Recruiting Crisis: 9% want to serve

[HeloDude]

On 6/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, Lord Ratner said:

You can't be this silly. Have you ever heard a single person going on a 365 seriously claim that they were being enslaved?

 

No one said you had to be happy about being drafted, just like you don't have to be happy about that 365. 

 

If obligations didn't suck, they'd be hobbies. This would be a bit less painful if you guys just admitted you got a little over your skis with the slavery and theft nonsense, and instead just critiqued conscription in a somewhat less hyperbolic manner.

Yeah, I’m sure the people who got drafted into being in the infantry in Vietnam and lost lims just “weren’t happy”.  
 

I don’t know what freedom and liberty mean to you but if you don’t have the freedom and liberty to say no, I don’t want to have to be forced at the barrel of a gun to go to war, then we obviously have zero freedom and liberty and it’s all just a farce.

[Lord Ratner]

8 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Yeah, I’m sure the people who got drafted into being in the infantry in Vietnam and lost lims just “weren’t happy”.  
 

I don’t know what freedom and liberty mean to you but if you don’t have the freedom and liberty to say no, I don’t want to have to be forced at the barrel of a gun to go to war, then we obviously have zero freedom and liberty and it’s all just a farce.

Okay so you are this silly. 

So if a country has conscription, you have zero liberty? Zero? 

So your level of freedom in America is the same as your level of freedom in say, Venezuela, or Iran? Or perhaps even lower than Venezuela or Iran... Right?

It's all just a farce, yes? I didn't need such a succinct example of the absolutism I was describing, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

Your military service is truly a paradox. You gave up even *more* freedom and liberty to defend "a farce." You were paid with stolen wages to serve a slave state. That's a hot take.

I'm still waiting on that example country that did not rely on taxes and/or conscription. If you get a moment. 

Edited June 22 by Lord Ratner

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Okay so you are this silly. 

So if a country has conscription, you have zero liberty? Zero? 

So your level of freedom in America is the same as your level of freedom in say, Venezuela, or Iran? Or perhaps even lower than Venezuela or Iran... Right?

It's all just a farce, yes? I didn't need such a succinct example of the absolutism I was describing, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

Your military service is truly a paradox. You gave up even *more* freedom and liberty to defend "a farce." You were paid with stolen wages to serve a slave state. That's a hot take.

I'm still waiting on that example country that did not rely on taxes and/or conscription. If you get a moment. 

If the country can suspend your most sacred liberty and freedom (ie not to be conscripted to go fight and die when you don’t want to) then yes, you don’t have liberty or freedom.  It turns out that we have privileges disguised as freedom that can be taken away when you haven’t harmed a single person.  But hey, I guess I’m just being silly.  As for my military service being a farce, well, if you truly look at the last 20+ years of what our military/government did and I think there’s a strong argument to be made on whether or not the US military protected our “freedom and liberty” in this country or not.  Something about the military industrial complex?

And as for other countries no and in history (since you keep asking) they don’t have true freedom or liberty either—did Covid teach you anything?  Just don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, HeloDude said:

If the country can suspend your most sacred liberty and freedom (ie not to be conscripted to go fight and die when you don’t want to) then yes, you don’t have liberty or freedom.  It turns out that we have privileges disguised as freedom that can be taken away when you haven’t harmed a single person.  But hey, I guess I’m just being silly.  As for my military service being a farce, well, if you truly look at the last 20+ years of what our military/government did and I think there’s a strong argument to be made on whether or not the US military protected our “freedom and liberty” in this country or not.  Something about the military industrial complex?

And as for other countries no and in history (since you keep asking) they don’t have true freedom or liberty either—did Covid teach you anything?  Just don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Gotcha. Made up standards and utopian fantasy. 

Where exactly is the most sacred liberty and freedom spelled out as the right to partake in the riches and spoils of a civilization without being responsible for it's defense or maintenance? 

 

Again, plenty of instances of bad conscription (Vietnam), but that doesn't invalidate the concept. And your entire argument boils down to I believe it, so it's not just my preference, it's literally the most sacred moral precept. But your argument isn't religious, and it's not supported by any functional civilization in human history, so it's just.... Bullshit. 

 

The founders could have created a nation that put individual liberty at the apex and subordinated everything else, but they didn't. Individual liberty is *one* ingredient to creating a just and prosperous society. 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Again, plenty of instances of bad conscription (Vietnam), but that doesn't invalidate the concept.

It literally does.  If it has the avenue to happen then eventually it will happen.  And I would never trust any politician.

Dude, we have differences of opinion—but mine are far more principled.  You just like to retort with “You’re silly.  Well the rest of the world does it this way.  In the past we did it this way”.  Just because something has been done in the past or occurs elsewhere doesn’t make it good or right.  

If enough people don’t want to voluntarily fight then have you ever thought that maybe the fight isn’t worth fighting?  And yes, that includes an invasion on the homeland—if enough people won’t volunteer to fight then the country wasn’t worth fighting for in the first place.  Besides, the rich, elite, and protected classes ALWAYS (by and large) find a way out of their “responsibility”.

Just one of many examples below:

“Those whose names were drawn in the draft lottery might be eligible for an exemption – especially if they were the sole means of support for a widow, aging parents, or motherless children. If such an exemption could not be obtained, the draftee could hire a substitute to take his place or pay a $300 commutation fee (which typically only the wealthy could afford) that allowed him to return home. Substitutes tended to be young men of 18 or 19 years who were old enough to serve but too young to be drafted.”

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-draft-and-the-draft-riots-of-1863#

[Danger41]

This is an interesting debate between you two and I don’t want to get in the middle. My question for @HeloDudeas the libertarian in the debate…using your example of enough people not being willing to fight for a cause (national defense or otherwise), what motivation does a true libertarian have to do anything for anyone besides themself or their family?

I don’t ask that to be flippant or argue over semantics, but it’s the main issue I’ve arrived at with true libertarianism. And on that note, how is that different than “protected classes” getting out of things?

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

It literally does.  If it has the avenue to happen then eventually it will happen.  And I would never trust any politician.

Your entire argument is based on hyperbole and unsupported "principals." Really your philosophy sounds more like a social leach. Exist in a system that puts obligations and expectations on the populace then try to exist in a "principled" manner (where you conveniently have no such obligation) that would immolate the fabric of the society if the majority actually followed your lead. 

 

You are so principled you took money and skills from an organization funded by theft and run my a country that supports slavery. Principled... What you are is consistent (here, not in your actual life). But consistently wrong is an option. 

 

We have corrupt police officers. Are you against having a police force?

Our military has done dastardly things over the years. Are you against the military?

You trust no politicians, so should we simply have no representative body?

Taxation is theft, yet you drive on public highways. Do you think the Interstate system would have spontaneously formed without government involvement, or do you believe we'd be better off without it?

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Just because something has been done in the past or occurs elsewhere doesn’t make it good or right.  

Of course, but when you propose a system that has no basis in reality, and proclaim it to be the most moral option, it's on you to explain why it works, and works better than what we have. Libertarians have all sorts of "principled" stances that blow up in their face the moment they have the power to implement them. Reference the article about Grafton, New Hampshire. 

 

You describe instances of human failings and hypocrisy as though you are letting us in on some big secret or conspiracy. Yeah dude, the failings of individuals is specifically why we have the freedom-infringing systems we are accustomed to today. Its just like the Libertarian stance on drugs (which is pants-on-head stupid). Total freedom, stay out of my life! Tell me you've never had to deal with a heroin addict without telling me. The problem with Libertarianism is that it portrays human nature in a fundamentally false way. It ignores completely portion of the population that simply lacks the capacity to act safely or rationally. It ignores the reality of mob-formation and action. Some of the freedom-infringing rules we have exist because some problems will be dealt with by mobs if left to fester, and mobs tend to perform microsurgery with hand grenades. 

Again, point to any remotely libertarian system that has functioned successfully for decades or centuries. Hell, the rich libertarians all move to Puerto Rico (because taxation is theft) but of course they have no problem living of the stolen wages of others that go to P.R. by the billions each year. 

