Conscription in general

[Sweet Mercury]

In light of Rep. Charles Rengal's most recent attempt to re-instate a policy of forced servitude on a nation of supposedly free people, I've been thinking quite a lot about conscription and wondering the obvious question, "how can anyone in their right mind support such a policy as being morally acceptable, and furthurmore, do so under the guise of preserving freedom?"

I'm certain that I'm not the only person who's had several heated arguments on the subject, and needless to say I remain unconvinced. I'm curious what kinds of arguments other libertarians have heard on the subject; what kinds of indefensible and illogical rubbish, or even anything that was based on principle? And how do you point out that the draft is wrong to someone who has so willingly pulled the wool over his own eyes as to not see what is an inherently hypocritical position?

My most recent experience involved a discussion on another Message board, in which someone (genuinely) asked the question of what do we owe, and to whom do we owe it, for our rights as people and as American citizens. While I believe the correct answer to be "nothing" and "no one but ourselves" respectively, more than one person said that conscription/military service was something the citizenry "owed" to the government for keeping us free and giving us rights (subconciously, they really mean for allowing us to be free and allowing us, in their infinite grace, to have rights, but I digress). The counter to this argument was, and is, to correct that person's thinking about rights and freedom. Such an argument falls apart when it's explained that rights are self-evident and that freedom is the natural state of man, and that the government is neither the granter nor the keeper of these things; and, it's important to note, that the constitution does not create its spelled out rights, but limits the government from trampling on these self-evidently existing rights. Needless to say, he didn't get it...

So, to re-iterate my questions for this thread: what kinds of pro-draft arguments have you dealt with, and how did you counter them? What's the most effective approach for correcting such errant thinking?

[cathleeninnh]

The one I have heard from an older generation is that service provided much needed structure and discipline at a crucial age. Today's youth would benefit likewise.

Cathleen

[Sweet Mercury]

The one I have heard from an older generation is that service provided much needed structure and discipline at a crucial age. Today's youth would benefit likewise.

Cathleen

That's definetly a valid argument for military service in general; I have a few freinds who joined and got some much needed structure in their lives. I would argue, however, that this is not a sufficient argument for compulsory service, as I would imagine most people on this board feel.

Thanks for the input.

[error]

Everybody should be forced to be restructured and disciplined to conform to exactly how the government wants them to be.

That's the essence of the pro-conscription argument.

I find it useful to simply restate anti-liberty arguments in plain language. This is usually sufficient to illustrate their absurdity.

[Pat K]

The one I have heard from an older generation is that service provided much needed structure and discipline at a crucial age. Today's youth would benefit likewise.

Cathleen

Yeah we have to make them youts behave like we think they should and hey if we get more cannon fodder all the better.

[eques]

*puts on his jackboots with the shiny, shiny heels*  (I'd be eligible for conscription! )

One of the anti-draft arguments advanced regarding the end of the draft back, oh, in the 70s when they got rid of it went something like this: a volunteer army has a much higher morale and lower defection rates when compared to a conscripted/drafted army.  One senator or some such character railed against the man advancing the policy, to which the man replied that he would rather be defended by willing men rather than slaves.

Too bad I'm too lazy to go look it up. 

[FTL_Ian]

Rangel brings this legislation back year after year.  It will be interesting to see if he gets any more traction this time out.

[eques]

Man, Rangel has been around for years.  Why is he still in office if he's constantly bringing up stuff like this?  Does the district that elects him simply not pay attention?  I wonder if we shouldn't write LTEs to the newspaper that shows up in his district so that people might actually get a clue?

Then again, the people that are voting him in probably aren't reading newspapers.

I know, this is nhfree, but I'd like to evade as little as possible, and I really don't want to have to evade a draft.

[Sweet Mercury]

Everybody should be forced to be restructured and disciplined to conform to exactly how the government wants them to be.

That's the essence of the pro-conscription argument.

I find it useful to simply restate anti-liberty arguments in plain language. This is usually sufficient to illustrate their absurdity.

But how often does it work, I would wonder? When I reduce an argument to its plain absurdity, I usually just get called a coward or a hater of freedom or some other name. Or it's suggested that I don't "deserve" freedom because I don't want to fight for it--an equally absurd claim.

[eques]

Everybody should be forced to be restructured and disciplined to conform to exactly how the government wants them to be.

That's the essence of the pro-conscription argument.

I find it useful to simply restate anti-liberty arguments in plain language. This is usually sufficient to illustrate their absurdity.

But how often does it work, I would wonder? When I reduce an argument to its plain absurdity, I usually just get called a coward or a hater of freedom or some other name. Or it's suggested that I don't "deserve" freedom because I don't want to fight for it--an equally absurd claim.

When the other side devolves into name-calling or other logical fallacies, you've effectively won the argument, even though they would never admit it.

At this point, the other side is so hardened to the possibility that their core beliefs could ever be wrong that the demonstration of absurdity is taken as a personal affront.  You really just have to walk away at that point, maybe try again later.

[Rocketman]

I find Rangel amusing.  On the good side, he clearly sees the immorality of current recruitment/redeployment practices and clearly opposes the war. 

On a corollary note, I used to argue that smoking pot isn't nearly as harmful as smoking cigarettes (which is true), but then I realized that half the time this argument simply makes people conclude we should ban cigarettes!

So I think Charlie Rangel ought to be careful what he asks for...

[Sweet Mercury]

Everybody should be forced to be restructured and disciplined to conform to exactly how the government wants them to be.

That's the essence of the pro-conscription argument.

I find it useful to simply restate anti-liberty arguments in plain language. This is usually sufficient to illustrate their absurdity.

But how often does it work, I would wonder? When I reduce an argument to its plain absurdity, I usually just get called a coward or a hater of freedom or some other name. Or it's suggested that I don't "deserve" freedom because I don't want to fight for it--an equally absurd claim.

When the other side devolves into name-calling or other logical fallacies, you've effectively won the argument, even though they would never admit it.

At this point, the other side is so hardened to the possibility that their core beliefs could ever be wrong that the demonstration of absurdity is taken as a personal affront.  You really just have to walk away at that point, maybe try again later.

Oh, yeah. I take someone devolving into name-calling as a sign that his or her argument holds no water, and that my argument is the superior. However, I can't really chalk it up as a "win" unless I convince him to at least reanalize his position on the matter, especially one of such consequence.

That's my fear, really, that one day, possibly soon, the "other side" of this argument will outnumber me. And, as you know, the majority is always correct in its opinion and has the absolute authority to enforce conformity, at least in our farce implimentation of democracy. I'ts one thing to not be able to convince an individual whom you can walk away from, but it's entirely another to have to face a large mob who can threaten your freedom simply by might of numbers (or an agency working in the name of the might of numbers).

[eques]

Yeah, but are you going to get reanalysis from somebody who has totally hardened themselves to the possibility that their position might be utterly absurd?  I mean, I suppose you could try changing tacks, shifting to the other foot, as it were, to try to get around the irrationality... but I admit that I wouldn't know exactly how to do that.

Oh, but I'm not saying that you should just give up!  Nope, nope, nope, nope--none of us will get anywhere if we do that. 

[FrankChodorov]

Rangel brings this legislation back year after year.  It will be interesting to see if he gets any more traction this time out.

the reason he does it is so that the sons and daughters of congress will be sent to war based on their abdication of declaring war which is their constitutional duty.

don't you understand that he is doing this as an ANTI-WAR position??

[error]

Everybody should be forced to be restructured and disciplined to conform to exactly how the government wants them to be.

That's the essence of the pro-conscription argument.

I find it useful to simply restate anti-liberty arguments in plain language. This is usually sufficient to illustrate their absurdity.

But how often does it work, I would wonder? When I reduce an argument to its plain absurdity, I usually just get called a coward or a hater of freedom or some other name. Or it's suggested that I don't "deserve" freedom because I don't want to fight for it--an equally absurd claim.

There's little you can do about your correspondents' psychological problems.