I love asking Anarcho Capitalists on Young Americans for Liberty how a free market Air Force would function.
Questerr, I think you and ArmySoldier are being a bit disingenuous about this issue. A nation certainly has the right to defend itself...and has the right to ask that all able bodied citizens assist in that effort. Throughout history that has usually been done through conscription. It is fine to have a volunteer military. Hell, I advocate for a volunteer work force because people who want to do a thing do it loads better than people who are being forced by law or circumstances to do it. In fact, people being forced to do things often have a negative productivity application. I hope the times does not come when the military will have to conscript because of impending invasion. But it would not bother me at all to have conscription into some sort of service (military or otherwise) be a part of every young person's entry into adulthood. I think they would be better off...and society as a whole would be also.
There has never been a time in US history where conscription has ever been necessary. It has always been adopted because it is convenient.
After how many years of occupation and how many dead civilians? The militia in the Revolutionary War did not prevent any invasion and it was the professional Continental Army that eventually drove the British out, not the militia.
Never??? YOU get to decide if it was "necessary" during WWII...or just "convenient?" I don't get a vote? And I have to accept your suggestion that it is a binary situation? Fairness...cannot come into play when considering things?
Conscription is slavery, no matter how you look at it. I am highly principled on the matter of forcing people to do stuff they do not want to do. I have huge respect for people who do decide to join the army and even deeper for those who go out to war to fight for what they believe in. However, it is not right to, by force, place people in the army. Voluntarily is the keyword.
In the opening months of US involvement in WW2, the War Department got more volunteers than it could handle. Recruitment offices got overwhelmed they had so many people trying to join. Rather than improve the recruitment system and take all those volunteers, they turned to the draft because it was easier and better organized.
So you are "highly principled" that people who do not want to work in order to have enough to live a reasonably comfortable life...should not be forced to work in order to live a reasonably comfortable life? Do you think it is okay for others to put their lives on the line in order for you to live a safe life without doing so? I don't buy that as very fair. "Do we need protection" is actually the key phrase? And if "yes"...why doesn't everyone have to participate in some way?
So...you are saying that I have to take your assessment...and I do not have a vote. Okay...this is a free country at this point. People have fought and died so that you could have that point of view...and you are exercising it. I think it sucks, but you do have that right.
Yeeeaah. Go ahead and just misrepresent whatbI said. If people do not want to work, they are of course free to do so. If they, somehow, manage to live their lives without working, fine. As long as they do not expect everyone else to pay for them. No. I do not expect anything from anyone. Simply put: don't tread on me. Let anyone who wishes to own a gun, own a gun.
It's objective fact. We could have had an all volunteer force in WW2, but we chose instead to use a draft because it is more convenient.
Hey...you said, "I am highly principled on the matter of forcing people to do stuff they do not want to do." I know lots of people who do not want to work in order to be able to live a comfortable life. So you are, in effect, saying that you do not want to force them to do what they do not want to do. Oh...of course, what I am attempting to do...is to point out the folly of your position. See my comment above. Keeping a nation safe from invasion...involves lots more than everyone owning a gun. Even a highly principled person like you should realize that.
So we have to take your word for it! Boy, you must be thankful for the people who fought for your right to be able to talk so tough.
True basic training is a humbling experience but only to some not for all. I have known many people in several branches of the military who were far from humble. For me and I am sure it is the same for many, it wasn't basic training that made me feel I was in the military it was the oath I took and to this day I still take it seriously.
It was humbling for me; it caused me to grow up very, very fast. And I got to serve in one of the world's most powerful military forces ever...SAC during the 1950's.
Well, on behalf of America's youth, I thank you for your service. If I get my way (which looks like it's falling into place), I'll be at the US Military Academy (or Air Force); if not, ROTC but I wanna do my part.
Sure, maybe humble is not the word to use, respectful and civil and disciplined and the list goes on, however.
Every nation on earth must defend itself in one shape or another whether it is in a military capacity or through treaties that guarantee its borders in return for some payment or concession. The morality of full conscription is simple for me. Is it fair to one and all? If it is universal with no exceptions, then it is fair since everyone is subject to the same treatment. If there are any exceptions, then you start changing the fairness of it all to treat some differently than others. In a modern army such as ours, we may not need every able bodied person of a certain age to defend our nation or further our global commitments or policies. But that still leaves the truth of a volunteer army, it becomes a mercenary army filled by the poor and disadvantaged who see it as a way out of a bad situation or life predicament. Was it moral for the rich to avoid service in the Civil War by paying money? I don't think so but it was legal and honest. So the question remains, by what standard does the term "moral" apply to the question? Some here have mixed up the term "moral" with expediency or pragmatism in that we need only the best and committed, that is not a moral test, it is a requirement of the task at hand. Ask yourself a question as you see soldiers in an airport. They serve so that you or I do not. We pay taxes to support them much like we did with Prussians or Hessians or Filipinos or Native Americans. None of us have to endure the training nor the risks involved, we simply go about our lives while they do our dirty work. Is that moral? It is certainly legal, honest and pragmatic but is it moral? The first question one should ask is do I have any duty to my country at all in this regard. If the answer is no, then you are less of a citizen than those who volunteer. If the answer is yes, how can you best serve your country given your abilities? I did not serve my country in any capacity at all. I should have, it would have made me a better citizen and a better critic of what is moral and immoral in regards to conscription.
Yeah, I voluntarily served, including a tour in Iraq, so you can freely go **** off for questioning my bravery.
