object to what my army is doing. I'll just shut up and do what they call "my duty".
If soldiers had a sort of veto power, it would be far more difficult for dictators to have their way. Sure, people could still be convinced to enlist or would go along with the draft, but if an army stood up and said NO, international war would be extremely rare.

And Global Market, it was not Canadians who invaded Vermont; the guys who shot up St. Albans were Confederate raiders. And I would count Pancho Villa's raid as an invasion of the US, though a halfhearted and pathetic one.