• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Draft

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
cwjerome: I think DonVito actually is some kind of military lawyer. I seem to remember him mentioning it once. I could be wrong.

I still think that if the cause was seen as just and the government simply said "We need your help American people." we would have no shortage of people to do the job.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
DonVito, are you a lawyer or something? Never mind, you being for mandatory military service... it's the same principle.

If the government forces a man to risk death or maiming in a war declared by the government, for a cause he may neither approve of or understand... if his consent is not required, then in principle, ALL rights are arbitray and removable... and the government is no longer his protector- what else is there left to protect?

How can we say a man has the right to property, but not his life? How can we say that a man has the right to vote, but his life may be snatched at the discretion of the government. No rationalization can change the fact that it represents involuntary servitude. The idea of a draft is archaic, a leftover form of slavery, and has no bearing in a free society.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am an active-duty military attorney, as it happens.

As I said before, I think your question is inartfully drafted, which was the only reason I touched on mandatory military service. I don't advance that proposition, particularly - I just said I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it.

It strikes me that the military burden, as things lay, falls disproportionately on young men and women from modest backgrounds, and frankly I think the country at large would benefit from some democratization of the service. Perhaps it would make the powers that be a little more reticent to enter into flights of fancy like OIF.

I don't know that there have EVER been more chickenhawks in this country than there are today - this board alone is cluttered with able-bodied young men who strongly argue in favor of offensive military action, but decline to step up and serve - this is a Bad Thing from my perspective.

One alternative, and one I'd more fully embrace, would be to make two years of SOME kind of service mandatory, whether it be military, Job Corps, Peace Corps, etc. From what I've seen we are becoming a nation of increasingly shiftless young men and women, who feel less and less connection to their nation. I'd like to see that change.
 
I would agree that more people these days are probably feeling less connection to their nation. I would attribute this to several things, including perhaps over-zealous multiculturalism run amok, subtle America-bashing teachers, and a cultural shift into commercialized selfishness. I would combat those things instead of repealing a person's most fundamental right and supporting the notion that a man's life is a tool for the government and his rights are a gift from the state.

Forcing someone to surrender his life by the barrel of a gun in some sort of government service is a statist principle that should have no place in the 21st century.

 
Basically, the ideas given here for some sort of forced service like health, training/skills, connection to country, are valid concerns but can be attacked from a much better angle than surrendering our most basic right and establishing the precepts for statism. I am glad this informal poll has more "NO" votes... maybe in the future such sentiment will lead to legal change.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Topic Title: The Draft
Topic Summary: Is the Draft right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Not voting in the Poll because the answer varies on the level of either Offense Or Defense.

If going to battle to invade at will, need Draft.

If going to battle such as WW II, need Draft.

You get the idea.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: cwjerome
DonVito, are you a lawyer or something? Never mind, you being for mandatory military service... it's the same principle.

If the government forces a man to risk death or maiming in a war declared by the government, for a cause he may neither approve of or understand... if his consent is not required, then in principle, ALL rights are arbitray and removable... and the government is no longer his protector- what else is there left to protect?

How can we say a man has the right to property, but not his life? How can we say that a man has the right to vote, but his life may be snatched at the discretion of the government. No rationalization can change the fact that it represents involuntary servitude. The idea of a draft is archaic, a leftover form of slavery, and has no bearing in a free society.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am an active-duty military attorney, as it happens.

As I said before, I think your question is inartfully drafted, which was the only reason I touched on mandatory military service. I don't advance that proposition, particularly - I just said I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it.

It strikes me that the military burden, as things lay, falls disproportionately on young men and women from modest backgrounds, and frankly I think the country at large would benefit from some democratization of the service. Perhaps it would make the powers that be a little more reticent to enter into flights of fancy like OIF.

I don't know that there have EVER been more chickenhawks in this country than there are today - this board alone is cluttered with able-bodied young men who strongly argue in favor of offensive military action, but decline to step up and serve - this is a Bad Thing from my perspective.

One alternative, and one I'd more fully embrace, would be to make two years of SOME kind of service mandatory, whether it be military, Job Corps, Peace Corps, etc. From what I've seen we are becoming a nation of increasingly shiftless young men and women, who feel less and less connection to their nation. I'd like to see that change.
Click to expand...

he has a point... what is the statistic... only one person in the us house and senate have a son or daughter serving in the military... yet they are the ones who make the decisions...

i have to disagree thou... because if i was in the military right now i would not want to be in iraq ... to tell you the truth one of the main reasons i declined my $40,000 dollar a year NROTC scholarship was because i did not agree with the current trend of our administration... that was the november before we went to iraq... im glad i declined ... becuz i do not think it is right for us to be there... it meant i couldnt go to UPenn cuz there was no way in hell i could afford it ... right now i dont think i could take money in exchange for killing innocents... and personally ... there are way to many innocent iraqi dead for my conscience...
 
Well, there is no way around it. Either you support and validate the IDEA, or you don't. No qualifications, no compromise. A "if it's for a good cause" (ie. if I believe in the cause) opinion is a yes vote for a concept that repudiates the very basis of our Natural Rights.
 
If you look at any idea, such as the idea of a "Draft", you can be against it- which means you do not believe in it. But if you are for the idea under certain circumstances, then you validate the idea with qualifications. What a person is saying is, "It's a good idea IF..."

They support the existence of "A" draft. Simple logic.



 
I voted yes. I went without one but feel it is 100% neccessary when our national security is at risk and we are experiencing low enlistment. Only if those 2 conditions are met, do I feel a draft is warrented.
 
If our national security is at risk and we can get people to join there's other more serious issues happening. What you're basically saying is, it's OK to have a draft when we really really need one. It's ok to violate the most important reason for having a government, to protect said government. Kinda twisted.

No draft period... not for emergencies, not for low enlistment, not for job training, not for patriotism, not for medical personel, not because the grass is green, no reason is worthy of breaking the most fundamental right- the right from which all others are corrollaries and consequences: the Right to Life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top