Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kicking the Draft

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:48:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 1:21:08 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://www.csmonitor.com...

Well, I'll be damned.

This is the worst possible thing that could happen if you believe in Liberty.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:54:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, spank my holy baby Jesus.

That is good news. Too bad I already had to register. Every fiber in my body just told me to burn it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:56:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:48:31 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
This is the worst possible thing that could happen if you believe in Liberty.

https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:09:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:56:08 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:48:31 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
This is the worst possible thing that could happen if you believe in Liberty.

https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net...

It means that we will continue to have a standing army and continually go off to war without war being declared.

A standing army in an anathema to Liberty and one of the reasons this country rebelled against England and became its own entity.

With a draft, declaring war is something that Congress has to seriously think about. With an all-volunteer army, f*ck it...we'll be in the constant state of war that Orwell postulated in nineteeneightyfour.

The founding fathers feared 2 things more than any others:

1. A standing army

2. Large private financial institutions

What do we now have?

A standing army funded by a large, private financial institution.

Jefferson would be making fun of you right now, were he alive.

Madison did make fun of you...in Federalist #46. Give it a read sometime so you can read the words of a man who understood what Liberty was dissing the f*ck out of you.

That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads,". Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government;

The Army is illegal (Federalist #41 & #45), and this legitimizes that illegal organization.

Interesting, isn't it, that since changing from The Department of War to the Department of Defense, with the exception of the Ford and Carter years, that we've been in a constant state of war, isn't it.

I'm not sure, but I think that's what one might call irony.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:09:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:09:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:56:08 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:48:31 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
This is the worst possible thing that could happen if you believe in Liberty.

https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net...

It means that we will continue to have a standing army and continually go off to war without war being declared.

A standing army in an anathema to Liberty and one of the reasons this country rebelled against England and became its own entity.

With a draft, declaring war is something that Congress has to seriously think about. With an all-volunteer army, f*ck it...we'll be in the constant state of war that Orwell postulated in nineteeneightyfour.

The founding fathers feared 2 things more than any others:

1. A standing army

2. Large private financial institutions

What do we now have?

A standing army funded by a large, private financial institution.

Jefferson would be making fun of you right now, were he alive.

Madison did make fun of you...in Federalist #46. Give it a read sometime so you can read the words of a man who understood what Liberty was dissing the f*ck out of you.

That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads,". Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government;

The Army is illegal (Federalist #41 & #45), and this legitimizes that illegal organization.

Interesting, isn't it, that since changing from The Department of War to the Department of Defense, with the exception of the Ford and Carter years, that we've been in a constant state of war, isn't it.

I'm not sure, but I think that's what one might call irony.

If we have these problems and the draft is in place, what makes eliminating the draft a horrible thing? The status quo does not change. Guys just won't be slaves of the state in the military sense anymore.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:11:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was actually wondering if they were going to expand Selective Service to women . . . I was trying to come up with a way to avoid signing up (I think I could claim conscientious objector status?), but if they eliminate this, that would be better :)
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:16:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 6:09:57 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

If we have these problems and the draft is in place, what makes eliminating the draft a horrible thing? The status quo does not change. Guys just won't be slaves of the state in the military sense anymore.

READ Madison...ACTUALLY read the quote I posted and try, for a moment, to comprehend it.

Then, read the remainder of what I wrote.

Freedom isn't free. Selective Service isn't slavery. It is your solemn promise to fight to protect The US Constitution, should the need arise.

You can't have all the freedom you want and expect it to not come at a price. When you forgo the price of liberty, you invite tyranny.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:04:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 6:16:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:09:57 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

If we have these problems and the draft is in place, what makes eliminating the draft a horrible thing? The status quo does not change. Guys just won't be slaves of the state in the military sense anymore.

READ Madison...ACTUALLY read the quote I posted and try, for a moment, to comprehend it.

Then, read the remainder of what I wrote.

Freedom isn't free. Selective Service isn't slavery. It is your solemn promise to fight to protect The US Constitution, should the need arise.

