• 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!

Who Should Be Eligible For Or Exempt From The Draft?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
“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?

Fair would be everyone having the same amount. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. As long as everyone is provided for, has food and a roof over their heads, I really can't see what the problem is. Only those who have big egos who think they're entitled to more than everyone else would have a problem with it.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Fair would be everyone having the same amount. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. As long as everyone is provided for, has food and a roof over their heads, I really can't see what the problem is. Only those who have big egos who think they're entitled to more than everyone else would have a problem with it.
No that wouldn’t. People have various blessings. Some are athletic. Is that “unfair”? Some are more intelligent. Fair? You are conflating egalitarian with equality. They are different.

Your standard could never work. It has no practical way to be done.
 

Friend of Mara

Active Member
No that wouldn’t. People have various blessings. Some are athletic. Is that “unfair”? Some are more intelligent. Fair? You are conflating egalitarian with equality. They are different.

Your standard could never work. It has no practical way to be done.
Are there no steps that could be taken? Should we not have wheelchair ramps?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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.
There is no but.
Sure there is opposition by those who want military
adventurism (policing the world) by many Dems & Pubs.
My goal is still maximizing liberty.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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".
Instead of "good", I favor the "most libertarian achievable".
A constitutional representative democracy looks best for that.
It's less than ideal.
But I've found nothing better.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No that wouldn’t. People have various blessings. Some are athletic. Is that “unfair”? Some are more intelligent. Fair? You are conflating egalitarian with equality. They are different.

Your standard could never work. It has no practical way to be done.

There are ways it could be done. What's the alternative? Maintain the status quo and hope for the best?

I don't believe in blessings. Yes, as you say, some are more athletic, some are more intelligent, some are stronger, and so on. Everyone is born with different strengths and weaknesses, so you're really just stating the obvious. I'm not conflating anything, as I don't recall using either of those terms in this discussion.

However, since you bring up equality, I would say that, for much of the past 250 or so years, a great deal of focus has been placed on the rights of human beings. It was a bit dodgy at first, as the rights didn't apply to all in the U.S. for a great many years. However, over time, our political values changed to where some people started believing that even the poor, downtrodden, and oppressed should be treated with some degree of fairness, dignity, and justice. Western liberals believed in that, which is how many of these social programs and other reforms (which conservatives and capitalists often deride) came about in the first place. Regardless of whether they're athletic enough or intelligent enough, simple human principles like kindness and decency were woven into the political culture.

In other societies, with a more predatory philosophy, they've been more prone to revolution and upheaval. We've been fortunate that we haven't really any major upheavals since the Civil War. We are far better off favoring policies which engender political stability and harmony, as opposed to "he who dies with the most toys wins." The predatory, dog-eat-dog, social Darwinist society advocated by laissez faire capitalists would be a step backward for human civilization. Capitalism is just a phase that we've been going through, but now it's time to move on to the next level in human development.

Capitalism really can't last anyway. We're already seeing some indication of shortages and disruptions of supply chains due to the pandemic. Do we have enough resources to maintain this consumerist, shop-til-you-drop bubble economy which they've been propping up since the Reagan era? How's our nation's credit rating these days? Eventually, the till will run dry, just like Lake Mead.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
Speak for yourself. The notion that wealth comes from exploitation is erroneous. Unless that infrastructure has limited access you aren’t exploiting anyone.

You aren’t the decider of what constitutes a burden to others, even the ersatz rich.

Taxes don’t create wealth. That is nonsense.

You are being self contradictory. On the one hand you deplore people exploiting common infrastructure for their own enrichment. Then you say we should have more taxes to benefit people to improve their lot.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
When the Swedish Minister of Finance was asked how he could explain Sweden's economic recovery from a downturn in the 1990's, his two-word answer was "Higher taxes".

Now if anyone understands economics, this can make sense. Contrary to the apparent belief of some self-proclaimed "conservatives", tax money doesn't disappear somewhere into outer space. If handled properly, taxes may actually better stimulate the economy than private investment since such monies can be pinpointed in directions so as to do the most bang for the buck. Private investors, otoh, may spend the money elsewhere, possibly in a different country, or maybe hold on to the money in a tax haven if the market is skittish.

BTW, it's sorta funny, but in a rather pathetic way, that so many "conservatives" don't whine if taxes deal with their own pet projects and especially if they personally benefit from it, but they certainly do whine if it goes to someone else. For example, consider the Trump tax-cuts that ramped up the deficit by $2 trillion, yet there was and is nary a complain from these supposed "conservatives" in the Pub Party or from most of the electorate that support them.

Tax money mostly gets spent here, not foreign investments nor tax shelters-- here.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
When the Swedish Minister of Finance was asked how he could explain Sweden's economic recovery from a downturn in the 1990's, his two-word answer was "Higher taxes".

Now if anyone understands economics, this can make sense. Contrary to the apparent belief of some self-proclaimed "conservatives", tax money doesn't disappear somewhere into outer space. If handled properly, taxes may actually better stimulate the economy than private investment since such monies can be pinpointed in directions so as to do the most bang for the buck. Private investors, otoh, may spend the money elsewhere, possibly in a different country, or maybe hold on to the money in a tax haven if the market is skittish.

BTW, it's sorta funny, but in a rather pathetic way, that so many "conservatives" don't whine if taxes deal with their own pet projects and especially if they personally benefit from it, but they certainly do whine if it goes to someone else. For example, consider the Trump tax-cuts that ramped up the deficit by $2 trillion, yet there was and is nary a complain from these supposed "conservatives" in the Pub Party or from most of the electorate that support them.

Tax money mostly gets spent here, not foreign investments nor tax shelters-- here.
In Sweden they raised taxes on everyone, including the poor. Thus reducing government spending when everyone had to pay for it. Is that what you are suggesting? Raising taxes on the poor and middle class?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In Sweden they raised taxes on everyone, including the poor. Thus reducing government spending when everyone had to pay for it. Is that what you are suggesting? Raising taxes on the poor and middle class?
I have cousins in Sweden who will tell you that they wouldn't think about trading in theirs for ours. Just for starters, here's what they get:
-Fully pain education through ph.d if grades are maintained
-fully paid medical, although not for all forms of elective surgery
-partially paid dental
-excellent retirement benefits
-govt paid child care
-maternity leave to be split with spouse
-housing subsidies for low-income families.
-etc.

I'm very familiar with their system, and I'd take theirs any day of the week over the dog-eat-dog mentality here. Heck, we know from fossil evidence that Neanderthals took care of their own, including those that couldn't work due to injury, so doncha think maybe that we should be at least as civilized as they?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Speak for yourself. The notion that wealth comes from exploitation is erroneous. Unless that infrastructure has limited access you aren’t exploiting anyone.
If the 'owners' reap 90% of the profit from the labor of the workers, who actually produce it, simply because they own the tools used by the workers, is that not exploitation?

The workers do the work, and produce the wealth.
The owner does nothing, but takes most of the wealth.
That's capitalism, in a nutshell.
You aren’t the decider of what constitutes a burden to others, even the ersatz rich.
Why not, and who is?
I majored in Sociology and Anthropology, at Uni. I've worked as a laborer, dishwasher and other menial jobs. Then I went back and got a 'professional' degree, and made good money.. I also invest in the market and have made a lot of money there, too. So I've both studied and experienced most sides of this issue.
Taxes don’t create wealth. That is nonsense.
America's period of most rapid growth occurred at a time when taxes were high -- maxed at 91%, for the rich.
The economy -- if you exclude the stock market -- has stagnated since the Reagan and later tax cuts. Security and material wealth for the middle and working classes has decreased.

As Metis pointed out, taxes don't just disappear into the void. They can be applied to the commons, to buy services used by everyone -- at cost , enabling everyone to afford education, healthcare, housing, &c.
High taxed, properly used, = prosperity.
You are being self contradictory. On the one hand you deplore people exploiting common infrastructure for their own enrichment. Then you say we should have more taxes to benefit people to improve their lot.
I'm not seeing this....
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If the 'owners' reap 90% of the profit from the labor of the workers, who actually produce it, simply because they own the tools used by the workers, is that not exploitation?
The workers freely accept the job & the pay.
The draft imposes a nasty job at low pay on the unwilling
with the threat of violent apprehension & prison
One is exploitation. One isn't.
The workers do the work, and produce the wealth.
The owner does nothing, but takes most of the wealth.
That's capitalism, in a nutshell.
Workers could start their own company if they want.
Or find another job. But until then, they're enhoying
the fruits of someone else's entrepreneurship, work,
risk, & capital.
I majored in Sociology and Anthropology, at Uni.
Ahah!
That explains much.
I've worked as a laborer, dishwasher and other menial jobs. Then I went back and got a 'professional' degree, and made good money.. I also invest in the market and have made a lot of money there, too. So I've both studied and experienced most sides of this issue.
America's period of most rapid growth occurred at a time when taxes were high -- maxed at 91%, for the rich.
The economy -- if you exclude the stock market -- has stagnated since the Reagan and later tax cuts. Security and material wealth for the middle and working classes has decreased.

