Conscription

Post Reply New Topic

And you're a slacker to your country.

This year, we appear to be number 3, behind only Luxembourg and Norway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked

I believe back in 2007, statistics showed us to be the most productive.

How do you know that poster's working habits? How do you know that poster's situation?

Likewise, I don't owe this country anything just by the nature of me being born here. The draft is totally unnecessary in the modern world and I suspect it always was. If there ever was a real existential threat to this country there would be no shortage of volunteers to protect our people and our land.

How does he know enough about me to say that I'm a disgrace to my country?
What comes around goes around....

Apparently, his criterion for being a disgrace to one's country is the support of conscription. Since you seem to support conscription--correct me if I'm wrong--he has enough information to know you meet his criterion.

On the other hand, you know nothing about his work habits, neither are your criteria for what you would consider poor work habits very clear.

Yeah, except that he's whined throughout this thread: "I can't do this, I can't to that, you can't make me, blah, blah. blah...." Then goes into what would easily be personal attacks if I did them.
Give me a break.

My country Poland abolished conscription in 2010, but still all males above 18 years old, and all woman trained in medicine(doctors, nurses) must undergo military medical evaluation for their suitability for military service and get on four medical categories

A: Suitable for military service in war time and pace time
B: Temporary unfit for military service if someone had contusion for example broken hand or leg, e.g B6 to be reevaluated in 6 month or B12, B24
D: Unfit for military service in peace time, can be drafted only in war time
E: Permanently and totally unfit for military service in times of war and peace

When we had draft in Poland many mans avoiding draft, Our Polish Army decided to switch to professional army because tracking draft evaders was to costly.

When I stood in front of a military medical commission, in 2005, got categories E, I'm sure my dear mama probably messed on this told the doctor that I was sick for a chronic disease in childhood. And I wanted to serve in the Polish Army, after completing basic training I could sign a contract for professional service, and go to Iraq or Afghanistan because Poland was involved in both of these conflicts within NATO. When I think of myself that I missed such an interesting and cool career, I'm really pissed off

It's better to be a slacker than to be someone who wants to impose one's ideals unto others.

To believe in personal liberty is the contrary to impose one's ideals unto others, like Pro-conscriptors want.

As long as I don't harm others by my actions (with harm being defined as physical harm (including unlawfully polluting the air or otherwise bring harm to public goods), or unlawfully taking what does not belong to you), the authorities should leave me alone if I so wish.

Liberty is the abscense of enforcement. However, to make it work in the real world, to give real liberty, means to create a Negative Tax (Basic Income), financed by taxing money earned.
You are free to avoid earning money yourself, whereby taxation becomes voluntary too. But the Basic Income is another discussion worthy.

To remain passive, should be a constitutionally defined right. As far as humanity is concerned, this right to stay passive, has been violated again, and again.

In-fact, I'd rather like to live in a propaganda-filled state with heavy censorship and no freedom of speech, as long as I have the right to stay passive, if with freedom of speech comes the
duty to not remain passive.

If you accuse me of being lazy, you are still trying to enforce your ideals unto others. People should be free to be lazy, if they wish so.
Btw. I am not lazy.

My apologies if I'm repeating something that's already been said…I don't have time to read through the entire thread.

I still stand by my idea that everyone should be required to undergo a thorough basic combat military training for a period of time, the point being that it creates a nation in which EVERYONE is prepared for the possibility of invasion, regardless of the likelihood of invasion, and could act quickly right at home without need of any centralized mobilization. I imagine an active-duty soldier's job would be much easier if he knew every civilian man, woman, and child was his support. The USA has been hit hard in recent years more often by natural disaster than man-made disasters, and if the response to that is any indication of how we'd similarly respond to foreign invasion then it's apparent we've devolved into a nation of lazy wimps. If hurricane Katrina is any indication, we might as well hand over New Orleans and all of southern Louisiana right now to whoever wants them. I mean, you had a situation in which MOST people have the good sense enough to evacuate while the remaining stragglers cried about how unfair the situation was and how the gub'mint won't swoop in and make everything better the next day.

Meanwhile, on the Mississippi shoreline, you've got volunteers pouring in from all over the place repairing damage and helping people find shelter. We didn't wait for the feds to come in and wave their magic wands. We got to work. The remarkable thing about it was the storm made landfall here, whereas it was the storm surge that broke the levee. We had it a LOT worse than N.O., and it barely got any mention in the news. We fared a lot better in the end because the people affected here more often approached their plight with more of a get-it-done mentality than those who wouldn't do anything other than wait for rescue. I suspect you'd hear more of that same story outside N.O. in Louisiana, but the impression I got throughout the whole ordeal is LA officials were largely asleep at the wheel.

Now, imagine instead of a storm that Cuba and North Korea joined forces. If I were a betting man, my money would be on those same people who resisted "mandatory evac" would probably be holed up in closets when the National Guard starts making their sweeps. Then they'd start crying how the government didn't send anyone in when the bombs started falling.

In Mississippi, you wouldn't have any more/less military preparedness than you would in Louisiana. But you'd more likely see more civilians greet their Red guests with at least a single shotgun blast to the face before another soldier took them down.

The point is not how much better Mississippi people are than New Orleans people, but rather a commentary on the strikingly different mentality some of us tend to have when it comes to protecting ourselves and our homes. We've created a culture, or a sub-culture, that has been conditioned to wait on the federal government to rescue them rather than taking direct action themselves. Bad situations tend to get worked out faster when the affected people are both equipped to get their hands dirty AND they are mentally/emotionally prepared/willing to step in on their own volition and make things better. Mandatory service for ALL (who are able) would create a culture of preparedness that would avoid some of the nightmarish scenarios that could easily become reality given the right (or worse) circumstances.

Just my opinion, which counts for absolutely NOTHING…

I'm against conscription insofar as it means *I* would be forced to leave my family, likely forfeiting my life in the process. Yes, I have a HUGE problem with that, and YES, I'd resist conscription as far as I reasonably and lawfully could. Yes, I'd take an out if I knew I could get one, and if I had a friend who got called up and I didn't, I'd do whatever I could to help support HIS family in his absence, just as I'd hope people would support my family if I had to leave. I hate war. I have too much of a self-preservation instinct to stand between a bullet and someone I hardly know, and it would take a moment of insanity for me to jump on a grenade to protect my fellow soldiers. I admit it. I don't want to die. People who feel a personal calling to take up arms and protect national interests and aren't afraid to die or suffer traumatic bodily harm…well, I have a deep admiration for those people because they are willing to die (voluntarily, I might add) in order to protect the way of life I have that allows me to admit everything I just wrote in this paragraph.

If you don't have volunteers, as a nation you have to do SOMETHING. If I got called up for duty, YES, I'd HATE it. But put a gun in my hands and order me to defend my nation, you better believe I'll kill however many bastards I can if it means there's one less person who means to harm my family and my friends. And yes, I'll shed a tear for every one that I kill…because that's a guy just like me who has a mother, father, wife, children at home and all he's doing is, just like me, following orders. I'll shed a tear, and then I'll reload. And I'll keep shooting and reloading until, one way or the other, they send me home.

It's awful. I know. But it's reality. Freedom is never free. If things get so bad that a professional, volunteer armed force is ineffective, a nation has to start calling people up. If a nation isn't calling up (conscripting), it's probably because there's no nation left. You ARE the army and your backyard IS your country. You either surrender or die at that point. If conscription is all that stands between total loss of freedom for all citizens, let's go ahead and play the lottery.

*delete*

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 10 Jan 2014, 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Even if that was so, that's based on those that DO work, and productivity is not indicative of ATTITUDE.

I thought it might be better to address this in a separate post from my last one:

In a nation that emphasizes personal freedom, you don't get that luxury. I'll explain momentarily.


No, NOT like what pro-conscriptors want. First of all, a nation that promotes personal freedom is already imposing ideals on others, i.e. ideals of personal freedom. Second, conscription is not an ideal. It's a means to an end. In order to HAVE personal freedoms, someone has to be on guard to protect those personal freedoms. The function of government is to limit personal freedoms to the extent that personal freedoms can be maximally enjoyed by all without marginalizing the personal freedoms of others. Protecting personal freedoms from within, setting boundaries within which people may freely act without harming others.

That doesn't protect any nation from being attacked by another nation for whatever reason. Not every government like personal freedom of its citizens. So if Chief Minister of Sports and Entertainment (who happens to be Dear Leader's cousin) Minto Li Il decides he likes American basketball (thanks a bunch, Rodman), they might decide to invade so they can control our pro basketball and, consequently, impose their laws on us. Buh-bye personal freedom! Say one bad thing about Minto Li Il mismanaging your favorite team and you AND your family is off to a "reeducation camp."

If you are ok with losing personal freedom or don't mind being forced into a personality cult in order to have ANY freedom, then fine. Americans for the most part are willing to fight to keep their way of life. We're ok with conscription should it become NECESSARY. We just hope that it doesn't.


But what about people who want to do YOU harm? If you live in the USA, you enjoy a way of life that gives you the freedom to express anti-conscription views. My brain is on North Korea at the moment, sorry, but from what I understand is they have a compulsory military service for all males that spans something like a decade. You can't get training like that anywhere else in the world as far as I'm aware…not even in the US. Say you don't want to serve in the military, you're off to a "reeducation camp." You and your family, too.


No, you've got it all wrong. You can't have liberty unless laws PROTECTING liberty are enforced. Our laws predominantly exist to limit freedom as LITTLE as possible, to define to what extent freedom actually causes harm or risks harm to others. Military force in a free society exists primarily to prevent foreign forces from imposing THEIR ideals on us. The US has gotten involved in wars to help our friends, but you never really see the US go on an absolute rampage until we are under attack. Nobody cared about Afghanistan before 9/11. Al Qaeda created a monster when they sent a couple of guys in airplanes over here to knock over a couple of buildings.

If they'd gotten away with it, it wouldn't have stopped. The lessons of 9/11 meant more vigilance on our part. You can have suicide bombings anywhere else in the world you want…but you're not going to do that here unless you want us in YOUR backyard. Unless you want OUR ideals imposed on YOUR families back home. First we take out your terrorist organization. Next we implement a democratic form of government with our military as your acting police. Then we send in Christian missionaries to hold Bible studies in homes right next to your local mosque, with your sons and daughters jumping ship to engage in some good, old fashioned, American-style praise and worship. Not that that's a BAD thing necessarily, but is that what you WANT?

Back to topic… We do that when our freedoms are threatened. If we lacked the military resources to protect the home front, conscription would be necessary to enforce our national boundaries and keep out the crazies…or get rid of them if they're already here.


If we're talking about conscription, then, as I've said before, a free society does not have the LUXURY of remaining passive. Conscription is largely symbolic at the moment in the USA. It's there IF we need it. The disaster that was Vietnam taught us that a war can no longer be won as a matter of a numbers game. You can't send a bunch of untrained teens over, have them kill a few commies, and bring them back with thousand-mile-stares on their faces without transferring their experience to fresh conscripts. We were combatting guerrilla tactics with WWII tactics, and the Cong knew better than to engage us on familiar tactical ground. Every man/woman/child in the south was a soldier for the north, their government was trash, and the whole world knew it. And you certainly weren't going to engage the north without having to deal with the Chinese and the Soviets. They hated us, we had no business being there any longer, at least not fighting the kind of war we were fighting back then, and the kids at home hated the war, too.

I mean, it's all "Art of War" stuff. You never, EVER engage in a protracted war. You're guaranteed to lose.

But tell the Vietnamese about the "right to stay passive." The Vietnamese didn't beat us by staying passive. They won the right to institute the form of government THEY wanted by mobilizing nearly every citizen--man, woman, and child--that they possibly and reasonably could. They were able to proliferate this mentality that it would be better to die than deal with foreign rule. They knew if they could get rid of the French, they could get rid of us, too. Nobody save a few brave souls on humanitarian missions wants to even TOUCH that part of the world now. No nation earns the right to exist through passivity.


OK, but how do you know that such a regime that would take away freedom of speech would even allow you to stay passive? It's a nice thought, but often doesn't work out in reality. And you know what freedom of speech means, right? It means freedom of THOUGHT. Thoughts mean nothing if there can be no corresponding action. Ideas mean nothing if they can't be transferred. Without speech, there can be no transference nor collective action. Individual independence can only be exercised if it is collectively protected. People in totalitarian regimes are not allowed to think for themselves. Independent thought is, in practice (not by necessity, I mean), followed by independent speech and action. If you're not allowed to ACT, you're not allowed to THINK. You can think all you want, but the tiniest behavior that indicates devotion to something other than regime ideals is a thought crime. We have a few people in the USA that seem to want to make having certain thoughts a crime. We are free to fight that, of course, but that freedom doesn't exist everywhere.

And if you aren't REALLY allowed to think whatever you want, to do whatever you want or NOT do whatever you DON'T want, then you don't REALLY have the freedom to choose passivity over military service. You may think having a free society's demise from a totalitarian, collectivist regime's military invasion is a good thing, but you won't feel so good about it if that means you no longer get a choice to volunteer for military service if they want you in their military.


You HAVE the freedom to be lazy. If someone calls you lazy, they're expressing an opinion based on their observations of your actions or personal expression. They're not enforcing anything simply by making an accusation.

The problem with being lazy (IF it were true that you're lazy…I'm staying out of that one) is that your passivity opens the possibility that someone who does NOT believe in personal freedom could potentially come in and take away your legal right to be lazy. In effect, the reality is that no one REALLY has the right to be lazy or passive. You're actively campaigning AGAINST conscription right here in the forum. Nothing wrong with that. I may disagree with you, but we're both free to express our views. You are engaged in an intellectual battle to maintain your passive position. By default, ergo, you don't really believe in passivity. If you did, you wouldn't even have started the discussion. You're perfectly ok with imposing YOUR ideals of passivity on others, but you get angry at the thought of others imposing THEIR ideals on you. You seem to be angry that so many of us disagree with you. And you're free to get upset, if that's the case. By virtue of that fact alone you SHOULD have some sort of understanding why it is some people would be OK with something like conscription if it is necessary to preserve the way of life many of us, and I'm assuming you as well, currently enjoy.

AngelRho, we have disagreed vehemently on other topics here, but your post just now was absolutely splendid. Spot on. Take a bow.

I would rather die for my country than be told I can't because I have autism.

Aw! You're TOO kind! TY!