• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does a Country have the right to the draft during a time of war.

Draft?

  • Total voters
    85
TurtleDude said:
horsecrap. The second amendment is recognition of the natural right of free men to be armed. It has nothing to do with the operation of government
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment has every Thing to do with the security of government operations; and not, with just any anarchy or mob of the People who keep and bear Arms.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think those drafted have the moral right to resist with arms. They might lose but they are not immoral for killing those who would conscript them
Click to expand...

You think a lot of things, most of them arbitrary and less than praiseworthy.
 
Morality Games said:
You think a lot of things, most of them arbitrary and less than praiseworthy.
Click to expand...

Killing oppressors is indeed praiseworthy and I would assist him in his cause. Though I suppose since he is 54 and wouldn't be called up he would be joining in my cause instead since I would still qualify and surely be drafted.
 
danielpalos said:
Our Second Amendment has every Thing to do with the security of government operations; and not, with just any anarchy or mob of the People who keep and bear Arms.
Click to expand...

you just don't get it-it was about us being able to keep and bear arms because a standing army is a necessary evil. It in NO WAY empowers the federal government to create an army or draft people and the several states already had the power to create state militias.
 
Morality Games said:
But that's your problem.
Click to expand...

A problem that you would be creating for me and if I had the ability I would hold you accountable for. I might not be willing to fight in your causes, but don't mistake that as unwillingness to fight and kill.
 
I believe we may be better off if our Judicature establishes a culture of militia service from the bench instead of any perceived legislation from the bench in modern times; would we be worse off if the Militia of the United States were to become more well regulated by building aqueducts and roads, in their spare time.
 
Morality Games said:
You think a lot of things, most of them arbitrary and less than praiseworthy.
Click to expand...

I tend to be less than enamored with government and worship big brother as quickly as you do apparently.

I really don't care if statists don't find my comments praiseworthy
 
I believe we should not have to care about what is not necessary to the security of a free State; should that exigency arise.
 
TurtleDude said:
I tend to be less than enamored with government and worship big brother as quickly as you do apparently.

I really don't care if statists don't find my comments praiseworthy
Click to expand...

You're saying you have the moral right to kill people, based on the social organization you think you deserve (whether you put effort into creating it or not), rather than the one you share with others in reality, the one you've always had and lived your life in. The obligations don't exist because they're not the ones you think you should have.

Not everyone has the luxury of that kind of self-importance.

A problem that you would be creating for me and if I had the ability I would hold you accountable for. I might not be willing to fight in your causes, but don't mistake that as unwillingness to fight and kill.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have had the problem at all if you hadn't made free use of the safety and economic assurance provided by the collective might of the body politic. You might kill me, but there is no doubt I was justified in driving you away.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
You're saying you have a right to kill people based on the social organization you think you deserve (whether you put effort into creating it or not), rather than the one you share with others in reality.

Not everyone has the luxury of that kind of self-importance.
Click to expand...

you don't read what I wrote very well

I said free men do not have to be forced into involuntary servitude and if so forced, they have the moral authority to kill those who would enslave them
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
In the case of Israel, it certainly seems to have fueled political awareness and ingrained a sense of having skin in the game
Click to expand...

Countries that have a draft have a tendency to be more nationalistic minded for the simple reason they instill blind support for the government in their people.
 
Morality Games said:
You wouldn't have had the problem at all if you hadn't made free use of the safety and economic assurance provided by the collective might of the body politic. You might kill me, but there is no doubt I was justified in driving you away.
Click to expand...

I never asked for it, so I never had the obligation to support it, be that with my property or my life. Since you felt compelled to force me into service for you I am obligated to kill you to secure my own person and it's facilities.
 
Henrin said:
I never asked for it, so I never had the obligation to support it, be that with my property or my life. Since you felt compelled to force me into service for you I am obligated to kill you to secure my own person and it's facilities.
Click to expand...

Interesting religion you have where you can freely make use of the benefits of citizenship and sacrifices others made to maintain it and the body politic, but are party to none of the responsibilities and can murder anyone who might hold you accountable for it. I can't take away your metaphysical ability to exercise freedom of conscience, but of the two of us I have no doubt I've made the stronger arguments.

you don't read what I wrote very well

I said free men do not have to be forced into involuntary servitude and if so forced, they have the moral authority to kill those who would enslave them
Click to expand...

I read it fine. I just interpreted as childishly egocentric.