As Metis pointed out, taxes don't just disappear into the void. They can be applied to the commons, to buy services used by everyone -- at cost , enabling everyone to afford education, healthcare, housing, &c.
High taxed, properly used, = prosperity.
I'm not seeing this....
Alas, both Pubs & Dems keep voting for politicians who've
used our taxes to wage war on foreigners who pose no
existential threat.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The workers freely accept the job & the pay.
Many workers have little choice in the matter.

Workers could start their own company if they want.
Or find another job. But until then, they're enhoying
the fruits of someone else's entrepreneurship, work,
risk, & capital.
Most workers can't afford either the money or the risk it takes to start their own company. Finding another job leaves them in the same position. Finding a better job is difficult, and usually requires training they have neither the time nor money to afford.

Ahah!
That explains much.
:cool::D

Alas, both Pubs & Dems keep voting for politicians who've
used our taxes to wage war on foreigners who pose no
existential threat.
And here we both see eye-to-eye.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I have cousins in Sweden who will tell you that they wouldn't think about trading in theirs for ours. Just for starters, here's what they get:
-Fully pain education through ph.d if grades are maintained
-fully paid medical, although not for all forms of elective surgery
-partially paid dental
-excellent retirement benefits
-govt paid child care
-maternity leave to be split with spouse
-housing subsidies for low-income families.
-etc.

I'm very familiar with their system, and I'd take theirs any day of the week over the dog-eat-dog mentality here. Heck, we know from fossil evidence that Neanderthals took care of their own, including those that couldn't work due to injury, so doncha think maybe that we should be at least as civilized as they?
Do your cousins enjoy paying 52% of their salaries in income tax? How about that 25% sales tax? Or the 38% retirement system tax?

In Sweden they are privatizing the equivalent of social security with an option for people to invest a portion in stocks and securities. Since you think Sweden is a great example, do you think we should change social security to allow people to invest their portion into stocks?
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Many workers have little choice in the matter.
Who?
Why?
Most workers can't afford either the money or the risk it takes to start their own company.
Some businesses require little capital.
Sometimes one must save up, look for
partners, or take out loans.
Finding another job leaves them in the same position. Finding a better job is difficult, and usually requires training they have neither the time nor money to afford.
Who ever said it would be easy?
Some of us jump into business without adequate training.
Prolly most of us do. Long hours of hard work & hard knocks.
And here we both see eye-to-eye.
Woohoo!
Detente!
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Many workers have little choice in the matter.

If they implement universal basic income, then all people would have their necessities paid for and not have to worry about work. Of course, they still could work by their own choice if they want to. That would be a real choice.

Let's see how many employers go begging for workers if/when it's ever implemented.

In fact, many have been complaining about people getting extended unemployment benefits, which they believe contributes to labor shortages.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
A lot of my sentiments on this have already been said. I think if people can't be convinced to volunteer, the fighting shouldn't be had. That being said, if we're working within the reality of the draft existing and can't change it, I don't think women should be excluded. But this is like taking a hypothetical bad thing and saying "well let's at least not make it a discriminatory bad thing."
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Do your cousins enjoy paying 52% of their salaries in income tax? How about that 25% sales tax? Or the 38% retirement system tax?
Again, they prefer there's, and since Sweden is a democracy, the majority could get rid of it if they wanted.

Essentially, they have "cradle to grave" protection, and eliminating the worry of extreme poverty isn't much of a problem there. Here in the States, how many people have been distraught over these kind of issues. Roughly 70-80% of personal bankruptcies here have medical expenses being a major factor. How many Americans can't afford to send their children to college? How many parents haven't been able to go back to work because we have an expensive and inadequate child and elderly daycare system? Etc.

In Sweden they are privatizing the equivalent of social security with an option for people to invest a portion in stocks and securities. Since you think Sweden is a great example, do you think we should change social security to allow people to invest their portion into stocks?
Here there could be a problem with that since Americans are on the average more materialistic than Swedes, the latter of which has a "just enough" mentality. Showing off and/or bragging about one's wealth ain't "cool" there.

So, no, I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all approach because of cultural variations.
 
Top