Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 10:46:44 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  SENATE BILL: Anti-Conscription Amendment (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Print
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Anti-Conscription Amendment (Failed)  (Read 2885 times)
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27339
United States


View Profile
« on: May 25, 2012, 09:12:41 am »
Ignore

Quote
Anti-Conscription Amendment

Article VI, Section VIII of The Atlasian Constitution is amended to read:
Neither shall the Republic of Atlasia nor any of its constituent regions enforce compulsory conscription upon any citizen.

Sponsor: Wormyguy
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 06:22:13 am by Senator North Carolina Yankee »Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2012, 09:18:51 am »
Ignore

Wormy, you have 24 hours to advocate for this bill.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Emperor Scott
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17266
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2012, 11:46:20 am »
Ignore

I strongly support this bill.
Logged



Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2012, 01:55:32 pm »
Ignore

Mass conscription began with the Grande Armée of Napoleon Bonaparte.  It was the logical conclusion of the philosophy, popular with the revolutionaries, of Jean-Jacques Rousseau; that the individual ought to live and die in the service of the State.  This innovation allowed for armies more massive than any Europe had ever seen to be raised, and allowed for the advent of cataclysmic continent or continents-wide wars with casualties in the millions, and, even more horrifically, among people who would not have freely chosen to fight in the first place.  Tyrants from Napoleon to Tsar Nicholas to Hitler to Mao Zedong have used mass conscription as a weapon against their own people, to force a mass mobilization for a conflict domestic or foreign that the population broadly was uninterested in fighting.

Conscription, as a brutal invention of tyranny, has no place in a republic such as our own.  This country was founded on protecting its citizens from tyranny, not the imitation of foreign tyrants.  We ought to believe strongly that, if government has a purpose, it is to serve the interests of its citizens.  The purpose of the citizen is not to serve the interests of the government.  Accordingly, if this country should be attacked, if the government truly serves the interests of its citizens then they will agree voluntarily to help defend it.  If there is so little faith in the government that the citizens will not agree to defend it, then the odds are that the government is not one worth saving, and we, as Senators, have failed to do our duty to ensure that the government serves the people.

More practically, including armed police and other paramilitary forces, this country already has more men under arms than any other, even more when you consider the amount of private gun-owners (as Admiral Yamamoto said, "You cannot invade mainland Atlasia. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.").  We spend more on our military than every other country on Earth combined, and most of the other top spenders are NATO allies.  And all this would only matter if we were right next to a major hostile power, of which there are none, certainly none that would have anything to gain from attacking Atlasia.  As it is there are thousands of miles of ocean between us and all major industrialized powers, such that it would be logistically impossible to mount even a small raid on mainland Atlasia even if our navy did not exceed every other navy in the world by tonnage.  Moreover, if some hypothetical equal military power did exist and somehow had the ability to invade Atlasia, such a conflict would surely turn nuclear instantly and render any discussions of conscription moot.  In this day and age, there is no practical argument for conscription whatsoever, it is merely an outdated and tyrannical institution useful only in forcing people to fight in aggressive wars against their will.
Logged

President William McKinley
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4495
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2012, 03:17:14 pm »
Ignore

Wormyguy- I find your statement very interesting and well-researched. I would agree if we lived in a more ideal world... if in this world our enemies (if we had them) saw our government as their enemy- I would agree. The reality is- many of our enemies see no difference between our govt and our people. Sure it is repeated often but must be repeated again here- there are those who will strap a bomb to themselves to kill our civilians...becaue they hate our nation and all Atlasians

Now- there is a response to this. You say that these people dont have the means to attack us in a manner which calls for the draft...I agree. However- we simply never know what could happen. The draft isn't to protect government- it's to protect the people. Has it been used improprely? That is up for debate- I happen to have served with men who were drafted who served as honorably as any one else

To protect our citizens from tyranny- it is necessary to have at our disposal all possible options. It's been said the constitution is not a suicide pact- neither is any speech by Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, or any Founding Father. I don't say this because I don't value liberty- I say it because I value liberty and reality...to meet the challenges of today's world requires sacrifices. I've advocated a change in tactics to prioritize drones and airstrikes over ground forces...this would make conscription less necessary, but it must always be an option
Logged

Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8336
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2012, 03:22:16 pm »
Ignore

The DoEA appreciates the spirit behind this amendment but must oppose it; it's too rigid and just a flat-out ban. A peacetime ban I could support, but I echo Senator Clarence's concerns on the matter. We need to retain this, just in case. I hope that during my tenure as SoEA I will never have to institute a draft, but it's wise to retain the capability to do so, just in case the hypothetical may suddenly become the practical.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 04:36:47 pm by Secretary of External Affairs SJoyceFla »Logged

Fmr. President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12550
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2012, 06:30:21 pm »
Ignore

This bloody thing again!

