Any Draft Dodgers On RF?

[DavidFirth]

So, does one owe alegience to a country because of an accident of birth? Does one have freedom of conscience, or can the ruling powers determine what's legal or illegal for you to believe?

In a conflict both parties are answering their country's call. Both sides are patriotic and abdicating their moral responsibility to whatever group is currently holding the reins of power.

Are both sides in the right? Are good guys fighting good guys? Does loyalty to country trump one's individual responsibility for his own actions?
How is it right for one to cede moral responsibility to another and commit acts he'd normally consider immoral on another's instructions?

Well, it's a good thing there is more than one country to choose from, isn't there? Choose well.

 

[metis]

There are quite a few countries that I would feel comfortable living in but only one country will accept me, only because In was born it it.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are quite a few countries that I would feel comfortable living in but only one country will accept me, only because In was born it it.

Revoltistan would allow you to immigrate.
How do you feel about medical experimentation?

 

[Valjean]

Well, it's a good thing there is more than one country to choose from, isn't there? Choose well.

Not so easy just to emigrate and pick up your life somewhere else. As for allegiance, expressing allegiance for a foreign country while living here is aberrant, at best, and if there's some conflict between the two, exercising freedom of conscience can get pretty ugly.

 

[columbus]

That's not what I said or implied. Good try, though.

That was the implication I got out of it. In light of your opinion about Muhammad Ali and the war against Vietnamese people.

Personally, I agreed with the Pope concerning the invasion of Iraq. It was a Crime against Humanity, nothing to do with defending our country. At least we didn't have a draft, forcibly pressing citizens into supporting it, most of the soldiers were relatively innocent dupes. But nobody died in Iraq defending the USA, they were mercenaries fighting for the wealth and power of the USA elite. Completely different.

Suppose The Donald declared war on Mexico. He campaigned on a promise to build The Wall and make Mexico pay for it. Suppose he used that as a pretext. Would you agree that American soldiers, fighting and dying in Mexico, were "defending the USA"? If I opposed that war enough to go way beyond the peaceful opposition I put up to the invasion of Iraq, who do you think would be "defending the USA", me or the soldiers who go?
Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

That was the implication I got out of it. In light of your opinion about Muhammad Ali and the war against Vietnamese people.

Personally, I agreed with the Pope concerning the invasion of Iraq. It was a Crime against Humanity, nothing to do with defending our country. At least we didn't have a draft, forcibly pressing citizens into supporting it, most of the soldiers were relatively innocent dupes. But nobody died in Iraq defending the USA, they were mercenaries fighting for the wealth and power of the USA elite. Completely different.

Suppose The Donald declared war on Mexico. He campaigned on a promise to build The Wall and make Mexico pay for it. Suppose he used that as a pretext. Would you agree that American soldiers, fighting and dying in Mexico, were "defending the USA"? If I opposed that war enough to go way beyond the peaceful opposition I put up to the invasion of Iraq, who do you think would be "defending the USA", me or the soldiers who go?
Tom

The Donald cannot declare war. He can order our armed forces into police actions.

It doesn't matter what I think. It does matter what the Constitution says, though.

Congress has the right to institute the draft.
The president has the authority to give orders to the armed forces.

So I guess that if you can't handle being drafted when Congress makes the law, then you need to move to another country or do a good job of hiding in this one.

 

[Stevicus]

So, does one owe alegience to a country because of an accident of birth? Does one have freedom of conscience, or can the ruling powers determine what's legal or illegal for you to believe?

In a conflict both parties are answering their country's call. Both sides are patriotic and abdicating their moral responsibility to whatever group is currently holding the reins of power.

Are both sides in the right? Are good guys fighting good guys? Does loyalty to country trump one's individual responsibility for his own actions?
How is it right for one to cede moral responsibility to another and commit acts he'd normally consider immoral on another's instructions?

Questions like this are easier to explore now that there's no conscription, although one can define "support" or "allegiance" in any number of ways.

I knew someone who believed that anyone who pays taxes to the US government is responsible for what the government does with the money. If tax money is used to go to war, then every taxpayer is seen as just as morally responsible as those who pull the trigger. I'm not sure I strictly agree with that, although I can understand the argument.

Even those who reap the benefits and advantages of living in a first-world economy could be seen as indirectly gaining from war and US militaristic hegemony around the world.

I don't have any illusions that it's all about "freedom" or "making the world safe for democracy." Some apologists might argue that we really don't have any choice - that we're stuck in a world system not of our own creation, but have to deal with it just the same.

"Patriotism" is kind of a double-edged sword. I think one can be a patriot and support defending American territory, if and when it is ever directly attacked by a foreign military force. Likewise, if any close, long-term allies are directly attacked by a foreign military force. But it's different with some of the interventionist wars and other "police actions" we get ourselves involved in. We get involved in other countries' civil wars and internal politics, which some might see as going too far.

 

[columbus]

So I guess that if you can't handle being drafted when Congress makes the law, then you need to move to another country or do a good job of hiding in this one.

Why should I be the one to hide or move.
Maybe I should buy a gun. Use my 2nd amendment rights the way that they were intended. If the government tries to force me into something I think wrong, I pull out my weapon and say "Draft This Mofo".
That is why we have a 2nd amendment, after all. You do support the 2nd amendment, right?
Tom

 

[Wu Wei]

Why should I be the one to hide or move.
Maybe I should buy a gun. Use my 2nd amendment rights the way that they were intended. If the government tries to force me into something I think wrong, I pull out my weapon and say "Draft This Mofo".
That is why we have a 2nd amendment, after all. You do support the 2nd amendment, right?
Tom

2nd amendment does give you the right to bear arms..... not threaten others with those arms....especially those appointed by government to enforce government laws.... therefore you would likely be arrested...if your lucky....drawing on an armed government official does however give them the right to use deadly force....... in that scenario support or not support the 2nd amendment has little to do with it.

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't matter what I think. It does matter what the Constitution says, though.

I agree with you.
But opinions vary on that.

Congress has the right to institute the draft.

Do they?
While there is precedent for a draft, the 13th Amendment directly contradicts it.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Some of the framers were loath to force military service.
Example from one draft of the 2nd Amendment.....
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Ref....
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikiquote

 

[Wu Wei]

I agree with you.
But opinions vary on that.

Do they?
While there is precedent for a draft, the 13th Amendment directly contradicts it.

Not sure about that, I am not 100% certain the military service, by draft, can be defined as Servitude and I am fairly certain it is not the same as slavery.

 

[DavidFirth]

I agree with you.
But opinions vary on that.

Do they?
While there is precedent for a draft, the 13th Amendment directly contradicts it.

There's the small matter of what exactly is meant by "involuntary servitude."

 

[Revoltingest]

2nd amendment does give you the right to bear arms..... not threaten others with those arms....especially those appointed by government to enforce government laws.....

Nah.
The 2nd is in part about the right to revolt....& to be revolting.
But the major issue is determining it's worth doing.
There are risks & costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not sure about that, I am not 100% certain the military service, by draft, can be defined as Servitude and I am fairly certain it is not the same as slavery.

If one is involuntarily put into service of someone else, it would require
strained & specious argument to claim this isn't involuntary servitude.
That's what lawyers do.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's the small matter of what exactly is meant by "involuntary servitude."

Is the draft involuntary?
Is it servitude?

 

[DavidFirth]

If one is involuntarily put into service of someone else, it would require
strained & specious argument to claim this isn't involuntary servitude.
That's what lawyers do.

That's what they do in their spare time when they're not trying to fleece you.

 

[DavidFirth]

Is the draft involuntary?
Is it servitude?

Well, this is another instance of another statement in the Constitution that is unclear. It is not defined as to what the authors meant by the term "involuntary servitude."

I imagine the SCOTUS would rule against you considering we've had drafts before but maybe they would agree with you. I don't know.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's what they do in their spare time when they're not trying to fleece you.

Actually, it's what they do on the job.

 

[DavidFirth]

Actually, it's what they do on the job.

Yeah, I was being facetious. Hence, the .

 

[Wu Wei]

Nah.
The 2nd is in part about the right to revolt....& to be revolting.
But the major issue is determining it's worth doing.
There are risks & costs.

Yup the risk is you get shot and the cost is the guys that shot you need to buy new bullets.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And this gives one the right to bear arms, but not to draw down on a government official who has come to enforce an alleged draft. Basically I am saying the example used was rather silly IMO. One action did not justify the other. Oppose the draft but support the second amendment therefore pull you gun on those that are there to enforce that draft, if in fact it came to that. The 2 do not go together nor does on justify the other in my mind

And another thing

And I still think this is a MUCH better idea