Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (163658)	6/5/2005 8:25:27 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There is an advantage to geode's call for draft that I suspect was his original point. If military adventures such as Iraq have to be staffed via draft, then the people are likely to be a lot less forgiving of them unless they are proven to be absolutely necessary. Chuck this along with "the best way to get rid of bad laws is to fully enforce them" or "there is no cure for high prices like high prices" and so on. As it stands, you don't even have to be a US citizen to be fighting in Iraq. Mexicans who fight there will be on the fast track to get their US citizenship. This is only one step away from importing mercenaries from around the world to do the dirty work for us. So on this point I am with geode; if people think it is important enough to go to war, then they should be willing to do it (i.e. draft). If they don't think it is worth the risk that their sons are called off to the die in far away lands, then they should oppose the war. Incidentally I am pretty sure it was this observation that led to the military change its tactics after Vietnam and remove the draft. They realized that no draft means less scrutiny of the military adventures.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (163658)	6/5/2005 5:26:28 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you don't think I understand your ideology, then explain it. What is your definition of free markets and how, in practice, do they work? In economic theory, free markets have no friction and no costs. Tell me, practically, what market in the entire world fits this description. The problem with the free market idea is that it's simply wrong. It is not the world in which we live in and it does not describe the human species. Since the premise is wrong, all the ideologies that grow from it are wrong as well. So, as a libertarian, you like some laws like driving on the agreed upon side of the road but you don't like others like mandated public service AKA the draft or something like that. Why? Driving on the agreed upon side of the ride prevents traffic chaos. That's a public good created by preventing some people from driving on people's lawns or on sidewalks or in the wrong direction. Those people are giving up the right to drive where they want for the public good. What is the difference between that and mandated public service for the public good? Say, for example, that no one wanted to join the local volunteer fire station and the town had no money to hire professional firefighters. The elected town council then gets together and says, we must have a fire station so we're going to mandate that every able bodied adult will have to spend 5 hours a month manning the firestation. Is that slavery? If not, how is that appreciably different from a draft to 'defend' the country (I'm not arguing here whether the war is good or bad, I'm just talking about a draft in general)? If so, how is that appreciably different from forcing people to drive down the agreed upon lane of the highway?