Do you believe it is unpatriotic to dodge the draft?

[Fozz]

Let's say the US is fighting an unpopular war which a lot of Americans don't believe in (think Vietnam), and the draft is in effect. If a young person decides to escape conscription in such a war, do you think he is being unpatriotic?

[RCA]

just the opposite

[Fozz]

I just want to see what the vote would look like.

[tmosley]

It is unpatriotic to be a slave.

[low preference guy]

conscription is slavery, no matter if the war is justified or not.

[Ninja Homer]

Not only should you dodge the draft of an undeclared unconstitutional war, you should stop paying taxes to fund it.

[Fozz]

I did this poll and this thread on another political board and over 60% answered yes.

[low preference guy]

you should dodge the draft also for a "justified" war. if there is a draft for a war, that war automatically becomes a war not worth fighting.

[Fozz]

From the Declaration itself:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And the draft completely violates the unalienable Right to Life. The government completely owns you. That is un-American.

[low preference guy]

I did this poll and this thread on another political board and over 60% answered yes.

leftist or rightist site?

[Agorism]

So John Taylor voted yes?

Just kidding.

[0zzy]

The following argumentative essay was written for my college English class.

Nothing Less Than Slavery

Most Americans believe that slavery is an evil concept that has already been abolished over a hundred years ago. They grew up going to school, from elementary to college, learning how Lincoln freed the slaves after the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment officially prohibited the immoral act from ever happening again, or did it? While America remained at peace President Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, allowing the government to force young men into military service or threaten imprisonment otherwise. It wasn’t until the end of December 1972 that America saw the end of conscription. Today, however, many people have been urging the President to reinstate the draft to fight terrorism abroad, though such an action has proven to be unjustified, inefficient, and immoral.

The War on Terrorism has been the centerpiece of America’s foreign policy every since that tragic day in 2001. Seven years later the American military is occupying two Middle Eastern countries trying to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Today the military is wearing thin and advocates of the draft believe that conscription will help prevent it from thinning any further while allowing the United States to defeat terrorism and hostile countries. So how did America get to this point? Nineteen people went onto planes with faulty visas and hijacked them with box-cutters before flying them into populated buildings. Now America is at war with ruthless murdering thugs who belong to no single nation and on the verge of war with countries who have no amount of power to defeat the United States, and yet citizens are supposed to come to the conclusion that there must be a draft? During the Cold War the Soviet Union had up to 40,000 nuclear weapons, yet there was no draft to herd men to the service. Slavery, through conscription, was not needed to win the Cold War. So why is it needed to win a war that is significantly less threatening? How many nuclear arsenals are pointed in the direction of the United States from Al Qaeda and Iran?

Advocates of the draft believe such a nuclear threat is present, however. Paul Kane, an Iraq veteran and fellow at the Kennedy School of Government, predicted that, “a clash of colossal proportions between the West and Iran,” will occur (136). According to Kane, who is echoing much of what others believe, Iran is developing “a clandestine nuclear program” (137) which would be used against the United States. By building up such a large military America can scare Iran from getting these weapons. Even if they were to acquire these weapons of mass destruction there will need to be more soldiers to defend America by fighting in Iran and throughout the Middle East so these weapons won’t go into the wrong hands.

Iran, however, is not a threat to America and has “halted its nuclear weapons program” since the fall of 2003, three years before this article was written, according to a declassified National Intelligence Estimate (Raddatz, Karl, et al.). The Iraq war currently cost $10billion-a-month and the American economy has been suffering from a deep recession, the cost of a draft wouldn’t have any improvements on national security and would only worsen the problems that are so dominate today. Massive protest would emerge across America against it, as it did during Vietnam, forcing local communities to allocate more money on riot police and property damages, which would only further damage the economy and health of the nation. When there is no justification for spending a massive amount of money on something it becomes inherently inefficient.

Though what may seem inefficient may actually be beneficial. President Reagan’s costly Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars”, program never achieved its goal, but many historians do believe it helped lead to the Soviet Union’s downfall by forcing them to change their strategies. It should also be noted that when money is being spent on American lives to protect this country, it isn’t money wasted. If the President were to reinstate the draft then military recruiters wouldn’t have to worry about finding enough men and women to protect America. World War 2 is no better example of how a draft helped save not only America, but the world from dictatorships and imperialism. Can men and women not come to the defense of their country about how much it cost?

Yet if the draft is to be reinstated then the assumption is that it the State owns the people. Such a belief would be considered nothing less than slavery if “national service” were to be replaced with “farm labor.” Reagan said it best when he stated, “Conscription rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state…That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea. America was founded on the principle of individual liberty — that the government exists to serve, not enslave, the people” (Boldin). When advocates of the draft continue to write columns supporting it, what they are really doing is supporting slavery. America was founded on basic moral principles of individual rights and freedom. When the government forces a man or woman into military service they become neither individual nor free.