"You" don't know anything about slavery except what you've read in books.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Interesting religion you have where you can freely make use of the benefits of citizenship and sacrifices others made to maintain it and the body politic, but are party to none of the responsibilities and can murder anyone who might hold you accountable for it. I can't take away your metaphysical ability to exercise freedom of conscience, but of the two of us I have no doubt I've made the stronger arguments.
Click to expand...

the benefits of citizenship are not advanced by invading other countries. none of the wars we have entered since WWII was "necessary". and some-like Vietnam-should have resulted in hanging a bunch of politicians for not allowing the war to be won
 
TurtleDude said:
the benefits of citizenship are not advanced by invading other countries. none of the wars we have entered since WWII was "necessary". and some-like Vietnam-should have resulted in hanging a bunch of politicians for not allowing the war to be won
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about any specific wars, and if I drafted people to fight in Iraq it would only be so every part of society can "feel" the foolishness of getting involved with such conflicts, to discourage them from getting involved in such conflicts again in the future -- as opposed to simply "hearing" about it from the news, which doesn't seem to be good enough. I hate the idea and wish the electorate would realize the foolishness of such engagements based on the merit of the idea alone, but its better than demanding our professional soldiers go through 3-7 tours of duty while the rest of society lives in a bubble.

With ICBM technology reaching the point where nuclear stockpiles may no longer pose an inter-continental threat and Earth's resources scheduled to run out in a few hundred years, the time may be approaching when old-fashioned global wars may again become the norm in order to protect our way of life. I certainly hope that isn't the case, but North America is resource rich, with a comparatively low population. Our country may excite the envy of regions of the world with larger populations who are more quickly depleting their resource reserves. Again, technological advancements and improvements in recycling may offset some of this, but there are no guarantees.
 
Morality Games said:
Interesting religion you have where you can freely make use of the benefits of citizenship and sacrifices others made to maintain it and the body politic, but are party to none of the responsibilities and can murder anyone who might hold you accountable for it. I can't take away your metaphysical ability to exercise freedom of conscience, but of the two of us I have no doubt I've made the stronger arguments.
Click to expand...

Do I have an obligation to pay someone that provides me services that I never asked to receive? If I mowed your law without your consent and demanded you pay me in return for the services that I provided you do you feel you have obligation to pay me? If a homeless man cleans your windshield without your consent and demands payment do you feel compelled to pay him for the service that he has provided you? It is no different for government when they provide me services that I never asked to receive. It makes no difference to me if you sacrifice yourself to provide me services that I never asked for, as the fact will remain that I never asked for them and have no obligation to pay you in kind for them. If this bothers you perhaps you should make it a habit to ask if I want services to begin with. If you threaten me with violence and I feel compelled, then yes, I will kill you. Your death could have been easily avoided by just leaving me be.
 
Morality Games said:
I'm not talking about any specific wars, and if I drafted people to fight in Iraq it would only be so every part of society can "feel" the foolishness of getting involved with such conflicts, to discourage them from getting involved in such conflicts again in the future -- as opposed to simply "hearing" about it from the news, which doesn't seem to be good enough. I hate the idea and wish the electorate would realize the foolishness of such engagements based on the merit of the idea alone, but its better than demanding our professional soldiers go through 3-7 tours of duty while the rest of society lives in a bubble.
Click to expand...

Draft exemptions invariably exempt the wealthy and powerful, who are exactly the people who make the decision to go to war in the first place.
 
Deuce said:
Draft exemptions invariably exempt the wealthy and powerful, who are exactly the people who make the decision to go to war in the first place.
Click to expand...

"I had other priorities in the sixties than military service."
-Dick Cheney

So in other words NO. Luckily, the US is not running low on patriotic psychos to fill the military with
 
Henrin said:
Do I have an obligation to pay someone that provides me services that I never asked to receive? If I mowed your law without your consent and demanded you pay me in return for the services that I provided you do you feel you have obligation to pay me? If a homeless man cleans your windshield without your consent and demands payment do you feel compelled to pay him for the service that he has provided you? It is no different for government when they provide me services that I never asked to receive. It makes no difference to me if you sacrifice yourself to provide me services that I never asked for, as the fact will remain that I never asked for them and have no obligation to pay you in kind for them. If this bothers you perhaps you should make it a habit to ask if I want services to begin with. If you threaten me with violence and I feel compelled, then yes, I will kill you. Your death could have been easily avoided by just leaving me be.
Click to expand...

By my arguments, yes, you do.

If a homeless man cleans your windshield without your consent and demands payment do you feel compelled to pay him for the service that he has provided you?
Click to expand...

The example isn't comparable, although it would be decent to pay him something since he is trying to show he has the will to work and such impulses ought to be rewarded. If he was provided the necessary direction, he might be educated to be something more than just a homeless man. Anyway, your car or its wind shield won't cease to exist if the homeless man doesn't wash it. Property without the security of the body politic is just a material object waiting for somebody stronger to come and take it.

If you threaten me with violence and I feel compelled, then yes, I will kill you. Your death could have been easily avoided by just leaving me be.
Click to expand...

If I leave you be, then the outsiders who are interested in our property and lands will *know* our country is populated by people who may not necessarily contribute to the defense and a body politic that isn't willing to make them. It's precisely for such reasons why a country with strong national organization like Denmark was able to dominate its more libertarian neighbors (like Norway) during the Dark Ages. That means that myself, my family, friends, and community may be conquered and our lives and futures made tertiary to interest of a foreign power, like the dominions of the British Empire were tertiary those of England (and suffered because of it).

The consequences to the things and people I cherish are far too high to risk "leaving you be."
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
you just don't get it-it was about us being able to keep and bear arms because a standing army is a necessary evil. It in NO WAY empowers the federal government to create an army or draft people and the several states already had the power to create state militias.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't; it merely enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State.
 
Morality Games said:
By my arguments, yes, you do.
Click to expand...

Why? How is your demands any different than the demands of anyone else? Why do people owe you payment for services you provide without their consent, but no one else is owed payment for services they provide people without their consent?

The example isn't comparable, although it would be decent to pay him something since he is trying to show he has the will to work and such impulses ought to be rewarded. If he was provided the necessary direction, he might be educated to be
something more than just a homeless man.
Click to expand...

It would be decent to help him regardless of him providing you service, since he is fellow human being in need. That doesn't mean however, you have an obligation to pay him if he provides you services without your consent.

Anyway, your car or its wind shield doesn't cease to exist if the homeless man doesn't wash it. Property without the security of the body politic is just a material object waiting for somebody stronger to come and take it.
Click to expand...

All things can be aggressed upon and can be destroyed without proper protection. Let us change the argument then. Lets say I was part of a band of mercenaries and decided that I would provide my services to you and demand payment from you for this services. I never asked you if you agreed to my protection nor did I show any sort of inclination to care of any objection that you might have given. I simply decided that you will have my protection and I will have my payment in exchange for it. If you fail to pay me then I will throw you into my dungeon with other men that have been starved of female companionship for far to long. Sound familiar yet?

If I leave you be, then the outsiders who are interested in our property and lands will *know* our country is populated by people who may not necessarily contribute to the defense and a body politic that isn't willing to make them. It's precisely for such reasons why a country with strong national organization like Denmark was able to dominate its more libertarian neighbors (like Norway) during the Dark Ages. That means that myself, my family, friends, and community may be conquered and our lives and futures made tertiary to interest of a foreign power, like the dominions of the British Empire were tertiary those of England (and suffered because of it).

The consequences to the things and people I cherish are far too high to risk "leaving you be."
Click to expand...

If you force me into your ranks you will have another gun, that much is true, but you will also have introduced an element into your ranks that doesn't care for the group and will always be looking for a chance to kill the commanding officers if the chance presents itself. It is up to you to decide if that makes you stronger or weaker.
 
Harshaw said:
Governments don't have rights against their people. They have powers.

But mustering -- or drafting -- in defense of the nation is surely a legitimate power.

Of course, one of the few things I agreed with Eugene V. Debs on was that the 13th Amendment took that power away from the US government.

It says:



It differentiated involuntary servitude, which drafted military service is, from slavery, and it carved out one, that is, ONE exception to involuntary servitude, and that was as punishment for crime after due conviction. It did not exempt military service from the prohibition.

Some argue that the power to draft comes from the militia clauses of Article I, which I wouldn't really dispute, but that doesn't matter -- the 13th Amendment is sweeping, broad, and would supersede any previous clause.
Click to expand...

As much as I agree with your legal assessment I disagree that this is how it should be.

If people do not care enough about their nation to fight for it then the nation will simply be taken over. People will fight if they care. The government should have no say, especially in a war that was never officially declared.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Doesn't really matter how you feel, does it?
Click to expand...

If I felt wronged I could very well decide to waste time or do a bad job if I felt inclined, and I would.

What a patriot.
Click to expand...

Who do you think I will consider my enemy if you draft me into war? Why would I consider your enemy my enemy when they never did a thing to me, but you surely did? What makes you think you won't be my enemy?
 
Henrin said:
If I felt wronged I could very well decide to waste time or do a bad job if I felt inclined, and I would.
Click to expand...

So yeah, really bad soldier.


Who do you think I will consider my enemy if you draft me into war? Why would I consider your enemy my enemy when they never did a thing to me, but you surely did? What makes you think you won't be my enemy?
Click to expand...

Yes, we're very evil because our country, the one that you live in, are a citizen of, and benefit from, is being invaded and we want you to help us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom