Posted on 10/24/2001 7:51:17 AM PDT by sendtoscott
Are you contending that militia call ups constituted mandatory service?
Wow... how can anyone stand before the withering power of such a logically constructed argument?
You, sir, are being ridiculous. I am not enthralled by social welfare programs, and my post did not imply that. I know quite a few draft-age young men who would benefit greatly by learning discipline from the military (discipline that their parents and schoools didn't teach them, by the way.) That does not make the draft a "social welfare program." What it does do is offer a generation of young people a big chance at bettering themselves, and at the same time, provide national security. But maybe you're not interested in national security, or the betterment of young people.
Huh?
Apparently you have a reading comprehesion problem.
I said the draft is immoral, because it is involuntary servitude (slavery).
I said absolutely nothing about the constitutional status of the militia (which is a voluntary organization as envisioned by the founders)
An "offer" implies the opportunity to reject the "offer".
The draft of course, allows no such opportunity.
Involuntary servitude by any other name, remains slavery.
It is not the way to defend a free nation.
That's quite a case of cognitive dissonance you're exhibiting. On the one hand you claim that you don't rationalize the draft on the basis of welfare socialism, and then you turn around and explain it in exactly those terms. You may indeed judge your neighbors kids as lacking in character traits you would hold valuable, but it is not your place to physically enforce your value system on your neighbors -- unless and until they violate your rights.
As regards the issue of national defense, you're on pretty shaky ground. The military itself has spoken strongly against the draft and in favor of voluntary service. I tend to agree with their judgement as being a bit more objective than yours. In effect, you are advocating the compromise of national security in favor of using force to bend your neighbors to your will.
Ah, so you think we should have NEVER had the draft, just sit back and wait for people to volunteer. But what happens when they don't? You can sit back and gripe about their cowardice while the ChiComs or Muslims or enemy "du jour" slit your throat.
It is the height of arrogance to be altruistic with other peoples lives. kinda reminds you of how generous democraps can be with other peoples money.
If there is ANYTHING we learned from vietnam, it is that before you put someone in a position that may cost him his life, that you get his AGREEMENT first! That is the burden on GWBs shoulders now, and he can get that job done.
Yes... that is what I think. The draft itself is fundamentally immoral. It is slavery. There is no other way to look at it. Involuntary servitude is slavery. Free men do not subject one another to slavery. Not even for the most noble of causes.
If a free nation is worth defending, it is worth defending voluntarily. Those who love it will rise to it's defense, and it will not be necessary to force them to do so at government gunpoint.
Translation: I'm gettin my A$$ kicked, so I better get the hell outta here.
I agree that we should NEVER have had the draft. We did not need the draft for WWII. It was invoked as a matter of expediency for the government so they could control the rate and time of inductions. That goal could certainly have been accomplished by alternative means without resorting to the draft. In a case where the nation is unable to muster sufficient numbers of volunteers to muster a campaign, that must be taken as a sign that the campaign is unjustified. After all, we do like to pretend that this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. If that is going to be more than an illusion, then the people must retain the power to reject participation when the ruling political body oversteps its bounds. Granting government the power to usurp the very lives of its citizens without regard for the citizens rights eliminates the restraining function of the people.
What you lack is not time, it is a moral and ethical foundation from which to justify your remarks.
If they want to better themselves, they should go ahead and do it. If not... well, it'll be a few decades yet before robots are sophisticated enough to flip burgers and empty trash baskets.
Don't make a bigger ass of yourself than you already have. You might as well ask what happens if nobody hauls away the trash and invite people to sit back and gripe while the cities are overrun with vermin and plague.
Just responding with the appropriate intellectual depth...
Gee, I can't the word voluntary associated with militia in my copy of the Constitution. My copy essentially says if you are here you're in...
It is true that the term unorganized militia encompasses a particular group of people without regard to voluntary membership. However, the question was whether those people, by virtue of being a member of the militia were to be "compelled" to active service, or whether that service was to be voluntary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.