• 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
Henrin said:
A coerced pledge is not a pledge at all and one without understanding by those far to young to grasp the meaning of it is not one that is bidding. I would also imagine the government has no way to know for sure that I ever made this pledge even if I went to their schools.
Click to expand...

That may be your argument but that is not reality.
 
Henrin said:
I have been denying offering my consent or making any sort of allegiance for many pages now. In order for someone to be a traitor they would have had to break their word and commitment to the land, but if neither was made or offered it is impossible to be a traitor.
Click to expand...

Denying you're a traitor is a textbook move for traitors.
 
Kreton said:
That may be your argument but that is not reality.
Click to expand...

It's all factual. They can neither prove that I said the pledge of Allegiance or show that children can make a pledge to the country when lacking the ability to consent. An oath made at gun point is no honest oath and not one that bids anyone that makes it. They can claim it does, but then they are merely oppressors at that point holding people to oaths they forced on them.
 
Henrin said:
It's all factual. They can neither prove that I said the pledge of Allegiance or show that children can make a pledge to the country when lacking the ability to consent. An oath made at gun point is no honest pledge not one that bids anyone that makes it. They claim it does, but then they are merely oppressors at this point holding people to pledge they forced on them.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue that its right. I am far from saying that. But the US government assumes you have made that pledge and judging by what happens in this country, they are acting on it. I know its not solely based on you saying the pledge of allegiance, but the fact is the government controls the average american life and any attempt to be disloyal or failure to honor that pledge will result in fines and/or imprisonment.
 
Kreton said:
I'm not going to argue that its right. I am far from saying that. But the US government assumes you have made that pledge and judging by what happens in this country, they are acting on it. I know its not solely based on you saying the pledge of allegiance, but the fact is the government controls the average american life and any attempt to be disloyal or failure to honor that pledge will result in fines and/or imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Then I challenge them to prove their case that I made the pledge or that children to young to consent can indeed consent. If they can do neither, and they can't, then their case against me is mere make believe. The government can basically do whatever it wants, but there is little doubt I'm right and would not be guilty of breaking my word.
 
Last edited:
Kreton said:
They don't really have to.
Click to expand...

I challenge them to give it their best shot if they dare. Unless of course they are not daring enough to show their balls to the world. I know they will not dare explain themselves, but it would be most humorous to watch them try.
 
Henrin said:
I challenge them to give it their best shot if they dare. Unless of course they are not daring enough to show their balls to the world. I know they will not dare explain themselves, but it would be most humorous to watch them try.
Click to expand...

More than likely they'd snatch you up, throw you away somewhere and shrug when anyone asks.
 
Kreton said:
More than likely they'd snatch you up, throw you away somewhere and shrug when anyone asks.
Click to expand...

Then I suppose they have proven my case for me by refusing to answer my inquiry into my crime. If they can not show that I consented to their governance or made an oath to them then they have no case, and by refusing to answer they have done nothing but admit it.
 
Henrin said:
Then I suppose they have proven my case for me by refusing to answer my inquiry into my crime.
Click to expand...

When it comes to treason, even if only perceived the government has granted themselves the power to make you go away. So you may count it as a moral victory if it ever came to that, but they are going to win.
 
A draft is probably not necessary when the war is for a good reason such as actually defending the country.
 
Kreton said:
When it comes to treason, even if only perceived the government has granted themselves the power to make you go away. So you may count it as a moral victory if it ever came to that, but they are going to win.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how it works, but if I'm offered an opening statement I will take the chance to expose the invalidity of their claims against me on the grounds that citizens do not consent to their governance and no pledges that are made during a normal citizens time are either free of coercion or ones that the state can prove have taken place. I will follow that up by showing that any pledges made after I was drafted were not honest pledges and ones that the state forced on me to make and therefore not bidding. I have no doubt they will ignore me, but I figure if anyone is listening it will cause them to think of the injustice taking place at least for a moment.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Denying you're a traitor is a textbook move for traitors.
Click to expand...

Only in the eyes of a corrupt state will they consider me a traitor. In such a situation the only ones that are traitors is the state.
 
Henrin said:
Only in the eyes of a corrupt state will they consider me a traitor. In such a situation the only ones that are traitors is the state.
Click to expand...


Blaming their country is what traitors do best.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Blaming their country is what traitors do best.
Click to expand...

Their declaration of me as a traitor is one they made up out of thin air and knowing they will never defend their declaration, as they have never done so against anyone they declared it against, there is little doubt they will not dare explain themselves here either. They will simply declare me as a traitor and if I'm caught never dare explain how a man that was drafted could be traitor and they themselves not one.
 
Henrin said:
Only in the eyes of a corrupt state will they consider me a traitor. In such a situation the only ones that are traitors is the state.
Click to expand...

I didnt read back far enough to see what you might be considered a traitor for, I am just speaking in general terms. Our government has given itself the power to lock up anyone they decide to consider a traitor.
 
Kreton said:
I didnt read back far enough to see what you might be considered a traitor for, I am just speaking in general terms. Our government has given itself the power to lock up anyone they decide to consider a traitor.
Click to expand...

Defecting to the enemy after drafted is one such thing they could consider me a traitor for. I am aware the state will declare me as such and I know I can not win if caught, but I'm confident that no one can ever prove me as a traitor. The truth of the matter is the state has no way to prove the validity of their case and they are all to aware of it.
 
Henrin said:
Defecting to the enemy after drafted is one such thing they could consider me a traitor for. I am aware the state will declare me as such and I know I can not win if caught, but I'm confident that no one can ever prove me as a traitor. The truth of the matter is the state has no way to prove the validity of their case and they are all to aware of it.
Click to expand...

but the way the laws are set up, they don't have to prove it. They just have to accuse you of it and detain you indefinitely for national security. Again I'm not calling you a traitor.
 
Kreton said:
but the way the laws are set up, they don't have to prove it. They just have to accuse you of it and detain you indefinitely for national security. Again I'm not calling you a traitor.
Click to expand...

That would appear to only show they are more corrupt then I imagined.
 
Henrin said:
Their declaration of me as a traitor is one they made up out of thin air and knowing they will never defend their declaration, as they have never done so against anyone they declared it against, there is little doubt they will not dare explain themselves here either. They will simply declare me as a traitor and if I'm caught never dare explain how a man that was drafted could be traitor and they themselves not one.
Click to expand...

You're just reading out of the traitor handbook now, aren't you?
 
haymarket said:
Because government can do things that individual citizens cannot do.
Click to expand...

Thank you for succinctly summing up the foundational belief of statism. I couldn't have stated the essence of your religion any better myself.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Humanity's moral rituals aren't limited to consent. If they were, murderers would have to consent to be punished for their crimes. In some cases, passive acceptance of the prevailing norms serves as a suitable replacement.

By your own admission, you were comfortable enough with the threat of being forced to do things without consenting to them to invest years of out of your life making a business (under the protective influence of the body politic) as opposed to simply running away or fighting it. Other members of the body politic will read those actions as a justifiable pretense to demanding services from you.

In contrast, if you had instead invested every ounce of your energy to dissolving the protective influence of the body politic and replacing it with your vision of moral social relations (in this example, presumably by peaceful means, as with most anarchists), people might still try to force you to serve -- but they would have far less justification in doing so, since the body politic was an inconvenience from which you benefited very little.

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?
Click to expand...

The body politic and racketeering outfits have a strong family resemblance (both organized responses to adversarial social relations). In some cases, a racketeering outfit becomes the body politic and vice versa, as with the Taliban as an example of the latter (although the Taliban is also an example of the sort of government that emerges from an anarchy). It's a slippery slope between public service and tyranny. But political society exists because successive generations of humans encountered the challenges of the world (and their own nature), challenges the body politic provided solutions for. Thus those generations were comfortable leaving the body politic intact for their children to inherit. In contrast, racketeering outfits create the problems they offer to solve, and tend to be resisted with all the legal resources a civilization can muster.

Any government of course creates some of the problems it tries to solve (or at least play some kind of role in creating them), but its reign remains legitimate as long as specific conditions are met. The most basic being (1) it respects the right of the body politic to make amendments to its constitution and administration and (2) does not create more problems than it solves. In the first case, nobody has a right to try and dissolve or amend it except peacefully. In the event it falls short in the second case, anybody has a right to dissolve or amend either through peace or violence, regardless of whether the body politic approves or not.

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.
Click to expand...

Nobody can force anarchists to be loyal, but they enjoyed their lands and possessions thanks to the protective influence of the body politic, and were allowed to benefit under the expectation that they were contributors, like everyone else. In war, the body politic has to make them contribute in some way; as an example to others, if nothing else.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Well that is an interesting concept as it argues that the state has rights. What if the draft is for something like the war in Iraq or any other number of military adventures that don't actually increase the security of the country? Are drafts OK then? As an anarchist, I say no, the state does not have the right to force me into its armed forces.
Click to expand...
No American was ever drafted to go to the Iraq war or the tangential offensive military action in Afghanistan against our enemies.
It was a volunteer force defending our people.

WWI, WWII, Vietnam... totally different story.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
It isn't involuntary servitude but a civil obligation to the defense of the State; our Second Amendment is quite clear on that.
Click to expand...

your inability to understand that the bill of rights merely prevents the government from acting is incredible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom