Learn From The Fall of Rome

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
In a volunteer military, a tiny percentage of the population will bear the cost of war. That’s the strongest argument for a draft, in my book, despite all the problems it would cause the military, that it could lead to a regeneration of civic virtue and responsibility.

I agree 100%.

It would set our readiness back, but I think everyone should have to serve their country. Paying taxes not withstanding.

Ah, pro-slavery?

Nope. Pro-service.

Involuntary gun-to-your-head “service”.

There is a word for it.

Slavery.

Nope. They would be paid. They always have been. And when one’s service is up…no more service.

How is that slavery again? Seems to me it spreads military service across all socioeconomic lines.

I guess you prefer only the poor and the minorities serve, huh?
[/quote]

If you have a voluntary army and only the poor and minorities serve you allready have a problem.

You do not instill a feeling of love for your country by putting a gun to someones head. I am pretty sure of that because we have a mandatory service for everybody in Austria.

All it does is breeding contempt for the military and rightly so. And encourage lots of drinking. And private dicussions with your drill instructor after your “service”.

Last but not last, it is irrelevant how good you treat your slaves, it does not change what they are.

82

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
In a volunteer military, a tiny percentage of the population will bear the cost of war. That’s the strongest argument for a draft, in my book, despite all the problems it would cause the military, that it could lead to a regeneration of civic virtue and responsibility.

I agree 100%.

It would set our readiness back, but I think everyone should have to serve their country. Paying taxes not withstanding.

Ah, pro-slavery?

Nope. Pro-service.

Involuntary gun-to-your-head “service”.

There is a word for it.

Slavery.

Nope. They would be paid. They always have been. And when one’s service is up…no more service.

How is that slavery again? Seems to me it spreads military service across all socioeconomic lines.

I guess you prefer only the poor and the minorities serve, huh?

If you have a voluntary army and only the poor and minorities serve you allready have a problem.
[/quote]

Some truth to that.

I sympathize with libertarianism, but you guys are a lot bigger on the rights of citizenship than the responsibilities.

83

[quote]orion wrote:
If you have a voluntary army and only the poor and minorities serve you allready have a problem.

You do not instill a feeling of love for your country by putting a gun to someones head. I am pretty sure of that because we have a mandatory service for everybody in Austria.

All it does is breeding contempt for the military and rightly so. And encourage lots of drinking. And private dicussions with your drill instructor after your “service”.

Last but not last, it is irrelevant how good you treat your slaves, it does not change what they are.

[/quote]

Nope. Sorry.

You are wrong. You may hate the idea of national service, but it is not slavery.

I don’t have a problem with you disliking something I support - I am used to that. But to call it slavery is just a bit over the top. I would quote, or link to wiki - but I abhor the use of that as proof. I would direct you , however, to your english dictionary.

84

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

I sympathize with libertarianism, but you guys are a lot bigger on the rights of citizenship than the responsibilities.[/quote]

That is because we believe that our government serves us and not the other way around.

85

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
If you have a voluntary army and only the poor and minorities serve you allready have a problem.

You do not instill a feeling of love for your country by putting a gun to someones head. I am pretty sure of that because we have a mandatory service for everybody in Austria.

All it does is breeding contempt for the military and rightly so. And encourage lots of drinking. And private dicussions with your drill instructor after your “service”.

Last but not last, it is irrelevant how good you treat your slaves, it does not change what they are.

Nope. Sorry.

You are wrong. You may hate the idea of national service, but it is not slavery.

I don’t have a problem with you disliking something I support - I am used to that. But to call it slavery is just a bit over the top. I would quote, or link to wiki - but I abhor the use of that as proof. I would direct you , however, to your english dictionary. [/quote]

slavery

noun

  1. the state of being under the control of another person [syn: bondage]
  2. the practice of owning slaves
  3. work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay

See number one.

�??Synonyms 1. thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude. 4. moil, labor.

It could compromise on servitude:

ser·vi·tude /�?s�?rvɪ�?tud, -�?tyud/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sur-vi-tood, -tyood] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�??noun

  1. slavery or bondage of any kind: political or intellectual servitude.
  2. compulsory service or labor as a punishment for criminals: penal servitude.
  3. Law. a right possessed by one person to use another’s property.
    [Origin: 1425�??75; late ME < LL servitūd�?, equiv. to servi-, comb. form of servus slave + -tūd�?, -tude]

Notice that its origins are servus, slave

ser·vi·tude (sûr’vÄ­-t�?�?d’, -ty�?�?d’) Pronunciation Key
n.

