Who Should Be Eligible For Or Exempt From The Draft?

[Revoltingest]

There hasn’t been a draft in the U.S. in 48 years.

Yet....men (except for trans men) must register.
Some have since advocated reviving the draft
even in peace time, eg, Chas Rangel.

 

[Revoltingest]

And there should be free stuff for everybody that only the top 1% pay for, and no more war, or pollution, and free unicorn rides!

The unicorn industry has costs.
And since it's privatized, it cannot be free....ya socialist!

 

[Secret Chief]

But men (not trans men) must still register for the draft.

Why? "Just in case" ?

 

[Nakosis]

Only for those who planned on joining anyway.
For the others, it is coerced.

The government coerces me to pay taxes.
Others may feel this a duty. Got to be done sometimes.

Ostensibly. But politics will introduce exceptions,
eg, getting pregnant, converting to a pacifist faith,
becoming a priest.

No exceptions. That's the ideal. Politics often gets in the way of the ideal.

Even against their will?
I prefer that military pay be high enuf to get the
job done solely with volunteers. If a society that
doesn't serve isn't willing to pay volunteers to do
what they won't or can't, it's not a society worth
defending.
Also, it's inefficient to draft aerospace & weapon
design engineers to carry a rifle on the front line.

A lot of things happen against the will of the individual for the benefit of the society at large. If you don't want to support society then you shouldn't get any benefit of being a part of it.
Go find some forgotten corner of the world and be self-sufficient.
If you want to be part of society you have to take the good with the bad.
I wouldn't put a rifle in the hands of someone who has no willingness to use it to defend their country against invasion. They can serve in other ways.

 

[Revoltingest]

The government coerces me to pay taxes.

A libertarian's perspective....
Coercion is impossible to avoid, but should be minimized.
Paying taxes doesn't cause the loss of civil liberties such as
freedom of movement or choice of occupation. Nor does it
pose any danger, eg, stepping on punji sticks in Viet Nam.

To maximize liberty for all, I favor paying taxes to finance
compensating voluntary soldiers.

Others may feel this a duty. Got to be done sometimes.

For those who feel the call of duty, this is fine with me.
But if they feel that I'm called to duty, there will be disagreement.

No exceptions. That's the ideal. Politics often gets in the way of the ideal.

There are always exceptions. And in a real war, we all know
that the burden of front line gruntitude will fall disproportionately
on men.

A lot of things happen against the will of the individual for the benefit of the society at large. If you don't want to support society then you shouldn't get any benefit of being a part of it.

This doesn't give government the right to impose any burden
upon a minority of the population. Turning this around....
If anyone wants draftees to be forced at minimal pay to
defend them, they shouldn't be part of society.

Go find some forgotten corner of the world and be self-sufficient.
If you want to be part of society you have to take the good with the bad.

I prefer the option of an all volunteer army.

I wouldn't put a rifle in the hands of someone who has no willingness to use it to defend their country against invasion. They can serve in other ways.

There's still no need to force service upon the unwilling.

 

[Friend of Mara]

It's like we share one brain!

Wait...do you hate the government most of the time too?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'd like it if there were a non-military service option. Perhaps even mandatory, although I'm personally of two minds about that...

But government service in other-than-military roles. Many government operations at the local, state and federal level could be provided in a similar manner.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait...do you hate the government most of the time too?

 

[Stevicus]

And there should be free stuff for everybody that only the top 1% pay for, and no more war, or pollution, and free unicorn rides!

I didn't actually propose this, but are you saying that the top 1% shouldn't pay their fair share? They're the only ones who benefit from war. Most of what the government spends money on is for the benefit of the top 1%, while they do none of the work. The work of society is done by the working classes, so they should be exempt just for that reason alone. The wealthy idlers and people of leisure should be made to pay, since they provide no useful purpose for society.

Everyone should pay what they owe. The workers have already done their part. Now is the time for the 1% to pay, and they should be made to pay dearly. They have centuries of wealth built up that they need to atone for, at least 500 years worth. Their comeuppance is overdue.

 

[Valjean]

The 13th Amendment allows the use of prisoners as slave labor.

But it sounds better if you call it community service.

 

[Revoltingest]

But it sounds better if you call it community service.
When was the last time the US military "defended" anything but corporate interests and capitalism itself?

Oh, great...a question loaded with socialist rhetoric.
Anyway, WW2 was the last self defense war.

 

[Valjean]

Revoltingest said: ↑
.... If a society that
doesn't serve isn't willing to pay volunteers to do
what they won't or can't, it's not a society worth
defending.

When was the last time the US military "defended" anything but corporate interests and capitalism itself?

 

[Valjean]

Oh, great...a question loaded with socialist rhetoric.
Anyway, WW2 was the last self defense war.

Pravda! -- So we're in agreement.

 

[Valjean]

....I wouldn't put a rifle in the hands of someone who has no willingness to use it to defend their country against invasion. They can serve in other ways.

What makes it 'their' country, an accident of birth?
Should I support my local street gang, as well, if I chance to live on their turf??

Invasion? That might be a serious possibility in Lithuania or Hong Kong, but in a country like the US, it wouldn't be worth anyone's trouble. Consider Vietnam or Afghanistan, tiny, undeveloped countries, but even major world powers couldn't hold them against determined local opposition.

 

[Valjean]

I don't mind people being drafted to serve their country for a limited period. I lot of people I know have learned a trade while serving in the military.
At the same time, I don't trust the government when it comes to decisions about war.
In defense of the country, sure. If they need folks to go to war in other countries, not so much.

So to serve one's country sure. To go to someone else's country and kill people, I'm not for that kind of draft.

But what does "serve one's country" mean? You're certainly not serving the people.

The military creates the very enemies it purports to defend us from. It's adventurism has created a police-surveillance state here in the US. It's god-awful expensive, and guess who pays most of the bill.

Who benefits?

 

[Valjean]

....To maximize liberty for all, I favor paying taxes to finance
compensating voluntary soldiers.

But the US militarism is an impediment to liberty, both abroad and at home. Look how quickly the Homeland Security Act appeared after 9/11. Look at Snowden's revelations: how domestic surveillance has become universal. Look how the police have been militarized.

 

[Shaul]

I didn't actually propose this, but are you saying that the top 1% shouldn't pay their fair share? They're the only ones who benefit from war. Most of what the government spends money on is for the benefit of the top 1%, while they do none of the work. The work of society is done by the working classes, so they should be exempt just for that reason alone. The wealthy idlers and people of leisure should be made to pay, since they provide no useful purpose for society.

Everyone should pay what they owe. The workers have already done their part. Now is the time for the 1% to pay, and they should be made to pay dearly. They have centuries of wealth built up that they need to atone for, at least 500 years worth. Their comeuppance is overdue.

“Fair share”? Hilarious. When it’s not your ox being gored “fair” it is capricious.

I say it would be fair that all your wealth should confiscated and none of mine. Does that sound fair to you?

 

[Valjean]

“Fair share”? Hilarious. When it’s not your ox being gored “fair” it is capricious.

I say it would be fair that all your wealth should confiscated and none of mine. Does that sound fair to you?

What makes it "my" wealth? I gained it by exploitation. I utilized the infrastructure paid for by taxes to amass it. It benefits me not a whit to hoard it or spend it on ostentatious status markers.
Meanwhile, The People can't afford healthcare or education, and most Americans can't afford a $400. emergency expense.

The lifestyles of the rich are not, in the least, discommoded by heavy taxation. It is not a burden to them. Taxes affect the middle and working classes. Even so, taxes, properly utilized, could benefit them.

 

[Friend of Mara]

A fun thought experiment I'd like to hear your answer on.
"Is it possible to make a good government?" and by extension "How would the ideal government function?"
edit.
For fun my answer is "no" and "with unicorn dust".

Though I do think that there are collaborative things that only governments (or at least organized collaboration of resources) can do well. Not that they will but potentially could. But I didn't vote for Vermin Supreme to have a big state daddy.

 

[Friend of Mara]

“Fair share”? Hilarious. When it’s not your ox being gored “fair” it is capricious.

I say it would be fair that all your wealth should confiscated and none of mine. Does that sound fair to you?

Their ox is an amalgamation of bits gored from those that actually did the work.