I am going by his 2nd post.Batman wrote:He has repeatedly demonstrated that he does indeed understand the difference. He is however also on record explicitly saying 'And I do not feel that one owes the state anything'.
It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
- Purple
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
- Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
While I won't argue with the idea that giving less than adequate amount of time to train someone to be a soldier is less than desirable (although you CAN teach people the basics in that amount of time, it just remains at basic level), I do find it worrisome that you think that military would turn people into lunatics.salm wrote:Well, Germany and probably most countries that do it in a similar way. In the end people were conscripted for 6 months. That was useless. Before that it was 9 months. That was equally useless. The 10, 12 and 15 months it was even before that was nonsense as well.Tiriol wrote: Are you talking specifically about Germany or about conscription in general?
It might make sense for a heavily foritifed counry like Israel that requires massive amounts of soldiers and is willing to spend large amounts of resources on keeping their conscripts in the army for 3 years but for most countries it is nonsense. It´s better and cheaper to have professional soldiers who are actually motivated than a bunch of teenagers who are interested in normal stuff like getting drunk.
Furthermore, I don´t think turning people into soldiers is particularily healthy for peoples mental health. Drilling people will cause a certain percentage of fallout which will be turned into lunatics. If there is a way to turn fewer people into soldiers and use more resources per person I assume we will have less lunatics. Lunatics who know how to kill people. And even if the fallout is miniscule. Training soldiers means training them to be submissive to authorities which is bad in itself. The whole mindset that is required to be a good soldier is counter productive for a civillian life imo.
Social services on the other hand that force people to take duties like wiping old and disabled peoples asses, deal with schizophrenics and hang out with homeless junkies and alcoholics turns people into more well rounded adults who lose a lot of contempt, ignorance and fear they had before working with these groups.
The fact that a large part of the population used to have first hand experience with this kind of work was increadible. It is now lost. Probably for ever.
Psychopaths and those suffering from schitzophrenia in all of its myriad forms do not make good soldiers. Indeed, the conscript armies (who have any idea what they are doing) pointedly try to find people who could become "lunatics who kill" and either stop them from entering service or discharge them as soon as possible. Mentally disturbed cannot be relied upon to carry out orders or react normally to mundane and surprising situations. They are ill-equipped to work in an environment that can be found in military. Hell, Finnish military recently introduced a new classification (basically all Finnish citizens who can be called upon to serve their country are given a classification that is based on their readiness to serve, their mental health and their physical health) solely for the purpose to identify those who cannot be trusted to handle a weapon responsibly.
EVERY person who is not suffering from delusions knows how to kill a person. Even the most pacifistic one among us knows that by hitting someone hard enough you kill that someone. You don't need military to train you how to use gun, either. What the military does is to train soldiers to fight and, if necessary, kill when ordered to do so.
And while military does require submission to authority, a notable part of any military training also involves talking about ethics and when it is right to disobey orders. Bundeswehr, as far as I know, has gone very far in that regards in recognizing the importance of limits of morality and one's own conscience and how those elements override - MUST override - any authority that tries to subvert them by, say, ordering a soldier to massacre civilians or murder a prisoner of war.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. I'm certain you have good reasons for them and I'm not attacking them, per se. I just disagree on some of them. For me, though, national service is one modern form of recognizing one's debt to society and fellow man. I support the system currently in place in Finland, but not (only) out of this philosophical reason: a very pragmatic approach also drives this.
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti; beatae Mariae semper Virgini; beato Michaeli Archangelo; sanctis Apostolis, omnibus sanctis... Tibit Pater, quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, verbo et opere, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Kyrie Eleison!
The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess
The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess
- The Romulan Republic
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 21559
- Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
I don't object to taxes if they are necessary to pay for something essential. While I don't feel one owes the state anything for its own sake, I do feel that one owes their fellow countrymen something, and that the state can be a means of ensuring those obligations are met. The duty you owe is to your fellow people, however, not some concept of service to the state. I acknowledge that it can amount to the same thing, but its a philosophical distinction that I like to make. I already more ore less explained this and had it dismissed by Thanas as semantic quibbling.Eternal_Freedom wrote:Romulan Republic, if you feel you owe the State nothing, do you also object to paying taxes? That's something you owe the state which is used (supposedly) for the good of all.
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 30165
- Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Heinlein's Terran Federation was not a nation that practiced conscription. It made volunteering for hazardous national service (generally the military) a requirement for citizenship. Indeed, Terran Federation schools, in the process of indoctrinating their citizenry, teach that conscript armies are inherently worthless.Elheru Aran wrote:With the whole 'conscription for national service' I'm getting ridiculous flashbacks of Heinlein. Not sure that's such a great thing...
Meanwhile, conscription is very different from this. It is saying "if the state needs people to serve in some important role, including a dangerous one, it has the right to compel you to serve."
Based on this and the other posts he's made lately, I get the feeling that RR really only views the state as this hostile, inimical thing that should be heaped up with restrictions and that would somehow function best in a completely pacifist mode.Broomstick wrote:If "the state" does not exist then it can neither give nor defend the rights of its citizens. Or, as mom explained it to me waaaaaaaay back in the mid-20th Century "if you want the rights and privileges of citizenship then you must fulfill the duties of citizenship." Yes, your feelings matter but it seems these days the notion that you owe your society something for how its existence benefits you is lost, in other words, the notion of the social contract seems to be fading.The Romulan Republic wrote:The idea that the state has a right to command people to take a job that may entail dying and killing, regardless of their feelings on the matter, is abhorrent. To say that this is a national duty is to say that the nation is more important that the rights of its citizens. That is a very fascistic outlook.
So is "breathing oxygen."The Romulan Republic wrote:Probably not as well as you do, but nationalism and the violation of individual rights, while not exclusive to fascism, are certainly major characteristics of it.
Nationalism is a trait of any nation that survives while under external pressure, or coheres under internal pressure. A nation that does not want to be a nation will eventually find a way to achieve its goal. Either it will fragment into subgroups (ethnic or class-based, usually) that oppress and torment and war on each other, or it will be destroyed and absorbed by an outside force.
"Violation of individual rights" is sheer nonsense. Your individual rights do not make you a perfect inviolable being of pure special pureness. They come with obligations. The protections of law come with an obligation to obey the law and fund its enforcement. The protections of the welfare state come with an obligation to fund its creation, and to make the most of the benefits it gives you. And the protection of the state itself against external enemies comes with an obligation to support the defense of the state. And YES that can mean protecting the state with your physical body, not just with a few dollars out of your wallet.
No, if your nation "violates your rights [in order] to survive," then your rights are getting violated.The Romulan Republic wrote:If your nation violates your rights to survive, then your rights are getting violated either way.Let me repeat my most important point here: if your nation ceases to exist then it can neither grant nor defend your rights.