    1. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
    2. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.
  2. Forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime: penal servitude in labor camps.
  3. Law A right that grants use of another’s property.

And finally:

servitude
1471, “condition of being enslaved,” from M.Fr. servitude, from L.L. servitudo “slavery,” from L. servus “a slave” (see serve).#

servitude [�?s�?�?vitju�?d] noun
the state of being a slave
Example: Their lives were spent in servitude.

86

[quote]rainjack wrote:
It would be the best deterrent to war we could have. Will the poor also serve? yes.

Plus it could quite possibly give these idiot college kids a little dose of the real world.

Is there a snowball’s chance in hell we will ever see it? Nope.

But the Israeli model is an excellent one, and I think we could learn a thing or two from them. [/quote]

Excellent point!

I think a better illustration of that principle at work would be the Swiss model, not the Israeli one.

87

[quote]orion wrote:
Well…copied and pasted a bunch of stuff[/quote]

The part that kills your theory is where it says “for little, or no pay”.

And, I would argue, the part the talks about no personal freedom.

If you don’t like my idea, hey - that’s fine with me.

But it is not slavery. No one is owned. No one has their rights taken away. It is all about service to one’s country.

If that is your argument, then public education is slavery as well because there is no pay, and you are forced into it for 12 years here.

88

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Well…copied and pasted a bunch of stuff

The part that kills your theory is where it says “for little, or no pay”.

And, I would argue, the part the talks about no personal freedom.

If you don’t like my idea, hey - that’s fine with me.

But it is not slavery. No one is owned. No one has their rights taken away. It is all about service to one’s country.

If that is your argument, then public education is slavery as well because there is no pay, and you are forced into it for 12 years here. [/quote]

For little or no pay is hardly the heart of the matter because, and I repeat myself, it does not matter how well you treat your slaves.

The crucial point is if they serve voluntary or not. You have extremely important rights taken away, they might order you to fight and kill, which is more than was demanded from most slaves.

Like the income tax establishes the principle that the fruits of your labour belongs to your government in principle, a draft establishes the principle that your ass belongs to the government.

Then, even slaves had rights. Quite a lot under the Athenian law, to the point that other nations made fun of them. Cattle has rights, they cannot be treated every way you want to. They are still property.

You may call a draft serving, but even the roots of “to serve” reveal what it is= slavery.

Plus, you can be homeschooled. May I train with a weapon privately?

89

[quote]orion wrote:
For little or no pay is hardly the heart of the matter because, and I repeat myself, it does not matter how well you treat your slaves.[/quote]

So you want to cherry pick the definition to fit your situation.

To serve may have its roots in slavery, but you know as well as I do that it is a different definition.

I think everyone should serve, and if not voluntarily - then as a condition of citizenship. Or at the very least as part of their education.

[quote]Plus, you can be homeschooled. May I train with a weapon privately?
[/quote]

Homeschooling is still slavery under your definition, regardless of where it takes place.

Yes you can train privately, but you should still serve in the military. In case you haven’t heard - it’s not all about guns anymore. They even have doctors and shit now.

90

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
For little or no pay is hardly the heart of the matter because, and I repeat myself, it does not matter how well you treat your slaves.

So you want to cherry pick the definition to fit your situation.

You may call a draft serving, but even the roots of “to serve” reveal what it is= slavery.

To serve may have its roots in slavery, but you know as well as I do that it is a different definition.

I think everyone should serve, and if not voluntarily - then as a condition of citizenship. Or at the very least as part of their education.

Plus, you can be homeschooled. May I train with a weapon privately?

Homeschooling is still slavery under your definition, regardless of where it takes place.

Yes you can train privately, but you should still serve in the military. In case you haven’t heard - it’s not all about guns anymore. They even have doctors and shit now.
[/quote]

I do not want to cherry pick anything. You make it sound as if the government gets to do anything with me as long as it pays me afterwards. That is absurd.

How much do I have to pay you for your wife and children to serve me?

And please remember you have no say how and how long they serve me, but you can give me a number. I will slowly get this money back over the next years by using your money that I will aquire in a process called taxation.

Sounds reasonable doesn`t it, or is there any reason you would not sign such a contract on your own?

91

[quote]orion wrote:
an absurd, unrelated attempt at an analogy
[/quote]

If you are paying me for the use of my family - that is a far cry from you paying them.

Nice try - but you are going further and further over the edge to try and make my position look bad. And in the process - you are the one looking bad.

I will say you get an E for effort.

92

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
an absurd, unrelated attempt at an analogy

If you are paying me for the use of my family - that is a far cry from you paying them.

