I don’t see why. Plenty of people telecommute. Can’t he teleprotest? Couldn’t his protest ultimately be more effective from Canada than it would from prison – assuming anyone paid any attention to him once he was in jail?
Then you weren’t looking. A contract is not required to have the word “CONTRACT” printed across the top. A contract is any agreement that exchanges promises. Varlos is fully aware that if he accepts Federal aid, he must register and incur the possibility that he will be called. That’s a contract.
Though the original poster wasn’t concerned with the Viet Nam era draft, I’m going to bring it up.
A young man facing the draft in 1967 had numerous options, but only two of them showed courage or morality.
It takes courage to pick up a gun and go fight in a foreign land, risking death or serious injury. It also takes courage to stand up and say, "No! This war is immoral, and I won’t be part of it. I’ll go to jail, rather than report to the induction station.
People who’ve seen my posts know which side I’m more inclined to agree with- but both positions are moral, consistent, and worthy of respect.
Of course, many (maybe most) men of draft age in the 1960s did their best to avoid BOTH positions. They wanted to avoid the draft, but not to suffer any of the consequences of draft dodging. Hence, some became professional students, others went overseas, and others used every trick in the book (friends in high places, phony medical exemptions, whatever) to avoid military service.
THOSE are the people who deserve no respect. My feeling is, you should figure out what you believe in, and then make a principled stand, either way.
I have no use for indecisive straddlers, cowards or frauds. I don’t know anything about the OP, but he goes out of his way to make himself look like all 3 of those things.
Show me where in this form there is an exchange of promises. Simply repeating your misconception is not going to make it true.
But he must register anyway, because it is the law. There is no quid pro quo here. If you’d bothered to follow the links I presented to you, you would know that by now. The government merely wants the address on file such that it has the opportunity to notify you if it decides to draft you. The only “promise” you are making is that you are who you say who are and you live where you say you live.
(It isn’t vastly different that the list of sex offenders some states maintain. Registery for that list isn’t a promise or contract one way or the other that you will or will not molest children. But it enables the government {and by extension, the citizenry} to find you if it should need to.)
Varlos, just sign the damn thing already. It’s been a long time since I filled out my registration card (and then the losers lost my registration, which I didn’t discover until I was 26 and needed student loans!), but if I remember the form correctly, all the thing does is register you for Selective Service. It’s not like you’re promising to serve should they ever reinstitute the draft and call you up. So all those arguments above about “fulfilling your contract” are nonsense. Registration and service are two separate issues.
Only if you believe in moral relativism. Otherwise, it is either moral to kill other people or it isn’t.
What possible good does it do to rot in prison?
Perhaps some people just don’t have a martyrdom complex?
Well, that would explain why my father has two PhDs. Considering that had he gone to war or prison I wouldn’t exist, I’m going to have a hard time seeing your point of view. 
Just because they didn’t want to rot in jail? Here I thought all was fair in love and war. If you are in a war against war, that should be all the more true.
You can’t take a stand from prison.
Who does? But I don’t think you have to go to prison if you can avoid it… all you gotta do to join is to sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar. Just waiting for it to come back around now…
astorian:
courage and morality are subjective in the extreme. i absolutely question the morality of anyone that allows themself to be taken to a distant land for the purpose of murdering stangers. but that’s my morality, yours obviously differs.
Varlos
[Moderator Hat ON]
Don’t call someone an ass in GD, Varlos.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
This is a toughie. The problem is, the government has VarlosZ by the balls. If he doesn’t sign up for Selective Service he can’t get student aid. Now, all of VarlosZ’s arguments could simply be elaborate justifications for a guy who just wants to screw Uncle Sam out of some cash – and several posters seem to believe this is the case. But I don’t know him, so I’m going to assume his arguments are based on principle.
There is a contract argument to be made. But I’m not so comfortable with the contract analogy. The Man isn’t saying “Voluntarily sign up for the draft and we’ll give you money.” They’re saying “You must sign up. If you don’t, you can go to jail and oh, by the way, you can’t get any money for school.” The idea that you agree by “contract” to be drafted when you apply for school money is wrong. Signing the school loan application isn’t a contract for SS, it more serves the purpose of giving people notice that they’re in trouble if they don’t sign up for SS and provides a neat bit of evidence if the government decides to come after you (“Look, jury, he signed the thing right here. Don’t take too long to find him guilty, I have an 11:00 tee time”).
However, the idea that VarlosZ has some sort of “right” to student loans bothers me, too. Cash for school isn’t a fundamental human right.
