Morality

[qassis]

Wargames, like a car, like a gun, are tools.

A Bn Cdr trained his soldiers at Ft. Polk's Taskforce 3 JANUS Simulation Center (war game) in the mid 90s, before they left on a real world mission. During training, mistakes were made, "simulated lives" lost.

Upon return, this Bn Cdr came back to the trainers and thanked them, stating that lessons learned in the simulation were part of the reason they had a successful, peaceful, no casualty (any side) mission.

I'm a civilian contractor, working with simulations. I speak officially for no one, but I want you to know that I believe I am continuing to serve my country (Army Ret.) in my role in simulations.

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by minmax:

Gyrene,

I agree with the stereotype people have of Marines in particular and the military in general. I came to the realization that the 'protected' may abhor violence but they will holler for a military when the poop hits the fan.

I made good grades in college and had some very intellectual discussions with people who did not neccesarily support the idea of a military. I gave them the poem that talks about things in terms of that veterans garuntee things like freedom of speech, press, religion, and protest. They understood that their luxury of opposition to the military is assured by the military.

People are funny they don't like those who garuntee their most basic rights. In a sense I believe it is guilt. I have always stated that all Americans should give up two years of their lives at a minimum to give back to a nation that gives them so much. Not neccesarily a draft but something like Roosevelt's NRA with CCC camps and public service. I think working for the benefit of others you may never know is a common theme for a voluntary military and something most younger Americans don't get in their education or jobs. Well, that is about my two cents and a few dollars.

Keep the faith...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's exactly what the -book- starship troopers advocates. too bad the point was mutated by the movie into voluntary -military- service. also too bad that so many only read the book or see the movie and think author robert a. heinlein was some kind of fascist

gyrene - i agree actions over time can change people's minds. however, i don't think there's enough people around to give most others the time to change their mind. at least in the US, most people now alive

- have only experienced peace - heck, most people get no closer to intentional force than a bar brawl

- have not been in the military

if they also do not understand that peace is maintained by more than good intentions, how long will the military be left to work on "focusing its energy on doing its duties as well and honorably as it can"?

OTOH, while i disagree with US president bush on many things, i'm glad his administration is proposing more money for armed services pay, benefits, and maintenance. about time!

[Carter]

As a civilian, I strongly AGREE that the military is VITAL to protecting our rights.

And the right to bear arms is also essential to protect our rights.

However I have to disagree with the statement made by minmax that "all Americans should give up two years of their lives at a minimum to give back to a nation that gives them so much. "

Requiring people into service is coercion. It is dangerous and open to exploitation. This kind of thing was the bread-and-butter of the communists and fascists that we worked so hard to defeat.

I quote Ronald Reagan:

"[T]he most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral... a draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending."

I believe our military is much better off today being an all-volunteer force. Any civilian endeavor is also better off being an all-volunteer group.

If you want people to work for you, convince them, don't force them.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

In my opinion, the draft should be implemented only when there is an exceptional foreign military threat.

Drafting people during peacetime really screws up the professionalism and readiness of the military.

[Trooper]

Thanks, but I'll give the concept of conscription a miss. I like the concept of joining up when I'm good and ready.

Also, things could get difficult. I'm half-Greek. Greece has two years' conscription. I then move to the US, I have to do another two years there? What if Ireland also had conscription? There's another year gone. I'd like to have a life at some point!

NTM

[Stoffel]

The Dutch army stopped with conscription a few years ago.

This declined the army with 60% but also it has led to a few shortcomings,for instance manpower,each year there is a shortage of about 3000 man!

And although some guys didn't like being drafted,everybody did their duty

You have to understand that conscription was wished for by the majority of the people after ww2,because they felt a good army was needed to protect them.

During the years though the rich found ways to avoid this,what led to trouble in the 90's

[minmax]

To all,

I agree on the point that a draft into the military is bad. Understand I was not advocating a draft. I advocate a two year service to this nation. Not neccesarily military but some service to this country. Pick up trash along on the highway, file paper work, work at summer camps. Sort of like Clinton's Americorps but mandatory so that younger Americans give back to this nation.

As far as the military yes keep it volunteer only. Offer it as a option to kids doing their two years but don't push it. Personally, I think the military ought to tigthen up its screening to prevent some turds from slipping in there. And let Drill Instructors do their job without Mothers of America dorking around with a formula that takes spoiled and stupid children and turns them into Marines. Well that's my two cents.