Governments have always loved the draft because it allows them to access a large amount of soldiers to be used at their convenience. In 1814, Daniel Webster went before Congress to speak out against a conscription bill. He described the bill as “an attempt to exercise the power of forcing the free men of this country into the ranks of an army, for the general purposes of war, under color of a military service” (Webster). During the Vietnam War monetarist economist Milton Friedman spoke to General Westmoreland at a testimony during the Vietnam War. He recalled that, “he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I stopped him and said, 'General, would you rather command an army of slaves?' He drew himself up and said, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.' I replied, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries” (Henderson). Reagan understood why politicians and government officials were so eager to have and sustain a draft when he declared that, “Without the draft, unpopular wars are very difficult to fight. The ability to use conscription actually encourages politicians to wage even more wars — the massive resources are a temptation that is hard for the war-lover to resist. When the draft was finally undermined in the 1970s, for example, the Vietnam War ended.”

The draft should not be reinstated by the President, nor should it be reinstated by the Congress. The forced labor of human beings can be looked upon as nothing less than slavery. Freedom will quickly fall for serfdom if the people allow their government to reinstate the evil institution. There are no justifications to use it now making it inefficient to even begin it and the bottom line is that it is immoral to advocate, let alone execute, such policies. If man is to remain free, military service must remain voluntary. If it is not voluntary, but forced, man will be enslaved once again.

[Kludge]

Very unpatriotic, and that´s why I´d support it.

The Constitution does not declare the desires of the nation - the electorate does.

[Fozz]

leftist or rightist site?

It is a weather board with a politics section, which is pretty even handed when it comes to right vs. left.

Those who voted yes were mostly neocons, Tea party conservatives, and right-of-center.

Those who voted no were a few libertarians, some liberals, and some centrists.

[Fozz]

If dodging the draft is unpatriotic, then I guess patriotism is about obedience to your government.

[Kludge]

If dodging the draft is unpatriotic, then I guess patriotism is about obedience to your government.

The US government is elected by citizens to represent them. Have stupid leaders? Look at the followers.

[Justinjj1]

And the draft completely violates the unalienable Right to Life. The government completely owns you. That is un-American.

100% Agreed.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

kludge always votes to stand out. attention whore :p

[Mach]

No.

Colored lights can hypnotize, sparkle someone else's eyes.......

YouTube - Easy Rider on Freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHd6m_cirrU)

[tremendoustie]

29-1 ... I'm so proud of y'all :)

And even Kludge supports conscience over blind obedience, in his own contrarianilistastic way.

[Kludge]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/only_21_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_gove rned

[sevin]

I did this poll and this thread on another political board and over 60% answered yes.

:eek: Where?

[tremendoustie]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/only_21_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_gove rned

Yeah, that's a keeper :D

[tremendoustie]

:eek: Where?

You're surprised? Assuming it's a mainstream site, I'm surprised it was as low as 60% ...

[qh4dotcom]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/only_21_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_gove rned

You were the only one to have voted yes

[tremendoustie]

You were the only one to have voted yes

He still supports avoiding the draft ... see:


Very unpatriotic, and that´s why I´d support it.

The Constitution does not declare the desires of the nation - the electorate does.

[Kludge]

You were the only one to have voted yes

I´m just pointing out US citizens are usually hypocritical;stupid, esp. regarding politics.

[riverstone]

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new
millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That
many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of
them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun
bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This
newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung
dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill."

WAR is a racket. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

[tremendoustie]

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new
millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That
many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of
them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun
bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This
newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung
dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill."

WAR is a racket. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

Welcome to the forums :). Good first post.

[sevin]

You're surprised? Assuming it's a mainstream site, I'm surprised it was as low as 60% ...

yeah, probably shouldn't have used the "surprised" icon. Just curious and wondering where you got that result.

[cindy25]

the popularity, or morality of the war does not matter.

nor does it matter if a draft is for a civilian purpose (i.e. gulf clean up)

conscription is always wrong

[riverstone]

Welcome to the forums :). Good first post.

Thanks! :)

[Jace]

If the government starts making moves toward a draft, then it is getting ready for a big, mass-casualty war.

So we need to be on high alert for any attempts to sell the population on conscription. They will do this by saying a draft is fair because only the poor volunteer, and a draft forces rich kids like Laura and Jenna Bush into combat -- which is bullshit. The rich have always weaseled out of conscription when they didn't want to go. Or they get cushy assignments within the military.

They might try to sell it by saying a draft is a way for young people to provide national service for things like cleaning up oil spills or reducing urban blight.

The logic for a draft will come from Democrats, but Republican leadership might go along with it, like they did under Wilson, FDR and LBJ.