So the questions become, I think, (a) whether it is unjust for the government to link a non-rights based benefit to the completion of some sort of unjust or coercive task. If it is unjust, then (b) is it then just for an individual to take that benefit?
VarlosZ, you seem to feel that (a) no, it’s not right, and (b) yes. People can, and do, disagree with you on either or both of those conclusions, but the fact is, it’s your conscience. You don’t need popular support to do what you think is right and just.
I forgot to mention the easiest way to avoid the draft. Join the military and get an other-than-honorable or dishonorable discharge. You are not allowed to serve the federal government again.
I would have no problem with saying that it is unethical for VarlosZ to take the government aid without registering for the SS as the government requires were it not for the fact that the same is not required for female students. I remember feeling both relieved and guilty about not having to worry about being sent to Viet Nam, myself, and fearing that my brothers might not be so lucky. I think either women should also be required to register, or men should not be, and it is not fair to say that men cannot receive government aid because they haven’t done something that women are not asked to do also.
Actually, I’m a 40 year old lawyer who paid my own way through four degrees and took care of my dying parents along the way.
If you have a look at the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I think that you’ll find that I am a bit out there, but not out of the ball park entirely – essentially I differ in degree but not kind.
However, since this is an American forum, I certainly agree that what I perceive to be fundamental human rights are not commonly accepted in the USA.
Sorry, I really had difficulty finding the right words. I meant contingency in the sense that I believe a person should not be prevented from exercising a right by virtue of being forced to perform some other act significantly and arbitrarily impinging on another right, e.g. to only be able to exercise a right to education by first signing onto the draft, which I would consider making education contingent to military service.
My reasonable limit qualifier is there simply because it is often impossible to reconcile conflicting rights without placing some limits in place, e.g. in many nations the right to employment conflicts with the right to clean air, and there is no way around it until those nations develop.
The difference between my two statements (without contingency / with limits) lies in the difference between making the exercise of a right contingent to something pretty much unrelated, and restricting conflicting rights so as to best preserve them as far as possible.
I’m with you entirely on those three points and the reasoning you apply.
I’m not confusing fundamental human rights with anything. I simply have a very different belief than you concerning what are fundamental human rights, just as I expect many people on this board would have a very different belief of what are fundamental human rights when compared to those put forward by the UN.
As far as the appearance of rights in peacetime goes, I submit that fundamental human rights remain be it war or peace, and that war impinges on them, rather than the converse that there is only an appearance of such broad and liberal rights in peacetime.
Actually, it’s pretty darn good for Canada. Over the years I’ve come across some terrific folks who moved up here to avoid the draft, or who moved up here out of disgust for the Vietnam war. They are now credits to our country. The USA’s loss for the most part has turned out to be Canada’s gain.
Let me start by saying I’ve been in the US Air Force for almost 10 years now. I have some questions for you VarlosZ:
If an enemy country was invading the US, you would STILL be opposed to the draft? You wouldn’t overcome your objections to ensure your country survives??? What kinda crap is that?
It’s kinda hard to get student aid from a government THAT NO LONGER EXISTS!!
If you think it’s not right for our government to tie registering with Selective Service with educational benefits, the best solution for you is to emigrate to a country that does NOT tie them together.
Personally, I feel it is not right for our country to force me to pay taxes in order to give student aid to a person who obviously wants to do nothing to earn it while hiding behind “moral” excuses for stealing.
On another note, all males who turn 18 in South Korea are still required to spend 3 years in the military. I know this because my wife and brother-in-law are both Korean.
mike
Varloz, I think that a lot of people are completely ignoring your central point and spending a lot of time arguing side issues and straw men. If I were in your position, I’d be rather frustrated. I see the following paragraph as the core of your position, so I will confine my comments to it:
I find the idea that “equal protection under the law” means that everyone must be treated equally to be incredibly naive. If the state prosecutes people for theft, are they not treating theives unequally? The 14th amendment was meant to prevent discrimination on the basis on who you are, not what you do. To require that the law make no distinction between desirable behavior and undesirable behavior is to require the abolishment of the law.
If we are to subscribe to the belief that the government may not reward those that agree with its goals, then must we not also reject the compensation, in any form, of those that provide service to the government? Must we not hold that soldiers must be volunteers in the full sense of the word, receiving no pay for their efforts? Unless you wish to advance the position that a paid armed forces is immoral, I see a pressing need for you to establish how offering money directly is substantially different from reducing the cost of an eduction, on a basis that goes beyond simply decrying unequal treatment.
Oh, and sorry about misspelling your name, VarlosZ.
That was pretty much what I was talking about, and I think what I said deserved more than a momily for an answer.
Hey, I never called him an ass. I simply told him not to be an ass. It hardly seems fair to. . .
Okay, never mind. I’m sorry.
The Ryan (and others inquiring about contracts and equal protection):
You, and most people here, are laboring under the misconception that student aid is compensation for registering for the draft, and that the “contract” is therefore: “if you register for the draft, then we will give you student aid in return.” As it happens, there is no “if” in the situation. A contract requires that both parties enter into it voluntarily and that both parties benefit in some way. It is clearly not voluntary on my part, nor does it benefit me in any way. As I’ve stated, student aid can, does, and has existed independent of selective service registration. The granting of such aid is not a benefit of registering; the denial of said aid is a punishment for not registering. If someone can find for me any official and pertinent federal document that implies that one becomes eligible for aid upon registration, instead of being denied aid for not registering, I will happily attempt to modify my position.
This is correct, and I was wrong to imply that the government’s actions here were unconstitutional. Nonetheless, I find the government’s actions to be de facto inequality before the law, for they punish those with certain moral and political beliefs, and who have no intention of harming anyone (as opposed to someone who feels morally and politically obligated to pick pockets, I suppose).
Incidentally, if some of you still want to insist on viewing my situation as a contractual one, I must point out that I have fulfilled my end of the “contact” to the letter – it is stated (quite explicitly), that I will be denied student aid if I do not register for the draft, which I have done. When we go to war with China in 2005, the government will know exactly where to send my induction letter (and the return address on the letter telling them to stuff it will be just what I put on my registration card). My refusal to serve in the event of the draft is a separate action from my registration.
Muffin:
I take a less expansive view of “fundamental human rights” than you, but thanks for the support. What I’ve been trying to get across (and what you phrased better than I have) is:
Thank you.
spooje:
Why? If I am not obligated to sacrifice myself to the army, why am I obligated to sacrifice myself to riot police? (Which is not to say that I wouldn’t, but it’s my choice.)
RickJay:
-
I disagree. Refusing to acknowledge that the terms of such an agreement are binding in the least seems just as effective, if not more so.
-
Only apparently, not in actuality.
Given the medium of this discussion, you are supposed to trust me (the benefit of the doubt is a wonderful thing in personal relationships). A difference of intent can and does constitute a substantial difference (“substantial” meaning significant, not tangible). (This is not to say the government is obligated to trust me, of course.)
minty green:
I did, two years ago (which is why all of these people are upset with me).
jmullaney:
I can’t get your link to work, but Arlo did have a point: if you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud. So I’ll tell you guys what: if I run away with my tail between my legs, I promise to raise hell from Canada.
Zoff:
Well put.
Again, I concur. Like the OP says, I’m quite at ease with my decision, I just think it makes for an interesting discussion.
mmartin:
I’ve been waiting for someone to tell me that I can move the hell to Russia if I don’t like it. mmartin, you complete me.
Then the best solution for you is to move to a country where this does not occur. Or, more helpfully, don’t pay your taxes.
One interesting thing about this thread – as pointed out, registration is mandated by law, and the financial-aid linkage is part of the punishment for violators of that law, it’s not something you get in exchange for it.
However, since you are “obligated” to register (“it’s the Law”), I do not believe that, by registering, you enter any sort of contractual obligation to go unquestioningly in the future. The registration is, how do lawyers say? “without prejudice.” Heck, theoretically every able-bodied male legal resident can be called to serve; the Selective Service is just a way to do it in an organized manner so they don’t have to send press-gangs out on the streets to round up 18-to-20 year-olds.
The moral choice to abide unconditionally, abide with objections, resist or evade ** an actual induction ** is yours, and you will face its consequences, if and when a draft comes up – and we don’t know what will be the circumstances! If the country is still worth defending by then, VarlosZ (or anyone) will have an array of alternatives as to how to exercise that choice – which are not pre-empted by his having abided the law as it existed when he turned 18.
All those who would ask him to leave the country if he doesn’t like it, tough luck dudes, one of the principles of the country is that here, dissenters are NOT forced to leave.
(Disclosure: I was one of the crop of the 19-20 year-olds who were part of the re-phase-in of the registration. Now that was worrysome, a lot of folks were sure Jimmy and Ronnie were about to treat us to an all-expenses-paid Afghani holiday. Eventually I did serve in the Reserves and got this close to being hauled out to the Gulf…)