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: minmax ]

[Carter]

minmax,

I understand that you mean well with you idea for a mandatory 2 year service to the US government. But I don't think you're seeing the repercussions of it.

You say "I advocate a two year service to this nation."

and "all Americans should give up two years of their lives at a minimum to give back to a nation that gives them so much. "

That sounds great. I know your thoughts and goals are noble.

But I interpret those sentences a little differently, if they were put into practice.

With all due respect, I read it as: All young Americans will be forced, by the proverbial gun-to-the-head, to give up two years of their life to perform a kind of slave labor for the government. All because our schools are incapable of teaching civics.

Moral questions aside, you could do great damage to the economy with a program like that. Lets say that I had to give 2 years of my life doing work for the government. That's effectively 2 years that I wouldn't be working at my job as an engineer.

I think I contribute a lot more to this country as an engineer than I would "Pick[ing] up trash along on the highway, file[ing] paper work, [or] work[ing] at summer camps."

I'm not trying to be insulting. I know you mean well, but this is how I interpret those statements.

You ask young people to "give back to a nation that gives them so much."

But what did this country give them?

In a word, I would say FREEDOM.

But if you take away 2 years of their freedom, they probably wouldn't feel like they owed this country as much, because it took a significant amount of their freedom away.

And if you think that the military draft is unpopular, just think about the objection to an unnecessary civilian-type draft.

This reminds me of the Khmer Rouge communists in Cambodia.

When the communists took over Cambodia, they decided to "re-make" society. There goals sounded noble. They wanted "equality of mankind, including political and economic and social equality" In practice, they killed all the educated people they could find. Then they forced most everyone to work on public works projects. Killing those that wouldn't cooperate.

In the end, most of the public works projects failed, and the communists had murdered 2 million people, a quarter of the population.

[minmax]

I understand your concerns.

Let me ask you some questions. Did you start out an engineer right out of high school?

How well did you do as a freshman at university. I did some research the failure rate is in the neighborhood of 48% with another 17% dropping out of college by the middle of their sophmore year. So while you clearly pressed on many do not. I have seen first hand how serious kids become about college when the can't immediately go to college b/c of money or grades.

Next question,

What constitutes good civics education, Theory or Practice?

I teach Social Studies/Sciences at a decent high school. I end up teaching civics in some form or other in every class b/c I think it is vital that students get an idea of what is expected of them as citizens. I have plenty of students who can puke up the correct answer on a test but a week later would not know how to apply the knowledge if their life depended on it. Has education failed? Nope, there is only so much school can teach. Teacher, Student, and Parents are the foundation to real education if only one person is involved (teacher) forget it. In the Corps I learned best by hands on. Yes I read the manuals on shooting the M-60E3 but I really learned when a Corporal sat me down and showed me how the weapon really worked.

Khmer Rouge, good example of the system gone wrong. But I counter with CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps), Peace Corps, Red Cross, and a host of other existing voluntary orgainizations that would welcome an influx of people to get the job done. The list of potential jobs that kids could do is far ranging. Think about fathers and grandfathers who were drafted to the infantry.

No this program would not be popular with teens but what makes teens today happy?

They would moan and groan and cry about their precious freedom. Freedom is not valuable until it is threatened and or taken away. Maybe it would piss these kids off enough that they would get involved in politics and elect officials to get rid of this harebrained scheme. All the better. Take a look at the stats of people under the age of 20 who vote. Its appalling. The best way to change the world is with a vote not a bullet.

Do I really expect that this program would come about? No, realistically politicians work with one eye on the job and the next on where ther contributions for re-election are coming from. I just felt like its an interesting theory.

Bottom line, most kids in this country could give a crap about what keeps this country rolling. Public service (Domestic and Foreign) is someone else's concern. They do not realize the next time it hits the fan they get to run down the ramp.

Hope that is a little more clear. And don't worry it takes quite a bit to offend me.

[Carter]

To answer some of your questions minmax,

I started my job as an engineer at 23, after 4 years earning my undergraduate degree and 2 years earning my masters degree. I studied hard and went to good schools. I had about a 3.5 GPA during my undergraduate years.

