Mandatory Military Service?

[humanrevolution]

Mandatory military service: I'd love to know your thoughts.

PZKPFW: combined politics/conspiracy angle removed. Post edited.

Mandatory military service, I think, is itself an OK topic.

[Ronald Brak]

I think this thread might be a bit political, and that's against BAUT rules.

[humanrevolution]

Ill understand it if gets deleted.

But can we please try to keep this as least political as possible?

[Neverfly]

Having served in the military, myself, I can honestly say from experience that I can see how a military service can do a lot of folks a lot of good.

But it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

I couldn't arrange a bouquet to save my life. I know nothing of floral arrangement.
In fact, I probably don't respect someone who does floral arrangement as much as I do one who serves in the military.

And yet, stepping back and thinking about it logically, where would we be without florists?
Florists do provide a valuable service, even if it seems silly to some of us, we find it's NOT silly at weddings, funerals, on valentines day or if we would like to give our wives a sweet surprise.
Suddenly, I find I should respect florists more.

My point is, in a nation where it takes all kinds, in one in which it is enriched by diversity, a mandatory, uniform service could also do great harm. Some people cannot be a florist- some cannot be a soldier.

Part of being a soldier is defending the belief in Freedom. How can one believe- if they are made to?
How can one defend Freedom, when it has been denied them?
How can a person serve with pride, if they were forced to serve?

{-- Suggestion voided --}

[Chunky]

oh yes, this thread will be closed,

[sarongsong]

...I'd love to know your thoughts...Why?---going for four (http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=1142085) http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

[davidlpf]

A dodo would stand a better chance then this thread.

[Neverfly]

A dodo would stand a better chance then this thread.

Careful who you choose, the Dodo was ancient and by far, older than humans. We're only less than 2 million years old.;)

Why?---going for four (http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=1142085) http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

Your link leads to this:
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

[sarongsong]

:doh: forgot about the 'timing out' of a Search link---it was meant to go to "Find all threads started by humanrevolution" that show 3 locked threads, of nine total.

[Neverfly]

:doh: forgot about the 'timing out' of a Search link---it was meant to go to "All threads started by humanrevolution" that show 3 locked threads, of nine total.

That one always gets me too:p

In all fairness to humanrevolution, it is not so much the OP that can get a lock on a thread, but how the members participate in the discussion;)

I think it's more productive for us to say, "We can discuss this reasonably and calmly."
Than to say, "This thread will be locked."


The only real problem is that for ME to say that is a bit like a frog saying, "Flies taste gross." so I am going to have to go hide now.

[gzhpcu]

We have mandatory military service here in Switzerland: 4 months basic training at the age of 20, then 3 week repetition courses, initially yearly then a couple of times a decade. They have cut back now, but I was in active duty practically till the age of 50...

[Neverfly]

We have mandatory military service here in Switzerland: 4 months basic training at the age of 20, then 3 week repetition courses, initially yearly then a couple of times a decade. They have cut back now, but I was in active duty practically till the age of 50...

Yeah, but you're country's always neutral anyway;)*



*Mod Note: You KNOW at the bottom of your hearts that there is no way I could have resisted that statement.

[davidlpf]

A lot of countries around the world require some sort of military service. Most of this stuff about american required to serve is mostly generated by one side of the political that does not like Obama.*





*edited to add that comment was a directed to what OPer posted and has been edited out.

[novaderrik]

Yeah, but you're country's always neutral anyway;)*



*Mod Note: You KNOW at the bottom of your hearts that there is no way I could have resisted that statement.


they may be neutral, but they have to keep going back every couple of years to get re-certified on all the latest additions to their wonderful army knives.

[davidlpf]

Note, not trying to make the thread political just pointing where this idea is coming from.

[Neverfly]

they may be neutral, but they have to keep going back every couple of years to get re-certified on all the latest additions to their wonderful army knives.

I've heard of those certifications. They are very grueling and only about 10% of the class survives the training.

One notable case was in 2004 when a soldier failed to completely disassemble and reassemble his knife in under 17 hours and thirty minutes. Toward the end, his hands were moving like Cmdr Datas and his head exploded.


ETA: Note to Malfunky, wherever you may be reading on the board.
You will notice that I present a lot of disinformation as fact, but I cannot help myself for I am evil and full of Mischief.

[pzkpfw]

Yes, let's keep this non-political.

[mugaliens]

One notable case was in 2004 when a soldier failed to completely disassemble and reassemble his knife in under 17 hours and thirty minutes. Toward the end, his hands were moving like Cmdr Datas and his head exploded.

Was that before or after the "fix bayonets" command?

[Francisco]

I think having me in the military would be a lose-lose situation.

[Argos]

I´ve served in the military down here. Enrolment is mandatory to males aged 18. After selection you serve [1 year] at the age of 19. A precious experience that I´d recommend to everyone.

[marsbug]

I gave the idea of a military career some serious thought towards the end of my teens. I have some good friends who joined, and there were a lot of skills taught in the military, particularly good organisation, that I wanted to learn.
When I was honest with myself I realised I wasn't interested in a career in the military, I just wanted to learn those things for my own benefit and amusement. And if I wanted those skills badly enough there were other ways to get them without wasting everyones time on a career I was going to be half hearted about.
Had military service been madatory for me I feel sure now that I would have resented every second of it.

[Swift]

Yes, let's keep this non-political.
And stop speculating as to whether this thread will be closed or not. If you think something is against the rules - report it. But don't debate it in the thread.

[Buttercup]

Chuck Norris said he owes a lot of his success to the Draft, when he was young. Apparently he was, typical of many of us at that age, restless and directionless; getting into trouble with lots of energy and no good place to direct it. He's grateful for military experience; it taught him discipline and respect (for others), gave him purpose, focus and direction.

[Argos]

Had military service been madatory for me I feel sure now that I would have resented every second of it.

When I got selected I felt like the world was falling down on me. I thought I would hate the whole thing [It was a real pain getting my hair cut]. As the months went by I realized it was not that bad, and that that experience would turn out to be very useful. It has been.

[Buttercup]

I can sort of relate to Argos' comments (above). In college I worked for a company which is as close to military service as I'd ever get. The employer was awful; like a drill sergeant. He was mean too, and it affected the employees. He had a real whip-hand as well. But somehow we all banded together, a few of us injected as good/cheery an attitude as possible -- and soon the entire crew "came around." The atmosphere changed and while the work was still GO-GO-GO! hard, it actually turned out to be one of THE best jobs I've ever had; made lots of genuine friends. So I think I understand the workings of military service in a way. If that's so, then I personally recommend it.

[Argos]

How can a person serve with pride, if they were forced to serve?


I´d say some people have no notion of pride until they join the military. You can have no freedom if you´re not taught [forcibly or not] the basics of defending what you cherish the most. The military can do wonders to one´s self-esteem, pride and sense of freedom. Well, that´s my opinion.

[Larry Jacks]

In the US, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude (AKA slavery). While I served for over 12 years on active duty (Army and Air Force) and found it very beneficial, I am opposed to a draft except under the most dire circumstances.

[Argos]

In the US, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude (AKA slavery).

Yes, I think that is also true for every country in this hemisphere.

No one likes to pay taxes. However, paying taxes can also be seen as equivalent to working for the government [for the 'common good', if you will]. So, you work for the government against your will [unless you do like to pay taxes]

[SeanF]

In the US, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude (AKA slavery).
The courts have (several times, I believe) rejected the argument that a draft violates the 13th Amendment. Granted, it's never been tested against a peacetime draft, since we've never had one, but I don't see why - given the text of the Amendment - that would make a difference. :)

Argos, does it really make sense to state that "freedom" is predicated on being forced to do something?

[Buttercup]

In the US, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude (AKA slavery). While I served for over 12 years on active duty (Army and Air Force) and found it very beneficial, I am opposed to a draft except under the most dire circumstances.

If involuntary servitude is wrong, it's wrong -- under any circumstances.

[Fazor]

The OP is not an easy question to answer. Nev's "Not everyone can be a florist" post is closest to how I feel--some people simply can not be a soldier. When we talk about draft or mandatory service here in the states, its typically in a time of conflict.

The battlefield is the last place I want to be with a group of guys who don't have what it takes.

At the same time, if you need feet on the ground, you need feet on the ground. How do you get them?

[Argos]

Argos, does it really make sense to state that "freedom" is predicated on being forced to do something?

No it does not. :) But you´re not free to not paying taxes, so it really gets fuzzy.

[Fazor]

No it does not. :) But you´re not free to not paying taxes, so it really gets fuzzy. Sure you are. At least in the US. You're always welcome to leave, and thus not pay taxes. :)

[Francisco]

Sure you are. At least in the US. You're always welcome to leave, and thus not pay taxes. :)

You might want to check up on the tax laws of your country regarding citizens who leave.

[SeanF]

You might want to check up on the tax laws of your country regarding citizens who leave.
I'm pretty sure by "leave," Fazor meant not only physically leave the country but also give up citizenship. The US tax laws don't levy taxes on, for example, Italian citizens living in Italy. :)

[Fazor]

I'm pretty sure by "leave," Fazor meant not only physically leave the country but also give up citizenship. The US tax laws don't levy taxes on, for example, Italian citizens living in Italy. :)

Yes, yes I did. Taxes are like citizen membership dues. If you don't want to pay 'em, you can't be a member.

Though, depending on how you go about it, you can not pay them and remain a member. They'll even give you free lodging and three square meals.

[Spock Jenkins]

They wouldn't take me anyway. I'd be to big a liability, unless they just needed a few human shields. But I don't think they can do that yet.

[Chuck]

Sure you are. At least in the US. You're always welcome to leave, and thus not pay taxes. :)
The people who want to collect the taxes are also free to leave if they don't like someone not paying them.

[HenrikOlsen]

Sure you are. At least in the US. You're always welcome to leave, and thus not pay taxes. :)
And do you think there's anywhere to go where he won't have to pay taxes and is still able to make a decent living and that will take him?

[Chuck]

As for the draft, maybe a country that can't get enough volunteers to defend it doesn't deserve to exist.

[Fazor]

And do you think there's anywhere to go where he won't have to pay taxes and is still able to make a decent living and that will take him?

No, but the point is, you're free to not live in a tax-collecting society. You just have to give up the benefits of it. There's a difference between "Freedom versus Servitude" and "Cost versus Benefit". My whole point is being forced to pay taxes is not a form of servitude. It's a cost.

[marsbug]

Argos, if you don't mind my asking, why did you think your world was falling down when you were selected?

[gzhpcu]

Yeah, but you're country's always neutral anyway;)*



*Mod Note: You KNOW at the bottom of your hearts that there is no way I could have resisted that statement.
True, but the benefit is that it throws young people of different walks of life together: farmers, bankers, engineers, and you get insight into other worlds. People from different social structures meet that would otherwise never meet. Helps you understand better. Put on a uniform, and all of these differences disappear. All suffer the boredom of waiting long hours doing nothing, the physical hardships, the guard duty, the barrack's lack of privacy, etc. It is an experience from which it is possible to profit and apply to everyday life if you have the right attitude. And sure, Switzerland's neutrality makes the whole experience safe...

[Spock Jenkins]

You're free to not pay taxes in the U.S.

Don't earn any money
Don't own any property
Don't consume any goods or services

Keep moving though - no loitering allowed on public property.

[Argos]

Yes, yes I did. Taxes are like citizen membership dues. If you don't want to pay 'em, you can't be a member.

Ok. Military service is just an extension of that rationale. You sacrifice yourself for the common good, just like the idea behind paying taxes. Think about it: you´re required to pay, say, 10% of your hard earned salary to the government. That amount of money corresponds to a certain amount of work time. The net result is that you´ve worked for the government against [or regardless of] your will.

There is not such thing as absolute freedom when you live in society. Mandatory military service is just another bite of the Leviathan on you [and it helps forging the character, for those few who get picked]. In certain Brazilian regions families crave for it. It´s not slavery by no means. :)

[Argos]

Argos, if you don't mind my asking, why did you think your world was falling down when you were selected?

Because I feared the rigors of the military life: little sleep, hair cut, physical work, taking orders. Those things teenagers abhor.

It turned out those fears were greatly exaggerated. :)

[Fazor]

There is not such thing as absolute freedom when you live in society. Mandatory military service is just another bite of the Leviathan on you [and it helps forging the character, for those few who get picked]. In certain Brazilian regions families crave for it. It´s not slavery by no means.
In fairness, I never claimed mandatory military service was comprable to slavery either. Again, the big difference is you have a benefit you're able to give up (citizenship) in return for a cost. Slavery, you couldn't quit even if you decided the plantation lifestyle just wasn't for you. You were property, not a member.

[eric_marsh]

I'm strongly opposed to the idea. It leaves no room for personal conscience.

[marsbug]

Why should we allow leviathan more bites than we have to? We form societies for the benefit of every individual, not for the benefit of the system binding the individuals.

We trade freedoms for security, which is how it is. But we are individuals, and if we don't bargain society down to the minimum lost freedoms for maximum security we do ourselves an injustice. Society is the tool of the people making it, and if it can tell us what to do in more than absolutely necessary society has to much power over us.

I was never a fan of compulsory school either (NOT education, I'm immeasurably grateful for that).

[Argos]

In fairness, I never claimed mandatory military service was comprable to slavery either. Again, the big difference is you have a benefit you're able to give up (citizenship) in return for a cost.

Yes. If you refuse to serve down here it is OK. You just get barred from voting [and being voted] or applying for a public job. Also, you cannot be a government contractor, study in public schools, get a passport or university degree. No big deal. :)

[Argos]

Why should we allow leviathan more bites than we have to? We form societies for the benefit of every individual, not for the benefit of the system binding the individuals.

Yes. Sure you´re right. Note that I´m giving a testimony of my experience and reporting the way things are down here. I have no strong feelings about this question. Each and every society decides what is better for their members.

There´s is a movement down here pressing for a ban on obligatory military service. I don´t think someone will even notice any change in community life if that movement succeeds.

[redshifter]

As a veteran myself, I think military service is a great idea. You learn things about yourself that you would never learn in any other environment. However, I don't think we can afford this, esp. in today's economic climate. Also, it's pretty obvious that some just wouldn't or couldn't cut it in the military for whatever reason, and the military is probably better off without them.

What I'd like to see is some sort of mandatory service after HS and before college, or perhaps allow deferrments to a certain age. There would be a variety of choices available; such as military, peace corps, inner city teaching (or wherever there was a need), etc. Yeah, there are all kinds of holes in this; I certainly haven't figured out all the details, nor am I likely to. I do think our youth (and by extension, our country as a whole) would benefit greatly by something like this.

[marsbug]

Because I feared the rigors of the military life: little sleep, hair cut, physical work, taking orders. Those things teenagers abhor.

It turned out those fears were greatly exaggerated. :)

I still don't like those things! Seriously though, it'd anger me that I was an unwilling part of a large group.

What I'd like to see is some sort of mandatory service after HS and before college, or perhaps allow deferrments to a certain age. There would be a variety of choices available; such as military, peace corps, inner city teaching (or wherever there was a need), etc. Yeah, there are all kinds of holes in this; I certainly haven't figured out all the details, nor am I likely to. I do think our youth (and by extension, our country as a whole) would benefit greatly by something like this.


If I got to make my choice between ways of helping the people of my society I'd gladly take one. I think people in general would benefit a great deal.

[eric_marsh]

What I'd like to see is some sort of mandatory service after HS and before college, or perhaps allow deferrments to a certain age. There would be a variety of choices available; such as military, peace corps, inner city teaching (or wherever there was a need), etc. Yeah, there are all kinds of holes in this; I certainly haven't figured out all the details, nor am I likely to. I do think our youth (and by extension, our country as a whole) would benefit greatly by something like this.

I'd be more inclined to go for something like this. It's a good thing to contribute to society. But I think Viet Nam taught us a lot about the consequences of mandatory military service.

[Swift]

Why should we allow leviathan more bites than we have to? We form societies for the benefit of every individual, not for the benefit of the system binding the individuals.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I'm not saying we give up all individuality to society either, but there is a balance, and I think we have obligations to society (and I'm not just talking about paying taxes). Humans are social creatures and such a relationship requires giving, as well as taking.

I'm just not sure those obligations should be mandated by law. I have very mixed feelings about a mandated service - I think there are good and bad things on both sides of the issue.

And if there is a mandated obligation to give service back to society, I think there should be non-military options, for those with either moral beliefs or other reasons not to be in the military.

[novaderrik]

Yes, yes I did. Taxes are like citizen membership dues. If you don't want to pay 'em, you can't be a member.

Though, depending on how you go about it, you can not pay them and remain a member. They'll even give you free lodging and three square meals.

are you talking about jail, or are you talking about those people that never work and get more back as a tax "refund" than they earned in the entire year?

[Gillianren]

I did very well on my PSATs in high school, which means that I got a lot of college application packets. (Because they don't look at your grades until you actually apply!) The first packet I got, I kid you not, was for West Point. I laughed myself silly, and then I called one of my friends, and she laughed herself silly. If I remember correctly, I would not be diagnosed with scoliosis for another couple of months, and my knees didn't realy start going out for several years, but I had long since been diagnosed with the bipolar disorder.

Really--would you want me in the military?

The bipolar makes me unsuited for a lot of other public service as well. I don't handle dealing with the public very well unless I have an escape option. (I can do it at faire, for example, because my boss will let me go hide if I feel that I have to.) I'd love to contribute more to society, but I kind of can't. And there are a lot of people much worse than I out there.

[Fazor]

are you talking about jail, or are you talking about those people that never work and get more back as a tax "refund" than they earned in the entire year?

I don't think the refund was enough to pay for rent or mortgage and food for an entire year. I was refering to jail.

[raptorthang]

After finishing university I spent 2 years as an officer in the Canadian military.

My thoughts on mandatory service...no way in peace time. Modern militaries don't have the time to 'character mold' folks who don't want to be there. There's too much on the training and high tech side to get through even with career soldiers.

However, in war time it's different. In fact, I would like our country to automatically implement registration and a draft when the Parliament votes in favour of war. I would also like a 20% surcharge on all income tax. The reason for these two measures is that ALL citizens should be impacted by the country being at war. It's too easy for a member of parliament to vote 'yes' when there is little consequences to 98% his voting contituents.

There should be no exceptions to the draft for the able bodied other than mothers. Everyone from 18 to 30 or so is eligible in random drawing of citizens. This way 'daddy's princess' and the dude in the bar who wants 'to kill them all' will all be eligible and may find themselves in a combat situation.

It's easy to send other folk's sons off to Iraq or Afghanistan. Not so eager when it might be your own daughter who is looking forward to college in the Fall. Also not so eager when one is going to pay out of one's monthly pay check instead of adding to national debt.

[RalofTyr]

Re: Taxes; Federal Taxes are unconstitutional, as there's a clause in the constitution that says any powers not expressed for the Federal government belongs to the state.

