dude...the recruiter that signed up my daughter was missing 2 fingers on his left hand and they had still let him in. these days you have to be almost legally blind to be disqualified and I have never heard of anyone being denied a commission due to color blindness. They didn't even ask me about it when I applied for commission and it hasn't been a part of the eye test for the last 5-6 years. there are a few jobs they won't let you do if you are colorblind.
That could be argued. However, generals work for the overall population. If anyone's kid can get drafted, there's going to be a huge public backlash against undue troop losses (i.e., the 1970s).
Not everyone is suited for military service; so my answer is I don't support mandatory service.
Things have changed since I enlisted, in fact, they aren't pushing out the pudgies anymore....:2razz:
But how about someone in a wheelchair? Will they take that person, even if he/she can fly a desk as well as anyone else?
IIRC, from my history books and classes, he had misgivings about it. But in those days, it was the norm, and pretty much required if you had a large farm.
Machinery did away with the need for slaves.
Today, technology can do away with a lot of our need for warriors. If we change our ways of fighting, we can downsize our ground troop requirements a lot.
modern military requirements favor long term soldiers due to the complex nature of the task. conscripts don't fit that role well and if you waste too many volunteers, people will stop volunteering. when the volunteer army was discussed the arguments went like this
1) in favor of a volunteer army
a) more motivated soldiers
b) better trained soldiers
c) no public issues with a draft
d) leaders are more careful of using soldiers in risky operations
There were no moral issues raised against the draft?
Can a person voluntarily enter into a state of slavery? If so, is your argument that ALL members of the military are slaves? In order to fit the legal definition of a "slave", one must be "bound in servitude as the property of a person" (The Legal Dictionary).It's why I said white slavery, because he obviously was okay with it for blacks.
Can a person voluntarily enter into a state of slavery? If so, is your argument that ALL members of the military are slaves? In order to fit the legal definition of a "slave", one must be "bound in servitude as the property of a person" (The Legal Dictionary).
Next question.......do draftees receive all of the same benefits and opportunities through their military service that volunteers do? (YES) (Please keep in mind before you answer, that my own father was drafted in 1969 and continued to reenlist for 23 more years - he chose to make a career of it - willingly). In order for your argument to be valid you must indeed show evidence that ALL military service fulfills the definition of "slavery". Are you willing or able to do that? :shrug: BTW, I also voluntarily joined and during my 10 years of service, even the one year I was ordered to Active Duty, I never lost my freedom of will or choice. I simply CHOSE to take the oath and follow orders - I could have chosen not to......it probably would have simply resulted in a dishonorable discharge.....with my freedom still intact.
The entire point of his argument is that conscription is slavery, because conscripts are forced to work involuntarily. I don't see how this applies to volunteers, because of conditions. How well you're treated has nothing to do with slavery. In the Antebellum South many slaves had living conditions surpassing that of many Whites, but they were still slaves.
What are you saying? That all conscripted soldiers will die? Conscription = death?Conscription is slavery because one cannot pay for another's life, therefore reasonable comphensation is not possible - that's called being forced to work without pay.
Conscription is slavery because one cannot pay for another's life, therefore reasonable comphensation is not possible - that's called being forced to work without pay. It's not a punative action; there is no judgement against the person justifying forced labor. They are simply being forced to work (and to perhaps pay the ultimate price personally) without fair comphensation (as that is impossible to establish).
I fail to see what would be served by paying millions to someone who has died? :thinking: However; their surviving beneficiaries will receive benefits. :shrug:It's not a "quick edit", I edit alot to make myself more clear and I can assure you that it was not a reaction to any post of yours. Check the final edit times and your post times, they should verify this.
Anyway, for those who are conscripted and die... how is fair comphensation arrived at? In private industry, one could sue the company for millions if a family member dies as a result of company action. Are all the dead soldiers gonna get paid millions? No? Then they were slaves (or volunteers).
It's different than jury duty, where comphensation for a few hours of work can be calculated to 'whatever'. Let us also note how easy it is to get out of or avoid jury duty; jury duty is hardly an obligation. Jury duty is a token gesture that is avoidable with a few simple words, not a (binding) call to life-threatening sacrifice. Comparing jury duty to military service is not robust.
Have you tried to get out of jury duty in a US Court lately? In my state you get locked up for skipping out and a "few words" just don't seem to cut it :lol:The point is not merely "work involuntarily". Grasp the main point, please: "work without fair comphensation". Fair comphensation for jury duty is a certificate of participation and you can opt out with a few words. Jury duty is not really an obligation and comphensation is fair enough.
Well I respect your military service and your friend's ability to weasel out of jury duty. I must also respectfully disagree with you.....I never really saw my ten years of service including a year in lovely Saudi/Iraq as a form of "slavery." I saw it more as a duty to my country and not some service that required "sufficient compensation." I'd like to think that most of our military men and women choose to see it the same way. As I posted earlier, my father was a draftee during the Vietnam Conflict and he never saw it as "slavery" either. But then, I suppose opinions are indeed like anuses................. :shrug:Yes, I know people who have skipped out of jury duty with a couple words at the courthouse recently.
Don't talk down to me about the reality of military service. I was a paratrooper during wartime. It was not like jury duty, and your comparison is disrespectful.
If someone buys what they cannot pay for, they have slaves or volunteers. End of story.
I have a different view. I would proudly serve next to my father if it were possible, as his 25 years of service were impeccable. I also know, for a fact, that there were other conscripts of the Vietnam era who became career miltary and were fine soldiers, sailors, and airmen. It seems that now you are the one who is being disrespectful.I, personally, would not serve next to a conscript. I have more respect for myself than that.
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?