BF2S Forums If conscription was brought in.......

well I would probably already have volunteered Navy, since it would take some sort of cataclysmic event to necessitate the re-instatement of the draft and I would like to think I would be able to see it coming. That (volunteering before drafting) wasn't an option so I chose the first one. And what the hell is so soft about the Navy? the other services can't get anywhere (even the Air Force) without a carrier group plowing the path first, ooooOOOOOooooooo, I just had a thought, COAST GUARD, ridiculously high percentage of Guardies actually end up in some sort of weapons hot action (mostly thanks to drug interdiction tasks and anti-piracy enforcement), they even get to "ride the curl" with 5500 horsepower boats!!! check it!!

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=51868

oh you may need to sign up for a password

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-20 14:35:11)

ok, first, it isn't patriotism that leads me to that conclusion, it is mere logic. I guess i dont know what to call it, but a contract was the word that I chose, maybe it was a poor one. However, i still disagree with your disagreement that there is no "social clause", a word i probably should have used instead. I just have to wonder if we are not born into it, then why on earth are there things such as taxes and conscription imposed on us for??? We HAVE to pay taxes and if we qualify for the draft we HAVE to submit to it.... i guess those are two of the biggest 'social clauses' that i feel we are born into, or i suppose if you become a citizen, you are "granted" those "rights" as well.

as far as the government that uses force to reach it's own goals.... well, i suppose that the goals of the government are the goals of the people. We elect people based on their goals for their tenure in office, which, through election, become our goals as well. if one of their goals is more schools or teachers, that money has to come from us, which means we have given them, indirectly, a reason for them to tax us, more or less depending on the goals. Now, i know somebody is going to say: well, we didn't vote for him/her!!! ok, well, again, thats the whole point of an election and a democracy. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and those needs are determined simply through an election and the goals of the elected official.

if the "contract" is just a veneer of legitimacy, as you say, then why has this "veneer" persisted throughout the entire lifetime of this country??? you don't think that the majority of people, if they did indeed disagree with this, wouldn't have changed it by now? The first guy to instate a draft, lincoln, got re-elected after doing so, and i feel this legitimizes the whole conscription as part of our "social clause" issue.

i aggree that the government is here to serve the people, 100% aggree with that. However, the government cannot exist in the symbiotic relationship without us serving the government as well. Every day we pay taxes to the government, and every day we benefit from the infrastructure that our government has put in place. And occasionally, we need our government to protect us from others, and our government needs us to help do that, hence the draft.

as i said in my previous post as well, that you are entitled to disagree with the government on these issues. However, i think as further proof that there is a social clause out there, by not holding up our end of the bargain, disagreeing with them, you pay the price, usually jail. Also, as an American citizen, you are entitled to leave this country and never ever come back, unless you are a wanted criminal or certain other restrictions.... this is better than some countries out there (N. Korea, Cuba, China, many others...) You can do that if you dont want to have to pay taxes or submit to a draft, it's that easy. However, upon entering other territories, you may have to abide by their "social clauses", but each is a little different.

If you really feel that there is no "social clause" out there, i would love to hear more evidence or proof of it. Im open to discussion and i occasionally change my mind from time to time, but I feel that whether we want to or not, there are social clauses we are born into that we cannot escape with leaving the land or facing punishment, the price we pay for the system we created..... a fair tradeoff in my opinion.

i was a conscript in my time(1988) as it was normal in holland in that time.
later on i became proffesional and when you do that it's your own choice,but being a conscript only works defending your home ground if you ask me?

and switzerland has consrciption to!!!!!!!!!!!!