You can't have all the freedom you want and expect it to not come at a price. When you forgo the price of liberty, you invite tyranny.

1. Selective Service is not enshrined in the Constitution.

2. I never was forced to make any such promise. :)

3. This entire assumption rests on the civic republican claim that freedom is a result of the state, which is utter bilge. The state steals my freedom. It does not help me become free.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:22:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:04:55 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:16:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:09:57 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

If we have these problems and the draft is in place, what makes eliminating the draft a horrible thing? The status quo does not change. Guys just won't be slaves of the state in the military sense anymore.

READ Madison...ACTUALLY read the quote I posted and try, for a moment, to comprehend it.

Then, read the remainder of what I wrote.

Freedom isn't free. Selective Service isn't slavery. It is your solemn promise to fight to protect The US Constitution, should the need arise.

You can't have all the freedom you want and expect it to not come at a price. When you forgo the price of liberty, you invite tyranny.

1. Selective Service is not enshrined in the Constitution.

Neither is the prohibition against jaywalking.

And, by the way, YES IT IS - Article 1, section 8

Congress shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;

2. I never was forced to make any such promise. :)

You're free to renounce your citizenship at any time. It is the one and only way to lose your American Citizenship if you were born with it, or once you are naturalized (unless there was fraud in your naturalization...that's the only other way to lose it, but assuming your naturalization was valid, renunciation is the only way to lose citizenship...it's quick as well...just do it).

3. This entire assumption rests on the civic republican claim that freedom is a result of the state, which is utter bilge. The state steals my freedom. It does not help me become free.

Do you believe that freedom is your ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with no obligations whatsoever?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:28:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 6:11:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I was actually wondering if they were going to expand Selective Service to women . . . I was trying to come up with a way to avoid signing up (I think I could claim conscientious objector status?), but if they eliminate this, that would be better :)

I didn't do that when I signed up but I'm almost positive I could get that through their heads in the event of an *actual* draft.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:56:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:22:00 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:04:55 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:16:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:09:57 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

If we have these problems and the draft is in place, what makes eliminating the draft a horrible thing? The status quo does not change. Guys just won't be slaves of the state in the military sense anymore.

READ Madison...ACTUALLY read the quote I posted and try, for a moment, to comprehend it.

Then, read the remainder of what I wrote.

Freedom isn't free. Selective Service isn't slavery. It is your solemn promise to fight to protect The US Constitution, should the need arise.

You can't have all the freedom you want and expect it to not come at a price. When you forgo the price of liberty, you invite tyranny.

1. Selective Service is not enshrined in the Constitution.

Neither is the prohibition against jaywalking.

Sure, but your claim was that this is some sort of promise we make as citizens. It isn't.It's something that was added on later by Congress.
And, by the way, YES IT IS - Article 1, section 8

Congress shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;
Yeah, this tactic of reinterpreting history won't work on me. I know the history behind this and have read the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. This provision is not about Selective Service. The government under the Articles of Confederation was not allowed to have an independent national army; it had to beg the states for funds and soldiers. This hindered the war effort. That provision allows Congress to maintain a national army. It does not allow it to draft people. It does not say it can do whatever it wants in order to maintain the army. Would that provision justify murdering anybody who refuses to "voluntarily" join the army?

2. I never was forced to make any such promise. :)

You're free to renounce your citizenship at any time. It is the one and only way to lose your American Citizenship if you were born with it, or once you are naturalized (unless there was fraud in your naturalization...that's the only other way to lose it, but assuming your naturalization was valid, renunciation is the only way to lose citizenship...it's quick as well...just do it).
By law, I'm not required to sign up for Selective Service, and even if I wanted to (I don't), I doubt that I could.

3. This entire assumption rests on the civic republican claim that freedom is a result of the state, which is utter bilge. The state steals my freedom. It does not help me become free.

Do you believe that freedom is your ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with no obligations whatsoever?

The right to liberty is negative and has limits insofar as you cannot violate the rights of other people. I don't think that the state constructs liberty for us, and I can prove this with anthropological analysis.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:38:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:56:06 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:22:00 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:04:55 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:16:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:09:57 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

If we have these problems and the draft is in place, what makes eliminating the draft a horrible thing? The status quo does not change. Guys just won't be slaves of the state in the military sense anymore.