This caused all kinds of drama last time, but it is Wormy.

Again I'll make my position on this clear, I dislike conscription, and we should take all legislative measures to make it all-but-impossible to impose conscription, but a constitutional amendment will bind future Senates without regard for future circumstances.

I'm not going to engage on this issue too much, except to say, I support the intent, but I will oppose any constitutional amendment, let alone one as clumsy and inflexible as that.
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
Emperor Scott
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17266
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2012, 06:52:23 pm »
Ignore

Compelling young Atlasians to work for the State, and to fight, kill, possibly die or become severely wounded in a war, is slavery.  There is no way of getting around this, from a moral perspective.  Continuing to even allow conscription to be an option enables the government to reach beyond its moral boundaries and jeopardizes the ability of one to own one's self by shaping how they live their lives.  To put it simply, if the government wages war to defend a free nation and uses conscription to do it, then there is no longer a free country to defend.

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 06:58:59 pm by Senator Scott »Logged



Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8336
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2012, 07:06:38 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.
Logged

Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14754


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2012, 07:08:29 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

Conscription wouldn't change that, so...
Logged

Please Senators, don't let the Russians, a folk of alcoholic homophobic, take Crimee
Emperor Scott
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17266
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2012, 07:10:17 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.
Logged



Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8336
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2012, 07:17:30 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.
Logged

Emperor Scott
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17266
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2012, 07:26:52 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.
Logged



Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8336
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2012, 07:56:55 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

We are debating this amendment right now. However, we must consider the long-term effects of everything we pass. This amendment may lead to a small measure of greater freedom, but is that worth the potential that our great-great-great grandchildren may suffer under the heel of a faraway despot? I will not utilize conscription, and I doubt that the majority of my predecessors shall find any reason to even consider to do so.
Logged

Emperor Scott
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17266
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2012, 09:03:18 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

We are debating this amendment right now. However, we must consider the long-term effects of everything we pass. This amendment may lead to a small measure of greater freedom, but is that worth the potential that our great-great-great grandchildren may suffer under the heel of a faraway despot? I will not utilize conscription, and I doubt that the majority of my predecessors shall find any reason to even consider to do so.

As Ben Franklin once said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  It is contrary to the founding principles of this nation to say that we should sacrifice what you call "a small measure of greater freedom" for military reasons.  You say that our great-great-great grandchildren suffer if we outlaw this policy, but you do not seem to consider how many thousands of our troops would suffer if they are being forced into killing and risking their own lives against their will.
Logged



President William McKinley
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4495
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2012, 09:07:55 pm »
Ignore

Compelling young Atlasians to work for the State, and to fight, kill, possibly die or become severely wounded in a war, is slavery.  There is no way of getting around this, from a moral perspective.  Continuing to even allow conscription to be an option enables the government to reach beyond its moral boundaries and jeopardizes the ability of one to own one's self by shaping how they live their lives.  To put it simply, if the government wages war to defend a free nation and uses conscription to do it, then there is no longer a free country to defend.

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.
Scott- this is going to come across grumpy and condescending but know that isn't my intentention...
There is a difference between theory and reality. Theoretically the last statement in your first paragraph makes sense...but in reality the draft exists as an option to ensure the freedoms we have now will continue. Wormyguy says that in the event we needed a draft- citizens would rise up and if thy wouldn't- the nation deserves to be defeated. However- people are individualistic... if there is an existential threat to our nation, it is one to evry citizen as well and I don't see young men signing up in droves to bet placed on the front lines...do you?

The way you and wormyguy make it seem- it's as if we mandate military service or draft kids every other day. It hasn't happened for nearly four decades and all of us- even me, the biggest hawk here- agree it shouldnt be used except in extraordinary cases. Why don't we amend this to have the Senate authorize conscription by a 3/4 vote?


I posted above and see that you posted more in response to Joyce...

OK...as I mentioned in my response to wormyguy- neither our constitution or any speech by a Foudning Father is a suicide pact. But in case it sways you, here is what Jefferson said- "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." This regarded the Louisiana Purchase which he wasn't permitted to do and which would've been as Washington put it- an imperial Presidency. Bt he did it and we're glad he did! Look at what Lincoln pulled during the Civil War- he recognized that in exceptional cases- we must act for self-preservation

Logged

President William McKinley
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4495
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2012, 09:15:02 pm »
Ignore

I've been using the phrase "The constitution is not a suicide pact"... this comes from a 1963 Supreme Court decision involving the draft of all things... here is a piece from the majority opinion by Justice Goldberg...

"The Constitution is silent about the permissibility of involuntary forfeiture of citizenship rights. While it confirms citizenship rights, plainly there are imperative obligations of citizenship, performance of which Congress in the exercise of its powers may constitutionally exact. One of the most important of these is to serve the country in time of war and national emergency. The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact. Similarly, Congress has broad power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign affairs. Latitude in this area is necessary to ensure effectuation of this indispensable function of government."
Logged

Emperor Scott
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17266
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2012, 09:38:17 pm »
Ignore

Compelling young Atlasians to work for the State, and to fight, kill, possibly die or become severely wounded in a war, is slavery.  There is no way of getting around this, from a moral perspective.  Continuing to even allow conscription to be an option enables the government to reach beyond its moral boundaries and jeopardizes the ability of one to own one's self by shaping how they live their lives.  To put it simply, if the government wages war to defend a free nation and uses conscription to do it, then there is no longer a free country to defend.

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.
Scott- this is going to come across grumpy and condescending but know that isn't my intentention...
There is a difference between theory and reality. Theoretically the last statement in your first paragraph makes sense...but in reality the draft exists as an option to ensure the freedoms we have now will continue. Wormyguy says that in the event we needed a draft- citizens would rise up and if thy wouldn't- the nation deserves to be defeated. However- people are individualistic... if there is an existential threat to our nation, it is one to evry citizen as well and I don't see young men signing up in droves to bet placed on the front lines...do you?

The way you and wormyguy make it seem- it's as if we mandate military service or draft kids every other day. It hasn't happened for nearly four decades and all of us- even me, the biggest hawk here- agree it shouldnt be used except in extraordinary cases. Why don't we amend this to have the Senate authorize conscription by a 3/4 vote?


I posted above and see that you posted more in response to Joyce...

OK...as I mentioned in my response to wormyguy- neither our constitution or any speech by a Foudning Father is a suicide pact. But in case it sways you, here is what Jefferson said- "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." This regarded the Louisiana Purchase which he wasn't permitted to do and which would've been as Washington put it- an imperial Presidency. Bt he did it and we're glad he did! Look at what Lincoln pulled during the Civil War- he recognized that in exceptional cases- we must act for self-preservation



Your post does not sound condescending at all, Clarence.

Yes, in fact, I do believe that young men would sign up in droves if our country was ever truly under attack.  Atlasia always has people who are willing to fight and people aren't going to take an attack sitting down, either on the homefront or the domestic side.  And the reason why this country is free is because we strongly value individualism and the right to shape your future the way you want.  Forcing a young person to enlist and work for the State or face penalties is the exact opposite of preserving freedom and individualism, and that is why, as I've said- there will no longer be a truly free nation to protect if we surrender these values.

I am aware we do not mandate military services at this time, but the very purpose of this amendment is to ensure that it is never an option.  And remember, "extraordinary cases" can be interpreted in many ways.

I fully understand that restrictions on government power need to be balanced with self-preservation, however, I believe a line needs to be drawn when the government reaches beyond its limits and the right to self-ownership is violated.  When the question comes down to the protection of the individual and the protection of the State, the protection of the individual needs to transcend.  The government simply cannot force you into battle and "protect" you at the same time.  Like I've mentioned before, If we compromise on founding principles for the sake of security, then we would be hypocrites and destroying the values that we seek to protect.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 09:40:08 pm by Senator Scott »Logged



Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8336
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2012, 09:44:57 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

We are debating this amendment right now. However, we must consider the long-term effects of everything we pass. This amendment may lead to a small measure of greater freedom, but is that worth the potential that our great-great-great grandchildren may suffer under the heel of a faraway despot? I will not utilize conscription, and I doubt that the majority of my predecessors shall find any reason to even consider to do so.

As Ben Franklin once said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  It is contrary to the founding principles of this nation to say that we should sacrifice what you call "a small measure of greater freedom" for military reasons.  You say that our great-great-great grandchildren suffer if we outlaw this policy, but you do not seem to consider how many thousands of our troops would suffer if they are being forced into killing and risking their own lives against their will.

It is a small measure of liberty, so small as to be almost nonexistant, because quite simply no liberty is currently being lost. There are no "thousands of troops" suffering, because we're not conscripting people. Nobody is suffering due to the ability to initiate a draft being in the Constitution, as it hasn't been used for a long period, is not being used, and is extremely unlikely to be used. The only reason it is on the books at all is in the extreme situation of a total war against a massive and powerful enemy; till such a war, it is not used, not needed, and should not be outlawed. If you wanted a ban on peacetime conscription, or make conscription something the Senate needs to expressly vote on, or require a 3/4 majority as Senator Clarence proposed, that'd be reasonable, but in its current form, this amendment is irrational and inflexible, and should be defeated.
Logged

Emperor Scott
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17266
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2012, 09:51:24 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

We are debating this amendment right now. However, we must consider the long-term effects of everything we pass. This amendment may lead to a small measure of greater freedom, but is that worth the potential that our great-great-great grandchildren may suffer under the heel of a faraway despot? I will not utilize conscription, and I doubt that the majority of my predecessors shall find any reason to even consider to do so.

As Ben Franklin once said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  It is contrary to the founding principles of this nation to say that we should sacrifice what you call "a small measure of greater freedom" for military reasons.  You say that our great-great-great grandchildren suffer if we outlaw this policy, but you do not seem to consider how many thousands of our troops would suffer if they are being forced into killing and risking their own lives against their will.

It is a small measure of liberty, so small as to be almost nonexistant, because quite simply no liberty is currently being lost. There are no "thousands of troops" suffering, because we're not conscripting people. Nobody is suffering due to the ability to initiate a draft being in the Constitution, as it hasn't been used for a long period, is not being used, and is extremely unlikely to be used. The only reason it is on the books at all is in the extreme situation of a total war against a massive and powerful enemy; till such a war, it is not used, not needed, and should not be outlawed. If you wanted a ban on peacetime conscription, or make conscription something the Senate needs to expressly vote on, or require a 3/4 majority as Senator Clarence proposed, that'd be reasonable, but in its current form, this amendment is irrational and inflexible, and should be defeated.

When you're told that you have to kill people overseas, possibly risking a limb or your life, or else go to jail or be forced to leave your country to escape it, that is not merely a "small measure of liberty" being lost.  I am fully aware that we are not conscripting troops at this time, but suffering is what will come about if we ever decide to do this.
Logged



Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8336
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2012, 09:58:24 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

We are debating this amendment right now. However, we must consider the long-term effects of everything we pass. This amendment may lead to a small measure of greater freedom, but is that worth the potential that our great-great-great grandchildren may suffer under the heel of a faraway despot? I will not utilize conscription, and I doubt that the majority of my predecessors shall find any reason to even consider to do so.

As Ben Franklin once said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  It is contrary to the founding principles of this nation to say that we should sacrifice what you call "a small measure of greater freedom" for military reasons.  You say that our great-great-great grandchildren suffer if we outlaw this policy, but you do not seem to consider how many thousands of our troops would suffer if they are being forced into killing and risking their own lives against their will.

It is a small measure of liberty, so small as to be almost nonexistant, because quite simply no liberty is currently being lost. There are no "thousands of troops" suffering, because we're not conscripting people. Nobody is suffering due to the ability to initiate a draft being in the Constitution, as it hasn't been used for a long period, is not being used, and is extremely unlikely to be used. The only reason it is on the books at all is in the extreme situation of a total war against a massive and powerful enemy; till such a war, it is not used, not needed, and should not be outlawed. If you wanted a ban on peacetime conscription, or make conscription something the Senate needs to expressly vote on, or require a 3/4 majority as Senator Clarence proposed, that'd be reasonable, but in its current form, this amendment is irrational and inflexible, and should be defeated.

When you're told that you have to kill people overseas, possibly risking a limb or your life, or else go to jail or be forced to leave your country to escape it, that is not merely a "small measure of liberty" being lost.  I am fully aware that we are not conscripting troops at this time, but suffering is what will come about if we ever decide to do this.

In your scenario, there's a net gain for liberty. Although what you describe may occur, any such thing is outweighed by the liberty preserved; in any scenario where I could plausibly see conscription used, there is an imminent danger to the security of the Atlasian people, that threatens to remove all liberties from all of us.
Logged

Emperor Scott
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17266
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2012, 10:09:40 pm »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

We are debating this amendment right now. However, we must consider the long-term effects of everything we pass. This amendment may lead to a small measure of greater freedom, but is that worth the potential that our great-great-great grandchildren may suffer under the heel of a faraway despot? I will not utilize conscription, and I doubt that the majority of my predecessors shall find any reason to even consider to do so.

As Ben Franklin once said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  It is contrary to the founding principles of this nation to say that we should sacrifice what you call "a small measure of greater freedom" for military reasons.  You say that our great-great-great grandchildren suffer if we outlaw this policy, but you do not seem to consider how many thousands of our troops would suffer if they are being forced into killing and risking their own lives against their will.

It is a small measure of liberty, so small as to be almost nonexistant, because quite simply no liberty is currently being lost. There are no "thousands of troops" suffering, because we're not conscripting people. Nobody is suffering due to the ability to initiate a draft being in the Constitution, as it hasn't been used for a long period, is not being used, and is extremely unlikely to be used. The only reason it is on the books at all is in the extreme situation of a total war against a massive and powerful enemy; till such a war, it is not used, not needed, and should not be outlawed. If you wanted a ban on peacetime conscription, or make conscription something the Senate needs to expressly vote on, or require a 3/4 majority as Senator Clarence proposed, that'd be reasonable, but in its current form, this amendment is irrational and inflexible, and should be defeated.

When you're told that you have to kill people overseas, possibly risking a limb or your life, or else go to jail or be forced to leave your country to escape it, that is not merely a "small measure of liberty" being lost.  I am fully aware that we are not conscripting troops at this time, but suffering is what will come about if we ever decide to do this.

In your scenario, there's a net gain for liberty. Although what you describe may occur, any such thing is outweighed by the liberty preserved; in any scenario where I could plausibly see conscription used, there is an imminent danger to the security of the Atlasian people, that threatens to remove all liberties from all of us.

You cannot preserve liberty by taking it away.  Period.  Similar to what I've said, a government cannot protect you and force you into a place of death and destruction at the same time; the two are completely opposite from each other.  If you've lost your freedom to self-determination, all freedom has been lost.  In the end, I suppose it comes down to what liberties you value more, but going for the better of the bad is not choosing the freer path.
Logged



Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8336
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2012, 09:04:48 am »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

We are debating this amendment right now. However, we must consider the long-term effects of everything we pass. This amendment may lead to a small measure of greater freedom, but is that worth the potential that our great-great-great grandchildren may suffer under the heel of a faraway despot? I will not utilize conscription, and I doubt that the majority of my predecessors shall find any reason to even consider to do so.

As Ben Franklin once said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  It is contrary to the founding principles of this nation to say that we should sacrifice what you call "a small measure of greater freedom" for military reasons.  You say that our great-great-great grandchildren suffer if we outlaw this policy, but you do not seem to consider how many thousands of our troops would suffer if they are being forced into killing and risking their own lives against their will.

It is a small measure of liberty, so small as to be almost nonexistant, because quite simply no liberty is currently being lost. There are no "thousands of troops" suffering, because we're not conscripting people. Nobody is suffering due to the ability to initiate a draft being in the Constitution, as it hasn't been used for a long period, is not being used, and is extremely unlikely to be used. The only reason it is on the books at all is in the extreme situation of a total war against a massive and powerful enemy; till such a war, it is not used, not needed, and should not be outlawed. If you wanted a ban on peacetime conscription, or make conscription something the Senate needs to expressly vote on, or require a 3/4 majority as Senator Clarence proposed, that'd be reasonable, but in its current form, this amendment is irrational and inflexible, and should be defeated.

When you're told that you have to kill people overseas, possibly risking a limb or your life, or else go to jail or be forced to leave your country to escape it, that is not merely a "small measure of liberty" being lost.  I am fully aware that we are not conscripting troops at this time, but suffering is what will come about if we ever decide to do this.

In your scenario, there's a net gain for liberty. Although what you describe may occur, any such thing is outweighed by the liberty preserved; in any scenario where I could plausibly see conscription used, there is an imminent danger to the security of the Atlasian people, that threatens to remove all liberties from all of us.

You cannot preserve liberty by taking it away.  Period.  Similar to what I've said, a government cannot protect you and force you into a place of death and destruction at the same time; the two are completely opposite from each other.  If you've lost your freedom to self-determination, all freedom has been lost.  In the end, I suppose it comes down to what liberties you value more, but going for the better of the bad is not choosing the freer path.

The government cannot and should not do so, I agree; however, conscription is something that would only come into play when all of our liberties are at risk (ie: we have been attacked by a foreign nation), and I value all of my liberties more than some of them (and choosing all of your liberties over some is indeed the freer path).
Logged

Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2012, 10:21:29 am »
Ignore

So it is better to sacrifice all liberties forever then to lose some for a short time?
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2012, 10:31:35 am »
Ignore

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

He doesn't need proof that it definately will happen someday. All he has to do is establish that the possibility exists that it might, since his arguement is to preserve the policy for use only as an emergency contingency. You on the other hand desire it to be completely taken off the table; therefore, the only one who needs to prove something is you. Specifically, that we will never ever end up like those fallen countries. Unless you believe in some kind of extreme form of "Atlasian Exceptionalism", that it is a very tall order indeed.

You reject debate about the distant future in preference to right now yet you also warn about "future" potential depreviations of liberty as result of this policy. Tongue
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines