|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Daskalos, well said! Except for this final point:
| Quote: |
| We used to call volunteer armies something else. We called them mercenaries. |
History is replete with examples of non-mercenary volunteer armies from the Greek Hoplites to the (earlier) Romans in your example to America's Continental Army (for the most part).
Clark- very Libertarian of you! Involuntary servitude, the 13th Amendment, and conscription...you only failed to mention taxation and jury duty!
Aside from the fact the courts have consistently ignored this line of argument, it has a significant flaw...involuntary servitude involves forced (or coerced) labor by an individual for the benefit or gain of another (or, by extension, as you would assert, an organization such as government)- differing from outright slavery based primarily on the amount of freedom for the individual involved, but not the quantity or quality of gain to the laborer. If you wish to split hairs and mince definitions to assert your point, then please indulge me...since the "forced or coerced labor" applies to conscription under the 13th Amendments definition because you, or others choose not to serve, than the rest of the definition of Involuntary Servitude must exempt conscription (or any government service for that matter, as well, incidently, as taxation) from the application of said Amendment due to the easily demonstrable fact that government service benefits not just another (or others), but you as well, being a citizen.
Conscription and taxation benefit you directly, so constitutionally speaking, you are being forced to participate in government actions against your will for gain...hence, no Involuntary Servitude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alffy wrote: |
Daskalos, well said! Except for this final point:
| Quote: |
| We used to call volunteer armies something else. We called them mercenaries. |
History is replete with examples of non-mercenary volunteer armies from the Greek Hoplites to the (earlier) Romans in your example to America's Continental Army (for the most part).
|
In most cases,Greek Hoplites were not volunteers, although I cannot speak for every Greek city-state at every time. Certainly, during the Pelopennesian War, the main belligerents, Sparta and Athens, both 'drafted' their younger citizens. In Sparta, of course, each citizen had mandatory service. Actually, in Greek times, one of the key differences between a free man and a slave was military service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, daskalos did say it well.
He also brought up a good point. An all-volunteer military can become a political threat. The US neutralized this by having a tiny military up until World War II. Then a large standing army was created, but it was a citizen army with most members serving only a short time before returning to civilian life. Having a year or so of compulsory service of some kind, including military, might be a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alffy wrote: |
Daskalos, well said! Except for this final point:
| Quote: |
| We used to call volunteer armies something else. We called them mercenaries. |
History is replete with examples of non-mercenary volunteer armies from the Greek Hoplites to the (earlier) Romans in your example to America's Continental Army (for the most part). |
Mea Culpa. My point about mercenary armies was at least in part an exaggeration. Of course, the American forces during the Revolutionary War were paid (or promised pay) and did employ foreign mercenary armies. Without checking, it seems I do remember some pay/mutiny issues with the Hessians, and a lot of disgruntedness after the war with citizens who hadn't been paid what they'd been promised.
My actual point behind the exaggeration is that, by and large, volunteers in the U.S. armed services today do not volunteer because they are patriots but because the money and benefits aren't bad for people who have few options. Patriots with money and social standing can just buy a flag and a pole to fly it on.
And Ya-ta Boy's point that our pre-WWII forces served only a short time before returning to civilian life also holds true for today's forces. We on the outside of the military don't see it, but the military puts just as much effort into retaining its volunteers beyond their first enlistment as it puts into initial recruitment, and the reason they do is that most people who join get out after their first enlistment. The ones who stay are disproportionately those who find the atmosphere to their liking, and the atmosphere is, as I implied before, a rather conservative one. This state of affairs wouldn't be likely to change much were there a draft, but it would change some, and perhaps enough to make the difference between Caesar's legions following him or not. (And please let's not get into whether Caesar was right or not -- personally, I believe he started, at least, with the people's welfare in mind. The Republic was a corrupt and calcified institution that was cutting its own throat by catering only to its moneyed classes at the expense of its middle and lower classes. And I know, there are those who claim the same thing about the U.S., and perhaps they do so with some reason, and perhaps that's why I make the point I make about volunteer armies. As I said, let's not get into that on this thread.)
My understanding, by the way, of ancient Greek and (early) Roman armies is that military service during time of need was a condition of citizenship, an unpaid or poorly paid condition at that, and that such a condition was not questioned, because the consequences of losing a war were somewhat more immediately graspable to them. Many countries today, in time of war or peace, including Greece, place that same condition on their male citizens for essentially the same reasons.
So, if we construe such service as volunteering, fine, but it's not at all the same thing as today's U.S. armed forces. Let's not pretend that, were the very decent pay and very decent benefits that are dandled before them not in play, we would have a viable volunteer force.