 

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

You just like to retort with “You’re silly."

Because your "principled" stance is silly. You live in the most freedom-causing nation in human history. Every single country on Earth today that has more freedom for there citizens exist at the luxury of our efforts. They exist because we have taxes and we have a draft. All you have are hunches that if we dropped these mutually-agreed-upon systems (because like it or not, we have the draft and taxes at the consent of the governed) everything would just keep going awesomely. Yet you have zero evidence that your hunch is in any way valid. 

 

Its the exact same nonsense the communists always wave around for their equally unrealistic system. It would work if we just did it the right way. Uh huh.

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, Danger41 said:

This is an interesting debate between you two and I don’t want to get in the middle. My question for @HeloDudeas the libertarian in the debate…using your example of enough people not being willing to fight for a cause (national defense or otherwise), what motivation does a true libertarian have to do anything for anyone besides themself or their family?

I don’t ask that to be flippant or argue over semantics, but it’s the main issue I’ve arrived at with true libertarianism. And on that note, how is that different than “protected classes” getting out of things?

Are you suggesting that libertarians don’t believe in values or principles?  Or wouldn’t fight for a country that also believes in them as well, if need be?

I would argue people like Ron Paul cared more about our country than just about anyone—he just didn’t put up with all the  nonsense and big government that wants to erode our freedom and liberty.

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Your entire argument is based on hyperbole and unsupported "principals." Really your philosophy sounds more like a social leach. Exist in a system that puts obligations and expectations on the populace then try to exist in a "principled" manner (where you conveniently have no such obligation) that would immolate the fabric of the society if the majority actually followed your lead. 

 

You are so principled you took money and skills from an organization funded by theft and run my a country that supports slavery. Principled... What you are is consistent (here, not in your actual life). But consistently wrong is an option. 

 

We have corrupt police officers. Are you against having a police force?

Our military has done dastardly things over the years. Are you against the military?

You trust no politicians, so should we simply have no representative body?

Taxation is theft, yet you drive on public highways. Do you think the Interstate system would have spontaneously formed without government involvement, or do you believe we'd be better off without it?

Of course, but when you propose a system that has no basis in reality, and proclaim it to be the most moral option, it's on you to explain why it works, and works better than what we have. Libertarians have all sorts of "principled" stances that blow up in their face the moment they have the power to implement them. Reference the article about Grafton, New Hampshire. 

 

You describe instances of human failings and hypocrisy as though you are letting us in on some big secret or conspiracy. Yeah dude, the failings of individuals is specifically why we have the freedom-infringing systems we are accustomed to today. Its just like the Libertarian stance on drugs (which is pants-on-head stupid). Total freedom, stay out of my life! Tell me you've never had to deal with a heroin addict without telling me. The problem with Libertarianism is that it portrays human nature in a fundamentally false way. It ignores completely portion of the population that simply lacks the capacity to act safely or rationally. It ignores the reality of mob-formation and action. Some of the freedom-infringing rules we have exist because some problems will be dealt with by mobs if left to fester, and mobs tend to perform microsurgery with hand grenades. 

Again, point to any remotely libertarian system that has functioned successfully for decades or centuries. Hell, the rich libertarians all move to Puerto Rico (because taxation is theft) but of course they have no problem living of the stolen wages of others that go to P.R. by the billions each year. 

 

Because your "principled" stance is silly. You live in the most freedom-causing nation in human history. Every single country on Earth today that has more freedom for there citizens exist at the luxury of our efforts. They exist because we have taxes and we have a draft. All you have are hunches that if we dropped these mutually-agreed-upon systems (because like it or not, we have the draft and taxes at the consent of the governed) everything would just keep going awesomely. Yet you have zero evidence that your hunch is in any way valid. 

 

Its the exact same nonsense the communists always wave around for their equally unrealistic system. It would work if we just did it the right way. Uh huh.

It’s simple really—I argue for liberty and you argue for coercion.  I’m glad where I’m at on these issues.

But hey, slavery also built many nations in the past so it also must be ok because look at what it was able to do!