Would You Support a Draft ?

Of course, but this doesn't make taxing in general something that should be seen as a form of government enslavement. Besides, in a working system like you describe, you'd benefit as soon as you grow old, sick, or become unemployed, and these people can hardly be considered small segments of society.

But let's not go into that again... What is a "pork barrel project" by the way?

What I meant when I said nationalism made conscription "voluntary" is that even if it was not a law, it would effectively have almost everyone join the armed forces.

 

Roel wrote:

I'm referring primarily to the thousands of other federal programs that most people are hardly aware of. Billions of dollars are spent in the US on "studies" and programs that benefit special interest groups. Those kind of programs which are usually the result of political cronyism are called pork barrel projects. Insofar as the social programs you are referring to I don't think that the federal government should be involved in the majority of them either however as you wish we needn't "go into that again"

Social pressures as compulsion to conform are quite alright..an individual can merely choose to go his own way, contrary to the majority's wishes, though he will pay a social penalty for doing so. When the police power of the state is used to enforce conformity it is a different thing entirely.

 

Like others above it depends on the situation. If it has to do with Iraq or something like that, then no. If we were attacked like Sturmtiger said then yes.

 

Well, it's likely that I will have to split off our discussion and eventually give up trying to argue because you are more thorougly versed in political economy than I am, and I will not have changed your opinion like you will not have changed mine. I fail to see the point.

"Know your enemy and know yourself..."

But in Western countries today most people will tend to put their own concerns before those of a larger collective, which would leave plenty of states completely without a sizeable army if conscription were not enforced.

 

If there forced to fight dosnt that mean they wont be that good becouse they dont whant to be there and they hate it

 

Roel wrote:

I don't think we can assume that to be true. The American and British soldiers and Marines fighting in Iraq have put themselves at great risk to serve their countries (or larger collective, if you prefer) and they are products of weak and decadent western democracies (as some present and former enemies characterize them).
If, as you say, enough people do not value a society enough to defend it then what gives them the right to force those same people to fight and die for that which they don't value? The willingness (or vice versa) to defend a society or regime is the ultimate up or down vote as to whether that society deserves to continue IMO.

 

And we are back to 'if they don't value their society enough to defend it then they should not be included in it'

I'm starting to sense a circle in here somewhere...

A couple of points:

The soldiers in Iraq are those who have already volunteered to join the army - I assume that they would have no problem with being drafted. However, they are a small proportion of the populations of their countries. We cannot say for sure how people would react, but it is probably true (in my opinion) for Britain that nationailsm is not as high as it once was, and the general desire of people to actually go off and fight in the army is lower than it once was.

 

I wonder how many of these soldiers are truly motivated by the idea of serving their country (which is indeed the larger collective I am talking about), or by that motivation alone. There are a whole host of reasons why someone would volunteer to join the military, and only one of those is serving your country. Besides, they will always be just a small fraction of the country's population, which is what I meant when I said "most" people wouldn't.

I think you are right in stating that ultimately what matters is whether people want to stand up and fight to defend a regime. But how often can we truly say that the general population knows or cares to know what is good for itself? I wouldn't trust them to flock to the defence of our culture and political system, because for the reasons mentioned above, I doubt they will. That's why there is a law backing up conscription.

 

I have a distant relative who ended up in Vietnam. He had been intending to go to university which as I understand it would have kept him clear of the draft. Unfortunately he lost his money in some investment that went pear shaped. He came back minus two legs and plus several bits of shrapnel.


Personally I would be leery of any draft. I've seen no cause for which I'd feel the need to get shot.

 

Ah, but Vietnam was not a war in which the very freedom of America was at stake.

Even if (insert your home country) was about to be invaded by an (insert loony extremism of choice) army, and stood a good chance of becoming part of their highly repressed empire?

 

Ricky wrote:

So you mean that in your draft people could pick and choose which wars they felt were worthy of their participation? The problem with giving the state that power is that the state will decide which war they deem worthy of your required participation.

 

I would never ever go to war and kill some people whom i doesnt know or who did no harm on my and my fam and crew may be we would even be friends if he grow up in my hood so if any politican or general means to go to war so there you go but with out me
what a pitty that not all people think so it would be a much better world

keep uo smoking :smok: make love not war
peace bros

 

It's so easy to blame politicians and generals for all wars, until the enemy is at the gates and where will you be? Those guys out there who have been told you are the enemy, mean no good whatsoever to you, your posessions, or your family.

Grieg: it all depends on what "the state" is like. If it is indeed an institution bent on self-preservation operating independent from those it is supposed to rule and with no regard for them, then what you describe is a threat. If the state however is a realistically operating institution bent on ruling a country, it will not grab the extreme measure of the draft prematurely.

 

Roel wrote:

If it is as you describe in the first instance, and the people have not reserved the power to themselves to oust the despots then the state will effectively enslave the people who will be powerless to stand before the might of the state (and it's conscripted army). In the US certain checks and balances were put in place (alas some of which are being eroded) to prevent this from happening. In countries with no strong Constitution and no equivalent of the Bill of Rights the people are at the mercy of the state..whether benevolent or malignant. Forced conscription has been permitted in the US in the past and I think it was a mistake, and something that is contrary to the philosophy upon which our nation was founded.

Daniel Webster had this to say regarding conscription (war of 1812)

Ronald Reagan had this to say on the subject:

 

While it is probably true that common soldiers on both sides would probably get along if they met down the pub (barring soldiers fighting for ideological causes, of course), it is the attitudes of the leaders that shapes what will happen.

 

I didn't say there is no cause only that I've seen no cause. Certainly the only invasions of the UK or Ireland that I've seen in my life time are EU directives and American tourists. Neither of these I've felt a need to take up arms against.

 

Ah, ok...
My mistake.

 

I would support it because the teenagers should go fight to see what veterans did for our country's freedom. Most don't care about any sacrifices made on the veteran's part.