- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,535
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I do not even know what that means or what it has to do with my post your replied to. :roll:
Will robbing me of my property reward you with merit for your case against me?
I do not even know what that means or what it has to do with my post your replied to. :roll:
Sure it does. But we here in the United States will not have a draft unless our elected Representatives and Senators pass a draft law and the president signs it. No draft can take place unless congress first acts. But the right is there for congress to act and if it does, then this country does have the right to draft.
The security and presumably the domestic tranquility of our free States, is a States' right.
If you exile me from your lands then you must rob me of my property. I don't imagine you would allow me to continue to operate my business and own a piece of your land once you forcibly removed me.
If you exile me from your lands then you must rob me of my property. I don't imagine you would allow me to continue to operate my business and own a piece of your land once you forcibly removed me.
I agree with you about Vietnam but I dont think paying taxes and actually taking a chance of getting shot up are close to the same. I am going to really research Libertarian phliosophy as I have time, there must be something to it I am missing.
Yes, it is a States' right.
Forcing me to show up means very little if it turns out to be a waste of their time.
Of course I would. I am no solider and I have no desire to take heed of those that feel they can command me without my permission.
If you exile me from your lands then you must rob me of my property. I don't imagine you would allow me to continue to operate my business and own a piece of your land once you forcibly removed me.
The title of citizenship is thrust upon you, like a protective cloak. That is appropriate because homo sapien infants (unlike those of turtles and other species) are not born able to live without the support of their parents and community; they can't acquire foods and have few inborn skills they can make immediate use of.
After that, 'citizenship' is a multifaceted, ongoing process, and not a split second decision. It is something that carries over many decisions and actions, something you grow into. But much like the toys or clothing that can be thrown aside as you grow older, citizenship too can be folded away. And it should be taken away from people who don't use it responsibly and put everyone in danger.
Human beings can't consent to having a body of laws or a government anymore than they can consent to having an arm. It's part of what we are. The ones who don't have one are at an evolutionary disadvantage and cease to exist unless someone intercedes on their behalf.
What you call 'property' barely even exists without the threat of force to protect it. In such situations, it is a fleeting, transient, thing, not the engine of the robust markets characteristic of powerful civilizations. Neither does 'time or safety' or any other resource you use to develop your life exist unless a collective association stands watch over it. The threat of force of a single individual doesn't amount to enough to safeguard property or the economic systems that create it, but that of a whole nation can. That is why conscientious individuals must form a body politic of some sort. People who don't want to be part of the systems that protect property can take their possessions and go somewhere else that will have them, or accept second-class status as non-citizens.
not under the 13th amendment. Henrin is correct, the draft is unconstitutional.
the problem is with a draft that its a lousy distribution of talent. Putting someone who has a high IQ or specialized training in a position where they can get killed is stupid. Of course "egalitarians" will claim that equity demands this but that argument fails. You see a draft is not about fairness its about what is best for the country with individual rights be damned. But a draft is stupid. you don't need a high IQ or specialized training in may areas to be infantry fodder. now jet pilots, commanders of tank squadrons etc maybe.
and most of those drafted are going to be doing support or logistics anyway.
modern warfare does not need large numbers of somewhat trained individuals. better an elite professional army
How does that work with our form of socialism with our capital program called eminent domain and just compensation?
Our Second Amendment is not repealed by the 13th.
Our Second Amendment is not repealed by the 13th.
I never cared for eminent domain as it assumes control over all property and allows the government to ignore the consent of property owners.
That's as much an argument for a better kind of draft than it is for no draft at all. People can be made to contribute or any number of ways.
Sometimes individuals with specialized training are exactly what the military needs. In Vietnam, my grandfather was an assistant to a medical doctor who got drafted as a colonel.
this ought to be fun-what do you think the second amendment says
are you under the delusion that it somehow EMPOWERS the federal government?
Hell, I think some mandatory form of military/public/government service for a year would be great for the UK, and probably every other nation.
It is very clear that the 13th amendment forbids all involuntary servitude. Since the draft throws people into the service of the country against their will there is little doubt it is involuntary servitude and thus forbidden by the 13 amendment.
dude, the security of a free State is a States' right; any questions?
dude, it has to do with security (and presumably the domestic Tranquility) of our free States.
I think those drafted have the moral right to resist with arms. They might lose but they are not immoral for killing those who would conscript them
I can agree that children have no way to offer their consent and thus it is up to the parents to offer it, but once the child is old enough to offer it there is no reason to not give them the chance.
It is a completely invalid argument to claim that one must free themselves of slavery if they don't desire to be under the command of others as if their slave holder has a claim to own them that must be thrown to the side for them to no longer be owned.
Government is not evolution, but the sign of the failure of the human race to command their own destiny and not be commanded and ruled by their fellow human beings. The very reality that they never consented to it and never organized it only brings to light the reality that government is only a band of thieves, murderers, and slave holders. That government is simply the bane on the existence of the human race and further development of humanity.
Yes, banding together to protect resources is a great thing, as it will surely be more effective than doing it alone, but it should also be done by the consent of those involved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?