Re: OP Draft1; I don't think they current US military has a large enough budge to feed and house the millions of people. Also, not everyone is physically fit enough for military service. And making everyone fit for military service is like something George Orwell would think of.

Re: OP Draft2; The current US military is not designed to be a draftee military. Their military doctrine is focused on professional soldiers who are motivated. Draftees will actually reduced the effectiveness of the military. I suppose, if Canada invades, then the US will need draftees.

Re: OP Draft3; Not everyone if cut out for military service. If you take six years out of an engineer's life, to serve in the military, he could have gotten a masters degree and been a productive member of society. The military isn't what made America strong, it was engineers that built the inventions that the military currently uses.

[Gillianren]

Re: Taxes; Federal Taxes are unconstitutional, as there's a clause in the constitution that says any powers not expressed for the Federal government belongs to the state.

You never heard of the Sixteenth Amendment?

[flynjack1]

I volunteered for and served 8 years in the Navy as an officer. Sometimes I miss it some times not, but I honestly think that a draft would be bad for the service as a whole. I know I got a lot out of it, but had I been forced in, I cant say that it would have been as productive. I think a national service of some type might be a good thing, but some alternatives to Military service would be required to meet the realities. I honestly believe that we have the most qualified and motivated military in our history, and forcing conscription on it would drop the overall quality. In dire need it would be a last resort only IMHO.

[Van Rijn]

If involuntary servitude is wrong, it's wrong -- under any circumstances.

Yep. The amendment seems quite clear. If the draft is to be constitutional, there should be a specific exemption . . . or there shouldn't be a draft.

[SeanF]

Yep. The amendment seems quite clear. If the draft is to be constitutional, there should be a specific exemption . . . or there shouldn't be a draft.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

"[The Congress shall have power] To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, surpress insurrections, and repel invasions"

The draft - when there's been a legal declaration of war - is simply calling forth the militia to execute the law. A peacetime draft, especially one that involved non-military service, wouldn't fit under this clause.

[Swift]

Re: Taxes; Federal Taxes are unconstitutional, as there's a clause in the constitution that says any powers not expressed for the Federal government belongs to the state.

Here (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106507,00.html) is what the IRS says about various claims about the unconstitutionality of Federal taxes, including citing particular court decisions. I'm no lawyer, I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other, just giving the reference.

Now I'm going to put on my moderator cap.

I suspect that we can't really get into a debate on such issues, without getting into political issues (and such tax issues are a political issue in the US). At this point I'm only suggesting, but I suggest we not get into this issue on BAUT.

[publius]

The constitutionality of the draft, both war and peacetime, have been decided by the Supreme Court in various cases over the history of the republic. The last one was in '68, during the Vietnam era, IIRC.

Bottom line is the Court has ruled that all forms the draft, peacetime included, are constitutional, deriving from the legislative power to declare war, raise armies and call up the militia of the states, with the 13th amendment and state rights arguments notwithstanding.


Note the militia and raising armies (and a navy) are two separate powers.

-Richard

[Van Rijn]

Yes, and I think that's a mistake, especially when something is spelled out as clearly as this. And that's the last I'll say on the subject, since it would be hard to discuss without getting political.

[SeanF]

The constitutionality of the draft, both war and peacetime, have been decided by the Supreme Court in various cases over the history of the republic. The last one was in '68, during the Vietnam era, IIRC.
Hmm. I am unaware of any Supreme Court decisions validating a peacetime draft. Do you have cites?

And on a related note, does mandatory jury duty violate the 13th?

EDIT: That related note is an open question, not directed at Publius specifically. :)

[publius]

Hmm. I am unaware of any Supreme Court decisions validating a peacetime draft. Do you have cites?

And on a related note, does mandatory jury duty violate the 13th?

EDIT: That related note is an open question, not directed at Publius specifically. :)

The last one, near as I can tell, was this, Holmes vs. US, a *denial of
certiorari* for an appellate case by a draftee (he had apparently been granted a conscientious objector status, but further refused his civillian service) Justice Douglass wanted to hear the case, to settle the question for good and the Supreme Court level, but the majority simply let the lower court decision stand:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=391&invol=936

As far as I can tell, that effectively settled the question if a draft in the absence of a formal declaration of war is constiutional.

-Richard

[mugaliens]

No one likes to pay taxes. However, paying taxes can also be seen as equivalent to working for the government [for the 'common good', if you will]. So, you work for the government against your will [unless you do like to pay taxes]

I don't like taking out the garbage, but I'm not forced to do it against my will. I do it out of necessity, both to stop the smell, as well as to prevent the spread of disease.

I pay taxes willingly, not because I like it, but because it's a necessary requirement of citizenry, like getting one's innoculations is a necessary part remaining healthy.

[Trebuchet]

I was drafted in 1971. I wasn't wild about that, but I went. I had already graduated from college (the board kindly granted me one extra quarter to finish) so it basically put off starting my real career for two years. I will confess to having had it pretty easy in the army, operating a typewriter and adding machine.

While I was in, the draft came to an end and we switched to a volunteer army. The quality of new folks coming over plummeted. Where my little unit had had about 50% college graduates (one guy had a PhD), after the draft ended we rarely saw a high school graduate. I was not in a typical unit, but I suspect that was pretty common.

Do I favor mandatory military service? Sure, as long as the draft only applies to women until they've drafted as many of them as they have men over the years....

OK, kidding there.

But I think I do favor mandatory NATIONAL service. Not necessarily just military, just service to the country. Peace Corps, conservation, all kinds of things. Apply it to EVERYONE, including the handicapped. The term of service, pay, post-service benefits could be variable depending on the relative difficulty, risk, and popularity of the service selected.

Just a thought.

[Ara Pacis]

Like a few others here, I would support Mandatory Service, but not Mandatory Military Service. There are too many issues with forcing people into combat situations that would not exist with regards to forcing people into temporary civilian-type jobs. Besides, desk-jockies and combat arms may be better served by this separation. If a conscientious objector doesn't want to serve even in that capacity, there's probably a civilian-style job that he could work that doesn't directly support the military, like building a road in the hinterlands. I think Heinlein made a good case for this type of arrangement in Starship Troopers.

Howeover, some of the additional ideas above seem counter-productive. Refusing to issue an objector a passport effectively makes them a prisoner and renders impossible the admonition: "if you don't like it, leave." Adding a 20% surcharge to income taxes is a ridiculous notion. It would make the economy worse in general, which would reduce the amount of revenue actually gathered from increased rate. It would irritate constitutuents and depending on the country and situation, could spark a revolution in its own right. Moreover, it would not necessarily stop politicians from taking a country to war, since they may simply expect the electorate to accept it as a fait accompli, and it might be supported by some territories of a country, thus exacerbating regional tensions among partisan districts of an electorate.

[korjik]

I was drafted in 1971. I wasn't wild about that, but I went. I had already graduated from college (the board kindly granted me one extra quarter to finish) so it basically put off starting my real career for two years. I will confess to having had it pretty easy in the army, operating a typewriter and adding machine.

While I was in, the draft came to an end and we switched to a volunteer army. The quality of new folks coming over plummeted. Where my little unit had had about 50% college graduates (one guy had a PhD), after the draft ended we rarely saw a high school graduate. I was not in a typical unit, but I suspect that was pretty common.

Do I favor mandatory military service? Sure, as long as the draft only applies to women until they've drafted as many of them as they have men over the years....

OK, kidding there.

But I think I do favor mandatory NATIONAL service. Not necessarily just military, just service to the country. Peace Corps, conservation, all kinds of things. Apply it to EVERYONE, including the handicapped. The term of service, pay, post-service benefits could be variable depending on the relative difficulty, risk, and popularity of the service selected.

Just a thought.

By thetime I enlisted in 1989, HS diploma was mandatory. In my intel unit, my 12 semester hours of college was pretty close to the least education anyone had. We had several BS and at least one PhD also. We were professionals, trained and motivated to do our jobs.

I have to say that I am pretty dead set against mandatory service. Any mandatory service, military or not. Forcing service isnt a good idea

[RalofTyr]

You never heard of the Sixteenth Amendment?

Still not want was in the original constitution. An amendment is actually to the Bill of Rights, so therefore, the government has a right to tax you. :eek:

[Gillianren]

Still not want was in the original constitution. An amendment is actually to the Bill of Rights, so therefore, the government has a right to tax you. :eek:

Wow. You might want to actually study the Constitution some.

[novaderrik]

Still not want was in the original constitution. An amendment is actually to the Bill of Rights, so therefore, the government has a right to tax you. :eek:
actually, the first ten amendments- known as the "Bill of Rights"- were changes made to the constitution done in accordance with the procedure laid out in the constitution. they were added after the fact to clearly state the intentions of the Constitution, and probably to show the people how this whole "amendment" thing was supposed to work.
there were a lot of reasons why those specific things weren't written into the constitution in the first place, but i'm not too sure about what those reasons are. but i think google would come in handy if one must know for themselves..
anyways, once an amendment is ratified, it becomes a part of the constitution. if it turns out to be a bad addition to the constitution, another amendment can be passed to overturn it. Prohibition is an example of this.
so, to sum up, income taxes are constitutional because they are a part of the constitution since the ratification of the 16th amendment.

[geonuc]

With respect to the OP - whether military service should be mandatory, I'm reminded of what Dan Carlin thinks. I like Dan Carlin. Carlin does a couple of podcats - Common Sense (politics) and Hardcore History - and thinks it would be better if we (the US) go back to what the founders had in mind, a militia. The government would only maintain a caretaker army during peacetime, then use the draft to prosecute wars (i.e., "calling up the militia"). This is what we had before WWII and that seemed to work out OK. By going back to that model, the decision to go to war in the first place becomes a matter closer to the interests of the people.

[Argos]

I pay taxes willingly

And I eat broccoli willingly. :)

[geonuc]

I'll add my voice to the chorus - military service can be a very beneficial experience for many. Perhaps the greatest core lesson you learn is that you are part of a whole and that people depend on you to do your job. That goes a long way to instilling a profound sense of responsibility that you carry for the rest of your life.

And I also eat broccoli willingly - usually steamed with a soy sauce drizzle. :)

[Argos]

But I think I do favor mandatory NATIONAL service. Not necessarily just military, just service to the country. Peace Corps, conservation, all kinds of things. Apply it to EVERYONE, including the handicapped. The term of service, pay, post-service benefits could be variable depending on the relative difficulty, risk, and popularity of the service selected.

Sure. Groups down here are proposing this refinement to what is now mandatory military service [for the reasons Swift pointed out - considerations about personal conscience, beliefs, and such], and it will include women. That´s the direction things will ultimately go.

[Romanus]

There are countries where mandatory service makes sense; the U.S.--with its large population, already superb military, and geographic advantages--is not one of them. I think the current volunteer military with a selective service draft effective only during a national emergency is just fine.*


*That said, I think any war serious enough for a draft would turn nuclear, rendering the point moot. The days of world powers engaging each other at sea and on land are long gone.

[Neverfly]

There are countries where mandatory service makes sense; the U.S.--with its large population, already superb military, and geographic advantages--is not one of them. I think the current volunteer military with a selective service draft effective only during a national emergency is just fine.*
This is a very sensible way of looking at it.

*That said, I think any war serious enough for a draft would turn nuclear, rendering the point moot. The days of world powers engaging each other at sea and on land are long gone.

But I disagree with this.
Having nukes and using nukes are two different things.
As a kid, I almost always carried a knife with me. But I never used it in a fight. Actually, for a long time it never even occurred to me to use it in a fight, it was a tool, not a weapon. But someone told me about my knife one day and I realized, "Hey!". Either way, I decided not to use it unless I really needed it.

Although warfare seems to be turning to the air and long distance shooting (Artillery and naval support), land and naval combat are FAR from long gone. Additionally, this does not preclude the conclusion that nukes will therefor be used.

[Romanus]

^
Ordinarily, I would agree. Chemical weapons were barely used in WW II compared to WW I, ostensibly out of (just) concerns of insane escalation. Perhaps some future global conflagration (knock on wood!) would result in a similar unspoken agreement not to use nukes. On the other hand, if it came down to any nuclear nation losing its sovereignty or its capital, I'm inclined to think that the belligerents would fall on their swords rather than surrender. Nukes are simply too easy and too effective, which is the crux of MAD.

To be fair, I do believe that we will always need (and use) land, naval, and air forces; I just think that future international combat operations will probably be between powers in which either only one foe is nuclear, or both are nonnuclear.

Anywho, sorry for the digression, folks. :)

[Cookie]

I believe that doing something by choice has far more value than being forced into doing said thing.

Unless it's a national emergency, I say NO to mandatory military service.
I only want people to serve in the military who want to be there, and are:
Tough, strong people, of sound mind and body, who are very patriotic, and whom hold the words and ideals of 'honor' and 'duty' very highly.

As for the whole 'MUST choose something else less sucky, but still don't really want to do it anyway' (forced public service) stuff, I say NO to that flat out...
Unless someone breaks the law.

Yeah, that's the way Comunity Service works here. Break certian laws, and ya gotta pick up trash or what not.

I have not broken any laws, and therefore should not be forced to spend the best years of my life doing things I don't want to do.

For the record, I have taken part in some 'Youth Groups', that:
1) Tried to spend time with the elderly (they didn't want us there ~ a very disturbing experience I can't get into here).
2) Tried to pick stuff up on the side of the road (my friend almost died when she was hit with a beer bottle that was thrown from a passing car).
3) Tried planting trees (that actually went pretty good until someone else decided to throw botles at us)... -_-

True, YMMV, and people have had better experiences than I have, but the points I'm really trying to make here is that:
1) At the end of the day, it was my choice to try these things out.
2) I could quit at any time (like when it becomes dangerous).

Now, if there's someone out there who violates the rights of others (breaks the law / is a public nuisance) then yeah, give them some 'mandatory charactor building' / 'mandatory community service' things to do, and leave the rest of us normal law abiding citizens alone, please, thanks.

In other words, I think that the govt should mind their own business, and respect our privacy, and let us each live our own (law abiding) lives the way that WE CHOOSE, for OURSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY.

There's a lot more that I have to say on this subject, but I don't want to break the board's rules, so I'll stop now. XD

[Cylinder]

The government would only maintain a caretaker army during peacetime, then use the draft to prosecute wars (i.e., "calling up the militia"). This is what we had before WWII and that seemed to work out OK.

Actually it worked out quite poorly - and paid for with blood. It was a long road from Kasserine to Normandy.

[korjik]

Actually it worked out quite poorly - and paid for with blood. It was a long road from Kasserine to Normandy.

Other long roads

To Argonne in 1918
San Juan Hill 1898
Ft Sumter to Appomattox Courthouse 1860-1865
Washington DC to New Orleans 1812-1815

I have to agree with Cylinder, milita backup to a small standing army is a hard way to fight a war

[geonuc]

Actually it worked out quite poorly - and paid for with blood. It was a long road from Kasserine to Normandy.
I think it worked out quite well - the 'good guys' won in the end. But yes, a lot of blood was spilled. Much of that blood spilling, however, would have been inevitable even if the US had maintained a large standing army in 1941, unless you are advocating maintenance - through the draft - of a standing army sufficient to defeat an enemy with the military capacity of the Third Reich.

How long does it take to mobilize and train a large militia army, given a moderate-sized professional force is already in place and appropriate planning has been done?

[korjik]

I think it worked out quite well - the 'good guys' won in the end. But yes, a lot of blood was spilled. Much of that blood spilling, however, would have been inevitable even if the US had maintained a large standing army in 1941, unless you are advocating maintenance - through the draft - of a standing army sufficient to defeat an enemy with the military capacity of the Third Reich.

How long does it take to mobilize and train a large militia army, given a moderate-sized professional force is already in place and appropriate planning has been done?

Pre-WWII USA didnt have a moderate size standing army, it had a small poorly funded one.

Three to four years is the answer to your question tho. The tricky bits are having trained Sargents and Lieutenants.

[closetgeek]

If involuntary servitude is wrong, it's wrong -- under any circumstances.

In extreme circumstances everyone's opinion is likely to change a little.

[BigDon]

If involuntary servitude is wrong, it's wrong -- under any circumstances.

Then you have to defend the premise that involuntary servitude is wrong. (Owning other humans as property is a seperate issue from this issue.) Because the second half of your statement isn't true.

[Tinaa]

I think a time of service would have been great for me. I would not make a good soldier but I do volunteer at various organizations.

My life has been tough since my stepkids have invaded my home. They have no desire to learn, work, or better themselves in any way. A year of service may give them some kind of direction. I sure can't seem to help them.

I really think the world would be a better place if everyone took a turn at working in a fast food restaurant and/or a dept/discount store.

[Gillianren]

I really think the world would be a better place if everyone took a turn at working in a fast food restaurant and/or a dept/discount store.

Now, that, I can get behind.

Cookie, not everyone who joins the military does for your listed preferred reasons, which are hard to test for in any case. Graham joined because he didn't know what else to do after high school. A lot of people join to get out of poverty. Your ideal image of a recruit is nice, but it isn't realistic.

[Neverfly]

Cookie, not everyone who joins the military does for your listed preferred reasons, which are hard to test for in any case. Graham joined because he didn't know what else to do after high school. A lot of people join to get out of poverty. Your ideal image of a recruit is nice, but it isn't realistic.

Not everyone does is not the same as no one does, Gillianren.

I HAVE Served in the Military and I can tell you from First Hand Experience, not second hand, that your statement is as unrealistic as you claimed hers was.

I know of many people that joined for many reasons. But the majority of people I served with were proud (As I am) of the service and glad to be there.

If you think for one moment that Cookies rather normal description was unrealistic, I suggest you go down to your local recruiters office and sign up.
Once you're in and serving, try complaining to your fellow soldiers and acting unpatriotic and see what happens to you.

[Gillianren]

If you think for one moment that Cookies rather normal description was unrealistic, I suggest you go down to your local recruiters office and sign up.
Once you're in and serving, try complaining to your fellow soldiers and acting unpatriotic and see what happens to you.

You know perfectly well they wouldn't take me.

I'm not saying that no soldiers join because of a sense of duty or whatever. I'm just saying that a substantial percentage don't join out of love of country first, and I think the figures will back me up on that. Besides, Graham did complain to his fellow soldiers. He made it sound as though complaining was one of the basic aspects of military service. I wouldn't call that unpatriotic, and I'm not saying that those who join for other reasons aren't patriotic. I'm saying that relying on patriotism as the sole motivating force for joining the military would shrink the military substantially except just after a national crisis. Patritotic enlistment skyrocketed after both Pearl Harbor and 9/11, but if you listen to a lot of World War II veterans--such as probably a third of the people Tom Brokaw interviewed for The Greatest Generation--more than a few joined just before they could be drafted, because if you did that, you had greater choice in what you would become once you did join.

The military offers a financial bonus for joining. There is much hype about the schooling available if you join. If everyone joined out of a sense of patriotism and duty, would they need those commercials?

[Neverfly]

You know perfectly well they wouldn't take me.