They will start conscription because they know that an all-volunteer force cannot sustain high casualties overseas for an extended duration, and only a conscription army can win a big foreign war with 50,000-plus deaths. The Iraq War proved this. Volunteers dried up when the fighting was most intense, and the relatively low casualties in Iraq nearly broke the Army. The entire Iraq War had about the same number of American casualties as D-Day.

I'm actually ambivalent about draft dodgers. I understand them for getting out of it, but I kind of feel disgusted by upper class white liberal draft dodgers who act like faking a bad back was some kind of heroic and idealistic act, when it was really just self-preservation. I feel disgusted with them if they talk about WWII as a good war and Vietnam as a bad one, as if they're down for killing fascists, but not communists. I have known some of these draft dodgers who used all kinds of tricks to get out of going to Vietnam, like faking bad backs or bad eyes or getting education deferral after education deferral. They are big liberals who say LBJ did a lot for the poor, but the poor didn't have the means to slip out LBJ's meat grinder like they did. They argue that if there was a draft now, then there wouldn't have been an Iraq War. I call bullshit on that. We took over 100,000 casualties in WWI, 500,000 in WWII, 35,000 in Korea and 65,000 in Vietnam -- all under draftee armies.

Casualties were much lower in Iraq because the military knew high casualties would destroy an all-volunteer force. A conscription army doesn't have that problem.

I respect Muhammed Ali, who didn't dodge the draft, but straight up refused it, and went to jail. I believe this was honorable, courageous and defiant, and had a powerful effect, and I think it was a major factor in ending the draft. In my opinion, if more people had balls like Ali, rather than slipping out of it on technicalities, then LBJ's draft would have collapsed a lot sooner and maybe all that death and destruction wouldn't have gone on so long.

Now if we could only make non-interventionism popular, we wouldn't have to worry about conscription or volunteer armies fighting stupid wars overseas.

[Mach]

Where would you go? Canada?

They may turn you into the Feds these days.

[Ninja Homer]

Where would you go? Canada?

They may turn you into the Feds these days.

Just become an illegal immigrant... guaranteed, the feds will never find you.

[Danke]

Even "conscription" is voluntary.

[Mach]

Just become an illegal immigrant... guaranteed, the feds will never find you.

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-045.gif

[0zzy]

The following argumentative essay was written for my college English class.

Nothing Less Than Slavery

[Wow! Great post 0zzy, did you write that!? It's pretty good!]

Thanks, I wrote it a couple of years back for my English class. I got an A :). You should of seen my research paper, it was on government secrets!

[Oh ya 0zzy, that would be interesting! You should post that too!]

Perhaps...perhaps I will.

[Bman]

My father was drafted during the Vietnam War. He told me that a question was asked if anyone was related to a ranking politician. Anyone who did was excused from the room.

If the son's of those who start wars are not fit to die in those wars neither am I.

[cindy25]

If the government starts making moves toward a draft, then it is getting ready for a big, mass-casualty war.

So we need to be on high alert for any attempts to sell the population on conscription. They will do this by saying a draft is fair because only the poor volunteer, and a draft forces rich kids like Laura and Jenna Bush into combat -- which is bullshit. The rich have always weaseled out of conscription when they didn't want to go. Or they get cushy assignments within the military.

They might try to sell it by saying a draft is a way for young people to provide national service for things like cleaning up oil spills or reducing urban blight.

The logic for a draft will come from Democrats, but Republican leadership might go along with it, like they did under Wilson, FDR and LBJ.

They will start conscription because they know that an all-volunteer force cannot sustain high casualties overseas for an extended duration, and only a conscription army can win a big foreign war with 50,000-plus deaths. The Iraq War proved this. Volunteers dried up when the fighting was most intense, and the relatively low casualties in Iraq nearly broke the Army. The entire Iraq War had about the same number of American casualties as D-Day.

I'm actually ambivalent about draft dodgers. I understand them for getting out of it, but I kind of feel disgusted by upper class white liberal draft dodgers who act like faking a bad back was some kind of heroic and idealistic act, when it was really just self-preservation. I feel disgusted with them if they talk about WWII as a good war and Vietnam as a bad one, as if they're down for killing fascists, but not communists. I have known some of these draft dodgers who used all kinds of tricks to get out of going to Vietnam, like faking bad backs or bad eyes or getting education deferral after education deferral. They are big liberals who say LBJ did a lot for the poor, but the poor didn't have the means to slip out LBJ's meat grinder like they did. They argue that if there was a draft now, then there wouldn't have been an Iraq War. I call bullshit on that. We took over 100,000 casualties in WWI, 500,000 in WWII, 35,000 in Korea and 65,000 in Vietnam -- all under draftee armies.

Casualties were much lower in Iraq because the military knew high casualties would destroy an all-volunteer force. A conscription army doesn't have that problem.

I respect Muhammed Ali, who didn't dodge the draft, but straight up refused it, and went to jail. I believe this was honorable, courageous and defiant, and had a powerful effect, and I think it was a major factor in ending the draft. In my opinion, if more people had balls like Ali, rather than slipping out of it on technicalities, then LBJ's draft would have collapsed a lot sooner and maybe all that death and destruction wouldn't have gone on so long.

Now if we could only make non-interventionism popular, we wouldn't have to worry about conscription or volunteer armies fighting stupid wars overseas.

LBJ's draft collapsed because he ended student deferments rather than call up the reserve (1968)

Ali helped, as did Lester Pearson by not involving Canada and allowing anyone with $200 to become a landed immigrant.

Republican support was not needed for Wilson, or FDR to start drafts

one excuse Wilson used was that too many rich and educated were joining the army

[low preference guy]

Even "conscription" is voluntary.

Was antebellum slavery voluntary?

[libertythor]

I voted NO, but would think Yes if it was an actual case of the US under threat of being taken over by somebody who would be even more tyrannical or who would just throw out the Constitution.

But reality dictates most wars in recent history and even WWI have had little to do with preserving liberty and more to do with interventionism, so I say NO.

[tremendoustie]

[Wow! Great post 0zzy, did you write that!? It's pretty good!]

Thanks, I wrote it a couple of years back for my English class. I got an A :). You should of seen my research paper, it was on government secrets!

[Oh ya 0zzy, that would be interesting! You should post that too!]

Perhaps...perhaps I will.

I'm ashamed to say I saw 'wall of text' the first time through and skipped right over it ... but I went back and read it now, and it is indeed very good.

[phill4paul]

Dang there should be a way to recast your vote. Take one Yes vote and apply it to the No vote. I should not take a poll before the first cup of coffee has kicked in.

[MelissaWV]

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is still in place. Just sayin'.

If there is a draft, even in a "war" on our turf (an invasion), it is automatically a problem. You can't force people to defend you or themselves whether it's at home (real threat) or abroad (philosophical thread/domino effect argument). If it's a "popular war," then there should be sufficient people willing to back that popular war with their lives and money. You don't need the minority's.

[Kojac]

With as little information about the conflict, it's impossible to tell if someone's dipping out because of their fear or their principles.

[Fredom101]

It's a loaded question and another distraction issue.
What is "patriotic"?
If it means "support the government right or wrong" then it's absurd to be patriotic.

[Kludge]

Individual morality is INDEPENDENT of your country´s representative morality.

Patriotism is the rejection of individualism in favor of the collective morality of your countrymen!

It is INHERENTLY IMMORAL!

Dodging the draft is UNPATRIOTIC! The lot of you are just as repressed as your "Statist" counterparts!

[FreeTraveler]

The US government is elected by citizens to represent them. Have stupid leaders? Look at the followers.
Srsly? Like the game isn't rigged? Who runs for office? Who has a gnat's chance in a tornado of winning an election? Connected members of the oligarchy with tons of money available to spend to get a job paying a tiny fraction of what it costs to obtain it.

I'm sick of people blaming "the people" for being forced to play a sucker's game at gunpoint, and always losing, as is preordained.

[Kludge]

Srsly? Like the game isn't rigged? Who runs for office? Who has a gnat's chance in a tornado of winning an election? Connected members of the oligarchy with tons of money available to spend to get a job paying a tiny fraction of what it costs to obtain it.

I'm sick of people blaming "the people" for being forced to play a sucker's game at gunpoint, and always losing, as is preordained.

Then GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE SYSTEM!

Why is Rand Paul winning? Because he´s playing - well! He´s well-versed in Populism, something Ron could never do well.


The People are the ones who allow this to continue on - they continue to submit!

Just say "no" to government!


Recommended reading (decent sci-fi, IMO - and I hate the genre):
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php

[FreeTraveler]

Then GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE SYSTEM!

Why is Rand Paul winning? Because he´s playing - well! He´s well-versed in Populism, something Ron could never do well.


The People are the ones who allow this to continue on - they continue to submit!

Just say "no" to government!


Recommended reading (decent sci-fi, IMO - and I hate the genre):
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php (http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php)
On that we agree. OTOH, it's silly to blame the people for a game they can't control, and are forced to play at gunpoint. We'll see how the elections go this fall, but overall, I think it's just another diversion and nothing will really change.

Agorism FTW.

[MelissaWV]

Individual morality is INDEPENDENT of your country´s representative morality.

Patriotism is the rejection of individualism in favor of the collective morality of your countrymen!

It is INHERENTLY IMMORAL!

