Mandatory Army Service?
K Stephen
>[Note that the "Followup-To" line may differ from the "Newsgroup" line.]
>In article <2rajvl$o...@wcap.centerline.com>,
>m...@centerline.com (Mike Huben) said:
>> As long as there's a voluntary social contract, you are not forced to
>> serve. It is merely a condition of continuation of the contract. You
>> can simply contract with another state to avoid serving. TANSTAFL.
>This argument breaks down with its opening words. There is no voluntary
>social contract, at least none which comes into existence solely as a
>result of where a person happens to be standing in relation to a set of
>borders or boundaries that somebody else has declared.
But all property is declared in a very similar way. MOst property (if
not all) has been stolen at some time, just like libertarians claim that
the land of the US has been "stolen". The government has as much right
to retain governance over it as the current owners of so called "private
land".
>(And yes, I've seen the excerpt from your "Non-libertarian FAQ for
>alt.politics.libertarian." I'm not impressed. You assert, but never
>demonstrate, that the act of entering into the alleged contract is
>voluntary. This is only the case if one recognizes the legitimacy of
>both of the parties to the contract, and nobody's ever demonstrated that
>the United States of America -- or any other self-proclaimed nation --
>has any legitimacy at all.)
Has anyone demonstrated that "private land" is any different?
>By the way, whether or not there is such a thing as a free lunch (and I
>suspect that there is, for some people at some times, as a simple
>function of NIven's TANJ rule -- There Ain't No Justice), what's the
>relevance of the issue to the question of military conscription?
Ask the libertarian that brought it up.
>>> 2) Involuntary servitude in the United States, except as punishment
>>> for a crime, is outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment to the
>>> Constitution. Not that the U.S. government has ever really paid any
>>> attention to that fact, of course. [wdstarr]
>>
>> That's a rather cavalier attitude towards the base question of what
>> was meant by the term "involuntary servitude" in the 13th amendment.
>Well, off the top of my head, I'd guess that it means "servitude which
>is not engaged in voluntarily." Which pretty much includes
>non-voluntary service in any part of the armed forces of the United
>States.
If you sign a contract to rent an apartment but part of the contract
involves cleaning the hallway of the building, is the contract wrong
because said cleaning is involuntary? No. The cleaning is voluntary
provided that the contract as a whole is made voluntarily.
The same may be said about service in the armed forces and the social
contract.
Can we get back to proving/disproving the legitimacy of the US
government and private owners please.
Karl Stephen
William December Starr
In article <Cq3JG...@festival.ed.ac.uk>,
kste...@castle.ed.ac.uk (K Stephen) said:
>>> That's a rather cavalier attitude towards the base question of what
>>> was meant by the term "involuntary servitude" in the 13th amendment.
>>> [Mike Huben, arguing against the proposition that the 13th Am. bars
>>> military conscription]
>>
>> Well, off the top of my head, I'd guess that it means "servitude which
>> is not engaged in voluntarily." Which pretty much includes
>> non-voluntary service in any part of the armed forces of the United
>> States. [wdstarr]
>
> If you sign a contract to rent an apartment but part of the contract
> involves cleaning the hallway of the building, is the contract wrong
> because said cleaning is involuntary? No. The cleaning is voluntary
> provided that the contract as a whole is made voluntarily. The same
> may be said about service in the armed forces and the social contract.
A landlord/tenant contract or an employer/employee contract is,
presumably, entered into voluntarily by both parties, in an absence of
coercion upon either party. (If there is coercion or deceit involved,
the courts will generally nullify the contract.) Accordingly, the
servitude required by the contract is voluntary rather than involuntary.
(Note that "voluntary" does not always mean "I'm happy about this.")
Accordingly, the servitude involved in the execution of a contract to
serve in the U.S. military is voluntary if the contract was entered into
voluntarily, and involuntary if the contract was entered into
involuntarily, such as through coercion or deceit.
I maintain that "If you do not agree to this contract, we will
criminally prosecute and punish you" constitutes coercion.
Those who believe in the existence of an automatic social contract
between a person and the self-proclaimed government of the geographic
area in which he resides may differ, of course.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning
of the people by the people for the people. -- Oscar Wilde
Mike Huben
William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote:
>[Note that the "Followup-To" line may differ from the "Newsgroup" line.]
>
>In article <2rajvl$o...@wcap.centerline.com>,
>m...@centerline.com (Mike Huben) said:
>> As long as there's a voluntary social contract, you are not forced to
>> serve. It is merely a condition of continuation of the contract. You
>> can simply contract with another state to avoid serving. TANSTAFL.
>
>This argument breaks down with its opening words. There is no voluntary
>social contract, at least none which comes into existence solely as a
>result of where a person happens to be standing in relation to a set of
>borders or boundaries that somebody else has declared.
No, the argument is sound. You disagree with the premise.
Tell me, are you obligated to behave differently when you are standing on the
private property of somebody else? Despite the fact that YOU never declared
anything about that private property? Despite the fact that you never signed
anything? What's the difference?
>(And yes, I've seen the excerpt from your "Non-libertarian FAQ for
>alt.politics.libertarian." I'm not impressed. You assert, but never
>demonstrate, that the act of entering into the alleged contract is
>voluntary. This is only the case if one recognizes the legitimacy of
>both of the parties to the contract, and nobody's ever demonstrated that
>the United States of America -- or any other self-proclaimed nation --
>has any legitimacy at all.)
Likewise you can never demonstrate "legitimacy" of property. So? I think
you are trying to place too high a burden of proof on government alone.
>>> 2) Involuntary servitude in the United States, except as punishment
>>> for a crime, is outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment to the
>>> Constitution. Not that the U.S. government has ever really paid any
>>> attention to that fact, of course. [wdstarr]
>>
>> That's a rather cavalier attitude towards the base question of what
>> was meant by the term "involuntary servitude" in the 13th amendment.
>
>Well, off the top of my head, I'd guess that it means "servitude which
>is not engaged in voluntarily." Which pretty much includes
>non-voluntary service in any part of the armed forces of the United
>States.
Off the top of your head is exactly the kind of cavalier attitude I'm talking
about. For a start, it ignores usage of that period and the context in which
the statement was made. Talk to a historian about the difficulties of
understanding historical documents.
>> Libertarians, in their quest for a magic loophole to instantly convert
>> society to their utopia, often claim taxation, conscription, and
>> various other government practices are prohibited by this amendment.
>> But they'd have a difficult time demonstrating that was the original
>> intent of the amendment.
>
>And you'd have a difficult time demonstrating that the intent of the
>folks who wrote and ratified this part of the supreme law of the land
>should take precedence over the plain text of the law. I may be wrong,
>but I _think_ that the relevant part of the law here is
> "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."
>
>and not
>
> "The intent of the people who wrote this Amendment shall be the
> supreme law of the land."
You'd also have a difficult time demonstrating that the intent of the
authors of the ammendment was for the meaning to change in whatever ways
usage of the language changed or political context was lost.
>> And if we want to use some other theory besides original intent to
>> decide what the amendment means, I'd recommend the one practiced since
>> the creation of our constitution: judicial interpretation.
>
>Aside from the fact that it gives you the result that you want, why on
>earth would you recommend that?
Resolving questions of interpretation has very large value, because it's not
uncommon for important things to hang in the balance. The strengths of an
"impartial" third branch of government are well known.
>> It seems clear to me that "involuntary servitude" only applied to
>> PRIVATE ENTERPRISE practices such as slavery.
>
>Well, if that's what the people who wrote the Amendment meant, that's
>what they _should_ have said. But they didn't.
They should also have said "no CONSCRIPTION or involuntary servitude, but they
didn't. They were well aware of conscription: it had been used in the recently
completed civil war. I don't think it was omitted by accident: nor do I
think that an end to conscription was advertised as a feature of the ammendment
when it was proposed. Now we're left with the task of interpretation.
Face it: the constitution and amendments are VAGUE in many places. Whether
that's on purpose or not, it necessitates interpretation with teeth: thus the
Supreme Court.
Mike Huben
"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_
James R. Holthaus
>They should also have said "no CONSCRIPTION or involuntary servitude, but they
>didn't. They were well aware of conscription: it had been used in the recently
>completed civil war. I don't think it was omitted by accident: nor do I
>think that an end to conscription was advertised as a feature of the ammendment
>when it was proposed. Now we're left with the task of interpretation.
Excuse me, but I think you need to study a historical timeline. The
civil war was AFTER the revolution and even the Constitution and Bill
of Rights.
--
Jim Holthaus email: james-h...@uiowa.edu phone: 319/335-3183
Programmer, University Book Store, University of Iowa
Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!
K Stephen
>In article <Cq3JG...@festival.ed.ac.uk>,
>kste...@castle.ed.ac.uk (K Stephen) said:
>> If you sign a contract to rent an apartment but part of the contract
>> involves cleaning the hallway of the building, is the contract wrong
>> because said cleaning is involuntary? No. The cleaning is voluntary
>> provided that the contract as a whole is made voluntarily. The same
>> may be said about service in the armed forces and the social contract.
>A landlord/tenant contract or an employer/employee contract is,
>presumably, entered into voluntarily by both parties, in an absence of
>coercion upon either party. (If there is coercion or deceit involved,
>the courts will generally nullify the contract.) Accordingly, the
>servitude required by the contract is voluntary rather than involuntary.
>(Note that "voluntary" does not always mean "I'm happy about this.")
>Accordingly, the servitude involved in the execution of a contract to
>serve in the U.S. military is voluntary if the contract was entered into
>voluntarily, and involuntary if the contract was entered into
>involuntarily, such as through coercion or deceit.
>I maintain that "If you do not agree to this contract, we will
>criminally prosecute and punish you" constitutes coercion.
It all comes back to "who is the rightful owner". If in the case of the
rented apartment, you enter the building and say "stuff your contract"
many people in the US agree that you may be criminally prosecuted and
punished. WHy should the government not be able to do the same thing
with the land it controls. As far as the government is concerned, if you
ignore the social contract it is entitled to punish you.
I have not seen a good argument from libertarians as to how the apartment
owner is in a better position than the government to prosecute anyone.
Karl Stephen
Mark O. Wilson
|It all comes back to "who is the rightful owner". If in the case of the
|rented apartment, you enter the building and say "stuff your contract"
|many people in the US agree that you may be criminally prosecuted and
|punished. WHy should the government not be able to do the same thing
|with the land it controls.
The government does not own the land. The only reason it controls the land
is that the government has bigger guns then everyone else.
|As far as the government is concerned, if you
|ignore the social contract it is entitled to punish you.
So by your argument you feel that the government wowns the people.
|I have not seen a good argument from libertarians as to how the apartment
|owner is in a better position than the government to prosecute anyone.
Must be because you haven't been reading the responses.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
K Stephen
>In <CqD4B...@festival.ed.ac.uk> kste...@castle.ed.ac.uk (K Stephen) writes:
>|It all comes back to "who is the rightful owner". If in the case of the
>|rented apartment, you enter the building and say "stuff your contract"
>|many people in the US agree that you may be criminally prosecuted and
>|punished. WHy should the government not be able to do the same thing
>|with the land it controls.
>The government does not own the land. The only reason it controls the land
>is that the government has bigger guns then everyone else.
It also prevents those individuals with bigger guns from taking the
land from those with the smaller guns. Thus people have to trade.
>|As far as the government is concerned, if you
>|ignore the social contract it is entitled to punish you.
>So by your argument you feel that the government wowns the people.
No. The government cannot (or should not) make you stay on the land. If
it could do that or did that then it would be claiming ownership of the
people.
Otherwise the landowner who punishes trespassers owns the tresspasser
too.
>|I have not seen a good argument from libertarians as to how the apartment
>|owner is in a better position than the government to prosecute anyone.
>Must be because you haven't been reading the responses.
Possibly, I missed week. Up until then there was no answer (reasonable)
as to why private individuals own land and why the government does not.
Let's try again.
1. Define ownership.
2. If the answer to 1. depends on a right to posses, is the right
legalistic or moral?
3. If the answer to 2. is "moral" please define what you mean about
"moral" and what moral you mean. Please also state why this moral is
correct and not any other.
4. Given that most land has been stolen at some time in the past, how
are current owners of previously stolen land accounted for in this
definition of ownership? How does the moral include them?
5. Why does the government not come under the same rule?
6. If the answer to 5. is along the lines of "because it is a government
and they are different" please say why they deserve separate treatment.
Thank you for cooperating.
Karl Stephen
William December Starr
In article <2rtdf8$6...@wcap.centerline.com>,
m...@centerline.com (Mike Huben) said:
>>> As long as there's a voluntary social contract, you are not forced
>>> to serve. It is merely a condition of continuation of the contract.
>>> You can simply contract with another state to avoid serving.
>>> TANSTAFL. [Mike Huben]
>>
>> This argument breaks down with its opening words. There is no
>> voluntary social contract, at least none which comes into existence
>> solely as a result of where a person happens to be standing in
>> relation to a set of borders or boundaries that somebody else has
>> declared. [wdstarr]
>
> No, the argument is sound. You disagree with the premise.
>
> Tell me, are you obligated to behave differently when you are standing
> on the private property of somebody else? Despite the fact that YOU
> never declared anything about that private property? Despite the fact
> that you never signed anything? What's the difference?
[ *snip* ]
> Likewise you can never demonstrate "legitimacy" of property. So? I
> think you are trying to place too high a burden of proof on government
> alone.
Damnit, Mike, if you're going to keep insisting on raising valid points
that legitimately undermine my knee-jerk positions, I'm just not going
to talk to you any more! :-)
Okay, I retract my blanket contention that no such thing as a social
contract exists. Clearly _something_ exists which functions as an
alternative to anarchy, whether it's a contract or just a consensual
hallucination, and "social contract" is as good a name for it as
anything.
Now _here_ is where I disagree with a premise you've raised: You said
"As long as there's a voluntary social contract, you are not forced to
serve. It is merely a condition of continuation of the contract. You
can simply contract with another state to avoid serving." The problem
is that, because the arch-libertarians are right in that there's no
written contract, the _terms_ of the contract can get very fuzzy. What,
exactly, _is_ the social contract, how does it vary from place to place,
and how does a lowly individual go about finding out the answers to the
first two questions?
The issue that triggered this discussion was the draft, the conscription
of non-volunteers into the nation's armed services. Is "the individual
will, when ordered to do so, become a loyal member of the state's armed
forces" a term of the social contract between the individual and the
state?
Yes, says one side of the argument, saying that under the terms of the
contract (a) the state is required to supply certain services which
include the defense of the people from the violation of their rights by
foreign or domestic villains, and that (b) in exchange for this service
the individual is required to provide general obedience to the laws of
the state, including its conscription laws.
No, says the other side of the argument, saying that under the terms of
the contract the state is required to supply certain services which
include the defense of the people from the violation of their rights by
_anyone_, ***including the state itself***, and that when the state
attempts to practice conscription upon the people, it had committed a
material breach of the contract, freeing the individual from any
obligation to perform its contractually-required duty of general
obedience to the laws of the state the enactment and enforcement of
which are the underlying cause of the breach.
So, absent an appeal to the Court of Brute Force (the main courthouse of
which is, I believe, located in a small town called Appomattox), how are
we to decide whose interpretation of the social contract is correct?