I'm not saying that no soldiers join because of a sense of duty or whatever. I'm just saying that a substantial percentage don't join out of love of country first, and I think the figures will back me up on that.
What figures are available?
I saay we take a look.
Besides, Graham did complain to his fellow soldiers. He made it sound as though complaining was one of the basic aspects of military service.
This must really depend on the unit.
I wouldn't call that unpatriotic, and I'm not saying that those who join for other reasons aren't patriotic. I'm saying that relying on patriotism as the sole motivating force for joining the military would shrink the military substantially except just after a national crisis.
I think you read more out of that post than what was said. I read nothing in it that described patriotism as the Sole Source.

Myself, I had many good reasons to join. But underneath it all, when all my good reasons turned out to be excuses after-all- I was a Soldier.
Patritotic enlistment skyrocketed after both Pearl Harbor and 9/11, but if you listen to a lot of World War II veterans--such as probably a third of the people Tom Brokaw interviewed for The Greatest Generation--more than a few joined just before they could be drafted, because if you did that, you had greater choice in what you would become once you did join.
This has no bearing whatsoever on the people that had already enlisted nor their motives.

The military offers a financial bonus for joining. There is much hype about the schooling available if you join. If everyone joined out of a sense of patriotism and duty, would they need those commercials?
Obviously, everyone doesn't. That's why it's volunteer.

But understand something else.
It's a RARE thing that the people close in your life will be happy with you joining.
Whether you're a high school grad, an married cop looking for something new, a college kid or a labor force worker, You are surrounded by many people that will frown upon you joining and try talking you out of it.
Parents, friends, and other family, teachers, administrators and even bosses will try to talk you out of it.

Why?
It's ok for someone ELSE'S kid to join- but Not Mine.

Then you also have those folks that have friends and family that are Anti-War and protesting such things. Joining for them can get them ostracized.
The pressure on the military isn't from people not wanting to join. The pressure is on those that do want to join and are being hounded into not doing so.

[korjik]

You know perfectly well they wouldn't take me.

I'm not saying that no soldiers join because of a sense of duty or whatever. I'm just saying that a substantial percentage don't join out of love of country first, and I think the figures will back me up on that. Besides, Graham did complain to his fellow soldiers. He made it sound as though complaining was one of the basic aspects of military service. I wouldn't call that unpatriotic, and I'm not saying that those who join for other reasons aren't patriotic. I'm saying that relying on patriotism as the sole motivating force for joining the military would shrink the military substantially except just after a national crisis. Patritotic enlistment skyrocketed after both Pearl Harbor and 9/11, but if you listen to a lot of World War II veterans--such as probably a third of the people Tom Brokaw interviewed for The Greatest Generation--more than a few joined just before they could be drafted, because if you did that, you had greater choice in what you would become once you did join.

The military offers a financial bonus for joining. There is much hype about the schooling available if you join. If everyone joined out of a sense of patriotism and duty, would they need those commercials?

Reasons to join are not exclusive. I joined to get money for college. I joined because to serve your country is an honorable profession. I was as much a mercenary as I was a patriot.

I think that this is where Neverfly sees things different. Few people who would not be proud to enlist end up enlisting. There is a natural selection process that leaves you with a military that has a strong sense of duty even if that wasnt the primary reason they enlisted.

Sorry Neverfly, if I am putting words in your mouth.

Lastly, it is every soldiers god given right to b.... ah... complain

:)

[korjik]

What figures are available?
I saay we take a look.

This must really depend on the unit.

I think you read more out of that post than what was said. I read nothing in it that described patriotism as the Sole Source.

Myself, I had many good reasons to join. But underneath it all, when all my good reasons turned out to be excuses after-all- I was a Soldier.

This has no bearing whatsoever on the people that had already enlisted nor their motives.


Obviously, everyone doesn't. That's why it's volunteer.

But understand something else.
It's a RARE thing that the people close in your life will be happy with you joining.
Whether you're a high school grad, an married cop looking for something new, a college kid or a labor force worker, You are surrounded by many people that will frown upon you joining and try talking you out of it.
Parents, friends, and other family, teachers, administrators and even bosses will try to talk you out of it.

Why?
It's ok for someone ELSE'S kid to join- but Not Mine.

Then you also have those folks that have friends and family that are Anti-War and protesting such things. Joining for them can get them ostracized.
The pressure on the military isn't from people not wanting to join. The pressure is on those that do want to join and are being hounded into not doing so.

Two cousins are marine Iraqi Freedom vets, one went over there three times total. Another cousin is an army Desert Storm vet. A fourth was navy and married to navy. My sister was navy, I am a Desert Storm vet, My father was navy, two uncles were marines in 'Nam, one who was a SEAL and married a marine, one who is also a Desert Storm vet, One grandfather was an engineer in Sicily, Italy, France, and Germany. Other grandfather was training to be a glider pilot when Japan surrendered. Two of my grand-uncles were in WWII, one in New Guinea. Another grand-uncle was in Korea. One great-grandfather was AEF in WWI.

Oddly enough, no one tries to talk us out of our choice to enlist. :)

[Gillianren]

I think that this is where Neverfly sees things different. Few people who would not be proud to enlist end up enlisting. There is a natural selection process that leaves you with a military that has a strong sense of duty even if that wasnt the primary reason they enlisted.

Again, my most direct experience with a (now former) soldier contradicts that. (Leaving aside my dad, but I never got to talk to my dad about his military service.) I'm not saying Graham's experience is universal (I will say that no one ever tried to talk him out of enlisting, though I'll admit I didn't want him to reenlist), but there are a lot of reasons to enlist that don't have anything to do with duty. A lot of recruiting has traditionally been from small towns where there's not much else to do after high school. It's possible these people eventually develop a sense of duty, but I have just as much second-hand information that it was just a job for people as I do that they developed a sense of duty. And keep in mind that isn't all from Graham; I do read a lot of books by and about soldiers, and not all of them talked about the duty and honour and patriotism of serving!

[Neverfly]

Sorry Neverfly, if I am putting words in your mouth.


You didn't at all.
Two cousins are marine Iraqi Freedom vets, one went over there three times total. Another cousin is an army Desert Storm vet. A fourth was navy and married to navy. My sister was navy, I am a Desert Storm vet, My father was navy, two uncles were marines in 'Nam, one who was a SEAL and married a marine, one who is also a Desert Storm vet, One grandfather was an engineer in Sicily, Italy, France, and Germany. Other grandfather was training to be a glider pilot when Japan surrendered. Two of my grand-uncles were in WWII, one in New Guinea. Another grand-uncle was in Korea. One great-grandfather was AEF in WWI.

Oddly enough, no one tries to talk us out of our choice to enlist. :)
From the looks of it, a member of your family that did NOT enlist or go officer would get ostracized...:think:

[Neverfly]

Again, my most direct experience with a (now former) soldier contradicts that.
So does mine. Which exceeds yours.
You say he complained a lot and chose not to reenlist. So... why should I accept Grahams statements as particular to a serviceman?

It sounds more to me like Graham himself was unhappy with serving.

Funny- where do those career military folks come from?:doh:
I guess they are bribed by men in black.

(I will say that no one ever tried to talk him out of enlisting, though I'll admit I didn't want him to reenlist),
Yeah, no pressure there...:whistle:
but there are a lot of reasons to enlist that don't have anything to do with duty. A lot of recruiting has traditionally been from small towns where there's not much else to do after high school. It's possible these people eventually develop a sense of duty, but I have just as much second-hand information that it was just a job for people as I do that they developed a sense of duty. And keep in mind that isn't all from Graham; I do read a lot of books by and about soldiers, and not all of them talked about the duty and honour and patriotism of serving!
So?
I read lots of books too. But they are BOOKS.
Many different soldiers will take something different with them from their service.

But Gillianren, you're really seeming to downplay the reality of it as much as you are trying to enforce reality.
You're trying to claim personal experience (anecdote) but I can't say I'm all that swayed when you're describing one complaining soldier and a bunch of Books.

I served in several Units.

[redshifter]

Lastly, it is every soldiers god given right to b.... ah... complain

:)

Our First Sergeant used to say if the soldiers in your unit are complaining, everything's OK. It's when they aren't complaining that it's time to worry.

[Neverfly]

Our First Sergeant used to say if the soldiers in your unit are complaining, everything's OK. It's when they aren't complaining that it's time to worry.

After one particular field exercise that left quite a few of us muttering, our first sarge bought us three kegs and we had a keg party on the dock.
Ever watch your BC do a kegstand?


Hey...:shifty:

We were REALLY stressed out!

[SeanF]

The last one, near as I can tell, was this, Holmes vs. US, a *denial of
certiorari* for an appellate case by a draftee (he had apparently been granted a conscientious objector status, but further refused his civillian service) Justice Douglass wanted to hear the case, to settle the question for good and the Supreme Court level, but the majority simply let the lower court decision stand:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=391&invol=936

As far as I can tell, that effectively settled the question if a draft in the absence of a formal declaration of war is constiutional.

-Richard
Oh, Richard. How can you actually write the sentence "Justice Douglass wanted to...settle the question for good, but..." and then conclude that that settled the question? :)

The Supreme Court refusing to grant certiorari is not the same thing as them ruling that the lower court made the correct decision. For one thing, that appellate court ruling is only binding in its district. If the SC had actually agreed with them, it'd be binding nationwide.

I'll stand by my statement: SCOTUS has never ruled that a peacetime draft is constitutional.

[BigDon]

Our First Sergeant used to say if the soldiers in your unit are complaining, everything's OK. It's when they aren't complaining that it's time to worry.

Your First Sargent sounds like a very smart man.

It means they are plotting. Bad things. So I heard.

[publius]

Oh, Richard. How can you actually write the sentence "Justice Douglass wanted to...settle the question for good, but..." and then conclude that that settled the question? :)

The Supreme Court refusing to grant certiorari is not the same thing as them ruling that the lower court made the correct decision. For one thing, that appellate court ruling is only binding in its district. If the SC had actually agreed with them, it'd be binding nationwide.

I'll stand by my statement: SCOTUS has never ruled that a peacetime draft is constitutional.

How do I conclude that? By the effect of it. The Appeals Court ruled a peace-time was constitutional. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, letting it stand. The only dissent was Justice Douglass, who wanted the Supreme Court to actually rule, positively, (and once can conclude he would've held a peacetime was unconsitutional from reading his long dissent). Thus, every other district and appeals court concludes the majority of Supreme Court most likely agreed with it.

You're right, another district could conceiveably rule something different, which would then require the Supreme Court to settle it (unless they wanted contradictory rulings applying in different distrticts), but they haven't. All disticts agree with it. That denial of certiorari effectively settled it across the land. And that's the way it works in a lot of cases, where the Supreme Court never positvely rules, but lets decisive lower rulings stand.

Me, I'm a strict constructionist pretty much down to the wire. That is, Congress can only do what it is explicitly authorized to do by the Constitution, not that it can do anything save what is explicitly proscribed (and thus, were it up to me, about 95% of the US Code would be tossed, :lol: ). That said, however, the draft, peacetime or otherwise, falls in that 5%. The war powers of Congress are pretty clear and sweeping to me. The power to "raise armies" pretty much clinches it for me.

Now, a more recent case about the breadth of this power had to do with some case where some colleges were trying to throw out the ROTC and prevent military recruiting on campus. You may remember that some years ago. Congress passed something to deny federal funds to any college that refused, and that went to the Supreme Court.

The Court went even further than Congress, saying that not only could Congress deny funds on those grounds, but didn't even need to provide funds to force it in the first place. That is, the power to raise armies was alone enough to give Congress the power to force colleges (or similiar public places -- that is some town couldn't refuse to allow the military to set up recruiting centers) to allow military recruiting.

Thus, the Court has given pretty darned broad latitude to the power to raise armies.

-Richard

[Gillianren]

So does mine. Which exceeds yours.
You say he complained a lot and chose not to reenlist. So... why should I accept Grahams statements as particular to a serviceman?

And why should I take yours above his? I'm closer to him.

It sounds more to me like Graham himself was unhappy with serving.

Yup. He was. But surely he wasn't the only person in the whole military who felt that way.

Funny- where do those career military folks come from?:doh:
I guess they are bribed by men in black.

Sigh. I'm sure you've never done anything you don't want to do because it's a job that's better than anything else you can get. Come to that, my dad was career Air Force, though I'll never know why. That's literal--I will never have that information and be able to contribute it to a conversation--not an attempt to insult military service.

Yeah, no pressure there...:whistle:

So? Isn't it my right to have an opinion about what war zones he's going to be sent into? If he'd chosen to go for the money anyway, it's not as though I would have left him over it.

So?
I read lots of books too. But they are BOOKS.
Many different soldiers will take something different with them from their service.

Yes. Which is my whole point. However, it's not as though those books are completely useless as information, either.

But Gillianren, you're really seeming to downplay the reality of it as much as you are trying to enforce reality.
You're trying to claim personal experience (anecdote) but I can't say I'm all that swayed when you're describing one complaining soldier and a bunch of Books.

It's exactly as valid as my taking information from you, you know. Less, in fact, since I'm taking information from a broader range of experiences. That wider range of experience I've read suggests that a sense of duty is a less-common reason for enlisting than has been suggested here.

I served in several Units.

So has Graham.

Yes, I'm aware Neverfly's been banned. I'm in part pointing out that, even in an all-volunteer force (and my cousin was pretty much given the choice of jail or the Marines once, so how volunteer is that?), there are people who aren't necessarily there because they really want to be in the military, so I think enforced service would be a horrible idea.

[RalofTyr]

I'm in part pointing out that, even in an all-volunteer force (and my cousin was pretty much given the choice of jail or the Marines once, so how volunteer is that?), there are people who aren't necessarily there because they really want to be in the military, so I think enforced service would be a horrible idea.

When did that happen?

[BigDon]

When did that happen?

Yeah, they stopped accepting recruits under those conditions in the middle of my enlistment, about 1980.

Oh that is most definately voluntary Miss Gillian. He wasn't caught by a press gang. And almost everybody I've heard of getting that "option" was at least a residential burglar or a car thief and where just too young for the judge to send them to hell. (Prison)


(Looks in sympathy bag) Nope, none here ma'am.

[Gillianren]

I remember it, so it was definitely after 1980--after 1983, in fact, because it was after my dad died. However, I don't remember specifically when it was. I remember my mother driving him down to Camp Pendleton, in fact, though we weren't brought along for the trip. Now, I don't have any sympathy for my cousin, either--he'd thrown his girlfriend off a balcony. And I admit that he's an extreme case of "not in it for a sense of duty," and I never much liked him anyway. (He's from That Side of my family.) I wasn't aware that they didn't still do that, because it was such an established part of my childhood. Certainly, though, I wouldn't ask him for details, even if I'd seen him since his mother's last wedding.

[geonuc]

It's exactly as valid as my taking information from you, you know. Less, in fact, since I'm taking information from a broader range of experiences.
I don't think so, Gillian. You have the ability here to interact with Neverfly in a way impossible with a book*. You are not just taking information from him - you are discussing it. Not to mention all the other BAUTzens who have military experience and may contribute to this thread. Mind you, I don't discount the value of well-researched books.

*Well, you had the ability before Nev got suspended.

[SeanF]

Thus, every other district and appeals court concludes the majority of Supreme Court most likely agreed with it.
And what do you base that on? Your own link to that case has a link for both Circuit Court and Supreme Court cases citing US v. Holmes.

Of the former, there are none. Not a single Circuit Court has ever cited US. vs. Holmes (at least, according to FindLaw).

There are seven listed SCOTUS cases that cite US v. Holmes. Six of them are similar cases in which cert was denied with Douglas dissenting, and Douglas cited Holmes as a previous case in which he had wanted to grant cert. The seventh is a similar case (although it was a First Amendment challenge rather than 13th) in which Douglas granted "continuation of bail pending disposition of [the] petition for certiorari," but I can't find any record of whether or not cert was ever granted.

As far as Supreme Court decisions go, the question of whether a peacetime draft is constitutional is still wide open.

[dgavin]

Being former soldier, I can say that Mandatory Service would be wrong.

The draft during the Korea and Veitnam wars tended to put people in functions that they had no talents for what so ever. Which is the main reason compared to all other wars, the military had the poorest accounting during these two campaigns.

Over all the draft was one of the biggest mistakes this country made, and it brought this country close to the brink of a internal revolution, which is why it was undone.

This does mean that with a volunteer army, you are not going to be able to fight extendened campaigns well without the bulk citenzry being behind the war (basically our current trouble in Iraq/Afgan). Personally I think that is a very good control mechanism on the government. Don't pick a fight unless the citezenry is behind it.

For example, if the Gov. had not started the Iraq conflict and only worried about Afganistan, the results would of been vastly different in thier outcome. There would of been a lot more citezenry behind that particulay war alone. Going into Iraq like what happened was a dumb move, and it severly limited our ability to deal with the real terrorists hiding out in afganistan.

[Swift]

Please do not discuss the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This whole discussion is walking the edge of what is allowed here and those issues are just entirely too political.

[sarongsong]

Why isn't the OP participating in this thread?

[Gillianren]

I don't think so, Gillian. You have the ability here to interact with Neverfly in a way impossible with a book*. You are not just taking information from him - you are discussing it. Not to mention all the other BAUTzens who have military experience and may contribute to this thread. Mind you, I don't discount the value of well-researched books.

*Well, you had the ability before Nev got suspended.

I'm not saying taking the books instead of taking an actual military person's advice is better than taking information from Neverfly. I'm saying taking the books in addition to Graham and the other military people I know/have known (and I actually know quite a few; a lot of military people seem to flock to ren faire) gives me a wider perspective than if I listened to just him, which seemed to be his perspective. Anyway, I don't feel like it's a discussion. I feel as though I'm being told that my information from other sources is all wrong, and that only he knows what all military people--except Graham--are like.

Oh, and I forgot earlier--Graham's brother also got the choice of military service or prison. He went joyriding in a boat; I believe they made him join the Navy. Graham thinks he was two, so that would have been about 1983.

[geonuc]

I'm not saying taking the books instead of taking an actual military person's advice is better than taking information from Neverfly.
I believe you characterized it as "exactly as valid", which prompted my comment. Both sources of information are valid, but they are not equal, given the important interactive aspect of forum discussions. Perhaps I don't know what you meant by exactly as valid.

In any case, I don't believe Neverfly was giving you advice, as you have no decision facing you at this time. His commentary was opinion, as was yours (and mine).

[EricM407]

Still not want was in the original constitution.

Article 1, Section 8 begins, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."

[Gillianren]

I believe you characterized it as "exactly as valid", which prompted my comment. Both sources of information are valid, but they are not equal, given the important interactive aspect of forum discussions. Perhaps I don't know what you meant by exactly as valid.

In any case, I don't believe Neverfly was giving you advice, as you have no decision facing you at this time. His commentary was opinion, as was yours (and mine).

What I meant by "exactly as valid" is that I have just as much reason to take it seriously. That it's written versus, well, written here does not, to me, make much of a difference. When I read a lengthy description in a book as to why someone joined the military and their experiences therein, I don't particularly feel the need to interrogate the writer to make sure he really means what he--or, in some cases in The Greatest Generation, she--says. "I joined because they made me" kind of sums it all up, so far as I'm concerned. "I joined because I considered it my duty" came up a few times, but it was far from the only explanation. Why should I consider Neverfly's experience as more valid than someone else's just because I can talk to him about it? If I have encountered other explanations, and if they have been frequent, why should I consider Neverfly's personal experience more valid? What's more, wouldn't interviews in books be more valid than what he said his fellow soldiers said?

And do remember that he did, technically, advise me to join the military myself. I doubt he was serious--he must know that they wouldn't take me (and if they would, the more shame to them!)--but I was advised to go out and try complaining to my fellow soldiers on the implication that they would cause me harm of some sort. Now, hasn't just about every military person here said that complaining is a fine old military tradition?

[dgavin]

Please do not discuss the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This whole discussion is walking the edge of what is allowed here and those issues are just entirely too political.

My Appoligies, I was meaning it was unwise from a strictly military point of view.

Was trying to show a good example of how having a Volunteer force, puts certain practical limits on the Gov's usage of the military.

[flynjack1]

When I enlisted in the Navy it was not for purely nationalistic reasons. I was offerered flight school provided I met the physical and mental standards. The pride and honor of serving comes with the blood, sweat, and toil of service. In 1980 when I swore in I received a lot of negative feedback from my buddies, due to the unsuccesful Hostage rescue mission in Iran, and post Vietnam era feelings in the country. I just figured it wouldnt get better if folks didnt put their own interest aside to make it better.

It was my experience that there are parts of the country that view military service as more honorable than other parts of the nation. Those who have served may have experienced this too, but the ultimate decision for military service is very personal. In my family it is considered honorable, but it is not considered un-honorable not to serve. My own step son recently left ROTC in order to focus on his other career choices.

on the subject of complaining:

Originally Posted by redshifter
Our First Sergeant used to say if the soldiers in your unit are complaining, everything's OK. It's when they aren't complaining that it's time to worry.


My dad a WWII Army officer quoted it like this " A bi---ing soldier is a happy soldier"
When the troops stop b---ing then trouble is brewing. this was my experience in the Navy as well.

[publius]

Granted, it's never been tested against a peacetime draft, since we've never had one, but I don't see why - given the text of the Amendment - that would make a difference. :)


Ah, that is the source of your objection, the belief that we've never had a peactime draft. We *HAVE* had a peacetime draft. The first one started in 1940, in preparation for WWII, with the Selective Training and Service Act. Before the Declaration of War against Japan in Dec. of 1941, this was our first peacetime draft.

That expired in 1947. In 1948, they restarted it with the passage of the Selective Service Act. That was the start of the second peactime draft. That draft, modified and amended over the years stayed in effect until it was ended in 1973, after which we moved to the "all volunteer" army.

In some years, they inducted very few men under the draft, but it remained in effect for 25 years. There was never a declared war during that time, so it was formally a "peacetime draft". And the off years between Korea and Vietnam were unquestionably peactime.

The courts let that stand the whole time, which is why it is as settled law as it can be.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag77_user.html#fnb1446



Before the United States entered the first World War, the Court had anticipated the objection that compulsory military service would violate the Thirteenth Amendment and had answered it in the following words: “It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the State, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.”1444 Accordingly, in the Selective Draft Law Cases,1445 it dismissed the objection under that amendment as a contention that was “refuted by its mere statement.”1446

Although the Supreme Court has so far formally declined to pass on the question of the “peacetime” draft,1447 its opinions leave no doubt of the constitutional validity of the act. In United States v. O’Brien,1448 upholding a statute prohibiting the destruction of selective service registrants’ certificate of registration, the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Warren, thought “[t]he power of Congress to classify and conscript manpower for military service is ‘beyond question.”’1449 In noting Congress’ “broad constitutional power” to raise and regulate armies and navies,1450 the Court has specifically observed that the conscription act was passed “pursuant to” the grant of authority to Congress in clauses 12–14.1451



Hmmphh, the Court said that if the 13th Amendement ruled out the draft, then it should rule our mandatory jury duty as well......which wouldn't fly, so it obviously didn't mean that. :lol:

So, I'll grant you "hasn't formally ruled" on a "peacetime draft" on a technicality, but as the above states, the Court's other opinions and actions leave no doubt as to the constitutionality of the SSA, a peacetime draft, over it's lifetime because it has let stand/rejected ever argument against the draft brought before it. The Congress' power to conscript manpower for military service is "beyond question".


-Richard

[Gillianren]

Huh. I was right. I looked it up, and Elvis was drafted in 1957.

[raptorthang]

Huh. I was right. I looked it up, and Elvis was drafted in 1957.

"G.I." didn't know that. Now I do.

[timb]

Hmmphh, the Court said that if the 13th Amendement ruled out the draft, then it should rule our mandatory jury duty as well......which wouldn't fly, so it obviously didn't mean that. :lol:

Just another case of SCOTUS ignoring the plain meaning of the constitution for political convenience? Being forced to submit to control by others over every aspect of your life and labor, even unto death, towards their ends is servitude if anything is, and the draft is obviously involuntary.

[BigDon]

What's a SCOTUS? Sounds like something you come down with if you don't wash properly.

[SeanF]

Ah, that is the source of your objection, the belief that we've never had a peactime draft.
Actually, no, I misspoke there. I was thinking of a non-military service draft when I wrote that, so shouldn't have said "peacetime draft."

The courts let that stand the whole time, which is why it is as settled law as it can be.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag77_user.html#fnb1446
I disagree. You're suggesting that the Court actually ruling the peacetime draft constitutional would not settle it to a greater degree than it is now? If so, then it is not yet "as settled as law can be."

And I disagree with that site's assertion that the Court's rulings on the wartime draft of 1917 constitute approval of a peacetime draft. They should know better than to extend a SCOTUS decision that far out of the original case's parameters.

[SharkByte]

I'm going to take the easy way out and just cut and past my reply to a "should we bring back the draft" thread on a different forum. The same thing goes for mandatory military service.

A draft is a good way to get cannon fodder but we don't generally throw walls of troops up in front of machine guns in hopes that some get through anymore. Todays military is made up of professional soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who use some of the highest technology on the planet to get the job done. A draft would get us to many of the dregs of society who either can't or won't have the drive or determination to learn the skills we need. There are already enough people in the military who don't belong here. I have worked with one airman so far who was in the military because a judge gave him the option of the military or jail. He lasted through basic training and tech school made it to Vandenberg for his first duty assignment got a DUI which resulted in an artical 15 and a dishonorable discharge.

The military now a days is in do more with less mode. 10 years ago the Air Force was 600,000 strong. Today we are 240,000 airmen doing the same jobs those 600k were doing. We don't have time to kick little johny's butt back onto the strait and narrow. Send us your troublemakers and we'll kick them out or throw them in jail faster then the civilian world will. We just don't have time to baby sit anymore.

[Swift]

What's a SCOTUS? Sounds like something you come down with if you don't wash properly.
Supreme Court of the United States

[dgavin]

The military now a days is in do more with less mode. 10 years ago the Air Force was 600,000 strong. Today we are 240,000 airmen doing the same jobs those 600k were doing. We don't have time to kick little johny's butt back onto the strait and narrow. Send us your troublemakers and we'll kick them out or throw them in jail faster then the civilian world will. We just don't have time to baby sit anymore.

Actually, i think if you look at what is done today, those 240K Airman are doing what could of been done with 1,200K Airman almost 15 years ago.

When i was in the Army in 83, there was 1.5 million active duty soldiers, 1.7 million reservists, and 500,000 national guard.

Now adays they are lucky to scrape together 400,000 soldies between all three groups.

[BigDon]

Thanks Swift.

(No, no smart alecky comment. I like it here. :))

[sarongsong]

Huh. I was right...When? :confused:

[Gillianren]

When? :confused:

It was a rhetorical flourish. When the statement that the US had never had a peacetime draft was made, I thought, "Wait, wasn't Elvis drafted in peacetime?" I didn't say anything here until I'd checked it out, but I was right when I initially had the thought.

[publius]

Actually, no, I misspoke there. I was thinking of a non-military service draft when I wrote that, so shouldn't have said "peacetime draft."

Okay, let's make sure we're both talking about the same thing. When I say a peacetime draft is settled law, I'm talking about military conscription in peacetime. I'm not talking about some non-military required service. If Congress created some Kumbaya Corps and started drafting people into that, we'd had a question, as such stuff doesn't have anything to do with raising armies and the national defense.



I disagree. You're suggesting that the Court actually ruling the peacetime draft constitutional would not settle it to a greater degree than it is now? If so, then it is not yet "as settled as law can be."

And I disagree with that site's assertion that the Court's rulings on the wartime draft of 1917 constitute approval of a peacetime draft. They should know better than to extend a SCOTUS decision that far out of the original case's parameters.

We had a peacetime draft for 25 years, with numerous challenges to it -- that article mentions a 1917 case -- there've been others since. All failed. The draft stood. If a majority of the Supreme Court at some time thought that is was unconstitutional, you'd think they would've taken a case and ruled it so over all that time, wouldn't you? Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the constitutionality of a peacetime military draft is settled law.

-Richard

[Ara Pacis]

re: SCOTUS. It's settles only until it becomes unsettled.

[geonuc]

We had a peacetime draft for 25 years, with numerous challenges to it -- that article mentions a 1917 case -- there've been others since. All failed. The draft stood. If a majority of the Supreme Court at some time thought that is was unconstitutional, you'd think they would've taken a case and ruled it so over all that time, wouldn't you? Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the constitutionality of a peacetime military draft is settled law.

-Richard
Richard, I think you have to acknowledge that an on-point Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of a draft in the absence of a declaration of war would settle the law further than it is now.

But I don't think there needs to be one. Acts of Congress are deemed lawful (i.e., constitutional) unless a federal court (doesn't have to be the Supreme Court) says otherwise.

[SeanF]

Okay, let's make sure we're both talking about the same thing. When I say a peacetime draft is settled law, I'm talking about military conscription in peacetime. I'm not talking about some non-military required service. If Congress created some Kumbaya Corps and started drafting people into that, we'd had a question, as such stuff doesn't have anything to do with raising armies and the national defense.
Yes.

We had a peacetime draft for 25 years, with numerous challenges to it -- that article mentions a 1917 case -- there've been others since. All failed.
We were at war in 1917. That court case was not about a peacetime draft. That's why I said that website was in error in concluding from what the court said in that case that a peacetime draft was constitutional.

The draft stood. If a majority of the Supreme Court at some time thought that is was unconstitutional, you'd think they would've taken a case and ruled it so over all that time, wouldn't you?
Not necessarily, no. The justices on the Supreme Court are people, just like everybody else, and sometimes they don't want to rock the boat.

You might just as well say that if a majority thought it was constitutional, they would've taken a case so they could come right out and say so.

As Justice Frankfurter wrote in "Brown v. Allen" (http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2004/10/denial-of-cert.html):

Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.
Emphasis mine.

Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the constitutionality of a peacetime military draft is settled law.
To the extent that anything is presumed to be constitutional until the court says it's not, sure. But, nonetheless, the Supreme Court has given "no implication whatever" regarding its opinion on the constitutionality of a peacetime draft.

This:
The constitutionality of the draft, both war and peacetime, have been decided by the Supreme Court in various cases over the history of the republic. The last one was in '68, during the Vietnam era, IIRC.

Bottom line is the Court has ruled that all forms the draft, peacetime included, are constitutional, deriving from the legislative power to declare war, raise armies and call up the militia of the states, with the 13th amendment and state rights arguments notwithstanding.
is wrong.

[BigDon]

Well then, you do your time in service or you do your time in a cell.

Just be a man and don't "run away to Canada".

[Ara Pacis]

Well then, you do your time in service or you do your time in a cell.

Just be a man and don't "run away to Canada".

I still perfer Heinlein's idea better. Make service mandatory for full ctizenship, and have a second class who are merely residents. This would seem to solve both issues of the freedom and honor/duty.

[Gillianren]

I don't like the thought of a society with second-class citizens. I thought we were trying to get away from that.

[mike alexander]

I still perfer Heinlein's idea better. Make service mandatory for full ctizenship, and have a second class who are merely residents. This would seem to solve both issues of the freedom and honor/duty.

Hooray! It took five pages to get to Starship Troopers! Must be a modern record.

Anyhow, can we now spend the next five pages debating what pride and honor are?

While from a proud tower in the town/ Death looks gigantically down

[sarongsong]

They can play a bugle call like you never heared before
So natural that you wanna go to warWe. Can't. Stop. :(

[mike alexander]

We. Can't. Stop. :(

Yeah, I know. Bradbury summed it up fairly well:

It was a pleasure to burn.

[korjik]

The idea of restricted franchise didnt originate with Robert Heinelin.

It also does fit in this discussion, since it is about whether service should be mandatory.

[Cylinder]

Cookie, not everyone who joins the military does for your listed preferred reasons, which are hard to test for in any case. Graham joined because he didn't know what else to do after high school. A lot of people join to get out of poverty. Your ideal image of a recruit is nice, but it isn't realistic.

Certainly true, but I can't imagine a recruit making it through basic and their individual tech school without having those qualities enumerated by [b]Cookie[/i] tested.

[Ara Pacis]

Hooray! It took five pages to get to Starship Troopers! Must be a modern record.Actually, I mentioned it on page 3, here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/84441-mandatory-military-service-3.html#post1429069).

I don't like the thought of a society with second-class citizens. I thought we were trying to get away from thatI don't, as long as it's a matter of choice. There are lots of people who don't vote and don't want to vote and would feel upset if forced to vote. Rights should be balanced by Responsibilities. Some don't want those responsibilities and some of them don't especially care for "rights" (more at privileges) above and beyond being left alone to do their own thing. If we were to establish basic human rights for all, then certain privileges could be reserved for those willing to accept additional responsibility. We already do this, to some extent, with regards to driving automobiles.

[mike alexander]

You're right, my apologies. My Starship Sense must not be tingling like it used to.

Would there be another caste for people allowed to drive to the polling station? Responsibly, of course.

[Gillianren]

Certainly true, but I can't imagine a recruit making it through basic and their individual tech school without having those qualities enumerated by Cookie tested.

As I said, Graham still isn't exactly gripped by a desperate sense of patriotism and duty. Heck, he only votes because I make him. He only considered reenlisting for the money. (Which is one of the reasons I didn't want him to. If he had been gripped with a sense of patriotism and duty, so much the better for him. But just for the money? No.) I'm not calling his experience universal, of course, but my whole argument has been that there is no universal in these circumstances.

As to national service before voting rights, I see a lot of potential for abuse in it. If it were required to be military service--or even any kind that required physical labour--that would disenfranchise a lot of people.

[korjik]

As I said, Graham still isn't exactly gripped by a desperate sense of patriotism and duty. Heck, he only votes because I make him. He only considered reenlisting for the money. (Which is one of the reasons I didn't want him to. If he had been gripped with a sense of patriotism and duty, so much the better for him. But just for the money? No.) I'm not calling his experience universal, of course, but my whole argument has been that there is no universal in these circumstances.

As to national service before voting rights, I see a lot of potential for abuse in it. If it were required to be military service--or even any kind that required physical labour--that would disenfranchise a lot of people.

I would bet that Graham is on the high side of patriotism and duty when compared to the rest of the population. Voting isnt always an indicator of a sense of duty. I have only voted once in the 6 presidential elections I could have voted in, and even then it was only because I thought the guy I was voting against was so horrible I couldn't not vote against him. My default setting is that you have to earn my vote. Hasnt happened yet.

I was about the least gung-ho soldier you could imagine, but I was still proud to serve.

I agree that mandatory service for voting rights is way to vulnerable to abuse. However, military service dosent have to be toting a gun, or even doing physical labor.

I think you are a good case in point, Gillianren. Everything I have seen here says to me that you have a very sharp mind. That is a far more valuable commodity to the military than a strong back. With today's situation, you would be disqualified from service. In a situation where service was required for franchise, the military would probably be set up to take your limitations into account. They would probably be glad to have you, too.

[Gillianren]

I would bet that Graham is on the high side of patriotism and duty when compared to the rest of the population. Voting isnt always an indicator of a sense of duty. I have only voted once in the 6 presidential elections I could have voted in, and even then it was only because I thought the guy I was voting against was so horrible I couldn't not vote against him. My default setting is that you have to earn my vote. Hasnt happened yet.

My default position is that, if you don't vote, you don't get to complain. Besides, there's a lot more to voting than just candidates. There's initiatives, which is your chance to directly influence law. (Actually, the reason I got Graham to register was so he could vote against someone. But we'll leave it at that.) But no--he really, really isn't. In fact, he told me the other night that he doesn't trust people who are there for patriotism and duty.

I was about the least gung-ho soldier you could imagine, but I was still proud to serve.

He wasn't. He found the whole thing a bigger nuisance than it was worth except for the paycheck.

I agree that mandatory service for voting rights is way to vulnerable to abuse. However, military service dosent have to be toting a gun, or even doing physical labor.

And what about pacifists? Do they not deserve to vote because their principles won't let them join the military?

I think you are a good case in point, Gillianren. Everything I have seen here says to me that you have a very sharp mind. That is a far more valuable commodity to the military than a strong back. With today's situation, you would be disqualified from service. In a situation where service was required for franchise, the military would probably be set up to take your limitations into account. They would probably be glad to have you, too.

Do you know how many allowances they'd have to make for me? It's not just the physical conditions, though they're bad enough. No one is glad to have me when I have panic attacks and have to go hide somewhere "safe." No one is glad to have me when I'm paralyzed with depression. The mania . . . that, I think they could work around.

[HenrikOlsen]

Intelligence Analysis and Communications comes as obvious suggestions even it it could be only part time.

[sarongsong]

...allowances they'd have to make for me...Ah---the perfect spy! http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[mike alexander]

How about no one gets to vote until he or she can pass the same citizenship test immigrants have to take? At least that has some passing relationship to understanding the government you are voting for.

[BigDon]

How about no one gets to vote until he or she can pass the same citizenship test immigrants have to take? At least that has some passing relationship to understanding the government you are voting for.

Okay, I like that one.

[Gillianren]

Intelligence Analysis and Communications comes as obvious suggestions even it it could be only part time.

But that's just it--it's not that it can only be part time, it's that I'm prone to suddenly freaking out for no reason in the middle of what I'm doing and having to go away. I'm more trouble to work around than it would be to just hire someone who wants to do it.

[korjik]

But that's just it--it's not that it can only be part time, it's that I'm prone to suddenly freaking out for no reason in the middle of what I'm doing and having to go away. I'm more trouble to work around than it would be to just hire someone who wants to do it.

I dont really know what problems you have, but military service, or military-related service, can actually be much more flexible than private industry in taking problems into account. People freaking out is something the military has had to face and figure out policies to handle. I doubt that many private corps have had to worry about how to handle people with mental problems/trauma.

[korjik]

How about no one gets to vote until he or she can pass the same citizenship test immigrants have to take? At least that has some passing relationship to understanding the government you are voting for.

Add actually pays some taxes and I like it.

[mike alexander]

There's lots you can make up.

Buy additional votes for, say $10,000 per. Right out front, and you are actively contributing to support of your government.

Score in the upper half of a nationwide general intelligence test. Keeps you on your toes, and it's a meritocracy.

Demonstrate you save at least 5% of your post-tax income yearly. Shows you aren't a wastrel and can look ahead.

Owe no net taxes. Proves you're smart enough and also thoroughly understand the system.

Own property. Demonstrates an attachment to the place you are voting about and that you can, again, accumulate and plan ahead.

Be able to read. How can you understand complex arguments if you can't read about them?

Pay a poll tax. If the vote is important enough to you, it's worth paying for.


I'm working on a few others...

[Gillianren]

I dont really know what problems you have, but military service, or military-related service, can actually be much more flexible than private industry in taking problems into account. People freaking out is something the military has had to face and figure out policies to handle. I doubt that many private corps have had to worry about how to handle people with mental problems/trauma.

I have bipolar disorder and a tendency toward panic attacks. If the military "handling" the situation is like their treatment of PTSD, no, thanks.

[BigDon]

I have bipolar disorder and a tendency toward panic attacks. If the military "handling" the situation is like their treatment of PTSD, no, thanks.

Your doctors would do better job of handling PTSD that the doctors in the military?

[korjik]

I have bipolar disorder and a tendency toward panic attacks. If the military "handling" the situation is like their treatment of PTSD, no, thanks.

The military's handling of PTSD is far better than what you would know. It is also far more complex an issue than anything you could have seen reported. I still get suprised by my reaction to some things and my stress was 18 years ago. The vast majority of cases are handled perfectly fine.

Thing is tho, that the military's experience with PTSD is what I was thinking about when I said they could handle your situation. I imagine that giving you an environment where panic attacks are handled would be pretty trivial a task.

Not only that, but as an employer, the military has a vested interest in keeping you around, and cannot just fire you. They dont have to worry about profit or the bottom line, they do have to jump through hoops to kick you out.

I will point out again that all my discussion is based on things being different than they are today. I started this pointing out that if we were is a service for voting society, and where the military had to take all volunteers, disabilities would have to become far less of a problem.

[korjik]

There's lots you can make up.

Buy additional votes for, say $10,000 per. Right out front, and you are actively contributing to support of your government.

billionares buying 10,000 votes? We are too close to that already

Score in the upper half of a nationwide general intelligence test. Keeps you on your toes, and it's a meritocracy.
I dont consider how well someone can take a test to be merit. :) Besides, I have seen too many 'intelligent' people who I wouldnt trust to run a lemonade stand.

Demonstrate you save at least 5% of your post-tax income yearly. Shows you aren't a wastrel and can look ahead.
interesting. I kinda like it

Owe no net taxes. Proves you're smart enough and also thoroughly understand the system.

Or that you are too poor to pay. We are too close to this one too

Own property. Demonstrates an attachment to the place you are voting about and that you can, again, accumulate and plan ahead.
We have been there, done that, didnt much care for it

Be able to read. How can you understand complex arguments if you can't read about them?
you can listen to them

Pay a poll tax. If the vote is important enough to you, it's worth paying for.
We have been there, done that, didnt much care for it

I'm working on a few others...

[Gillianren]

Your doctors would do better job of handling PTSD that the doctors in the military?

Put it this way. According to the statistics I've read, they're more likely to.

[sarongsong]

And, of course, we'll never know where those stats are. :rolleyes:

[Gillianren]

It's true that I'm having a hard time finding the results of surveys I read about in newspapers more than a year ago. However, I did find the VA's own page on PTSD--http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_how_common_is_ptsd.html?opm=1&rr=rr1363&srt=d&echorr=true. Per http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/05/29/the-armys-response-to-rise-in-suicides-ptsd/,
Col. Ritchie also noted some interesting statistics about the availability of mental health professionals overseas which I’m not sure are widely known. There are approximately 200 behavioral health providers (e.g., military therapists) in Iraq and 30 in Afghanistan. That’s about one therapist per 600 soldiers versus one therapist per 375 Americans in the U.S. civilian population. Given the significantly greater stressors and risks for mental health concerns a soldier in active military duty is likely to experience, these numbers seem backwards. There should be twice as many therapists available to soldiers are there are to civilians, but there isn’t today.

What's more, while my condition bears some marginal similarity to PTSD, it isn't the same thing and cannot be treated in the same way. Military experience with PTSD is kind of irrelevant to how they would be able to treat bipolar disorder. But based on the job they're doing with PTSD, I'm not sure I want to find out anyway. (Especially since it's very difficult for a US civilian to get mental health treatment as well. The waiting list for my clinic is months long.)

[Gruesome]

Question....how can anyone compel me to do anything against my will?

Or, in the words of Ben Kingsley....They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me, then they will have my dead body. NOT MY OBEDIENCE!


Great movie.

[sarongsong]

...my condition bears some marginal similarity to PTSD, it isn't the same thing and cannot be treated in the same way. Military experience with PTSD is kind of irrelevant to how they would be able to treat bipolar disorder...Agreed, but BigDon's question was:
"Your doctors would do better job of handling PTSD than the doctors in the military?"
Appreciate the links---do you know whether a diagnosed bipolar disorder precludes military service altogether, or are there military "acceptable" degrees of it?

[korjik]

It's true that I'm having a hard time finding the results of surveys I read about in newspapers more than a year ago. However, I did find the VA's own page on PTSD--http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_how_common_is_ptsd.html?opm=1&rr=rr1363&srt=d&echorr=true. Per http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/05/29/the-armys-response-to-rise-in-suicides-ptsd/,


What's more, while my condition bears some marginal similarity to PTSD, it isn't the same thing and cannot be treated in the same way. Military experience with PTSD is kind of irrelevant to how they would be able to treat bipolar disorder. But based on the job they're doing with PTSD, I'm not sure I want to find out anyway. (Especially since it's very difficult for a US civilian to get mental health treatment as well. The waiting list for my clinic is months long.)

My point is not that they could treat you medically, it is that a military service job could be more flexible in how it treats you as an employee. If you needed to disappear for a bit due to a panic attack, a good sargent would make sure you were able to. With the conditions I put on mandatory service, having to take some time off would be a trivial concern. The bipolar disorder I dont know so well, hence why I said I dont really know the problems you have, but workarounds can be made. My idea is that without the need to maximize profit, military service can work around you to use your brain as much as possible, even if the workarounds arent particularly efficient.

I wouldnt have my worst enemy treated by a military or VA doctor for a mental illness.

As a matter of fact, I would rather leave my diabetes uncontrolled than use a VA doc.

As for the PTSD, it is far more complex an issue than either of those links would indicate. We may be getting a bit off topic tho.

[geonuc]

I have a friend who suffers from bipolar disorder and I think it's fairly severe (there's a 'scale' or classification used but I don't recall it). She can't hold down a job that requires any kind of situational stability, if I may coin a term. So, I'm not sure what sort of job a newly reformed military might be able to offer her.

That said, I think the VA's reputation is a little off-base. The biggest concern I see is the excessive bureaucracy and red-tape involved in getting to see someone or qualify for treatment. Once you're in front of a doctor, the care is generally first-rate. That's an opinion based on little firsthand experience with the VA, so it may be I'm the one who's off-base. But if I had PTSD, I'd look to a VA hospital for help if I could.

[Gillianren]

Agreed, but BigDon's question was:
"Your doctors would do better job of handling PTSD than the doctors in the military?"

I know that my doctors have a smaller caseload, even though they do work for the only low-cost mental health care clinic in the county. (They're not obligated to treat everybody who walks in the door, you see.) But since I don't have PTSD--or qualify for VA treatment--I can't, unfortunately, make a direct comparison.

Appreciate the links---do you know whether a diagnosed bipolar disorder precludes military service altogether, or are there military "acceptable" degrees of it?

I would assume that a mild enough case would not preclude military service, but it would have to be awfully mild. I'm moderate-to-severe, myself; I am severe enough to be considered legally disabled because of it. (My last therapist was not amused when I called myself "legally crazy.") A little over a year ago, I had a severe depressive episode that lasted a little over two months. On many of those days, I could scarcely bear to leave the bed, much less the apartment. I did manage to get to therapy every week, and my then-therapist was as helpful as she could be, but there really wasn't much she could do. My doctor couldn't really do anything, either, except keep adjusting my meds in the hope that something would work. As I've said, I could probably work through the manic, but the depression and the panic attacks . . . I don't think anyone who doesn't have them can really understand what it's like. I always appreciate those who try, but they never do get it.

[marsbug]

It seems to me that serving ones society and fighting for it are different things. I'm all for the former, and for learning discipline and the value of serving others and doing your job well for the sake of yourself and others.

If you join to fight you want to fight (someone with actual military experiance, eg Argos, might shoot that down but it seems logical to me). That might change after first hand experiance of combat, but what proportion of forces personell actually have that? If there are more people in the forces, and more ex forces civillians than it seems more likely there will be greater public pressure to have a fight with someone, and I'm against violence because in my limited experiance of it it's very unpleasent, and thats when you're a bystander, or an, ahem, 'winner'.

So I'd push for societies mechanisms, such as parent/ teacher pressure, to keep the size of the military to the needed minimum (not less than that), and find other ways for people to serve.

[timb]

It seems to me that serving ones society and fighting for it are different things. I'm all for the former, and for learning discipline and the value of serving others and doing your job well for the sake of yourself and others.

If you join to fight you want to fight (someone with actual military experiance, eg Argos, might shoot that down but it seems logical to me). That might change after first hand experiance of combat, but what proportion of forces personell actually have that? If there are more people in the forces, and more ex forces civillians than it seems more likely there will be greater public pressure to have a fight with someone, and I'm against violence because in my limited experiance of it it's very unpleasent, and thats when you're a bystander, or an, ahem, 'winner'.

So I'd push for societies mechanisms, such as parent/ teacher pressure, to keep the size of the military to the needed minimum (not less than that), and find other ways for people to serve.

I'm sure this wont be welcome comment, but from the perspective of people living in other western countries, US society is surprisingly (and somewhat scarily) militaristic. For example, few politicians in Australia are ex-military personnel, and being a former member of the armed forces isn't regarded as a major qualification for high office and people who don't have that background aren't regarded as having something to prove.

[korjik]

It seems to me that serving ones society and fighting for it are different things. I'm all for the former, and for learning discipline and the value of serving others and doing your job well for the sake of yourself and others.

If you join to fight you want to fight (someone with actual military experiance, eg Argos, might shoot that down but it seems logical to me). That might change after first hand experiance of combat, but what proportion of forces personell actually have that? If there are more people in the forces, and more ex forces civillians than it seems more likely there will be greater public pressure to have a fight with someone, and I'm against violence because in my limited experiance of it it's very unpleasent, and thats when you're a bystander, or an, ahem, 'winner'.

So I'd push for societies mechanisms, such as parent/ teacher pressure, to keep the size of the military to the needed minimum (not less than that), and find other ways for people to serve.

Consider your opinion shot down.

I did not join to fight, and did not ever meet anyone who did. Then again, my service was 89-93, so the situation was different. The thing is, wanting to get into a battle is an extremely negative quantity in the military. They want to to be willing to go into battle, not wanting.

It is an important distinction. Wanting to face machine guns, tanks, arty barrages, airstrikes, land mines, ambushes, ect. is just dumb. Being willing to face all that, when you have to, to get an important mission done, is quite different.

In my specific case, I quite literally went into the recruiting office thinking 'there couldnt possibly be a war in the next four years.' I was only off by two :) I joined to get money for college, no more,no less

[Ara Pacis]

You're right, my apologies. My Starship Sense must not be tingling like it used to.

Would there be another caste for people allowed to drive to the polling station? Responsibly, of course.Well, I was using "driving" as an example of a privilege versus a right, although there are some who argue that too. No, I wouldn't limit driving to "citizens" but other things might be limited, such as holding office, holding certain types of jobs, holding a certain amount of responsibility separate from special jobs, holding high positions in companies that do business with the government, paying higher taxes, being able to vote in special referenda where you do "pay as you vote" at the time of polling, being held to higher standards of ethics, being held to higher punishments for violations of those ethics.


As to national service before voting rights, I see a lot of potential for abuse in it. If it were required to be military service--or even any kind that required physical labour--that would disenfranchise a lot of people.Like in the book, there would be many non-military jobs for a national service so that anyone who wants to join can because it's voluntary and everyone must be eligible to serve or decline service. In Heinlein's book, I think the military was less than 1% of jobs available for a term of Federal Service. The book was about military, but then a book about shoveling poo for freedom wouldn't likely be very interesting.

[Graybeard6]

korjik has it exactly right. People who WANT to go into combat are not what the military needs. My military career was spent in the US Army maintaining nuclear warheads. (BTW, no one ever called them "nukes" or referred to "nucular" weapons; to quote one of my sergeants "President Eisenhower can call them anything he wants, he doesn't have to maintain them!") We had three main goals; the warheads would never fall into the wrong hands, they would never go off by accident, and they WOULD work when required. No one I ever served with thought that nuclear war would be a good thing, but we were determined to do our job.
Something that most people don't realize is that most military jobs don't involve actual combat. An aircraft carrier has 5000 people aboard; 200 people fly off to combat the enemy. I can think of many jobs someone like Gillian can do; My Ghod, people, the woman can WRITE! I got out of a lot of crap during my army career because I could write a simple declarative sentence and read it aloud so people could understand it. She writes a lot better than I do.

[sarongsong]

...I joined to get money for college, no more,no lessNew GI Bill Overview (http://www.military.com/money-for-school/gi-bill/new-gi-bill-overview)...the most comprehensive education benefits package since the original GI Bill...goes into effect August 1, 2009...Hmmh... :)

[Gillianren]

Oh, another note if we're to discuss mandatory military service for full citizenship (I know it's been pointed out that military service isn't the only kind, but since the same thing happened in the State Department, it's still worth pointing out). There is a certain percentage of the population that, as it now stands, cannot join the military, even if they want to, without hiding a major aspect of their lives the whole time they're in it.

[geonuc]

If you join to fight you want to fight (someone with actual military experiance, eg Argos, might shoot that down but it seems logical to me).
I didn't join to fight either. When I signed up (1973), the draft was till in effect, but they were taking so few people by then that I stood a small chance of actually being drafted. I signed up for various, complicated reasons, but going out and fighting was definitely not one of them.

[geonuc]

Oh, another note if we're to discuss mandatory military service for full citizenship (I know it's been pointed out that military service isn't the only kind, but since the same thing happened in the State Department, it's still worth pointing out). There is a certain percentage of the population that, as it now stands, cannot join the military, even if they want to, without hiding a major aspect of their lives the whole time they're in it.
Good point. One would think, though, that if we moved to this hypothetical mandatory service deal, that policy would have to change.

[marsbug]

Consider your opinion shot down.

I did not join to fight, and did not ever meet anyone who did. Then again, my service was 89-93, so the situation was different. The thing is, wanting to get into a battle is an extremely negative quantity in the military. They want to to be willing to go into battle, not wanting.

It is an important distinction. Wanting to face machine guns, tanks, arty barrages, airstrikes, land mines, ambushes, ect. is just dumb. Being willing to face all that, when you have to, to get an important mission done, is quite different.

In my specific case, I quite literally went into the recruiting office thinking 'there couldnt possibly be a war in the next four years.' I was only off by two :) I joined to get money for college, no more,no less

Then if you'd had the money to go to college you'd have been a bit miffed if you'd had to go join the army anyway?
I have based my opinion on the words of people I know in the forces, some of whom have said things like 'we hope there'll be a major war while we're in the army / air force so we can show that we can do our jobs as we've been trained'. No offense intended!

If military work is just one group of high pressure/high risk/unpopular jobs I don't see why it should get a draft instead of other unpopular or risky jobs like slum charity worker or fireman. My country has a lot of jobs like that which need doing, and most of them hardly get mentioned. Yet the idea of mandatory military service comes up often and there's always a big crowd ready to cheer for it. I'm often guilty of thinking that a lot of them find the idea of being the 'heroic soldier' more appealing than 'moss side assistant secondary school teacher'.

Although personally I think you'd need more guts to be the latter.

[Gillianren]

Good point. One would think, though, that if we moved to this hypothetical mandatory service deal, that policy would have to change.

Well, that's part of why I'm worried about any "mandatory" service for citizenship. What if you're not allowed, for whatever reason, to serve? It's not outside the realm of possibility for groups to be excluded from things, after all.

[korjik]

Well, that's part of why I'm worried about any "mandatory" service for citizenship. What if you're not allowed, for whatever reason, to serve? It's not outside the realm of possibility for groups to be excluded from things, after all.

Since this would all requre pretty major surgery on the constitution, it wouldnt be all that hard to put in a mandatory acceptance on any applicant. As much as it will annoy Mike Alexander, that is the way it is in Starship Troopers.

I would think that the problem is more likely to be that trying to find positions and things to do for all the applicants is impossible. Being too big an organization is just as bad as too small.

I would also point out that we are talking about volunteer service for citizenship, not mandatory.

[Gillianren]

I would also point out that we are talking about volunteer service for citizenship, not mandatory.

See, that's the thing. I think citizenship should be automatic, because I think your system is horribly prone to abuse. If you look at our government's history, we have quite frequently already made people second-class citizens for reasons not of their choosing. People have been forbidden from certain types of government service, regardless of their abilities, for all sorts of reasons. I want to maintain my citizenship; I think too many people have fought too hard for my rights to give them up freely--such as I would be doing if I supported such a flawed system. US history has shown a pattern of injustices followed by struggle followed by redress of those injustices. Over the last couple of centuries, we have worked hard to be more inclusive, and your system would make us less so.

You may consider it voluntary, but to lose rights unless you do it, while not making it mandatory, is contrary to the spirit our country was founded on.

[sarongsong]

...we are talking about volunteer service for citizenship, not mandatory.We've got that:February 15, 2009
...the U.S. military will begin recruiting skilled immigrants living in this country with temporary visas, offering them the chance to become U.S. citizens in as little as six months...

IMMIGRANTS SERVING: BY THE NUMBERS
8,000: Approximate number of permanent immigrants who join the armed forces annually.

14,000: Immigrants with temporary visas who eventually could join the Army each year under the new program, or about one in six recruits.

29,000: Foreign-born people now serving in the military who are not U.S. citizens.

1.4 million: Active U.S. military personnel...
San Diego Union-Tribune (http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/15/1n15milimmig003440-pentagon-offers-path-gaining-ci/?uniontrib)

[korjik]

See, that's the thing. I think citizenship should be automatic, because I think your system is horribly prone to abuse. If you look at our government's history, we have quite frequently already made people second-class citizens for reasons not of their choosing. People have been forbidden from certain types of government service, regardless of their abilities, for all sorts of reasons. I want to maintain my citizenship; I think too many people have fought too hard for my rights to give them up freely--such as I would be doing if I supported such a flawed system. US history has shown a pattern of injustices followed by struggle followed by redress of those injustices. Over the last couple of centuries, we have worked hard to be more inclusive, and your system would make us less so.

You may consider it voluntary, but to lose rights unless you do it, while not making it mandatory, is contrary to the spirit our country was founded on.

?

I said it is voluteer service for citizenship because in that system you would have to volunteer to do service to be a citizen. As opposed to mandatory service, where you would be forced to do the service before you can vote.

Also, in the post you quoted, I pointed out that you would want to make acceptance mandatory for all who volunteered.

That would remove the ability to discriminate by refusing to allow service.

If you put in the constitution that all laws must affect citizens and residents equally, then the only right that the second class citizens have is that they cant vote.

With the conditions I have laid out in this post, you should not be able to be refused a chance at citizenship for any condition, and those who dont become citizens should have the same rights as citizens, except for voting.

Please dont take my advocacy of service for vote too seriously. I discuss it because I think options should be discussed. I agree that it could be abused. I just also think that universal sufferage can be abused also. I am currently more worried about 'any republic will fall because once the masses realize they can vote themselves payments from the public treasury....', to badly paraphrase.

[Gillianren]

I am, as always, more worried about the current exclusionary laws. I think universal suffrage and rights are always the point to strive for, always accepting that an educated electorate is the most desirable one. Citizens have the right to vote, in my opinion. Anything that changes the requirement so that you must perform service in order to achieve that right is simply wrong.

[HenrikOlsen]

You actually do have a system where you need to perform a public service to get voting rights, you have to perform the service of registering.
And I suspect there are people who are unable to do that.

[mugaliens]

Agreed, Henrik. And so doing requires registering with the selective service, too.

Personally, I'm against mandatory service, as military service is simply not compatible many people's dispositional makeup. Countless Vietnam Vets were permanently, and negatively affected by their service, in part because of the nature of the conflict in Vietnam, but also in part because it simply wasn't them - square peg through a round hole theory.

In times of national crisis, it's instictual and natural for people to surge forth and volunteer - just witness the floods along the Mississippi, or the response to Pearl Harbor. Controversial conflicts, however, should either have the natural support of the people, or they should be avoided.

[mike alexander]

korjik wrote:
Since this would all requre pretty major surgery on the constitution, it wouldnt be all that hard to put in a mandatory acceptance on any applicant. As much as it will annoy Mike Alexander, that is the way it is in Starship Troopers.

I'm not annoyed at all. I've read the story several times, both as a callow youth and as an immature adult. It is, after all, a work of fiction. The author noted at one point that if someone showed up blind and crippled desiring to perfrom service they would find him a job counting the hairs on caterpilllars or something similar.

It was also noted that the social system described in the story was not the result of some grand plan, but grew out of conditions following a major war. In other words, it was a contingency of history, not an inevitable result. It was retained because under the conditions of the time no one was complaining enough to change it.

I will add my personal opinion that if you grow up under a set of beliefs held by those in charge of you, you will tend to adhere to those beliefs yourself. Most Catholics are born Catholics, for example. That's just how human growth and socialization seem to work.

[korjik]

I'm not annoyed at all. I've read the story several times, both as a callow youth and as an immature adult. It is, after all, a work of fiction. The author noted at one point that if someone showed up blind and crippled desiring to perfrom service they would find him a job counting the hairs on caterpilllars or something similar.

It was also noted that the social system described in the story was not the result of some grand plan, but grew out of conditions following a major war. In other words, it was a contingency of history, not an inevitable result. It was retained because under the conditions of the time no one was complaining enough to change it.

I will add my personal opinion that if you grow up under a set of beliefs held by those in charge of you, you will tend to adhere to those beliefs yourself. Most Catholics are born Catholics, for example. That's just how human growth and socialization seem to work.

Sorry, I forgot the smiley at the end of the sentence. I was more trying to poke fun at your post about it taking 5 pages to get a starship troopers reference.

[korjik]

I am, as always, more worried about the current exclusionary laws. I think universal suffrage and rights are always the point to strive for, always accepting that an educated electorate is the most desirable one. Citizens have the right to vote, in my opinion. Anything that changes the requirement so that you must perform service in order to achieve that right is simply wrong.

Do we have an educated electorate?

Is not educated an exclusion?

I dont see universal suffrage as automatically the optimum solution. Each voter should have some stake in the success of the society as a whole. Each voter should make good faith efforts not to be a burden on society.

Today, I see more of a problem in too many people expecting the government to do things for them. I worry that this could lead to a 'bread and circuses' sort of mentality, where votes are aquired by payoffs from the public treasury, instead of by having better ideas.

What exclusionary laws are you worried about?

[mugaliens]

The author noted at one point that if someone showed up blind and crippled desiring to perfrom service they would find him a job counting the hairs on caterpilllars or something similar.

Well, sure! As long as they get the little critters to hold still...

[Gillianren]

Do we have an educated electorate?

Is not educated an exclusion?

Ah, but I said it was to be preferred, not that I would exclude based on failing that. We don't necessarily have one now, but I believe the setup in place can be made to create a more educated electorate than we do now.

I dont see universal suffrage as automatically the optimum solution. Each voter should have some stake in the success of the society as a whole. Each voter should make good faith efforts not to be a burden on society.

But I'm a burden on society. I've made good faith efforts to avoid it, but there's only so much I can do, and as I've said, it's not much. Further, I don't see governmental service as the only way to determine that people have some stake in the success of society as a whole. I think everyone already does.

Today, I see more of a problem in too many people expecting the government to do things for them. I worry that this could lead to a 'bread and circuses' sort of mentality, where votes are aquired by payoffs from the public treasury, instead of by having better ideas.

I think it's the government's job to do some things for the electorate, such as providing that education that makes for a better electorate. But that gets political, as my view on what government should provide and yours are probably quite different.

What exclusionary laws are you worried about?

Well, in the past, we've had laws that have excluded women, blacks, Communists, Chinese, and so on. We've actively put Japanese citizens in internment camps. Indians (or Native Americans, if you prefer) have been mistreated since before there was a US--there were active extermination policies in effect in some places. (In my own home state, there was briefly a bounty on Indian scalps during the Gold Rush.) We're working to redress that, and I think we're doing a pretty good job. However, part of what benefited most excluded groups was the acquisition of the vote; to take the vote away from people for whatever reason is to deny that group the right to petition their government for redress of their grievances.

[korjik]

Ah, but I said it was to be preferred, not that I would exclude based on failing that. We don't necessarily have one now, but I believe the setup in place can be made to create a more educated electorate than we do now.

Probably true. The 'worst form of government except for all the others' thing. I just see that education has become worse over time, not better, and I worry about how that could be used to corrupt the system.


But I'm a burden on society. I've made good faith efforts to avoid it, but there's only so much I can do, and as I've said, it's not much. Further, I don't see governmental service as the only way to determine that people have some stake in the success of society as a whole. I think everyone already does.

It is the try that counts. Besides, there are other ways to advance society other than simple economics. There are probably more than a few people here who value your judgement highly. That is of much higher value that simple economics.

Service is not the only way to determine if someone has a stake in society, and it may not even be a good way, but I disagree that everyone has a stake in the success of our society. I think that a certain woman who has 14 children and 8 newborns couldnt care less about how much of a burden she is placing on society.


I think it's the government's job to do some things for the electorate, such as providing that education that makes for a better electorate. But that gets political, as my view on what government should provide and yours are probably quite different.

Actually, I think that you would be suprised how much was a difference in scale, or a difference in method, as opposed to the what, in what the government should do.


Well, in the past, we've had laws that have excluded women, blacks, Communists, Chinese, and so on. We've actively put Japanese citizens in internment camps. Indians (or Native Americans, if you prefer) have been mistreated since before there was a US--there were active extermination policies in effect in some places. (In my own home state, there was briefly a bounty on Indian scalps during the Gold Rush.) We're working to redress that, and I think we're doing a pretty good job. However, part of what benefited most excluded groups was the acquisition of the vote; to take the vote away from people for whatever reason is to deny that group the right to petition their government for redress of their grievances.

Ok. I wanted to make sure that there wasnt something obvious that I was missing.

I think that the past is past. That the discrimination of the past will stay there. That a person is judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I dont see an internment like WWII happening again without real proof that it is needed.

I dont know a way to get around redressing grievances, but I am unsure that it is a problem. In any limited citizenship scenario, I would expect a few things.

First, that the way to get citizenship is equally available to all.
Second, that all non-citizens must be treated equally under the law. The only difference should be that one can vote and one cant.
Third, that any amendments to the constitution must be by a supermajority of all residents, citizen and non-citizen alike.

All three of these would have to be in the constitution.

These conditions should keep there from being much in the way of grievances. You could still have a scenario where there was an unresolvable difference, and with a set class structure, you could get the situation to explode pretty quick.

Not really an optimal solution.

[Ara Pacis]

See, that's the thing. I think citizenship should be automatic, because I think your system is horribly prone to abuse. If you look at our government's history, we have quite frequently already made people second-class citizens for reasons not of their choosing. People have been forbidden from certain types of government service, regardless of their abilities, for all sorts of reasons. I want to maintain my citizenship; I think too many people have fought too hard for my rights to give them up freely--such as I would be doing if I supported such a flawed system. US history has shown a pattern of injustices followed by struggle followed by redress of those injustices. Over the last couple of centuries, we have worked hard to be more inclusive, and your system would make us less so.

You may consider it voluntary, but to lose rights unless you do it, while not making it mandatory, is contrary to the spirit our country was founded on.

I think that's somewhat contradictory. The US wasn't exactly founded on that spirit, as it had, from the beginning, many limitations of freedom and suffrage by class and gender and other limitations were often allowed in practice, de facto if not de jure. Also, I think that we have done the opposite of your first sentence. Instead of making people into second class citizens, they were often initially second class citizens and became freer over time as limitations and practices already in place were removed.

I think the discussion of concepts of how a citizen service requirement would work is predicated on it working as designed not how it would fail through intentional perversion of such policies. Assuming it worked as designed, there would be some sort of job that anyone, even those with disabilities, are capable of performing. Perhaps it would be instructive to discuss whether a certain level of productivity should be required in order to be a citizen. At a certain point of incapacitation, citizenship privilages become meaningless, such as in a patient who is in a coma.

Some people seem to suggest several years of full-time work in rigorous military or arduous civilian service. I'd suggest a voluntary (unpaid) labor requirement of two weeks per year, of skilled or unskilled work on some sort of government sponsored project, but that's for a supranational government I'm writing about.

[SeanF]

Some people seem to suggest several years of full-time work in rigorous military or arduous civilian service. I'd suggest a voluntary (unpaid) labor requirement of two weeks per year, of skilled or unskilled work on some sort of government sponsored project, but that's for a supranational government I'm writing about.
That would effectively increase every single employer's payroll costs by almost 4%. That's a pretty significant burden.

[HenrikOlsen]

We've actively put Japanese citizens in internment camps.
As well as American citizens of Japanese descent. 62% of the interned where US citizens.

[geonuc]

As well as American citizens of Japanese descent. 62% of the interned where US citizens.
I'm pretty sure that's what Gillian meant, based on the original italics.

[Gillianren]

Probably true. The 'worst form of government except for all the others' thing. I just see that education has become worse over time, not better, and I worry about how that could be used to corrupt the system.

And I worry about how "voluntary" service for citizenship could be used to corrupt the system. So I guess we're even.

It is the try that counts. Besides, there are other ways to advance society other than simple economics. There are probably more than a few people here who value your judgement highly. That is of much higher value that simple economics.

I appreciate that. I just doubt "being really sensible on a bulletin board" would count as government service, especially if I have extended periods of time where I don't post as much or as well.

Service is not the only way to determine if someone has a stake in society, and it may not even be a good way, but I disagree that everyone has a stake in the success of our society. I think that a certain woman who has 14 children and 8 newborns couldnt care less about how much of a burden she is placing on society.

Oh, without a doubt there are people trying to con the system. However, they do still have a stake in it, even if they aren't aware of it. That woman depends on the welfare system working adequately, if nothing else (as, again, do I); she depends, as do we all, on the roads and the grid and so forth working. She does not actively work to benefit it, but it is important to her that it continue to do so. It is important to all of us that it continue to do so. That's what I meant by having a stake in it.

Actually, I think that you would be suprised how much was a difference in scale, or a difference in method, as opposed to the what, in what the government should do.

Fair, and that is a conversation for either a different place or PM.

Ok. I wanted to make sure that there wasnt something obvious that I was missing.

I think that the past is past. That the discrimination of the past will stay there. That a person is judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I dont see an internment like WWII happening again without real proof that it is needed.

In the 1980s, William F. Buckley advocated tatooing AIDS patients and putting them in camps. Now, that didn't happen, of course. But there are still people being judged by things other than their character. There is the stigma against the mentally ill--not everyone shares it, of course, but even here, you get some very insensitive comments about mental illness. And, of course, there's the whole "gays in the military" thing.

I dont know a way to get around redressing grievances, but I am unsure that it is a problem. In any limited citizenship scenario, I would expect a few things.

First, that the way to get citizenship is equally available to all.
Second, that all non-citizens must be treated equally under the law. The only difference should be that one can vote and one cant.
Third, that any amendments to the constitution must be by a supermajority of all residents, citizen and non-citizen alike.

All three of these would have to be in the constitution.

But if non-citizens don't get the vote, how are they counted when it comes to Constitutional Amendments?

These conditions should keep there from being much in the way of grievances. You could still have a scenario where there was an unresolvable difference, and with a set class structure, you could get the situation to explode pretty quick.

Not really an optimal solution.

No, it's not. All I keep thinking of is Roger Taney's "The black man has no rights that a white man is bound to honour."

[Gillianren]

I'm pretty sure that's what Gillian meant, based on the original italics.

Especially because Japanese immigrants were not US citizens. It was illegal for them to gain citizenship. There's some interesting detail about it in a book called Farewell to Manzanar by a girl who was an internee at the Manzanar camp when she was a child.

[geonuc]

Especially because Japanese immigrants were not US citizens. It was illegal for them to gain citizenship. There's some interesting detail about it in a book called Farewell to Manzanar by a girl who was an internee at the Manzanar camp when she was a child.
Maybe I'm confused. I thought you were referring to Japanese-Americans.

Illegal to gain citizenship? I believe there were lots of US citizens of Japanese descent interned as a result of FDR's executive order.

I've been to Manzanar several times. Kinda spooky.

[korjik]

And I worry about how "voluntary" service for citizenship could be used to corrupt the system. So I guess we're even.



I appreciate that. I just doubt "being really sensible on a bulletin board" would count as government service, especially if I have extended periods of time where I don't post as much or as well.



Oh, without a doubt there are people trying to con the system. However, they do still have a stake in it, even if they aren't aware of it. That woman depends on the welfare system working adequately, if nothing else (as, again, do I); she depends, as do we all, on the roads and the grid and so forth working. She does not actively work to benefit it, but it is important to her that it continue to do so. It is important to all of us that it continue to do so. That's what I meant by having a stake in it.

By a stake in the system, I more mean a stake in not wasting the system's resources for selfish means. Your situation is unavoidable and not your fault. Hers was completely avoidable and only happened because she and many others felt the system should provide, no matter the cost. My useage isnt very good, but I dont know how else to put it.


Fair, and that is a conversation for either a different place or PM.

True


In the 1980s, William F. Buckley advocated tatooing AIDS patients and putting them in camps. Now, that didn't happen, of course. But there are still people being judged by things other than their character. There is the stigma against the mentally ill--not everyone shares it, of course, but even here, you get some very insensitive comments about mental illness. And, of course, there's the whole "gays in the military" thing.

The gays in the military thing mostly isnt discrimination. It is a way to keep from having a dozen different housing categories. With the extremely communal living that deployments require, housing becomes a problem.

Think of it this way: It is not unreasonable for the military to have communal showers separated by sex.
Take a known homosexual and add them to the mix.
You now have a situation that is equivalent to forcing a group of women to shower with a man in the shower with them.
I think that most people would think that that is an unreasonable situation to be forced into.
If you then want to say separate into male/female/homosexual groups, then you have the effective situation where the homosexuals are the equivalent of a mixed sex shower. Again an unreasonable situation.

Now you may say 'the homosexuals are there now!' Well, I would respond that most people ignore the fact that someone may be homosexual unless it is shoved in their face. Almost like if you dont ask, and they dont tell, the problem mostly goes away.

I am not saying that no discrimination exists, just that it is not the primary driving factor. That is my experience from discussions with my fellow soldiers back in late 92, when this first came up


But if non-citizens don't get the vote, how are they counted when it comes to Constitutional Amendments?

Special exemption for amendments.


No, it's not. All I keep thinking of is Roger Taney's "The black man has no rights that a white man is bound to honour."

I really dont want to get into a quote fight with you :)

I agree tho. I dont think that a limited citizenship scenario is stable. Precisely for the reason you mention.

[Gillianren]

By a stake in the system, I more mean a stake in not wasting the system's resources for selfish means. Your situation is unavoidable and not your fault. Hers was completely avoidable and only happened because she and many others felt the system should provide, no matter the cost. My useage isnt very good, but I dont know how else to put it.

I do see what you mean. I do think that there are few cases like that, however, and those that exist (though not, obviously, in this case!) get blown out of proportion. I think the children should be provided for regardless, because I think it's shameful to allow children to starve, but I don't know how to remedy the situation.

The gays in the military thing mostly isnt discrimination. It is a way to keep from having a dozen different housing categories. With the extremely communal living that deployments require, housing becomes a problem.

Think of it this way: It is not unreasonable for the military to have communal showers separated by sex.
Take a known homosexual and add them to the mix.
You now have a situation that is equivalent to forcing a group of women to shower with a man in the shower with them.
I think that most people would think that that is an unreasonable situation to be forced into.
If you then want to say separate into male/female/homosexual groups, then you have the effective situation where the homosexuals are the equivalent of a mixed sex shower. Again an unreasonable situation.

Now you may say 'the homosexuals are there now!' Well, I would respond that most people ignore the fact that someone may be homosexual unless it is shoved in their face. Almost like if you dont ask, and they dont tell, the problem mostly goes away.

I am not saying that no discrimination exists, just that it is not the primary driving factor. That is my experience from discussions with my fellow soldiers back in late 92, when this first came up

That's . . . an interesting explanation. However, "because they're security risks" is quite frequently given by the higher-up types who actually control the situation. But I cannot agree with your brushing away of "but they're there now!" For one thing, I have known, personally, of communal living situations where one roommate is lesbian and the others are not, and no one really had a problem with it. However, the real point is that the person who is gay is still, in your premise, possibly ogling the other people. It doesn't really change the situation. Further, people do get beaten for being suspected of being a homosexual and have been for some time. People have been thrown out of the military (albeit not recently) for being suspected of being a homosexual. That's discrimination. That's wrong. I frankly don't care what the reasoning is; it's wrong.

In addition, it's not just in the military that there is discrimination. People have lost State Department jobs for being homosexual, because that makes them a security risk. People have been refused housing for being homosexual. A friend of mine could have been taken away from her mother, because her mother is bi leaning towards lesbian--and you must admit that, while that's anecdotal, there are lots of documented cases of homosexual parents losing custody of their kids as unfit parents.

Special exemption for amendments.

But not for any other law that will affect them?

I really dont want to get into a quote fight with you :)

I agree tho. I dont think that a limited citizenship scenario is stable. Precisely for the reason you mention.

No, and I wasn't intending to get into a quote fight. It's just what I think of any time a proposed underclass is suggested.

[Moose]

But not for any other law that will affect them?

Gillian, you've always had a way of getting to the very core of a matter. You're absolutely right. A disenfranchised underclass has no legitimate means by which to seek redress.

[Gillianren]

Gillian, you've always had a way of getting to the very core of a matter. You're absolutely right. A disenfranchised underclass has no legitimate means by which to seek redress.

Thank you. I work hard on that. It's my biggest problem with "earning" the right to vote.

[HenrikOlsen]

A disenfranchised underclass has no legitimate means by which to seek redress.
Which is one of the causes for terrorism.

A fight against disenfranchisement is a fight against terrorism.

[korjik]

Gillian, you've always had a way of getting to the very core of a matter. You're absolutely right. A disenfranchised underclass has no legitimate means by which to seek redress.

That would be why I have been keeping up my end of the discussion. Having someone punch big holes in your (well, mine in this case) ideas, while they are in the idea stage, keeps you from finding the holes when the ideas are implemented.

[korjik]

I do see what you mean. I do think that there are few cases like that, however, and those that exist (though not, obviously, in this case!) get blown out of proportion. I think the children should be provided for regardless, because I think it's shameful to allow children to starve, but I don't know how to remedy the situation.

No one thinks the children should be neglected. At least no one worth listening to. The problem is the mother who never even considered the effect her decisions would have on everyone else. When you take the probable outcome of 14 kids raised by a poor single mother, her actions are irresponsable.


That's . . . an interesting explanation. However, "because they're security risks" is quite frequently given by the higher-up types who actually control the situation. But I cannot agree with your brushing away of "but they're there now!" For one thing, I have known, personally, of communal living situations where one roommate is lesbian and the others are not, and no one really had a problem with it. However, the real point is that the person who is gay is still, in your premise, possibly ogling the other people. It doesn't really change the situation. Further, people do get beaten for being suspected of being a homosexual and have been for some time. People have been thrown out of the military (albeit not recently) for being suspected of being a homosexual. That's discrimination. That's wrong. I frankly don't care what the reasoning is; it's wrong.

In addition, it's not just in the military that there is discrimination. People have lost State Department jobs for being homosexual, because that makes them a security risk. People have been refused housing for being homosexual. A friend of mine could have been taken away from her mother, because her mother is bi leaning towards lesbian--and you must admit that, while that's anecdotal, there are lots of documented cases of homosexual parents losing custody of their kids as unfit parents.

The reason given to the public, and the reason that was obvious in the trenches, are usually not the same. I am not saying that decrimination dosent happen, more that military policy has to take more into account. The policy is the best they can do under the current conditions, not a discriminatory policy designed to forbid homosexuals from serving.

Anytime you see a separation from service for a 'security risk,' the real reason is something else. Security risk is a buzzword. Most of the separations I have heard about were one of two categories. Either the person forced the military to take notice, or the person got into a conflict with their chain of command.

Communal living by choice is alot different that mandatory communal living. If it turns out that someone has a problem in the civilian world, it isnt that big a problem. In the military, there may literally be nowhere else for someone to go. In civilian life, you have more of a chance to get to know the others before you move in. In the military, you generally never have seen your roomates before in your life.

In the shower example I was using, I did not say any ogling was involved. The assumptions I am using is that if you take a random group of one sex, force them to use the same group shower facilities, and then introduce a single member of the opposite sex into the mix, there will be some fraction of the group that has a problem with that. I used women because there is a far larger number of men in the military than women, and the man in a woman's shower is more analogous to a homosexual man in a male's shower.

Even if you blindfold the man, there is still going to be some people who are really bothered by the presence. That is going to create a stressful situation. When you add on top of that the rather extreme stress of combat, or even just a deployment, you end up with a situation that is extremely stressful for a 2%-3% increase in manpower.

I want to stress again, that I am not saying that discrimination dosent happen. I am pointing out that 'dont ask, dont tell' is not an inherently discriminatory policy, but a flawed policy that is the best that can be done right now. When you get into situations away from the policy, such as beatings for suspecting someone might be gay, then my opinion will not be any different than yours.


But not for any other law that will affect them?

If they want say in laws, they should get citizenship. Since we are putting the guarantees to try to prevent abuse into the constitution, they have to have a say in any changes.


No, and I wasn't intending to get into a quote fight. It's just what I think of any time a proposed underclass is suggested.

And it should be pretty much in the forefront of any consideration. I worry that we are coming to a point where taxpayer will become a minority.

[korjik]

Which is one of the causes for terrorism.

A fight against disenfranchisement is a fight against terrorism.

Just remember that disenfranchisement can be virtual.

If the lower 51% of taxpayers think that they should not have to pay taxes, what can the other 49% do?

[EricM407]

And it should be pretty much in the forefront of any consideration. I worry that we are coming to a point where taxpayer will become a minority.

Taxpayer has been the minority in this country at various times throughout history, and we got by.

I'm trying to figure out what this worry of yours has to do with this thread. There are many in the military now and many veterans who pay no income tax. I'm not sure the system you seem to desire would change the ratio of taxpaying voters to non-taxpaying voters at all.

[Gillianren]

No one thinks the children should be neglected. At least no one worth listening to. The problem is the mother who never even considered the effect her decisions would have on everyone else. When you take the probable outcome of 14 kids raised by a poor single mother, her actions are irresponsable.

And I don't understand how the situation was allowed to come up in the first place. In vitro fertilization isn't cheap; a woman whose other children are supported by governmental aid shouldn't've been able to afford it in the first place.

The reason given to the public, and the reason that was obvious in the trenches, are usually not the same. I am not saying that decrimination dosent happen, more that military policy has to take more into account. The policy is the best they can do under the current conditions, not a discriminatory policy designed to forbid homosexuals from serving.

I've listened to some of the hearings. I'm not sure why you think it's the public that's being lied to.

Anytime you see a separation from service for a 'security risk,' the real reason is something else. Security risk is a buzzword. Most of the separations I have heard about were one of two categories. Either the person forced the military to take notice, or the person got into a conflict with their chain of command.

Bluntly, that's not true. When it's widespread--hundreds of people at minimum--I find it hard to believe that they all had problems with their chain of command or whatever. When it's a sweeping policy to remove an entire group of people as "security risks," that's something else. In this situation, it's discrimination.

Communal living by choice is alot different that mandatory communal living. If it turns out that someone has a problem in the civilian world, it isnt that big a problem. In the military, there may literally be nowhere else for someone to go. In civilian life, you have more of a chance to get to know the others before you move in. In the military, you generally never have seen your roomates before in your life.

Wasn't this part of the argument for keeping blacks out of the military as well? People won't be comfortable with it?

In the shower example I was using, I did not say any ogling was involved. The assumptions I am using is that if you take a random group of one sex, force them to use the same group shower facilities, and then introduce a single member of the opposite sex into the mix, there will be some fraction of the group that has a problem with that. I used women because there is a far larger number of men in the military than women, and the man in a woman's shower is more analogous to a homosexual man in a male's shower.

"Some fraction of the group" having a problem with something is something that people are just going to have to deal with, and not just in shower facilities. I think using shower facilities as an explanation implies that the whole problem is about sex, and I think evidence shows that people are just as likely to treat gay people unequally while clothed.

Even if you blindfold the man, there is still going to be some people who are really bothered by the presence. That is going to create a stressful situation. When you add on top of that the rather extreme stress of combat, or even just a deployment, you end up with a situation that is extremely stressful for a 2%-3% increase in manpower.

And basic equal rights.

I want to stress again, that I am not saying that discrimination dosent happen. I am pointing out that 'dont ask, dont tell' is not an inherently discriminatory policy, but a flawed policy that is the best that can be done right now. When you get into situations away from the policy, such as beatings for suspecting someone might be gay, then my opinion will not be any different than yours.

I have no doubt. Mind, I'm not trying to accuse you of being a gay basher. I want to make that very clear. However, I do think it is, inherently, a discriminatory policy to eliminate a group from possibility of service. I rather think that's the definition of the word.

If they want say in laws, they should get citizenship. Since we are putting the guarantees to try to prevent abuse into the constitution, they have to have a say in any changes.

Try, though. All sorts of policies have been put in place to keep an underclass "protected" that did more harm than good, and it was only after the underclass got its own say that those policies were thrown out. There was, after all, a time when women couldn't own property, and that was considered a form of protection.

And it should be pretty much in the forefront of any consideration. I worry that we are coming to a point where taxpayer will become a minority.

I don't, frankly. That's in part because the group I see protesting tax increases the most is not the poor.

[Launch window]

Was trying to show a good example of how having a Volunteer force, puts certain practical limits on the Gov's usage of the military.

I think a sophisticated volunteer force can mean better quality and conscript service is exactly what nations or empires have done if you want to quickly balance the books
suddenly start drafting people and make your nation more powerful at the cost of quality

Sometimes I think the best way to look at military strength is to look at it like an old board game. To make things simple let's ignore the Navy and AF for the moment and focus on boots
say the United States army and USMC can put a max of 845,500 boots on the ground to defend from invasion (this is being generous since you would probably only have 100,000 on active duty)
and let's give them a quality rank of 11 out of 10 ;) since the US has the best trained and best equipped.
845500 * 11 = aprox 9.3 mil
This gives the US a board game power rank of 9,300,000

Now let's imagine the USA and Japan are gearing up to fight each other once more
yes I know, Japan and the US are great allies today so this kind of event is ridiculous!
but let's play it anyway

Japan has 54,500 active troops and a quality rank of 5
54500 * 5 Which gives them a board game power rank of 272,500 vs UnitedStates 9,300,000
So the Japanese look weak in front of a mighty USMC and Army
Fearful of getting overwhelmed by the USA and to quickly balance the Japanese military books and increase their military might Japan can just draft 10% of their population and make every young healthy person fight in the military.
Their military quality drops to a rank 3 but their numbers of boots increase to 8,200,000
3 X 8200000
Now the Japanese got an army with a board game rank of 24,600,000
so their army can now hold their own and maybe even defend against and beat back the US army which I ranked at 9,300,000

Conscription is what nations under constant threat of invasion would do or its also something paranoid states would do in order to improve their might and help calm the paranoia of the leaders. For example Israel surrounded by hostile Arab states who still refuse to recognize the state make service compulsory to improve their IDF numbers
the DPRK does it also with 4 million N.Koreans in military service. Younger nations and empires like Rome often used conscription to give themselves a boost, but once Rome got on its feet the Roman army changed from lower quality conscription based army to higher quality professional force

As for the draft, maybe a country that can't get enough volunteers to defend it doesn't deserve to exist.

I don't see a need for US conscription. Maybe if the USSR was still around and they managed to invade Europe, Canada and Mexico and turn them red, maybe then you could legitimize forcing 10% of the US population into service but bar any doomsday scenario I don't see how a draft is ever really legit.

[korjik]

And I don't understand how the situation was allowed to come up in the first place. In vitro fertilization isn't cheap; a woman whose other children are supported by governmental aid shouldn't've been able to afford it in the first place.

Agreed, but off topic. Her choice has made her and probably her whole family a drain on society.


I've listened to some of the hearings. I'm not sure why you think it's the public that's being lied to.

Because I have first hand experience on when the public gets lied to. I knew Iraq was going to invade Kuwait was going to be invaded about a month beforehand and I was only a private first class at the time.


Bluntly, that's not true. When it's widespread--hundreds of people at minimum--I find it hard to believe that they all had problems with their chain of command or whatever. When it's a sweeping policy to remove an entire group of people as "security risks," that's something else. In this situation, it's discrimination.

I dont think it is quite as sweeping as you think. There arent witch hunts to find the gays and boot them out. You are also ignoring one of the main reasons homosexuals get separated. If you come out of the closet, and the chain of command ends up having to take notice, the homosexual must be booted. That is what regs say quite plainly. So anytime a homosexual comes out publicly and gets booted because of it, I consider that to be the homosexual's fault. They enlisted knowing the rules then chose to violate them.

I doubt that this discussion can be properly resolved tho. Without reliable stats on how many homosexuals are separated prematurely and how many serve as long as they desire, we cant really show any real data one way or the other.


Wasn't this part of the argument for keeping blacks out of the military as well? People won't be comfortable with it?

Apples and oranges. See below


"Some fraction of the group" having a problem with something is something that people are just going to have to deal with, and not just in shower facilities. I think using shower facilities as an explanation implies that the whole problem is about sex, and I think evidence shows that people are just as likely to treat gay people unequally while clothed.

Would you shower with a different random person each day? Do you think that everyone is willing to shower with anyone? Do you think that having separate mens and womens bathrooms is discrimination?

Men and women dont shower together because the whole problem is about sex. My feeling is that if you boil all the discrimination out, you are left with the sexual aspect.

I am not saying that discrimination dosent exist, but that there is more to this issue than discrimination.


And basic equal rights.

You have a right to serve in the military? Would that not mean that you should be allowed to enlist?

The military isnt there to promote equal rights. It is there to defend the country when we need diplomacy by other means. Anything which reduces its ability to wage war should be removed. War is nasty enough without adding other problems.


I have no doubt. Mind, I'm not trying to accuse you of being a gay basher. I want to make that very clear. However, I do think it is, inherently, a discriminatory policy to eliminate a group from possibility of service. I rather think that's the definition of the word.

Technically, 'dont ask, dont tell' does not prevent service. All it really asks is 'please stay in the closet, at least officially'


Try, though. All sorts of policies have been put in place to keep an underclass "protected" that did more harm than good, and it was only after the underclass got its own say that those policies were thrown out. There was, after all, a time when women couldn't own property, and that was considered a form of protection.

The all laws must apply equally to citizen and non-citizen clause I suggested before should prevent most of that. My whole point with that is that is should be impossible to treat the non-citizens differently. The examples you site are where the non-citizen was treated differently under the law.


I don't, frankly. That's in part because the group I see protesting tax increases the most is not the poor.

Why would people not paying taxes protest that they are not paying?

[korjik]

Taxpayer has been the minority in this country at various times throughout history, and we got by.

I'm trying to figure out what this worry of yours has to do with this thread. There are many in the military now and many veterans who pay no income tax. I'm not sure the system you seem to desire would change the ratio of taxpaying voters to non-taxpaying voters at all.

It came up during the discussion as to why I was discussing service for vote. Since the thread was about mandatory service, it is at least partly involved in the thread.

[Gillianren]

Agreed, but off topic. Her choice has made her and probably her whole family a drain on society.

True.

Because I have first hand experience on when the public gets lied to. I knew Iraq was going to invade Kuwait was going to be invaded about a month beforehand and I was only a private first class at the time.

Huh.

I dont think it is quite as sweeping as you think. There arent witch hunts to find the gays and boot them out. You are also ignoring one of the main reasons homosexuals get separated. If you come out of the closet, and the chain of command ends up having to take notice, the homosexual must be booted. That is what regs say quite plainly. So anytime a homosexual comes out publicly and gets booted because of it, I consider that to be the homosexual's fault. They enlisted knowing the rules then chose to violate them.

First, merely being gay in the military would get you a dishonorable discharge, though now, it'll get you a psych discharge. Further, per Wikipedia, a 1988 DOD report said that "they pose a security risk, will erode unit cohesion and morale," alongside the argument that "most homosexual and bisexual oriented people are pedophiles who engage in a self-destructive and immoral life-style." Per SLDN.org, "A 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission report found that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” caused the Pentagon to waste over $360 million in tax payer funds between 1994 and 2003." Per http://dont.stanford.edu/commentary/conduct4.pdf, the military is consistently violating the "Don't Pursue" aspect. Per http://www.wiredstrategies.com/email8.htm, the US Navy illegally obtained information on a gay servicemember's account from AOL and ousted him over it.

I doubt that this discussion can be properly resolved tho. Without reliable stats on how many homosexuals are separated prematurely and how many serve as long as they desire, we cant really show any real data one way or the other.

Mmm. The US military didn't start discharging people for homosexuality until 1942. Many other countries don't forbid military service by gays. It's true that we don't know how many servicepeople serve as long as they desire while hiding their sexuality, but it is true that more and more veterans are coming out all the time. It's also true that thousands of people have been kicked out of the military under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Apples and oranges. See below

Would you shower with a different random person each day? Do you think that everyone is willing to shower with anyone? Do you think that having separate mens and womens bathrooms is discrimination?

Heh. I spend quite a lot of time at renaissance faires. No such thing as men's and women's bathrooms; just port-a-potties for all. I also know quite a lot of people who wouldn't be willing to shower with anyone and an equal number who don't care. But if it's the showers that's such a big issue, why not stop having communal showers altogether? Doesn't that solve the problem?

Men and women dont shower together because the whole problem is about sex. My feeling is that if you boil all the discrimination out, you are left with the sexual aspect.

Oh, it's true. So we're back to ogling.

I am not saying that discrimination dosent exist, but that there is more to this issue than discrimination.

Yup. There's (as mentioned above) the fact that gays are clearly security risks and pedophiles.

You have a right to serve in the military? Would that not mean that you should be allowed to enlist?

Apples and oranges. I have physical and psychological limitations that prevent my usefulness as a soldier. History, and the facts of other countries' current policies, show that just being homosexual is not one of them. Couer de Lion, known to have had an affair with one of his minstrels, certainly didn't have trouble becoming one of the most famous warriors in history. Nor did Alexander the Great, who was bi at very least.

The military isnt there to promote equal rights. It is there to defend the country when we need diplomacy by other means. Anything which reduces its ability to wage war should be removed. War is nasty enough without adding other problems.

The Israelis don't seem to have a problem with it.

Technically, 'dont ask, dont tell' does not prevent service. All it really asks is 'please stay in the closet, at least officially'

"Please pretend to be someone you're not."

The all laws must apply equally to citizen and non-citizen clause I suggested before should prevent most of that. My whole point with that is that is should be impossible to treat the non-citizens differently. The examples you site are where the non-citizen was treated differently under the law.

Women were still citizens, technically. Communists were citizens, certainly. The American-born Japanese who were put in the internment camps. It's possible to treat citizens differently. Why should it be different once they become non-citizens?

Why would people not paying taxes protest that they are not paying?

I'm saying that one of the biggest hues and cries heard was the threat that they were going to continue the estate tax, which essentially only applies to people leaving $3,500,000. In the last decade or so, the biggest tax breaks have gone to those who needed the money least.

[BigDon]

"A 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission report found that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” caused the Pentagon to waste over $360 million in tax payer funds between 1994 and 2003."

You are getting your info from hostile witnesses and should be looked at as such.

Change the word "waste" to "spent" and then divide that number by the years. Looks a little less venomous.

[Gillianren]

Change the word "waste" to "spent" and then divide that number by the years. Looks a little less venomous.

Well, I think it's a waste. Imagine how many private showers that could buy.

[geonuc]

Because I have first hand experience on when the public gets lied to. I knew Iraq was going to invade Kuwait was going to be invaded about a month beforehand and I was only a private first class at the time.
You knew?

[geonuc]

There were at least several gays on the submarine I was on. We all knew it; didn't care.

[BigDon]

We had two groups of gays. The ones who were good, professional sailors and the ones who weren't.

Nobody cared about the professional ones. And that was LONG before don't ask, don't tell.

[RalofTyr]

Because I have first hand experience on when the public gets lied to. I knew Iraq was going to invade Kuwait was going to be invaded about a month beforehand and I was only a private first class at the time.

Hey, how do you know when a politician is lying?


His lips are moving.


I think a lot of people have experience being lied to.

Secondly, G.W. Bush Sr. didn't know Iraq was going to invade Kuwait until five days before Aug. 2nd and the Iraqi military buildup wasn't really noticeable until the mid-July, so how you knew a month prior is a bit of a mystery, unless you're in the Iraq high command.

[sarongsong]

...G.W. Bush Sr. didn't know Iraq was going to invade Kuwait until five days before Aug. 2nd...Reference?...By June 1990 - two months before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - General Norman Schwarzkopf was conducting sophisticated war games pitting hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions.[3 (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm#3)]...
deoxy.org (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm)

[geonuc]

Reference?
You're linking to a conspiracy website to make your point?

While I don't think anyone not related to Saddam Hussein can reasonably state that they knew he was going to invade Kuwait, pointing out that the US military was preparing for potential combat operations is not indicative of as much as you might think. NATO also conducted many, many on-the-field war games to prepare for a Soviet armored thrust through the Fulda Gap. As far as I recall, that thrust never happened. Same thing with a whole lot of other potential war scenarios.

[timb]

The Israelis don't seem to have a problem with it.


Neither do Hezbollah (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51553).

[sarongsong]

You're linking to a conspiracy website to make your point?...The point was to establish the basis for a stated timeline, especially in light of the previous 3 sentences of that stated timeline. The Newsweek reference was an afterthought.

[SolusLupus]

well, i think it's a waste. Imagine how many private showers that could buy.
:D Heh heh.

[SolusLupus]

"A 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission report found that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” caused the Pentagon to waste over $360 million in tax payer funds between 1994 and 2003."

You are getting your info from hostile witnesses and should be looked at as such.

Change the word "waste" to "spent" and then divide that number by the years. Looks a little less venomous.

Yes indeed! ~$40 million "spent" per year over the course of 9 years, just to keep homosexuals out of the military.

Yes. That changes things entirely. I can't possibly see what's so objectionable about that!

Well, no, it still sounds wrong to me. Hmm, I must just not be using enough word-changing, or the right figures! If we go by years and it still sounds bad, let's shorten it to months, then!

$40 million a year translates to around $3.333~ million per month. Hmmm, still seems high. Let's go with weeks, then. That translates to about $769,000 a week... no, no, still high. So about $100,000 per day. By George, I think I got it! Finally, to tweak it just right, about $5000 an hour cost. Brilliant! $5000 is nothing, after all; after a small loan, I could pay for it myself!

Also, "hostile witnesses"? While a newspaper stand might be called a "stand", it's not quite the same as "stand" in court terms.

[Ara Pacis]

That would effectively increase every single employer's payroll costs by almost 4%. That's a pretty significant burden.

Possibly, market forces being what they are, but that's a separate issue from a state/tax burden on employees. taxation is generally considered factored into compensation demands by employees, this will be no different a phenomenon. Moreover, whatever the baseline compensation is set for "non-citizens" then the real burden would be rightly placed on the tax-payers who desire more influence.

[EricM407]

It came up during the discussion as to why I was discussing service for vote. Since the thread was about mandatory service, it is at least partly involved in the thread.

I'm not suggesting it's off topic. I'm questioning whether service for vote would actually change the demographic of the voting population the way you're assuming it would. Do you have any statistics on how many veterans and service members pay income taxes vs. the general population, and how many receive taxpayer funded benefits vs. the general population right now? How do we know that service for vote won't just create the biggest, most effective lobbying force in American history, directing other people's tax dollars straight into their wallets?

I guess I don't see any evidence that this solution addresses the concern you have.

[RalofTyr]

Reference?


TBH, the US conducts wargames against various nations all the time.

There was one where they fought against Israel and the US commander playing the Israels was able to cripple multiple US Navy ships, so the Navy scratched that out of the game.

http://www.uscrusade.com/Iraq/sfbg.html

[BigDon]

Yes indeed! ~$40 million "spent" per year over the course of 9 years, just to keep homosexuals out of the military.

That isn't to Keep Them Out, they were in already, in was to throw out ones not abiding by the rules.

[mugaliens]

I think a sophisticated volunteer force can mean better quality...

I agree, and I thoroughly enjoyed your comments and your analysis.

The one aspect that wasn't mentioned has to do with the scope of the conflict. Is it force on force (picture US vs Japan naval battles of WWII), or is assymetrical warfare involved? (picture USSR's occupation of Afghanistan)

A very small, but top-quality force can hamstring a far larger and far more powerful and better-equipped force, if the nature of the conflict, including things such as environment, are favorable. On the other hand, a larger force can accept a 10% reduction in force and channel those resources into their own top-quality efforts which can match that of their enemy, while retaining most of the much larger force as a backup.

The US employs a mutlidisciplined tier, involving many different specialties, and several scales of effort in each of those specialties, ranging from large, normally trained force with many specialists to very small elite forces made of multidisciplined individuals, or supported as required by the specialists from the larger forces.

The bottom line is that the "force-on-force" concept hasn't been used for years. We don't send a battalion against an enemy's battalion. Instead, we:

1. send a regiment, both to far outmass the enemy, as well as to provide post-conflict security

2. send in a much smaller force to hamper/impede the enemy

3. send in a totally assymetrical force, such as air to ground weapons.

Often, we combine all avenues of approach to gain and maintain the upper hand as rapidly as possible while minimizing the loss of life to friendlies and non-combatants (and even combatants) and secure the area.

[SolusLupus]

That isn't to Keep Them Out, they were in already, in was to throw out ones not abiding by the rules.

Right right, not to keep them out, just to kick them out. Sorry, my mistake. After all, the military would more than likely accept a known homosexual, right? Wait... doesn't that invalidate the whole thing?

Yes, indeed, they broke the rules! Rules we most desperately need -- like those rules that kept those dang blacks out! Dreadful thing, blacks being in the military. Caused all sorts of problems and made it distracting to the men! Tsk, now they're allowed to roam free. What are things coming to? When I look at the military to today to the military back then, it's obvious just how much it changed. :( What a shame, arbitrary discrimination based on what a man is, not being allowed or funded by my tax dollars! Maybe we should have had a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy there, and gave them large gobs of white paint... that's quite open-minded, isn't it? That certainly sounds a good approach to me!

I also dearly love your command of the English language! Instead of saying "waste", say "spend"; instead of "being a homosexual" it's "not abiding by the rules" (because a state of being should indeed be against the rules, much like race!) I find this command of language double plus good!

[Arneb]

Aaah, the wulf is growling again! :) Nice to have you back, man. Going to stay around a bit longer this time? How's Eppelheim these days?

[Gillianren]

Dreadful thing, blacks being in the military.

Be fair. There were blacks in the military in the Revolutionary War. They weren't allowed after that and until 1863 (except, according to what I've read, in the navy), true, but the issue more relevant to me is not that old ban but the segregation that followed it until Truman's executive order to integrate the military. The segregation existed, if you believe the military people's claims, because blacks and whites just wouldn't be comfortable in the same units.

[SolusLupus]

Aaah, the wulf is growling again! :) Nice to have you back, man. Going to stay around a bit longer this time? How's Eppelheim these days?

I'm in San Antonio, Texas now, actually (might have to change my profile, whoops). Going to be studying at UTSA for a couple of years, but going back to good ol' Germany over the Summer.

Gillianren brought me back, and after enough quotes from the more colorful personalities from this thread, I had to get involved. :D

[SolusLupus]

Be fair.

I am fair! I'm just snarky. :D

There were blacks in the military in the Revolutionary War. They weren't allowed after that and until 1863 (except, according to what I've read, in the navy), true, but the issue more relevant to me is not that old ban but the segregation that followed it until Truman's executive order to integrate the military.
Ooooh alright, but Washington was none too happy about that!

The segregation existed, if you believe the military people's claims, because blacks and whites just wouldn't be comfortable in the same units.

Hmm... they wouldn't be comfortable? That sounds awfully familiar! Let's see... where have I heard a similar argument before?

[Gillianren]

Ooooh alright, but Washington was none too happy about that!

It's true that he wasn't. But, you know, slaveowner. Ideas above their station and all that.

Hmm... they wouldn't be comfortable? That sounds awfully familiar! Let's see... where have I heard a similar argument before?

Apparently, it's apples and oranges.

[SolusLupus]

Apparently, it's apples and oranges.

Right, right... because it was scientifically proven that homosexuals "choose" to be so or something, or something like that. Just like heterosexuals can "choose" to find people of their own sex as attractive.

Personally, I find this arbitrary nonsense quite amusing... especially when militaristic cultures demonstrate almost the opposite kind of thinking, as in Japanese culture in Feudal Japan, or even in ancient Athens(which wasn't quite so militaristic, although they did get in quite a few wars).

Japanese culture is actually quite interesting when it comes to sexuality; homosexuality was actually considered one of the highest forms of love.

Whereas here, you get such colorful epithets, including (but not limited to) "butt picker", "fairy", and "fruit".

[BigDon]

Hey Woofy, in case you didn't know, nobody is allowed to sex while at sea, even married couples. It's a court marshal offense to get caught doing so. The premise being the same as "did you bring enough candy for the rest of the class?"

[SolusLupus]

Hey Woofy, in case you didn't know, nobody is allowed to sex while at sea, even married couples. It's a court marshal offense to get caught doing so. The premise being the same as "did you bring enough candy for the rest of the class?"

Ah, I see! So the problem isn't with them being homosexuals, but with them having sex! Ergo, if a man is a homosexual and doesn't have any sex in the military, there would be no problem at all!

I'm sure you have plenty of evidence that only those that had sex were acted against, and that's what the rules are against, no?

If I was a soldier and just said "I'm a homosexual", that would do nothing at all, nosirree, would be perfectly acceptable and not get me thrown out. Do they have a "rolleyes" emoticon on this forum? This post dreadfully needs it.

Also, please don't call me "woofy". "Wufy" is acceptable. I loathe O's.

[BigDon]

Ah, I see! So the problem isn't with them being homosexuals, but with them having sex! Ergo, if a man is a homosexual and doesn't have any sex in the military, there would be no problem at all!

I'm sure you have plenty of evidence that only those that had sex were acted against, and that's what the rules are against, no?

If I was a soldier and just said "I'm a homosexual", that would do nothing at all, nosirree, would be perfectly acceptable and not get me thrown out. Do they have a "rolleyes" emoticon on this forum? This post dreadfully needs it.

Also, please don't call me "woofy". "Wufy" is acceptable. I loathe O's.

Wulf, you are an excellent, articulate "keyboard commando" and good at twisting posts, but I have a question for you. In real world situations have you ever lost blood because you wouldn't let a "sissy" (their own designation for feminine acting homosexuals) get beaten? *I* have. Or do you run when men raise their voices in anger?

You are trying to hang a "punk" sign on me through stuff you don't know crap all about. We are this close to not being friends anymore.

[SolusLupus]

Wulf, you are [...] excellent, articulate [...] and good at twisting posts

Thank you! :D

[...] but I have a question for you. In real world situations have you ever lost blood because you wouldn't let a "sissy" (their own designation for feminine acting homosexuals) get beaten? *I* have.

I always found this line of reasoning amusing. I've heard it this way once before: "Hey! I love homosexuals! Several of my friends are homosexuals. I just think that they're abominations in the eyes of God!"

Much like, "Hey, I defended a homosexual! I just think that they should get kicked out of the army just for being one, and your tax dollars should be used to do it!"

It sounds quite similar, to me, of: "I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm not racist! I have friends that are black!"

I also like the "their own" bit... because homosexuals are of a hive mind. ;)

Or do you run when men raise their voices in anger?

I wouldn't know. I'm too much of a recluse to know if I'm a coward or not. Someone would have to break into my house for me to find out. ;)

You are trying to hang a "punk" sign on me

Actually, I'm doing no such thing. I'm disgusted with all of the misconceptions of homosexuals and some of the rather demonstrably false claims about what the military does and does not do and their reasons for doing so, but I am in no way putting any sign on you.

If you wish to make the debate more personal, you're more than able to do so, but I would have to ask you to take it to PM first. I already predict that a mod will be acting shortly.

through stuff you don't know crap all about.
I'm the one that "doesn't know crap at all about" it? I'm not the one claiming that the military only bans men who have sex, even though it's quite clear that that's not all the military act against. You claim that I twist your words, but I went off of what you typed. You defend the military's decision with a specific argument, and then when I question that argument, you claim I'm twisting your words. Quite a conundrum... I assume I should be looking into arguments that you aren't making?

If you truly believe me to be ignorant on the subject, then you're certainly free to provide evidence for your assertions.

We are this close to not being friends anymore.

I wasn't even aware we were friends in the first place, but if that is what you wish, then who am I to question you? It's not like it's a big loss to either of us.

[SolusLupus]

Oh yes, I forgot to answer the OP:

I can see some good arguments for mandatory military service. I have a friend in Singapore, who convinced me that mandatory service in Singapore was actually a good idea; of course, women don't have to serve (my female friend served anyways, as her parents thought that it would build her character or somesuch), and I'm pretty sure that you can get out of it if you suffer from a debilitating physical or mental condition, like Gillianren noted about herself.

For Singapore, I can see it; it's so small a country, that it needs a fully standing military, and every citizen needs to pull their weight as much as they are able. In the United States, we are allowed leniency, as our small (relative to our size) military can, even if it's small proportionally, be engaged in various fields of battle overseas. As it is, we can afford to do away with the draft, and furthermore, we would have to increase military spending even more than we have, to support the larger influx of soldiers that we're bringing into service -- though arguably, it might decrease unemployment (given some arguments on the subject), and that might just counterbalance such. I'm not convinced about that, anyways. Of course, you could just hold the majority of the populace in reserves; while you'd still need to pay out for their training from time to time, it is not quite as costly as having them as fully-fledged soldiers. Still, I'm not quite sure if I support that option.

For some countries, mandatory military service is a necessity. For some countries, it is not. For the U.S. presently, it is not; should the U.S. ever be invaded by an equal or almost equal force, it would be required (though I'm sure that volunteer rates would be high enough to not even need it!)

As for the argument that there are other civil positions that someone can hold that is not military-oriented (but is under the government), I would like to posit the argument that the majority of jobs in the United States go to the benefit of the United States; everything from sewer cleaners to fast food servers to any large corporations to garbage disposal. Some are private (such as many utilities providers), and some are public -- the economy affects us all, and the U.S. itself. Thus, I don't see any need for mandatory civil service to make one able to provide a service to their country.

[Moose]

I already predict that a mod will be acting shortly.

Good guess.

We're getting very close to the point where this thread will be closed with review for possible sanctions. I suggest that everybody take a few deep breaths, and carefully consider the tone of their next posts.

[SolusLupus]

Good guess.

Yeah, I'm good at that. :D

[Gillianren]

Hey Woofy, in case you didn't know, nobody is allowed to sex while at sea, even married couples. It's a court marshal offense to get caught doing so. The premise being the same as "did you bring enough candy for the rest of the class?"

Don! You should know that it's "court martial"! As in, "military"!

But Lonewulf is right; you'd be on firm ground if the rule had ever been "we'll kick you out because of gay sex." However, it only takes a very little study of the last seventy years or so of military history to know that that has not been the case.

[HenrikOlsen]

Has anyone actually noticed that Don hasn't been the one defending the policy?

[SolusLupus]

Has anyone actually noticed that Don hasn't been the one defending the policy?

Well, when he says stuff like:

You are getting your info from hostile witnesses and should be looked at as such.

Change the word "waste" to "spent" and then divide that number by the years. Looks a little less venomous.

That isn't to Keep Them Out, they were in already, in was to throw out ones not abiding by the rules.

With "Not abiding by the rules" being defined as "being gay" (whether he knows it or not), I'm sure I can be forgiven for not seeing that he wasn't.

As it is, I'm still not convinced that he wasn't. And even if he wasn't defending the military's policy and actions, he certainly could have gone a longer way to make such a fact more clear.

[Moose]

As it is, I'm still not convinced that he wasn't. And even if he wasn't defending the military's policy and actions, he certainly could have gone a longer way to make such a fact more clear.

There's a pretty big difference between defending a policy and pointing out that the critics of that policy are using loaded language (which they have done) and framing monetary amounts over multiple years to inflate their appearance (which they have also done.)

And Don's absolutely right in that when a critic is engaging in rhetorical tactics to frame the debate (which is being done), one must take any numbers provided without context (as is the case here) with a pretty serious lump of salt.

And before you choose to assume I'm defending the policy as well, I'm not. "Don't ask, don't tell" is better than open discrimination, but not by much.

[SolusLupus]

There's a pretty big difference between defending a policy and pointing out that the critics of that policy are using loaded language (which they have done) and framing monetary amounts over multiple years to inflate their appearance (which they have also done.)

And Don's absolutely right in that when a critic is engaging in rhetorical tactics to frame the debate (which is being done), one must take any numbers provided without context (as is the case here) with a pretty serious lump of salt.

Even if we accepted "spending" instead of "wasting" and "$360 million in 9 years" as "$40 million per year over 9 years", I still don't get what's so justifiable about it.

And no, I don't believe that using language that indicates the person's opinion makes the facts dubious. If I stated, for instance, that I thought that the KKK were a nasty vicious group, would that invalidate the facts of their existence? As someone studying history, one thing I've come to learn is that utter objectivity is a pipe dream.

But by all means, if someone can produce differing figures using a reliable source, I'm all ears. Any takers?

And before you choose to assume I'm defending the policy as well,

Rather jumping the gun, aren't you? I made my assumptions with far more posts at reference than that single, solitary one, and with Don continually not making it clear that he was "just stating that the article was using loaded language" (after all, the military just were kicking people out for breaking the rules...)

I'm not. "Don't ask, don't tell" is better than open discrimination, but not by much.
Yes.

I'd feel a lot better if it was Don that said that, several posts ago, though.