Nice try - but you are going further and further over the edge to try and make my position look bad. And in the process - you are the one looking bad.

I will say you get an E for effort.
[/quote]

Nice try, you get a D for dodging the main issue.

If they get paid and everything is so swell, why do they need to force people to serve?

If it is all roses and walks on the beach people should pay them for the privilege.

93

Well - at least you didn’t flunk me.

What am I dodging?

You think it is slavery. I think it is service.

You think service is slavery. I don’t.

Being at the polar opposites - there is not much middle ground.

I’m just having fun irritating you.

94

[quote]rainjack wrote:

But it is not slavery. No one is owned. No one has their rights taken away. It is all about service to one’s country.

[/quote]

Not trying to get into your debate ( or fights as you call them) with Orion, but I’m wondering why you think everyone should serve in the military? Did you serve in the military? I’m guessing you haven’t served because you do have rights taken away from you in the military.

Dustin

95

[quote]Dustin wrote:
rainjack wrote:

But it is not slavery. No one is owned. No one has their rights taken away. It is all about service to one’s country.

Not trying to get into your debate ( or fights as you call them) with Orion, but I’m wondering why you think everyone should serve in the military? Did you serve in the military? I’m guessing you haven’t served because you do have rights taken away from you in the military.

Dustin[/quote]

I did serve.

Only during basic were you stripped of your rights.

But I am not talking military only. There is another thread where i say it could be any kind of service.

But requiring service in the military would make people much much slower to bang the war drum.

96

If Im not mistaking Orion Austria requires able bodied males to endure a period of service to your armed forces or to community service once they have reached the age of 18.

Im American,proud of the fact and I would never consider doing my part for my countrymen slavery. In fact I would go so far as to say if anyone walked away from the opportunity to SERVE of freewill their country they might want to reevaluate themselves as men. Societies and civilizations are built on that entities members willingness to participate at all levels possible to make the collective great.

97

Well, I was in the Army, and even during basic training I never felt like a slave. Of course, nobody put a gun to my head and forced to join, I volunteered for service, with the full understanding of what it would entail.

Had I been pressed into military service like a conscript during the Vietnam war, I might have felt differently about it.

National service, however, is one area where I find myself disagreeing with Irish, and agreeing with Rainjack. I think all able-bodied young men should learn about duty, honor and responsibility through military service, or some other form of service. What other options do they have? The Boy Scouts? street gangs?

Orion, if you want to talk about slavery in the US, then you want to talk about the US prison system, not the military. The 13th Amendment to the constitution permits slavery and involuntary servitude for people convicted of crimes. There are currently close to two million prisoners languishing in state, federal and privately operated prisons, most of whom would probably meet the definitions of slaves that you provided.

Interestingly, almost half of these prisoners are black, meaning that one practical result of the American Civil War was to transfer ownership of black slaves out of the hands of private citizens and into the hands of the State.

But I digress.

Putting on my Varqarnac hat for RJ’s benefit, I predict that there will come a time when the military will start tapping this vast pool of manpower, offering violent criminals a reduction in their sentences in exchange for combat service. It probably happens now, but only on a limited, individual scale. Surely many’s the soldier, sailor or Marine who accepted the option of military service in lieu of a lengthy stay behind bars.

But what I’m talking about is something different. I can imagine that in the future, as the “War on Terror” progresses, there will be all-con battalions manning the front lines, with an attached company of military police to keep them in line.

Then you can talk about slavery in the military.

98

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Then you can talk about slavery in the military.[/quote]

Oh, what a rosy picture you paint!

99

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I think everyone should serve, and if not voluntarily - then as a condition of citizenship. Or at the very least as part of their education.
[/quote]

I suspect we have another Heinlein fan in our midst. Starship Troopers, RJ?

100

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Putting on my Varqarnac hat for RJ’s benefit, I predict that there will come a time when the military will start tapping this vast pool of manpower, offering violent criminals a reduction in their sentences in exchange for combat service. It probably happens now, but only on a limited, individual scale. Surely many’s the soldier, sailor or Marine who accepted the option of military service in lieu of a lengthy stay behind bars. [/quote]

U.S. Army granting more waivers for criminal backgrounds
Exceptions on crime help army fill ranks

By Lizette Alvarez
February 14, 2007

The number of waivers granted to U.S. Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown nearly 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Defense Department records show.

During that time the army has employed a range of tactics to expand its diminishing pool of recruits. It has offered larger enlistment cash bonuses, allowed more high school dropouts and applicants with low scores on its aptitude test to join and loosened weight and age restrictions.

It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/news/military.php