READ Madison...ACTUALLY read the quote I posted and try, for a moment, to comprehend it.

Then, read the remainder of what I wrote.

Freedom isn't free. Selective Service isn't slavery. It is your solemn promise to fight to protect The US Constitution, should the need arise.

You can't have all the freedom you want and expect it to not come at a price. When you forgo the price of liberty, you invite tyranny.

1. Selective Service is not enshrined in the Constitution.

Neither is the prohibition against jaywalking.

Sure, but your claim was that this is some sort of promise we make as citizens. It isn't.It's something that was added on later by Congress.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

And, by the way, YES IT IS - Article 1, section 8

Congress shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;
Yeah, this tactic of reinterpreting history won't work on me. I know the history behind this and have read the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. This provision is not about Selective Service. The government under the Articles of Confederation was not allowed to have an independent national army; it had to beg the states for funds and soldiers. This hindered the war effort. That provision allows Congress to maintain a national army. It does not allow it to draft people. It does not say it can do whatever it wants in order to maintain the army. Would that provision justify murdering anybody who refuses to "voluntarily" join the army?

A. We aren't working under the Articles of Confederation (they failed...miserably, I might add)

B. The Constitution doesn't prohibit Selective Service (and, in addition to Article 1, Section 8, the part about counting people, aka the census, also gives congress authority here - bet you ain't heard that one before)

C. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THE LAST PART OF WHAT YOU SAID - In fact, Congress is supposed to disband its army, the moment that the war for which the army was assembled is over.

This is why I say, The US Army is illegal.

2. I never was forced to make any such promise. :)

You're free to renounce your citizenship at any time. It is the one and only way to lose your American Citizenship if you were born with it, or once you are naturalized (unless there was fraud in your naturalization...that's the only other way to lose it, but assuming your naturalization was valid, renunciation is the only way to lose citizenship...it's quick as well...just do it).
By law, I'm not required to sign up for Selective Service, and even if I wanted to (I don't), I doubt that I could.

Renounce your citizenship? It's easy - all you have to do is repeat what I'm about to write (but am only writing for instructional purposes, and this is not meant as renunciation of my citizenship) - "I [insert name here] hereby renounce my citizenship in these United States, now and forever."

It's just that easy...if you have the guts to do it.

3. This entire assumption rests on the civic republican claim that freedom is a result of the state, which is utter bilge. The state steals my freedom. It does not help me become free.

Do you believe that freedom is your ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with no obligations whatsoever?

The right to liberty is negative and has limits insofar as you cannot violate the rights of other people. I don't think that the state constructs liberty for us, and I can prove this with anthropological analysis.

So, you have a kid...a newborn. - you have no duty to care for it? I mean...someone will care for it, I'm sure, so it's hard to say that you're violating the newborn's rights. Plus, the kid owes you its life, so f*ck it if it's gonna lay around and cry all day long if you don't care for it.

f*ck kids are annoying, amirite?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:23:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:09:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:56:08 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:48:31 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
This is the worst possible thing that could happen if you believe in Liberty.

https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net...

It means that we will continue to have a standing army
You mean a volunteer army?

and continually go off to war without war being declared.
You mean what's been happening for the past half century, some of which has included actual conscription.


A standing army in an anathema to Liberty
No, initiation of force is. Such as conscription. As in, conscription is literally slavery.

and one of the reasons this country rebelled against England
Why did George Washington establish a standing army, albeit a small one in a different situation, then?

With a draft, declaring war is something that Congress has to seriously think about. With an all-volunteer army, f*ck it...we'll be in the constant state of war that Orwell postulated in nineteeneightyfour.
I assume you mean we've been in that state since 1974, right?

1. A standing army
Why'd they establish one?

The Army is illegal (Federalist #41 & #45)
That's not actually a legal document, it's political propaganda. You need to cite the Constitution, a treaty, or an act of Congress.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:26:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Congress shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;
In other words standing armies (and navies, including the air force, an exclusively flighted navy) are legal. Says nothing about conscription there though.

Do you believe that freedom is your ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with no obligations whatsoever?
No positive obligations. And yes with the limit of other people's rights-- i.e. no trespassing, murder, etc.

I was trying to come up with a way to avoid signing up (I think I could claim conscientious objector status?),
You can't claim CO status to selective service registration, you do that when your draft number is called.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:28:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, you have a kid...a newborn. - you have no duty to care for it?
Correct.

I mean...someone will care for it, I'm sure, so it's hard to say that you're violating the newborn's rights
The newborn does not have a right to be cared for.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:34:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:09:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:56:08 AM, FREEDO wrote:

It means that we will continue to have a standing army and continually go off to war without war being declared.

A standing army in an anathema to Liberty and one of the reasons this country rebelled against England and became its own entity.

With a draft, declaring war is something that Congress has to seriously think about. With an all-volunteer army, f*ck it...we'll be in the constant state of war that Orwell postulated in nineteeneightyfour.

Not really. If anything, being able to draft a lot of young people (and, historically, to shelter their own progeny from service) creates a serious moral hazard problem insofar as it is they, not the Congress, who must fight. Further, given the existence of the draft alongside this "constant state of war", and its use in some of the bloodiest conflicts in which the government has ever been involved, I'm not clear on how anything but skepticism is appropriate against the claim that the draft is some kind of fail safe.

Moreover, the worry, for Madison, about a standing army is assuaged by his insistence that "the people" are supreme, both in number and in their peculiar advantages--local governments and the capacity to arm themselves. Madison:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The founding fathers feared 2 things more than any others:

1. A standing army

2. Large private financial institutions

Do you have sources for that--not just that they were fears, but that they were the top 2?

What do we now have?

A standing army funded by a large, private financial institution.

Jefferson would be making fun of you right now, were he alive.

Madison did make fun of you...in Federalist #46. Give it a read sometime so you can read the words of a man who understood what Liberty was dissing the f*ck out of you.

I did read Federalist 46. At the end, Madison writes:

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

In this next quote, you conveniently omit the context of Madison's paper. Let me add the rest of the quote:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

After that, it transitions into the long quote I posted near the top. Try next time not to be so selective.

The Army is illegal (Federalist #41 & #45), and this legitimizes that illegal organization.

Those papers are dedicated largely to the question of whether the powers granted to the federal government are "unnecessary or improper". Madison concludes not only that this isn't the case, but that, even in some of the worst imaginable scenarios, there are sufficient counterweights to excessive federal encroachment. Madison:

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.

But was it necessary to give an indefinite power of raising troops, as well as providing fleets; and of maintaining both in peace, as well as in war?

The answer to these questions has been too far anticipated in another place to admit an extensive discussion of them in this place. The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety.

How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation...(cont)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:35:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
(cont)
It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions. The fifteenth century was the unhappy epoch of military establishments in the time of peace. They were introduced by Charles VII. of France. All Europe has followed, or been forced into, the example. Had the example not been followed by other nations, all Europe must long ago have worn the chains of a universal monarch. Were every nation except France now to disband its peace establishments, the same event might follow. The veteran legions of Rome were an overmatch for the undisciplined valor of all other nations and rendered her the mistress of the world.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:18:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 11:34:43 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Not really. If anything, being able to draft a lot of young people (and, historically, to shelter their own progeny from service) creates a serious moral hazard problem insofar as it is they, not the Congress, who must fight. Further, given the existence of the draft alongside this "constant state of war", and its use in some of the bloodiest conflicts in which the government has ever been involved, I'm not clear on how anything but skepticism is appropriate against the claim that the draft is some kind of fail safe.

Chart out the years that America has been at war since it's introduction, and then note which wars used a draft (the Civil War had a draft, but the Army was mostly volunteer) and which didn't.

Moreover, the worry, for Madison, about a standing army is assuaged by his insistence that "the people" are supreme, both in number and in their peculiar advantages--local governments and the capacity to arm themselves. Madison:

And yet...Madison couldn't envision drones or nukes...

The founding fathers feared 2 things more than any others:

1. A standing army

2. Large private financial institutions

Do you have sources for that--not just that they were fears, but that they were the top 2?

Books?

What do we now have?

A standing army funded by a large, private financial institution.

Jefferson would be making fun of you right now, were he alive.

Madison did make fun of you...in Federalist #46. Give it a read sometime so you can read the words of a man who understood what Liberty was dissing the f*ck out of you.

I did read Federalist 46. At the end, Madison writes:

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

Wait....he's about to diss you...it coming...

In this next quote, you conveniently omit the context of Madison's paper. Let me add the rest of the quote:

Please do. This is the part where he disses you.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

After that, it transitions into the long quote I posted near the top. Try next time not to be so selective.

Read it again and realize how stupid it was to use that quote to support your position in light of the fact that we have EXACTLY the thing Madison is saying we would never allow to be.

The Army is illegal (Federalist #41 & #45), and this legitimizes that illegal organization.

Those papers are dedicated largely to the question of whether the powers granted to the federal government are "unnecessary or improper". Madison concludes not only that this isn't the case, but that, even in some of the worst imaginable scenarios, there are sufficient counterweights to excessive federal encroachment. Madison:

No - appropriation means, "funding for an occasion". This means once the occasion (the declared war) is over, you can't appropriate funds to that army, because that is, by definition, misappropriation of funds.

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.

But was it necessary to give an indefinite power of raising troops, as well as providing fleets; and of maintaining both in peace, as well as in war?

The answer to these questions has been too far anticipated in another place to admit an extensive discussion of them in this place. The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety.

How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation...(cont)

yada, yada, yada...

Please try to understand this stuff before you quote it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:29:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 6:16:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:09:57 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

If we have these problems and the draft is in place, what makes eliminating the draft a horrible thing? The status quo does not change. Guys just won't be slaves of the state in the military sense anymore.

READ Madison...ACTUALLY read the quote I posted and try, for a moment, to comprehend it.

Then, read the remainder of what I wrote.

Freedom isn't free. Selective Service isn't slavery. It is your solemn promise to fight to protect The US Constitution, should the need arise.

You can't have all the freedom you want and expect it to not come at a price. When you forgo the price of liberty, you invite tyranny.

LOL, if I understand you correctly, you are all about the necessity of armed conflict and being prepared for it. However, you balk at the extent of the preparation.

A standing army, or "regular army" is going to be much, much more effective than any drafted army that only serves and trains when the exigencies of the situation demand it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:39:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 12:29:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:16:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:09:57 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

If we have these problems and the draft is in place, what makes eliminating the draft a horrible thing? The status quo does not change. Guys just won't be slaves of the state in the military sense anymore.

READ Madison...ACTUALLY read the quote I posted and try, for a moment, to comprehend it.

Then, read the remainder of what I wrote.

Freedom isn't free. Selective Service isn't slavery. It is your solemn promise to fight to protect The US Constitution, should the need arise.

You can't have all the freedom you want and expect it to not come at a price. When you forgo the price of liberty, you invite tyranny.

LOL, if I understand you correctly, you are all about the necessity of armed conflict and being prepared for it. However, you balk at the extent of the preparation.

A standing army, or "regular army" is going to be much, much more effective than any drafted army that only serves and trains when the exigencies of the situation demand it.

You also have to understand that the provisions discouraging a standing army were operating during a time when state-sovereign rights were still considered paramount. A standing army was seen as an evil because it presented a challenge to state-organized militias.

In today's environment, the concept of a state-organized militia is anachronistic. Instead of standing armies at the state level, you now have a standing army at the federal level.

My point is that the act of maintaining an army is not in and of itself an evil to be abolished because one is no longer necessary.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:46:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 12:18:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 11:34:43 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Not really. If anything, being able to draft a lot of young people (and, historically, to shelter their own progeny from service) creates a serious moral hazard problem insofar as it is they, not the Congress, who must fight. Further, given the existence of the draft alongside this "constant state of war", and its use in some of the bloodiest conflicts in which the government has ever been involved, I'm not clear on how anything but skepticism is appropriate against the claim that the draft is some kind of fail safe.