Join the army but try to avoid a frontline role....  And if you have to give me -1 for this post be a man and post your name to.

eMarine~

Last edited by eMarine (2006-06-20 18:06:21)

I take orders from nobody

Hmm, well I'm already signed up for the Marine Corps, ship out on July 10th, so I pick the already in option.

if our country was being invaded, i would just sit at a window on the second floor of my house and cap the invaders asses.  and im not kidding, i can really shoot.  i shoot an AR-15 in NATIONAL target competitons at 200, 300 and 600 yards.  i do it very well.  ive also shot a target at 1000 yards, over half a mile, i know my sights

comet241 wrote:

OK, first, it isn't patriotism that leads me to that conclusion, it is mere logic. I guess i don't know what to call it, but a contract was the word that I chose, maybe it was a poor one. However, i still disagree with your disagreement that there is no "social clause", a word i probably should have used instead. I just have to wonder if we are not born into it, then why on earth are there things such as taxes and conscription imposed on us for??? We HAVE to pay taxes and if we qualify for the draft we HAVE to submit to it.... i guess those are two of the biggest 'social clauses' that i feel we are born into, or i suppose if you become a citizen, you are "granted" those "rights" as well.

You have been taught to believe that it is ok for the government to conscript you under the threat of force, and you have been taught to believe that it is ok for the government to  take your money (taxes) under the threat of force.  Simply put, this is tyranny of the majority.  You wouldn't stand for such a behavior from an individual; but for some strange reason, people accept it from a group of people which grants itself the exclusive right to use force against others in the pursuit of its goals.  There is no valid philosophical principal which allows the government (which, in the case of the US, is merely an entity which represents the views of the majority; and in many other countries, doesn't even represent a majority) to initiate force against citizens which have not used it themselves.  That is not to say the government can't ask for your assistance, or even that you should not give it.  The wrong is in COMPELLING you to comply with body or treasure.

The fact that you HAVE to do anything, when you are causing no harm to anyone, should set off warning bells in your head that you are being abused by your government.

comet241 wrote:

as far as the government that uses force to reach it's own goals.... well, i suppose that the goals of the government are the goals of the people. We elect people based on their goals for their tenure in office, which, through election, become our goals as well. if one of their goals is more schools or teachers, that money has to come from us, which means we have given them, indirectly, a reason for them to tax us, more or less depending on the goals. Now, i know somebody is going to say: well, we didn't vote for him/her!!! ok, well, again, thats the whole point of an election and a democracy. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and those needs are determined simply through an election and the goals of the elected official.

The government is representative of SOME people, and does what those people believe is right.  Unfortunately, it can never do what is right for everyone.   We have, therefore, rationalised the use of force, and have been taught that if a majority believes something is right, it is ok to compel the minority to participate.  This is your, "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."  This is the war cry of the majority against the minority - aka, Tyranny of the majority.  That may be fine for Mr. Spock, but I do not accept it.   A harmless minority may not be infringed upon by a majority acting in a moral manner.  It happens, but it is wholly immoral and wrong.

comet241 wrote:

if the "contract" is just a veneer of legitimacy, as you say, then why has this "veneer" persisted throughout the entire lifetime of this country??? you don't think that the majority of people, if they did indeed disagree with this, wouldn't have changed it by now? The first guy to instate a draft, lincoln, got re-elected after doing so, and i feel this legitimizes the whole conscription as part of our "social clause" issue.

It has persisted because the majority wishes it to do so, and any minority which resists is forcibly punished.  For example:  If one does not believe in conscription, one fails to register for the draft and is arrested.  That person has caused harm to NOBODY, yet he is forcibly punished for failing to comply with the will of the majority.  Obviously the majority will not change it, because the majority is accruing benefit from it.  Saying that an election by the majority legitimizes tyranny of the majority is akin to saying that silence on the part of the victim legitimizes murder.

comet241 wrote:

i aggree that the government is here to serve the people, 100% aggree with that. However, the government cannot exist in the symbiotic relationship without us serving the government as well. Every day we pay taxes to the government, and every day we benefit from the infrastructure that our government has put in place. And occasionally, we need our government to protect us from others, and our government needs us to help do that, hence the draft.

If a majority believes in a principle, that majority can proceed to implement it without forcibly compelling a minority which disagrees.  In the case of military service, this would be exemplified by a VOLUNTEER force, like the one I volunteered to join.  It is a simple concept: Given a majority which believes we should have an army, and a minority which disagrees; the Army is implemented and the majority is forced to 'put up or shut up' and JOIN THE ARMY THEY VOTED FOR VOLUNTARILY.  The rights of the minority are preserved, and they are not required to join.  If volunteers for the army fail to materialize, this only shows that the majority was not as dedicated to it as was originally believed.  If conscription is imposed on a minority when the majority which voted for the Army fails to support it, that is simply slavery; if the majority does support the army by volunteering, then conscription is unnecessary.  Either way, the use of compulsory force is patently wrong, and probably unnecessary.  This simple idea applies to any form of compulsion inflicted on citizens by the government.

comet241 wrote:

as i said in my previous post as well, that you are entitled to disagree with the government on these issues. However, i think as further proof that there is a social clause out there, by not holding up our end of the bargain, disagreeing with them, you pay the price, usually jail.

So, we have the freedom to disagree, as long as we do the bidding of the government in the end?  This does not strike me as being particularly free.  Do you really not see the irony in what you are saying?  In my view, if one is jailed for dissenting, one does not have the right to dissent.  Please tell me if you see it otherwise.

comet241 wrote:

Also, as an American citizen, you are entitled to leave this country and never ever come back, unless you are a wanted criminal or certain other restrictions.... this is better than some countries out there (N. Korea, Cuba, China, many others...) You can do that if you don't want to have to pay taxes or submit to a draft, it's that easy. However, upon entering other territories, you may have to abide by their "social clauses", but each is a little different.

So, in your opinion, it is ok for the government to do something wrong, because there are other governments out there which are wrong more often?  The fact that one may leave does not excuse immoral action.  This argument is philosophically untenable.

comet241 wrote:

If you really feel that there is no "social clause" out there, i would love to hear more evidence or proof of it.

Here's the thing:  Your argument is one of obligation and compulsion.  Mine is one of freedom and respect for the rights of the individuals.  Behavior which does not infringe upon others requires no justification.  Behaviour which does infringe upon others requires iron clad justification, or it is immoral.  It is your position which requires justification ("evidence" as you put it), not mine.

comet241 wrote:

Im open to discussion and i occasionally change my mind from time to time, but I feel that whether we want to or not, there are social clauses we are born into that we cannot escape with leaving the land or facing punishment, the price we pay for the system we created..... a fair tradeoff in my opinion.

That is your opinion, and I do not share it.  Opinion is not a valid basis for implementing a system of forcible compulsion.

ok, in the interest of saving space im not going to directly quote you. first of all, good point on the fact that while we are free to disagree, we could be jailed for doing so, it does sound hypocritical. That's the one that really made me laugh, after seeing the way you put it. However, I see that this discussion is moving away from it's original intent. I wasn't particularly arguing for or against a draft at all, I was merely providing evidence that it is a social clause. The area I think you are headed is that it is wrong, social clause or not.

I did note that this time around you didn't make any claims that it wasn't a social clause, which was my original intent. What you did say that the "clause" has persisted because of "the tyranny of the majority" So, maybe we need to start a whole new thread debating whether or not the draft should take place, or if conscription is right. From what I gathered, you seem to disagree with the government on a lot of things, if i can extrapolate your feelings on right and wrong from this argument to others, correct me if im wrong, i hold nothing against you for it, there is a lot of things that they do that upset everyone, including me.

Which is why I will keep this short and sweet, although lacking in the latter rather than the former. Basically, my whole argument was that there are certain social clauses that we are born into, right or wrong, and conscription is one of them. A better debate may be whether it in itself is right or wrong, that would be an interesting read. I look forward to a new thread about that one.

ok, im understanding a little better, especially after declaring yourself a libertarian, I am familiar with their beliefs and that helps in understanding where you are coming from. One thing I am uncertain of is that you dont really contradict yourself, but you say several things which can be inferred differently. At first you said:  "'social contract' ... is a fabrication to justify tyranny of the majority", which I come to the conclusion as meaning it exists, but is a hollow promise created for the benefit of the government.....

then you say: " stated earlier that the social contract was not valid, so I didn't see the need to say it again" , which I come to mean as there is no social contract at all. then you say (sorry again for not using the quotes, i guess i really dont like using them, but i probably should) "the social contract is a fiction used to justify the use of force by the government, by claiming that citizens are obligated to compensate for that which government provides them".... which I come to the same conclusion as before, that it is there, but again is a hollow promise.

So I guess my argument would be that perception is reality. If the people percieve there to be a social clause in place, one where we pay taxes and ok the use of conscription in exchange for services, then the perception becomes a reality, whether it truly exists or not. This is what I am trying to get at. Whether there is truly a social clause or not, the people of this great country percieve there to be one, and hence, through false (in your words) pretenses, it becomes the truth.

Most people grumble about having to pay taxes, and since there hasn't been a draft in over 30 years I cant comment too much on that one, but the vast majority of people accept it without many problems. So I feel that whether there is truly a social clause or not to begin with, we as a people have not only allowed our government, but encouraged it through popular voting to continue this "fascade" of a social clause, which in my humble opinion, makes it a reality, although some would conclude it is fiction. But fiction can be real to many. false perceptions fuel the world. A perfect example would be the movie "the matrix". the humans are like conscripts, forced to be fuel for the robots. Ok, not so perfect, but it can be correlated over somewhat to what we are talking about. whether it's right or wrong, it's a "contract" everybody is born into..... and that's where a different fight erupts, over whether it is right or wrong..... the matrix like our current world???? were the wachowski brothers trying to tell us something....? (ominous music plays)

comet241 wrote:

ok, im understanding a little better, especially after declaring yourself a libertarian, I am familiar with their beliefs and that helps in understanding where you are coming from. One thing I am uncertain of is that you dont really contradict yourself, but you say several things which can be inferred differently. At first you said:  "'social contract' ... is a fabrication to justify tyranny of the majority", which I come to the conclusion as meaning it exists, but is a hollow promise created for the benefit of the government.....

then you say: " stated earlier that the social contract was not valid, so I didn't see the need to say it again" , which I come to mean as there is no social contract at all. then you say (sorry again for not using the quotes, i guess i really dont like using them, but i probably should) "the social contract is a fiction used to justify the use of force by the government, by claiming that citizens are obligated to compensate for that which government provides them".... which I come to the same conclusion as before, that it is there, but again is a hollow promise.

I have to make this quick, because I'm off home in a minute (I'll pick it up again tomorrow if this is inadequate).  The 'social contract' as claimed by those who believe in it, is inherent in the system.  I.e. because the government provides you with benefits, certain obligations are required of you in return.  Certain government policies exist which implicitly require the existance of the social contract (and you have already identified some); taxes, conscription etc.  Without the existence of the social contract, these policies are indefensible, so the policies inherently imply the existence of the social contract.

When I claim the social contract does not exist, it is because I do not believe it does....it is, as I said, a fabrication to justify policies which rely upon the use of force.  When I refer to the social contract as an existing entity, I am, of course, referring to the assumption that it does exist implicit in policies which rely upon compulsion.  That is, I am referring to the fact that our government acts as if it exists, even though it does not.

comet241 wrote:

So I guess my argument would be that perception is reality. If the people percieve there to be a social clause in place, one where we pay taxes and ok the use of conscription in exchange for services, then the perception becomes a reality, whether it truly exists or not. This is what I am trying to get at. Whether there is truly a social clause or not, the people of this great country percieve there to be one, and hence, through false (in your words) pretenses, it becomes the truth.

If I do not wish to participate in the perception of one who wishes an active state, I am thrown into jail for my cheek.  Those concrete walls are not a matter of debate or perception, unless one is clinically insane.  If many people perceive something to be there (i.e. the social contract) but cannot convince me of its existence, they have no right to punish me for denying it.  They can only, with moral right, implement it among themselves voluntarily; they cannot, with moral right, implement it among those who believe it is nonsense.

comet241 wrote:

Most people grumble about having to pay taxes, and since there hasn't been a draft in over 30 years I cant comment too much on that one, but the vast majority of people accept it without many problems. So I feel that whether there is truly a social clause or not to begin with, we as a people have not only allowed our government, but encouraged it through popular voting to continue this "fascade" of a social clause, which in my humble opinion, makes it a reality, although some would conclude it is fiction.

I want to reply, but I have a train to catch...more tomorrow.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-22 06:41:12)