• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should Only Veterans Vote? (USA)

Shad

Veteran Member
It's not slavery if there are worse forms of slavery?
Fundamentally, conscription is forcing one to do work with minimal compensation.
This forcing is backed up with the threat of violence.
Try to escape it, & one will be chased down & imprisoned.
And this is all imposed upon a few by those unable or unwilling to do the work themselves.

Sure sounds like slavery to me....albeit a time share version.

Slavery is about property principles being applied to a person. I can own, buy and sell a slave. The US can not buy, own nor sell a citizen or soldier.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
This will be like kicking a beehive and I understand. I'm just feeling like only those who have felt the cost of having our Country understand it.

Perhaps there is a broader classification? America is in a mess because of a Draft Dodger.

No, soldiers are no better at voting. They hold no higher authority. They're not an elite class.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Slavery is about property principles being applied to a person. I can own, buy and sell a slave. The US can not buy, own nor sell a citizen or soldier.
The soldier can be sent to another's property, eg, Vietnam, in order to serve that country.
But let's say that conscripted soldiers are more like slaves who have a single owner.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
The conscripted soldier sure functions as property of the government.

Nope. The US can not transfer a soldier to another nation's military forcing the solider to become a member of that nation's military. It can not sell a soldier to a private individual or entity.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Nope. The US can not transfer a soldier to another nation's military forcing the solider to become a member of that nation's military. It can not sell a soldier to a private individual or entity.
There's the trick....government simply keeps the soldiers
under its command, while still serving another country.

It seems you're arguing that sale of a person is a necessary
condition for slavery. I disagree.
It's more about the level of control one has over the person.
It functions as ownership if the person has no choice, must
do as ordered under threat of violence, & receives inadequate
compensation.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
The soldier can be sent to another's property, eg, Vietnam, in order to serve that country.

Nope as the US military ran the show and had overall command above the SV military. The SV government was a puppet of the US. The US used it's military for it's own national interests not SV's.

But let's say that conscripted soldiers are more like slaves who have a single owner.

Still not the same as people can opt out.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Nope as the US military ran the show and had overall command above the SV military. The SV government was a puppet of the US. The US used it's military for it's own national interests not SV's.
A puppet, eh.
How so?
Still not the same as people can opt out.
Opt out of the draft?
Sure, by fleeing the country....as would a slave.
Draft evasion is a felony, which means slave
catchers (ie, cops) will put one in prison.
In both Vietnam War & antebellum slavery,
escaping to Canuckistan was popular.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
There's the trick....government simply keeps the soldiers
under its command, while still serving another country.

This isn't how the US has been operating. It is maintaining a hegemony

It seems you're arguing that sale of a person is a necessary
condition for slavery. I disagree.

No my focus is on the property principle.

It's more about the level of control one has over the person.

Control is secondary to ownership concepts. I can have a level of control over children, an employee, etc. None are slaves.

It functions as ownership if the person has no choice, must
do as ordered under threat of violence, & receives inadequate
compensation.

Soldiers are paid. Soldiers can refuse orders. Citizens can opt out. Slavery require the individual to be force to do X or face any/all consequences as property not as a person. I can smash my car with a bat if I want to. It isn't illegal. The car has no value as a person. I can not take a bat for a person for having high gas emissions.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Control is secondary to ownership concepts. I can have a level of control over children, an employee, etc. None are slaves.
Ownership is all about control.
People who aren't in real estate typically don't understand this.
Ownership is a "bundle of rights"....the more control (ie, rights)
one has over a thing, the greater the level of ownership.

Consider the land contract, aka, contract for deed. This is a
financing method wherein the seller retains title until the loan
is paid in full. But the buyer is considered the owner (having
"equitable title") because of the level of control over the property.

The level of control over the conscripted soldier functions
as ownership for the duration of conscription. So it's quite
reasonable to view it is slavery.
Soldiers are paid.
Very little. Many are on public assistance.
And that is today. Back during the Vietnam
War, drafted soldiers got lower pay.
Soldiers can refuse orders.
Theoretically.
But refusing the draft is a felony, with severe sanctions.
Citizens can opt out.
Untrue.
Are you old enuf to have been subject to the draft?
I was, & remember it very differently.
Slavery require the individual to be force to do X or face any/all consequences as property not as a person.
And that happened.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
A puppet, eh.
How so?

The Diệm government was overthrown in a coup with US backing. Every government after was a military junta that only existed with US approval and backing.

Opt out of the draft?

Yes. There are a number of reasons one can opt-out of the US draft.

Sure, by fleeing the country....as would a slave.

Nope. More like a fugitive legally speaking.

Draft evasion is a felony, which means slave
catchers (ie, cops) will put one in prison.

In prison not into a trench in SV. That is what makes it not slavery.

In both Vietnam War & antebellum slavery,
escaping to Canuckistan was popular.

The latter was to escape slavery. The latter is being a fugitive.

Keep in mind I am not arguing for the draft. Just the legal side of it. I am against the draft. If a nation's population isn't willing to fight in a war of defense that is all on the population of that nation. France paid for it in WW2.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Soldiers are paid. Soldiers can refuse orders. Citizens can opt out. Slavery require the individual to be force to do X or face any/all consequences as property not as a person. I can smash my car with a bat if I want to. It isn't illegal. The car has no value as a person. I can not take a bat for a person for having high gas emissions.
You can own a pet, but if you smashed your dog with a bat, it would still be illegal. Doesn't change the fact that you own your dog.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Ownership is all about control.
People who aren't in real estate typically don't understand this.

Ergo a property.

Ownership is a "bundle of rights"....the more control (ie, rights)
one has over a thing, the greater the level of ownership.

Object vs person.

Consider the land contract, aka, contract for deed. This is a
financing method wherein the seller retains title until the loan
is paid in full. But the buyer is considered the owner (having
"equitable title") because of the level of control over the property.

Property vs person

The level of control over the conscripted soldier functions
as ownership for the duration of conscription. So it's quite
reasonable to view it is slavery.

The US still does not own the soldier. He isn't property. The soldier has an option to not be a soldier even if it has consequences. The slave's only option to not be a slave is flee or die in most cases.

Very little. Many are on public assistance.
And that is today. Back during the Vietnam
War, drafted soldiers got lower pay.

Lower pay does not make something slavery.

Theoretically.
But refusing the draft is a felony, with severe sanctions.

No, legally. You become a criminal and felon instead of a soldier.

Untrue.
Are you old enuf to have been subject to the draft?
I was, & remember it very differently.

Age is irrelevant to time studying a subject. You can opt-out for medical reasons and religious reasons. You can opt out to become a felon. You are just finding being a felon thus a prisoner less palpable so call it slavery.

And that happened.

When? Where?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
You can own a pet, but if you smashed your dog with a bat, it would still be illegal. Doesn't change the fact that you own your dog.

My dog is a being not a car thus inanimate object. My car does not respond to stimulus, A being does. My dog is not a slave.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
My dog is a being not a car thus inanimate object.
Do you think a slave is an inanimate object?

You know what? Never mind. I don't care enough to try to tease out the rationale from the ridiculous opinion of some random person on the internet.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes. There are a number of reasons one can opt-out of the US draft.
What are they?
Nope. More like a fugitive legally speaking.
Being a fugitive certainly doesn't preclude being a slave.
Note that there was even an 1850 law called The Fugitive Slave Act.
In prison not into a trench in SV. That is what makes it not slavery.
Actually, as a soldier, one is "owned" by government.
In prison, one is still "owned" by government.
But that quibbling aside, your argument doesn't defeat
a relationship wherein government will harshly punish
those who refuse involuntary military service.
The latter was to escape slavery. The latter is being a fugitive.
Remember "The Fugitive Slave Act"....it was for "fugitive" slaves.
Keep in mind I am not arguing for the draft. Just the legal side of it.
Actually, you haven't made a legal argument to me yet.
You're just denying that conscription is a form of slavery.
I am against the draft. If a nation's population isn't willing to fight in a war of defense that is all on the population of that nation. France paid for it in WW2.
Well, at least we agree on something.

So....what did you do when the draft was on?
What is your lottery number?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Lower pay does not make something slavery.
It's not just "lower"...it's ridiculously low for the risks,
number of hours worked, loss of civil liberties, & indignity.
No, legally. You become a criminal and felon instead of a soldier.
This seems an irrelevant & strained legalistic distinction.
Age is irrelevant to time studying a subject.
Of course.
But those who experience something directly have a perspective different from others.
And you seem unfamiliar with how the draft actually worked.
It was more compelling than you make it appear.
You can opt-out for medical reasons and religious reasons.
I couldn't just change my religion or health status.
Unless....
Are you arguing that injuring myself to the point of incapacity is a real option?
Or become a homosexual?
Or that I could become a pacifist Christian?
Even in the last case, I'd still be forced to serve government unwillingly.
It would've been just in a different capacity.
You can opt out to become a felon. You are just finding being a felon thus a prisoner less palpable so call it slavery.
That's like saying antebellum slaves could opt out of slavery by escaping.
When? Where?
Vietnam vets I've known had been ordered to do terrible things, eg, torture.
People obeyed orders which could've been called illegal.
But there are circumstances & pressures which make that impractical at times.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I wonder what sort of religious person would like Trump? I know that lots of Mormons did, and that was just one more reason to leave. How can a man that brags about mistreating women be elected President?
That's one of the things about LDS culture that bugs me. There is this kind of an unwritten rule (and it's definitely not something doctrinal) that good Mormons must be Republican. I believe that today, only about 17% of Mormons are Democrats. They even have Facebook groups, one of them being called, "Choose the Left." ;)
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Or how about that time Horace Allen sent Ahn Chang Ho to Hawaii? Huh? Earn a few dollars , learn about all of God's fruits. it'll be FUN! Korean American! Ahn Geun is a veteran that killed the Governor of Korea in the United States obviously. Hanguk Miguk! hwighting manse
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
s
That's one of the things about LDS culture that bugs me. There is this kind of an unwritten rule (and it's definitely not something doctrinal) that good Mormons must be Republican. I believe that today, only about 17% of Mormons are Democrats. They even have Facebook groups, one of them being called, "Choose the Left." ;)

In the "Paul Harvey" days, I'd guess I was a Republican, but I didn't actually know anything. What can you know in your 20s, and I was hillbilly gullible. Even after 9/11, until America fully got into War Mongering again... I voted Democrat when we voted the last Bush out. I'm still uneasy about some of the things that Democrats advocate. The Judgmental, Bible thumpers approach of some republicans, particularly "The American Family Association", makes me want to throw up...
 
Top