Conscription - Page 8

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Contrast that with governmental siezure of property which is intended to be permanant. For all time. No thanks.

-=Vel=-

Which one would you prefer, property seizure or conscription to a war that you are against?

Velociryx · July 17, 2003, 10:47

Conscrption, every time.

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 10:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Conscrption, every time.

-=Vel=-

Even to a war that you don't support?

Velociryx · July 17, 2003, 10:50

And before you start harping incorrectly about how I'm a capitalist pigdog who values property more than human life, keep in mind that the reason I'm for conscription over property siezure is that conscription is transitory....only in place till the accomplishment of a specific goal or objective. It's not something that will be a part of my life forever. So I get called up to fight. Big deal. I do my duty and come home.

With property siezure, on the other hand....there's nothing to come home to.....'cept the borg collective you're so fond of....

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
I do my duty and come home.

Already with the ridiculous assumptions? There is of course the siginificant risk that you won't come home.

Oh, and would you rather be conscripted to a war that is in the interest of only a minority of Americans? Just trying to see exactly were you stand.

Velociryx · July 17, 2003, 10:59

Here's where I stand.

I am a citizen of the United States of America. As such, I enjoy a tremendous amount of freedom, affluence, and opportunity compared to the rest of the world.

I understand that there is the possibility that the nation that made this wonderful opportunity possible may (not "will definitely" but "may") need my services in defense of the system....the nation that made the opportunities and freedoms I enjoy a reality. I accept that possibility as part of the package that is my citizenship here, and would not shrink away from that service, even if I disagreed with whatever the war was about. So long as my contry continues to honor it's end of the bargain, and continues to make these freedoms and opportunities available, I will honor mine.
Where do you stand?

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · July 17, 2003, 11:08

Oh...and here's your significant risk:

Had I been "conscripted" to go fight in Iraq, I'd have a less than 1% chance of not making through so far (total number of US troops: casualties to date)

Not exactly a "significant" chance of not making it home, wouldn't you agree?

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 11:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Here's where I stand.

I am a citizen of the United States of America. As such, I enjoy a tremendous amount of freedom, affluence, and opportunity compared to the rest of the world.

Aren't we communist this morning. Ok, I'm a citizen so were is my affluence.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
I understand that there is the possibility that the nation that made this wonderful opportunity possible may (not "will definitely" but "may") need my services in defense of the system....the nation that made the opportunities and freedoms I enjoy a reality.

Oh so you also agree that the govt made you wealthy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
I accept that possibility as part of the package that is my citizenship here, and would not shrink away from that service, even if I disagreed with whatever the war was about. So long as my contry continues to honor it's end of the bargain, and continues to make these freedoms and opportunities available, I will honor mine.
Where do you stand?

I'm going to pass off to Templar. I really shouldn't have butted in. It was rude. Sorry Templar.

Velociryx · July 17, 2003, 11:12

Only the Kid could misunderstand that post....good job bud, and thanks for the chuckle!

Where's your affluence? I don't know.....prolly waiting for you to work for it. The government....the nation provides the opportunity, but it doesn't hand dollars out on a platter to you.

And the answer above applies to your second "point" as well. No, the government does not make me wealthy, but it provides the structure that makes the opportunities possible. Nonetheless, if I do not act on them, nothing will happen.

And as for the last....I see how it is....much easier to ask someone else where they stand and then take them to task for it than to answer the same question in return. Not unexpected tho....fairly typical, actually....:rollseyes:

-=Vel=-

The Templar · July 17, 2003, 11:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
The difference between the two in my mind's eye is this: Conscription only occurs in the short term. It is not (or at least in most places, and certainly not in the USA) a permanant condition lasting the whole of my life, and is used only in situations that the elected governing body of a nation considers most grave and dire. No one is proposing flippant or reckless use of conscription.

Of course, if you get killed on the battlefield, that is a fairly permanent condition (and in which case conscription did indeed last the rest of your life.

And the conscription policy during vietnam was fairly reckless and "flippant" with respect to the poor and middle class who were sent. None of Pappy Bush's sons seemed to go (Hell, little Georgie couldn't even make it to guard duty).

I tell you what though, if infantry and marine conscription begins by drafting all the children of congresspeople (and some congresspeople as well for that matter), then you can get back to me.

Moreover, conscription has the effect of depressing prices. And I thought your were against gubbament interference of the economy. What conscription does is allow the government to acquire labor ata cost far less than what the market demands. Presumably there is some combination of salary and incentives that will attract workers even into the army in a time of war. Conscription allows the government to pay far less than market value. So conscription fails the free market test.

Funny how social conservatives love the free market right up until it infringes on one of their beloved causes - then they scream for big gubbament solutions too.

Quote:

Contrast that with governmental siezure of property which is intended to be permanant. For all time. No thanks.

-=Vel=-

Except property isn't permanent is it? Patents and copyrights expire, chattels break and deteriorate, and even land is subject to adverse possession.

Sorry, I'll always pick my life over my stuff.

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

Only the Kid could misunderstand that post....good job bud, and thanks for the chuckle!

Where's your affluence? I don't know.....prolly waiting for you to work for it. The government....the nation provides the opportunity, but it doesn't hand dollars out on a platter to you.

YOU HAVE NOT IDEA ABOUT MY WORK! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! Well you might know that I have been unemployed for a while

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
And the answer above applies to your second "point" as well. No, the government does not make me wealthy, but it provides the structure that makes the opportunities possible. Nonetheless, if I do not act on them, nothing will happen.

Oh it doesn't stop there. It maintains the safe environment for you to collect other peoples produce.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
And as for the last....I see how it is....much easier to ask someone else where they stand and then take them to task for it than to answer the same question in return. Not unexpected tho....fairly typical, actually....:rollseyes:
-=Vel=-

I've got no problem ansering it. If my answer is different from Templar's then I will give it to you.

