What Constitutes a "Right?"

[rubberhead]

So slavery isn't defined as being forced to do something against your will?

No. Your would-be definition is not an actual definition.

Slaves were property :: Those conscripted, as in the draft, are not property.

Slaves got no vote as to the existence of slavery :: Conscripts do get such a say in our representative Republic.

Conscription implies government ownership of the people they conscript. Otherwise how could they send them? If I owned my own person I would be free to refuse to be conscripted with no consequences, but that's not the case. Yes, conscripts get a chance to vote, but that doesn't change anything. The rights of the minority must still be protected, and conscription violates those rights.

I'm not sure this is true. It implies the peoples' duty to defend the security of the country. But the conscripts are not being used in the sense that an object would be used. Since the conscripts are paid, there is some consideration that they are personally generating value. This is more in line with the definition of indentured servitude. That is, they are given some share of the value that they generate, but are not allowed to freely negotiate exactly what that share is (i.e. they cannot opt-out if they believe the contract is unfair). Then, when their service is no longer required, or after some predetermined term of service the conscripts are freed from their duty. Slaves don't get paid, because they are the property of their owners and have no such expectation of being freed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So how does one justify conscription, i.e., forcing a citizen to fight and die for his country,

if 'life' is a natural right?

It can't be justified. Conscription is slavery.

Could we have won WWII without the draft?

Should there be a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit a future resumption of the draft?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. Your would-be definition is not an actual definition.

Slaves were property :: Those conscripted, as in the draft, are not property.

Slaves got no vote as to the existence of slavery :: Conscripts do get such a say in our representative Republic.

Conscription implies government ownership of the people they conscript. Otherwise how could they send them? If I owned my own person I would be free to refuse to be conscripted with no consequences, but that's not the case. Yes, conscripts get a chance to vote, but that doesn't change anything. The rights of the minority must still be protected, and conscription violates those rights.

I'm not sure this is true. It implies the peoples' duty to defend the security of the country. But the conscripts are not being used in the sense that an object would be used. Since the conscripts are paid, there is some consideration that they are personally generating value. This is more in line with the definition of indentured servitude. That is, they are given some share of the value that they generate, but are not allowed to freely negotiate exactly what that share is (i.e. they cannot opt-out if they believe the contract is unfair). Then, when their service is no longer required, or after some predetermined term of service the conscripts are freed from their duty. Slaves don't get paid, because they are the property of their owners and have no such expectation of being freed.

The slaves were given food and in some cases were allowed their own special plots of land to grow food. However, if you are forced to do something, even if you're paid, without being able to quit then you are nothing more than a slave.

 

[rubberhead]

Conscription implies government ownership of the people they conscript. Otherwise how could they send them? If I owned my own person I would be free to refuse to be conscripted with no consequences, but that's not the case. Yes, conscripts get a chance to vote, but that doesn't change anything. The rights of the minority must still be protected, and conscription violates those rights.

not if Draft is Viewed by Government within It's Power. Check into The Articles of Confederation, or The Magna Carta. Our Militias Drafted, We drafted to fight for Independence.

Slavery was constitutional as well.

This is not readily supportable. There is the infamous 3/5 of all "other persons" clause, but slavery is not actually mentioned directly in the constitution and in fact many of the founders were against it. The only reason it was allowed at first was that many states would have revolted and jeopardized the Union. It was seen as a necessary evil to keep the dream alive. If you read the constitution as it was originally signed, then you'll notice that the only mention of slaves is the oblique reference mentioned above and, in fact the institution of slavery is actually contradicts the original constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So how does one justify conscription, i.e., forcing a citizen to fight and die for his country,

if 'life' is a natural right?

It can't be justified. Conscription is slavery.

Could we have won WWII without the draft?

Should there be a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit a future resumption of the draft?

I think there should be an amendment to explicitly prohibit the draft.

If we couldn't have won without the draft that should tell you something about the war. Namely that if people weren't willing to fight in it willingly then it might not have been worth fighting.

 

[rubberhead]

Conscription implies government ownership of the people they conscript. Otherwise how could they send them? If I owned my own person I would be free to refuse to be conscripted with no consequences, but that's not the case. Yes, conscripts get a chance to vote, but that doesn't change anything. The rights of the minority must still be protected, and conscription violates those rights.

I'm not sure this is true. It implies the peoples' duty to defend the security of the country. But the conscripts are not being used in the sense that an object would be used. Since the conscripts are paid, there is some consideration that they are personally generating value. This is more in line with the definition of indentured servitude. That is, they are given some share of the value that they generate, but are not allowed to freely negotiate exactly what that share is (i.e. they cannot opt-out if they believe the contract is unfair). Then, when their service is no longer required, or after some predetermined term of service the conscripts are freed from their duty. Slaves don't get paid, because they are the property of their owners and have no such expectation of being freed.

The slaves were given food and in some cases were allowed their own special plots of land to grow food. However, if you are forced to do something, even if you're paid, without being able to quit then you are nothing more than a slave.

Not true. The slave owners who gave their slaves land or paid them or even gave them food were under no obligation to do so. Conscripts who are given no expectation of compensation are slaves, but conscripts in the US are compensated, so they are not considered property. There is a difference between slavery and indentured servitude, no matter how you slice it. A slave's term of service is never guaranteed to end, because they are considered material property of the owner. An conscript (an indentured servant) is under obligation only until their definite term of service ends. Do I think that either is justifiable? No. But I will not be convinced that they are the same thing, so don't waste your time unless you have some new information that conscripts are forced to work for no compensation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

not if Draft is Viewed by Government within It's Power. Check into The Articles of Confederation, or The Magna Carta. Our Militias Drafted, We drafted to fight for Independence.

Slavery was constitutional as well.

This is not readily supportable. There is the infamous 3/5 of all "other persons" clause, but slavery is not actually mentioned directly in the constitution and in fact many of the founders were against it. The only reason it was allowed at first was that many states would have revolted and jeopardized the Union. It was seen as a necessary evil to keep the dream alive. If you read the constitution as it was originally signed, then you'll notice that the only mention of slaves is the oblique reference mentioned above and, in fact the institution of slavery is actually contradicts the original constitution.

That's not the only reference to slavery. The Constitution allowed the importation of slaves until 1808, and said "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Obviously the Constitution sanctioned slavery.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not sure this is true. It implies the peoples' duty to defend the security of the country. But the conscripts are not being used in the sense that an object would be used. Since the conscripts are paid, there is some consideration that they are personally generating value. This is more in line with the definition of indentured servitude. That is, they are given some share of the value that they generate, but are not allowed to freely negotiate exactly what that share is (i.e. they cannot opt-out if they believe the contract is unfair). Then, when their service is no longer required, or after some predetermined term of service the conscripts are freed from their duty. Slaves don't get paid, because they are the property of their owners and have no such expectation of being freed.

The slaves were given food and in some cases were allowed their own special plots of land to grow food. However, if you are forced to do something, even if you're paid, without being able to quit then you are nothing more than a slave.

Not true. The slave owners who gave their slaves land or paid them or even gave them food were under no obligation to do so. Conscripts who are given no expectation of compensation are slaves, but conscripts in the US are compensated, so they are not considered property. There is a difference between slavery and indentured servitude, no matter how you slice it. A slave's term of service is never guaranteed to end, because they are considered material property of the owner. An conscript (an indentured servant) is under obligation only until their definite term of service ends. Do I think that either is justifiable? No. But I will not be convinced that they are the same thing, so don't waste your time unless you have some new information that conscripts are forced to work for no compensation.

Compensation makes no difference. If I'm forced to work for some compensation without having the right to refuse then I'm nothing more than a slave.

 

[rubberhead]

If we couldn't have won without the draft that should tell you something about the war. Namely that if people weren't willing to fight in it willingly then it might not have been worth fighting.

This is right on. If people feel threatened, they will be happy to fight and will not need the force of law to persuade them.

