Conscription - Page 5

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 01:39

Berz,

Those cases were in 1917-1918, in WW1. Cases during the Civil War are, IMO, irrelevant, as Lincoln would have just ignored any decision he didn't like.

Ming,

Quote:

No... they didn't "make it up"... they passed a LAW.

So one party passing a law can enforce a contract on other people, who get no direct input? That fails the definition of a contract, you know.

Quote:

No... it isn't ridiculous. You aren't being FORCED. You have a CHOICE... the FREEDOM TO SAY, I'm not going... and you can face the penality, or leave the country.

Then laws against murder are also voluntary - no one is forced NOT to commit murder. They have the freedom to ignore the law. By your argument, anyway.

But that isn't really accurate, as if someone chooses to ignore a law against murder, they will be punished for it. In that case, no one has the freedom to ignore laws against murder, just the ability.

Likewise, conscription involves FORCE, just like a law against murder, because if you choose to ignore conscription, you WILL be punished.

I fail to see how you can define conscription as anything other than involuntary - your definition fails at every turn.

Ming · July 16, 2003, 01:40

Well Berzerker... there are indeed some rules/laws I don't follow. However, I don't think the rules are immoral, I just don't agree with them. And I'm willing to pay the penality if caught. (I've paid a "few" speeding tickets)...

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 01:41

Ming,

Quote:

I never said I was "willing to fight"... I said I lived up to my commitment to the state. If I had been called, I would have... but I wasn't.

It sounds an awful like you were willing. You said:

"I didn't get selected, but I would have gone. I would have taken the risk to die for somebody else's security."

This is certainly more willing than people who weren't willing to take the risk. Which brings up the point that if you were willing to take the risk, why didn't you take the place of someone who WASN'T willing.

Quote:

you have the Freedom to renounce that citizenship if you don't want to live up to what it means by being an American.

I always thought that America was about freedom and liberty, not absolutism and totalitarianism. That's how it was set up, at least.

And by the way, if you believe that military service is a contractual duty, how do you get around the point of COs?

Berzerker · July 16, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

And I'm willing to pay the penality if caught. (I've paid a "few" speeding tickets)...

Yes, I saw how you guys drive.

Ming · July 16, 2003, 01:45

By your definition David... any law implies force and a loss of freedom. So you are saying that every law is immoral... which is just plain silly.

You can't ignore the fact that there is contract between you and the state when it comes to being a citizen.
Your arguments fail at every attempt because you ignore this simple fact.

Berzerker · July 16, 2003, 01:47

But hey, I've been known to exceed speed limits occasionally.

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 01:50

Quote:

By your definition David... any law implies force and a loss of freedom. So you are saying that every law is immoral...

Most laws we have are immoral. The only ones that are NOT immoral are those that prevent one individual from coercing another individual in some way. If you are going to argue that it is a loss of freedom to have a law against infringing the freedom of another, then I'm afraid you misunderstand the nature of freedom.

Quote:

You can't ignore the fact that there is contract between you and the state when it comes to being a citizen.

The only contract to which I am bound is a moral contract, which also, in some cases, happens to be codified into law. That moral contract is that I can't take the life, liberty, or property of another.

However, you already know this, at least with regards to life and liberty, because the absolute morals you cited all have to do with infringing someone's right to life or right to liberty.

Ming · July 16, 2003, 01:53

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ming,
It sounds an awful like you were willing.

This is certainly more willing than people who weren't willing to take the risk. Which brings up the point that if you were willing to take the risk, why didn't you take the place of someone who WASN'T willing.

Doing ones duty, and liking it are two different things.
If duty had required, I would have. And people that weren't willing. left the country and renounced their citizenship.

Quote:

I always thought that America was about freedom and liberty, not absolutism and totalitarianism. That's how it was set up, at least.

Yeah it was... but conscription isn't totalitarianism or absolutism.. it's a duty... a contract for being an American.

Quote:

And by the way, if you believe that military service is a contractual duty, how do you get around the point of COs?

I believe that the govenment has the right to pass laws. And that if the law of the land is conscription, than that is a part of the contractual duty. Right now, it's not the law of the land. Morality has nothing to do with conscription. It's a duty. And if called... you serve, leave, or face the penality... just like any other law.

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 01:56

Let's condense Ming's argument.

Conscription is OK because there is a contract between the individual and society. This contract exists because the government says it does. Further, conscription can't be immoral because of this contract, and anyone who says it is immoral is simply expressing an opinion. However, absolute morals exist, which, in part, include the notion that murder, rape, slavery, and racism are wrong. But, apparently, even though these things essentially deal with violating individual life or liberty, these absolutes don't exist to certain OTHER violations of life or liberty, but only to what Ming says. The justification for this is *blank* (ie, so far unstated and unaddressed).