Dodging the draft is UNPATRIOTIC! The lot of you are just as repressed as your "Statist" counterparts!

Your definition is not the same as mine. One can have a deep and undying love of one's country, as an idea, as a dream, as a concept... and despise one's countrymen. Hell, to me that's the big bonus to the notion of America: screw you guys, I'm going home. Of course, that's not the way it plays out in reality. Patriotism does not necessarily mean you support whatever Government is currently in charge of the country. The mixup between those two distinct situations is what allows people to say "let's be patriots!" when they only happen to support the ruling party or people.

The draft is what's unpatriotic.

[tremendoustie]

On that we agree. OTOH, it's silly to blame the people for a game they can't control, and are forced to play at gunpoint. We'll see how the elections go this fall, but overall, I think it's just another diversion and nothing will really change.

Agorism FTW.

Agorism's great, but political involvement is valuable too. Ron Paul, for example, has had an absolutely enormous impact on the modern liberty movement.

At the very least, political involvement provides an excellent opportunity to educate people you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach.

[BillyDkid]

you should dodge the draft also for a "justified" war. if there is a draft for a war, that war automatically becomes a war not worth fighting.A just war, a war in defense of your home and country would never have a shortage of people willing to fight. Implicit in the idea of a draft is that you are coercing people to serve. You do not need to coerce people to serve in their own self defense. (Well, actually, with a draft you are explicitly coercing people so serve.)

[tremendoustie]

Your definition is not the same as mine. One can have a deep and undying love of one's country, as an idea, as a dream, as a concept... and despise one's countrymen. Hell, to me that's the big bonus to the notion of America: screw you guys, I'm going home. Of course, that's not the way it plays out in reality. Patriotism does not necessarily mean you support whatever Government is currently in charge of the country. The mixup between those two distinct situations is what allows people to say "let's be patriots!" when they only happen to support the ruling party or people.

The draft is what's unpatriotic.

I agree. If there is a valid concept of patriotism, it's a genuine desire for the well being of the country -- meaning the people, culture, and land -- not the government.

[tremendoustie]

A just war, a war in defense of your home and country would never have a shortage of people willing to fight. Implicit in the idea of a draft is that you are coercing people to serve. You do not need to coerce people to serve in their own self defense. (Well, actually, with a draft you are explicitly coercing people so serve.)

Absolutely true.

[Kludge]

On that we agree. OTOH, it's silly to blame the people for a game they can't control, and are forced to play at gunpoint. We'll see how the elections go this fall, but overall, I think it's just another diversion and nothing will really change.

Agorism FTW.

They can´t force you to play if they don´t know where you are. You almost certainly aren´t going to hit your target if you don´t know where it is.


Your definition is not the same as mine. One can have a deep and undying love of one's country, as an idea, as a dream, as a concept... and despise one's countrymen. Hell, to me that's the big bonus to the notion of America: screw you guys, I'm going home. Of course, that's not the way it plays out in reality. Patriotism does not necessarily mean you support whatever Government is currently in charge of the country. The mixup between those two distinct situations is what allows people to say "let's be patriots!" when they only happen to support the ruling party or people.

The draft is what's unpatriotic.

That´s a wholly-absurd definition.

If you believe in the ideals, then it is your own individual morality which you are serving. It is selfish. Patriotism is support of your country even when it doesn´t always follow your definition of morality -- it is support of something which is NOT abstract, but tangible through the actions it carries out, and is thus fallible. To support something which does anything immoral is itself immoral. Submitting to a draft is quite possibly the most Patriotic action one can take.

[TheDriver]

Just get a rebel flag tatoo and you are disqualified. :p

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=149729

[Kludge]

Ya´ll niggas need ta check yuh shit! A selfish Patriot is absurd.

[Matt Collins]

I have spoken to several older men in the last few months, my dad being one of them, who have all done a 180 reversal on the draft. They all said they didn't like the hippies, but they have now realized that the hippies were the ones who were right (about the draft) in the 60's. One of these guys was a cop who used to beat hippies with his night stick on his patrol in Washington DC. I met him at a recent CFL conference and he was just so shocked to realize that he was on the wrong side of the issue.


My dad who is a staunch right-leaning social conservative has said that he used to think less of the draft dodgers, but now he realizes they were right and that the government was wrong. I couldn't believe when I heard him say that.


On a different tangent a staunch neo-con intellectual friend of mine in his late 50's told me the other day "we have to bring the troops home simply because we can't afford it any more". I was SHOCKED!!!.

I think if a (tracking) poll were taken of white male baby-boomers you would start to see a remarkable shift towords a more limited-government attitude. Times are changing and we are leading the charge!

[FreeTraveler]

Agorism's great, but political involvement is valuable too. Ron Paul, for example, has had an absolutely enormous impact on the modern liberty movement.

At the very least, political involvement provides an excellent opportunity to educate people you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach.
I'm a firm believer in education, I just hold out less hope than most that voting can change a system based on coercion that benefits the coercers and the moochers who support them.

On point of the sci-fi link you posted, may I recommend as well Voyage from Yesteryear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear), by James P. Hogan? It's a fun read, watching the statists flounder around in a society where there is no frame of reference for them to hang their coercion on. :D The link is to the Wiki summary, which is enough to whet the appetite.

[FreeTraveler]

I have spoken to several older men in the last few months, my dad being one of them, who have all done a 180 reversal on the draft. They all said they didn't like the hippies, but they have now realized that the hippies were the ones who were right (about the draft) in the 60's. One of these guys was a cop who used to beat hippies with his night stick on his patrol in Washington DC. I met him at a recent CFL conference and he was just so shocked to realize that he was on the wrong side of the issue.
My mom, in her 90's now, says she wished they'd listened to us kids back in the 60s. :D

[Theocrat]

I believe it is unconstitutional to lodge a draft upon the people of the United States.

I like what the Constitution Party says about conscription (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Conscription):

US Constitution, 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Conscription deprives a person of liberty without due process of law. This is clearly prohibited by the 5th amendment. Conscription is an involuntary taking of a person's labor-which is a form of property-without just compensation as provided by the eminent domain provisions of the 5th amendment.

Compulsory government service is incompatible with individual liberty.

We oppose imposition of the draft, the registration law, compulsory military training or any other form of compulsory government service.

We support a well-trained and highly organized volunteer state home militia, and voluntary Reserve Officer Training Corps (R.O.T.C.) military training in our schools, colleges, and universities.

[MelissaWV]

Kludge:

It comes down to how you define "country," since patriotism is merely defined as love of country. Is the United States only defined by its current actions? If so, what a sorry nation we live in. Is it actually defined, instead, by its Constitution and those laws which are in keeping with the Constitution, and the astonishing checks and balances put into place by our Founding Fathers? Is it merely the corruption it's become, or is it still the nation defined by its origins and documents? I prefer the latter, and you believe the former.

[Travlyr]

The name of patriot had become [c.1744] a by-word of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said that ... the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was that he had never been and never would be a patriot. [Macaulay, "Horace Walpole," 1833]

:eek:

[RM918]

Depends on your definition of 'patriot'. Love of country is different than love of that country's government.

[Kludge]

Depends on your definition of 'patriot'. Love of country is different than love of that country's government.

The people of the United States voted almost entirely for John McCain or Barack Obama.

The vast majority pay taxes.

The problem is society -- government is just a product of an immoral people. Theocrat´ll tell you!

[osan]

The following argumentative essay was written for my college English class.

Nothing Less Than Slavery

First, good paper. I'm sure you got an 'F', having shown the temerity, the utter mendacity to question the status quo of your betters. For shame.

That said, you quoted Reagan:

“Without the draft, unpopular wars are very difficult to fight."

Subsequent history has shown that this is clearly not the case. Doom the generations to hopeless futures and they will flock to the ranks. What idiot joins the armed forces in this time capricious and immoral adventurism in places like Eye-Rack, Afghanistan, and soon to be Eye-Ran? The poor bastards whose public "educations" have prepared them for nothing and an economy whose prospects make a life in the military seem a relatively sweet deal.

Why have resentful slaves when you can have eagerly unaware volunteers?

[RM918]

The people of the United States voted almost entirely for John McCain or Barack Obama.

The vast majority pay taxes.

The problem is society -- government is just a product of an immoral people. Theocrat´ll tell you!

Correction: 57% of people who could vote, voted for McCain or Obama.

[pacelli]

Let's say the US is fighting an unpopular war which a lot of Americans don't believe in (think Vietnam), and the draft is in effect. If a young person decides to escape conscription in such a war, do you think he is being unpatriotic?

While someone is legally required to appear at the appropriate time & place, the military personnel at that location can not force an individual to take the oath. Military service is a voluntary decision, even if a draft is in effect. When they line you up to take the oath, just take one step back and say out loud, "Wait a second, wait a second, if I do this, will I be giving up any of my constitutional or civil rights?"

The officers will escort you out of the room as quickly as possible and threaten you with imprisonment. But if you stick to simply asking the above question, the officers know that their threats are empty.

[Wesker1982]

The draft is just a nicer way of saying involuntary servitude.

I don't know how the poll isn't 100% NO on the Ron Paul forum unless those who voted NO are trolls lol.

[Akus]

If the cause is just, you don't need conscription or patriotic fervor to get people to risk their lives to protect their homes.

[BuddyRey]

Any country that would enslave people to fight for it is a country not worth defending in the first place.

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't think its unpatriotic, but I don't think highly of the word patriotic.

[FreeTraveler]

Has anybody posted this yet? It sums things up nicely, IMO.



I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!

Guest of Honor Speech at the 29th World Science Fiction Convention, Seattle, Washington (1961)

[Anti Federalist]

I did this poll and this thread on another political board and over 60% answered yes.

I doubt you'll see the same results here.

[0zzy]

I'm ashamed to say I saw 'wall of text' the first time through and skipped right over it ... but I went back and read it now, and it is indeed very good.

Thank youuuuuuuuuu :D.


First, good paper. I'm sure you got an 'F', having shown the temerity, the utter mendacity to question the status quo of your betters. For shame.

That said, you quoted Reagan:

“Without the draft, unpopular wars are very difficult to fight."

Subsequent history has shown that this is clearly not the case. Doom the generations to hopeless futures and they will flock to the ranks. What idiot joins the armed forces in this time capricious and immoral adventurism in places like Eye-Rack, Afghanistan, and soon to be Eye-Ran? The poor bastards whose public "educations" have prepared them for nothing and an economy whose prospects make a life in the military seem a relatively sweet deal.

Why have resentful slaves when you can have eagerly unaware volunteers?

This is true. Apparently the opposite is true. There was more opposition against the Vietnam War because it wasn't just somebody else's child or sibling going off to war voluntarily, but it was their child, and their sibling, being forced from their daily lives in America and forced to fight for the freedoms of other countries, rather than the defense of their very own. Drafts hit home more than voluntary armies do.

I think Daniel Webster said it very well when he asked, "Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"

[.Tom]

Dodging the draft is the most patriotic thing you can do, if by "patriotism" you mean defending liberty, not the other "blind allegiance to the state" definition.

[bunklocoempire]

I have spoken to several older men in the last few months, my dad being one of them, who have all done a 180 reversal on the draft. They all said they didn't like the hippies, but they have now realized that the hippies were the ones who were right (about the draft) in the 60's. One of these guys was a cop who used to beat hippies with his night stick on his patrol in Washington DC. I met him at a recent CFL conference and he was just so shocked to realize that he was on the wrong side of the issue.


My dad who is a staunch right-leaning social conservative has said that he used to think less of the draft dodgers, but now he realizes they were right and that the government was wrong. I couldn't believe when I heard him say that.


On a different tangent a staunch neo-con intellectual friend of mine in his late 50's told me the other day "we have to bring the troops home simply because we can't afford it any more". I was SHOCKED!!!.

I think if a (tracking) poll were taken of white male baby-boomers you would start to see a remarkable shift towords a more limited-government attitude. Times are changing and we are leading the charge!

"Times are changing and we are leading the charge!"

Maybe so, maybe it also helps to have the O man in. Around two years ago folks I've been in contact with -gun folk- excused the "coincedence" of the dems surporting the war with repubs as "well at least they got that right", now it seems those same folks are tired of a "democrat/muslim/socialist" policing the world and sending our countrymen to die for muslims -as they see it.

Gotta take what we can get.:(

On the OP, is it "unpatriotic" to avoid the draft -say into being a foot soldier ala Nam- by "voluntarily" signing up with the Navy and hoping to be sent to the North Atlantic?;)

My father did just that and was sent to the North Atlantic, while some of his Navy buddies were sent east to Nam. Other friends of his were drafted -Army.

My father has related to me over the years the confusing messages that era spewed out. "Duty" for country, in your face anti-commie stuff, in your face commie hippie stuff, etc..

When talking to folks who went through all that, and those who are truly reflective and sincere, self preservation Right to Life -realized then 0R later-.. is the common thread -through the draft "dodgers", the volunteers, the "volunteers";), and the men in the shit.

Bunkloco

[RonPaulwillWin]

Wow, I voted yes. Didn't know it would be so one sided. The poll should make the circumstance more clear. I was thinking in my head...well what if we were attacked? What about WW2? Just wondering.

[tremendoustie]

I don't think its unpatriotic, but I don't think highly of the word patriotic.

That's a good point too. The word "patriotic" has certainly been abused and misused. I think there is a definition of "patriotic" in which it is a good thing, but it certainly isn't most often used this way.



Dodging the draft is the most patriotic thing you can do, if by "patriotism" you mean defending liberty, not the other "blind allegiance to the state" definition.

Yes, absolutely.

[ClayTrainor]

Dodging the draft is the most patriotic thing you can do, if by "patriotism" you mean defending liberty, not the other "blind allegiance to the state" definition.

Thread winner! :cool:

[Fozz]

Wow, I voted yes. Didn't know it would be so one sided. The poll should make the circumstance more clear. I was thinking in my head...well what if we were attacked? What about WW2? Just wondering.

I was talking about a Vietnam type of scenario, not something like WW2. Did you read the first post of the thread?

[BuddyRey]

That's it...I demand an explanation from the Infamous Eight! :D

[pvnole89]

The only thing more patriotic would be to actively resist. That being said I think it the question is irrelevant because given the dramatic shift in mainstream culture, education, wealth, and health since Nixon ended the draft, it would be impossible to reinstate it.

First, you must realize that despite the images we are fed of the 60's, the social and political revolutionary movements were limited to the intellectual and social elites, and to minorities. Mainstream America at the time was very much socially conservative, and uneducated. A environment that was ripe for government slavery and the mass murder of brown people.

In contrast, our nation is now far more socially liberal, individualistic, educated, and wealthy. Don't believe me, go watch cable TV for an hour (excluding cable news, unless you want your head to explode). In addition, we have a far lower birth rate. This, combined with our new culture, we ensure that middle class parents will fight to the death for their children. Tactics, that in the past were almost exclusively used by the rich to help their children avoid conscription would now be used by the bulk of the population, the middle class. Pulling favors, retaining lawyers, paying for as much college as possible, or simply giving their children money to leave, this generation would not go down without a fight.

It is clear that it would be political suicide for any government to attempt to reinstate the draft in this environment. They would be swiftly voted out of office, not to mention the potential economic ramification of a mass exodus of the country's future white collar work force. For these reasons, it won't happen.

It would be far more advantageous for the government to simply hire, train, and equip citizens of third world counties in our sphere of influence, to do the leg work of future military adventures that our volunteer force is too small to handle. Much in the same way that the British Empire used the Indian army for such purposes.

[libertybrewcity]

"You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'" ~~Letter from Birmingham Jail MLK Jr.


if the war was generally accepted by the nation they wouldn't need a draft.

[RonPaulwillWin]

I was talking about a Vietnam type of scenario, not something like WW2. Did you read the first post of the thread?

Oh, Ok my bad...I would have voted the other way. I feel stupid now :)

[low preference guy]

In hindsight, we can see that the question should have been


Do you believe it is wrong to dodge the draft?

instead of


Do you believe it is unpatriotic to dodge the draft?

(or give a combination of options, such as patriotic and wrong, unpatriotic and wrong, etc)

We would've got more accurate answers that way.

Still, 94%+ is not too bad.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

if you have to ask this question, then it's an unjust war. The only war any of us should have to fight is a defensive one.

[constituent]

Of course it's unpatriotic. What's the problem?

[MelissaWV]

Wow, I voted yes. Didn't know it would be so one sided. The poll should make the circumstance more clear. I was thinking in my head...well what if we were attacked? What about WW2? Just wondering.

If we were attacked, and the military couldn't find enough people to staff their machine to defend us, then it still doesn't give the Government the right to decide who should die for the nation. If people don't want to defend themselves, then the invaders will have charming, willing slaves. The rest of us will all go into hiding and meet up somewhere else where we'll defend what's left :p

There is no "what if" that justifies someone else deciding on my behalf that I should put my life on the line.

[constituent]

If we were attacked, and the military couldn't find enough people to staff their machine to defend us, then it still doesn't give the Government the right to decide who should die for the nation. If people don't want to defend themselves, then the invaders will have charming, willing slaves. The rest of us will all go into hiding and meet up somewhere else where we'll defend what's left :p

There is no "what if" that justifies someone else deciding on my behalf that I should put my life on the line.

anti-semite. ;) :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why would you want to be flag waver anyway? I'm patriotic about myself

[MelissaWV]

anti-semite. ;) :D

Who are you calling an anti-semite you lint-licker!

(It's from a commercial. Don't ban me, bro.)

[constituent]

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=778

[MelissaWV]

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=778

Boo :( I read all the comments and it is sickening. I didn't care for the loud-mouthed and obviously drunk woman, either, but I fail to see how she was supposed to step out of the vehicle with the officer in the way, or why he had to have his hands on her at all. The police in the video are that wussy, I guess, that they had to take the shortcut.

/end tangent.

[constituent]

Boo :( I read all the comments and it is sickening. I didn't care for the loud-mouthed and obviously drunk woman, either, but I fail to see how she was supposed to step out of the vehicle with the officer in the way, or why he had to have his hands on her at all. The police in the video are that wussy, I guess, that they had to take the shortcut.

/end tangent.

yea, it was pretty disturbing, and the white cop was so calm about it. i got the feeling that he considers zapping anyone who is slow to jump at his commands standard operating procedure.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

but getting zapped makes you more focused, and relaxed, too. why do you think they drop down? its a sigh of relief, you know. shit man. thats why its good to zap animals, theyre stressed out

[silentshout]

No, but I don't care about "patriotism." The draft is an affront to natural rights.