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 11:24

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
Funny how social conservatives love the free market right up until it infringes on one of their beloved causes - then they scream for big gubbament solutions too.

I'm convinced that in reality they could careless about the free market. That's why they turn to fascism when their market fails.

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 11:32

Oh, and Vel since the govt does so much for you you should fight in every war. Because every war will be in your interest. It doesn't follow, however, that most wars are in the people's interest. Most of the wars we get into are the result of imperialism and nationalism. I could give a rats ass about either, and I'll be damned if my son will fight in those wars.

DinoDoc · July 17, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

I'll be damned if my son will fight in those wars.

Out of curiosity, how would you stop him if he decided to enlist (conscription isn't coming back folks)?

Imran Siddiqui · July 17, 2003, 11:35

There is a simple reason why I support conscription. If the government and state is about to fall to an invader, I think that government and state should be able to force people into its defense. Why? Because it is better than the alternative. What happens when the government and state falls? First a period of anarchy and then rule by the invader. Needless to say if the invader is attacking a democratic republic, then it probably isn't one itself.

So in the end its a balancing of evils. You take the one that, in the end, is less evil.

Oh, and just so you know, I have no problem with property seizure during an armed conflict when it is absolutely necessary... just as I have no problem with conscription when it is absolutely necessary.

Velociryx · July 17, 2003, 11:35

That's cool....

And your choices are the same as DF's. Either work with the existing system to change it, or defy the system and be grown up enough to accept the consequences, or go somewhere else. Simple.

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

I'll be damned if my son will fight in those wars.

Out of curiosity, how would you stop him if he decided to enlist (conscription isn't coming back folks)?

If he wants his college money he wont do it.

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There is a simple reason why I support conscription. If the government and state is about to fall to an invader, I think that government and state should be able to force people into its defense. Why? Because it is better than the alternative. What happens when the government and state falls? First a period of anarchy and then rule by the invader. Needless to say if the invader is attacking a democratic republic, then it probably isn't one itself.

So in the end its a balancing of evils. You take the one that, in the end, is less evil.

But why should this decision not be made by the people?

DinoDoc · July 17, 2003, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
If he wants his college money he wont do it.

Uncle Sam gives college money.

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 11:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Uncle Sam gives college money.

I don't think he actually just gives it. You have to pay for it. I worked 80 hours a week while I was on deployment. The way I figure it Uncle Sam didn't give me ****. He still owes me.

Velociryx · July 17, 2003, 11:48

Oh here we go again....

I'm a good guy, and should be paid handsomely for being so....the government, or those who have more, or someone(anyone) "owes" me. God forbid I make my own opportunities, or take responsibility for making my own future. Nahhh....can't have that.

-=Vel=-

PS: And yes, Uncle Sam does both, providing both free money and low interest loans for people who qualify. But again, heaven forbid that we be called on to serve the country that makes all this opportunity possible. Much preferable to simply enjoy the opportunity without paying for it.

Imran Siddiqui · July 17, 2003, 11:48

Quote:

But why should this decision not be made by the people?

They do. It's called Congress.

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

But why should this decision not be made by the people?

They do. It's called Congress.

No. Congress is rich white people like Vel. It is not the people.

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 11:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh here we go again....

I'm a good guy, and should be paid handsomely for being so....the government, or those who have more, or someone(anyone) "owes" me. God forbid I make my own opportunities, or take responsibility for making my own future. Nahhh....can't have that.

-=Vel=-

PS: And yes, Uncle Sam does both, providing both free money and low interest loans for people who qualify. But again, heaven forbid that we be called on to serve the country that makes all this opportunity possible. Much preferable to simply enjoy the opportunity without paying for it.

You do have to serve your country to get theose benefits numb nuts.

Imran Siddiqui · July 17, 2003, 11:57

Quote:

No. Congress is rich white people like Vel. It is not the people.

I'll be sure to tell Charles Rangel to change his skin color for you

.

Congress is the people. They are the representatives of the populace and stand in for them to articulate what their people want.

Velociryx · July 17, 2003, 12:01

1) Vel is hardly "rich white people" - I have to get up every morning and work, just like the vast majority of Americans. Even if you use a loose definition of "rich" I'm almost certainly not.

2) Congress is elected by the people to represent us and our interests. If you don't like the things the government is doing, elect someone whose view are more in alignment with your own. If you really want to change things, start a grass-roots movement so that people who share your views are elected in numerous other states as well.

3) Yes, I know you have to serve your country to get those benefits. You're the one who seems to have trouble comprehending that....

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Congress is the people. They are the representatives of the populace and stand in for them to articulate what their people want.

I agree with representative govt. It's the best way to protect minorities, and knowledgable people are needed to make some decisions. But there is no reason that Congress should make the decision to send other people kids to die in war. This decision should be made by the people. Unless you can give me a good reason otherwise.

Kidicious · July 17, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
3) Yes, I know you have to serve your country to get those benefits. You're the one who seems to have trouble comprehending that....

-=Vel=-

They don't GIVE it away. Pay attention to context.

Imran Siddiqui · July 17, 2003, 12:13

Quote:

But there is no reason that Congress should make the decision to send other people kids to die in war.

That's what they are there for! They have war making powers.

And btw, they are the people, being their representatives and all. All your protestations won't change that.

Velociryx · July 17, 2003, 12:14

Okay...here it is:

Because we live in a representative democracy, not an absolute one, and IN this representative democracy, it falls to our elected officials to decide matters of state (including whether and how to wage wage a war). Our constitution allows for that. In short, that's the way things are, and the way things should remain, unless YOU can give us some compelling reason to change it, and convince a sufficient number of people to affect large numbers of elections.

How's that for starters?

-=Vel=-