Thread: Why America Needs A Draft

"Well it makes prefect sense. What this kind of draft would do is serve as an alternative to college, for those not going to college. It would give some discipline and physical training as well as teamwork and some leadership skills to American youth. In a sense it's education."

LOL

Enlistment is already an "alternative".

But of course the Russian view would be to force them in the military.

The only one in great need of "discipline" and "education" is you.

You need to pipe down and read, listen and learn.

Now that would make "sense".

But Im not holding my breath.

What an arrogant, ignorant little brat.

What a punk.

Thank you. For belittelling my opinion, offering no logical arguments to refute it, and then resorting to personal attacks. Thank you for demonstrating your own appalling lack of maturity.

*Cracks open beer*

Feanor who do you think owns someone, that someone or the state?

Dang it, this better not get too interesting. I've got three tests to study for before Tuesday. Distractions are not acceptable.

Ha. What a nice set up. But look at it this way. Do you really own yourself? (since that's what you're implying, and if I take the other option you will simply label me as a marginalized radical and quite rightly so) Lets say I, being of legal maturity age, decide to take up parashoot jumping as a sport. I own myself. No one has the right to stop me. I make a bad jump, end up paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of my life. My parents, who don't own me and ''don't have the right'' to stop me, are probably going to end up taking care of me for the rest of my life. They don't have to, and nothing forces them to, but they will. So do I really own myself and my life? Or do I owe it to those around me? To live a life for them, rather then for myself?

EDIT: Waiting impatiently for your reply

Originally Posted by Feanor

Ha. What a nice set up. But look at it this way. Do you really own yourself? (since that's what you're implying, and if I take the other option you will simply label me as a marginalized radical and quite rightly so)

I don't think I've ever labelled someone like that, give me the benefit of the doubt.

Lets say I, being of legal maturity age, decide to take up parashoot jumping as a sport. I own myself. No one has the right to stop me. I make a bad jump, end up paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of my life. My parents, who don't own me and ''don't have the right'' to stop me, are probably going to end up taking care of me for the rest of my life. They don't have to, and nothing forces them to, but they will. So do I really own myself and my life? Or do I owe it to those around me? To live a life for them, rather then for myself?

EDIT: Waiting impatiently for your reply

There is a difference between a set of personal moral responsibilities which a person has and the fundamentals of how society should operate on a macroscopic scale. What you are describing is a situation involving the former which has different implications.

The latter, however, needs a deep infusion of individualism and individualist views - the state should not cart you around against your will - so that, in addition to other considerations, people have the choice to act on those personal moral responsibilities. Having the state make the choice for you morally emasculates you, turning individuals and ultimately society into a top-heavy and thus unstable structure. What happens when the state collapses, or becomes less proactive? The confusion of personal moral responsibilities and broader social principles results in individuals having no moral compass. I hope this reply satisifies you.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

I don't think I've ever labelled someone like that, give me the benefit of the doubt.

My apologies. It just looked like it. Maybe I'm just too used to looking beyond peoples words.

There is a difference between a set of personal moral responsibilities which a person has and the fundamentals of how society should operate on a macroscopic scale. What you are describing is a situation involving the former which has different implications.

Is there really a principal difference like you say? Or is it more of a scale where one slowly blends into the other? With only qualitative and quantitative distinctions?

The latter, however, needs a deep infusion of individualism and individualist views - the state should not cart you around against your will - so that, in addition to other considerations, people have the choice to act on those personal moral responsibilities. Having the state make the choice for you morally emasculates you, turning individuals and ultimately society into a top-heavy and thus unstable structure. What happens when the state collapses, or becomes less proactive? The confusion of personal moral responsibilities and broader social principles results in individuals having no moral compass. I hope this reply satisifies you.

To bring it back to the idea of a draft, it would be like public education continuing on past high school for a couple of years of boot camp and physical training. I don't think that would be overly top heavy or government dominated.

PS I never label people, just outright insult them. You're safe for now.

Originally Posted by Feanor

Is there really a principal difference like you say? Or is it more of a scale where one slowly blends into the other? With only qualitative and quantitative distinctions?

There is a fundamental difference - the former should have personal and emotional consideration, the latter, at least the sort I'm talking about, should have legal force.

To bring it back to the idea of a draft, it would be like public education continuing on past high school for a couple of years of boot camp and physical training. I don't think that would be overly top heavy or government dominated.

When I think 'draft' I think 'combat' and indeed that's the original point of discussion.

And I'm sorry but what you're considering applies to everybody, and it couldn't be run like a lottery like the Vietnam-era draft was.

Originally Posted by CIA

Manpower reaching military service age annually:
Definition Field Listing
males age 18-49: 2,143,873
females age 18-49: 2,036,201 (2005 est.)

Training (properly) potentially well over 2 million, if not 4 million people every year for a 'couple of years' is just not possible. Consider that there are 'only' 1.4 million active-duty servicemen in the US military! I imagine the numbers are just as bad for other countries.

HEY! People! I said, no interesting philosophical discussions!

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

PS I never label people, just outright insult them. You're safe for now.

Oh good . . . . .... wait what? :(

There is a fundamental difference - the former should have personal and emotional consideration, the latter, at least the sort I'm talking about, should have legal force.

Only in the situation where the government is placed in opposition to the people. Now if, like in a real democracy, the government WAS the people then when you have obligations towards others around you to live a good life, that includes the government, making it an emotional obligation.

When I think 'draft' I think 'combat' and indeed that's the original point of discussion.

And I'm sorry but what you're considering applies to everybody, and it couldn't be run like a lottery like the Vietnam-era draft was.

Training (properly) potentially well over 2 million, if not 4 million people every year for a 'couple of years' is just not possible. Consider that there are 'only' 1.4 million active-duty servicemen in the US military! I imagine the numbers are just as bad for other countries.

Non-combat only. This would not strictly be a true military institution. It would be, like I already mentioned, a form of continuing public education for those not going to college.

Originally Posted by Feanor

Only in the situation where the government is placed in opposition to the people. Now if, like in a real democracy, the government WAS the people then when you have obligations towards others around you to live a good life, that includes the government, making it an emotional obligation.

Personal moral responsibilities are not for people but individuals. It is incredibly dangerous to conflate the two - for the simple reason that people never, ever have uniform opinions on something. What you're describing is essentially my point; just replace 'government' with 'people' and you'll have some hazy vague collective opinion replacing the individual's ability to handle PMRs.

Non-combat only. This would not strictly be a true military institution. It would be, like I already mentioned, a form of continuing public education for those not going to college.

Too much cost and not just in training them. Where is the nation going to get its fast-food restaurant workers, its supermarket shelf-stackers, its gas station attendants, and all the jobs generally filled by this army of young people?

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Personal moral responsibilities are not for people but individuals. It is incredibly dangerous to conflate the two - for the simple reason that people never, ever have uniform opinions on something. What you're describing is essentially my point; just replace 'government' with 'people' and you'll have some hazy vague collective opinion replacing the individual's ability to handle PMRs.

Only because modern human society the mentality of the individual and a crowd of said individuals is drastically different. A group of individuals in incapable of acting coherently in situations where a lone individual can easily make the right decision. This is what brings about the need for government. The concept of communism, which is essentially what we're arguing around here, is that the individual becomes not only a single entity, but an organic part of the whole.

Too much cost and not just in training them. Where is the nation going to get its fast-food restaurant workers, its supermarket shelf-stackers, its gas station attendants, and all the jobs generally filled by this army of young people?

Mexicans. But seriously, America has enough unemployed to swallow up losing a percentage of it's uneducated youth to this system, especially given the long term benefits of a more disciplined and physically fit youth.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

HEY! People! I said, no interesting philosophical discussions!

You know the internet is a "pull" medium. You won't get anything interesting unless you actively search for it.

Originally Posted by Feanor

Ha. What a nice set up. But look at it this way. Do you really own yourself? (since that's what you're implying, and if I take the other option you will simply label me as a marginalized radical and quite rightly so) Lets say I, being of legal maturity age, decide to take up parashoot jumping as a sport. I own myself. No one has the right to stop me. I make a bad jump, end up paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of my life. My parents, who don't own me and ''don't have the right'' to stop me, are probably going to end up taking care of me for the rest of my life. They don't have to, and nothing forces them to, but they will. So do I really own myself and my life? Or do I owe it to those around me? To live a life for them, rather then for myself?

EDIT: Waiting impatiently for your reply

You say know one owns you? Join the military, you are then owned by the Government. You do something stupid to injure yourself, who's going to pay for the medical? The government! And if it was in the line of duty, you would probably get disability retirement which you get paid for the rest of your life.

When I was on active duty, I got a severe sunburn. That night I was working a deployment line, and during a break, rolled up my pants legs to cool my legs off. A Major approached me and asked if I was well enough to work because the sunburn looked pretty bad. Sheepishly I rolled down my pants legs, and said I was fine. Believe it or not, I could have gotten an Article 15 for not being able to complete my duties!

So, I think if you join the military for training, discipline, education, etc, you will be owned.

I've heard rumor that if Hilary Clinton does get elected, there very well could be a draft, because a lot of troops might not re-up! Again, that is rumor!!