Chart out the years that America has been at war since it's introduction, and then note which wars used a draft (the Civil War had a draft, but the Army was mostly volunteer) and which didn't.

Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam--the big, bloody ones. One could argue that the smaller campaigns (which leave us "at war" all the time) are fought with volunteers, but, insofar as this is true, it's irrelevant whether there exists a draft.

Moreover, the worry, for Madison, about a standing army is assuaged by his insistence that "the people" are supreme, both in number and in their peculiar advantages--local governments and the capacity to arm themselves. Madison:

And yet...Madison couldn't envision drones or nukes...

You're the one using the Federalist to make an argument.

Do you have sources for that--not just that they were fears, but that they were the top 2?

Books?

Which books, and which passages in those books?


I did read Federalist 46. At the end, Madison writes:

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

Wait....he's about to diss you...it coming...

He doesn't really diss anyone, because he isn't 12. The closest he gets is calling their fears chimerical. But then, given that the Federalist papers were explicitly written to convince people to accept a more powerful central government, the subtle jabs are unsurprising.

In this next quote, you conveniently omit the context of Madison's paper. Let me add the rest of the quote:

Please do. This is the part where he disses you.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

After that, it transitions into the long quote I posted near the top. Try next time not to be so selective.

Read it again and realize that we have EXACTLY the thing Madison is saying we would never allow to be.

The worry isn't about always having troops committed somewhere--it's about a) the use of a massive military to conquer the domestic population, and b) the (what Madison sees as) inevitable counterweights to that degree of federal power-grabbing. Madison argues in Federalist 45 that it's prudent and necessary to maintain a standing army all the time to deter aggression by potential belligerents (hence the need, in 46, to assuage the worries about the large army turning on its own people).


Those papers are dedicated largely to the question of whether the powers granted to the federal government are "unnecessary or improper". Madison concludes not only that this isn't the case, but that, even in some of the worst imaginable scenarios, there are sufficient counterweights to excessive federal encroachment. Madison:

No - appropriation means, "funding for an occasion". This means once the occasion (the declared war) is over, you can't appropriate funds to that army, because that is, by definition, misappropriation of funds.

Given that Madison explicitly defends maintaining military readiness in times of peace, that's clearly untrue.

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.

But was it necessary to give an indefinite power of raising troops, as well as providing fleets; and of maintaining both in peace, as well as in war?

The answer to these questions has been too far anticipated in another place to admit an extensive discussion of them in this place. The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety.

How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation...(cont)

yada, yada, yada...

Please try to understand this stuff before you quote it.

These remarks by Madison directly contradict how you're using him in your argument, and being unwarrantedly dismissive will not change that, particularly given that you've already selectively omitted certain lines and passages. The above passage, for instance, directly supports maintaining military readiness in times of peace, which is directly counter to your assertion that he would oppose it/that it is illegal. And it isn't just interpretive license--he says it, explicitly, more than once.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:55:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The key is that Madison opposes neither a large army nor funding of the military during peacetime. As I read it, both are matters of prudence responsive to the preparedness of other countries (and the resultant possibility of attack at any time). What he seems to condemn is the possibility of one or more traitors amassing an army to pursue ambition (in the form of conquering the governed). This is likely why he offers a bit of praise to Rome for their unceasing military readiness (which he muses, in Federalist 41, conferred on them the position of "mistress of the world"), but objects to the possibility of the army being reappropriated for the pursuit of the interests of the "traitors".
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:58:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He does argue, in the following paragraph, that it is dangerous--Rome's liberties being the "final victim" of such a preparedness--but "also necessary", which leads him to counsel that nations exercise practical wisdom respecting their military establishment. Madison:

A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:59:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:09:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:56:08 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:48:31 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
This is the worst possible thing that could happen if you believe in Liberty.

https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net...

It means that we will continue to have a standing army and continually go off to war without war being declared.

A standing army in an anathema to Liberty and one of the reasons this country rebelled against England and became its own entity.

With a draft, declaring war is something that Congress has to seriously think about. With an all-volunteer army, f*ck it...we'll be in the constant state of war that Orwell postulated in nineteeneightyfour.

I've said this elsewhere and I'll say it here. 1984 was not some sort of fantasy world. Look at Louis XIV, and you will see 1984. Genghis Khan, 1984. Every emperor of Rome, 1984. "The closer to Caesar, the greater the fear."

1984 is a book about the corrupting influence of power. War is merely one symptom, albeit the deadliest symptom.

A "constant state of war" describes nearly all of written history. What distinguishes periods of peace is not the absence of war, but the minimization of it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:01:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 12:58:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
He does argue, in the following paragraph, that it is dangerous--Rome's liberties being the "final victim" of such a preparedness--but "also necessary", which leads him to counsel that nations exercise practical wisdom respecting their military establishment. Madison:

A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.

I fully agree with this statement. My name is wrichcirw, and I approve this message. :D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:41:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 12:29:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:16:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:09:57 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

If we have these problems and the draft is in place, what makes eliminating the draft a horrible thing? The status quo does not change. Guys just won't be slaves of the state in the military sense anymore.

READ Madison...ACTUALLY read the quote I posted and try, for a moment, to comprehend it.

Then, read the remainder of what I wrote.

Freedom isn't free. Selective Service isn't slavery. It is your solemn promise to fight to protect The US Constitution, should the need arise.

You can't have all the freedom you want and expect it to not come at a price. When you forgo the price of liberty, you invite tyranny.

LOL, if I understand you correctly, you are all about the necessity of armed conflict and being prepared for it. However, you balk at the extent of the preparation.

A standing army, or "regular army" is going to be much, much more effective than any drafted army that only serves and trains when the exigencies of the situation demand it.

Who says a militia won't train prior to the need to fight in a war?

In Norway, the militia trains every month. It's the reason they have so many guns - knowledge of firearms is a responsibility there, just as it is here.

Also, we seemed to do OK in WW1 and WW2 with a draft army. Vietnam's failure had nothing to do with the draft (don't get into an land war in southeast asia...).

How's the "regular army" doing these days? I can't remember...how did the land conflict go in Iraq? How's it going in Afghanistan?

We have a very constitutional Navy and Air Force which does just fine at a moment's notice. An army is meant to fight a land war, and the way we're currently using it, to occupy a foreign land.

I'm not stupid, nor do I lack pragmatism. An army has the purpose to wage war. The Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force, along with CIA Special Ops protect us just fine.

What need do we have for a standing army?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:43:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 12:59:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 3:09:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:56:08 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:48:31 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
This is the worst possible thing that could happen if you believe in Liberty.

https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net...

It means that we will continue to have a standing army and continually go off to war without war being declared.

A standing army in an anathema to Liberty and one of the reasons this country rebelled against England and became its own entity.

With a draft, declaring war is something that Congress has to seriously think about. With an all-volunteer army, f*ck it...we'll be in the constant state of war that Orwell postulated in nineteeneightyfour.

I've said this elsewhere and I'll say it here. 1984 was not some sort of fantasy world. Look at Louis XIV, and you will see 1984. Genghis Khan, 1984. Every emperor of Rome, 1984. "The closer to Caesar, the greater the fear."

1984 is a book about the corrupting influence of power. War is merely one symptom, albeit the deadliest symptom.

A "constant state of war" describes nearly all of written history. What distinguishes periods of peace is not the absence of war, but the minimization of it.

All of Empiric history. No Standing Army = No Empire.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:44:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 1:01:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 12:58:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
He does argue, in the following paragraph, that it is dangerous--Rome's liberties being the "final victim" of such a preparedness--but "also necessary", which leads him to counsel that nations exercise practical wisdom respecting their military establishment. Madison:

A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.

I fully agree with this statement. My name is wrichcirw, and I approve this message. :D

If you don't see the parallel to Rome right now, you're blind.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...