If your nation fails to survive, you are at great risk of being beaten, tortured, robbed of all you possess. YOu may be enslaved permanently by overlords who despise you. You may see all that your people worked to build for decades destroyed by random, spiteful vandalism. You may see the invader's soldiers carrying off your female relatives as sex slaves. You may see
All these things have happened. Many times. And they are much, much worse than "violation of your right."
Do you know, I think the Benjamin Franklin quote works in reverse. Those who can give up essential safety to purchase a little temporary liberty, deserve neither safety nor liberty.Its the same old false dichotomy between freedom and security.
I mean, we have a word for the largest class of people in our society who routinely ignore basic safety precautions and cannot protect themselves, and who will cheerfully put themselves in terrible danger because they want to be 'free' of oppressive rules and structures.
We call them children.
And yet, the largest group of people I know who regularly claim that their right to liberty takes precedence over basic, commonsense precautions designed to ensure their safety from major external threats... are petty children.I object to characterizing my moral/philosophical objection to conscription as whining. It implies that my position is simply petty and childish.If ISIL was knocking on the door of your country and its cities would you whine about conscription? Would you argue that it's more important to defend individual rights rather than insist that the able-bodied fight off those who would destroy your rights and protections?
So you're saying that the only people who would fight to defend you from this foreign invasion are people you despise and disagree with?And yes, I would object to conscription during an ISIS invasion. Not that I think it would be needed. If ISIS invaded the US with any force larger than small groups of terrorists, you'd have lines of volunteers miles long and militias forming to fight them throughout Republican territory (and probably targeting every Muslim/brown or black person/liberal they see, unfortunately).
And you don't see this as a problem with your worldview, that it can only exist when defended by people who do not share it and in fact actively reject it?
Are you nuts?
I must ask:
Have you no sense of self-preservation? At long last, sir, have you no sense of self-preservation?
The Supreme Court has not upheld this position. Conscription is not considered a form of slavery under US law.National service maybe. Military service, no. And I would argue that even mandatory national service of any sort is ruled out by the US constitution's 13th. amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. You don't like it, pass an amendment.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Just to clarify: I don´t think that all or even the majority of soldiers go crazy. I think that the training is psychologically demanding and can lead to some people going crazy. If they have to go to war the percentage of soldiers going crazy increases. So I´d prefer an army that generates its value from little but high quality soldiers to an army that gets its value from lots of low quality soldiers. For one, the high quality soldiers are less likely to go crazy and second there are fewer to go crazy. No matter how good your system is in weeding unqualified soldiers out it will never catch all.Tiriol wrote: While I won't argue with the idea that giving less than adequate amount of time to train someone to be a soldier is less than desirable (although you CAN teach people the basics in that amount of time, it just remains at basic level), I do find it worrisome that you think that military would turn people into lunatics.
Psychopaths and those suffering from schitzophrenia in all of its myriad forms do not make good soldiers. Indeed, the conscript armies (who have any idea what they are doing) pointedly try to find people who could become "lunatics who kill" and either stop them from entering service or discharge them as soon as possible. Mentally disturbed cannot be relied upon to carry out orders or react normally to mundane and surprising situations. They are ill-equipped to work in an environment that can be found in military. Hell, Finnish military recently introduced a new classification (basically all Finnish citizens who can be called upon to serve their country are given a classification that is based on their readiness to serve, their mental health and their physical health) solely for the purpose to identify those who cannot be trusted to handle a weapon responsibly.
The impact soldiers in general have on a society is a lot more important to me than the occasional l
EVERY person who is not suffering from delusions knows how to kill a person. Even the most pacifistic one among us knows that by hitting someone hard enough you kill that someone. You don't need military to train you how to use gun, either. What the military does is to train soldiers to fight and, if necessary, kill when ordered to do so.
And while military does require submission to authority, a notable part of any military training also involves talking about ethics and when it is right to disobey orders. Bundeswehr, as far as I know, has gone very far in that regards in recognizing the importance of limits of morality and one's own conscience and how those elements override - MUST override - any authority that tries to subvert them by, say, ordering a soldier to massacre civilians or murder a prisoner of war.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. I'm certain you have good reasons for them and I'm not attacking them, per se. I just disagree on some of them. For me, though, national service is one modern form of recognizing one's debt to society and fellow man. I support the system currently in place in Finland, but not (only) out of this philosophical reason: a very pragmatic approach also drives this.
But actually, forget this point. The occasionaly loon isn´t very important to me. The other point, soldiers impacting society is more important.
As for the ethics that are tought in armies: This is something I find extremely important but the training (and war) will still tend to mold soldiers into completely different characters than non soldiers. Disobeying orders and questioning authority is somewhat of a worst case scenario or a last resort for soldiers whereas for the ordinary citizen it should be a lot further up the list. This mindset is desirable as long as the person in question is soldiering but as soon as he isn´t soldiering anymore this mindset isn´t desirable and I don´t believe that you can simply turn off your soldier mindset on demand. So if you have a society with many soldiers the soldier mindset will impact this society stronger than a society with fewer soldiers.
Or to put it another way, I´d rather live in a country that places higher importance on the healer caste than on the warrior caste.
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Sometime the training can drive people into wanting to kill themselves.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Right, the system in Starship Troopers is based on the idea that the authority of the government - the power to make it illegal to do something or not do something - is a weapon prone to misuse, and that ability to force others to comply with your whims in this way should not be handed out to just any asshole who manages to go eighteen years without dying. Somebody who does not enlist has the same rights as somebody who does, but he has not earned the authority to add new rights or take rights away.Simon_Jester wrote:Heinlein's Terran Federation was not a nation that practiced conscription. It made volunteering for hazardous national service (generally the military) a requirement for citizenship. Indeed, Terran Federation schools, in the process of indoctrinating their citizenry, teach that conscript armies are inherently worthless.Elheru Aran wrote:With the whole 'conscription for national service' I'm getting ridiculous flashbacks of Heinlein. Not sure that's such a great thing...
Meanwhile, conscription is very different from this. It is saying "if the state needs people to serve in some important role, including a dangerous one, it has the right to compel you to serve."
The system is flawed, but that flaw is that those who would abuse the power of the government are probably not unwilling to sacrifice two years of their freedom to get their foot in the door.
It's not a lack of self-preservation, he's just throwing a cheap, stupid jab at people he doesn't like.So you're saying that the only people who would fight to defend you from this foreign invasion are people you despise and disagree with?And yes, I would object to conscription during an ISIS invasion. Not that I think it would be needed. If ISIS invaded the US with any force larger than small groups of terrorists, you'd have lines of volunteers miles long and militias forming to fight them throughout Republican territory (and probably targeting every Muslim/brown or black person/liberal they see, unfortunately).
And you don't see this as a problem with your worldview, that it can only exist when defended by people who do not share it and in fact actively reject it?
Are you nuts?
I must ask:
Have you no sense of self-preservation? At long last, sir, have you no sense of self-preservation?
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 30165
- Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Perhaps different or better training is called for?ray245 wrote:Sometime the training can drive people into wanting to kill themselves.
I mean, honestly I don't think that conscription is necessary in the current social context for most Western societies, but I don't think it's wrong or illegal or undesirable as such, and a nation facing severe manpower shortages in its military might well have reason to go for it.
Uh... actually, I disagree.Grumman wrote:Right, the system in Starship Troopers is based on the idea that the authority of the government - the power to make it illegal to do something or not do something - is a weapon prone to misuse, and that ability to force others to comply with your whims in this way should not be handed out to just any asshole who manages to go eighteen years without dying. Somebody who does not enlist has the same rights as somebody who does, but he has not earned the authority to add new rights or take rights away.
The stated rationale for the Terran Federation's government is somewhat different- it is that if you haven't proven willing to sacrifice for the state you can't claim the right to a say in how it is governed. You may have rights but you're not a voter, not really a citizen, but rather a "producing-consuming economic animal."
I would argue that the flaw is different: it locks in a certain set of policy choices and social and cultural values by creating a "gatekeeper" institution that can prevent you from ever getting the vote if you don't satisfy its requirements.The system is flawed, but that flaw is that those who would abuse the power of the government are probably not unwilling to sacrifice two years of their freedom to get their foot in the door.
Take, as an example, 1950s America- we can imagine Starship Troopers as the result of an alternate history that diverges from ours some time in the 1960s or '70s. In that era, being outed as gay would get you kicked out of the military. It was taken for granted that this would be so- "moral turpitude."
Now picture how that would work in the Terran Federation: no gay person has the vote. How would that impact any attempt to liberalize the state's position on gay rights?
This is obviously just an example, but it's a single instance of a broader case.
I'm taking it as a given that he means what he says. If he wants to claim he was bullshitting, fine, but that's a concession I need to hear from him. Especially since this profound unwillingness to come to terms with the role of force in preserving the existence of the state is something that TRR's been bouncing around a lot on this thread.It's not a lack of self-preservation, he's just throwing a cheap, stupid jab at people he doesn't like.So you're saying that the only people who would fight to defend you from this foreign invasion are people you despise and disagree with?And yes, I would object to conscription during an ISIS invasion. Not that I think it would be needed. If ISIS invaded the US with any force larger than small groups of terrorists, you'd have lines of volunteers miles long and militias forming to fight them throughout Republican territory (and probably targeting every Muslim/brown or black person/liberal they see, unfortunately).
And you don't see this as a problem with your worldview, that it can only exist when defended by people who do not share it and in fact actively reject it?
Are you nuts?
I must ask:
Have you no sense of self-preservation? At long last, sir, have you no sense of self-preservation?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
We already have a phrase that is reasonably close to describing that state of affairs: "permanent resident". Control of government is not - or at least should not - be the be-all and end-all of human existence. Calling someone an animal because they can "only" marry, have children, own property, use public services, use the courts to adjudicate conflicts, and so on is rather excessive.Simon_Jester wrote:Uh... actually, I disagree.Grumman wrote:Right, the system in Starship Troopers is based on the idea that the authority of the government - the power to make it illegal to do something or not do something - is a weapon prone to misuse, and that ability to force others to comply with your whims in this way should not be handed out to just any asshole who manages to go eighteen years without dying. Somebody who does not enlist has the same rights as somebody who does, but he has not earned the authority to add new rights or take rights away.
The stated rationale for the Terran Federation's government is somewhat different- it is that if you haven't proven willing to sacrifice for the state you can't claim the right to a say in how it is governed. You may have rights but you're not a voter, not really a citizen, but rather a "producing-consuming economic animal."
Wasn't this already the state of affairs in the real world? Sodomy was a felony in every state up until 1962, and felons had no right to vote.I would argue that the flaw is different: it locks in a certain set of policy choices and social and cultural values by creating a "gatekeeper" institution that can prevent you from ever getting the vote if you don't satisfy its requirements.The system is flawed, but that flaw is that those who would abuse the power of the government are probably not unwilling to sacrifice two years of their freedom to get their foot in the door.
Take, as an example, 1950s America- we can imagine Starship Troopers as the result of an alternate history that diverges from ours some time in the 1960s or '70s. In that era, being outed as gay would get you kicked out of the military. It was taken for granted that this would be so- "moral turpitude."
Now picture how that would work in the Terran Federation: no gay person has the vote. How would that impact any attempt to liberalize the state's position on gay rights?
- Ziggy Stardust
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
- Location: Research Triangle, NC
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
So do you not see how the exact same line of reasoning can be applied to military service? If you are a conscientious objector, that's fine, but I find it odd that you can support this logic in the case of taxes and not realize that literally the same exact argument applies to military service. The fact that conscientious objector status is recognized by international law should be proof enough.The Romulan Republic wrote: I don't object to taxes if they are necessary to pay for something essential. While I don't feel one owes the state anything for its own sake, I do feel that one owes their fellow countrymen something, and that the state can be a means of ensuring those obligations are met. The duty you owe is to your fellow people, however, not some concept of service to the state. I acknowledge that it can amount to the same thing, but its a philosophical distinction that I like to make. I already more ore less explained this and had it dismissed by Thanas as semantic quibbling.
- The Romulan Republic
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 21559
- Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Their is nothing cheap or stupid about being aware of the tendencies of certain Right wing militia types and how those tendencies would likely be exacerbated in an actual war.Grumman wrote:Right, the system in Starship Troopers is based on the idea that the authority of the government - the power to make it illegal to do something or not do something - is a weapon prone to misuse, and that ability to force others to comply with your whims in this way should not be handed out to just any asshole who manages to go eighteen years without dying. Somebody who does not enlist has the same rights as somebody who does, but he has not earned the authority to add new rights or take rights away.Simon_Jester wrote:Heinlein's Terran Federation was not a nation that practiced conscription. It made volunteering for hazardous national service (generally the military) a requirement for citizenship. Indeed, Terran Federation schools, in the process of indoctrinating their citizenry, teach that conscript armies are inherently worthless.Elheru Aran wrote:With the whole 'conscription for national service' I'm getting ridiculous flashbacks of Heinlein. Not sure that's such a great thing...
Meanwhile, conscription is very different from this. It is saying "if the state needs people to serve in some important role, including a dangerous one, it has the right to compel you to serve."
The system is flawed, but that flaw is that those who would abuse the power of the government are probably not unwilling to sacrifice two years of their freedom to get their foot in the door.
It's not a lack of self-preservation, he's just throwing a cheap, stupid jab at people he doesn't like.So you're saying that the only people who would fight to defend you from this foreign invasion are people you despise and disagree with?And yes, I would object to conscription during an ISIS invasion. Not that I think it would be needed. If ISIS invaded the US with any force larger than small groups of terrorists, you'd have lines of volunteers miles long and militias forming to fight them throughout Republican territory (and probably targeting every Muslim/brown or black person/liberal they see, unfortunately).
And you don't see this as a problem with your worldview, that it can only exist when defended by people who do not share it and in fact actively reject it?
Are you nuts?
I must ask:
Have you no sense of self-preservation? At long last, sir, have you no sense of self-preservation?
As to the Simon_Jester's comments, I'll address those when I get around to replying to his post.
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
The point of training itself is to put people under severe mental stress. It's something that not everyone can handle well, and not something that a nation desiring conscription due to manpower shortage is able to accept well. I had a very bad experience simply because of the difficulties in being able to remove myself from that kind of situation. I have no desire to wish anyone else to repeat the same experience I had during boot camp.Simon_Jester wrote:Perhaps different or better training is called for?ray245 wrote:Sometime the training can drive people into wanting to kill themselves.
I mean, honestly I don't think that conscription is necessary in the current social context for most Western societies, but I don't think it's wrong or illegal or undesirable as such, and a nation facing severe manpower shortages in its military might well have reason to go for it.
I do wonder if it is necessary for a nation to ensure sufficient military strength to defend from external threats though. The notion of expecting its citizens to kill and die for the idea of a nation is not necessarily a good thing for human societies. If the nation is already at a severe military disadvantage due to manpower problems, then building a conscript army isn't going to do that much good for the nation's defence anyway.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
- The Romulan Republic
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 21559
- Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Since that is in no way what I actually think, I must conclude that I have done a very poor job of articulating my position, you have done a very poor job of comprehending it, or you are lying.Simon_Jester wrote:Based on this and the other posts he's made lately, I get the feeling that RR really only views the state as this hostile, inimical thing that should be heaped up with restrictions and that would somehow function best in a completely pacifist mode.
I am not an anarchist or a libertarian. I believe the state is an essential of civilization. Indeed, in the rare circumstances where violence is necessary, I would much rather see it handled by the state than by ordinary civilians, vigilantes, terrorists, or militias (the alternatives). However, I do believe that their are some lines that the state should never cross. I think most people would agree with me on that much, even if where we draw the line differs somewhat.
The ends do not always justify the means.
This is absurd and disingenuous and I believe you know it.So is "breathing oxygen."
Define "nationalism". Nationalism in the sense of recognizing that you are a united country and wishing to preserve that state of affairs can indeed be a positive and necessary thing. But nationalism in the sense of believing that your country is inherently superior to all others, or in the sense of believing that loyalty to your nation trumps other moral concerns or the rights of the people, is a poison of civilization.Nationalism is a trait of any nation that survives while under external pressure, or coheres under internal pressure. A nation that does not want to be a nation will eventually find a way to achieve its goal. Either it will fragment into subgroups (ethnic or class-based, usually) that oppress and torment and war on each other, or it will be destroyed and absorbed by an outside force.
I also find your assumption that any country without nationalism will either be conquered or dissolve into civil war dubious.
No, they do not. I never imagined that they did. But thanks for the straw man. I presume your intention was to dishonestly characterize my position as a result of narcissism rather than a sincerely held moral belief."Violation of individual rights" is sheer nonsense. Your individual rights do not make you a perfect inviolable being of pure special pureness.
Anyway, I would be interested to hear you clarify ""Violation of individual rights" is sheer nonsense." Do you not believe in the concept of individual rights, or do you simply feel that it does not apply here?
Presuming it is the latter, I must ask why. Being compelled to fight and possibly kill or die against your will is a pretty enormous and fundamental imposition on a person's rights and freedom. If you consider that permissible, where exactly do you draw the line?
Their are degrees of obligation. I accept some obligations to society. I do not accept unlimited obligations. Conscription is a point where I say its gone too far.They come with obligations. The protections of law come with an obligation to obey the law and fund its enforcement. The protections of the welfare state come with an obligation to fund its creation, and to make the most of the benefits it gives you. And the protection of the state itself against external enemies comes with an obligation to support the defense of the state. And YES that can mean protecting the state with your physical body, not just with a few dollars out of your wallet.
I am not a disposable meat shield for the government. I am an individual with the right to choose weather to sacrifice in such a manner.
Granted their are worse things than being forced to fight. However, atrocities such as those you named can be inflicted on a soldier in wartime. Or be something they are ordered to inflict on others. Being forced to join the military is a fairly major violation of ones' freedom and security. It is not only a life-altering event, it is potentially a life-ended event, and even if it isn't, it can put someone in a position where they are forced to make some truly horrible choices.No, if your nation "violates your rights [in order] to survive," then your rights are getting violated.
If your nation fails to survive, you are at great risk of being beaten, tortured, robbed of all you possess. YOu may be enslaved permanently by overlords who despise you. You may see all that your people worked to build for decades destroyed by random, spiteful vandalism. You may see the invader's soldiers carrying off your female relatives as sex slaves. You may see
All these things have happened. Many times. And they are much, much worse than "violation of your right."
Do you know, I think the Benjamin Franklin quote works in reverse. Those who can give up essential safety to purchase a little temporary liberty, deserve neither safety nor liberty.
I've come to feel that I'm not a fan of that quote because the idea that anyone is undeserving of safety or liberty runs contrary to the principle of them being basic rights.
However, I do feel that safety and freedom go hand in hand. You are not safe if you have no control over your life. And you are not free if you are constantly in danger. While their are exceptions, I reject the idea of their being a choice between the two overall. You must preserve both or you preserve neither.
This seems irrelevant unless you assume that I am an absolute libertarian, which would be a severe mistake.I mean, we have a word for the largest class of people in our society who routinely ignore basic safety precautions and cannot protect themselves, and who will cheerfully put themselves in terrible danger because they want to be 'free' of oppressive rules and structures.
We call them children.
So now we're down to petty personal attacks. Well, if that's the way you want to take this discussion, I'll be happy to respond in kind.And yet, the largest group of people I know who regularly claim that their right to liberty takes precedence over basic, commonsense precautions designed to ensure their safety from major external threats... are petty children.
No. I mentioned various forms resistance could take without requiring conscription including volunteers joining the professional military (which has its flaws but is at least theoretically professional and accountable to the law and the people).So you're saying that the only people who would fight to defend you from this foreign invasion are people you despise and disagree with?
Dial down the melodrama.And you don't see this as a problem with your worldview, that it can only exist when defended by people who do not share it and in fact actively reject it?
Are you nuts?
I must ask:
Have you no sense of self-preservation? At long last, sir, have you no sense of self-preservation?
Also, this has already been addressed somewhat.
And their are situations where I might feel compelled to fight. But it should be my choice, not the governments'.
Not slavery (soldiers are paid after all). Involuntary servitude. And yes, I know its legal. But it shouldn't be. The Supreme Court is not infallible and the law, and the Supreme Court's rulings, can change over time.The Supreme Court has not upheld this position. Conscription is not considered a form of slavery under US law.
- The Romulan Republic
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 21559
- Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
I make a distinction between having to pay a bit of money (not particularly burdensome unless you are poor) and conscription (being forced into an organization that will curtail your rights and possibly order you to kill or die for a cause you may not even believe in).Ziggy Stardust wrote:So do you not see how the exact same line of reasoning can be applied to military service? If you are a conscientious objector, that's fine, but I find it odd that you can support this logic in the case of taxes and not realize that literally the same exact argument applies to military service. The fact that conscientious objector status is recognized by international law should be proof enough.The Romulan Republic wrote: I don't object to taxes if they are necessary to pay for something essential. While I don't feel one owes the state anything for its own sake, I do feel that one owes their fellow countrymen something, and that the state can be a means of ensuring those obligations are met. The duty you owe is to your fellow people, however, not some concept of service to the state. I acknowledge that it can amount to the same thing, but its a philosophical distinction that I like to make. I already more ore less explained this and had it dismissed by Thanas as semantic quibbling.
See the difference?
- Broomstick
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 28846
- Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
- Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Believing your nation superior/the best/whatever is NOT synonymous with conscription. Conscription can be a matter of survival. If you're faced with an enemy that doesn't recognize you as having rights you had better be prepared to defend yourself.The Romulan Republic wrote:Define "nationalism". Nationalism in the sense of recognizing that you are a united country and wishing to preserve that state of affairs can indeed be a positive and necessary thing. But nationalism in the sense of believing that your country is inherently superior to all others, or in the sense of believing that loyalty to your nation trumps other moral concerns or the rights of the people, is a poison of civilization.
Although not addressed directly to me I would say that "individual rights" are not absolute. There are extraordinary circumstances that can modify those rights. Your right to do what you want does not extend to actions that hurt other people. Your right to life does not extend to forcibly removing organs from other people to extend your life.Anyway, I would be interested to hear you clarify ""Violation of individual rights" is sheer nonsense." Do you not believe in the concept of individual rights, or do you simply feel that it does not apply here?
If your nation is under dire threat then yes, it may be reasonable for the state to conscript you. Conscription and military service is not some sort of automatic death sentence although yes, it IS hazardous. That's why veterans are supposed to enjoy certain benefits, as a reward for service, whether they're volunteers or conscripts. It's a form of compensation.
If no one is willing to defend their nation then eventually that nation will no longer exist.
When the state is under dire threat of being over run or destroyed (think of what happened in WWII in both Europe and Asia) then it may be justifiable to ask able-bodied citizens to serve in the military.Presuming it is the latter, I must ask why. Being compelled to fight and possibly kill or die against your will is a pretty enormous and fundamental imposition on a person's rights and freedom. If you consider that permissible, where exactly do you draw the line?
OK, I can accept that is your opinion.Their are degrees of obligation. I accept some obligations to society. I do not accept unlimited obligations. Conscription is a point where I say its gone too far.
That is not the role of soldiers. War is not a video game.I am not a disposable meat shield for the government.
Oh, please - study some history! Go find out what happened to the civilians in WWII when they were over run by invaders. You think the non-combatants weren't faced with horrible choices. Gee, the city has been under siege for months, the food is gone, the rats are gone... do we eat the neighbors or not? Do we wait until they're dead, or do we kill them? How about - do we hide the Jews in the attic and risk death, or do we turn them in knowing they'll be killed if we do but we save our own skins? That's just two examples faced by non-combatants. You think those weren't terrible choices? You think that wasn't life-altering? Life-ending for some?Granted their are worse things than being forced to fight. However, atrocities such as those you named can be inflicted on a soldier in wartime. Or be something they are ordered to inflict on others. Being forced to join the military is a fairly major violation of ones' freedom and security. It is not only a life-altering event, it is potentially a life-ended event, and even if it isn't, it can put someone in a position where they are forced to make some truly horrible choices.
That's what you don't get - war does not give you the option to opt out.
I got news for you, kiddo - the universe is a dangerous, hostile place. You are NEVER "safe" in the sense I think you mean. Neither freedom nor safety are ever absolute.However, I do feel that safety and freedom go hand in hand. You are not safe if you have no control over your life. And you are not free if you are constantly in danger.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
I think some form of service might be a good idea. I'm not so sure it should be linked to the military. Give an option between military service and something like an equivalent length of time in a program like Americorps and I'd be all for it. I think people might feel more invested in improving society for everyone if they had to spend time actually working with people outside their sphere of experience.
- Purple
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
- Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
If you ask me the situation is simple. The state is an organization that exists to further the goals and prosperity of its people. Thus it is entitled to collect a tithe from said people to accomplish this. It's the same deal as with libraries and other organizations that charge membership. And we call this tithe tax. This tax can come in many forms, not just money. However we have to draw a line at just how much the state can demand. And one thing it should newer be able to demand is that you give up your fundamental human rights. And those include freedom of life and from slavery.
On the other hand when you are conscripted to fight a war the state is doing nothing less than demanding that you willingly give up your right to life and die for it or face punishment. See the problem? As far as I am concerned conscription is thus newer an option morally. If the state is to be attacked than the people should on their own decide if they feel it is worth dying for. And if people won't volunteer to fight and die for their country than by majority vote of its people that country is not worth it. And a country that isn't worth fighting for is a country that should lose and disband.
On the other hand when you are conscripted to fight a war the state is doing nothing less than demanding that you willingly give up your right to life and die for it or face punishment. See the problem? As far as I am concerned conscription is thus newer an option morally. If the state is to be attacked than the people should on their own decide if they feel it is worth dying for. And if people won't volunteer to fight and die for their country than by majority vote of its people that country is not worth it. And a country that isn't worth fighting for is a country that should lose and disband.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
I'd have to ask whether you think a nation no one is willing to fight for has any reason to exist. Seriously, if there is an invading horde on the border and no one can be bothered joining up to fight them the only conclusion I can come to is that the nation itself provides little of value to the people living in it, and the invading horde can't be all that bad.Although not addressed directly to me I would say that "individual rights" are not absolute. There are extraordinary circumstances that can modify those rights. Your right to do what you want does not extend to actions that hurt other people. Your right to life does not extend to forcibly removing organs from other people to extend your life.
If your nation is under dire threat then yes, it may be reasonable for the state to conscript you. Conscription and military service is not some sort of automatic death sentence although yes, it IS hazardous. That's why veterans are supposed to enjoy certain benefits, as a reward for service, whether they're volunteers or conscripts. It's a form of compensation.
If no one is willing to defend their nation then eventually that nation will no longer exist.
Honestly I haven't seen an argument for the military necessity of conscription/national service better than 'sometimes an army needs a lot of cannon fodder because that's a cheap and easy way to defend a country'. I can fully understand people not wanting national service so a country can cheap out on it's defence budget safe in the knowledge that if things get hairy it can scoop up every able bodied citizen it wants between the ages of 18 and 35 to minimally update their training and fling them into a meat grinder.
It's also interesting to note that in this thread people from first world countries generally regarded as fairly pleasant places that have at some time in the recent past faced an existential threat from another nation (like Finland) generally have fairly positive views on national service. At the same time posters from countries that have a history of scooping up conscripts and sending them overseas to fight in pointless dick waving contests (like the US and Australia) are much more negative towards it.
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Well so can jobs, so can education, so can unemployment. What you'd need to show is a higher proportion of people under conscription want to kill themselves then elsewhere.ray245 wrote:Sometime the training can drive people into wanting to kill themselves.
- Broomstick
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 28846
- Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
- Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Yeah, go figger.Alkaloid wrote:It's also interesting to note that in this thread people from first world countries generally regarded as fairly pleasant places that have at some time in the recent past faced an existential threat from another nation (like Finland) generally have fairly positive views on national service. At the same time posters from countries that have a history of scooping up conscripts and sending them overseas to fight in pointless dick waving contests (like the US and Australia) are much more negative towards it.
One justification for national service is that by putting everyone qualified through a basic training program if you ever DO face an existential threat you can get everyone into the fight that much quicker. It would be a case of preparing people and hoping you never actually need to use them.
When the US draft was abolished it was one of the hopes that it would discourage those "pointless dick waving contests" since you'd need to convince people to volunteer rather than just drag them into a fight. Well... it sort of worked... for awhile... but the problem is that economic hardship can make volunteering for the military much more attractive than it would be otherwise. The result is that the military has become a route out of poverty for many, providing cannon fodder for the politicians and powerful whose children don't need to volunteer for service. When times are good for economy and class mobility the military can be a really hard sell for young people. When you can't get a job and are drowning in debt or just have few to no prospects then regular pay, a place to sleep, and a job can be extremely attractive even with risks attached. Alternative "careers" in the ghetto like drugs and gangs can actually be MORE hazardous than serving in a war in these days.
Which is more fair - a draft/lottery where the children of the rich and powerful are at just as much risk of being chosen as the poor kid on the bad side of town, or a system that pushes the poor to "volunteer" and the rich and powerful never have to worry about their children being at risk?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 30165
- Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Grumman, I was directly quoting the text of the book- but not the legalese parts.Grumman wrote:We already have a phrase that is reasonably close to describing that state of affairs: "permanent resident". Control of government is not - or at least should not - be the be-all and end-all of human existence. Calling someone an animal because they can "only" marry, have children, own property, use public services, use the courts to adjudicate conflicts, and so on is rather excessive.
The phrase "producing-consuming economic animal" is not a legal term in the context of the Terran Federation. It is used by a long-time "permanent resident" of the Federation (Juan Rico's father) as follows. In the wake of his wife's death in an alien attack and his son's enlistment in the armed forces, Mr. Rico says:
"I had to perform an act of faith. I had to prove to myself that I was a man. Not just a producing-consuming economic animal... but a man."
So I'm treating that as (within the fictional universe) a primary source. This is a man who, for roughly forty or fifty years of his life, was content to be, as you say, a "permanent resident" of the Federation. Now he feels that is not enough. Because, by his own description, being a "permanent resident" who merely lives under the laws of the state is not sufficient, he wants to be a citizen who actively participates in the preservation of the state and in return is granted the power to play a role in setting its course.
So my point here is that in the cultural framework of the Federation, there is an inferiority of status that comes with 'permanent residency' as opposed to citizenship. It does not make the 'permanent residents' less than human, but it certainly makes them less than citizens, even if many people in that society do not consider it polite to talk about it that way.
Wasn't this already the state of affairs in the real world? Sodomy was a felony in every state up until 1962, and felons had no right to vote.[/quote]For one, people in the military have little or no expectation of privacy so it's easier to get caught for such a 'crime.' For another, the military kept up its position on homosexuality clear into the 2000s with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.Now picture how that would work in the Terran Federation: no gay person has the vote. How would that impact any attempt to liberalize the state's position on gay rights?
Militaries are socially conservative entities. There are good reasons for this. In order to fight effectively, a military has to have a strong sense of order, discipline, and tradition, and its members have to be prepared to accept that their personal wishes and liberties take second place to the needs of the institution.
So making it impossible to be a citizen without being a military veteran will have a distorting effect on the state's laws and culture.
Perhaps the appropriate response is psychological evaluation of prospective conscripts, both before and during their training, then?ray245 wrote:The point of training itself is to put people under severe mental stress. It's something that not everyone can handle well, and not something that a nation desiring conscription due to manpower shortage is able to accept well. I had a very bad experience simply because of the difficulties in being able to remove myself from that kind of situation. I have no desire to wish anyone else to repeat the same experience I had during boot camp.
Those three sentences don't seem connected to me.I do wonder if it is necessary for a nation to ensure sufficient military strength to defend from external threats though. The notion of expecting its citizens to kill and die for the idea of a nation is not necessarily a good thing for human societies. If the nation is already at a severe military disadvantage due to manpower problems, then building a conscript army isn't going to do that much good for the nation's defence anyway.
The first and second fit together... but what those boil down to is "I don't think it necessary for nations to resist military domination by foreigners." That seems doubtful to me. Historically, most people who are dominated by foreign militaries prefer to resist that domination, rather than submitting to it. This suggests that there is something most humans find undesirable about foreign domination. Which in turn suggests that it is better to avoid it, by whatever means are appropriate.
The third sentence... well, frankly that's situational. Either it will do the country good or it won't. If it won't, there's no point in bothering. If it will, there is. That decision would be made by the national government. Moreover, even if a country does have conscription, there's nothing forcing them to conscript more soldiers than they need. The US actually does have the legal infrastructure in place to draft male citizens into the armed forces, for instance... it just hasn't bothered to do so in forty years because there's no need. If the need arose, the Selective Service System comes back into play.
What possible incentive would I have to lie about what I think your opinions are?The Romulan Republic wrote:Since that is in no way what I actually think, I must conclude that I have done a very poor job of articulating my position, you have done a very poor job of comprehending it, or you are lying.Simon_Jester wrote:Based on this and the other posts he's made lately, I get the feeling that RR really only views the state as this hostile, inimical thing that should be heaped up with restrictions and that would somehow function best in a completely pacifist mode.