Is this accurate, Ming?

Ming · July 16, 2003, 01:58

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
The only contract to which I am bound is a moral contract, which also, in some cases, happens to be codified into law.

Then you don't understand what it means to be a citizen. The rights you have as an American come with a duty...

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 01:59

Quote:

Doing ones duty, and liking it are two different things.
If duty had required, I would have.

But you STILL haven't justified this supposed duty, other than "the government says so".

Quote:

Yeah it was... but conscription isn't totalitarianism or absolutism.. it's a duty... a contract for being an American.

This is an unproven and unjustified assertion. Show me where a contract such as this is laid forth in the Constitution.

Quote:

I believe that the govenment has the right to pass laws. And that if the law of the land is conscription, than that is a part of the contractual duty. Right now, it's not the law of the land. Morality has nothing to do with conscription. It's a duty. And if called... you serve, leave, or face the penality... just like any other law.

Sorry, but you dodged the question. Let me ask it again: If national service is a duty when the government says it is, then why do we not imprison or deport conscientious objectors?

Further, you also didn't address the point that in 1800, slaves had a legal duty to obey their masters. Was morality not involved in this?

Of course it was, because you already said that slavery is an absolute moral wrong. So, then, apparently duty is not ultimately the most important thing, but rather morality, right?

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:01

Quote:

Then you don't understand what it means to be a citizen. The rights you have as an American come with a duty...

Why do you keep assuming that belonging to a nation state automatically confers some unspecified "duty" on me? This is especially ridiculous in the case of the US, which was founded on the basis of individual liberty and extremely limited federal powers.

If the government changed the rules midstream, didn't the government, then, violate IT'S contract with ME?

Ming · July 16, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Is this accurate, Ming?

Uhhh no... further proof that you aren't listening.

My arugment is simple... You agree as a member of society/country to follow the rules to remain a member.
If you don't like the rules, you can find another society/country to join.

Your argument is even shorter... It's immoral because David says it is...

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:05

Quote:

My arugment is simple... You agree as a member of society/country to follow the rules to remain a member.
If you don't like the rules, you can find another society/country to join.

But you've already said that there are some rules society can't pass. I am simply pressing you on what those are. Further, in the case of the US, this supposed contract was non-existent at the outset, at least in terms of what you think the contract says, and if the government changed the terms midstream, then they violated their contract with each individual.

Quote:

Your argument is even shorter... It's immoral because David says it is...

Certainly that's my argument, but the "..." after "because David says it is" includes the justification of why I say so, which you have failed to post.

Ming · July 16, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why do you keep assuming that belonging to a nation state automatically confers some unspecified "duty" on me?

Because it's the law of the land... and our constitution allows laws to be passed... from the beginning the founding fathers knew that change would happen, and that additional laws would be required.

Quote:

If the government changed the rules midstream, didn't the government, then, violate IT'S contract with ME?

Nope... as a citizen... you follow the rules, as they change. And if you don't like them, nothing is forcing you to be an American. You have the FREEDOM to choose not to be one. The ultimate freedom... Choice.

Ben Kenobi · July 16, 2003, 02:08

Quote:

You have the FREEDOM to choose not to be one.

Even better, you have the freedom to endure the punishment of the state. You don't need to renounce your birthright.

Ming · July 16, 2003, 02:09

You have given no justification beyond your opinion.

Like you, I'm stating an opinion. And I have supported that opinion far better than you have

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:09

Quote:

Because it's the law of the land... and our constitution allows laws to be passed...

Sure, but only laws that fit within the framework of the Constitution.

Further, would you finally, at long last, admit that a law can be immoral?

Quote:

from the beginning the founding fathers knew that change would happen, and that additional laws would be required.

Certainly, and in major cases, they included a method for changing the Constitution to allow for many laws not originally authorized.

Quote:

Nope... as a citizen... you follow the rules, as they change.

Then this by itself means that your supposed "contract" isn't a contract at all, because contracts lay out specific behaviors, expectations, etc., etc., that are agreed to by both parties, and cannot be uniliaterally changed. So either there is no contract, or the contract isn't what you say it is, or the contract was never legitimately changed.

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Like you, I'm stating an opinion. And I have supported that opinion far better than you have

You certainly didn't support your opinion about absolute morals, which is an absolutely vital element of this debate.

Berzerker · July 16, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

If the government changed the rules midstream, didn't the government, then, violate IT'S contract with ME?

That would be the case IF conscription is unconstitutional, but I don't see why the Constitution matters since it too is a contract signed onto by others, not the rest of us.

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:12

Quote:

That would be the case IF conscription is unconstitutional,

We aren't talking about conscription here in particular, but rather the existence or non-existence of a social contract requiring me to do whatever the government says. Surely you don't believe that originally existed?

Further, the Constitution also isn't really a contract, and when Ming says "social contract", I seriously doubt he is referring to the Constitution. If he is, then he has the mechanism for change severely screwed up.

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:17

By the way, Ming,

Quote:

My arugment is simple... You agree as a member of society/country to follow the rules to remain a member.

This is saying that if society allows certain citizens to be enslaved, then those citizens have a duty to be slaves. But this can't be your opinion, since you already said that slavery is an absolute moral wrong. So I think you need to either clarify your position on morality, or make another argument that is logically consistent.

Ming · July 16, 2003, 02:17

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
You certainly didn't support your opinion about absolute morals, which is an absolutely vital element of this debate.

Absolute morals are a matter of opinion. You say you believe one thing, and I say another... There is no possible support that makes one opinon better than another... because absolute morals are personal.

As far as conscription... you claim that it is immoral based on YOUR absolute morals.. and call it slavery and a loss of freedom.

I claim it's not, because I don't view it as slavery or as a loss of personal freedom since people have the CHOICE not to be conscripted if they don't want to. They have options... remain an American, live up to their duty to the state by following the laws of the land or accepting the punishment for their choice, or choosing not to be an American.

In my opinion... that's far more support than you just making a claim that isn't really valid.

Ming · July 16, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
By the way, Ming,
This is saying that if society allows certain citizens to be enslaved, then those citizens have a duty to be slaves. But this can't be your opinion, since you already said that slavery is an absolute moral wrong. So I think you need to either clarify your position on morality, or make another argument that is logically consistent.

Again... you aren't listening very well... If I was in a society that enslaved citizens, which I do believe is wrong, I would leave that society/country, and find one that didn't. That would be my choice...

Which is very consistant with EVERYTHING I've been saying

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Absolute morals are a matter of opinion. You say you believe one thing, and I say another... There is no possible support that makes one opinon better than another... because absolute morals are personal.

No, absolute morals are by definition NOT personal, but apply to everyone. They are by definition universal. Otherwise, you are saying that it is absolutely wrong for me to murder you, but on the other hand it's not necessarily absolutely wrong for me to murder Bob - it would depend on what Bob thinks. Even worse, you can't actually say that it is absolutely wrong for me to murder you, unless I agree murder is wrong. So what you are actually proposing is moral relativism.

Quote:

I claim it's not, because I don't view it as slavery or as a loss of personal freedom since people have the CHOICE not to be conscripted if they don't want to.

So, then, a law saying I couldn't be a Muslim wouldn't result in a loss of freedom, because I could still choose to ignore the law?

I suppose you'd be right, up until the point when you punished me for violating the law. Then my freedom would certainly be infringed.

Quote:

that's far more support...

No, it isn't, because your claim is rife with inconsistencies and illogical claims/conclusions. You are making claims that you don't even agree with, if you actually believe that slavery is an absolute wrong.

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:22

Quote:

Again... you aren't listening very well... If I was in a society that enslaved citizens, which I do believe is wrong, I would leave that society/country, and find one that didn't. That would be my choice...

That's nice, but obviously the people who were enslaved wouldn't have that choice, would they? The very definition of slavery does not include the element of choosing to leave rather than be a slave. I rather suspect that if it did, slavery would have died out much, much earlier.

Furthermore, what you would do in the case of OTHER people being enslaved is irrelevant, as we are discussing your options should something happen to YOU.

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:23

And further, WHY do you think slavery is wrong? On what grounds do you condemn it?

David Floyd · July 16, 2003, 02:25

And I note that you STILL haven't answered me re: Conscientious Objectors.

Ming · July 16, 2003, 02:25

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, absolute morals are by definition NOT personal, but apply to everyone. They are by definition universal.

But in a way, they are VERY personal. I do believe that they apply to all. Where we disagree is what those absoute morals actually are.

You seem to think the conscription violates one... My view is that it doesn't.

Ming · July 16, 2003, 02:29

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's nice, but obviously the people who were enslaved wouldn't have that choice, would they? The very definition of slavery does not include the element of choosing to leave rather than be a slave.

Thanks David for proving my point in this discussion.

I knew I could eventually bait you into saying that.

Conscription isn't slavery based on your above definition. Conscription comes with a choice, while slavery doesn't. While slavery is indeed immoral, conscription isn't.

Have a nice day