SENATE BILL: Anti-Conscription Amendment (Failed)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I strongly support this bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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 world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

What are you talking about?

I am not saying that it is impossible for an attack to happen someday.  I'm saying that, irrespective of the circumstances, it is never justified for a government to deprive its people of basic liberties.  Atlasia wasn't founded on the idea that liberty is something we can compromise on or take away during certain circumstances.  Sjo seems to think that because other powerful nations fall, as he mentioned, the decline of this country is inevitable.  Nice strawman, though.

Uh, yes.  If conscription is ever enacted by this government, liberty will be deprived.  That is not merely a "potential" deprivation of liberty.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also, something I just realized.  Constitutional amendments can be repealed, yes?  Because if this is the case, then technically we're not completely taking conscription off the table because amendments can be undone.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

His point was that their is a possibility that someday we won't be number 1 and may not even been in the top 10 and as such relying on the shock and awe of American military prowess may not suffice, as such may not even be in existance at that time.

And yet you claim it wouldn't be taken off the table?

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

His point was that their is a possibility that someday we won't be number 1 and may not even been in the top 10 and as such relying on the shock and awe of American military prowess may not suffice, as such may not even be in existance at that time.

And yet you claim it wouldn't be taken off the table?

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.

And how does my interpretation not mesh with the full context of what he was talking about?

Because, if all nations fall even if they are powerful, then there shouldn't be a reason to support conscription anyway- using his logic.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

Aren't you getting a bit ridiculous with this? It is inherently "possible" precisely because all powerfull nations do rise and fall.

No I am not, but you two definitely are and at this point we're just getting away from the issue at hand.  Sjo did not say it is possible that all nations rise and fall, he merely said that they do rise and fall.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take at least 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose.

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

Aren't you getting a bit ridiculous with this? It is inherently "possible" precisely because all powerfull nations do rise and fall.

No I am not, but you two definitely are and at this point we're just getting away from the issue at hand.  Sjo did not say it is possible that all nations rise and fall, he merely said that they do rise and fall.

I said that historically, nations do rise and fall, and the implication of that is that it is possible that the same can apply to Atlasia.

Well, then thank you for changing the context of your words.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

"You disagree with me and you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

Personal insults, now?  Really?

This whole conversation changed from a reasonable, philosophical debate about conscription to someone not being able to clarify what they were saying.

Keep taking my words out of context, though.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

"You disagree with me, thus you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

To make it an insult, you'd replace the "and" with a "thus", as shown above.

...

Yes, that is totally the part of his post I was talking about.

Take some reading classes, guys.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Okay, let's kill this thing.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay.

Also, this is a very poorly worded amendment.  The definition of the word "attack" can be stretched far beyond what is implied.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.  I don't think we'll be going anywhere with this.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.