Nothing in return? The government may help him get a education, but then they’ll take 25% of everything he makes for the rest of his life. Seems to me he’ll be giving plenty in return whether he gets drafted or not.
You don’t deserve any freedoms if you are unwilling to fight for them. Oh, but that’s ok. The entire country can just run to Canada.
Do you have something to support this statement? I don’t remember the Marines landing on Iwo Jima to build a Starbucks. How bout the Marines defending the food court at the Khe San mall? Or are you morally against America fighting in the Middle East over oil, the substance that fuels our entire American way of life?
VarlosZ - It doesn’t look like you want to be coerced into much of anything. I suspect it has nothing to do with your objection to war. It seems like it has more to do with your objection to being inconvenienced. Kind of reminds me of my girlfriends lazy-ass brother. He just wants to do his own thing without being told what to do. Problem is, he doesn’t want to actually work hard at anything. he just expects people to keep giving him money for college so he can “find himself”.
What is so “abusive” about the system anyway? That the government won’t give you money for college unless they get something in return? Those bastards.
In case you haven’t noticed, I don’t have a lot of respect for people who think they are entitled to things without being asked for anything in return. And that’s what I see in your postings. If everyone had your attitude, we’d all be speaking German, or Japanese, or Russian.
In any case it’s a moot point. We don’t have a draft and are unlikely to have one in the near future. There just isn’t a need for conscripting that much infantry in todays modern warfare.
True - but you’re forgetting the people who’ll support the war, and support sending their fellow citizens to die, but aren’t quite willing to fight themselves. human hypocracy, after all, is boundless.
Look at it this way. In a democracy, a draft actually promotes peace. When you have a professional, volunteer military, the public can shrug off casualties with a “hey, they made their own choices”; but when people think that it could be them/their spouse/their kid fighting a war they think is outjust, won’t the public outcry be just that much louder? Believe me, without the draft the U.S. would still be fighting in Vietnam.
Hello?
The govmint would take that 25% whether varlos goes to college or not. The government, by giving him college aid, gives varlos the opportunity to make considerably more after he graduates than if he didn’t go to college because he couldn’t afford it - even after taxes.
Sure as hell varlos benefits from the student aid.
Sua
Yeah Varlos benefits, but so does the government. If he makes more money as a result, so will they. Sounds like a good investment to me. My point was that there are a lot of ways people contribute to their country besides going to war.
I think there are two distinct issues going on here:
[1] Whether or not to pee on Varlos.
[2] Whether or not to light him on fire.
::loud whisper from off stage, Freedom turns bright red, clears his throat and starts over::
I think there are two issues here:
[1] Whether or not a person should be required to fight in a war.
[2] Whether or not it is allright to enter into a contract in order to receive financial benefit, all the while planning on reneging on the contract.
I admit that I splashed a little of the first issue into my posts, but my main thrust is with the second.
Varlos, Sua has had me thinking all day long. He brought to my attention that you are probably around 18 years old. A lot of wacky stuff is going on in your head at that age. I think you are making the mistake of assuming that there is really only one issue on the table here, that of whether or not a government should be able to force it’s citizens to fight.
I think where you are going wrong, is that you are assuming that since the government is wrong about the draft (valid debate on both sides there), that gives you the right to steal from them.
All the while forgetting that the government is only a construct that actually represents all of us. The money you are getting comes from the American people, not some faceless evil monstrosity.
If you want to protest violence and fighting, fine.
Then do that.
If you want to make unconnected leaps of logic that give you the sole power of deciding what’s acceptable and what’s not, then I fear you will see the inside of a jail cell before you get much older.
[note to Gaudere - The opening comment was an attempt at levity, in the hope the thread could lighten up a bit. If you find it offensive, please go ahead and delete it]
I justy occurred to me that I will not have access to the net for the next two to three days.
While I’m not one for --Look at me, I’m going away for awhile – posts, I have been pretty active in this and a couple of other threads lately.
If I don’t respond, then rest assured I will dig up the threads and repsond when I get back.
Freedom
(off to Boston for the weekend)
Padeye:
Others have expressed similar concerns, but why? Cannot moral outrage and protest co-exist with a healthy sense of self-preservation? Why would my actions be more respectable if I went to jail as a consequence? Perhaps I feel that martyrdom is not the best way to serve a cause.
In any event, read the OP again. When did I say that I wouldn’t “face the consequences” of my actions?
