Anti-Conscription Amendment [Rejected]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll change my vote to Nay. The amendment still isn't failing by a majority though. I realized I haven't changed the title of this thread, which probably doesn't help get attention, so I apologize for that. Either way, continue!

Yea, something tells me that might help. Call it a hunch.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm voting nay, and will put forward another amendment should this one fail.

I might as well, maybe we could work on it.

As to the amendment, I think it is to restrictive and unworkable, thus I vote

At what point can we expect to see this amendment?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This getting ridiculous. I hate the draft myself, but it serves a purpose in emergency situations. If we get all concerned about being 100% on preserving freedom at the expense of everything else, it is like sacrificing your saving/investing for 100% consumption in an economy. It doesn't work long term and you may find yourself with no freedom at all in the worst case scenario.

@20RP12
In this thread you seem to treat gov't in a particular way. The gov't is a reflection of us, and it exists because we let it by our choice. Its primary purpose is to protect its people. It's like Thomas Paine said in Common Sense, "For were the impulse of conscience clear, uniform and irresistably obeyed, man would need no other law-giver. That not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property for the protection of the rest...".

Granted, we are discussing more then just surrendering up property, but it is the same general idea. If we have a draft in place, it is to protect the homeland not the government. And the sacrifice is for the sake of the nation and its people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Should sitting members of congress be allowed to serve in the military? They were until 1942 when FDR put a stop to it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Damn, 20RP12, I wasn't trying to corrupt you with the forbidden fruit, I was merely asking if in the hypothetic situation arouse that we are at war, should members of congress be allowed to serve while being a sitting member?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am going to re-offer the Polnut amendment without the last Sentence about frontline capacity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have several objectives for doing so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am going to re-offer the Polnut amendment without the last Sentence about frontline capacity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We already voted on this exact same amendment before Polnut's.

Is there a reason why the vote should turn out differently this time?

I can think of two reasons why someone would want to reintroduce the amendment.

I actually have 5 reasons, but what two did you think of?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If conviction is a license to be arrogant and self-righteous, then perhaps one is better off without it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This movie is one that never gets better with age and repitition.


I think that this idea that all the wars that we now fight or will ever fight are the equivalent of a "private expedition" undertaken for the profit of some group or interest, is ridiculous. I tend to still beleive that if we go to war, it is for the absolute necessity to protect the country and preserve it's freedom and safety. If that is not the case, then that should be threshold.

This post-George W. Bush thought process amongst liberals and libertarians that is borderline conspiratorial, if not outright conspiracy mongering, should be completely rejected. This idea of chickenhawks engaging in wars to acheive some benefit and sending others to do the dirty work, may make for good rhetoric during an unpopular war, but it is completely out of place and out of touch with reality when it comes to making foreign policy decisions. The leaders of a country have to make decisions for the good of the country. They aren't perfect and they make mistakes, but they are doing it for the country and those who serve are serving the country and it's interests. The troops aren't fighting for the politicians, they are fighting for everyone in the country. By making this a constitutional amendment, we are saying that never, ever will the need arise to actually go to war to defend the country from an attack. That Atlasia's superiority will never be in a position to be challenged and thus the need for use of force will never arise. Anyone with a good historical perspective, can note the folly of such thinking.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Uh, who are you talking to? The voices in your head? I haven't made any conspiracy suggestions at all.


Wars must not be fought using slave labor. Exactly what is worth fighting for if our constitution cannot even guarantee us the most basic of human rights? What is so important that we cannot allow volunteers to do, and we instead have to force those unwilling to do it out to be killed or injured?

You should consider refraining from insulting people unnecessarily. It only serves to hamper your efforts.

Your rhetoric about "politicians sending other people to go off and fight their wars for them" is conspiratorial. It assumes all wars are like Iraq and that such wars are more then mere mistakes in judgement but are instead conscious decisions to go to war for personal gain or whatever.

What is so important? The answer is freedom obviously and the practicialities necessitated by the conflict in question that is waged for the preservation of that. Wars can be unpredictable and when they get long and difficult, the public support wans and with it, enlistments go down. In the Civil War, the value of the currency would fluctuate based on how the latest battle went. By 1863, casaulties were high and enlistments were down. The support for the war was low and most thought Lincoln would certainly loose in 1864 to an anti-war candidate. The draft was instituted to ensure the north had the manpower to win the war. They also began to let African Americans serve albeit in segregated regiments. Lincoln didn't know how the war would end and thus couldn't have predicted it would be benenficial. He did know that war was draining the available manpower and if not restored, the south could very well win. Should the south have won simply because the population of the north had gotten war weary? I don't think so. And just for comparision the hypocrtical confederacy did the same thing, only a year earlier. They new they would be ruling as a dictatorship during the war, so the people that rebelled allegedly to preserve state's rights didn't even empanel a Supreme Court.

In World War II, a large proporation of the Army were conscripts. Sure these people may have volunteered on their own, but they didn't and they didn't volunteer on their own premptively like some did to avoid being considered a "draftee", rather they waited for the draft boards to do the job. With Hitler having every able bodied man (and even woman at the end, breaking a promise he made in the 30's) put into uniform to fight, I think taking a more practical approach for sake of defeating that SOB would be worth it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are they any statistics suggesting that in a time of war, not enough Atlasians would be willing to fight in said war? Honest question.

The problem is that when we talk about a constitutional amendment, it needs to consider not only all possibilities that could conceivably occur now but at any point in the future. A constitution needs to be well enough written that it can be applied beyond the scope of the vision of those doing the writing.

Which is the best argument in favor of this amendment...

Only if your primarily objective is restricting the power of the gov't to wage a conflict in all circumstances, for all of time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have said nothing conspiratorial, and your suggestion that I have is highly insulting and disrespectful.

Are they any statistics suggesting that in a time of war, not enough Atlasians would be willing to fight in said war? Honest question.

The problem is that when we talk about a constitutional amendment, it needs to consider not only all possibilities that could conceivably occur now but at any point in the future. A constitution needs to be well enough written that it can be applied beyond the scope of the vision of those doing the writing.

Which is the best argument in favor of this amendment...

Only if your primarily objective is restricting the power of the gov't to wage a conflict in all circumstances, for all of time.

My primary objective is protecting the rights, and lives, of this nation's citizens. I could be far less concerned with the government's ability to utilize slave labor to exert force. I will leave that sort of freedom for governments like Hitler's, as you mention. I'm not in a hurry to stoop to Hitler's level.

After the discourse you treated me with earlier, I can say I don't give a damn, Napoleon. You called me crazy as a person, I just said your position was crazy.

And how are you protecting the freedom of your country, by letting a Hitler have numerical superority? Maybe even letting him win? If the enlistment numbers are inadequate and you are in a necessary conflict with a tyranical SOB, what do you do in that situation?

This amendment rests either on the naive belief that such will never, ever happen in the world again or that the preservation of long term freedom is not worthy of the short term sacrifice to bring it about.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I never attacked anyone directly here, I never questioned anyone's judgement or sanity. The same can't be said of my distinguished former collegue. I criticized an opinion that it is held by several people, not the people themselves. I do have respect for them even if I disagree with the position. It is a shame that such a style hasn't been reciprocated in this thread.

That last post says it all, really. There is no room for disagreement here. If you disagree with the position as stated you aren't worthy of consideration. That isn't debate, that is a dicatorial, "my way or the high way" approach and it is frankly beneath this deliberative body. I hope the now Governor finds more happiness in an executive position, because that menality is completely incompatible with the legislative branch.

Not everyone views it as "slave labor". I view it as a reasonable measure to be taken as an absolute last resort option in an absolute emergency. Since that is the standard for use, the decision is between allowing that in such "hypothetical" situations, or to forbid it in all situations. Since this is the constitution we are dealing with, and not legislation, such "assumptions" and "worst case hypothericals", are very relevant because the constitution has a degree of permenence that can't be changed on a dime. By the time it could be amended, it could be too late. The Constitution has to, by design, take that which has been labled above as " holding no weight and deserving of less consideration" into account.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Basically, we have to make sure everyone serves, because enough isn't enough.

I am not sure what you are getting at, but as I have said before, it would take a hell of lot to get me to vote vote to enact a draft. I despise it with all my being. But in a situation where it is that option or losing the country, we need to be able to choose that option, and pretty damn quick.

It is my opinion that we never should have renacted the draft after WWII. Especially after Korea when the conventional forces were being downsized and Nukes were dominating the military strategy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Slavery is slavery. In that sense, you're right. How could one disagree that slavery is, in fact, slavery?

It's also discrimination. Apparently, some lives are more valuable than others, at least when it comes to forced servitude on behalf of the very government that is supposed to protect their rights.

I don't support discrimination and I don't support slavery. You can be 100% confident that I do not support conscription. By the way, my friend, I did not call you crazy. That is an erroneous accusation.

I don't believe in absolutes when it comes the bare practicalities necessited in a potential conflict that would determine the fate of the country, and yes the freedoms it enjoys.

In WWII, you had congresspeople serving in combat while holding their seats like Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. FDR ordered them to come back or resign in 1942. HCL Jr and I beleive most of the others choose to resign and serve the country in it's hour of need. In the Civil War, they organized a battalion of congressmen and staffers to defend the capitol from being overun before the volunteers could arrive to defend Washington, in 1861. There are probably examples of sitting members, fighting in combat in the Civil War as well. THe idea of the government being composed of cowardly chickenhawks who send other people to die for them, is historically innaccurate, especially during the very crisis which I am describing that needs to be considered. It especially ignores the fact that many, even today, were actually veterans of various military capacities.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Basically, we have to make sure everyone serves, because enough isn't enough.

I am not sure what you are getting at, but as I have said before, it would take a hell of lot to get me to vote vote to enact a draft. I despise it with all my being. But in a situation where it is that option or losing the country, we need to be able to choose that option, and pretty damn quick.

It is my opinion that we never should have renacted the draft after WWII. Especially after Korea when the conventional forces were being downsized and Nukes were dominating the military strategy.

Right, but I think you're failing to realize that the draft will never need to be a last ditch effort because we will always have plenty of volunteers willing to serve.

We didn't in 1863. Can you guarrantee that we will in 2063? or 2163?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Those were volunteers.

Obviously, if you drafted everyone in congress, you wouldn't be able to wage the war. The point is you are making this discrimination arguement because government servants are exempted from the draft, and are thus "cowards who are hiding behind a shield of slaves". That is quite a ridiculous arguement to make. If they are essentiall personel, that kind of makes sense, when you think about it. Someone has to appropriate the funds, lest you be railing against executive despotism. If you are concerned that too many in congress are cowards, then elect an all veteran congress and President like clarence wants.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

everyone in congress [...] essential personnel

lol good one

Can anyone else appropriate money?

Does Atlasia draft women? Can education not be continued after a war? Your amendment seems to allow higher education as an evasion tactic.

If it were removed, would that have changed how you voted while Senator, or would it have changed the votes of any of the other nays?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I didn't add it in, this was TJ's text. My main goal is to ensure the option remains available in emergency circumstances. I merely reintroduced this because I had a hunch it might perform better then it did previously. It has and it would have passed had Marokai done his job and closed the vote after the maximum five days like the OSPR stipulates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marokai can decide what happens with the curent vote, since it is his mess. It probably won't get 2/3rds passage on the final vote anyway unless a compromise can be reached and such doesn't seem to be of interest to the supporters of the underlying measure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Of course not, as slavery would still be involved and discrimination would still be involved. Simply put, adding more discrimination into this nasty mixture of discrimination and slavery cannot be construed as an improvement.

I think you are missing the point. We want the people to be able to vote on whether or not they think we should allow this depressing and archaic form of enslavement, and we want you to do what you can to give them that opportunity. And if they do not get that opportunity, the cowardice of some to take a positive stand on a moral issue will be to blame. I would hate to see that happen.

I disagree. We should do our job and vote based on what we think is in the best interests of the people also. I don't think baning this completely is, I think it is contrary to public safety and therefore I will vote against it. You can use whatever hyperbolic rhetoric you want to criticize that decision, it won't change my mind.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"Had Marokai done his job..."

Seems to be the story of this Senate, does it not?

The combination of your style and vision of the job is what sunk your bid for the job. Loose one or the other and it would have been yours.