I am not an anarchist or a libertarian. I believe the state is an essential of civilization. Indeed, in the rare circumstances where violence is necessary, I would much rather see it handled by the state than by ordinary civilians, vigilantes, terrorists, or militias (the alternatives). However, I do believe that their are some lines that the state should never cross. I think most people would agree with me on that much, even if where we draw the line differs somewhat.
The ends do not always justify the means.
Yes. It is absurd. That is the point.This is absurd and disingenuous and I believe you know it.So is "breathing oxygen."
It is a deconstruction of your position by showing that it reduces to an absurdity, that it leads to a nonsensical claim. This is a time-honored form of argument.
Your argument is "fascist states conscript people, fascism is bad, therefore conscription is bad." My counterargument is "you can't make a syllogism like that."
My argument runs like this:
1) Fascist states (or rather, their citizens) breathe oxygen.
2) Even though fascism is bad, oxygen is necessary for life.
3) Things that are necessary for life are not inherently bad, even if bad people do them.
4) Certainly and obviously, we should not just mindlessly AVOID all things done by bad people, without thinking about whether they're inherently bad.
5) Conscription is not inherently bad for the following reasons... [snip list of reasons]
Now, if you reject this argument and say "fascists conscript people, fascism is bad, therefore conscription is bad..." by the same logic you are compelled to accept "fascists breathe, fascism is bad, therefore breathing is bad."
Sure, the argument "...therefore breathing is bad" is obviously wrong. But it's wrong for a reason. It's wrong because breathing is essential to life and everyone does it out of necessity. And my argument is that, under certain circumstances, conscription is also necessary for life and/or safety of the nation under various threats. At which point it becomes obviously-not-wrong, just as breathing is obviously-not-wrong.
You are the one who decided nationalism is automatically bad. You should spell out your definition of nationalism, as part of the argument by which you intend to prove that nationalism is so bad.Define "nationalism". Nationalism in the sense of recognizing that you are a united country and wishing to preserve that state of affairs can indeed be a positive and necessary thing. But nationalism in the sense of believing that your country is inherently superior to all others, or in the sense of believing that loyalty to your nation trumps other moral concerns or the rights of the people, is a poison of civilization.Nationalism is a trait of any nation that survives while under external pressure, or coheres under internal pressure. A nation that does not want to be a nation will eventually find a way to achieve its goal. Either it will fragment into subgroups (ethnic or class-based, usually) that oppress and torment and war on each other, or it will be destroyed and absorbed by an outside force.
Come to think of it, you used that same stupid syllogism: "Nationalism is a major characteristic of fascism, fascism is bad, therefore nationalism is bad." See above for why that reduces to an absurdity.
OK. Then you should be able to prove it by counterexamples.I also find your assumption that any country without nationalism will either be conquered or dissolve into civil war dubious.
So we're looking for a country that is under any significant threat of:
1) External attack.
2) Internal ethnic breakup, or
3) Internal class-warfare breakup...
with any of these being powerful enough forces that they could lead to the collapse or decay of the state.
And you should be able to find countries that are under such a threat, that do not have a strong and generally agreed upon sense of national identity and that nationalism is a good thing...
...but which are NOT in the process of breaking up. You should be able to find societies where the people are not willing to fight for the state, but which nonetheless are reliably able to resist foreign invasions. You should be able to find societies where the elite are loyal first and foremost to their wallets and not to their country, but where this does not cause problems for the well-being of the country. And so on.
Good luck with that.
What would I possibly gain from intentionally lying about what I think your opinions are?No, they do not. I never imagined that they did. But thanks for the straw man. I presume your intention was to dishonestly characterize my position as a result of narcissism rather than a sincerely held moral belief."Violation of individual rights" is sheer nonsense. Your individual rights do not make you a perfect inviolable being of pure special pureness.
My problem here is that this frankly IS a narcissistic conception of 'citizenship.' One in which citizenship is precious enough that other people may lose their lives because they threaten your safety and rights, but not precious enough for you to risk your safety and rights protecting yourself or others. Because you know, you'd really rather not have to deal with that, it's nasty and traumatic.
And this seems to be coming not out of actual pacifism (which is where real conscientious objectors come in), but from what I consider hypocritical.
It's like you're saying "I want all dangerous interlopers on my patch dead, but don't want to have to do it myself because that could be dangerous."
Depending on circumstance. Being compelled to fight in defense of the republic when the republic is threatened is not a state-imposed violation of your rights. It is a violation imposed by external circumstances, with the state having a right to expect your cooperation in fixing the circumstances.Anyway, I would be interested to hear you clarify ""Violation of individual rights" is sheer nonsense." Do you not believe in the concept of individual rights, or do you simply feel that it does not apply here?
Presuming it is the latter, I must ask why. Being compelled to fight and possibly kill or die against your will is a pretty enormous and fundamental imposition on a person's rights and freedom. If you consider that permissible, where exactly do you draw the line?
Just as your 'right' to live in a certain area may be infringed when a natural disaster strikes that area. The state has a right to expect your cooperation in moving to a safer location. This is not "crossing a line." It is simply taking the actions necessary to avoid disaster.
Freedom as we know it cannot exist without a substrate of law, order, and peace. If there is a real threat to the substrate, then it is NOT a violation of your rights to say "you may be required to risk your safety to preserve the substrate." Because if the substrate breaks, your freedom is gone whether you like it or not.
I would argue that the only comprehensible reasons for saying so are either pacifism, or placing an excessive value on your own skin- which are two separate things.Their are degrees of obligation. I accept some obligations to society. I do not accept unlimited obligations. Conscription is a point where I say its gone too far.They come with obligations. The protections of law come with an obligation to obey the law and fund its enforcement. The protections of the welfare state come with an obligation to fund its creation, and to make the most of the benefits it gives you. And the protection of the state itself against external enemies comes with an obligation to support the defense of the state. And YES that can mean protecting the state with your physical body, not just with a few dollars out of your wallet.
If your reason is pacifism, there is already a mechanism for dealing with that in the context of conscription. If your reason is an excessive value on your own skin, I am not inclined to accept it or respect it.
Then you are free to renounce your citizenship, and perhaps find some place that won't expect you to defend it from attackers, are you not?I am not a disposable meat shield for the government. I am an individual with the right to choose weather to sacrifice in such a manner.
And if there are not enough who are placed in that position, then everyone loses everything. And that is... somehow okay in your mind? Not worth taking measures to avoid?Granted their are worse things than being forced to fight. However, atrocities such as those you named can be inflicted on a soldier in wartime. Or be something they are ordered to inflict on others. Being forced to join the military is a fairly major violation of ones' freedom and security. It is not only a life-altering event, it is potentially a life-ended event, and even if it isn't, it can put someone in a position where they are forced to make some truly horrible choices.No, if your nation "violates your rights [in order] to survive," then your rights are getting violated.
If your nation fails to survive, you are at great risk of being beaten, tortured, robbed of all you possess. YOu may be enslaved permanently by overlords who despise you. You may see all that your people worked to build for decades destroyed by random, spiteful vandalism. You may see the invader's soldiers carrying off your female relatives as sex slaves. You may see
All these things have happened. Many times. And they are much, much worse than "violation of your right."
What people get is not the same as what they deserve.I've come to feel that I'm not a fan of that quote because the idea that anyone is undeserving of safety or liberty runs contrary to the principle of them being basic rights.Do you know, I think the Benjamin Franklin quote works in reverse. Those who can give up essential safety to purchase a little temporary liberty, deserve neither safety nor liberty.
There are people who get the right to a fair trial not because they personally have done a single thing to earn it, but because there is a collective need to ensure trials are fair. Likewise, if you do something bluntly stupid that fatally compromises your security... frankly, you do not deserve to be protected from the consequences of your own mistakes. And yet, there is a fair chance that you will be protected by some outside force, either out of mercy or out of a desire to be fair and make sure no one who does deserve that protection is ever robbed of it.
So frankly, yes, there are people in any given wartime society who deserve to pay the price of losing the war. That doesn't mean their side loses the war... it just means someone else is responsible for winning it.
And do you not see how this leads to the point that if you sacrifice the necessary practical needs of safety in the name of "freedom," you will, well... exactly as you said, "preserve neither?"However, I do feel that safety and freedom go hand in hand. You are not safe if you have no control over your life. And you are not free if you are constantly in danger. While their are exceptions, I reject the idea of their being a choice between the two overall. You must preserve both or you preserve neither.
No, it is quite relevant.This seems irrelevant unless you assume that I am an absolute libertarian, which would be a severe mistake.I mean, we have a word for the largest class of people in our society who routinely ignore basic safety precautions and cannot protect themselves, and who will cheerfully put themselves in terrible danger because they want to be 'free' of oppressive rules and structures.
We call them children.
The point here is that the largest single group of humans who reject the idea that they can be compelled to carry out certain actions for the sake of the common safety are children. Who are, by definition, unfit to govern themselves, and who, as a matter of biological fact have deficient ability to understand risk and threats to their own safety.
So when I see a political argument that is comparable in structure to what a child would advance to explain why they shouldn't have to do homework, that is not a point in its favor. And YES, before you yet again screech at me about how I'm lying, YES I know that being told to go to war is a much more serious thing than being told to do homework. I'm talking about the broad structure of the argument, not the exact severity of the consequences.
No, this really isn't personal. It's "children think this way, which should cast doubt on the wisdom of thinking this way, because children are not wise."So now we're down to petty personal attacks. Well, if that's the way you want to take this discussion, I'll be happy to respond in kind.And yet, the largest group of people I know who regularly claim that their right to liberty takes precedence over basic, commonsense precautions designed to ensure their safety from major external threats... are petty children.
That's not an ironclad argument- but it's another weight piled onto the scales against you, in my opinion.
But the people you envision volunteering are the ones who despise you and whom you despise in return.No. I mentioned various forms resistance could take without requiring conscription including volunteers joining the professional military (which has its flaws but is at least theoretically professional and accountable to the law and the people).So you're saying that the only people who would fight to defend you from this foreign invasion are people you despise and disagree with?
Can you please explain how this does NOT imply that you have adopted a worldview that you are willing to see perish from the Earth if not for the actions of others who do not share your worldview?
Again, have you no sense of self-preservation?
Have you read through the relevant case law?Not slavery (soldiers are paid after all). Involuntary servitude. And yes, I know its legal. But it shouldn't be. The Supreme Court is not infallible and the law, and the Supreme Court's rulings, can change over time.The Supreme Court has not upheld this position. Conscription is not considered a form of slavery under US law.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
- Ziggy Stardust
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
- Location: Research Triangle, NC
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
So? That doesn't in any way invalidate the same line of logic being used. You're a smart guy, I know you understand what "logic" means.The Romulan Republic wrote: I make a distinction between having to pay a bit of money (not particularly burdensome unless you are poor) and conscription (being forced into an organization that will curtail your rights and possibly order you to kill or die for a cause you may not even believe in).
You're line of logic in support of taxes is utterly contingent on the assertion, "I don't object to taxes if they are necessary to pay for something essential." Nobody is saying that the threshold for "necessary" be exactly the same for taxes and conscription, the argument is just over where to draw the line at when war is considered "necessary." I am well aware of your general hard-line stance against violence in general, but in this thread and in other threads* you have admitted that there are extreme situations where killing and warfare will be necessary. That's fundamentally incompatible with your notion that conscription is never justified. Just saying taxes and conscription are different is just hand-waiving the issue; it's more appropriate and consistent to believe that it is only justified in incredibly extreme circumstances.
* From my recollection, anyway. Correct me if I am misremembering or misrepresenting you because I'm too lazy to go look up the posts I'm thinking of.
- Flagg
- CUNTS FOR EYES!
- Posts: 12797
- Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
- Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Well, you better get your ass in a time machine and inform The Supreme Court of the United States about that. Oh wait.The Romulan Republic wrote:Even in war time, their are other duties one can perform that are still necessary.Thanas wrote:If the state is in mortal danger, it does.The Romulan Republic wrote:Owing a duty to the state does not necessarily mean owing a duty to serve in the military. Their are other ways to serve.
Regardless, I maintain my position that forced service of any sort in the US is a violation of the 13th. Amendment which prohibits involuntary servitude except as a sentence for a crime.
So, yeah. Wrong.Wikipedia (Haha, YOU do better in 3 minutes! wrote:Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917, and more generally, upheld conscription in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience.
The Solicitor General's argument, and the court's opinion, were based primarily on Kneedler v. Lane, which was actually multiple opinions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania during the American Civil War that upheld the Enrollment Act, and Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758).[1][2] The reliance on the Kneedler v. Lane decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have been questioned on multiple occasions.
EDIT: DAMN YOU SIMON! I'LL GET YOU ONE DAY! (Mentioned SCOTUS repeatedly sodomized everyone who tried to abolish the draft using the 13th Amendment)
**Jumps in gyrocopter and flies west**
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
Simon_Jester wrote:It does, however, force the government to seriously consider that their electorate and their soldiers are from the same general class of people, rather than having the soldiers mostly be drawn from poor families that don't vote and have no clout whatsoever.
[Citation Needed].
Poorer families tend to have less education, and the modern US military is more educated than the general populace, for instance.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Re: It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass
ray245 wrote:Sometime the training can drive people into wanting to kill themselves.
Yeah, I saw Full Metal Jacket too.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."