Ankh:
Whatever gave you that idea? My donations to the ACLU are just for shits and giggles? I’m pursuing a Political Science degree for the money? It is to laugh.
I just re-read my OP and I have no idea what you’re talking about as regards "smugness. If I might venture a guess, I’d say that you’re letting your disgust for my position get the better of you. As regards the question posed by the OP: yes, that is exactly what I asked. Whay do you assume that that implies I don’t care about changing the law?
Freedom:
Putting aside for the moment the issue of “good policy vs. bad policy,” I’m willing to grant the state a goodly amount of slack concerning what is “legitimate.” One of the very few things that I consider to be per se illegitimate is a draft. In the real world, where registering for the draft is as compulsory as the day is long, I think the debate ends here from my point of view. When the state decides to force me to join the military, it is no longer acting in its capacity as a legitimate sovereignty (sp?), and it’s call for troops is just as binding as would be a call for troops from, say, wring. I am under absolutely no obligation to submit to a draft, while (in the other sense of the word) I am obligated, by threat of force, to register with selective service.
In our hypothetical situation where we posit a more-or-less voluntary draft, things are admittedly different. I would consider tying the draft to financial aid to be disengenuous and an example of “bad policy,” but I don’t know that it crosses the line to “illegitimate” (it might, but I don’t know). I would, however, consider it to be in conflict with the notion of (again) equal protection under the laws. Am I not justified in Is the refusal of aid based on political or moral beliefs invalid? Is it coercive? I’m not entirely sure, but I am impressed that so many of you have apparently achieved perfect knowledge on these subjects.
In any event, bottom line, if you wish to partake of the benefits of your citizenship, you should ante up the responsabilities.
[/quote]
As I’ve said, I don’t believe that the responsibilities can include military service.
No, I was correct when I saw that some people would see it as such, and that some of those might be offended.
Alessan:
If I don’t do it, then nobody has to. I agree. If nobody does it (register for the draft), we’ll be just fine, thank you. The U.S. is not Israel; we should be able to get by with volunteers. IF by “it” you mean join the military, then:
If I may: Why is it germane for you to suggest the that the U.S. army might disband, but not germane for jm to suggest that all armies might disband?
Screwtape:
Aww, that’s adorable.
On a separate note, I would like to ask, as Gaudere has, that some people calm down. It’s a hypothetical discussion on an internet message board – and besides, arguing with angry people sucks.
This took a very long time to write. . .
Mods, don’t touch this. I like it.
Poker game now (more theft, in actuality). Will post more tomorrow.
If everyone thought like Varlos we’d be conquered by everyone who didn’t think like Varlos.
:eek: Run for the hills!! 
At least someone on this thread can see beyond blind nationalism. Reminds me of this cartoon.
Very well, I’ll explain it. And I’ll use small words. By “above board” I mean that if Varlos disagrees with the way the US does things, he should use his rights as a citizen, without lowering himself to deceit, to change them.
And though it requires an exercise of patience, I’ll actually answer your question. If he enters into a contract with the US, and keeping the terms of that contract require him to perform the service specified, i.e., show up for induction, then he should indeed march. Whether or not he does it happily I leave up to him. If he thinks it is wrong for the US to require it of him, then he has no business signing the contract.
It’s not hypocracy to let the soldiers do the soldiering. Hell, I was in no hurry to sign up for Desert Storm even though I supported the action. I do think it is hypocracy to spit on the soldiers who return from war when you refuse to fight.
I don’t believe you. It’s very hard to fight a war with an all volunteer army if you don’t have enough volunteers.
What, you mean TAXES? The same taxes that go to pay for his financial aid, the Interstates that will speed his trip to Canada, the schools that gave him the education that allowed him to actually get into college, the military that defends his right to watch TV all day. Everyone hates paying taxes, but they do have a purpose.
That’s great an all, however none of these pursuits require any great risk on your part. It’s very easy to have beliefs when you not required to fight for them. If you truly are against the draft in principle, you should be willing to take a stand if such a time ever comes. Slinking off to Canada in secret may not be the best way since it doesn’t really make a statement. I would suggest chaining yourself to the capital building or a Canadian border crossing or some other suitably public display. (Note: Please don’t actually do this until the next draft:) )
Just for the record, I’m not sure if I actually think forced conscription is a good idea. I am positive that I would be terrified at the prospect of charging a bunker knowing there is a pretty good chance I’d be blown to bits. So, if I were to dodge the draft, it would pretty much be on the grounds of being a pussy.
Also, check out that movie Enemy at the Gates. Stalin had some interesting ways of motivating his troops at the battle of Stalingrad.
Selective Service On-line Registration form
Do you see a contract here? I don’t.
What is Selective Service Registration
If I am religiously or morally opposed to participating in war, must I still register? (Yes.)
Why is it necessary to register at all? When I turned 18, I got a card reminding me to register… but if they could send me the card, obviously they already knew my age, name, sex, and address.
msmith:
Says you. This strikes me as a fairly arbitrary position, so you will excuse me if I arbitrarily disagree.
- This is true. How much coersion do you like in your daily diet?
- And you have to come to this belief . . . how, exactly? You are, no doubt, more familiar with me than I had believed (and here I was thinking we had never met).
- Thanks for the comparison (it was very helpful). In any event, I’m inclined to believe you when you characterize this person as a “lazy-ass” because you know him and I do not, while I further have seen no indication that this is a lie. Kindly extend to me the same courtesy when I tell you that I am seriously opposed to war, killing, and the draft, and that I would refuse to serve on these grounds alone, regardless of the relative convenience of military service.
It is abusive because it makes the reception of aid for school dependent on one’s willingness to die for the country, essentially a political opinion (leaving aside the issue of imprisonment). Using government programs to further the state’s political agenda is an abuse of the government’s legitimate authority. Regardless, as others have pointed out, they are getting something in return. Student aid existed before it was tied to selective service registration. The state feels that having an educated, class-mobile citizenry is a proper goal to seek, and that student aid is an effective way of achieving said goal.
Who said that they couldn’t ask for anything in return? I’ve only said that they can’t ask for military service in return.
As has already been pointed out (and quite appropriately, I think), if everyone had my attitude, there would be no war.
Freedom:
I agree, except that I would tweek #2 to ask whether it can be alright to do this in circumstances such as these. (Assuming, hypothetically, that it were a contract, which it isn’t). The answer to the question as you worded it would obviously be “generally, no.”
I’m 20, and things are actually pretty stable.
Not at all true. I asked in my second post in this thread, “still, do you think it would be ethical to dodge a voluntary draft?” I think we can agree that this question speaks mostly to your #2 above. This is what I wanted to talk about, really. Had I wanted to complain about the injustice of the draft, the thread would have been titled “Drafts Suck!”, or something equally as witty.
I believe that, since the government is not justified in tieing the draft to college aid, I am not obligated to acknowledge the validity of such an arrangement.
If we consider the money to be coming from the American people, then it is the American people who would coerce me into service. The issue remains unchanged.
Of course I disagree with the “leaps of logic” part, but you’re right that I want to be the sole determiner of what is acceptable and what is not for me. Don’t you? As for ending up in jail: could happen. I’ve been known to disregard the drug laws from time to time.
Since you’ll be reading this a few days from now, how was Boston? In Albany, it’s snowing.
Don’t be an ass, Screwtape.
What does one consider to be a fundamental human right?
Life?
Clean Air?
Fresh water?
Food?
Shelter?
Medical care?
Family and community?
Employment?
Education?
Equal access, opportunity and protection?
Freedom of movement, thought and expression?
Self determination?
I believe that, et alia, all the above are fundamental human rights.
I believe that exercising one’s fundamental human rights is not subject to contingency.
I believe that there are reasonable limits to any rights.
Applying this framework, with which obviously many, and probably most, people disagree, the following arises:
The American draft is a contingency which violates many of the above fundamental human rights despite not being necessary to enforce American foreign policy and not being necessary to protect against invasion, and therefore is invalid. Further, with regard to the draft, the insistence that a person wishing to exercise one or more fundamental human rights, such as education and derivative employment, should be compelled to exchange other fundamental human rights, is invalid.
The insistence that a person opposed to the draft should actively protest is such a contingency which violates several of the above fundamental human rights, despite not being necessary to enforce American foreign policy and not being necessary to protect against invasion, and therefore is invalid.
I would like to address the proposition that Ghandi type non-violence requires one to be willing to take a significant hit. This is simply not the case, and it is my position that the American view of non-violence mistakenly tends toward this direction. I submit that civil disobedience can include passive withdrawal, and is best served when directed toward active community building with the view to meeting fundamental human rights. Presenting the OP for discussion, and insisting on the fundamental human right to education, are both examples of a Ghandian approach despite there not being any taking of any significant hit. Quite simply, if enough people default on invalid contracts, such as the draft/education contract, then the message is being sent, whether or not those people at the same time set themselves up to take a significant hit.
