NationStates Jolt Archive

Ive only said that 50 times. But Eric here seems to try and either downplay or ignore that.Well, what do you expect from an admitted terrorist sympathizer?

One is the gov't asking a citizen to do his duty. (well in our case, a citizen refusing to do his duty and making another do it for him).

Prove that a citizen has ANY duty to their government, let alone the duty to fight, kill, and die at it's command.

But its the draft dodgers fault for making him make the choice...an it really isn't slavery.

So far the only argument against the draft being slavery I've seen that's gone further than "No it isn't" has been "But they get paid". There's more to being a slave than not getting paid. If you want to continue arguing that a draft is not the equivalent of slavery you might want to actually come up with arguments other than "it isn't".

Prove that a citizen has ANY duty to their government, let alone the duty to fight, kill, and die at it's command.

Since when has a citizen not had a duty to their country? (at least in the western world)

A nation provides education, infrastructure, and safety to its citizens. And as a result of those, opportunities to succeed. They also provide emergency services, the post office, set rules about safe food and water, etc.

A nation provides a shit load of stuff.

It is also made up of other citizens. Friends, enemies, loved ones, strangers, aquantences, etc.

A citizen has a duty to serve if the nation calls on him (generally speaking-as there are occasions where there is no duty to the government).

So far the only argument against the draft being slavery I've seen that's gone further than "No it isn't" has been "But they get paid". There's more to being a slave than not getting paid. If you want to continue arguing that a draft is not the equivalent of slavery you might want to actually come up with arguments other than "it isn't".

Because its for the greater good.

You get paid regularly.

You get food.

You get training.

You get clothing.

You are not beaten.

You are not property.

It is for a limited amount of time.

just some reasons...

So far the only argument against the draft being slavery I've seen that's gone further than "No it isn't" has been "But they get paid". There's more to being a slave than not getting paid. If you want to continue arguing that a draft is not the equivalent of slavery you might want to actually come up with arguments other than "it isn't".By that standard, being sentenced to jail time is slavery.

Are you a man? Do you have a working pair of balls? If so, you have a duty to fight and defend your country and loved ones.


You're going to have to try a little bit harder than that to paint aggressive conquests as national defense.


That is generally why countries fight wars...


Well, yes, one could easily see why the Soviet Union paid a little visit to Afghanistan 30 odd years ago as part of its national interest. Or German expansions of Lebansraum. Or how certain American adventures in the Middle East are for it's own interest. Not of its people, or the people they are invading, certainly not, but for the benefit of the ones at the very top who believe, much like kings of old, believed that they WERE the nation.

So by your standards, the duty of each citizen is then to serve the interests of these people, regardless of their intent, or for that matter, the morality of it.

Because its for the greater good.

Prove it. Besides, the south though having slaves pick the cotton was "for the greater good".

You get paid regularly.

If you're forced to work and not allowed to leave then you're a slave no matter if you're paid or not.

You get food.

So does a slave. A slave can't work if they're passed out or dead.

You get training.

If you don't train your slave then how will they do their job to your satisfaction?

You get clothing.

So does a slave. You have to protect your investment from the environment.

You are not beaten.

You don't think they'll use force if you try to leave? Hell, you just might be shot for desertion, that's a whole lot better than being beaten isn't it?

You are not property.

In name no. In practice you may as well be US Government property.

It is for a limited amount of time.

So if I force you to work for me for five years you aren't my slave during that time?

By that standard, being sentenced to jail time is slavery.

And you will note that slavery, or involuntary servitude as it's referred to in the relevant amendment, is constitutionally permissible as punishment for a crime.

Not really. I'm saying that if you're a man, you have a duty to defend your nation and family.

I recognize duty. I FEEL duty in my mind as I make decisions. Duty is a part of my every day, and I can easily imagine circumstances where it would dictate that I risk my life, or even kill another. I don't feel a duty to do ANYTHING only because I'm a man.

But "nation" and "family" are quite different things. To say that by defending one I defend the other is ... oh never mind.

Get them all mixed up together in your head. What's it to me?

Not really, no. At least not to serve in the military.

Oh no man. How can you just roll over and let me kick you in the guts like this?

I won't do it. No. I'll hold my tongue.

I can think of cases where the duty would be null.

Here is the compromise I seek, a point on which we can agree. To obey the draft is not ALWAYS right ... and for my part, the fact of a draft is not sufficient reason to refuse to serve.

I might serve voluntarily under some circumstances. Being compelled to serve by a draft would weigh AGAINST doing so, but not rule it out.

I don't care if you think I'm a coward. Think what you like.

You're going to have to try a little bit harder than that to paint aggressive conquests as national defense.

Eh, he was just defending himself :D

What he didn't know is that impugning my "manhood" is actually quite soothing to me. I have balls. I don't want to lose them, but they neither grant nor deny me any rights or duties except in their proper sphere: reproduction.

It is my experience that high levels of testosterone impair judgement, not enhance it. High levels of oestrogen do too!

Eh, he was just defending himself :D


"We were defending against the stresses of lack of land and resources! They had attacked us with their resource abundance! And their cultural differences. We can't have that polluting our pure country! We must defend ourselves against the impure!"

Sadly, some people actually hold these views in all seriousness.

I recognize duty. I FEEL duty in my mind as I make decisions. Duty is a part of my every day, and I can easily imagine circumstances where it would dictate that I risk my life, or even kill another. I don't feel a duty to do ANYTHING only because I'm a man.

Or for lines on a map for that matter.

The draft as abhorrent as it is may be necessary to defend your rights. The only right you don't have is to make someone else die for your rights when you are unwilling to do so. If you won't defend them, you don't really have them.

"We were defending against the stresses of lack of land and resources! They had attacked us with their resource abundance! And their cultural differences. We can't have that polluting our pure country! We must defend ourselves against the impure!"

Sadly, some people actually hold these views in all seriousness.

Or for lines on a map for that matter.

I want you both to realize that I just abdicated my position, and that by agreeing with me you are taking the losing (or draw) side in a debating point which was red-hot just a few hours ago.

By compromising I grant some validity to Trollgaard's point, even if he didn't quite put it this way: breaking a law (the draft) isn't just a personal choice. It has consequences for the draft-refuser, and it has consequences for the government which tried to draft that person.

The draft-refusers of the Vietnam war had far more effect on recent history than those who marched in the street. And those who marched had more effect, per person, than those who voted in Nixon on his promise to end that war.

There are consequences. Don't pretend otherwise. All citizens have power, if they choose to use it. Thrusting the power apon them by government decree is government taking a huge risk.

"Hell, no. I won't go!"

Are you a man? Do you have a working pair of balls?

Do all your arguments boil down to this hypermasculine irrationality? :rolleyes:

If so, you have a duty to fight and defend your country and loved ones.

Of course, the US hasn't fought a war that could be reasonably classified as "defensive" in sixty years.

The draft as abhorrent as it is may be necessary to defend your rights. The only right you don't have is to make someone else die for your rights when you are unwilling to do so. If you won't defend them, you don't really have them.

Is that a joke? It seems almost perfectly crafted to make no sense.

Yes, I want to argue with you. Give me something that makes sense!

EDIT: Hey, it's Soheran! Watch me lose ...

So far the only argument against the draft being slavery I've seen that's gone further than "No it isn't" has been "But they get paid".

That's a poor argument, but the fact of the matter is that the two are not the same. The draft is something that we can commonly decide to implement: we choose ourselves that this is how we should organize our military. Slavery is something some people impose upon others.

Edit: Note that I oppose the draft on moral grounds in almost all cases.

I would most like enlist before getting drafted, because then at least I might have some input into where I might be going. Besides, I'm doing Navy ROTC anyway right now, so I've I only got a few years left until getting commissioned anyway...

And just to throw in my two cents to the people who are going on about "free will" and their "personal freedoms" and all. You really don't have them. Government and law might be a construct of the individuals, but as soon as it is created, it takes power over the individual. When you chose to live in a society with rules and laws, you (or whichever of your ancestors made the movement from individual to member of society) *willingly* gave up some of your "freedoms." If every individual was free to do his or her will in society, there would be chaos, because most humans work for their benefit first.

You really want to have all of your "freedoms" and live according to your "will?" Go out and live on your own, in a piece of unincorporated wilderness, where there is no one else, and no laws to limit you. There is no structure to help you, should you get hurt hunting wildebeest, however. Keep that in mind next time.

Hey, I like your name. Enjoy your Rasta-dom, and when the time comes, enjoy your #1-dom! It's your choice!

And just to throw in my two cents to the people who are going on about "free will" and their "personal freedoms" and all. You really don't have them.

Point taken. You are what you do. "Will" and "freedom" are about the sense of being able to do whatever you like. When "what we like" is informed by fear of punishment, we resort to doing whatever is least painful.

Seeking pain, or challenging what would punish you, is not however a guarantee that you are more free. Pay the piper, sure, but where is your written guarantee of no rats, where are your children, and where did that damn piper actually GO?

Government and law might be a construct of the individuals, but as soon as it is created, it takes power over the individual. When you chose to live in a society with rules and laws, you (or whichever of your ancestors made the movement from individual to member of society) *willingly* gave up some of your "freedoms." If every individual was free to do his or her will in society, there would be chaos, because most humans work for their benefit first.

They really don't. They just think the interests they are acting in are theirs.

(Little thing I learnt from Andaras, there)

You really want to have all of your "freedoms" and live according to your "will?" Go out and live on your own, in a piece of unincorporated wilderness, where there is no one else, and no laws to limit you. There is no structure to help you, should you get hurt hunting wildebeest, however.

I have a better idea. Rob a fucking bank.

OK, that might fail, I might die or get caught. But, y'know ... give me liberty or give me death.