Okay, not quite mercenaries, but not quite selfless patriots, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed, agreed, agreed!
Daskalos I particularly like your thinking (not to mention your ability to articulate your thoughts).
I, too, have experienced military service as a political and social pariah in the US military during the Bush (41) and Clinton administrations. I served over 9 years and experienced the conservative nature of the forces and have met numerous members that served due to lack of other options (even knew a few of those "go in the service or go to jail" victims during the late '80s).
I believe you (and others, here) are correct to assert that freedom, liberty, and democracy in our time seems to lack any costs to the citizen (heck, even the war in Iraq was billed and executed as costing little or nothing to the public weal- of course the duration and costs in lives and wealth have put paid to those "truths").
Hence, I too support the idea of a universal conscription. Once a citizen has served the greater good of the nation, whether willingly or not, he/she will not only have a greater sense of the costs involved in such service but also a more appreciable understanding of the concept of freedom. I bet in such an instance we would see greater universal participation in government and public service. Heck, minimally voting percentages would increase.
Then, of course, there is the alternative concept which first came to my attention in the work by the SciFi author Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers- to wit, only those that have volunteered to serve their nation/goveernment/public for a minimum of 2 years in some capacity (not necessarily military) earn the franchise of citizenship.
Of course with the current atmosphere in the US forces one would think this would produce a very conservative government (well, maybe a little more conservative than what we currently have, anyway), but I think not. Actually, the US forces today tend to have a higher proportion of minorities serving in their ranks than is representative of the general public at large. Therefore, in such a system, minority groups (particularly African-Americans and Hispanic) would have greater control and access to governing.
Oh, one last thing- I was thinking of the early Hoplites (i.e. Marathon) and not the Peloponisian War-era (or Sparta, at all). Just goes to prove generalizations almost never work. Also, your points are well taken- even "volunteers" offer to fight for personal reasons (earning/maintaining citizenship, personal gain, protection of one's own property/rights, whatever), so we can probably make the sweeping generalization (  ) that there is no such thing as a truly "volunteer" force for the purposes of purely serving the greater good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:49 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Of course, the American forces during the Revolutionary War were paid (or promised pay) and did employ foreign mercenary armies. Without checking, it seems I do remember some pay/mutiny issues with the Hessians, and a lot of disgruntedness after the war with citizens who hadn't been paid what they'd been promised. |
Not that it matters, but the Hessians were employed by the British. Famously, they got it handed to them at the Battle of Trenton after boozing it up. I doubt the Americans had any money to hire mercenaries unless, perhaps, the French paid for them.
As for conscription/mandatory service, no thanks, but I'd be fine with something similar to the TVA or WPC of the Depression-era as an alternative way to help people get jobs. But nothing mandatory. America should be about freedom, not indoctrination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alffy wrote: |
Daskalos, well said! Except for this final point:
| Quote: |
| We used to call volunteer armies something else. We called them mercenaries. |
History is replete with examples of non-mercenary volunteer armies from the Greek Hoplites to the (earlier) Romans in your example to America's Continental Army (for the most part).
Clark- very Libertarian of you! Involuntary servitude, the 13th Amendment, and conscription...you only failed to mention taxation and jury duty!
Aside from the fact the courts have consistently ignored this line of argument, it has a significant flaw...involuntary servitude involves forced (or coerced) labor by an individual for the benefit or gain of another (or, by extension, as you would assert, an organization such as government)- differing from outright slavery based primarily on the amount of freedom for the individual involved, but not the quantity or quality of gain to the laborer. If you wish to split hairs and mince definitions to assert your point, then please indulge me...since the "forced or coerced labor" applies to conscription under the 13th Amendments definition because you, or others choose not to serve, than the rest of the definition of Involuntary Servitude must exempt conscription (or any government service for that matter, as well, incidently, as taxation) from the application of said Amendment due to the easily demonstrable fact that government service benefits not just another (or others), but you as well, being a citizen.
Conscription and taxation benefit you directly, so constitutionally speaking, you are being forced to participate in government actions against your will for gain...hence, no Involuntary Servitude. |
The Income tax is "Voluntary" and it is constitutional see the 16th amendment. Though it may be a libertarian cause to repeal the amendment it is still a lawfully ratified component of the constitution.
Yes, drafting jurors for jury duty is also involuntary servitude.
Redress your argument without your taxation component maybe it will stand on some merit.
The histories of the citizen army dating back to Sparta have some good ideological values for a militaristic republic; maybe we should also adopt the value of no citizenship until completion of service. The citizen army ideal is just that an ideal. The Spartan also threw male infants down steeps slopes to see if they could climb to the top, those who succeeded lived, the others were not recovered, another Spartan ideal.
The justification for military compulsive service in a military era is like justifying slave labor in a pre-industrial era.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
No. In a nation under the putative rule of law, jury duty is a condition of citizenship. It may be compulsory but that doesn't equate to involuntary servititude. It equates to responsibility, to payment for services rendered.
And it isn't compulsory. If you'd like, when called to serve, you may leave the country and renounce your citizenship. If, that is, you can find a country that will have you, and I'm thinking that's not very likely, given the circumstances of your departure. (Oh all right, perhaps North Korea, Cuba or Iran would take you, and, well, they could have you with my blessings.)
Also, the 16th or any other amendment only ever says what the Supreme Court says it says. Some sitting SC may someday agree with you, but until it does, you're wrong. Ask Dred Scott, and see if he isn't forced to agree with you. I'm not saying it's right. It's just so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I really have nothing to contribute to this thread but I would just like to say I'm impressed by how well the posters have articulated themselves. The level of discussion is quite impressive for this type of venue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Green Tea
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Never gonna happen, but if it did there should be no easy way out for young people from rich families....BUSH. Everyone should be drafted equally....BUSH. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
No. In a nation under the putative rule of law, jury duty is a condition of citizenship. It may be compulsory but that doesn't equate to involuntary servititude. It equates to responsibility, to payment for services rendered.
And it isn't compulsory. If you'd like, when called to serve, you may leave the country and renounce your citizenship. If, that is, you can find a country that will have you, and I'm thinking that's not very likely, given the circumstances of your departure. (Oh all right, perhaps North Korea, Cuba or Iran would take you, and, well, they could have you with my blessings.)
Also, the 16th or any other amendment only ever says what the Supreme Court says it says. Some sitting SC may someday agree with you, but until it does, you're wrong. Ask Dred Scott, and see if he isn't forced to agree with you. I'm not saying it's right. It's just so. |
Dredd Scott has nothing to do with the 16th amendment the 16th amendment permits give congress the power to lay and collect taxes. Dredd Scott tested the pre-civil war laws. The 13th amendment is the result of those battles.
The SC only rules upon disagreement of what the constitution says. When differences in the interpretation occur, the supreme court rules this constitution is one of the SC constitutional powers and duties.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Then, of course, there is the alternative concept which first came to my attention in the work by the SciFi author Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers- to wit, only those that have volunteered to serve their nation/goveernment/public for a minimum of 2 years in some capacity (not necessarily military) earn the franchise of citizenship. |
2 years would be a good length of service if we wanted to make everyone serve in some way. The question is, would it be useful to our military?
When I read Starship Troopers, I kind of felt that the army I saw wasn't effective. It felt like it had jumped 100 years in the future and they were fighting WWII all over again. But the conflict the US is engaged in, despite the President's allusions (illusions as well?), is not like WWII.
The argument I hear against the draft that comes from the military is that young men wet behind the ears are not needed. The mercenaries in Iraq, the contractors, seem to all be older and more experienced. An army relying increasingly on technicological familiarity alongside special abilities which may themselves be low tech (ex. Arabic fluency) would have finished training you only after 2 years.
Moreover, there is an economic cost to making youths serve. This is lost time from the work force, and a drain on the economy.
I'm not saying I'm against the concept of a draft, but it has to be a smart draft, that balances modern demands with the eternal ideals of equality and responsible citizenship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A draft is immoral. The state does not own the citizens, and to suggest that it can send them to die without their consent is horribly immoral. The state serves us, we do not seve it.
By the by, SLEP, it was Milton Friedman who (almost all by his lonesome) is credited with having created the movement towards the voluntary army in America. Cause he was a libertarian and opposed to state power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| A draft is immoral. The state does not own the citizens, and to suggest that it can send them to die without their consent is horribly immoral. The state serves us, we do not seve it. |
Yes.
And it has never prevented any of the things supporters are claiming it prevents. Such as military coups or poorly considered war efforts. If anything, it just adds more meat to the grinder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alffy wrote: |
Agreed, agreed, agreed!
Then, of course, there is the alternative concept which first came to my attention in the work by the SciFi author Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers- to wit, only those that have volunteered to serve their nation/goveernment/public for a minimum of 2 years in some capacity (not necessarily military) earn the franchise of citizenship.
|
Heinlein's SST was a comic book, later dime store novel, the concept was based on a Spartan (SEE REALITY HISTORIC FACT) society thrown into the future, creating a fascist world government united against an alien bug world.
Good example of the proper use of a draft not only adding involuntary servitude now extorting citizenship, extreme fascism, no lets call it fazcism.
Recommended read:
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by RH (much more sophisticated)
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
