Utterly Meaningless

1. I did see the speech. The mention of the draft didn’t seem at all like a trial baloon. Perhaps the difference between written and spoken language accounts for how that would stand out more to you than to me when I heard it.

2. I’m guessing you’re a libertarian. The cut-my-nose-off-to-spite-my-face of libertarians that I have seen is a major part of why I’m not one, though I do value many of the same core principles as you.

3. Slavery was an appropriation of someone else’s labor for your own benefit. It’s personal to the recipient. A Draft is forced labor, but not to any particular person. A nation has, as part of sovereignty, the overriding right to strive to continue existing. An interpretation of the Constitution that would lead to the destruction of the nation will not be enforced. If a draft is needed for percieved national security reasons, no legal argument against it will prevail.

“A nation has, as part of sovereignty, the overriding right to strive to continue existing. An interpretation of the Constitution that would lead to the destruction of the nation will not be enforced. If a draft is needed for percieved national security reasons, no legal argument against it will prevail.”

There is no point in the nation existing if it has the unrestricted right to murder its own citizens based on “perceived national security reasons.” Unless you believe that indivuals possess no rights, and the state’s authority is omniscient, which you clearly do.

Don’t bother replying. If you don’t acknowledge my right to life, then I don’t acknowledge any rights you might claim. You’re not a human being as far as I’m concerned. I only offer this reply to clarify my position to other readers.

I too watched last night – only because I suspected the Zell speech would be a real barn burner. I had the same interpretation as Bronson – I didn’t hear it as a trial balloon. Although your point about the WH letting the comment through is interesting…

Although I oppose the draft – it’s not on slavery / servitude grounds. I just think they are ineffective. Better would be to up the pay to a point that you got the required number of new volunteers.

I just bounced your draft thought off a couple of friends who are in the military now – and both saw Zell’s speech last night. They both independently answered that there will not be a draft in our lifetime – possible exception for something truly catastrophic, on the order of 100,000 troops killed in a nuclear blast.

I agree, Chris, that the draft will not be revived anytime soon. The biggest reason it won’t is that military leaders–civilian and uniformed–understand that a conscript army is expensive and inferior. Saddam Hussein’s army was full of conscripts, and look where that got him. (But, hey, he had the right to preseve the state, didn’t he? No individual Iraqi could claim that his life belonged to him when the state was in peril!)

What is possible, however, is that Bush or a successor (say, John McCain) will introduce mandatory “community service” at the federal level, which will include a military option.

peacetime draft = an unpopular idea = the war on terror

Wilkie would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

John Kerry would not.

It’s a simple premise.

“John Kerry would not.”

And neither would George W. Bush.

Merely making Zell’s point, since you drove over the cliff at the word “draft”.

Great thread – The general topic of standing armies, drafts, and the defense of the republic is one that obviously goes back a long time, certainly before the founding of this nation.

If there’s a just cause, I doubt that a draft would be required.

First, there will not be a draft (despite the attempts from certain Dems). Secondly, Zell was extremely aggressive in wanting to give his version of the speech- WH/convention speechwriters thought it TOO conservative!LOL The rewrites were going fast and furious up until the last minute.

Bingo, Dave.

If our citizens don’t think the fight is worth fighting, maybe it’s not. If our existence depends on our young people joining up to give their lives, and they don’t, then maybe we’ve outlived our usefulness.

Zell’s point, though, was not about the draft. It was about being willing to do what one perceives as the right thing to do for the country, without worrying about political backlash. That was a fun speech, that was.

Wow, Skip… I think that was “argumentum ad consequentiam” (datana...eq.htm).

Surely you can come up with a better argument… I especially like being demoted or promoted out of the species of human beings based on not agreeing with your pathetic legal arguments. Let’s be clear, when you are talking about Amendments and Policies, your making arguments about what you think the law is.

You are simply wrong. “To err is human,” or so my species has been told, so I won’t question your qualifications to be a human.

One thing that you’re doing, but probably not recognizing, is asserting that your principles are the absolute truth with which no disagreement is permissible. That tends to work against the substance of your argument. “There is no point in the nation existing if it has the unrestricted right to murder its own citizens based on ‘perceived national security reasons.'” That’s a rather bold statement that you haven’t bothered to support. Good arguments could be made that (if your definition of “unrestricted right to murder” means “the ability to conscript soldiers”) the unrestricted right to conscript soldiers is necessary for any government because it’s goal is to preserve as many civilians and as much geography as possible. (Your technique is what’s called “Begging the Question.” See datana...ng.htm)

Now the question of sovereignty and the relative rights of nations compared to their citizens: It’s an interesting philosophical discussion, but it is universally accepted that all nations have the right to self-defense. The American Jurisprudence regarding fundamental rights for individuals is that they do exist, BUT, none of them exist without limits. (I’m not presenting an argument in favor of this proposition, I’m just telling you what the situation is… deal with it.)

The Federal Government has ALWAYS been able to take whatever steps it considered NECESSARY to defend it’s core functions. One of the primary functions of the Federal government is to PROVIDE A NATIONAL DEFENSE. If that defense requires conscription, then that will be allowed even though many or all people find it repugnant.

Sending troops into battle, even against their will, is NOT the same as murder. From a very shallow perspective, if the orders are given under the color of law, then any deaths cannot be murder because a murder is an unjustified and unlawful killing of a human. Be careful with your words.

For what it’s worth, at no point did I argue against your right to life. To be honest, in my comment above, I didn’t really argue anything. I paraphrased the law and jurisprudence that would control any legal challenge. You’re right to life is fundamental, but it is not infinite.

I guess the problem is that you don’t recognize the independent existence of the nation. When the nation’s interest conflict with you, you think that your interests should always be paramount. Ideally, individual interests will usually be paramount, but not always. Your view is a way to see things, but it’s not the way things are just because you want them to be.

Skip… try some decaf… I hear some brands taste almost as good as regular.

Interesting thread. I have to disagree with Bronson somewhat. I don’t think the state has any “rights” per se. People have rights. States have power. States exist in order for people to band together to protect their rights. So, the question eventually becomes “Do I have the right to demand your life”? No? How about Skip and I? Still no? How many people then would it take so that we have the collective right to demand your life? I’d argue an infinite number. We would never have that right.

Now, does the state have the power to conscript young people into the army. Of course. The government has the jails, and it has the guns (well, most of them). It still doesn’t make conscription right.

Daryl,

I think the terms are getting muddled. When people organize into societies with a government, that government does have “rights.”

To be sure, “rights” have a somewhat different flavor when addressing individuals as compared with states.

Your unstated premise (with which I agree) is that humans have some (maybe complete) innate sovereignty. Certainly, the abstract question of “demainding your life” by a bunch of folks does not imply justice. How about if you were convicted of murder under some sociatally agreed judicial system and the people demanding your life are the jury. Do we, as the jury and therefore representatives of society in your adjudication, have the “right” to demand your life? How about just your liberty? I’m not saying that you, as the defendant cannot put up a defense and then an appeal. I’m saying that the soverign state has the “right” to invade into the rights and lives of individuals in ways that would, if generally applied, seem totally oppressive and immoral, under certain circumstances.

Remember, justice cannot be entirely personal. Justice is a societal issue.

There’s actually a fair amount of disagreement over the extent of sovereignty of nations and what is “law”. If “law” is nothing more than coercion, then why do we care about “right and wrong”?

You’re post also indicates a belief that states have no legitimacy. Laws should only be followed, if they’re not implemented with legitimacy, to the extent that they might be enforced beyond what you want to bear.

That belief would, if widely held, lead to anarchy. America, however, is highly stable because there is a widely held belief that the nation is legitimate because it was established by “We the People.” You can disagree with the proposition that America is legitimate or even sovereign. You can argue that sovereignty is only found in the individual, and therefore all law is an immoral invasion of your sovereignty to the extent that it modifies your behavior. Nevertheless, the people of the nation as a whole believe that the country is sovereign, and almost uniformly willing to submit to the authority of the state and recognize it’s legitimacy.

We could go round and round on this one. The problem is not that I like the draft. The problem is that we have different core definitions and premises. If one believes that the nation is sovereign, then self-protection, even compelled self-protection (or compelled advancment of the state interests) is not necessarily immoral even if it is undesireable. Look at the fundamental principles from which your “People have rights. States have power,” comment springs. It is a denial of the legitimacy of the government. Is that really what you believe?

You don’t have to be a “statist” to think that (some) governments might be legitimate. I don’t like when our government goes beyond the Constitution, but I do think that it was legitimately established.

Geez- why do y’all get into these really interesting discussions while I’m away?

I don’t think the US government is illegitimate (even as some (many? most?) of its actions are. I just don’t believe that a legitimate government can claim to have rights. In my mind it is too close to the divine right of kings. Rights are innate to human beings (and that includes all posters here). One can even say the are God given. Governments have been conscripting youth forever, in violation of their rights. Think I exaggerate?

1 Samuel 8

[9] Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
[10] And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
[11] And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
[12] And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

Daryl,

Sorry that I didn’t respond sooner. I don’t know if you’ll even read this. Nevertheless, I’ll respond to a couple of things…

“…too close to the divine right of kings.”
You’re dead on. Well, at least the recognition of the source is correct. States demand non-interference on precisely the basis of “sovereignty” That concept really started to take shape in the mid-1600’s with the Peace of Westfalia (sp?). The result of that peace accord was that, as Europe finally came to grips with the idea that Rome wasn’t really an empire anymore, they had to determine who could declare what religion was correct. The conclusion was that the Sovereign (the local monarch) was allowed to define what religion would be the one true religion in his area and no other sovereign had the right to say otherwise.

As monarchies fell out of favor, there needed to be some justification for a state to demand that it be allowed to manage its own business. Sovereignty served that purpose. A nation is sovereign on the basis of being the “legitimate” organization of the people therein. Democratic nations (not to get into a battle of semantics, but by that term I mean nations in which the people have a significant hand in selecting the governing class) claim sovereignty in very much the same way monarchs did. Monarchs said that God established them therefore they were God’s representatives. Democratic governements are based on the theory that people actualy have personal sovereignty and therefore by voluntary creating and participating in self-government, the resulting government derives legitimacy and sovereignty from the governed.

Now… About conscripting the young men…
I don’t disagree that it’s been happening for a long time. I don’t agree, however that the scripture you cited proves that it was against the “rights” of the people conscripted. To the contrary, perhaps that passage proves that established governments really do have the RIGHT to conscript. It wasn’t presented as a potential evil, but as a potential unpleasant truth of a central government.

The fact that it’s unpleasant, doesn’t make it a violation of rights.