Similar to the myths about income taxes, this is wishful thinking about how the constitution actually works.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
It sounded pretty reasonable to me, can you explain why it don't work Orincoro?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The links don't seem to work for me, can you post a summary?
I wouldn't worry about the draft anyways. The top brass doesn't want it. Things would have to get desperate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinetteB: It sounded pretty reasonable to me, can you explain why it doesn't work Orincoro?
Fixed that for you.
It doesn't work because there are a large number of precedents, dating back to the 1910's, of cases in which draft laws have been upheld, and appeals under the 13th and 5th amendments and other rights have been rejected by the supreme court on several occasions. Were you to be arrested for failing to comply with a draft order, you would likely lose, and go to prison. You might not lose, and you might not end up going to prison, but the constitution and the law is not like magical fairies, where the right combination of words unlocks special secret powers. If the government wants something, and the courts see it as within their right, you have to fight it in court, and you can lose- and in this case, you probably would lose.
I understand that it sounds reasonable to you, however it is simply not the way this process works. You have a right, under the constitution, to "due process." This means that if you are charged with a violation of the law, you have a right to have your case heard in court. However, this particular article's interpretation of this right makes it appear as if you, as a citizen, have some *peremptory* right to demand that the government justify its requirements of you before you can be compelled to comply with them. This is far from the case. Were you drafted into service, against your will, you would find yourself under the uniform code of military justice. If you sued the government for violating your rights, you would have no guarantee of victory, and no guarantee that an appeals court would hear your case at all (the SCOTUS refuses the majority of appeals). And if there was a draft law in place, you would certainly lose your initial case, since the government's actions would be lawful. It would only be an appeals process that challenges *the law* and not the government's direct action, that would allow for your victory- and as I say, there is no guarantee, and a *very* high likelihood, that your case would simply never be heard on appeal. If you continued to refuse to serve, and you couldn't have your case heard, you could be tried under the uniform code, and spend the rest of your life in the stockade.
This is basically why it doesn't work.
[ November 14, 2012, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
1) It's not true. You don't have to "volunteer"; you CAN be drafted. See Orin's post for details.
2) The last time there was a draft in the US was 40 years ago. Politically, it absolutely will not fly now or anytime soon.
3) You live in Europe. Why do you care?
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Thanks very much Orincoro. That is very helpful.
I care, because I am interested in human rights. So I find the question whether or not a country can force a person against their will to serve in the military interesting. And I do not have such a sense of 'Europe is my world and the rest is of no interest'.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Great. Check out Switzerland and Finland, where it's not a purely theoretical notion.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
You can always choose to go to prison. But I don't think draft evasion is a big problem. According to wiki no-one was persecuted since 1987 for that.
But I still think in most cases it's cowardice rather than freedom issue.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Doesn't Isreal also have mandatory service?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
About a dozen countries currently have mandatory military service. Israel is one of them, yes.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Brazil too. One year of mandatory military service.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
"About a dozen"? More like around 60 countries around the world or so have mandatory military service.
I think Israel has one of the most harsh military services. One of my friends from Israel told me they have obligatory 2-year service (or maybe more), including women. My parents, while on a trip to Jerusalem, said they saw teenage girls carrying automatic weapons.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: "About a dozen"? More like around 60 countries around the world or so have mandatory military service.
That link shows 24. And I would personally omit a few they list on the basis of the nature or available exceptions/exemptions. But ok, a couple dozen.
[ November 14, 2012, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If there was a draft, nothing on that site would be useful for trying to get out of it. Same as how most "get out of paying the unconstitutional income tax!" websites are only good for making deluded people get themselves arrested and charged for tax evasion over the very much so constitutional income tax.
Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I think Israel has one of the most harsh military services.
And you base that evaluation on what?
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: My parents, while on a trip to Jerusalem, said they saw teenage girls carrying automatic weapons.
In that 18 and 19 year olds are teenagers, that was almost certainly true. So what? Most countries' armed services, whether volunteer or drafted, include 18 and 19 year olds.
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: One of my friends from Israel told me they have obligatory 2-year service (or maybe more), including women.
3 years for men, and 2 for women. There are quite a few exceptions and exemptions, as well as an alternative called Sherut Leumi, National Service.
I have Israeli cousins (male and female) who have fulfilled their requirement through Sherut Leumi, some who have used the yeshiva exemption, and some who have served in a variety of combat and combat-support roles.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I think Israel has one of the most harsh military services.
And you base that evaluation on what?
On the fact that I haven't heard of many other countries in which you had a three year training. That's what I mean by hearsh- having three years of your life (as a man) spent on military.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: My parents, while on a trip to Jerusalem, said they saw teenage girls carrying automatic weapons.
In that 18 and 19 year olds are teenagers, that was almost certainly true. So what? Most countries' armed services, whether volunteer or drafted, include 18 and 19 year olds.
Yeah, well, those are girls. It doesn't matter how old they are, just how young they look. That was their impression. Girls with guns.
And that there are guns everywhere.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Russia's draft is several thousand degrees worse than the one in Israel. It requires service, and by service it means doing anything the officers require, for little money, no respect, and few safety considerations. Several Generals were caught treating their draftees as slave labor for building new homes, businesses, etc.
Many people have their sons disappear after being drafted, only to be told they died in some accident.
When we adopted from Russia we were warned never to bring him back into Russia between the ages of 16 to 26 for fear that he will be kept and drafted. They do not give up citizenship claims.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Israel has a long term of service for two reasons: many soldiers get extensive training (I have three cousins (one's a girl) who can do amazing things in tiny planes); and need. Like "guns everywhere", it's a response to the national reality. It's not what anyone wants (see Golda Meir on forgiveness), but it is an unfortunate necessity.
And many of the skills picked up as part of military training translate to marketable skills in the job market.
As far as drafting women, those Israeli women who do not wish to serve in the military go the Sherut Leumi route. But if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lots of guns??? IN ISRAEL???????
Anyway isn't their a lot of strife over Torato Omanuto and all the ultraorthodox who essentially get off scot-free from the conscription requirement
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: You can always choose to go to prison. But I don't think draft evasion is a big problem. According to wiki no-one was persecuted since 1987 for that.
But I still think in most cases it's cowardice rather than freedom issue.
No has been prosecuted for failing to register for the selective service. Draft dodgers were pardoned by Carter- thus no prosecutions since 77.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
During the ten days I spent in Israel in 2005 I saw all of that. I also felt extremely safe wherever I went. My father-in-law freaked out because some bomb got thrown over the fence/wall not hurting anyone. I asked him how many deaths he saw that week in the United Staes on the news, he got the point. Israel actually has a much lower intentional death rate than we do.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
These links are false. Not one shred of truth.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's a site called "conspiracyplanet" for god's sake.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: These links are false. Not one shred of truth.
that's what the system wants you to "think"
ameriKKKa
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
WAKE UP SHEEPLE
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
My old roommate, who cannot return to Taiwan, unless he chooses to be immediately drafted, does have the option of being forced to work for a government company that is less military-like than the army for a year. I think he can be forgiven if he waits until he reaches an age that is considered "old" by the military (forgot what, sorry).
Even a year of doing work he isn't interested in is too much for him, despite some relatives and an ex-girlfriend who live there.
But if you want to avoid a draft, leave the country and don't come back. Works pretty nicely. Just pick somewhere you like and hope you don't miss your family.
I believe Germany has loosened its military requirement, but my friends are older than that. All I know about their military experience is it involved feeding flood relief people frighteningly gigantic amounts of rice.
For your guilty laugh of the day, said German friend deadpanned, "In Germany, we don't have holidays to honor our war veterans."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: All I know about their military experience is it involved feeding flood relief people frighteningly gigantic amounts of rice.
I just get this terribly stereotypical image of angry germans holding flood victims at bayonet point, forcing bags of rice at them, and yelling essen den reis! ESSEN DEN REIS! Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Don't roll them at me, please.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I don't think there is a problem with mandatory service. I think having kids give service to their country is good. Of course that wouldn't go over here. Even if it weren't just military service, but a peace corps or WPA type. Three years is the typical first enlistment that the US military has. With that, you learn a skill, discipline, get VA loans for life, free room and board, decent enough pay, free medical, and GI Bill for school.
I joined the National Guard when I was 17. Spent 7 years in. I never had to go to war, I was in between Gulf conflicts. But I did have responsibility which, I feel, kept me out of trouble (I come from a big family of drug users/criminals). It taught me that I can accomplish anything with hard work. It gave me a purpose and I learned a poor white kid from Oklahoma could go to college even though I didn't play football.
Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: lots of guns??? IN ISRAEL???????
What? Irony, no irony, I dunno.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
We? It feels like you're a part of the system, you work for the government? Usually it's "the goverment asks" or something.
And - I agree. Governments now treat people like they are all children, and people like it. You could live your life doing nothing and do nothing in return for all the free stuff you get. Not that such life would be a good one.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Don't roll them at me, please.
Don't make dumb sexist claims, and I won't roll them at you.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
We? It feels like you're a part of the system, you work for the government? Usually it's "the goverment asks" or something.
And - I agree. Governments now treat people like they are all children, and people like it. You could live your life doing nothing and do nothing in return for all the free stuff you get. Not that such life would be a good one.
No, I don't work for the government. Never have unless you count 7 years National Guard and 10 years as a contractor for NASA. I meant "we" as in US citizens. The collective group of people who make up this country. :-)
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Don't roll them at me, please.
Don't make dumb sexist claims, and I won't roll them at you.
Rebecca... What's sexist about noticing groups of 19-year-old girls walking the streets with m16s (or whatever they're called). Not a common view in Europe. And probably in the US, too.
From another topic:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Having people inform me what what I think, what I feel, and why doesn't really do much to brighten my day.
We agree on one the latter, you know.
edited, 'cause I pasted the quote on my part Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That is not my name.
And I only said something about rolling my eyes regarding claims that "teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls". If that's not what you are claiming, then you are at no risk of eye rolling.
I have no idea why you think I am telling you what you think or feel.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'll sort of clarify my earlier standpoint: mandatory service programs can actually be very awesome but i don't trust the american political system with it soooooo
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It seemed like you were saying the weird thing was seeing teenage girls with guns. Not just teenagers in general.
That's sexist.
Edit: Rivka is a sneaky ninja.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:What's sexist about noticing groups of 19-year-old girls walking the streets with m16s
Nothing. Re-read rivka's original statement that you first responded to:
quote:if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Not a word about noticing people with guns.
That aside, it does seem to me that grunt infantry still needs a lot of upper-body strength. Lugging forty kilos of equipment all the live-long day is not a trivial feat.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It seemed like you were saying the weird thing was seeing teenage girls with guns. Not just teenagers in general.
Actually, I have no problem with that. If you are used to one and not the other, then seeing that which you are unused to will be weird.
It was the implication that there's something wrong with drafting female teenagers, but not with drafting male teenagers, that I take exception to.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If that's not what you are claiming, then you are at no risk of eye rolling.
And that's what I meant by my reply, that I do not claim that.
Then I'm sorry, I did't know what sexist mean. Really. I am sorry if I offended any women.
I just wanted to say what was the impression of Israel my parents had while on vacation.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:What's sexist about noticing groups of 19-year-old girls walking the streets with m16s
Nothing. Re-read rivka's original statement that you first responded to:
quote:if you are going to claim teenage boys are better draftees than teenage girls, I'll just roll my eyes at you.
Not a word about noticing people with guns.
I don't get what your point is.
She said, that if I claimed that boys are better draftees, she would roll her eyes at me. I said, don't, because I didn't want to claim that. Then she said that as long as I don't make sexist claims, she won't. Then I started defending myself, but now I'm confused what was this sexist thing in the first place.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It seemed like you were saying the weird thing was seeing teenage girls with guns.
That's precisly what I meant.
quote: That's sexist.
If this is sexism, then I guess so.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
No, I think Rivka was right to correct me.
If you're just not used to it, it's not specifically sexist to find it odd. I find it more odd when I see a topless woman on the street than a topless man, simply because it's less common and so more notable.
It's only if you take it a step further, and say that women shouldn't be soldiers, that it's truly sexist.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That aside, it does seem to me that grunt infantry still needs a lot of upper-body strength. Lugging forty kilos of equipment all the live-long day is not a trivial feat.
This is one of those things that seems silly to me. Of course that's true.
But, first of all, not all military positions are grunt infantry. So, it still doesn't preclude egalitarian military systems.
Second of all, not all men have more upper body strength than all women. They're generalized trends, with hundreds of thousands of exceptions. So if you have any sort of aptitude test, and then it turns out that after aptitude tests 70% of the soldiers placed as grunts are men and 30% are women or whatever, that's not sexist.
Saying that the generalized trend means we shouldn't have women be infantry grunts is still sexist, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Lugging forty kilos of equipment all the live-long day is not a trivial feat.
True. I was very impressed the time I saw my cousin -- about to go back after being home for a couple days on leave -- all ready to go.
She had been in about a year at that point, so it wasn't a big deal to her anymore.
My two male fighter pilot cousins are slender and weedy. Probably part of why they went for the fighter pilot gig, and not infantry.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
You have a big family, rivka! And many of them had somthing to do with military, too.
Except for my grandfather, no-one I know had anything to do with the army. But Polish army has like 100 000 soldiers only, so I guess this could be the reason.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: You have a big family, rivka!
Yup, lots of cousins. (Not all are first cousins, BTW, although I have about 20.)
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: And many of them had somthing to do with military, too.
Not most of my American cousins, and only about half of my Israeli ones.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I just get this terribly stereotypical image of angry germans holding flood victims at bayonet point, forcing bags of rice at them, and yelling essen den reis! ESSEN DEN REIS!
This is just wrong. In German the formal imperative is Essen Sie den Reis! The informal plural imperative is Esst den Reis! And if there's just one flood victim and it's someone you're close to, you could use the informal singular and say Iss den Reis! Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Couldn't it be Essen as an infinitive? I learned German, but long ago. Can't you use an infinitive in an imperative sentence to make it rude?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I dunno. I do know my other German friends fed me reis mit scheiss. That wasn't very nice of them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I just get this terribly stereotypical image of angry germans holding flood victims at bayonet point, forcing bags of rice at them, and yelling essen den reis! ESSEN DEN REIS!
This is just wrong. In German the formal imperative is Essen Sie den Reis! The informal plural imperative is Esst den Reis! And if there's just one flood victim and it's someone you're close to, you could use the informal singular and say Iss den Reis!
i knew i should have added a disclaimer. okay, since when do stereotypical germans speak anything other than
1. really poorly translated german that sounds phonetically sinister (ja! mein KILLEN das AMERIKKANERS!), or 2. english in a bad german accent
bonus points if after the war / flood relief effort, they become sinister dentists or TF2 medics
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Nah, academics and fiction writers, the lot of them. But they do all have accents all of which are slightly different from each other, but I can't place how. The friend who passed out the rice does say ws as vs though, which is awesome.
Though, on a related note, the Austrian guy who ran the gym in my building about three years back had Ahnold's accent. He was, as it turned out, a big fan of the man and highly recommended his books on body building.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh my Germans, last bastion of a socially acceptable national lambasting
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I just get this terribly stereotypical image of angry germans holding flood victims at bayonet point, forcing bags of rice at them, and yelling essen den reis! ESSEN DEN REIS!
This is just wrong. In German the formal imperative is Essen Sie den Reis! The informal plural imperative is Esst den Reis! And if there's just one flood victim and it's someone you're close to, you could use the informal singular and say Iss den Reis!
i knew i should have added a disclaimer. okay, since when do stereotypical germans speak anything other than
1. really poorly translated german that sounds phonetically sinister (ja! mein KILLEN das AMERIKKANERS!), or 2. english in a bad german accent
bonus points if after the war / flood relief effort, they become sinister dentists or TF2 medics
Whereas when I see Russians I expect them to say, "Engineer is credit to team!"
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Couldn't it be Essen as an infinitive? I learned German, but long ago. Can't you use an infinitive in an imperative sentence to make it rude?
You can use the infinitive as an imperative in things like recipes and signs, but I've never heard anything about using it to be rude.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Whereas when I see Russians I expect them to say, "Engineer is credit to team!"
The french are totally doing scout's mom
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
I think it can have okay effects, but I don't think it's ethically acceptable.
This is sort of a matter of principle for me, the way some right-wingers think taxes amount to theft. The notion that your material property is yours, period, has always struck me as absurd for a host of reasons. But the notion that your time here on Earth is yours to use as you see fit seems entirely sensible. There should at least need to be overwhelming state interest to justify forcing you to take on activities you wouldn't otherwise pursue.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Jesus, I think my intelligence is decreasing rapidly. Now that I re-read this sexist thing I see how dumb I sound.
Please forgive me. I was tired yesterday. I actually didn't understand a word of what you wrote (rivka, mostly). Please let it be forgiven.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
I think it can have okay effects, but I don't think it's ethically acceptable.
This is sort of a matter of principle for me, the way some right-wingers think taxes amount to theft. The notion that your material property is yours, period, has always struck me as absurd for a host of reasons. But the notion that your time here on Earth is yours to use as you see fit seems entirely sensible. There should at least need to be overwhelming state interest to justify forcing you to take on activities you wouldn't otherwise pursue.
In a more diversely nationalized world (or at least one in which the practicality barrier for switching between nationalities was much lower) a state could make the case that as long as self-deportation is the alternate, they can compel service as part of the compact for citizenship.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
I think it can have okay effects, but I don't think it's ethically acceptable.
This is sort of a matter of principle for me, the way some right-wingers think taxes amount to theft. The notion that your material property is yours, period, has always struck me as absurd for a host of reasons. But the notion that your time here on Earth is yours to use as you see fit seems entirely sensible. There should at least need to be overwhelming state interest to justify forcing you to take on activities you wouldn't otherwise pursue.
I think many would argue that that sort of freedom exists only in a state of nature, but in a civilization, a society created with a social contract, you can be compelled to give up some free time in service to the society as a whole.
Do you object to mandatory schooling?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:In a more diversely nationalized world (or at least one in which the practicality barrier for switching between nationalities was much lower) a state could make the case that as long as self-deportation is the alternate, they can compel service as part of the compact for citizenship.
It's hard to imagine such a world, and in any case it's pretty far from the one we live in. Picking up and moving one's household is such a huge hardship, especially for the sort of person who gets deeply attached to a particular place as "home." I know there's a lot I would put up with from the govt, probably to the point of borderline tyranny, before I would want to move away from the part of the country where I grew up.
quote:I think many would argue that that sort of freedom exists only in a state of nature, but in a civilization, a society created with a social contract, you can be compelled to give up some free time in service to the society as a whole.
On the contrary, it seems to me like a form of freedom that can be positively improved by civilization. We waste a lot less of our time on tasks like hunting and gathering than we would in the state of nature, for example.
Regardless, I see the purpose of civilization as benefiting the people (rather than the other way round) and there is enormous benefit to people in being able to choose and pursue their own projects at will without interference. About the only case where I'd say it would be worth it to deprive them of that would be a war against a genocidal enemy or something of the sort.
quote:Do you object to mandatory schooling?
I would for adults. Children are a whole different matter. I think there are many interesting puzzles about why we're justified in "paternalism"--taking over choices that our children would make for themselves if they were adults. But it's obvious that it is justified in the case of children, and not adults. We can tell our kids what to eat for dinner. If we treat other adults the same way, that violates their autonomy.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm a fan of many of the ways Europeans handle things, but our lack of peacetime compulsory service is one of the things about American society that I just see as flat-out superior to theirs. (Our free speech rights are also much better.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:In a more diversely nationalized world (or at least one in which the practicality barrier for switching between nationalities was much lower) a state could make the case that as long as self-deportation is the alternate, they can compel service as part of the compact for citizenship.
It's hard to imagine such a world, and in any case it's pretty far from the one we live in. Picking up and moving one's household is such a huge hardship, especially for the sort of person who gets deeply attached to a particular place as "home." I know there's a lot I would put up with from the govt, probably to the point of borderline tyranny, before I would want to move away from the part of the country where I grew up.
You could also imagine a microfederalized world (think: the libertarian dream inexplicably becomes reality and government is expected to regulate only force and fraud but cant tax woohoo) where cities and little independent networks spring up under landowner collaborative or under single owners. Wanna live here? Here are the obligations. Or you can make do in no-man's land.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just wanted to say I (surprise, surprise!) agree with you on this completely, Destineer. Well, "completely" minus the stuff about kids, but I'm not about to get into that one.
I especially agree with your observation that civilization can (particularly when its an industrialized, capitalist civilization) dramatically improve one's ability to pursue their own interests as they see fit. An advantage of not having to spend all of your time hunting/farming/with dysentery.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, I figured what I had to say about this would be pretty Dan-friendly.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: [QUOTE] We can tell our kids what to eat for dinner. If we treat other adults the same way, that violates their autonomy.
I see nothing wrong with *telling* adults what they should be doing. Now making them do it is where it gets awkward.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I feel for the US mandatory military service would be helpful in hopefully reducing homophobia, mysogeny, racism and so on through simple demographical inertia (and a greater higher up officer ratio of female/minority to other).
Seeing it as odd to see 'girls' touting that Israeli knockoff of the AK (I don't believe they use the M16 or its variants) strikes me as similar to when the Gaijin-smash dude found it 'odd' to see one of his female students wearing pants during winter.
What that means, is that your are culturally inclined to see it as odd/unnatural for women/girls to partake in military service because society has conditioned you to see it that way as a social construction but doesn't have a legitimate basis; obviously I don't think your making the argument they shouldn't be drafted but I feel its objectively the case that women/girls can be just as effective soldiers as men.
Seeing as how endurance not strength is the defining attribute for foot soldiering I actually think women have the distinct advantage once their finish their training to carry the heavier equipment.
I also admit to seeing it as "odd" in a manner of speaking but for me the juxtaposition serves to make it interesting and awesome as opposed to :qq:.
Obviously I have a very large reference folder of 'girls with guns' for my art. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I don't think there is a problem with mandatory service. I think having kids give service to their country is good. Of course that wouldn't go over here. Even if it weren't just military service, but a peace corps or WPA type. Three years is the typical first enlistment that the US military has. With that, you learn a skill, discipline, get VA loans for life, free room and board, decent enough pay, free medical, and GI Bill for school.
I joined the National Guard when I was 17. Spent 7 years in. I never had to go to war, I was in between Gulf conflicts. But I did have responsibility which, I feel, kept me out of trouble (I come from a big family of drug users/criminals). It taught me that I can accomplish anything with hard work. It gave me a purpose and I learned a poor white kid from Oklahoma could go to college even though I didn't play football.
Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
That's the problem, though. It isn't ASKING....
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I don't think there is a problem with mandatory service. I think having kids give service to their country is good. Of course that wouldn't go over here. Even if it weren't just military service, but a peace corps or WPA type. Three years is the typical first enlistment that the US military has. With that, you learn a skill, discipline, get VA loans for life, free room and board, decent enough pay, free medical, and GI Bill for school.
I joined the National Guard when I was 17. Spent 7 years in. I never had to go to war, I was in between Gulf conflicts. But I did have responsibility which, I feel, kept me out of trouble (I come from a big family of drug users/criminals). It taught me that I can accomplish anything with hard work. It gave me a purpose and I learned a poor white kid from Oklahoma could go to college even though I didn't play football.
Again, it would never happen here. God forbid we ask something of our citizens.
That's the problem, though. It isn't ASKING....
If we did, there would be a revolt. The sense of entitlement that is prevalent today is astounding. We live in a free society that was bought and paid for on the backs of people who were willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I hate to paint the younger generation with such a broad stroke because we are producing quite a bit of kids who enter the service even though they know they will probably end up in a war zone. But could you imagine the stink it would cause if mandatory service was instated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure which people we're talking about. It can't be soldiers, because we haven't fought a war to ensure or protect American freedom since the Revolutionary one. Which other people sacrificed in order to pay for our free society?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What about the war of 1812? It wasn't territorial freedom but I think a decent case could be made for it being about American freedom. This has nothing to do with your main point of course.
Hobbes Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
TD, That's exactly the one I was thinking of. A case could be made for WWII, but more of a stretch. It doesn't really matter to me how long ago it was, I think my point is still valid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I know a lot of Canadians who would argue that one, Hobbes. But insofar as "freedom" can be interpreted as "continental hegemony," I'll concede 1812 to you as well.
---------
brojack: Really? You're saying that people today are lazy ingrates because they don't appreciate the sacrifices made by the veterans of 1812?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure which people we're talking about. It can't be soldiers, because we haven't fought a war to ensure or protect American freedom since the Revolutionary one. Which other people sacrificed in order to pay for our free society?
Usually see you more on the ball, Tom. Though I could certainly make a case for the "war" on terrorism, WWI, or WWII, I'd think that you'd AT LEAST acknowledge that the Civil War "ensure(d) or protect(ed) American freedom".
But whatever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I'm not saying anyone is lazy. Ingrates, maybe. I'm saying that if the US government asked for 3 years of service from every person turning 18, we would have a revolt on our hands. To reiterate my original point, it wouldn't have to be military service. I think they could pick from the military, Peace Corps, or a WPA type program. They would get free room and board, learn a skill, and give back to others. I don't think it would go over well at all though.
My original point was that I wasn't opposed to mandatory service but it wouldn't fly here in the US.
The service I gave to my country/community, I was National Guard, is one of the best decisions I made. My only regrets are that I really wanted to see the world so I should have went regular Army.
On a side note, my National Guard Armory was built by the WPA. My grandpa dropped out of school to take his father's place on the WPA to take care of the family. He built the Armory I served in. That was really cool.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about.
Really? Really? <<deleted rant>> . . . . nevermind. I forgot I was at Hatrack.
Regardless of the impetus of the conflict, I would purport that a lot of people fighting in the war thought it was about freedom. Freedom for a whole lot of Americans. And the original goal WAS to stop the spread of slavery -- if not to outright ban it. Maybe you'd have a case if Lincoln hadn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
Social change takes time.
[ November 19, 2012, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I'm not saying anyone is lazy. Ingrates, maybe. I'm saying that if the US government asked for 3 years of service from every person turning 18, we would have a revolt on our hands. To reiterate my original point, it wouldn't have to be military service. I think they could pick from the military, Peace Corps, or a WPA type program. They would get free room and board, learn a skill, and give back to others. I don't think it would go over well at all though.
My original point was that I wasn't opposed to mandatory service but it wouldn't fly here in the US.
I'd like to point out that we have a program, called Americorps, where people volunteer to this sort of service. Multiple reviews of the program has shown it to be a good investment both for the country and for the participants. Republicans keep trying to kill it though, the latest attempt being I think July of this year.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about.
Really? Really? <<deleted rant>> . . . . nevermind. I forgot I was at Hatrack.
Regardless of the impetus of the conflict, I would purport that a lot of people fighting in the war thought it was about freedom. Freedom for a whole lot of Americans. And the original goal WAS to stop the spread of slavery -- if not to outright ban it. Maybe you'd have a case if Lincoln hadn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
Social change takes time.
How is fighting to deprive someone of a freedom NOT 'about freedom'?
Regardless, the civil war was about money.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Tom still has a case with the emancipation proclamation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The Civil War was about a few very large issues, it seems to me, each very important and each at different times of the most importance, over the others.
The Union, for example, certainly didn't enter the war over or even to end slavery-but rather on the question of whether the South could secede to defend the practice against a perceived threat. But then one of the key elements which drove that argument over slavery was the work of abolitionists who wouldn't let it drop literally for decades.
It was also certainly over money, because of the building pressures of the economic ascendence of the North over the South, and also because slavery had been so enormously profitable in the South (and the North, really) for so long.
It was also over the rights of states within a nation in that there were plenty of people who really did believe that as the states had banded together in revolt against England, so too could they decide their fate later on if they decided to do so-but the right they wished to decide their fate on was the right to practice slavery-and back to money, feeding also into religion and racial politics (racialism), and on and on and on. Someone such as Lyrhawn could comment much more intelligently on this than I have just now, I think, but nothing I've heard or studied has ever made me conclude that the Civil War was over one thing, one dispute, one question-and often though certainly not always anyone who suggests otherwise is selling an agenda.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Brojack, what do you know about enlistment/conscription rates in the United States historically? I ask because your rhetoric makes it seem to me as though your answer to that question might be quite a lot higher than the reality.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The Civil War was about a few very large issues, it seems to me, each very important and each at different times of the most importance, over the others.
The Union, for example, certainly didn't enter the war over or even to end slavery-but rather on the question of whether the South could secede to defend the practice against a perceived threat. But then one of the key elements which drove that argument over slavery was the work of abolitionists who wouldn't let it drop literally for decades.
It was also certainly over money, because of the building pressures of the economic ascendence of the North over the South, and also because slavery had been so enormously profitable in the South (and the North, really) for so long.
It was also over the rights of states within a nation in that there were plenty of people who really did believe that as the states had banded together in revolt against England, so too could they decide their fate later on if they decided to do so-but the right they wished to decide their fate on was the right to practice slavery-and back to money, feeding also into religion and racial politics (racialism), and on and on and on. Someone such as Lyrhawn could comment much more intelligently on this than I have just now, I think, but nothing I've heard or studied has ever made me conclude that the Civil War was over one thing, one dispute, one question-and often though certainly not always anyone who suggests otherwise is selling an agenda.
I think your list of reasons is fine, but even so I think that when people like Tom try to assert that the Civil War had nothing to do with freedom they're just making fools of themselves.
It doesn't have to have been a War To Free The Slaves for it to nevertheless have had a hell of a lot to do with American freedoms.
Similarly, WW2 need not have been a War To Free The Jews for it to also have a lot to do with securing and protecting American freedoms.
Seriously, Tom, I'm kind of surprised. That was such an over-the-top, ridiculously hard-left moonbat sort of thing to say. You can be anti-war, and even anti-America, without making those kinds of assertions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why do you think so, Dan? We like to mythologize our wars -- even 1812 got a couple songs -- but I think it's a tad insulting to say that only "hard-left moonbats" don't subscribe to the myths.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, yes Dan, insofar as Tom was claiming that the Civil War was only about one thing-or not at all about another thing-yeah, it's a very strange argument divorced from the facts of history. Even setting everything else aside, the South was very much afraid that Lincoln and the North, in a long term slow and steady effort to strangle slavery out of the country altogether, would work to prohibit slavery in any new states and territories. They were worried about that for pretty good reasons.
Now unless the argument was that the North was doing this sort of thing for no other reason than a contest for power with the South, with no basis in moral disapproval of slavery, to claim the war was not at all about freedom will be wrong, and smack more of an agenda than any interest in facts.
But it can't be said it was about freedom, either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My argument is that the North was primarily interested in a) promoting a strong Federal government and enforcement of the commerce clause; and b) maintaining the continental hegemony that we have, as a nation, fought several wars to establish and protect. That some of the people who wanted the war cared about eliminating slavery is undeniable; that the war was necessary to end slavery is rather thin gruel, though, and certainly Lincoln would not have fought it if that were the only consideration. I'd argue that the South was far more concerned with traditional formulations of "freedom," especially as Dan in his quasi-libertarian approach would define it, but think it's a stretch to say that people fighting for the freedom to stop being American when America as a nation appeared to no longer respect what they considered freedoms were fighting to protect American freedoms (especially since they lost, and thus don't get the chance to define what "American freedoms" are).
Frankly, having read a lot of personal correspondence from the time, I think the Civil War was really about the hayseeds and the aristocracy not getting along with the professors and the merchants, and feeling like the only way to get those other guys to take them seriously and/or leave them alone was to shoot them.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
MrS, that's the types of programs I'm talking about. I understand that not everyone would want to join the military. So, give them other options.
Rakeesh, I don't know anything about enlistment rates, but again, to go back to my OP. I said I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory service like other countries have.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I don't know anything about enlistment rates, but again, to go back to my OP. I said I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory service like other countries have.
So then you don't know the extent patriotism (in the case if enlistment, though of course it's not that simple) or investment in the country (in the case of conscription) has changed as can be measured by military or civil service.
Not having any information about the actual historical trends of the thing you're complaining about hasn't seemed to dull the sharpness of your criticism, though.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
The point is, it's less than 100%. I applaud all those who do serve. I think my point is still valid. Tell every graduating senior that they must give three years of service to the country and people will throw a fit. Do you disagree?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:MrS, that's the types of programs I'm talking about. I understand that not everyone would want to join the military. So, give them other options.
Honestly, the idea that the military should be the first choice is bizarre to me. We've got a huge military and dumping an enormous number of more or less unwilling conscripts into it would serve to make it much less effective at it's actual mission.
Plus, how are we going to pay for this? The people who seem to have a real attachment to the fantasy version of "We should force all teenagers to do join the military...or community service." routinely try to kill the best program we have for this already.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I never meant for it to be military as a first option. Just have all the options there.
You bring up a good point about cost. Our inflated government would make this thing cost prohibitive.
It was a pie in the sky idea, I just wanted to make the point that it wouldn't happen here in the US.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: The point is, it's less than 100%. I applaud all those who do serve. I think my point is still valid. Tell every graduating senior that they must give three years of service to the country and people will throw a fit. Do you disagree?
You made more than one point-particularly your complaints, implied and stated, that this ingratitude was something new and particular to current generations-when the truth is that throughout our history, there have actually *been* riots and enormous public outrage over conscription that you describe. Furthermore, if this unwillingness to tolerate conscription is a problem, you haven't actually made an argument as to why.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sorry, brojack. Most of the times I've heard this idea it is clear that people are talking about forcing teenagers to join the military, with the other stuff thrown in as an afterthought.
I'd agree with you that the quality of patriotism is not highly valued in our society, but I think it is important to look at the whole picture. I'd look more towards the leaders for that problem. As I've been pointing out, we've got a proven successful program where patriotic youth put their lives on hold to work to make the country a better place. The GOP wants to kill this program.
Our top military commanders overwhelming leave their posts to go work for military contractors, many of whom received preferential treatment from the top brass when they were active. Same thing for our legislators. For example (my own personal hobby horse), whenever Max Baucus quits congress, he's going to have a really sweet deal waiting for him in the medical industry. Our high level business executives (e.g. Hostess) are damaging the companies they control and asking massive sacrifices from their workers while giving themselves massive raises. The Waltons built a business model around paying their employees below a living wage and entrusting government programs to subsidize these treatment. Heck, Wall Street did orders of magnitude more damage to our country than the entirety of all anti-American terrorists, got off scott free, and continue to undermine the financial health of our country, but even the idea of asking them to sacrifice (or heck own up to the damage they have done) is met with a massive outcry.
We celebrate and reward those who obviously have no patriotism. In many circles, even the word patriotism has become divorced from the idea of sacrifice for one's country. In that context, I don't think people would accept forced labor (especially when you consider that it is near definite that there would be loopholes for the children of privilege to either get out of it entirely or get extremely cushy assignments a la George W. Bush during the Vietnam War).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You bring up a good point about cost. Our inflated government would make this thing cost prohibitive.
It wouldn't be the fault of government, it would be the fault of cramming in unneeded manpower into a system that neither needs nor wants it.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
MrS: I agree with you completely. You make very good points.
Rakeesh: It would be the fault of the government. There could be some good done there, but the government does not run efficiently.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:(especially when you consider that it is near definite that there would be loopholes for the children of privilege to either get out of it entirely or get extremely cushy assignments a la George W. Bush during the Vietnam War).
I want to expand on this. Basically, however well intentioned the idea of mandatory service is, in practice it would turn into a system by which the children of the rich and privileged would be given another set of advantages over everyone else (cf. the Vietnam war draft). That's the country we live in. That being the case, is it any wonder that people would go crazy if the government tried to institute it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So...if an effort to add hundreds of thousands of people into the military turned out to do more harm than good because this new surplus would be unnecessary to the military's mission and dubiously enthusiastic about the service at best, that would be the fault of government?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I don't think brojack is talking about the military there, but instead, largely about community service organizations, etc.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Correct. Not necessarily the military.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My argument is that the North was primarily interested in a) promoting a strong Federal government and enforcement of the commerce clause; and b) maintaining the continental hegemony that we have, as a nation, fought several wars to establish and protect. That some of the people who wanted the war cared about eliminating slavery is undeniable; that the war was necessary to end slavery is rather thin gruel, though, and certainly Lincoln would not have fought it if that were the only consideration. I'd argue that the South was far more concerned with traditional formulations of "freedom," especially as Dan in his quasi-libertarian approach would define it, but think it's a stretch to say that people fighting for the freedom to stop being American when America as a nation appeared to no longer respect what they considered freedoms were fighting to protect American freedoms (especially since they lost, and thus don't get the chance to define what "American freedoms" are).
Frankly, having read a lot of personal correspondence from the time, I think the Civil War was really about the hayseeds and the aristocracy not getting along with the professors and the merchants, and feeling like the only way to get those other guys to take them seriously and/or leave them alone was to shoot them.
Does anybody who thinks that tom doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of the civil war want to address this
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
I think it can have okay effects, but I don't think it's ethically acceptable.
This is sort of a matter of principle for me, the way some right-wingers think taxes amount to theft. The notion that your material property is yours, period, has always struck me as absurd for a host of reasons. But the notion that your time here on Earth is yours to use as you see fit seems entirely sensible. There should at least need to be overwhelming state interest to justify forcing you to take on activities you wouldn't otherwise pursue.
Dest, How do you feel about jury duty?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dest, How do you feel about jury duty?
Yeah, good example.
For this particular duty, I would support finding a way to make it optional. (Not a huge fan of jury trials in the first place, actually.) But the overall point is well taken. There are going to be situations where the "right to one's own time" breaks down, because the state benefit is so great by comparison with the loss to the individual. If you witnessed a crime and the cops need to question you, you don't get to say "I'd just rather not spend the afternoon at the station."
Rights are like that, I guess. "Fire" in a crowded theater and so on.
But I maintain that in the case of compulsory service, the cost to the individual's autonomy is so ridiculously high that it would take a war of real self-defense or something similar to make it OK.
Jury duty is a few days or less. But suppose they ask for a year of service. What if you want to write a novel or start a family? Then they're getting in the way of your most fundamental life projects. What if one of your parents is sick and only has a year to live? Should you have to fill out forms and prove you need an exemption or something? That's a waste of your time right there, and then you need a whole system of bureaucrats to inspect the forms. And realistically, they can't make the right call every single time.
It makes me sick that governments have the right to do this to people in so many parts of the world.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'd like to see a proposal to replace jury duty with an effective system that doesn't require compelled service from anyone, because jury duty sucks, but any system proposed has been terribly naive so far.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My argument is that the North was primarily interested in a) promoting a strong Federal government and enforcement of the commerce clause; and b) maintaining the continental hegemony that we have, as a nation, fought several wars to establish and protect. That some of the people who wanted the war cared about eliminating slavery is undeniable; that the war was necessary to end slavery is rather thin gruel, though, and certainly Lincoln would not have fought it if that were the only consideration. I'd argue that the South was far more concerned with traditional formulations of "freedom," especially as Dan in his quasi-libertarian approach would define it, but think it's a stretch to say that people fighting for the freedom to stop being American when America as a nation appeared to no longer respect what they considered freedoms were fighting to protect American freedoms (especially since they lost, and thus don't get the chance to define what "American freedoms" are).
Frankly, having read a lot of personal correspondence from the time, I think the Civil War was really about the hayseeds and the aristocracy not getting along with the professors and the merchants, and feeling like the only way to get those other guys to take them seriously and/or leave them alone was to shoot them.
Does anybody who thinks that tom doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of the civil war want to address this
Well, it's not that I think Tom doesn't know what he's talking about re: the civil war. It's just that I don't see how he jumps from this description into saying that the war had nothing to do with ensuring or protecting American freedoms. It doesn't follow, and he didn't provide an explanation for why it might.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, how do you break down the statement "I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about."
which is, essentially, true. the split was guaranteed by buchanan and the details go on forever but in essence it all comes down to the commerce clause and a bunch of traditionalists balking about commerce regulation. slavery was gonna vanish from america anyway, pretty not too long after, but buchanan's ineptitude all but guaranteed a violent schism over it and all the related federal strife at the time.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Complete freedom is anarchy, and that isn't anything I would care to experience.
I think it was about values, and priorities. Both sides cared about some freedoms, and not every southerner who fought for the South was a slave owner, or in favor of slavery. However, even if it wasn't originally about slavery, slavery WAS tied to both the economic side of the issues AND the issues of freedom and what it was to be an American, so it DID lead to the war, even if the war wasn't started to free the slaves.
Robert E. Lee is a perfect example of a southern man who disagreed with slavery, and who would have preferred to fight for the North, but who felt he could not turn his back on his home state. Hell, his wife and daughter started groups to free slaves and relocate them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If I remember correctly, Lincoln was of the opinion that slavery would die at the hand of the industrial revolution and only signed the emancipation proclamation as a political/war effort to polarize the conflict and preempt the state rights side of the issue.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Well, how do you break down the statement "I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about."
I think that the second half of that statement ("In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about.") is a fine, albeit necessarily simplistic, summation of the conflict.
What I can't figure out is how anyone could read that half of the statement and think it in any way argues for the first half. I think it, very straightforwardly, does the opposite.
If the primary motivator for each side was to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about... then A) it's a conflict that is definitionally about freedom, and more specifically B) The secondary objective of each side would necessarily be to defend the freedom that is being attacked by the other side.
What's the argument against my explanation of Tom's statement? What am I missing?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Complete freedom is anarchy, and that isn't anything I would care to experience.
Why not? Anarchy would be great, really!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If the primary motivator for each side was to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about... then A) it's a conflict that is definitionally about freedom, and more specifically B) The secondary objective of each side would necessarily be to defend the freedom that is being attacked by the other side.
What's the argument against my explanation of Tom's statement? What am I missing?
If I could guess:
You are arguing that it is a conflict that is definitionally about freedom, Tom probably agrees, but it depends on what Tom meant when he was talking about it not being about "American freedom." How you define what is specifically an American freedom.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
When talking about the Civil War, it's fine to boil things down to the commerce clause and such, but in doing so doesn't anyone have to ask: what was the commerce one side wanted to engage in, and the other wished to restrict and/or prohibit? The question of abolition throughout the nation for generations had done away with any real possibility of regarding human slavery as just another form of commerce, even in the South where on paper that's what it was.
So sure, saying it boils down to the commerce clause is true, but not true in the same way had the South been angry and fearful at potential limitations and eventual abolition of the trade in, say, locomotives of a certain power or horses of a certain breed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Complete freedom is anarchy, and that isn't anything I would care to experience.
Why not? Anarchy would be great, really!
no it wouldn't, political anarchism is terrible and completely unrealistic
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'd like to see a proposal to replace jury duty with an effective system that doesn't require compelled service from anyone, because jury duty sucks, but any system proposed has been terribly naive so far.
I'd like a system in which a voter is informed that they have a high likelihood of being called and retained within a specific timeframe. Say 6 months, starting in one year. Then draw from those so informed. And allow this window to be delayed up to one year.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Currently, where I live (Cali) they don't even pull jury duty from registered voters...they pull from car registration.
I've been sent three or four separate notices over the years, but apparently if you just throw them away they leave you alone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: they don't even pull jury duty from registered voters...they pull from car registration.
They use both.
And failing to respond to a jury summons in the state of California can get you a fine of $1500.
Aren't you the primary caretaker of children under the age of 5? You should be able to request to be excused.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Aren't you the primary caretaker of children under the age of 5? You should be able to request to be excused.
Yup, but since just ignoring the notice and tossing it in the gar-barge has been so successful in the past, why bother making more work for those poor over worked bureaucrats by requesting to be excused?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey, if you want to risk the fine, don't let me stop you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Do I ever?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
We get hours for jury duty so I really can't complain too much. And my boss does generous travel time. We also have to be able to testify in court so jury duty is folded into court hours. If I ever have to testify, some very very bad stuff will have to have gone down but it is still a requirement.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Currently, where I live (Cali)
Ugh, really, why do you insist on this nomenclature? It's ugly. It's like if you lived in New York and said you lived in "The Big Apple."
quote: I've been sent three or four separate notices over the years, but apparently if you just throw them away they leave you alone.
Incidentally, this is a crime. Not one you're likely to be charged with, but a crime nevertheless.
They leave you alone because the burden of proof is on them to prove that you ever received the notices. I have been called 3 times in 4 years (not by car registration- I don't have a car), and have had my parents send back the notices explaining that I am abroad. At least so far, they have made no indication that I will be compelled to appear in this circumstance, even though I remain registered as a voter in my county.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Currently, where I live (Cali)
Ugh, really, why do you insist on this nomenclature? It's ugly. It's like if you lived in New York and said you lived in "The Big Apple."
Because it annoys rivka, but now that I know it rubs you the wrong way too ill make sure to use it more.
quote: I've been sent three or four separate notices over the years, but apparently if you just throw them away they leave you alone.
quote: Incidentally, this is a crime. Not one you're likely to be charged with, but a crime nevertheless.
And so is holding hands in public in LA county...it's not my fault that there are stupid laws on the books that are unenforceable. I also hold hands with my wife when we are in LA.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'd like a system in which a voter is informed that they have a high likelihood of being called and retained within a specific timeframe. Say 6 months, starting in one year. Then draw from those so informed. And allow this window to be delayed up to one year.
Such a thing has the sound of being possible, though I've no idea how workable such a system would really be.
Gotta love Americans, though: our courts are so screwed up with bureaucracy and red tape! But then 'jury duty?! Outrage!'
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: so is holding hands in public in LA county...it's not my fault that there are stupid laws on the books
Citation, please?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Can't find that one, but I did find this one which I have broken:
quote:You cannot bathe two babies in the same tub at the same time.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If I remember correctly, Lincoln was of the opinion that slavery would die at the hand of the industrial revolution and only signed the emancipation proclamation as a political/war effort to polarize the conflict and preempt the state rights side of the issue.
It was also to kill any chances of Britain and France recognizing the CSA as they geopolitically wouldn't have mind a split American continent.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's exactly what I meant. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I actually thought some of the dumb laws made sense. Like refusing someone water in the desert is different than in other places. And the cactus cutting prohibition has its place.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I liked the big banner at the top, about big government and so on. When most of these sorts of laws, and there are thousands of them that are rarely relevant much less problematic, stem from the smallest portions of government-local.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I actually thought some of the dumb laws made sense.
Agreed. I am also skeptical of any claims sites like that one make without citations. Links may not be feasible, for older laws. But the year the law was passed, where it can be found on the books, etc.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But my favorite so far has to be that in San Francisco CA:
quote:Giving or receiving oral sex is prohibited.
Apparently you can leave your heart in San Fran, but don't try and...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I like the Alberta law that if a man is in jail overnight you MUST provide him a gun and a horse.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heh, remind me to get arrested in Alberta!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Don't, its a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I simply didn't sign the registration form, as it's a contract, though you can be legally punished for not signing it, but if you do sign it you give the government the right to draft you or arrest you otherwise.
Posted by Eloyambres (Member # 12924) on :
(Post Removed by JanitorBlade. Golden spam.)
[ December 19, 2012, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Reported the last post. I don't think a gold metal detector has anything to do with avoiding the draft or jury duty.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I simply didn't sign the registration form, as it's a contract, though you can be legally punished for not signing it, but if you do sign it you give the government the right to draft you or arrest you otherwise.
LOL
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just remember not to put license plates on your car either. As its a contract, if you do sign it you give the government the right to give you a speeding ticket otherwise.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I simply didn't sign the registration form, as it's a contract, though you can be legally punished for not signing it, but if you do sign it you give the government the right to draft you or arrest you otherwise.
Wow. You need some guidance in your life.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just remember not to put license plates on your car either. As its a contract, if you do sign it you give the government the right to give you a speeding ticket otherwise.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)