Draft

[Boats]

Some people chip in and others merely take with some inflated sense of entitlement. I know I have done the former and have listened intently to the latter justify themselves here.

To sum up: "Fweedom, FWEEDOM!!!!" (Jus' don' ask or tell me to pay for it fascist!)

Tell me again why is it that the rest of society should play the Little Red Hen to her lazy fellows who only want to eat the bread? It gets more creative each time I see the excuse.

[ronin308]

I think what ahenry is trying to say is that there is punk rocker freedom (freedom) and there is freedom with personal responsibility (liberty). In ahenry's definition of "freedom", I'm assuming that this means that one has the freedom to beat their kids and break store windows. Whereas his definition of "liberty" means things like responsible gun ownership and responsible drinking. Is this correct Aaron?

Boats- I think you missed Don's point. Have you ever been a schoolteacher? Did you go to public school? Are you being a parasite because you haven't served as a teacher?

[Boats]

Missed it? I am ignoring it. We have been presumptively talking about the nation's defense and the draft. Let's see, former sailor, guardsman and EMT, current reserve deputy sheriff. Am I covering enough bases there outside of my current career? Some people don't do a blessed thing that could be characterized, in peacetime, as "public service." I don't care about that because it is not the topic of this thread, it is titled "Draft," if I am not mistaken.

The attempt to decontextualize what has been said here in the context of the draft is but another disingeniuous ploy to obscure the fact that there are free-loaders in this thread all but declaring if a draft were reinstituted, they'd dodge it. It is curious that so many people here that would demand "accountability" from our peacetime free-loaders on welfare or other assistance would dare not demand it of themselves in a time of war.

[Tamara]

Maybe we draft supporters should read differently when the draft non-supporters invoke the term freedom. To clarify where they are coming from, when they employ the word freedom, read it to mean my inviolate parasitical liberty to suck off of the host.

Hey! Good idea!

And when I see the word "draft", I can read it as "children conscripted at gunpoint to be sacrificed to foreign entanglements". I wasn't aware you were into that whole postmodern trend of substituting your own meanings for others words; I guess they really do mean whatever you feel they mean.

Usually when a thread's deteriorated to the "You're a poopie head!", "Oh, yeah? Well, you're a bigger poopie head!" point, it's a good signal that it's run its course.

[Boats]

I wasn't aware you were into that whole postmodern trend of substituting your own meanings for others words; I guess they really do mean whatever you feel they mean.

Well words must mean what one thinks they mean shouldn't they? After all, your view that a draft doesn't mean "a legal and constitutional call of manpower to fight in the national interest," or some other non-inflammatory definition--rather it means slavery, is readily apparent from reading your past posts. It also now apparently means wanton child sacrifice at gunpoint. Goose really does equal gander. Reading between the lines is a practice that long predates your attempts to attach pejoratives to it.

Whatever. I spent part of my day yesterday honoring the victims of child slavery and sacrifice, who knew? How politically incorrect of me, in the light of so many libertarian purists here on TFL, to respect those victims, a sizeable portion of whom perished in that silly little foreign entanglement with Japan. My bad.

[ahenry]

Usually when a thread's deteriorated to the "You're a poopie head!", "Oh, yeah? Well, you're a bigger poopie head!" point, it's a good signal that it's run its course.

Of course there is much more to this discussion than that particular bit of commentary...

[Tamara]

How disingenuous, automatically declaring that "being opposed to the draft" = "dishonoring veterans". Next you'll tell me that "being opposed to welfare" = "hating poor people".

I don't like compulsory mechanisms that tell the citizen that his/her life or property is the society's to dispose of as it sees fit, call it what you will.

[Don Gwinn]

Ronin, that's fine, but my point is that Ahenry and Boats don't have the right to torture the definitions of words in the English language until those words support their agenda. If you believe in forcing people to serve a government at gunpoint, you are not somehow championing either freedom or liberty. You are harming both.

To say "Well, now liberty means the ability to do what I think you ought to do, so when I use the law to force you to do what I think you ought to do, I'm really pushing liberty!" isn't fooling anyone.


And while we're speaking of irrelevancies, yes, this thread is entitled "Draft." To me, that implies that we're discussing whether we should be drafting and forcing young adults to serve in our military, NOT whether it's a good idea for those young men to serve. Of course it's good to contribute. Of course it's good to serve. But is it good to force people to do these things? Is it good for our government to have the power to force young men to do what our government thinks is best? (Notice that I am assuming the best intentions on the part of that government, since so many here are arguing that draftees are drafted for their own good.)

[ahenry]

Ronin, that's fine, but my point is that Ahenry and Boats don't have the right to torture the definitions of words in the English language until those words support their agenda.

Don, you know better than that. Try checking a dictionary or two. I would suggest Webster’s 1828 for the most accurate use of the word as it was understood by our Founders. I am very sincere in my suggestion (or challenge); a good look at this will show you that it is not I who has “torture[d] the definition of words in the English language [to] support [my] agenda”. The definition of liberty prescribes necessary restraints, as opposed to freedom, which merely prescribes the lack of any restraints upon ones actions. Again, it is not myself that is misunderstanding the meaning of the words. Nor is it some modern “propaganda”. You sir, are the one that is mistaken. I have twice now, reiterated the meaning of the word. I have in front of me right this very moment the definitions of the terms, and I stand by what I said. The onus is on you to prove me wrong. I will say again, Freedom is the ability to do what you want, liberty is the ability to do what you ought. You have yet to show that that is an incorrect statement. Please do, if you can.

To say "Well, now liberty means the ability to do what I think you ought to do, so when I use the law to force you to do what I think you ought to do, I'm really pushing liberty!" isn't fooling anyone.

I very carefully and with intent, made no reference to the method of determining what constitutes “what one ought to do”, merely that liberty entails certain constraints, rather than the ability to do anything you want to do, which is what freedom is. Again show me the error of such a statement.

[Blackhawk]

I don't like compulsory mechanisms that tell the citizen that his/her life or property is the society's to dispose of as it sees fit, call it what you will.

I'll call that a personal opinion, and it's one I agree with.

However, I also recognize that if the society I live in and love "volunteers" me to do stuff I don't want to do that the life I had within it before I was selected to serve them will be forever changed if I don't comply.

Maybe it is like getting selected to jump into the volcano as a sacrifice to Pele, but maybe it's more like getting selected to build a fishing boat to better the whole society. In the U.S., I think the latter analogy is more applicable....

In my own case after college, I was the one trying to convince my draft board to go ahead and classify me as 1-A. They were trying to convince me to keep going to school, get married, or anything else that would continue my deferment. I didn't want to get drafted, but I was tired of school, marriage had no appeal based on the lives my siblings and married friends had, and life was an adventure anyway. They reluctantly agreed, but I was touched. Even though strangers, they were like concerned parents. Three months later, the President wrote to me....

[Blackhawk]

But is it good to force people to do these things? Is it good for our government to have the power to force young men to do what our government thinks is best? (Notice that I am assuming the best intentions on the part of that government, since so many here are arguing that draftees are drafted for their own good.)

Don, Americans have implicitly agreed that it IS good to force people to do these things and that it IS good for the government to have the power of compulsion regarding them. Otherwise, they would have insisted that such things not be done. However, they also implicitly said that the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax was okay with them.

I happen to agree that it is good to force individuals to do what the society needs for the protection of the society as a whole. However, my agreement is conditioned on HOW the U.S. draft actually works. It's not arbitrary, capricious, or punitive. The potential draftee always has choices, and once inducted the choices available increase a thousand fold.

The posters saying they'd much rather serve in combat with volunteers than conscripts have no personal experience, I assure you. Nobody gets into combat who's perceptibly "dangerous" to his fellows. On the whole, draftees were smarter, had better experience, and didn't look to the military as a career or job choice as much as something that had to be done.

One of our nearly sacred myths is that on December 8, 1941 and subsequently, Americans swamped enlistment centers to "join up." In general, they may have been convinced that volunteering was a good idea when WWII hit the U.S. mainland, but I'm glad that the government had the power to compel them to get with the program.

[WyldOne]

Of course, such sanctions are only authorized for those of the male sex who have had an 18th birthday.

Females are excused. No hypocrisy there...

Actually Zander, I already tried to argue for women to be included.

Didn't get very far, though. And I think that aspect's kinda been put to rest. But...for what it's worth...I agree with you.

[Leatherneck]

"I don't like compulsory mechanisms that tell the citizen that his/her life or property is the society's to dispose of as it sees fit, call it what you will." I'll call that a personal opinion, and it's one I agree with.

I happen to agree that it is good to force individuals to do what the society needs for the protection of the society as a whole.

[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]? How do you reconcile those two statements?
TC

[BrianW]

Just because a majority of Americans agree on something, doesn't make it right. In fact, quite often the opposite is true. I couldn't possibly care less that most people "implicitly" agree with the draft, most people "implicitly" agree that "Friends" is the funniest sitcom ever. This person explicitly disagrees with the notion of conscription, and I'm not alone, not by a furlong.

Here I always thought the 2nd amendment was to protect us not only from tyranny, but from foreign invasion, which is why the people constitute the unorganized militia. I seem to recall some fella named Yamamoto who wasn't too keen on the idea of invading the U.S. due to something like a "rifle behind every blade of grass".

I happen to agree that it is good to force individuals to do what the society needs for the protection of the society as a whole.

Lenin? Mao? Stalin? Snowball? I'm stumped, who said that first?

What liberty or freedom is there when people are being forced to do what some think they ought? We might want to keep in mind that those in the military enjoy very few constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, whether they chose to join or were conscripted against their will.

[Blackhawk]

Leatherneck,

It's reconciled with the very next sentence following what you quoted:

However, my agreement is conditioned on HOW the U.S. draft actually works. It's not arbitrary, capricious, or punitive. The potential draftee always has choices, and once inducted the choices available increase a thousand fold.

Military forces of other countries treated conscripts very differently. In effect, they were automatically sent to the front lines during combat as real cannon fodder. Regular or career personnel treated them like dirt with official sanction. There was little or no respect shown them.

The U.S. has never operated that way in principle even though higher ups would occasionally show disdain for the US prefix to a draftee's service number. If a draftee just let things happen instead of grabbing opportunities offered and available, he might have been more likely than a volunteer to end up in an infantry unit, but that's primarily because volunteers typically chose some of those opportunities when they enlisted.

Because U.S. draftees were treated the same as volunteers with their advancement dependent on merit and ability, the only difference was whether you were drafted for 2 years active duty or you volunteered for 3 years active duty. Consequently, many Vietnam draftees actually volunteered for the draft, which only committed them to 2 years, with essentially the same chances to get more desirable positions within the Army.

The aristocratic attitude among the military services of other countries where the regulars think they are "better" than conscripts was extremely rare in my experience.

Think about it for a minute. How popular or sustainable would the draft be among Americans if draftees were treated like dung?

A lot of opinions on the draft in this thread are colored by the fallacy that the U.S. treated draftees like crap the way other countries do.

[Blackhawk]

Lenin? Mao? Stalin? Snowball? I'm stumped, who said that first?

What liberty or freedom is there when people are being forced to do what some think they ought?

Brian, the one who said it first was probably a tribal leader named "Oog" or something like that.

And if whoever Oog was talking, gesturing, or grunting to didn't want to do what Oog thought he ought, I suppose he had the freedom to leave the tribe, but I doubt that he had the freedom to stay.

Tribes, societies, and nations form for their common good, and members have responsibilites to others as a condition of their membership.

In the U.S., there isn't anybody named Oog to whack you if you refuse to do what the society says, and as long as you don't dwadle, you can leave.

So to directly answer your question of "what liberty or freedom is there...", you have the freedom to stay in our big tribe.

If you want to have absolute freedom and never be required to submit to the will of others, I guess you will have to leave, and I'd appreciate your dropping us a message to tell us where that is once you find that place.

[ddelange]

ahenry:

Freedom is the ability to do what you want, liberty is the ability to do what you ought.

I have to disagree with your definition, and your statement that the founders saw such a distinction when writing the Constitution. Most importantly, the majority of the first 9 Amendments refer to the positive grant of "rights." Those rights were never intended to be, nor have they been interpreted by the USSC, as absolute or immune to certain governmental regulation. However, the word freedom is used once, in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law abridging . . . the freedom of speech . . . . " AND the Constitution uses the word liberty in the 5th and 14th Amendments: ". . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Constitution suggests a few important points: freedom and liberty were used interchangeability; neither liberty nor freedom could be deprived without due process.

Thus, with due process, certain freedoms and liberties could be deprived. For example, we all have the liberty/freedom to live without being drafted in time of peace; however, if the Congress passes an authorization of war and reinstitutes the draft at the request of the President, and the USSC upholds the constitutionality of such law, then our liberty/freedom not to sumbit to the draft has been legally deprived. And such a draft is legal, constitutional, moral, and above reproach. As I mentioned above, it is my opinion (though never decided by the federal courts) that a draft during peacetime would be unconstitutional. The threat to national security makes all the difference. There will always be Libertarians who scream that the government can't be trusted to decide when a threat to national security exists, and that they don't feel represented because their candidate only got 2% of the vote. Well, my frineds, that's why we have elections, and whether you voted for the winning team or not, you are bound to obey the laws passed by our elected representatives (assuming they are upheld as constitutional).

[Leatherneck]

However, my agreement is conditioned on HOW the U.S. draft actually works. It's not arbitrary, capricious, or punitive.

Well, I guess if you really believe that it's not arbitrary, capricious or punitive, then we disagree. The last experience in Vietnam was heavily targeted at non-college, unmarried males of that certain age. Then, too, judges were known to say "Jail or Army, son: take your pick". And the result was that the Marines and Army got a LOT of high-maintenence soldiers, many of whom didn't even make it through the period for which they were drafted without at least administrative discharges, and many times courts martial or NJP. That said, if the draft WERE completely fair and random in both theory and execution, I have no problem at all with society saying to selected individuals "We don't have enough volunteers to fight this war, so your service is required ." I think that's a responsibility, just like voting and (unfortunately) paying taxes. No freeloading allowed.
TC

[BrianW]

If you want to have absolute freedom and never be required to submit to the will of others, I guess you will have to leave, and I'd appreciate your dropping us a message to tell us where that is once you find that place.

Essentially what you're saying is, might makes right and mob rule rules, and if I have the gall to disagree I can leave. Oh, and by the by, there isn't anywhere to go.

It's truly amazing how many times in the last few weeks here at TFL I've been told to "leave" if I don't like the current conditions. And here I thought "land of the free" meant something different than "land of the compliant masses". Telling someone to leave isn't an argument, it's the same as grabbing the ball and running home when your team is losing.

In the U.S., there isn't anybody named Oog to whack you if you refuse to do what the society says, and as long as you don't dwadle, you can leave.

Really? So, if I don't register for the draft, the feds won't do anything? If I evade the draft, no harm no foul? So all the people who fled to Canada during Viet Nam were just fans of cold weather, they had nothing to fear from "Oog"?

One's responsibilities to the rest of the country can be summed up thusly: One gets to do what one wishes so long as one doesn't harm others.

[Blackhawk]

For example, we all have the liberty/freedom to live without being drafted in time of peace; however, if the Congress passes an authorization of war and reinstitutes the draft at the request of the President, and the USSC upholds the constitutionality of such law, then our liberty/freedom not to sumbit to the draft has been legally deprived. And such a draft is legal, constitutional, moral, and above reproach. As I mentioned above, it is my opinion (though never decided by the federal courts) that a draft during peacetime would be unconstitutional. The threat to national security makes all the difference.

I don't quite buy the idealism of all that as being realistic. I knew several who were drafted in the late '50s and early '60s, and there never was a Congressional declaration of war regarding Vietnam, though it surely authorized it with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Why do you think a condition of peace or war is relevant to the legality of a draft in the U.S.? That would seem to be incidental.

It also seems that your theory surely would have been tested in the courts during the Vietnam Era what with all the protests and everything.

[ddelange]

I don't quite buy the idealism of all that as being realistic. I knew several who were drafted in the late '50s and early '60s, and there never was a Congressional declaration of war regarding Vietnam, though it surely authorized it with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

I don't want to split hairs, but in the time period you mentioned we were still "at war" against North Korea. Now that I think about it, we still are. Oh well for my idealism. . . . As for soldiers drafted for Vietnam, and correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the draft for combat soldiers begin after the Tonkin Resolution?

Why do you think a condition of peace or war is relevant to the legality of a draft in the U.S.? That would seem to be incidental.

Because all of the Supreme Court opinions I have read challenging the draft since 1918 have relied upon the fact that the country was at war, and therefore citizens have a corresponding civic obligation to be drafted so that Congress may fulfill its Constitutional power to raise armies, secure the common defense, and take whatever action is necessary to fulfill these roles (See CONST. ART.I, SEC.8) The opinions are also based on the premise that when the nation's security is at risk that citizens of draft age have an obligation to rise in support of the constitution, lest the very nation that gave birth to it should fall.

The framers never contemplated the need for a standing army during times of peace. They may have clearly understood the need for a draft during wartime, and in fact implemented it to a degree with the colonial regulars, but never thought it necessary to maintain a large FEDERAL standing army, let alone one composed of draftees, during peacetime.

I AM an idealist when it comes to the responsibility of the President to obtain a formal Declaration of War before committing U.S. soldiers to battle. However, I'm not going to nitpick and argue that the congressional "authorization of force" for the President to use force against Iraq is not good enough. I also recognize the many times in history when Presidents have exercised their power as commander 'n chief to order the military to conduct certain operations. However, I think it would be good policy for the future to seek a formal Declaration in all cases where the use of force is required.

It also seems that your theory surely would have been tested in the courts during the Vietnam Era what with all the protests and everything.

I am aware of many challenges to the draft during the Vietnam era, most of them based on variations of the conscientious objector exception, and some still trying to raise the Thirteenth Amendment argument (quickly disposed of).
There hasn't been a legal challenge to my idealist theory that the draft would be unconstitutional during time of peace. It's not to hard to figure out; our Republic does view declaring war and the use of the draft very seriously, and therefore hasn't considering doing it. This fact kind of deflates the horrible hypotheticals paraded about by some of the posters on this list to the effect that "a bunch of fed thugs order you to report to this place so that we can invade Quebec, or we will force you at gunpoint." Not that invading Quebec would be such a bad idea, , but we still have a Republic were its representatives still represent the people in a fashion that makes such examples both impossible and laughable.

[Blackhawk]

I think that's a responsibility, just like voting and (unfortunately) paying taxes. No freeloading allowed.

If you think we disagree, well okay, but I'm having a hard time finding were we disagree....

[Blackhawk]

Telling someone to leave isn't an argument

Brian, I didn't tell you to leave. I said you had the freedom to leave if you don't want to stay among the compliant masses. Your choice....

One's responsibilities to the rest of the country can be summed up thusly: One gets to do what one wishes so long as one doesn't harm others.

Not even close....

[bronco61]

To those of you who believe that there should be a draft, I believe Oleg made an excellent point:

Ordering a person to be someplace and do something without that person's un-coerced agreement is somewhere between kidnapping and the step one in the "final solution".

Boats, I'm glad you looked up the 13th Amendment and used the Civil War as our first example of this country using the draft. What you might not realize is that Mr. Lincoln used more than a few unconstitutional methods to help his cause. Another example was his imprisoning Maryland politicians who disagreed with him on the war. I don't want to stray this thread and make it a "Prez Lincoln - good or bad" argument, but I'm sorry but your example is a poor one....especially after showing the 13th Amendment. Maybe you haven't read about the many draft riots of that time either? And just because it was done in the past by earlier presidents, doesn't make it right or mean it was constitutional. Shall I remind you that we DID have slaves in this country legaly? OH! that's right..the 13th Amendment got rid of involuntary servitude.

I'd like to ask you "What part of Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime don't you understand?"

If you want to try the argument that Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. means that Congress can change any part of this, then you are misreading the word enforce. This means they can enact legislation to make SURE that slavory or involuntary servitude (unless for punishment for a crime) does NOT happen.

The draft = Involuntary servitude. Period

OH, and by the way Boats (and others) I am a Veteran of our volunteer Armed Services. USN 83-90

[Blackhawk]

As for soldiers drafted for Vietnam, and correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the draft for combat soldiers begin after the Tonkin Resolution?

I don't know. I was under the impression that the draft was pretty much continuous from WWII through about 1973, but I haven't researched it. I was also unaware that there was ever any distinction about being drafted for combat or drafted for running a typewriter.

If the SCOTUS had already made those rulings, I doubt that any DC or CA would have bucked them, and any novel arguments would probably have been rare indeed.

I long ago figured that we wouldn't see a formal Declaration of War since the advent of nuclear weapons. For example, what do you tell the folks back home when they asked why we didn't nuke North Korea (like MacArthur wanted to do) or North Vietnam if we were "at war" with them? After all, didn't we learn in WWII that war is serious and that we should use our best weapons to end it as soon as possible like we did against Japan?

I share your idealism, and the virtual world of the Internet fuels it somewhat, but I always end up bothered by pesky realities.