Conscription

[CorpusScorpius]

Originally posted by Kidicious


How about this? You say that the majority was satisfied with the Constitution, but the propertied class didn't even believe what you believe. Otherwise, it's obivous that they would have put it up to popular vote for every American.

The people in power get to make the rules.........Do you really think that 200 + years ago they would of used a popular vote on something this important when there were still alot of Tories around. Kid do you really believe Communism is the way? Every political system has Pro's & Con's HOWEVER the majority of countires world wide wish they were more like THE USA

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
The people in power get to make the rules.........Do you really think that 200 + years ago they would of used a popular vote on something this important when there were still alot of Tories around.

The same class of people are in power, even though the People have made some gains.

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
Kid do you really believe Communism is the way? Every political system has Pro's & Con's HOWEVER the majority of countires world wide wish they were more like THE USA

The US is at the top of the food chain. They can wish all they want. It's not going to happen, not anytime soon anyway.

And yes, I'm a communist. It's the only path for the future.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You say that the majority was satisfied with the Constitution, but the propertied class didn't even believe what you believe. Otherwise, it's obivous that they would have put it up to popular vote for every American.

Because back in the 1790s, it wouldn't have taken YEARS to get the popular vote of every American? There was a reason that inaugeration day was in March. Because it took months to figure out who won President, and usually it'd be decided in February. That's four months for a simple question of who gets to lead.

Could you imagine the much more complex issue of whether to adopt the Constitution wholesale, reject it, or change a few things (like Virginia and New York, famously, wanted a Bill of Rights)?

Furthermore some states did give it to propertied whites.. which for all intents and purposes was every American. Slaves (most blacks) were considered property (how can property vote?), women and unpropertied males were considered too ignorant to know the complexities of politics (seeing as how we deny the vote to those under 18 for the same reasons, and the fact that most women and unpropertied males... and plenty of propertied males were illiterate, it is hard to critisize it too much, unless you want to fall for the trap of imposing current morality to the past).

So some states set it to the people who were deemed capable of making political decisions and others set to to the representatives of those people.

A true popular vote for every American did not take place, practically, until 1966. Though I'd definetly say that a majority of Americans were satisfied with entry into World War II.

[CorpusScorpius]

Kid....can you name me any succesful communist regimes?

[Kidicious]

That's a very poor apology Imran.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
Kid....can you name me any succesful communist regimes?

Communism is a future govt. It is the most efficient govt for the later stages of technological development.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Templar, Templar....if you're over-eager to fight, then sure....I'll play.

1) In matters of national survival (real or percieved--and let's face it, if the draft were ever brought back in this country, it would certainly not be to fight some two-bit dictator in the desert), then the market is, and must be, subservient to the state for the duration of the crisis. That is why we had rationing during WWII, for example. Hardly something that the free market appreciates, but nonetheless, given the climate of crisis, something which was done. Same thing with the draft. Yes, it's a "violation" of market principles in the short run to ensure long run survival. That's hardly a new point on this thread.

Again, you are arguing that the social good can trump an individuals rights. How is this any different than a regulation that prohibits building on your beachfront property in order to stop flooding/destruction of animal habitats/what have you. The fact is, any social good can be used to rationalize an intrusion on rights. How is an invasion any worse than ecological damage or inefficient use of finite yet privately owned resources? But then again, I guess giving up your beachhouse to save mother earth isn't as macho as being forced to defend the fatherland.

You fail to make an argument consistent with your usual economic position. Normally you do not allow for the state to extinguish individual rights, yet you make a single ad hoc exception for invasion. I've got a better idea - if the people really want to save the system, let them do it at market rates. After all, if the system is worth saving, why not internalize the cost on all citizens and let each citizen take the financial hit instead of young, poor, and powerless taking the hit alone? Paying market value for soldiers would not only allow each citizen to do his or her duty (via tax revenues) but preserve your beloved free market.

Then again I have a different - and consistent - way of looking at this problem and distinguishing between property takings and conscription. The state can claim your property because property is naught but a creation of the state. Life on the other hand, well, the state has no claim on that - whether it's conscription, picking cotton, or the death penalty.

If the state is so great, don't worry, the people will rise up to defend it. It's not as though the continental army had any way to enforce conscription during the American Revolutionary War. Yet the people showed up. Frankly, if the country is being invaded and nobody is signing up to defend it, then the nation has bigger problems than conscription.

3) You're a supporter of the hammer and sickle flag.....flown at the head of one of the most brutal, bloody regiemes the world has ever known, and you REALLY want to get on my case about the Confederate flag? That's rich!

-=Vel=-

Yes, yes - attack the symbol when you've got nothing to say about the substance!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
You fail to make an argument consistent with your usual economic position.

Pot meet kettle.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
Kid....can you name me any succesful communist regimes?

This is a cop out argument.

Prior to the 1700s can you name one successful constitutional republic? Well then, obviously a successful constitutional republic couldn't exist - so no successful constitutional republic exists now.

I would think even a Houstonian would have been smart enough not to make the argument you made.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Pot meet kettle.

Cute. Except I can argue the inconsistency of the neoliberal/libertarian position and a belief in the morality of conscription without actually taking the neoliberal position.

My position is tenable because I distinguish between property (a social construct) and human life (as a biological reality). These are categorically different despite libertarian dogma to the contrary. Communal property and a planned economy are consistent with respect for human dignity. The trick is not viewing property theory as the basis of human rights.

Pot meet Mississippian!

[CorpusScorpius]

Originally posted by The Templar


This is a cop out argument.

Prior to the 1700s can you name one successful constitutional republic? Well then, obviously a successful constitutional republic couldn't exist - so no successful constitutional republic exists now.

I would think even a Houstonian would have been smart enough not to make the argument you made.

I was just asking a generalized Question........... & if my stoopidity offends U I appolijize in advance

[Kidicious]

Interesting argument Templar

[CorpusScorpius]

After 1917 can U name a succesful Communist Regime?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
After 1917 can U name a succesful Communist Regime?

Cuba's seems to be going strong, thanks to the U.S.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius
After 1917 can U name a succesful Communist Regime?

1) What does that have to do with this thread?

2) Why would a communist who already knows about the failiure of his ideaology and still clings to it care about this question to begin with?

[Kidicious]

Damn DD. They guys just asking honest questions.

[CorpusScorpius]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Damn DD. They guys just asking honest questions.

Hey Kid dont worry about it. & yes I was just asking.

DinoDoc.......U know as well as I do that the American School System is not necessarily the best.....Besides me going out to the public library & reading about it why not ask Questions from someone who Believes............U dont go out & ask an Athiest how do you find Jesus.......U ask A believer do U not?

As far as this thread goes, It has been stated that any form of Govt that relies on Conscription is doomed.

[CorpusScorpius]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Cuba's seems to be going strong, thanks to the U.S.

Yes Cuba does have some good things going on. But that depends on who U ask?

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Communism is a future govt. It is the most efficient govt for the later stages of technological development.

If it's a "future" government, probably a government that will be formed once capitalism builds a country, how can you claim it's the best system for technological development? Did you see this in your crystal ball?

Templar -

The state can claim your property because property is naught but a creation of the state. Life on the other hand, well, the state has no claim on that - whether it's conscription, picking cotton, or the death penalty.

So if you work for much of your adult life to raise money to buy a home and put your children thru college, the state can come in and take it because you don't own the fruits of your labor? Then you don't really own yourself either...you exist to labor for the state...

Btw, if property is a creation of the state, how did people own things before the state? You know, like a plot of land, a hut, crops, clothing, tools, weapons, etc? We can't go back in time, but it would be ridiculous to presume these predecessors had no concept of property until some politician or "King" came along to tell them about property...

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

If it's a "future" government, probably a government that will be formed once capitalism builds a country, how can you claim it's the best system for technological development? Did you see this in your crystal ball?

You already know about the incompatibility of capitalism and productivity improvements.

[Berzerker]

Oh yeah, I forgot, communism won't have any productivity improvements. Or if anyone has the audacity to invent something, it'll be ignored or the state will just keep employing people to make stuff even when they are no longer needed. We just had a lengthy debate about how capitalism utilises productivity improvements to increase output, which you never denied. Your complaint was that some people will lose jobs because of these improvements (jobs that wouldn't exist without improvements in the first place). That doesn't mean capitalism is incompatable with improvements, it may mean full employment is incompatable with capitalism and improvements.

[Velociryx]

Oh dang....I never bothered to check back to see when the server came back up, and it looks like I missed some more classic Kid rants! Where to begin....

Why would I want to run for office?

Oh, that’s right. Forgive me. You don’t want to run for office and CHANGE things, you’d rather sit on the sidelines and whine about how unfair it is, or wait till you can convince a few thousand of your buddies to steal enough guns so that you can simply pillage your way to affluence. And that’s sooooo much better….

It's because of people like you that the govt remains authoritarian. You want to keep power from the People and you want to keep the power in the hands of rich white males. You spread lies through the media and the school system. You use your dollars to get elected over people who do represent the people more than you. You lie to the voters by making them promises and pretending to represent their interests then you break all your promises and follow through on policies that you were not elected for. You do the same ****ing thing every election, and since rich white rich men created the system to keep out third parties the People who vote have no choice but to keep electing you and other wealthy people.

People like me, huh? So, it’s okay for you to pretend that you know something about my situation, but when the shoe’s on the other foot, note how quickly you cry foul. Amusing…..At any rate, I am, in all probably, not in the group you would define as “wealthy,” but if you wish to blame me personally for the failings you perceive in the government, that’s cool. I’ve taken a lot worse shots from a lot bigger folks than you…. But let’s break it down, shall we? Rich, white males are the ONLY people with any sort of power in this country….is that what your official position is? And no politician (or, at least none of the rich white ones) ever keep their promises to their constituency, right? (amazing how they keep getting re-elected, if they so blatantly lie to the folks who vote for them…and I assume it must be blatant, or are you also arguing that you have a special, magical sight that allows you to see through all their propaganda, and the rest of us poor schmucks are not so blessed with your remarkable gift of sight?).

I'm talking about a popular vote, and I don't just mean white male property owners.

Oh, so the fact that the USA was an agrarian society with few roads connecting the states to each other, no form of rapid communication, and a variety of other technical obstacles which would have made such a thing an impossibility (and one of the reasons that a “representative” democracy was decided upon, has no bearing for you? It’s not good enough because not every single person living in the USA in 1776 had a say? :: shakes head:: I’m not sure if you’re just terminally weird or genuinely insane.

Only a sucker would be satisfied with benefits when they are distributed unfairly. Only a loser would accept a lower socioeconomic status. Not me pal.

Only a sucker would expect a handout and whine about “exploitation” just cos he has to work like most everybody else….

No, I'll stay here and fight for true freedom and equality

Translation: I’ll stay right here and pine away for the revolution, hoping that enough of my Comrades can steal enough guns so we can take your stuff rather than working for our own, and in the meantime, I’ll never let you forget how I feel exploited because you won’t just give me some of what you’ve got!

How about this? You say that the majority was satisfied with the Constitution, but the propertied class didn't even believe what you believe. Otherwise, it's obivous that they would have put it up to popular vote for every American.

Or, how ‘bout this? The people in each of the states choose among those who were running for office based on their campaign platforms and further based on their assessment of which candidate would best represent their interests. Then, if those candidates did NOT fulfill their campaign promises, or if the folks who voted for them were unhappy with the decisions made, those folks were summarily booted out of office (ie – not re-elected), and NEW folks were elected. Nahhh, a government like that doesn’t really exist tho…

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Well, the system works perfectly for you. It's no wonder that you have that perception. Reality is that people hate their representatives. They don't feel that they trully represent them. They don't know what to do about it yet, but they will figure it out soon.

[Velociryx]

Was gonna reply to Templar's argument, but this phrase, by Berzerker: So if you work for much of your adult life to raise money to buy a home and put your children thru college, the state can come in and take it because you don't own the fruits of your labor? Then you don't really own yourself either...you exist to labor for the state... sums it up rather nicely.

But yes....let's pretend that the Communist utopia is the ultimate expression of Democratic ideals. Let's pretend that human nature does not exist, and that men who desire power will not rise to the top and make slaves of everyone who supports the "glorious revolution." If we put enough provisos and make-believes in, Communism might actually have a shot at working.

But since we don't live in that fairy tale world, we have to use what's known to work.

Sometimes, states get into trouble. When they do, they call on their citizens, who have been reaping the benefits of the opportunities created by the existence of the state, to help preserve it. This condition has never been (historically) permanent. It has always been transitional, and tied to the meeting of a specific short term objective.

Slavery (to which conscription has been compared), on the other hand, is a rather permanent condition. There were only a very few cases or conditions by which a slave could be made free. And yet, having to serve to protect the country that helped give rise to your opportunities for 1-2 years is somehow made to seem on par with than ancient evil. Not even in the same league.

As to the "attacking the symbol" quip... there's so much to attack about the system of government that flew the flag you wave so proudly that it took 3 threads and 1500 posts to even begin to make a dent...I daresay, I've done a fair bit of attacking with substance....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

No, the reality is that most people don't look to the government to save them or give them handouts. Most people only tangentially consider the government because a great many government decisions have only limited (if any) direct impact on their day-to-day lives (one of the reasons that voter turnout is dismally low in this country).

But you just keep on prayin' for that revolution....

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No, the reality is that most people don't look to the government to save them or give them handouts.

Earth to Vel. Come back to earth.

[Velociryx]

I never left....not sure what planet you're on, but I'm right here on Earth.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Are you saying that you never got a benefit from the govt?

[Velociryx]

Nope....I'm saying that I don't rely on, or expect, or whine to the government to solve my problems for me.

That when I need something, I don't go looking to Big Uncle Sam with my hand out.

I put my nose to the grindstone and make it happen, allllll by myself.

Amazing, huh?

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nope....I'm saying that I don't rely on, or expect, or whine to the government to solve my problems for me.

That when I need something, I don't go looking to Big Uncle Sam with my hand out.

I put my nose to the grindstone and make it happen, allllll by myself.

Amazing, huh?

-=Vel=-

You're contradicting yourself. You take handouts, therefore you don't do it all by yourself.