Poll

If conscription was brought in, would you........

Join the army as requested and follow orders throuout32%32% - 50
Join the army but try to avoid a frontline role9%9% - 14
Only join if your country was actually being invaded21%21% - 33
Make a political statement like Ali did and take jail7%7% - 12
Go on the run and try to make it to Brazil3%3% - 6
Get angry and at being forced and join the other side2%2% - 4
Commit suicide0%0% - 1
Pay someone to impersonate you and take your position1%1% - 2
I am/was in the Army so duh!8%8% - 13
I am too old/young/disabled etc to qualify so screw you12%12% - 19
Total: 154
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7000|MA, USA

comet241 wrote:

.... however, changing gears a little, I think that it is a sort of unwritten, unsigned contract that you enter into whenever you are born into a country, ... in that while you may control the government (through elections and popular votes), the government controls you.

Basically, its like you need the government to do all these things for you (build roads, schools, general infrastructure.... blah blah blah), and the government needs you to pay the money for all of it. Neither can survive without the other. However, if you fail to do your part, the government can put you in jail, vice-versa, if the government fails to do its job, they can be voted out next election and smeared in history books forever.

... It is your duty, your end of the bargain, to join up as requested (or get drafted, conscripted, whatever have you), for whatever reason that may be. If you dont, you go to jail. Now, if you dont agree with the reason that you are being drafted, that's when the next election rolls around you vote those people out...... yeah, ive thought about "what if you die in combat before the next election"..... i have two things to say to that. first, hindsight is 20/20, should have known where they were headed, but maybe you couldn't have. also, that's when you object, take the jail sentence, and hope you still have the right to vote next time an election rolls around.

good question, but I say join up, because it is your duty, your end of the agreement with your government that you do so for the "good" of the country. if you object and want to stay out, that's your call, but it is technically breaking the law, so you will have to face the consequences, whatever they may be
While I admire your sense of patriotism, I'm going to have to completely disagree with your defense of conscription.  First of all, the idea of the social contract is fatally flawed:  There cannot be a contract one is 'born' into.  One must enter into a contract freely, willingly, and explicitly.  If a contract is imposed, then it is not a contract, but bare force - the contract is just a veneer of legitimacy to disguise an ugly fact: that the government is using force against its own citizens to reach its goals.

Let's make no mistakes here:  The state exists to serve its citizens.  That is its WHOLE reason for being.  The same is not true of the individual.  I certainly hope that, while one may have strong charitable urges, one has more to justify one's life than furtherance of the state.  I know of no state which has ever existed which is so pure that it deserves such dedication from its citizens.  In any case, given the state's raison d'etre, it is entirely unjustified for the state to demand that a citizen risk his life in service to the state, in exchange for services.  It is easy to say we 'owe' the state for the great things it has provided for us, but you will be amazed at how trivial those things appear when your life is hanging by a thread.  In the situation you suggest, the state risks nothing, and the citizen risks everything.  No state should have that right.

Edit: Pardon me for editing your post - but I only wanted to include the stuff to which my response was relevant.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-20 12:56:03)

kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6791|Southeastern USA
well I would probably already have volunteered Navy, since it would take some sort of cataclysmic event to necessitate the re-instatement of the draft and I would like to think I would be able to see it coming. That (volunteering before drafting) wasn't an option so I chose the first one. And what the hell is so soft about the Navy? the other services can't get anywhere (even the Air Force) without a carrier group plowing the path first, ooooOOOOOooooooo, I just had a thought, COAST GUARD, ridiculously high percentage of Guardies actually end up in some sort of weapons hot action (mostly thanks to drug interdiction tasks and anti-piracy enforcement), they even get to "ride the curl" with 5500 horsepower boats!!! check it!!

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=51868

oh you may need to sign up for a password

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-20 14:35:11)

Gawwad
My way or Haddaway!
+212|6927|Espoo, Finland
Conscription all the way!

How could a small country like Finland defend it's borders otherwise?
comet241
Member
+164|7007|Normal, IL
ok, first, it isn't patriotism that leads me to that conclusion, it is mere logic. I guess i dont know what to call it, but a contract was the word that I chose, maybe it was a poor one. However, i still disagree with your disagreement that there is no "social clause", a word i probably should have used instead. I just have to wonder if we are not born into it, then why on earth are there things such as taxes and conscription imposed on us for??? We HAVE to pay taxes and if we qualify for the draft we HAVE to submit to it.... i guess those are two of the biggest 'social clauses' that i feel we are born into, or i suppose if you become a citizen, you are "granted" those "rights" as well.

as far as the government that uses force to reach it's own goals.... well, i suppose that the goals of the government are the goals of the people. We elect people based on their goals for their tenure in office, which, through election, become our goals as well. if one of their goals is more schools or teachers, that money has to come from us, which means we have given them, indirectly, a reason for them to tax us, more or less depending on the goals. Now, i know somebody is going to say: well, we didn't vote for him/her!!! ok, well, again, thats the whole point of an election and a democracy. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and those needs are determined simply through an election and the goals of the elected official.

if the "contract" is just a veneer of legitimacy, as you say, then why has this "veneer" persisted throughout the entire lifetime of this country??? you don't think that the majority of people, if they did indeed disagree with this, wouldn't have changed it by now? The first guy to instate a draft, lincoln, got re-elected after doing so, and i feel this legitimizes the whole conscription as part of our "social clause" issue.

i aggree that the government is here to serve the people, 100% aggree with that. However, the government cannot exist in the symbiotic relationship without us serving the government as well. Every day we pay taxes to the government, and every day we benefit from the infrastructure that our government has put in place. And occasionally, we need our government to protect us from others, and our government needs us to help do that, hence the draft.

as i said in my previous post as well, that you are entitled to disagree with the government on these issues. However, i think as further proof that there is a social clause out there, by not holding up our end of the bargain, disagreeing with them, you pay the price, usually jail. Also, as an American citizen, you are entitled to leave this country and never ever come back, unless you are a wanted criminal or certain other restrictions.... this is better than some countries out there (N. Korea, Cuba, China, many others...) You can do that if you dont want to have to pay taxes or submit to a draft, it's that easy. However, upon entering other territories, you may have to abide by their "social clauses", but each is a little different.

If you really feel that there is no "social clause" out there, i would love to hear more evidence or proof of it. Im open to discussion and i occasionally change my mind from time to time, but I feel that whether we want to or not, there are social clauses we are born into that we cannot escape with leaving the land or facing punishment, the price we pay for the system we created..... a fair tradeoff in my opinion.
BVC
Member
+325|6937
I don't see anything wrong with conscription.  The relationship between a citizen and their country is symbiotic; your country looks after you in times of peace and you look after your country in times of war.  If you don't like it, move to Switzerland.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I'm sure that if "conscription was brought in," many people would quickly volunteer for "softer servies," like air or navy.
I don't know what US Navy training is like, but over here the navy train'em just as hard as the army!
rolluf69
Member
+7|6763
i was a conscript in my time(1988) as it was normal in holland in that time.
later on i became proffesional and when you do that it's your own choice,but being a conscript only works defending your home ground if you ask me?
Snipedya14
Dont tread on me
+77|6937|Mountains of West Virginia
I would not fight in a war I did not believe in. But I also would not be a coward and run away. Id take my other option and sit in jail.

Now, if the war was a defensive one, that'd be a different story, frontlines please.
rolluf69
Member
+7|6763
and switzerland has consrciption to!!!!!!!!!!!!
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6956|US
Conscription is a bad idea IMO.  I would not want anyone but a committed professional next to me in the foxhole. 

The only time I agree with conscription is during times of war, when the volunteer military is simply not enough.  (WWII for example.)

If called, I would go.  I am joining the USAF anyway, so I guess that is a moot point for me.
eMarine
Gorgonnash PVP
+119|7086|Sacramento, Cal
Join the army but try to avoid a frontline role....  And if you have to give me -1 for this post be a man and post your name to.

eMarine~

Last edited by eMarine (2006-06-20 18:06:21)

ATG
Banned
+5,233|6771|Global Command

eMarine wrote:

Join the army but try to avoid a frontline role....  And if you have to give me -1 for this post be a man and post your name to.

eMarine~
Of all the people to say that, I'm most surprised it's you.
CruZ4dR
Cereal Killer
+145|6898|The View From The Afternoon
I take orders from nobody
eMarine
Gorgonnash PVP
+119|7086|Sacramento, Cal

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

eMarine wrote:

Join the army but try to avoid a frontline role....  And if you have to give me -1 for this post be a man and post your name to.

eMarine~
Of all the people to say that, I'm most surprised it's you.
why do you say that?
SpectreGunship
Member
+5|6810
Hmm, well I'm already signed up for the Marine Corps, ship out on July 10th, so I pick the already in option.
Wheelchairdude
Leader of Cripples!
+8|6769|Rochester Minnesoata
I have briddle bone's and I'm in I wheelchair. If I so much as sneeze I end up breaking something so I don't think I am the kind of guy for th army .

Wheelie
JOJOBA
my penis itches
+18|6775|Columbus, OH
if our country was being invaded, i would just sit at a window on the second floor of my house and cap the invaders asses.  and im not kidding, i can really shoot.  i shoot an AR-15 in NATIONAL target competitons at 200, 300 and 600 yards.  i do it very well.  ive also shot a target at 1000 yards, over half a mile, i know my sights
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6803
If conscription was introduced: Go to jail
If my country was under direct attack: Volunteer
If my country was under direct attack and conscription was introduced: Go to jail

I won't fight for anyone who won't give me the freedom not to.  Why should I put my life on the line for a government which can force friends and family to risk their lives.

My grandmother actually helped shelter a draft-dodger during Vietnam, even though she didn't know it.  My uncle told her it was just a friend of his who need a place to sleep.  He was eventually caught when he went to a demonstration and federal police dragged him of campus and handed him to state police.  When my grandmother found out, she was angry that my uncle hadn't told her because she wouldn't have let him leave the house if she'd known that's what was happening .
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7000|MA, USA

comet241 wrote:

OK, first, it isn't patriotism that leads me to that conclusion, it is mere logic. I guess i don't know what to call it, but a contract was the word that I chose, maybe it was a poor one. However, i still disagree with your disagreement that there is no "social clause", a word i probably should have used instead. I just have to wonder if we are not born into it, then why on earth are there things such as taxes and conscription imposed on us for??? We HAVE to pay taxes and if we qualify for the draft we HAVE to submit to it.... i guess those are two of the biggest 'social clauses' that i feel we are born into, or i suppose if you become a citizen, you are "granted" those "rights" as well.
You have been taught to believe that it is ok for the government to conscript you under the threat of force, and you have been taught to believe that it is ok for the government to  take your money (taxes) under the threat of force.  Simply put, this is tyranny of the majority.  You wouldn't stand for such a behavior from an individual; but for some strange reason, people accept it from a group of people which grants itself the exclusive right to use force against others in the pursuit of its goals.  There is no valid philosophical principal which allows the government (which, in the case of the US, is merely an entity which represents the views of the majority; and in many other countries, doesn't even represent a majority) to initiate force against citizens which have not used it themselves.  That is not to say the government can't ask for your assistance, or even that you should not give it.  The wrong is in COMPELLING you to comply with body or treasure.

The fact that you HAVE to do anything, when you are causing no harm to anyone, should set off warning bells in your head that you are being abused by your government.

comet241 wrote:

as far as the government that uses force to reach it's own goals.... well, i suppose that the goals of the government are the goals of the people. We elect people based on their goals for their tenure in office, which, through election, become our goals as well. if one of their goals is more schools or teachers, that money has to come from us, which means we have given them, indirectly, a reason for them to tax us, more or less depending on the goals. Now, i know somebody is going to say: well, we didn't vote for him/her!!! ok, well, again, thats the whole point of an election and a democracy. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and those needs are determined simply through an election and the goals of the elected official.
The government is representative of SOME people, and does what those people believe is right.  Unfortunately, it can never do what is right for everyone.   We have, therefore, rationalised the use of force, and have been taught that if a majority believes something is right, it is ok to compel the minority to participate.  This is your, "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."  This is the war cry of the majority against the minority - aka, Tyranny of the majority.  That may be fine for Mr. Spock, but I do not accept it.   A harmless minority may not be infringed upon by a majority acting in a moral manner.  It happens, but it is wholly immoral and wrong.

comet241 wrote:

if the "contract" is just a veneer of legitimacy, as you say, then why has this "veneer" persisted throughout the entire lifetime of this country??? you don't think that the majority of people, if they did indeed disagree with this, wouldn't have changed it by now? The first guy to instate a draft, lincoln, got re-elected after doing so, and i feel this legitimizes the whole conscription as part of our "social clause" issue.
It has persisted because the majority wishes it to do so, and any minority which resists is forcibly punished.  For example:  If one does not believe in conscription, one fails to register for the draft and is arrested.  That person has caused harm to NOBODY, yet he is forcibly punished for failing to comply with the will of the majority.  Obviously the majority will not change it, because the majority is accruing benefit from it.  Saying that an election by the majority legitimizes tyranny of the majority is akin to saying that silence on the part of the victim legitimizes murder.

comet241 wrote:

i aggree that the government is here to serve the people, 100% aggree with that. However, the government cannot exist in the symbiotic relationship without us serving the government as well. Every day we pay taxes to the government, and every day we benefit from the infrastructure that our government has put in place. And occasionally, we need our government to protect us from others, and our government needs us to help do that, hence the draft.
If a majority believes in a principle, that majority can proceed to implement it without forcibly compelling a minority which disagrees.  In the case of military service, this would be exemplified by a VOLUNTEER force, like the one I volunteered to join.  It is a simple concept: Given a majority which believes we should have an army, and a minority which disagrees; the Army is implemented and the majority is forced to 'put up or shut up' and JOIN THE ARMY THEY VOTED FOR VOLUNTARILY.  The rights of the minority are preserved, and they are not required to join.  If volunteers for the army fail to materialize, this only shows that the majority was not as dedicated to it as was originally believed.  If conscription is imposed on a minority when the majority which voted for the Army fails to support it, that is simply slavery; if the majority does support the army by volunteering, then conscription is unnecessary.  Either way, the use of compulsory force is patently wrong, and probably unnecessary.  This simple idea applies to any form of compulsion inflicted on citizens by the government.

comet241 wrote:

as i said in my previous post as well, that you are entitled to disagree with the government on these issues. However, i think as further proof that there is a social clause out there, by not holding up our end of the bargain, disagreeing with them, you pay the price, usually jail.
So, we have the freedom to disagree, as long as we do the bidding of the government in the end?  This does not strike me as being particularly free.  Do you really not see the irony in what you are saying?  In my view, if one is jailed for dissenting, one does not have the right to dissent.  Please tell me if you see it otherwise.

comet241 wrote:

Also, as an American citizen, you are entitled to leave this country and never ever come back, unless you are a wanted criminal or certain other restrictions.... this is better than some countries out there (N. Korea, Cuba, China, many others...) You can do that if you don't want to have to pay taxes or submit to a draft, it's that easy. However, upon entering other territories, you may have to abide by their "social clauses", but each is a little different.
So, in your opinion, it is ok for the government to do something wrong, because there are other governments out there which are wrong more often?  The fact that one may leave does not excuse immoral action.  This argument is philosophically untenable.

comet241 wrote:

If you really feel that there is no "social clause" out there, i would love to hear more evidence or proof of it.
Here's the thing:  Your argument is one of obligation and compulsion.  Mine is one of freedom and respect for the rights of the individuals.  Behavior which does not infringe upon others requires no justification.  Behaviour which does infringe upon others requires iron clad justification, or it is immoral.  It is your position which requires justification ("evidence" as you put it), not mine.

comet241 wrote:

Im open to discussion and i occasionally change my mind from time to time, but I feel that whether we want to or not, there are social clauses we are born into that we cannot escape with leaving the land or facing punishment, the price we pay for the system we created..... a fair tradeoff in my opinion.
That is your opinion, and I do not share it.  Opinion is not a valid basis for implementing a system of forcible compulsion.
rh27
Not really a Brit
+51|6838|England

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

eMarine wrote:

Join the army but try to avoid a frontline role....  And if you have to give me -1 for this post be a man and post your name to.

eMarine~
Of all the people to say that, I'm most surprised it's you.
I'd actually think most people who have been in a frontline situation before, would choose a softer option. Unless you really believed quite strongly for the cause, you wouldn't want to throw yourself in that kind of extreme. (Not that many non-frontline jobs aren't dangerous)
comet241
Member
+164|7007|Normal, IL
ok, in the interest of saving space im not going to directly quote you. first of all, good point on the fact that while we are free to disagree, we could be jailed for doing so, it does sound hypocritical. That's the one that really made me laugh, after seeing the way you put it. However, I see that this discussion is moving away from it's original intent. I wasn't particularly arguing for or against a draft at all, I was merely providing evidence that it is a social clause. The area I think you are headed is that it is wrong, social clause or not.

I did note that this time around you didn't make any claims that it wasn't a social clause, which was my original intent. What you did say that the "clause" has persisted because of "the tyranny of the majority" So, maybe we need to start a whole new thread debating whether or not the draft should take place, or if conscription is right. From what I gathered, you seem to disagree with the government on a lot of things, if i can extrapolate your feelings on right and wrong from this argument to others, correct me if im wrong, i hold nothing against you for it, there is a lot of things that they do that upset everyone, including me.

Which is why I will keep this short and sweet, although lacking in the latter rather than the former. Basically, my whole argument was that there are certain social clauses that we are born into, right or wrong, and conscription is one of them. A better debate may be whether it in itself is right or wrong, that would be an interesting read. I look forward to a new thread about that one.
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7000|MA, USA

comet241 wrote:

ok, in the interest of saving space im not going to directly quote you. first of all, good point on the fact that while we are free to disagree, we could be jailed for doing so, it does sound hypocritical. That's the one that really made me laugh, after seeing the way you put it. However, I see that this discussion is moving away from it's original intent. I wasn't particularly arguing for or against a draft at all, I was merely providing evidence that it is a social clause. The area I think you are headed is that it is wrong, social clause or not.
Thank you.  You are correct, I believe conscription is wrong in any case, but I also believe that the 'social contract' (to use the standard term for the concept you describe) is a fabrication to justify tyranny of the majority.  As you might guess, I believe that too is wrong.

comet241 wrote:

I did note that this time around you didn't make any claims that it wasn't a social clause, which was my original intent. What you did say that the "clause" has persisted because of "the tyranny of the majority" So, maybe we need to start a whole new thread debating whether or not the draft should take place, or if conscription is right. From what I gathered, you seem to disagree with the government on a lot of things, if i can extrapolate your feelings on right and wrong from this argument to others, correct me if im wrong, i hold nothing against you for it, there is a lot of things that they do that upset everyone, including me.
I stated earlier that the social contract was not valid, so I didn't see the need to say it again; I have not changed my view of it.  You might be right on the need for a new thread, but perhaps the subject should be 'the social contract: does it exist?'  This thread is probably more appropriate for the discussion of the rectitude of conscription (which I also continue to oppose).

You are correct in assuming that I find fault with a great deal of what government does.  My personal morals and politics tend toward libertarian (I am a recovering Republican - fortunately no signs of a relapse are evident).  I believe that the initial use of force is always wrong; and that government is not justified in excepting itself from this rule.  This is the basis for my opposition to conscription, among other things.

comet241 wrote:

Which is why I will keep this short and sweet, although lacking in the latter rather than the former. Basically, my whole argument was that there are certain social clauses that we are born into, right or wrong, and conscription is one of them. A better debate may be whether it in itself is right or wrong, that would be an interesting read. I look forward to a new thread about that one.
As I noted before, I do not believe in the rectitude of any contract which is not entered into voluntarily and explicitly.  A contract which is imposed upon one at birth, is not a voluntary or moral arrangement.  Again, as I said before, the social contract is a fiction used to justify the use of force by the government, by claiming that citizens are obligated to compensate for that which government provides them.  That some citizens may wish to make other arrangements is never considered - one may not opt out of the social contract, and decline the 'benefits' of government.  The lack of freedom to decide whether one will or will not  take part in the social contract is what makes it wrong.
comet241
Member
+164|7007|Normal, IL
ok, im understanding a little better, especially after declaring yourself a libertarian, I am familiar with their beliefs and that helps in understanding where you are coming from. One thing I am uncertain of is that you dont really contradict yourself, but you say several things which can be inferred differently. At first you said:  "'social contract' ... is a fabrication to justify tyranny of the majority", which I come to the conclusion as meaning it exists, but is a hollow promise created for the benefit of the government.....

then you say: " stated earlier that the social contract was not valid, so I didn't see the need to say it again" , which I come to mean as there is no social contract at all. then you say (sorry again for not using the quotes, i guess i really dont like using them, but i probably should) "the social contract is a fiction used to justify the use of force by the government, by claiming that citizens are obligated to compensate for that which government provides them".... which I come to the same conclusion as before, that it is there, but again is a hollow promise.

So I guess my argument would be that perception is reality. If the people percieve there to be a social clause in place, one where we pay taxes and ok the use of conscription in exchange for services, then the perception becomes a reality, whether it truly exists or not. This is what I am trying to get at. Whether there is truly a social clause or not, the people of this great country percieve there to be one, and hence, through false (in your words) pretenses, it becomes the truth.

Most people grumble about having to pay taxes, and since there hasn't been a draft in over 30 years I cant comment too much on that one, but the vast majority of people accept it without many problems. So I feel that whether there is truly a social clause or not to begin with, we as a people have not only allowed our government, but encouraged it through popular voting to continue this "fascade" of a social clause, which in my humble opinion, makes it a reality, although some would conclude it is fiction. But fiction can be real to many. false perceptions fuel the world. A perfect example would be the movie "the matrix". the humans are like conscripts, forced to be fuel for the robots. Ok, not so perfect, but it can be correlated over somewhat to what we are talking about. whether it's right or wrong, it's a "contract" everybody is born into..... and that's where a different fight erupts, over whether it is right or wrong..... the matrix like our current world???? were the wachowski brothers trying to tell us something....? (ominous music plays)
TK_Dumpy
Member
+26|6763
It's a hard question to answer but in my mind I look at it like this.  If my country needs me I will go.  I don't have to agree with what they are doing.  Part of our being citizens in this country is to join when we are needed.  Thus the form every American male must sign when we turn 18 years old.  It is not only our duty to our country it is the law of our country.  I know that my idea on this might not be the popular one but its what I think.
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7000|MA, USA

comet241 wrote:

ok, im understanding a little better, especially after declaring yourself a libertarian, I am familiar with their beliefs and that helps in understanding where you are coming from. One thing I am uncertain of is that you dont really contradict yourself, but you say several things which can be inferred differently. At first you said:  "'social contract' ... is a fabrication to justify tyranny of the majority", which I come to the conclusion as meaning it exists, but is a hollow promise created for the benefit of the government.....

then you say: " stated earlier that the social contract was not valid, so I didn't see the need to say it again" , which I come to mean as there is no social contract at all. then you say (sorry again for not using the quotes, i guess i really dont like using them, but i probably should) "the social contract is a fiction used to justify the use of force by the government, by claiming that citizens are obligated to compensate for that which government provides them".... which I come to the same conclusion as before, that it is there, but again is a hollow promise.
I have to make this quick, because I'm off home in a minute (I'll pick it up again tomorrow if this is inadequate).  The 'social contract' as claimed by those who believe in it, is inherent in the system.  I.e. because the government provides you with benefits, certain obligations are required of you in return.  Certain government policies exist which implicitly require the existance of the social contract (and you have already identified some); taxes, conscription etc.  Without the existence of the social contract, these policies are indefensible, so the policies inherently imply the existence of the social contract.

When I claim the social contract does not exist, it is because I do not believe it does....it is, as I said, a fabrication to justify policies which rely upon the use of force.  When I refer to the social contract as an existing entity, I am, of course, referring to the assumption that it does exist implicit in policies which rely upon compulsion.  That is, I am referring to the fact that our government acts as if it exists, even though it does not.

comet241 wrote:

So I guess my argument would be that perception is reality. If the people percieve there to be a social clause in place, one where we pay taxes and ok the use of conscription in exchange for services, then the perception becomes a reality, whether it truly exists or not. This is what I am trying to get at. Whether there is truly a social clause or not, the people of this great country percieve there to be one, and hence, through false (in your words) pretenses, it becomes the truth.
If I do not wish to participate in the perception of one who wishes an active state, I am thrown into jail for my cheek.  Those concrete walls are not a matter of debate or perception, unless one is clinically insane.  If many people perceive something to be there (i.e. the social contract) but cannot convince me of its existence, they have no right to punish me for denying it.  They can only, with moral right, implement it among themselves voluntarily; they cannot, with moral right, implement it among those who believe it is nonsense.

comet241 wrote:

Most people grumble about having to pay taxes, and since there hasn't been a draft in over 30 years I cant comment too much on that one, but the vast majority of people accept it without many problems. So I feel that whether there is truly a social clause or not to begin with, we as a people have not only allowed our government, but encouraged it through popular voting to continue this "fascade" of a social clause, which in my humble opinion, makes it a reality, although some would conclude it is fiction.
I want to reply, but I have a train to catch...more tomorrow.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-22 06:41:12)

whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7000|MA, USA
Back at work. This is in response to the final quote in my last post:

I'm happy to admit that I grumble about paying taxes, but I am under no illusions regarding the costs of services.  I believe that many of the 'services' provided by government are unnecessary, and those that are necessary could be paid for by user fees.  The easiest example is roads.  Want to drive on a road?  Pay a toll.  This is simple and straightforward, and if it were accompanied by a decrease in taxes equal to the cost of roads, it would not even be a burden.  It has the added benefit of ensuring that roads are paid for by those who use them:  If you never drive, you never pay.  The key to making this work (which almost never happens now) is requiring the state to use the money collected in tolls on the roads.  In MA, they collect more in tolls than is required to pay for the roads (not counting the big dig), and pretty much spend it however they wish.  That cannot be allowed in a system where services are paid for by user fees, as those fees must be dedicated to the service in question.  If the fees do not meet the need there are two options; raise fees if the service is essential, or discontinue it if it is not.

As far as encouraging the government to assume the existence of the social contract through our votes goes: As I said before, this is tyranny of the majority.  Not everyone has voted as you say.  Perhaps the majority has, but that does not entitle them to force the minority who disagrees to comply. 

Let me present you with a hypothetical situation:  Let us say you and I, and a friend of mine are discussing finances, and determine that you have more than either my friend or me combined.  My friend and I decide that you should take 2/3 of the difference and give it to us.  You, of course, say no.  We say, 'We will rake your yard (or perform some other service - it doesn't matter what) for it.'  You say, 'I'm not interested.'  We say, 'let's have a vote.'  We have a vote - you vote no, we vote yes.  You say, 'I don't care, I still don't want to give it to you.'  We say, if you don't, he will hold you down while I take the money anyway.  In the end, you comply, since you have no choice, and allow us to perform the service in exchange for the money.  Clearly this is not something you would stand for, but philosophically speaking, it is no different from what happens with the 'social contract', and what we tolerate from the government every day.  Why is government different from any other collection of people?  The obvious answer is that government is an 'official' entity for doing the things it does.  But why is it 'official'?  Because it says it is.  Very tenuous, and in the final analysis, completely arbitrary.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard