SENATE BILL: Anti-Conscription Amendment (Failed)

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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).

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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 entirely possible that the same can apply to Atlasia.

[Donerail]

"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.

[Donerail]

"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.

Fine then. To make the whole thing into an insult for which redaction would not be necessary, you'd do such.

[Donerail]

Introducing this Amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The DoEA finds this much more acceptable than the original.

[Donerail]

Frankly, the requirement that citizens be forced against their will to risk their lives on behalf of their government is the most extreme form of oppression possible short of simply rounding them up and having them tortured or killed.  There is absolutely no significant force anywhere in the world desirous of having Atlasians rounded up and tortured and killed.  There is no country in the world even theoretically capable of invading Atlasia, and there is no country in the world that would want to or have anything to gain from initiating hostilities with Atlasia even if they were evenly matched.  Furthermore, if there were a country both hostile to and evenly matched with Atlasia, such a conflict would immediately go nuclear, rendering conventional forces pointless.  Drafts have no purpose other than misuse, as they always have in Atlasia beginning with their inception in the Civil War.*

It's permitting a truly extreme form of oppression almost unheard of in the broad scheme of human history for a possibility not only remote but in fact non-existent and with no possibility of ever coming to pass in this nuclear age.  It is the very definition of insanity to maintain this as government policy.

*Where the draft was used as a tool of quite literally killing off the opposition; enforced at four times the rate in Democratic New York City as in Republican Massachusetts, while wealthy people could purchase exemptions first for $300 and later by hiring someone else to take their place, and where desertion was punished by death, with at least 50,000 executed for that reason.

I'd appreciate you detailing a scenario in which the government finds it necessary to initiate conscription and gets 3/4 of the Senate to agree...

[Donerail]

What about territories that are not part of a region, such as the Atlasian Virgin Islands or Palmyra Atoll?

[Donerail]

What about territories that are not part of a region, such as the Atlasian Virgin Islands or Palmyra Atoll?

Their status needs to be changed, I find their existence undemocratic.

List of insular areas that are not states:

Palmyra Atoll (uninhabited, mostly owned by The Nature Conservancy)
Atlasian Virgin Islands (inhabited, status currently under Revised Organic Act of 1954)
Baker, Howland, Jarvis Islands (uninhabited)
Johnston Atoll (uninhabited)
Kingman Reef (uninhabited)
Midway Atoll (National Wildlife Refuge)
Navassa Island (uninhabited, disputed w/ Haiti)
Wake Island (inhabited, disputed w/Marshall Islands)
Serranilla & Bajo Nuevo Bank (uninhabited, disputed w/ Colombia)

Also: Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau are freely associated states and shall be eligible to join Oceania (part of the Pacific region) if they so choose.

Atlasia also has dormant claims on, under the Guano Islands Act:
Ducie Island (currently controlled by the Pitcairn Islands)
Fox Island (currently controlled by Canada)
Alto Velo Island (currently controlled by Dominican Republic)

So which of these do you want to alter, and in what manner (and I'd suggest doing so in a separate bill)?

[Donerail]

What about territories that are not part of a region, such as the Atlasian Virgin Islands or Palmyra Atoll?

Their status needs to be changed, I find their existence undemocratic.

List of insular areas that are not states:

Palmyra Atoll (uninhabited, mostly owned by The Nature Conservancy)
Atlasian Virgin Islands (inhabited, status currently under Revised Organic Act of 1954)
Baker, Howland, Jarvis Islands (uninhabited)
Johnston Atoll (uninhabited)
Kingman Reef (uninhabited)
Midway Atoll (National Wildlife Refuge)
Navassa Island (uninhabited, disputed w/ Haiti)
Wake Island (inhabited, disputed w/Marshall Islands)
Serranilla & Bajo Nuevo Bank (uninhabited, disputed w/ Colombia)

Also: Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau are freely associated states and shall be eligible to join Oceania (part of the Pacific region) if they so choose.

Atlasia also has dormant claims on, under the Guano Islands Act:
Ducie Island (currently controlled by the Pitcairn Islands)
Fox Island (currently controlled by Canada)
Alto Velo Island (currently controlled by Dominican Republic)

So which of these do you want to alter, and in what manner (and I'd suggest doing so in a separate bill)?

Let all of them have a referendum on whether they want statehood or independence(the uninhabited islands go to the nearest Atlasian inhabited island). I think this is a non-issue though, why would conscription be justifiable for a uninhabited island?

The issue arose based on your amendment, Senator.

[Donerail]

Why do we need to change the status of all these territories just to make the language work on an amendment? Why don't we just change the wording to include Atlasian territories and deal all the rest of this separately? None of this really needs to have to do with this bill. (Not that I agree we should forcibly change the status of our territories, but that's a separate issue)

Agreed; however, the Senator who introduced said amendment stated that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

What about territories that are not part of a region, such as the Atlasian Virgin Islands or Palmyra Atoll?

Their status needs to be changed, I find their existence undemocratic.

List of insular areas that are not states:

Palmyra Atoll (uninhabited, mostly owned by The Nature Conservancy)
Atlasian Virgin Islands (inhabited, status currently under Revised Organic Act of 1954)
Baker, Howland, Jarvis Islands (uninhabited)
Johnston Atoll (uninhabited)
Kingman Reef (uninhabited)
Midway Atoll (National Wildlife Refuge)
Navassa Island (uninhabited, disputed w/ Haiti)
Wake Island (inhabited, disputed w/Marshall Islands)
Serranilla & Bajo Nuevo Bank (uninhabited, disputed w/ Colombia)

Also: Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau are freely associated states and shall be eligible to join Oceania (part of the Pacific region) if they so choose.

Atlasia also has dormant claims on, under the Guano Islands Act:
Ducie Island (currently controlled by the Pitcairn Islands)
Fox Island (currently controlled by Canada)
Alto Velo Island (currently controlled by Dominican Republic)

So which of these do you want to alter, and in what manner (and I'd suggest doing so in a separate bill)?

Is that current with the Atlasian situation?  Whatever happened to Oceania?  Is that a state?  I feel like the Midwest claimed it at some point.

IIRC Oceania=Guam, North Marianas, and Atlasian Samoa. It's part of the Pacific.

[Donerail]

I would like to introduce an amendment of my own.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean IRL? Or here?

[Donerail]

Nay.

I am considering tossing Wormyguy's amendment on grounds that it is functionally impractical and thus frivolous. I will give him a chance to convince me otherwise or alter the text. There is also an objection period to that and I don't have a direct link to the OSPR saved on a handy notepad like I do on the T3302.

My amendment is not frivolous and addresses a genuine concern - that Senators unwilling to risk their own lives will vote to force others to risk theirs.  If there are currently no procedures for joining the Atlasian military or legislation defining what that implies, that's a failure of this body that needs to be corrected, not a flaw in the amendment.

The Senator has an excellent idea. Perhaps, as part of registration (a new, stickied thread would be nice for this), one would give a basic biography (a paragraph or two) about themselves? Major accomplishments, education, job history, current role (if applicable), etc. These would be kept updated, ideally.

[Donerail]

And how would you police it to ensure accuracy?

Well, it'd be part of registration, so I'd assume the Registrar General would do so?