Look at it in terms of stages of victimization. At first, one may deny being a victim (e.g. believing that education is not a fundamental human right), then one may acquiesce to being a victim (e.g signing the draft/education contract despite being in opposition), then one may repudiate being a victim (e.g. attending a political protest or getting arrested), or finally one may become a creative non-victim (e.g. exercising fundamental human rights and getting on with life without holding one’s self up for taking hits.) Arbitrarily setting one’s self up to take significant hits in one’s youth (e.g. getting arrested, or sacrificing educational opportunities) will limit one’s ability in mid-life to assume and exert power and control over one’s own life, and to participate in community building through self-determination. Falling into the zerosum trap of either acquiescing or taking a significant hit is no more than permitting one’s self to be used as cannon fodder, and limits one’s ability to become a creative non-victim. Being used as cannon fodder when there are other alternatives is pure folly.
I submit that the proposition set forth in the OP to take an education and reneg on the draft/education contract without further ado is a reasonable option, and I respect those who make such a decision as being creative non-victims who are empowering themselves by quietly ensuring that their fundamental human rights are met.
These are not rights in the commonly understood meaning; that is, to remove them is to create oppression. No one is obligated to give you a job or an education, although I must admit the welfare we do have in this country may lead one to believe it is so.
Perhaps you are a prime indicator of the times. Money for nothin’ and the chicks for free? Oh, wait, that was the 80’s.
I am completely baffled at these two statements when used simulataneously.
I completely and wholly disagree with a draft for military service, but not because I have a right to an education and I must sign up for one to get the other.
The draft is:
~not good political sense inside a democracy
~not fair in terms of selection
~impedes on the idea of freedom from government coercion when no crime against another person is committed
The first assumes that there would ever be enough motivation to fight an external war. The second assumes that selection should be fair in the first place. The third assumes that we are free from government coercion.
Please try not to confuse “fundamental human rights” from “the appearance of rights in peacetime.”
Dude, if you want to protest the draft by burning your draft card, and maybe the American Flag, I can respect that. Hell, I may even join you. Seems to me a valid form of protest. Or maybe demonstrate in some other way, get yerself arrested, and fight Uncle Sam in court. Again, I may well join you there.
But running off to the Great White North to avoid the draft is no good for anyone. If the draft comes, you’ll have to put up a fight somewhere.
It most certainly is. If you accept money which is given to you under the understanding you will meet a predetermined set of conditions, you are entering into a contract, morally and legally.
The only way to ethically refuse to acknowledge the validity of the agreement is to NOT ENTER INTO IT. I completely agree with you that the draft is wrong, but you’re not demonstrating an ethical or moral opposition to anything by defrauding the government, even if you think the government’s full of shit. The problem with your position is that there is no substantive difference between what you’re doing and what a con artist does, so how are we supposed to know the difference aside from the fact that you say there’s a difference? I’m sure con artists pull that all the time.
By entering into a contract, you immediately acknowledge the validity of the contract - something you claim you don’t want to do. You’re planning to do this and THEN surreptitiously break the contract and try to get away with it. That’s not conscientious objection or political process. It’s fraud, and it’s fraud because you’re inconsistent in your own position; by accepting the contract you are tacitly accepting the validity of all its provisions, but you’re planning at the same time to break them. I sympathie if you feel the draft sucks, but when you say “I don’t agree with this deal, but I’m going to take all the money for my own personal benefit and not hold up my end of the deal and try to get away with it,” you don’t sound like a principled man, you sound like a thief.
You have an option, right now; you can reject what you feel is an immoral contract by not accepting it. If you don’t want to be coerced, don’t accept the money. If you can’t do that, your position’s invalid.
You can come away with half-baked rationalizations all you want, but you’re still left with the fact that you don’t want to express your alleged opinions in any way until after they give you the cheque. Come on, man; anyone can see that’s a cheap scam. If you’re opposed to the draft, OPPOSE IT NOW. Refuse to enter into a voluntary contract that requires you to register for the draft. Refuse both the requirements AND the benefits you recieve. Don’t take the money and then suddenly become opposed to conscription.