 

[rubberhead]

Compensation makes no difference. If I'm forced to work for some compensation without having the right to refuse then I'm nothing more than a slave.

This is a semantic argument and you are incorrect. Worse, you offer no support and thus leave no room for argument. I shouldn't even try because you obviously don't care, but I'm here for a discussion so here's the support for my side of the argument:

slave
  
–noun
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

If you are entitled to anything under forced labor, then you are not wholly subject to another because you were given certain guarantees from the outset. A slave, who is viewed as material property is given no such guarantees and further would have no recourse if the guarantees were not honored.

Here's what wiki has to say about indentured servants:

An indentured servant is a laborer under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, drink, clothing, lodging and other necessities. Unlike a slave, an indentured servant is required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.

Do you have an argument to make or are you just going to make more unsupported assertions?

 

[Liability]

So slavery isn't defined as being forced to do something against your will?

No. Your would-be definition is not an actual definition.

Slaves were property :: Those conscripted, as in the draft, are not property.

Slaves got no vote as to the existence of slavery :: Conscripts do get such a say in our representative Republic.

Conscription implies government ownership of the people they conscript.

No. It does not.

Otherwise how could they send them?

Compulsion. Not all compulsion entails slavery, however.

If I owned my own person I would be free to refuse to be conscripted with no consequences, but that's not the case.

Your premise is faulty. You DO own your own person, but that does not negate the authority of a Republic to pass laws imposing such duties on you.

Yes, conscripts get a chance to vote, but that doesn't change anything.

It changes everything.

The rights of the minority must still be protected, and conscription violates those rights.

That's just a random collection of words. We live in a Republic. Everyone's rights are protected the same. If conscription allowed only for "minorities" to be conscripted into service, which it doesn't, you'd be closeer to making a point. As things have been, however, when there is a draft, it is not just minorities who get drafted.

 

[rubberhead]

13th amendment to the constitution:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Why do you think they said "slavery nor involuntary servitude?" Wouldn't they just say "slavery" if you were correct and you could just blanket all involuntary servitude under the term "slavery?" Not that my argument needs more support, but I think the idea that any forced servitude is equivalent to slavery has been more than sufficiently invalidated.

Oh yeah, and the 13th amendment technically outlaws conscription by my interpretation of it. I don't know if anyone has taken this into consideration yet, but I think it ought to be examined.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, this is true. Which is why freedom cannot be absolute for all and still be natural.

Nonsense.

Freedom is absolute, unless the individual agree to waive his right.


.

I don't think it is. What you might call "absolute freedom" in a social context is licence. It doesn't work in a social context.

In a natural state, that is without a social context, freedom isn't absolute either. Humans are limited by our physicality and circumstances.

So absolute freedom probably doesn't exist.

As for natural rights. I'm with Bentham - "nonsense upon stilts."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Compensation makes no difference. If I'm forced to work for some compensation without having the right to refuse then I'm nothing more than a slave.

This is a semantic argument and you are incorrect. Worse, you offer no support and thus leave no room for argument. I shouldn't even try because you obviously don't care, but I'm here for a discussion so here's the support for my side of the argument:

slave
  
–noun
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

If you are entitled to anything under forced labor, then you are not wholly subject to another because you were given certain guarantees from the outset. A slave, who is viewed as material property is given no such guarantees and further would have no recourse if the guarantees were not honored.

Here's what wiki has to say about indentured servants:

An indentured servant is a laborer under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, drink, clothing, lodging and other necessities. Unlike a slave, an indentured servant is required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.

Do you have an argument to make or are you just going to make more unsupported assertions?

How are you not the property of the government if they can force you to go fight and die for them?

 

[rubberhead]

Yes, this is true. Which is why freedom cannot be absolute for all and still be natural.

Nonsense.

Freedom is absolute, unless the individual agree to waive his right.


.

I don't think it is. What you might call "absolute freedom" in a social context is licence. It doesn't work in a social context.

In a natural state, that is without a social context, freedom isn't absolute either. Humans are limited by our physicality and circumstances.

So absolute freedom probably doesn't exist.

As for natural rights. I'm with Bentham - "nonsense upon stilts."

I think that our freedom is limited by more than just our physical capabilities, even in a natural state. I should say, our defensible freedom is limited as such. But this kind of freedom is where our natural rights come from and that's why I argue it is the natural freedom that we are afforded as human beings.

Let me offer an illustration. Even in the state of nature, if you go around violating others' rights then they eventually form into groups to protect themselves and make sure that you can't do that anymore. This naturally leads to a situation where everyone has an equal amount of liberty and thus no one can deprive any other of any portion of their liberty. Eventually you have groups of people violating other groups of people, but you could see that scenario as a larger scale version of the case of individuals. No matter what there is always a ceiling of anarchy on top of the highest stratum of government. That anarchic layer is where one can be absolutely free. We humans have not lived in that layer since before tribal times and before people began cooperating and communicating, even in the most rudimentary sense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. Your would-be definition is not an actual definition.

Slaves were property :: Those conscripted, as in the draft, are not property.

Slaves got no vote as to the existence of slavery :: Conscripts do get such a say in our representative Republic.

Conscription implies government ownership of the people they conscript.

No. It does not.



Compulsion. Not all compulsion entails slavery, however.



Your premise is faulty. You DO own your own person, but that does not negate the authority of a Republic to pass laws imposing such duties on you.

Yes, conscripts get a chance to vote, but that doesn't change anything.

It changes everything.

The rights of the minority must still be protected, and conscription violates those rights.

That's just a random collection of words. We live in a Republic. Everyone's rights are protected the same. If conscription allowed only for "minorities" to be conscripted into service, which it doesn't, you'd be closeer to making a point. As things have been, however, when there is a draft, it is not just minorities who get drafted.

Yes, it does. If I owned my own body I'd be free to refuse to serve.

Compulsion? Compulsion means to compel, so since you say words have meaning lets look at the definition.

1. to force or drive, esp. to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2. to secure or bring about by force.
3. to force to submit; subdue.
4. to overpower.

Compel Definition | Definition of Compel at Dictionary.com

If you force me to do something against my will I'm not free.

 

[Diuretic]

Nonsense.

Freedom is absolute, unless the individual agree to waive his right.


.

I don't think it is. What you might call "absolute freedom" in a social context is licence. It doesn't work in a social context.

In a natural state, that is without a social context, freedom isn't absolute either. Humans are limited by our physicality and circumstances.

So absolute freedom probably doesn't exist.

As for natural rights. I'm with Bentham - "nonsense upon stilts."

I think that our freedom is limited by more than just our physical capabilities, even in a natural state. I should say, our defensible freedom is limited as such. But this kind of freedom is where our natural rights come from and that's why I argue it is the natural freedom that we are afforded as human beings.

Let me offer an illustration. Even in the state of nature, if you go around violating others' rights then they eventually form into groups to protect themselves and make sure that you can't do that anymore. This naturally leads to a situation where everyone has an equal amount of liberty and thus no one can deprive any other of any portion of their liberty. Eventually you have groups of people violating other groups of people, but you could see that scenario as a larger scale version of the case of individuals. No matter what there is always a ceiling of anarchy on top of the highest stratum of government. That anarchic layer is where one can be absolutely free. We humans have not lived in that layer since before tribal times and before people began cooperating and communicating, even in the most rudimentary sense.

On your first point. The concept of a “right” is a human invention. Rights were invented by us to better order social intercourse.

On your second point. I think you've made my first point. The concept of violation of rights can only occur in a social context.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whatever conscription is or isn't, it certainly has the ability to deprive you of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

 

[Liability]

Whatever conscription is or isn't, it certainly has the ability to deprive you of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So does crossing a busy intersection.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Whatever conscription is or isn't, it certainly has the ability to deprive you of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So does crossing a busy intersection.

Which a person chooses to do of their own accord.