Hey, fuck that. Don't give me shit. I'll just take it, or die trying.

Keep that in mind next time.

Keep in mind that the above answer is entirely ironical, an absurd antithesis to your absurd thesis. We're both wildly off-topic, I'm happy to return to the subject with you if you choose.

Did I mention ... IF I choose to accept the draft, there's a very good chance that the first time I am issued with a live round, I will shoot the highest ranking officer I can get in the sights?

So far the only argument against the draft being slavery I've seen that's gone further than "No it isn't" has been "But they get paid". There's more to being a slave than not getting paid. If you want to continue arguing that a draft is not the equivalent of slavery you might want to actually come up with arguments other than "it isn't".

slavery is a perpetual institution passed on to ones children. Military Service ends after expired period of time. Also to be a slave you must be denied the right to refuse work, in military even a draftee can refuse work, with the ultimate punishment for refusing work being that one gets kicked out of the military.

By your standards anyone with a job they don't like is enslaved, but why don't they quit ? Something about them and their family starve and get kicked out of their home.

US involvement in foreign wars (I may have missed one. let me know.)

Spanish-American War: The warship Maine blew up. We blamed the Spanish and whupped 'em. Oops, it looks like the Maine exploded internally, and not because of a mine or other external attack. Oops.

WW1: A European war that maybe we had no business fighting. There was a draft, and we helped the Brits and French whup the imperialist Kaiser. That whole mess started with the assassination of an Austrian by a Serbian. Not really our business when you think about it. Germany did attack US ships, including passenger ships, so it could also be argued that they hit us first and our involvement was justified.

WW2: Japs hit Pearl Harbor. Then we entered the war. Some argue that we knew they were coming and the attack was permitted in order to justify out entry into the war. I don't know.

Korea: None of our business.

Vietnam: None of our business.

Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Serbia mess: None of our business.

Afghanistan: As long as the 9-11 conspiracies are all false, this is a just war in retaliation for an attack perpetrated by an organization actively supported by the existing government.

Iraq: Hussein was evil. No doubt about that. Still, none of our business.

There was a draft for many of these conflicts. At least WW1 and WW2 were officially declared wars. Nothing since has been an official war with a declaration of war from Congress.

One is the gov't asking a citizen to do his duty. (well in our case, a citizen refusing to do his duty and making another do it for him)

Another is a criminal out to make a buck.

And might does make right in international relations. This news isn't new, its oh, 2000+ years old. Where have you been?

Besides, war can benefit your nation, or free other nations.

1- The Government has as much right to my forced labor as the mugger has to my 100 bucks: None.

2- No, it doesn't. Ethically speaking, it doesn't.

Since when has a citizen not had a duty to their country? (at least in the western world)

A nation provides education, infrastructure, and safety to its citizens. And as a result of those, opportunities to succeed. They also provide emergency services, the post office, set rules about safe food and water, etc.

A nation provides a shit load of stuff.

It is also made up of other citizens. Friends, enemies, loved ones, strangers, aquantences, etc.

A citizen has a duty to serve if the nation calls on him (generally speaking-as there are occasions where there is no duty to the government).

Awww... Isn't that cute... But it's WRONG!

Appeal to tradition, WRONG.

The services the nation provides are paid for by the citizens. So your claim that it "provides" freely is WRONG.

Which leads to the conclusion that your closing statement is WRONG.

By your standards anyone with a job they don't like is enslaved, but why don't they quit ? Something about them and their family starve and get kicked out of their home.

They still chose to be there, can quit and try to get a new job at any time, and unless they work as hit-men, they don't kill for a living.

WW1: A European war that maybe we had no business fighting. There was a draft, and we helped the Brits and French whup the imperialist Kaiser. That whole mess started with the assassination of an Austrian by a Serbian. Not really our business when you think about it. Germany did attack US ships, including passenger ships, so it could also be argued that they hit us first and our involvement was justified.
Well, actually the British hit first, where the submarine warfare is concerned. The blockade (which the US protested) was an infringement on international law. Likewise, the Lusitania was a weapons transport ship in addition to being a passenger ship. Aside from all that, the Germans stopped surfacing and hailing passenger ships after the British began disguising warships as such in order to surprise the German submarines.

"... you can get any thing you want, at alices restauraunt. walk right in its around in back, just a half a mile from the railroad track ... and they all moved away from me, on the group w bench ..."

well i joined the air force as a cooperative conciencous to get out of being drafted into the army during 'nam, and it worked, even got an early out on a section 8 and never saw combat or left the states either for that matter. my folks were too poor to get me and educational deferment, but i really do wish i'd have had the balls to leave momy and dady's apron strings and stick out my thumb and head north. where i would, could and should, at that time, have become a canadian citizen, which i would have remained to this day if i had.

i opposed killing people so that other people could keep lining their pockets to make everything have to begin and end with little green pieces of paper that otherwise had no natural need to, then, and continue to do so now.

not that i support people killing each other for any other 'idiology' either. which i don't.

patriotism is treason against all of humanity and every other living thing, and that's the real bottom line, however gordion the knot of complexities that tries to conceal it.

=^^=
.../\...

I would serve.

I would serve, as it would be my DUTY for the PRIVILEGE of living in my country.

For those of you who said that they would not serve or would run to Canada;

You make me ill. You would enjoy all the benefits of your country, but when it is time to pay the price for them, You would walk away. Being a member of any organization requires that you sometimes have to put your personal desires and beliefs behind that of the organization. If you just enjoy the benefits and refuse to pay the price that goes along with them, it makes you a thief and a leech.

For those of you who said, that they would not serve unless it was a just war;

NO war is just. Innocents die, crimes are committed, and so on. War is a necessary evil, as some people and governments cannot or do not understand anything but pure brute force.

For those of you who said that that the draft is the same as slavery;

You are wrong, the draft is your country's way of telling you that it is time for you to step up and do your DUTY. It is time for you to PAY for the privileges that you have enjoyed and benefited from.

And lastly, for those of you who said that you would serve if your country is invaded;

The time to fight is before your country is invaded. While the enemy is destroying some other BEFORE the enemy gets to you. If you will not help your allies and neighbors, why should they help you?


And just to let all know, I registered for the selective service the very day, I turned 18. And, I would do so again if required, because it was my DUTY.

That whole mess started with the assassination of an Austrian by a Serbian.
That’s a lovely myth we tell our children.

As Rob Newman says, no-one is that popular.

You make me ill. You would enjoy all the benefits of your country, but when it is time to pay the price for them, You would walk away.
Um, taxes?

Being a member of any organization requires that you sometimes have to put your personal desires and beliefs behind that of the organization.
So if I am a fully paid-up member of the local chess club, and they start beating up on the tiddlywinks posse, I'm obliged to join in?

No deal.

You would enjoy all the benefits of your country, I don't have my own country.

it is not a "privelage" to survive. nor is there any natural debt to some hierarchy because it claims soverignty over the piece of land you live on and surrounded by.

sorry. patriotism is still treason against all of humanity.
and NOT a "debt" anybody owes anything.

now if said hierarchal soverignty were to give you food stamps when you were hungry, or some sort of survival assistence largesse when in need of it, then you owe them/it the consideration of a reasonable appreciation for doing so.

but again that is the beggining and end of it.
NOT a debt to commit treason against all the rest of humanity.

=^^=
.../\...

Snip.

Countries do not exist. One's duty is to what they feel is right. And no one has the right to force me to fight for them, let alone kill for them.

You're wrong.

And just to let all know, I registered for the selective service the very day, I turned 18. And, I would do so again if required, because it was my DUTY.You'd register again if required? We should all learn from your brave example...

I wouldn't let myself be drafted (unless I would have one of those exoskeletons, in which case I would totally join the army). I'm studying medicine and I think I could do more good (for my country) by becoming a doctor than by dying in a war. I would have less problems with serving in a military hospital, that way I wouldn't have to kill, I would have less chance of getting killed and I could actually do some good (and maybe I could wear exoskeletons). My physical condition is also not really that good.
Besides, I think the draft is a pretty stupid/old fashioned idea for a modern army, which mainly needs specialists and not just people who can hold a gun and follow an order.

The draft as abhorrent as it is may be necessary to defend your rights. The only right you don't have is to make someone else die for your rights when you are unwilling to do so. If you won't defend them, you don't really have them.

That's right, you must defend your rights by giving them up when ordered to do so! Wait, what?

That's a poor argument, but the fact of the matter is that the two are not the same. The draft is something that we can commonly decide to implement:

We could also commonly decide to implement slavery.

we choose ourselves that this is how we should organize our military.Slavery is something some people impose upon others.


As is the draft. How the hell are the people responsible for a draft NOT imposing the draft on others who don't wish to join the military?

slavery is a perpetual institution passed on to ones children. Military Service ends after expired period of time. Also to be a slave you must be denied the right to refuse work, in military even a draftee can refuse work, with the ultimate punishment for refusing work being that one gets kicked out of the military.

Nothing about slavery requires that it be a permanent condition, only that it be forced servitude.

By your standards anyone with a job they don't like is enslaved, but why don't they quit ? Something about them and their family starve and get kicked out of their home.

No, by my standards anyone FORCED to work with threat of governement sanctioned punishment (go to war or fgo to jail, your choice) is a slave.

Well I'm the only child of my family but I believe they could still draft me anyway.

I would try telling them the following in this order:

I am out of shape (technically true, but not really)

I am gay (not true, but I could pull it off pretty sure)

I am a transgender (definitely not true, I love my penis)

I am mentally unstable (true, I have bipolar and anger issues)

If they still haven't rejected me, than I'm off to somewhere else.

Fail
It's exactly correct. You can't refuse the service, you have no means to negotiate a different wage, and you can't hold out until you get a better offer. You must do exactly what you're told, get paid whatever the state decides to pay you, and failure to perform results in imprisonment.

Conscription is EXACTLY like slavery.

Of COURSE. The only detail is it would have a revolution in its hands should that happen, but never mind that, eh?

Concidering that a revolution didn't happen in the 1960-70's during a true draft, I doubt you would see one if the draft would be started today. The kids today talk tough but to be honest with you, they pale when placed next to kids of the 60-70's.

A revolution in the US? Are you serious? The average guy is to comfortable with his life to mess with it and support a revolution. Even when things are bad, people still sit back and say "well as long as I still have X" or "as long as I can still do X" or "As long as this doesn't affect me" and allow things to happen. Look at Germany before and during WWII. Same with Japan during the US occupation. You have to take away all comforts and create massive injustice that is not hidden before the common man will stand up. During the Vietnam War, it was very unpopular and there was NO reason for us to be there at ALL (iraq you can argue for the human injustices and such...not that I believe in the war but that arguement can be made).

People didn't revolt during that time. There was the counter-cultures like the hippies and yippies which protested but that was a minority sub-group of the time. The police did beat the hell out of protesters and draft dodgers. If you were caught trying to jump the border, you would usually be dragged back (around this stretch of the northern border) with a good set of bruises from "falling down". I remember that pretty clearly.

The vast majority of people, like my folks and myself, just shrugged their shoulders and just kept working. The same would happen again.

Nothing about slavery requires that it be a permanent condition, only that it be forced servitude.



No, by my standards anyone FORCED to work with threat of governement sanctioned punishment (go to war or fgo to jail, your choice) is a slave.

No one is forcing you to live in the US. The point is, if you live here you agree to defend the country when the government calls you up for military service. If you don't live up to your end of the 'deal', then you get jail time, fines, and/or are deported out of the country with your citizen status revolked. In fact in WWII there were people who were shot for dodging the draft.

That is why there were people that had their status as citizens revolked by the Government in the 1970-80s. That is why some people are not allowed to ever step foot inside the US again.

Provided I could be guaranteed an officer's commission and a post in a warm headquarters, yes. Otherwise, no.

In fact in WWII there were people who were shot for dodging the draft.

1- It's an unjust rule, one that should not exist and one we are not obliged to follow.

2- PERSON. ONE. Eddie Slovik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

No one is forcing you to live in the US. The point is, if you live here you agree to defend the country when the government calls you up for military service.

Funny, I've lived here for 31 years and the only time I recall agreeing to anything similar is when I signed a bit of paper under threat of imprisonment. Again, oaths made under duress do not count.

WW1: A European war that maybe we had no business fighting. There was a draft, and we helped the Brits and French whup the imperialist Kaiser. That whole mess started with the assassination of an Austrian by a Serbian. Not really our business when you think about it. Germany did attack US ships, including passenger ships, so it could also be argued that they hit us first and our involvement was justified.


Slight addition. The real reason we went to war was actually because the Germans tried to get Mexico (Zimmerman Telegram) to attack us preemptivally to keep us occupied so we couldnt enter. They promised them the South West. We intercepted said letter. We got pissed.

No one is forcing you to live in the US. The point is, if you live here you agree to defend the country when the government calls you up for military service.

I have made no such agreement.

About all these arguements about "duty", what an absurd and abstract concept. Tell me, why is it my duty. I pay taxes that pay for all the civil services I use, therefore I am paying for them, they are not some absurd free benefit. So, where does this "duty" come from? Its a word that nationalists like to toss around without really giving any logic to support their assertions.

If we had a president THAT idiotic, I would move to Canada.

One problem with that (at least if you are an American), Canada has an extradition treaty with the U.S.

One problem with that (at least if you are an American), Canada has an extradition treaty with the U.S.

Id go to Mexico. They wont send me back.

No, I would not allow myself to be drafted.

It is better to live on your feet than die on your knees.

It's exactly correct. You can't refuse the service,
Yes, you can.
you have no means to negotiate a different wage, and you can't hold out until you get a better offer. You must do exactly what you're told, get paid whatever the state decides to pay you,
Replace "the state" with "your boss" and that describes my current job.
and failure to perform results in imprisonment.
As do most failures to follow the law.
Conscription is EXACTLY like slavery.
Again...
Fail.

1- It's an unjust rule, one that should not exist and one we are not obliged to follow.

Agreed.

To those of you who think that everyone should comply with the draft, regardless of any personal reasons for not wanting to.

As a former military person, I say if they don't want to be there (in combat) then I don't want them there either.

Good point, I lost someone in WWI and I know he gave his life protecting his King and Country! And that is something we should all try to do, whether by directly fighting or being a field-medic or pilot or lorry driver in logistics or administration.

And that is something we should all try to do, whether by directly fighting or being a field-medic or pilot or lorry driver in logistics or administration.

Why? Or does your arguement boil down to some absurd ideal of "duty" too?

Of COURSE. The only detail is it would have a revolution in its hands should that happen, but never mind that, eh?

Really? No one revolted against the NYPD when they shot Amadou Diallo 41 times. Or when they shot Shawn King 50 times at his bachelor party. Even the Rodney King riots were localized events, not anywhere near national.

So if we won't get up in arms about real criminals with badges, do you really think we would revolt over a couple of broken arms or legs?

I am assuming that so many will be flooding the border that I have a chance to find a good place to hide in the backwoods and avoid being deported until the war ends.

Touche. Didn't think about that.

If I was ever drafted (29, stone deaf in one ear), we're in serious trouble and I'd probably go just because we'd need all the help we could get.

Ditto... except the age is wrong (I'm older) and bad eyesight, and other health concerns, tho my hearing is ok... what?

Id go to Mexico. They wont send me back.

Mexico has an extradition treaty with the United States, provided that you do not sentence anyone that was extradited to penalties that are against the Mexican constitution (death penalty).

From wikipedia:
Typically, under United States law 18 U.S.C. § 3184 extradition may be granted only pursuant to a treaty. However, some countries grant extradition without a treaty which requires a reciprocal agreement by the United States. Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 3181 and 18 U.S.C. § 3184 in 1996, allow the extradition persons other than United States citizens, nationals or permanent residents who have committed crimes of violence against nationals of the United States in foreign countries.
Countries with treaties
See: List of United States extradition treaties

The United States has extradition treaties with over 100 countries. Of the treaties most are dual criminality treaties with the remaining being list treaties.

[edit]
Countries with diplomatic relations

The United States maintains diplomatic relations, but does not have extradition treaties with the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Union of the Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

[edit]
Countries without treaties or diplomatic relations

The countries which have neither diplomatic relations nor extradition treaties with the U.S. are: Bhutan, Iran, North Korea, and Taiwan (which the United States does not consider a country under the One-China policy).

[end]

So, basically, have fun in Tehran.

Mexico has an extradition treaty with the United States, provided that you do not sentence anyone that was extradited to penalties that are against the Mexican constitution (death penalty).

From wikipedia:
Typically, under United States law 18 U.S.C. § 3184 extradition may be granted only pursuant to a treaty. However, some countries grant extradition without a treaty which requires a reciprocal agreement by the United States. Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 3181 and 18 U.S.C. § 3184 in 1996, allow the extradition persons other than United States citizens, nationals or permanent residents who have committed crimes of violence against nationals of the United States in foreign countries.
Countries with treaties
See: List of United States extradition treaties

The United States has extradition treaties with over 100 countries. Of the treaties most are dual criminality treaties with the remaining being list treaties.

[edit]
Countries with diplomatic relations

The United States maintains diplomatic relations, but does not have extradition treaties with the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Union of the Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

[edit]
Countries without treaties or diplomatic relations

The countries which have neither diplomatic relations nor extradition treaties with the U.S. are: Bhutan, Iran, North Korea, and Taiwan (which the United States does not consider a country under the One-China policy).

[end]

So, basically, have fun in Tehran.


However, Mexican law enforcement is...questionable. Hence why I said they wouldnt send me back.

It's exactly correct. You can't refuse the service, you have no means to negotiate a different wage, and you can't hold out until you get a better offer. You must do exactly what you're told, get paid whatever the state decides to pay you, and failure to perform results in imprisonment.

Conscription is EXACTLY like slavery.

Well, it's more like an agreement that you make in order to become a citizen, but I can see how you might misconstrue it that way.

The United States does not have extradition treaties with the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Union of the Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
Referring you to the list of countries that the U.S. does not have extradition treaties with /\
However, Mexican law enforcement is...questionable. Hence why I said they wouldnt send me back.

Card carrying Seamless Garment Catholic, with opposition to war carrying to the extent of refusal to participate in an unjust war.

As for the actual draft, 'tis unlikely that they'd take me. They'd probably reassign me to a civil branch designing new and improved armor designs for vehicles. My pursuit of a doctorate in Chemistry would probably help. If they require that I fight, then it remains to be seen, though I have been considering joining the family clan and then heading over to Scotland.

Slight addition. The real reason we went to war was actually because the Germans tried to get Mexico (Zimmerman Telegram) to attack us preemptivally to keep us occupied so we couldnt enter. They promised them the South West. We intercepted said letter. We got pissed.

point of history, We didn't intercept it The British did. Also the telegram its self did not lead us in to the war, the majority of the news papers(and hence likely the majority of people) labeled it a British intelligence ploy to get us into the war. what got the American public whipped up to go fight over there was when Zimmerman publicly declared that yes I did Send the Telegram. If Zimmerman had not done so the largely anti war press would played it off to be a fake and the American public would have likely never have agreed to enter the war since those dang Brits tried to trick us into joining it.

patriotism is still treason against all of humanity.



What the hell?

"Lucy, you have some 'splaining to do!!!!"

('splain yo' reasoning, plz)

What the hell?

"Lucy, you have some 'splaining to do!!!!"

('splain yo' reasoning, plz)
Yeah, I'm going to second that.

Sounds like somebody either doesn't understand the term or has spent too much time out in the sun recently.

Nothing about slavery requires that it be a permanent condition, only that it be forced servitude.
.

thats seems to be the problem a failure to communicate.


Slavery- Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons — known as slaves — are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work.
Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labor. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labor. In its narrowest sense, the word slave refers to people who are treated as the property of another person, household, company, corporation or government.

My definition is backed up by Websters dictionary yours seems to change and be based on whatever allows you to call the draft slavery.


No, by my standards anyone FORCED to work with threat of governement sanctioned punishment (go to war or fgo to jail, your choice) is a slave.

Your absolutely wrong. The law that punishes you with imprisonment, simply says you must appear before the draft board, you have 6 months.
Want to avoid military service when you get your you've been drafted letter
High thee to ye old local communist party headquarters and sign up then ask that they show you as having been a member since 5 years ago and ask for them to print either a copy of the members roster, or to give you a membership card stating member since 5 years ago, when you report to your draft board Say "I am a member of the communist party I feel service in the military would present me with a grave conflict of interest." then show your membership card.
Or conversely today you can grow your beard out for 6 months, wear clothes that covers you from ankles to wrist (no graven images either). then say " I am a member of a fundamentalist sect of Islam I feel service in the military will present me with a grave conflict of interest. "

either path you choose realize that the FBI likely will follow you around for 6 months to 2 years. So no more Pot for you Hippie. Also make a few appearances at the mosque or local communist party meetings during that time.

That being said there is another way to avoid military service. It is a little more annoying and troublesome. As stated before the law only requires that you appear before your draft board not that you finish the 2 years of service.
If you want to quit refuse to get out of bed every morning. Refuse to do as your told. first thing they give you is physical punishment refuse to do it.
next they give you whats called a article 15(in which they take your military pay and give extra duty) refuse to do the extra duty, shoot refuse to sign the article 15. after 2 or 3 articles 15's you get kicked out of the army for failure to adapt.(as a veteran I have seen it several times not to mention gotten a solider kicked out for it.)
As far as the military is concerned you never were in the military (so no bad stuff when looking for employment), And as far as the goverment is concerned you can no longer be drafted.

either path you choose realize that the FBI likely will follow you around for 6 months to 2 years. So no more Pot for you Hippie.

You seem to assume that only hippies and people that are into drugs would want to stay out of the Military.

But that can't be the case, as it would make you a moron.

But that can't be the case, as it would make you a moron.

Its bad form to jump to conclusions...
:D

I'd go. I love a man in uniform.

:(..I'm more of the type that stays behind the lines..But if it comes down to it, I wouldn't let it happen. It would be better if I enlisted rather than to be drafted.

:(..I'm more of the type that stays behind the lines..But if it comes down to it, I wouldn't let it happen. It would be better if I enlisted rather than to be drafted.

I think they'd let you sign up for that if you had a skill they could use. But enlisting would probably be the safe thing to do.

AAAHHH!!! I agree with Andaras and redwulf.

I wouldn't let myself be drafted for the reasons stated by those two.

This will probably be the last time I agree with either of you two, so savor the moment.

Click Stand;13638934']AAAHHH!!! I agree with Andaras and redwulf.

I wouldn't let myself be drafted for the reasons stated by those two.

This will probably be the last time I agree with either of you two, so savor the moment.

You would dodge the draft because you think its slavery?
Or am I confusing peoples arguments?

No, I would not allow myself to be drafted.

It is better to live on your feet than die on your knees.

Umm, ok. What exactly does the quote have to do with your position? It would seem to support the opposite position.

Umm, ok. What exactly does the quote have to do with your position? It would seem to support the opposite position.

Smart people tend to take cover when in a firefight, which may include kneeling. However, sometimes this isn't enough and a bullet or piece of shrapnel gets you anyway.

People who don't need to worry about that mainly live on their feet except when sitting or sleeping.

Smart people tend to take cover when in a firefight, which may include kneeling. However, sometimes this isn't enough and a bullet or piece of shrapnel gets you anyway.

People who don't need to worry about that mainly live on their feet except when sitting or sleeping.

yeah, but the normal connotation would be standing up for your country and going off to serve them in a war, and sitting at home (kneeling?) instead, being either complacent or y'know just not fighting. I understand that it can be read any number of ways, but traditionally, it just didn't make any sense to me.

yeah, but the normal connotation would be standing up for your country and going off to serve them in a war, and sitting at home (kneeling?) instead, being either complacent or y'know just not fighting. I understand that it can be read any number of ways, but traditionally, it just didn't make any sense to me.

What about standing up for yourself and what you believe in?

As opposed to doing what a group of people who don't even know you says, just because they say so, even if you don't believe in what they say.

What about standing up for yourself and what you believe in?

As opposed to doing what a group of people who don't even know you says, just because they say so, even if you don't believe in what they say.

Ok, so I've already said that there are many ways that statement could be read, but that in this context (go to war/don't go to war) normally standing up means that one would go to war. It obviously did not for the person writing the post, I was just wondering if they wrote what they intended to write, or if I was missing something.

Walking into the lions' den here..Phew.

Apologies to all former service members, but I just can't see myself serving in a draft. I know, I know--dying for your country is a great honor, and all that--but I don't think I should be forced to serve in the military. Besides, I've never seen any politician during a conscription offer up their own services on the frontlines. The only reason there should ever be an active conscription is in the case of a REAL threat inside your own country's border.

However, (and I may be wrong) usually when a country enacts a draft, they are so low on military forces, that they are reaching a desperation point. If there are enemy forces on my country's soil, and my government needs ME to fight rather than thousands/millions of soldiers...I think it's a losing battle.

Getting back to the question, I'd wait until I got out of the country, THEN burn my draft card. >> No crazy Leatherface to saw me up then. :eek:

I know, I know--dying for your country is a great honor,

You got it wrong, your job in the military is to give the enemy the honor of dying for their country.
:D

You got it wrong, your job in the military is to give the enemy the honor of dying for their country.
:D

In that case, I'd have to dodge the draft. Why on earth would I want to give my enemies honor? :D

In that case, I'd have to dodge the draft. Why on earth would I want to give my enemies honor? :D

To have the honor of fighting honorable enemies!

You got it wrong, your job in the military is to give the enemy the honor of dying for their country.
:D

One reason I could never be in the military and it would be pointless to draft me. I might possibly be willing to die for my country, but kill for it? No way.

If there's no Biblical reason not to, yes.

in b4 :rolleyes:

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

I would comply whether I supported the war or not. Every male in my family has served the country when it has asked, regardless of the situation, and I would do the same. You will not find me tucking my tail between my legs and running to Canada.

You will not find me tucking my tail between my legs and running to Canada.

Same.

I have likewise lost, through evolution, the limb which used to serve as a functional tail. Similarly, I will be driving instead of running.(at least until I get near the border)

If there's no Biblical reason not to, yes.

in b4 :rolleyes:

You mean something like "Thou shalt not kill", that is, as you know, written in the Bible?

And before the "it's murder that isn't allowed" argument is uttered, it's still unlawful as far as the other side is concerned. Ergo, murder.

...and a grisly, grim "goodnight".

This is long, if you're quoting it please snip out whatever you aren't replying to so we don't waste too many pages. Not that anyone will, after my savage and irrational phase yesterday ;)

I would serve.

I would serve, as it would be my DUTY for the PRIVILEGE of living in my country.

If the reason of "duty" is sufficient (it's the only reason you give) wouldn't that "duty" have compelled you to sign up before you were drafted?

In fact, that goes for all who say that "duty" compels a citizen to obey the draft. Surely the introduction of the draft is a clear and unmistakable sign that the government thinks it needs soldiers but the population isn't buying it?

For those of you who said, that they would not serve unless it was a just war;

NO war is just. Innocents die, crimes are committed, and so on. War is a necessary evil, as some people and governments cannot or do not understand anything but pure brute force.

It is for the individual who would fight to decide if a war is sufficiently just to risk their life (and kill). Until they sign up, when they lose to that right.

For instance, if a person signs up now to serve in Iraq because they find that a just war, they forfeit the right to refuse to fight in Iran if the government decides to go to war there. Even if they think that that is unjust.

*snip, done already or I agree*

And lastly, for those of you who said that you would serve if your country is invaded;

The time to fight is before your country is invaded. While the enemy is destroying some other BEFORE the enemy gets to you. If you will not help your allies and neighbors, why should they help you?

You assume that any foreign war is between a "friend of your country" and an "enemy of your country". So what to make of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? USSR and Germany co-operated in partitioning eastern europe, were in fact partners in the behaviour which started WW2 ... but it wasn't long before they were on opposite sides of the conflict. If you'd been Russian, in 1939, how would you tell which country was you "friend" and which your "enemy"?

That example aside, it's implicit in nationalism that "your country" can't really trust any other country. There are allies, yes, but not "friends." That's anthropomorphizing alliances which are far more cynical than those between individual people.

==========

So if I am a fully paid-up member of the local chess club, and they start beating up on the tiddlywinks posse, I'm obliged to join in?

Great riposte!

==========

Well I'm the only child of my family but I believe they could still draft me anyway.

I would try telling them the following in this order:

I am out of shape (technically true, but not really)

I am gay (not true, but I could pull it off pretty sure)

That would work in *cough cough* some countries. Best option really, you avoid service, but also make the point to the military that it's their loss not to take gays.

I am a transgender (definitely not true, I love my penis)
*snip*

Lol. Get a red marker and draw a line around the old fella, and some stitch-marks. Pull it out, and wave it around proudly while talking (fictional) gory details of the surgery. Feet wouldn't touch the ground!

==========

Conscription is EXACTLY like slavery.

There are parallels but they're not exactly the same. That's like saying "taxation is theft" -- there are many things we permit to government which we won't permit to another individual.

===========

No one is forcing you to live in the US.
And fuck aren't I glad of that!
The point is, if you live here [don't] you agree to defend the country when the government calls you up for military service.
Hang on. If you were born after there was a draft, and the draft is introduced, isn't that the time you "agree" or "disagree" ? I would say that if you try to leave when the draft is introduced, you haven't agreed at all.

==========

Provided I could be guaranteed an officer's commission and a post in a warm headquarters, yes. Otherwise, no.

Lol. You are VERY consistent in your selfishness, aren't you?
The blessed Chris, in the rear with the gear. Probably hawking it on the side. :p

==========

Why? Or does your arguement boil down to some absurd ideal of "duty" too?

I don't think "duty" is absurd. I just don't think it justifies government compelling someone to act as though from duty.

...and a grisly, grim "goodnight".

You did well. I'll mess it up from here, you get some kip. :)

EDIT: Hey, OK to your reply (two down.) I'll try not to collateral yo ass. :D

I just want to weigh in on a few of the ideas raised previously during this thread.

I find it difficult to believe in the notion that one can implicitly agree to be drafted for the same reason that one can agree to be a slave, since one cannot transfer one's will to another. This is evidenced by the fact that the draft dodger retains control over his body in order to voice his dissent. Even if one agreed that he would allow someone else to make him fight for him, such an agreement should be considered null and void since it is impossible to transfer one's will in the first place, much as an agreement to transfer a square circle should be considered unenforceable.

Also, while imperialism is correlated to the most influential nations, it does not follow that this is its causation (cum hoc fallacy.) The more likely explanation is that states that allow for the most liberalism and protection of property rights, which allows A.) Competitive advantage concerning immigration and capital movement versus other states, and B.) Greater certainty and greater marginal utility of labor that lower levels of expropriation bring which encourages production. This of course leads to a greater common pool in the long run for a state to draw on, which it can use in imperialistic pursuits. Hence, the ascendancy of Republican Rome, England, and the United States versus the stagnation and eventual collapse of Imperial Rome, Spain, Turkey, and Russia due to the weight of their despotism. As such, imperialism is merely a by-product of states that feed upon the achievements of their citizenry, and not the cause of their population's advances (And, in fact, imperialism ends these advances, as the costs of maintaining empire eventually crush the society beneath them.)

You did well. I'll mess it up from here, you get some kip. :)

Oh, no, I'm not going away yet. It's a stylish way to say that the argument ends there with a given party. It's from Ruddigore. ;)

I have had more than one chuckle from the younger folks here but it's good to see that youthful rebellion is still a strong trait.

Honestly though, the way the world tension is today, any war that would require a draft either will end with WMD's flying around when some party is tired of the war or is desperate enough to use one....or will be ended really quickly in a nuclear fireball before anyone really understands what is happening.

Too many hot heads in this world with WMDs. I shutter to think what most middle eastern nations would do with some VX or an ICBM.

Heck, Pakistan and India wouldn't hesitate to use their munitions if either one believed they would win and come out of that exchange fairly unscathed.

I wouldn't worry about a draft...I'd be more worried that any war that possibly could require a draft would be the end of man-kind well before a draft was called up.


Oh, the young people that believe the draft is a slave-making device, your point of view has been heard and rejected by the Supreme Court (Butler v. Perry)

The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.

I have had more than one chuckle from the younger folks here but it's good to see that youthful rebellion is still a strong trait.

It's cute that you think refusing to kill for an abstraction is mere "youthful rebellion".

It's CRAP, but it's cute.

My question keeps being this: If the drafting´s obligatory, and escaping to another country that lacks extradition agreements with your country isn´t an option, do you have a choice? I don´t think so. Unless you plead a mental instability and I´ve heard that doesn´t really work anymore.

My question keeps being this: If the drafting´s obligatory, and escaping to another country that lacks extradition agreements with your country isn´t an option, do you have a choice? I don´t think so. Unless you plead a mental instability and I´ve heard that doesn´t really work anymore.

Well, one could attempt to make it work, though said attempt requires smearing yourself with your own fecal matter and running nude throughout the draft office, shouting gibberish and making weird signs with your hands.

Well, one could attempt to make it work, though said attempt requires smearing yourself with your own fecal matter and running nude throughout the draft office, shouting gibberish and making weird signs with your hands.

ROFL! ROFL!

ROFL! ROFL!

Yu know what the scary thing is? I thought that up on the spot in about two seconds.

No way. I hate the army, war and even battle games. :mad:

No way. I hate the army, war and even battle games. :mad:

Whoa, even Medieval II: Total War?

I have had more than one chuckle from the younger folks here but it's good to see that youthful rebellion is still a strong trait.

Honestly though, the way the world tension is today, any war that would require a draft either will end with WMD's flying around when some party is tired of the war or is desperate enough to use one....or will be ended really quickly in a nuclear fireball before anyone really understands what is happening.

What a dim view!

As with your previous post, you seem to assume that everyone replying to the question lives in the States. Quite a few of us don't.

There are many countries with compulsory service out of wartime.

I'll admit that I've been thinking throughout the thread: war between major powers in progress, insufficient enlisted troops, draft introduced.

It's not the only scenario. I think I'd be a lot more receptive to the idea if I lived in, for instance, Israel.

No way. I hate the army, war and even battle games. :mad:

But war and battle games are the best kind of games...

Like Rome Total War, Age of Empires, etc...

Yu know what the scary thing is? I thought that up on the spot in about two seconds.

You know what the scarier thing is?
I'd actually do that.

So if you ever hear the story of a successful draft dodge which ended in tragedy... well, pat yourself on the back and kiss a baby.

You know what the scarier thing is?
I'd actually do that.

So if you ever hear the story of a successful draft dodge which ended in tragedy... well, pat yourself on the back and kiss a baby.

And you know what's scarier?

I'd offer to tag along with you.

And you know what's scarier?

I'd offer to tag along with you.

I'm pretty much scared out of my wits right now.

Which is preferable, should a draft be around the corner.

No way. I hate the army, war and even battle games. :mad:

What on earth are you doing at nationstates then?

Yu know what the scary thing is? I thought that up on the spot in about two seconds.

NSG material. Yes!

What on earth are you doing at nationstates then?

I second that. What on earth are you doing in a nation simulation game were people can declare war to other nations?

NSG material. Yes!

That's why I've been here since January 2005, man. :p

My question keeps being this: If the drafting´s obligatory, and escaping to another country that lacks extradition agreements with your country isn´t an option, do you have a choice? I don´t think so. Unless you plead a mental instability and I´ve heard that doesn´t really work anymore.

Oh, I think I could pull it off ;)

See, the question was "would you let yourself be drafted" and I think it's implied that REFUSING (not dodging, refusing) is going to be seen as lawbreaking and there will be some consequences. You could rule out ever being President at the very least.

So, of course you "have a choice" in the sense that you have a choice to follow or break any law.

Have you answered the question yet? (Sorry, but it's a long thread.) If you think it couldn't possibly apply to you, imagine in you live in Israel, where both men and women are expected to serve a couple of years.

Oh, I think I could pull it off ;)

See, the question was "would you let yourself be drafted" and I think it's implied that REFUSING (not dodging, refusing) is going to be seen as lawbreaking and there will be some consequences. You could rule out ever being President at the very least.

So, of course you "have a choice" in the sense that you have a choice to follow or break any law.

Have you answered the question yet? (Sorry, but it's a long thread.) If you think it couldn't possibly apply to you, imagine in you live in Israel, where both men and women are expected to serve a couple of years.

Yes, I answered the question. I think I would break the law. I was trying to clarify on the ¨do I have a choice¨ thing. Thanks for explaining it.

That's why I've been here since January 2005, man. :p

I understand. This place can be addictive or, in my case, a place were I can have meaningful exchanges.:p

Yes, I answered the question. I think I would break the law.

OK. It's a long time since I answered the question myself. I also included the important qualifier ("I think" in your case) that it really depends on the circumstances. I said roughly "I would oppose the draft, it might even make me less inclined to serve. Under some circumstances I would openly refuse." I'll add that if I really really opposed a war, I might also refuse to pay taxes for it (not that I pay much anyway.)

For these kind of questions, on a world forum, I do try to give an answer which would apply even if I wasn't a bloke, wasn't from Aus, wasn't probably unfit for service, wasn't ... you get the idea.

I was trying to clarify on the ¨do I have a choice¨ thing. Thanks for explaining it.

Are you peeing in my pocket? I find it hard to accept such gratitude only for giving an answer ... there is not a damn thing authoritive about my opinion, I'm often wrong.

Tried the real world, came crawling back with your tail between your legs. We understand.

Nah, I never left. My original account was deleted over a comment about a certain poster *cough*VoteEarly*cough*. That happened in February of 2006, and I made this account shortly thereafter.

OK. It's a long time since I answered the question myself. I also included the important qualifier ("I think" in your case) that it really depends on the circumstances. I said roughly "I would oppose the draft, it might even make me less inclined to serve. Under some circumstances I would openly refuse." I'll add that if I really really opposed a war, I might also refuse to pay taxes for it (not that I pay much anyway.)

For these kind of questions, on a world forum, I do try to give an answer which would apply even if I wasn't a bloke, wasn't from Aus, wasn't probably unfit for service, wasn't ... you get the idea.



Are you peeing in my pocket? I find it hard to accept such gratitude only for giving an answer ... there is not a damn thing authoritive about my opinion, I'm often wrong.

No, I´m not peeing in your pocket. I was just thanking you for the explanation. Is that wrong of me? I also know that your opinion could be wrong too. I´m not questioning that.

I always find it interesting to try to answer hypotheticals. This quesion isn't purely hypothetical (it's "what would you do?") but it does lack a time qualifier.

That allows us to imagine our countries turning into fascist dictatorships, thirty years hence, and launching a war of aggression on a neighbour. Under those circumstances, fucking right I wouldn't serve. I'd be committing more serious "crimes" than that, too.

No, I´m not peeing in your pocket.

I can never quite stop myself from having a horrid mental image whenever somebody says "pocket", thanks to a certain episode of Futurama. And "peeing in your pocket"? Thanks. Thanks a fucking lot.

Not only does that raise questions of perversion, it also raises questions as to just how a woman could manage----

---Oh god damnit, that mental image is even worse.

Is that wrong of me?

No, it's fine. I was just a bit embarassed that you took my answer as an "explanation."

I can never quite stop myself from having a horrid mental image whenever somebody says "pocket", thanks to a certain episode of Futurama. And "peeing in your pocket"? Thanks. Thanks a fucking lot.

Not only does that raise questions of perversion, it also raises questions as to just how a woman could manage----


I have very large pockets.

*rummages*

Look, there was a woman in there already! "Hi, Cindi! I thought you left me years ago?"

I can never quite stop myself from having a horrid mental image whenever somebody says "pocket", thanks to a certain episode of Futurama. And "peeing in your pocket"? Thanks. Thanks a fucking lot.

Not only does that raise questions of perversion, it also raises questions as to just how a woman could manage----

---Oh god damnit, that mental image is even worse.

Ok, now I can´t stop laughing.:D

I have very large pockets.

*rummages*

Look, there was a woman in there already! "Hi, Cindi! I thought you left me years ago?"

"And remember, warm your hands in your buttocks; that's nature's pocket!"

.

.

.

"Don't let anybody pick your pocket!"

"And remember, warm your hands in your buttocks; that's nature's pocket!"

It's easy to see how you could smear your body in faeces, then.

"Don't let anybody pick your pocket!"

Hence the running around gibbering and making weird hand-signs part. Presumably you found something that shouldn't be there.

We'll make a soldier out of you yet!

*conscripts Potarius*

*conscripts Potarius*

Hey, it's my idea, so I should be conscripting you, damnit!

*deflects Conscription*

*casts Conscriptaja*

*deflects Conscriptaja*

*casts mixed-sex barracks*

Does that change your mind?

Well, it's more like an agreement that you make in order to become a citizen, but I can see how you might misconstrue it that way.

No agreements were required for me to become a citizen. I was born here therefore I AM a citizen.

*deflects Conscriptaja*

*casts mixed-sex barracks*

Does that change your mind?

Are you insinuating that I like being watched?


*deflects Mixed-Sex Barracks*

*casts Richard Simmons*

Oh, the young people that believe the draft is a slave-making device, your point of view has been heard and rejected by the Supreme Court (Butler v. Perry)

The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.

This would not be the first time the court has ruled incorrectly. Hopefully, like the other times, the court will eventualy correct itself and recognize that the draft is involuntary servitude.

Are you insinuating that I like being watched?


*deflects Mixed-Sex Barracks*

*casts Richard Simmons*

You told me you like it when I watch.

You told me you like it when I watch.

When you watch me doing what...?

*is paranoid*

When you watch me doing what...?

*is paranoid*

Nothing...

We could also commonly decide to implement slavery.

No, we can't. Slavery is inseparable from subordination. Societies decide to impose slavery upon other people, not upon themselves. But the draft is (or should be) egalitarian, and there are good reasons for it that serve the interests of everyone, not just a class that rules over others.

How the hell are the people responsible for a draft NOT imposing the draft on others who don't wish to join the military?

They are, in a certain sense. But this is true of any law: as a public, we impose things upon ourselves as individuals.

At least in some conceivable cases, the draft makes good sense in this context: we might imagine a war where, especially in the context of other military spending, the country simply cannot afford to pay soldiers enough to attract the necessary manpower. We are left with a free rider problem: everyone might benefit from the war being won, but those benefits are not conditional on participation. The incentives tend toward not risking life and limb for a small individual contribution whose benefits that individual will see little of... but if everyone follows this line of reasoning, everyone loses out.

Nothing...

Aw.

Aw.

Well, I wasn´t sure if you wanted our secrets to be told, so... I said nothing.:p

Well, I wasn´t sure if you wanted our secrets to be told, so... I said nothing.:p

And nothing it shall remain!

*quickly exchanges photos with you in an unmarked tan-colored folder*

*shifts eyes*

And nothing it shall remain!

*quickly exchanges photos with you in an unmarked tan-colored folder*

*shifts eyes*

*nods, under spy hat and big, big trench coat*

Nothing.

*takes envelop, gives her own to him and leaves whistling*

<.<
>.>

Depending on the reason of the draft, I would volunteer to fight against the government.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course other may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.

Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Convention March 23, 1775

I doubt these gentlemen would approve of a draft.

No, we can't. Slavery is inseparable from subordination. Societies decide to impose slavery upon other people, not upon themselves.

Good point.
And a reason why I find guest-worker programs to be a degree of slavery, because the guest worker is not a full member of society. Their participation in that society at all depends on a specific job they are contracted to do.

But the draft is (or should be) egalitarian, and there are good reasons for it that serve the interests of everyone, not just a class that rules over others.

Should be. Isn't in any case I know of.
And the same for the "good reasons." "To teach them discipline" for instance, is not a good reason for the draft.

They are, in a certain sense. But this is true of any law: as a public, we impose things upon ourselves as individuals.

At least in some conceivable cases, the draft makes good sense in this context: we might imagine a war where, especially in the context of other military spending, the country simply cannot afford to pay soldiers enough to attract the necessary manpower.

Agree broadly. A bit puzzled by the bolded bit.

We are left with a free rider problem: everyone might benefit from the war being won, but those benefits are not conditional on participation.

And what is the solution to the free rider problem? I mean, do you imagine some way society can be structured where there are incentives enough to make the acts which benefit all, also attractive to the individual? Getting a bit off-topic perhaps but I'm curious.

The incentives tend toward not risking life and limb for a small individual contribution whose benefits that individual will see little of... but if everyone follows this line of reasoning, everyone loses out.

Cannot agree with "small." Are you saying that whatever an individual does, their contribution is small? While I too reject the scenario of a single hero saving the world ... surely the standard should be some quantum on the scale of the individual.

To relate that to the question, it is better to conscript a healthy youngish person of good character, than an unhealthy person with a record of molesting others -- because they will make more contribution if required to fight. Should we also consider the contribution they would make if NOT called-up? Because that would suggest the opposite: send the least valuable citizens to risk their lives.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

That's a goad, not a statement of policy.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course other may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.

Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Convention March 23, 1775

I doubt these gentlemen would approve of a draft.

"But what more oft, in nations grown corrupt,
And by their vices brought to servitude,
Than to love bondage more than liberty --
Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty."

Milton, from "Samson Agonistes"

Though what to say of strenous bondage I don't know. Easy liberty would have to be preferable ;)

I offer this mainly to derail any suggestion that liberty springs from the founding fathers themselves. It ain't so, that was just a high-point in a tradition, and I must say that to non-Americans it doesn't seem necessarily the highest point.

To have the honor of fighting honorable enemies!

Ah, touche.

You seem to assume that only hippies and people that are into drugs would want to stay out of the Military.

But that can't be the case, as it would make you a moron.

Actually I was using what I consider a humorous application of Stereotypes to suggest that if you avoid military service by claiming to be a communist or a fundamentalist Muslim you best be prepared for the FBI to follow you around and keep your nose 100% clean. Regardless if you were a hippie, drug user, or a Bank employee laundering money the FBI will bust you.

but I guess such applications of stereotypes go over your head.
Also if that is the only fault in my two paragraphs on legally avoid mandatory military service you can find I question the validity of any further arguments you may make in regards to the draft being the equivalent of slavery.

Also if that is the only fault in my two paragraphs on legally avoid mandatory military service you can find I question the validity of any further arguments you may make in regards to the draft being the equivalent of slavery.

I've found that putting even one ray of humour in a strong debating post often gives the opponent an easy way out of tackling it.

I do it on purpose, because I don't mind letting people off the hook if they're not up for defending their position any more.

I'm not saying you "let Heikoku off the hook," I'm just saying, well, you'll get that.

In my case, its irrelevant, as last time I checked, you cant be drafted if you are the only male "heir" in your family.

If such was not the case, I would refuse to go anyway.
I would adamantly refuse to participate in any conflict that I do not fully support, and since the american government decides it likes to knock over third-world countries in a bid for oil and profit for the elite, they can suck my ass.

Its amazing that any goverment that has put such pride in "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" could at any time, conscript a person and potentially deprive them of all three.
Its exactly that kind of hippocracy that I personally abhor.

And for any of you who would call it "my patriotic duty", i contend that such barbarism is neither patriotic, nor duty.

Recently, I was pissed as hell to have to appear for jury duty, and I can only imagine how incensed I would be if I were told I had no choice but to go to war.

If a person could be exscused for religions beliefs, then I see no reason why someone couldnt be exscused for political ones either.
If the military were once again to be comprised of conscipted soldiers, then I see no difference between that and slavery.

I've found that putting even one ray of humour in a strong debating post often gives the opponent an easy way out of tackling it.

I do it on purpose, because I don't mind letting people off the hook if they're not up for defending their position any more.

I'm not saying you "let Heikoku off the hook," I'm just saying, well, you'll get that.

true but if I can't put humor in my post then i might as well go back to my term paper.

true but if I can't put humor in my post then i might as well go back to my term paper.

Of course. I had no trouble following your point, and both enjoyed the "hippy" joke and saw the serious point to it. If Heikoku won't tackle the post, it's fair to say H has conceded the point.

Its amazing that any goverment that has put such pride in "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" could at any time, conscript a person and potentially deprive them of all three.

Well put!

Its exactly that kind of hippocracy that I personally abhor.

I too am completely opposed to government by hippopotamus. Given how rulers like to treat themselves, I don't think there'd be enough fresh water to go 'round.

Recently, I was pissed as hell to have to appear for jury duty, and I can only imagine how incensed I would be if I were told I had no choice but to go to war.

Can't agree with you there. I'd love to be called for jury duty, but don't think I could keep a bland enough expression to not be vetoed by one side or the other. They'd see the light in the eyes ...

If a person could be excused for religions beliefs, then I see no reason why someone couldn't be excused for political ones either.

"Religious" is to do with "ethical" ... which is the reason I would have for refusing. I wouldn't lie and say it was ethics dictated by religion. They can suck MY ass too if only religion is an acceptable reason.

Maybe you say "political" where I say "ethical." No, I won't fight what I find to be an unjust war ... which is most of them.

If the military were once again to be comprised of conscipted soldiers, then I see no difference between that and slavery.

Nope. I'm not touching that. This entire post is a pretty package for a joke I couldn't help making about water mammals.

"How free can a country be
If you're required by law to defend it?"

I've found that putting even one ray of humour in a strong debating post often gives the opponent an easy way out of tackling it.

I do it on purpose, because I don't mind letting people off the hook if they're not up for defending their position any more.

I'm not saying you "let Heikoku off the hook," I'm just saying, well, you'll get that.

Actually I was using what I consider a humorous application of Stereotypes to suggest that if you avoid military service by claiming to be a communist or a fundamentalist Muslim you best be prepared for the FBI to follow you around and keep your nose 100% clean. Regardless if you were a hippie, drug user, or a Bank employee laundering money the FBI will bust you.

but I guess such applications of stereotypes go over your head.
Also if that is the only fault in my two paragraphs on legally avoid mandatory military service you can find I question the validity of any further arguments you may make in regards to the draft being the equivalent of slavery.


I never said drafting is slavery per se. I say it's unjust and I say it invades upon a LOT of rights. As for tricks to escape it, hey, I agree with him. I tackled the one part of the post I disagreed with, after mistaking it as a serious remark.

Anything else?

I never said drafting is slavery per se. As for tricks to escape it, hey, I agree with him. I tackled the one part of the post I disagreed with, after mistaking it as a serious remark.

Those are the words. Which were missing from your earlier post.

To pick a small part out of a post you generally disagree with, and applaud it... or to pick a small part out of a post you generally agree with and dispute it. Surely you can see how this is misleading?

Anything else?

If you are offering me a favour, then I request an expression of the post you agreed with, in your own words. I'm still not sure exactly WHAT you agreed to. Silence is ... rather ambiguous.

I see strong parallels between slavery and conscription. I see strong parallels between slavery and taxation, or conscription and taxation.

To say they are "the same" is absurd, and the statement of such not much better than "slavery utterly taboo, right? Conscription very like slavery. Conscription taboo. Shutup. Slaver! Shutup! Slaver! Slaver! Nazi pedophile slaver!"

Just like calling someone a "coward", the comparison to slavery is an appeal to emotion. That's what bad thinkers do, when they can't change their mind, have abandoned hope of changing other minds, and just don't want to think any more. They fear the opponent then, far more than a rational thinker fears anything. They grasp for the strongest weapon they have, never mind that it's a barbaric and self-endangering weapon. They resort to emotion.

The writer who is afraid to think resorts to the chemical weapons of the lexicon, emotive words. Depending on the delivery system they have, that might hurt someone, but it usually hurts them pretty badly too.

The writer who hasn't dared a thought in ten or twenty years resorts to obsolete, war-surplus chemical weapons, broken or depleted emotive words.

Those writers we like to laugh at, and why not? They mean harm to others, the damn silly thing blows up in their face and they walk around for a while with no eyebrows. To not laugh would be ... misplaced respect or something.

"Duty" still works on me. "Patriotism" is ha-ha, you missed. "King and County" is Crikey mate don't fart around with that thing, you'll hurt yourself.

Heiks, we're done for now. Thanks for the opportunity to deliver one of my raves.

Or was that a rant? Anyway, boom-boom!

If you are offering me a favour, then I request an expression of the post you agreed with, in your own words. I'm still not sure exactly WHAT you agreed to. Silence is ... rather ambiguous.

Well, I agree with most of the post and even with the "conscription isn't slavery" part, although I may see the two as a bit closer than he does.

For everyone else, here's an idea to be going on with while Heiks and I discuss tactics of debate:

An opt-in, random draft.

Not so very different from the Reserves I guess. The Army Reserve is a great idea, you don't have to give up civilian life, you've already trained if there's a sudden need for troops, and you've put yourself forward as someone WILLING to serve if necessary.

Training the Reserves costs the government money. And the reservists take time out of public life to train, which is a dead loss to society if they never serve.

It seems to me that a government which hasn't boosted the Reserves sufficiently to make conscription unnecessary is probably incompetent. But many governments are uncompetent, we must accept that.

So why not make this "duty to the state" a real choice? Not an "implicit choice" of being a citizen, but something you sign on the line for?

Once you have attained adulthood, and thereafter, you may walk into any government office and sign a form consenting to be drafted if the government needs troops beyond the regular forces and the reserves.

It doesn't cost you a cent, nor a day of your time, until the draft is introduced, which it may well never be. It doesn't cost the government a cent, they won't train you until they draft you.

That's my idea. I call for all laws allowing a draft to be rewritten with the phrase "with the sworn consent of the citizen" in them.

Well, I agree with most of the post and even with the "conscription isn't slavery" part, although I may see the two as a bit closer than he does.

So go on with that. I mean, if the difference seems significant to you, identify why and go into one of those hair-splitting exercises I indulge in.

I do think it would be more worthwhile to affirm what you agree with in the post. Like, actually put it in your own words and say it yourself. Not just "I agree with most of it."

Isn't "agreeing with most of it" pretty much the human condition? We accept a lot more of "what is" than we rebel against ... unless we are junkies, suicides or devout Buddhists : P

I'm saying that "agreeing with most of it" is pretty much a null statement. Why waste pixels saying it?

"How free can a country be
If you're required by law to defend it?"

I don't know, you should ask somebody where that's the case. We are required by law to either defend it or come up with a compelling argument as to why you can't.

I'm saying that "agreeing with most of it" is pretty much a null statement. Why waste pixels saying it?

To fill my meaningless existence with something while I await my inevitable death, obviously! :p

Well, it's more like an agreement that you make in order to become a citizen, but I can see how you might misconstrue it that way.
And if conscription only applied to those who voluntarily because citizens, that would work. Natural-born citizens need to be exempt to defeat the slavery claims.

Yes, you can.
Then it's not conscription.
Replace "the state" with "your boss" and that describes my current job.
Only if you signed a binding contract. Otherwise, you're always free to quit and go elsewhere.
As do most failures to follow the law.
Slavery was legal. That doesn't make it okay.

Then it's not conscription.
It's called draft dodging, just because it is illegal to avoid the draft doesn't mean you can't do it.
Only if you signed a binding contract. Otherwise, you're always free to quit and go elsewhere.
I'm also free to run the risk of not being able to pay my mortgage.
Slavery was legal. That doesn't make it okay.
I never said I thought it was okay.

Good point.
And a reason why I find guest-worker programs to be a degree of slavery, because the guest worker is not a full member of society. Their participation in that society at all depends on a specific job they are contracted to do.

I agree.

Should be. Isn't in any case I know of.

Then make it more egalitarian. But the failures of the draft in its present incarnation do not mean that it is intrinsically enslaving.

Our political system, too, is dominated by the privileged and powerful... but that does not mean that politics as such is oppressive and tyrannical.

And the same for the "good reasons."

Conscription has never served a legitimate end? Ever?

"To teach them discipline" for instance, is not a good reason for the draft.

Indeed not.

Agree broadly. A bit puzzled by the bolded bit.

I phrased it awkwardly. Basically, if we're spending our national resources on paying for other aspects of the war, we may not have enough to pay soldiers lots of money.

And what is the solution to the free rider problem?

"The" free rider problem? There is none, because there are many, and they require different solutions.

Ideally, we can deal with them most efficiently by adding a monetary cost to actions with negative externalities, or a monetary benefit to actions with positive ones... but such an economic solution wouldn't necessarily work to replace a draft. Paying people to go to war exposes us to the problems I've already discussed, and while letting people pay to avoid military service in principle makes sense (for the reason you mention later), in the context of diminishing marginal utility the practical consequence is increased likelihood of the old story: "rich man's war, poor man's fight."

Cannot agree with "small." Are you saying that whatever an individual does, their contribution is small?

No, just that the vast majority of individual soldiers, considered alone, have a minuscule effect on the war effort.

More importantly, that minuscule benefit is divided among all the citizens of the country: the soldier himself or herself receives only a tiny portion.

Should we also consider the contribution they would make if NOT called-up?

Possibly. But as I note above, the risk is that this serves as a way for the wealthy and powerful to avoid service--and make a draft for other people.

So why not make this "duty to the state" a real choice? Not an "implicit choice" of being a citizen, but something you sign on the line for?

Because national defense is still a public, non-excludable good.

If my country wins the war, I receive the benefits regardless of whether or not I participate in that "duty."

to people saying I should be able to get out of the draft because I disagree with it. your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. it would be the same thing as me saying I don't want to pay for welfare programs and not paying the portions of the income tax that would have gone to it. It is irrelevant weather you disagree with something Laws are mandated by congress.

However if you wish to avoid service simply show up to the draft board and state "service would present a grave conflict of interest to me. "
The draft is like any other goverment institution in that it is a system. that phrase is what the draft board needs to hear in order to consider not drafting you. It helps if you can elaborate but if you can not or you do not want to lie then say I plead the 5th amendment and if they press the matter the further say " sir If i stated this it may force you as a US military officer to arrest me so i keep my plead of the 5th amendment and if threatened with arrest will refuse any further questions until I am provided a lawyer".

they will not draft you the FBI may follow you around and harass you because you made it sound like your making bombs or something. But you will not have to join the military.

to be honest the only people who are drafted are those who consent, and those who are too dumb to understand the system.

It's called draft dodging, just because it is illegal to avoid the draft doesn't mean you can't do it.
If you were a slave you could run away. That doesn't stop it from being slavery.

Nothing you've said contradicts my assertion that conscription is slavery.

I would sooner kill whoever was attempting to draft me.

Yes and no. If the state of New York was in danger of being invaded then yes. I would gladly join the arm forces to protect my home, but last time I checked, few to no countries currently have the power to invade New York (without getting f**ked in the ass mind you). So for the foreseeable future, if a draft was to reappear in the U.S, then I'm going to have to buy me one of those things that make it easier to hold onto the soap.

I don't know, you should ask somebody where that's the case. We are required by law to either defend it or come up with a compelling argument as to why you can't.Many laws are like that, this doesn't alter what I said.

Many laws are like that, this doesn't alter what I said.

The laws in regard to the draft are written so reasonably that anyone who has a mind to can avoid service in the military.

It is sort of like that law saying I cant drink and drive is slavery because I want to drink and drive.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

yes.


sure.

but I doubt they would take me...

to people saying I should be able to get out of the draft because I disagree with it. your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. it would be the same thing as me saying I don't want to pay for welfare programs and not paying the portions of the income tax that would have gone to it.

No, it wouldn't, on at least two grounds.

First, while welfare programs may or may not be a good policy, giving the government money to fund them is not itself immoral. Participating in an unjust war involves participating in killing people without justification, and is.

Second, you may or may not disagree with welfare programs, but the authority to decide the economic structure and policies of society lies with the democratic government, not with you. On the other hand, basic autonomy over something like whether or not you kill and die for some cause seems to have a far stronger case for belonging essentially to the individual.

And if conscription only applied to those who voluntarily because citizens, that would work. Natural-born citizens need to be exempt to defeat the slavery claims.

You have 18 years to get to a different country or come up with a reason why you cannot go to war before the US can ask you to fight.

Many laws are like that, this doesn't alter what I said.

Seeing as the law gives you an option, I have no problem describing the system as "free". Obviously the laws of any nation aren't going to be completely free, because there wouldn't be a nation if that were the case, there would be anarchy. A good solution is to come up with two broad options under which most people will be able to operate (the third option would be to break the law and go to Canada I guess).

It's true that your question is a valid one, but in the context of the discussion it is a misleading one.

If your government instituted a draft and you were selected, under what circumstances would you or would you not comply? If there was a requirement for something more mild like mandatory civil service, would you comply?

I'd go if drafted. I'd rather be an officer but if called up I'd probably serve. Now....civil service? It depends on what you define civil service as.

No, it wouldn't, on at least two grounds.

First, while welfare programs may or may not be a good policy, giving the government money to fund them is not itself immoral. Participating in an unjust war involves participating in killing people without justification, and is.

Second, you may or may not disagree with welfare programs, but the authority to decide the economic structure and policies of society lies with the democratic government, not with you. On the other hand, basic autonomy over something like whether or not you kill and die for some cause seems to have a far stronger case for belonging essentially to the individual.

First going to the draft board and saying "service in the military would pose a grave conflict of interest for me " is not immoral.
What is your issue with this are you perhaps mute ?

Second in our democratic society the executive branch has the power to lead military actions with the approval of the legislative branch. and the legislative branch has the power regulate recruitment and selective service.

It does but it is rare that anyone who does not want to kill is actually forced into service, and this is caused by their improper verbalization, even one is inside the military verbalization of a desire not to kill even if it was in self defense will get one assigned else where, normally it is quite in order to assure it is not abused.

First going to the draft board and saying "service in the military would pose a grave conflict of interest for me " is not immoral.

I wasn't talking about that. And I'm not sure if I believe your account.

Second in our democratic society the executive branch has the power to lead military actions with the approval of the legislative branch. and the legislative branch has the power regulate recruitment and selective service.

The fact that the draft is legal does not make the draft right.

It does but it is rare that anyone who does not want to kill is actually forced into service, and this is caused by their improper verbalization, even one is inside the military verbalization of a desire not to kill even if it was in self defense will get one assigned else where, normally it is quite in order to assure it is not abused.

It doesn't matter whether or not the person is directly required to kill. Participating in an institution dedicated to killing is not any more justifiable.

The laws in regard to the draft are written so reasonably that anyone who has a mind to can avoid service in the military.

It is sort of like that law saying I cant drink and drive is slavery because I want to drink and drive.I didn't say that the draft was slavery, but I did say that it interferes with freedom.

Seeing as the law gives you an option, I have no problem describing the system as "free". Obviously the laws of any nation aren't going to be completely free, because there wouldn't be a nation if that were the case, there would be anarchy. A good solution is to come up with two broad options under which most people will be able to operate (the third option would be to break the law and go to Canada I guess).

It's true that your question is a valid one, but in the context of the discussion it is a misleading one.Do you mean the slavery context? I suppose if you thought I was implying that the draft was slavery it would be misleading - that wasn't my intention.
Nonetheless, while we might not be able to make things completely free, it is conceivable that we can eliminate the draft.

Chances are, I'd enlist before the draft were to begin rather than wait to be drafted and end up being put wherever the military decides to put me.

Civil service is just a waste of my time, and really represents nothing more than compulsory labor. I've got other things to do that are considerably more beneficial to the country, and I'm sure there are plenty of people more than willing to do that work in exchange for a solid paycheck. Now, if you were to say pay me $60,000 per year of service, I might consider it...that's roughly the starting salary I'd be giving up were I forced to give a year of mandatory civil service.

Just what I did. Enlisted years before Vietnam heated up. Could see it coming. Went into Air Force Intelligence. Least likely to shoot or be shot and had a great time where I was stationed. But being in the military sucks!!!

As a pacifist, I am a conscientious objector. War is wrong, and the ROTC is a sick ploy by the US Navy to get young people to help them cause genocide.

As a pacifist, I am a conscientious objector. War is wrong, and the ROTC is a sick ploy by the US Navy to get young people to help them cause genocide.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/smiley_scared_thumb.gif

As a pacifist, I am a conscientious objector. War is wrong, and the ROTC is a sick ploy by the US Navy to get young people to help them cause genocide.

Pacifist is just a fancy word for coward.






:D

Pacifist is just a fancy word for coward.






:D

Do you know how lucky you are to be joking? :p

Do you know how lucky you are to be joking? :p

If you're a pacifist, what does he have to be worried about?
Are you going to look at him in a pointed fashion?
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/EMOPOyes005HL.gif

I put the "fist" in "Pacifist" :p

I can't speak for the rest of the pacifist crowd, but my opinion is that we ought not meddle in world affairs as much as we do. There's too much saber rattling from the government. Of course war is always an option when we are attacked, but wars of aggression are inexcusable. "Preemptive counterattack" is hitting first. We're supposed to be the gentlemen in world politics.

Depends. Conscription I support. But for a draft, it depends. If we were being attacked or I thought the war was important like WW2, I'd go. If it was like Viet Nam or Iraq, I'd skip.

Definitely...someone has to go so those that are pacifists, conscientious objectors, draft-dodgers, and other "someone else will go in my stead" types can stay home and complain or spit on me when I get back.

I've already served in the military, but if it came to a draft, I'd reenlist tomorrow instead of being selected. Being drafted means you get a crappy job. With an enlistment, you at least have a shot at doing something you might enjoy. I was airborne infantry before, and I'd probably do that again. Nothing is as exhilarating as jumping from an airplane at 800 feet AGL in the dead of night.

Unless the US was in severe danger, there's no point in a draft. And it's very hot in Iraq, I don't take heat well at all....

I wasn't talking about that. And I'm not sure if I believe your account.

The fact that the draft is legal does not make the draft right.

It doesn't matter whether or not the person is directly required to kill. Participating in an institution dedicated to killing is not any more justifiable.

the fact that it is legal means you have legal obligations, I do prefer to live in a state with legal obligations rather then a state with legislated morality.
Right in wrong is not the concern of law and It should never be the concern of law, what is the concern of law is necessary and proper.

1st the military is not dedicate to killing. The military is dedicated to defending this country and its interest.
2nd if your going to blame an institution for killing blame the US goverment as they are the ones who control the military, so Id hope you do not participate in politics or goverment (assuming you reside here) since that would be the institution responsible for doing said killing.

Pacifist is just a fancy word for coward.

Well I'd certainly claim conscious objector status if I ever got drafted. I don't consider myself a coward, I just like to fight for causes I think are just, and fighting for a Ruling Class to make more profit is not my idea of just. I certainly wouldn't give a hoot to see a thousand bourgeois lined up against a wall.