This is starting to sound like a resume

How would I lose 2 years out of my engineering career? Lets say that I will work till 65. That's about 42 years I will have working as an engineer. If I spent 2 of my younger years working in a youth program, I would have had only 40 years working as an engineer. I would have lost 2 years off my regular career.

It _IS_ sad how many people drop out/fail out of college. And I've seen first hand how serious people can become after waiting years for the opportunity to go to college. From what I've seen I think a lot of the situation is that most people 18-19 are not all that mature. I was mature. (if I do say so myself ) And I've known people that age that are mature. But a lot of 18 and 19 year olds still consider themselves kids. They're still growing up. They're learning to live away from home and making mistakes like anyone would when doing something new.

I don't have all the answers. I'm not a social-engineer. But I believe in personal responsibility. For better or worse.

"What constitutes good civics education, Theory or Practice?"

You should have both theory and practice in a good education. If you only go through the motions of practice, you may not understand why. I think you already made a good case for why teaching only theory is bad. (By the way, sounds like a lot of fun to learn the theory and practice of an M60E3 )

My granddad was in the CCC, and fought in both WWII and Korea. So I'm familiar with a lot of what you're talking about. He thought that the CCC was a good experience for him and a lot of young people during the depression. But that the CCC was really something that was part of those times. America is a different place today. As I recall, Bill Clinton tried to bring the program back with limited success.

"Freedom is not valuable until it is threatened and or taken away."

Freedom is always valuable, but not always appreciated. A funny part about human psychology is that people don't seem to appreciate things until they are threatened or taken away.

"Bottom line, most kids in this country could give a crap about what keeps this country rolling. Public service (Domestic and Foreign) is someone else's concern."

Its true of a lot of adults too. I think that's how so many people in this world get exploited. They let somebody else worry about things. Then dishonest people go to work while they're not paying any attention.

"And don't worry it takes quite a bit to offend me."

Glad I didn't offend you. I always enjoy your inputs, stories, and discussions, even if I don't always agree.

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by minmax:

No this program would not be popular with teens but what makes teens today happy?

They would moan and groan and cry about their precious freedom. Freedom is not valuable until it is threatened and or taken away. Maybe it would piss these kids off enough that they would get involved in politics and elect officials to get rid of this harebrained scheme. All the better. Take a look at the stats of people under the age of 20 who vote. Its appalling. The best way to change the world is with a vote not a bullet.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

minmax, here's another stab at this argument:

- americans have the right to vote when we turn 18

- corollary of power is responsibility

- a vote is power

- to demonstrate that a citizen is responsible enough to vote, they should demonstrate that they can place their society's needs above their own

- a suggestion for how to demonstrate this is that they should serve their society for some period of time in whatever capacity the society needs

if americans have a guaranteed right to vote, our society should have a demonstration that we can vote in the society's best interests

whether kids learn civics or not, we currently have at best dubious proof of the theory without some practice

as it is, we have no check or balance on the right to vote. i'm not at all sure that uninformed, uninterested universal suffrage is what the US founding fathers had in mind, even if they did design a republic instead of a democracy

[Carter]

Posted by elementalwarre:

"i'm not at all sure that uninformed, uninterested universal suffrage is what the US founding fathers had in mind"

Probably not, but they did establish the electoral college and a "representative" system so that the "masses" wouldn't vote directly. Their idea was that the representatives who did the real voting would be informed and interested.

Plus the rule-of-law of the constitution was meant to put limits on both government and democracy.

"- to demonstrate that a citizen is responsible enough to vote, they should demonstrate that they can place their society's needs above their own"

I would substitute "politician" for "citizen" in this sentence. One of the problems we have to day, as I see it, is that many politicians place their own needs (power/money) above society's needs.

One could argue that citizen's needs are quite similar to society's needs, but that depends on what you mean by "needs" and is a whole other subject.

[Carter]

One other note. The Thirteenth amendement in the constitution outlaws "involuntary servitude" except as punishment after conviction of a crime.

It reads:

"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."

It's illegal to force people to work for you.

[Blenheim]

Really good post. Really good.

Well, my take. First of all, I am an avid wargamer. Really. Not TacOps -yet- but lots of CM. I think that Wargames are sometimes a blatant attempt to make a terrible thing more rationalised and bearable, really; most of us -not everybody- play them for fun. It is cruel... well, yes. But that´s not the end of the history.

I remember when I discovered CMBO that at first I was kind of overwhelmed. I loved previous wargames, really, but I used to play them more for the intelectual challange and to learn history than for anything else. CMBO was in fact the first wargame that made me think in how tough war really is. I knew before it was a bad place, yes, but thought that while wargaming.

Do you know my reaction? I prefered to go back to my intelectual challenge framework. If I think to much of it, I really feel bad after having fun with such a brutal thing. I feel inhuman if I keep in mind what I am really doing. So well... I prefer playing CMBO as a difficult chess game, sometimes.

Eventhough, I still think that wargaming has been a good thing for me. I understand many things about human condition after playing wars....

On a sidenote, wargaming is really vital in the military. Of course. It helps saving lives of our guys, and inflicting more pain to the others. Damm, war is really stupid, actually. But we'll never get rid of it.

[minmax]

Carter,

You are right and wrong. Yes, involutary servitude is illegal. This as a matter of fact was one way that Peace Movement lawyers used (unsuccessfully) to get rid of the military draft. Reality, during our nation's history (more frequently than people realize) people have been forced to work on behalf of the government. Lincoln the "Great Emancipator" did this as a matter of course. Involuntary servitude gets defined by the Supremes as private vice public. If it was interpretted to apply to government the President could not call up the National Gaurd, or State Militias, or impose Martial Law.

Its the history teacher in me.

I like Robert Heinlein's idea of what makes a person a citizen. Successful service to the state is the price paid to gain sufferage. I would honestly love to see that but again its at best a pipe dream. The Framers in reality saw how the 'mob' and the Articles of Confederation failed to run the nation. So 'Power Elites' (Look at who the Framers were, it will surprise you) created the Constitution that while it garuntees rights it makes sure that other power elites run things. It with the electoral college provided for experts to vote b/c they did not trust the mob to elect a president. Same deal with the election of Senators which later changed.

Bottom Line: Our founding fathers did not trust the masses to run government. They all served our nation in some capacity at some point in their lives. Again, no politician would undertake this policy but I believe it has merit in this day and age.

[Carter]

Yeah,

I've been reading about the case history of the 13th amendment.

Your example of Lincoln is good as far as to show the intent of the law.

I don't believe the intent was to end the draft or jury duty.

However, it's well understood that sometimes actions and laws have unintended consequences.

I know how the supreme court has interpreted the amendment in the past, but they've gotten creative with their interpretations on many occasions.

Reading the plain text of the amendment one can see that it obviously was meant to apply to both the government and private individuals. I mean, why even mention "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" unless the amendment applied to the government?

I think that when the amendment was enacted, everyone agreed that "involuntary servitude" was a bad thing. They just didn't have a full grasp of what the implications of ending it were.

I'm certain your plan would be legally challenged along the lines of the thirteenth amendment. And since, in this day and age, they don't even enforce jury duty, I doubt your plan would hold up.

And as far as Lincoln forcing people to work on behalf of the government . . .

Lincoln is well known to have exceeded his constitutional authority on many occasions.

-He arrested the Maryland state legislator before they had the chance to vote on secession.

-He arrested people and held them without trial.

-He instated an income tax, decades before a constitutional amendment made it legal.

The list goes on...

--

This is an interesting link to the Thirteenth amendment and its case history:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/index.html

[SFC Matrix]

High School, Grade School, doesn't matter, they're just kids. Its the kids just out of High school who bother me on the subject of morality and war. I tell them to get a video of what happened in Somalia and I'll explain to them in detail what happened. So many people "think" they know what warfare is all about, but once the shooting starts, EVERYTHING changes. I saw Sandinistas up close and personal too, from the wrong end of the barrel. Explaining this to kids who are right no matter what is a conversation better left alone. I like TACOPS because it forces you to think, to use your head. I am an "old soldier" from the 75th Inf. who just bought this game, and I hope the hell it's got a RANGER unit!

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: SFC Matrix ]

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SFC Matrix:

High School, Grade School, doesn't matter, they're just kids. Its the kids just out of High school who bother me on the subject of morality and war. I tell them to get a video of what happened in Somalia and I'll explain to them in detail what happened. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a tangent - just saw the trailer for Black Hawk Down, the film version of the book by that title. here's hoping the movie's no rosier than the book!

anyway - 'they're just kids'? sorry, i -cannot- agree

for one thing, look at what we ask of them. in the US, once you're 18 you can vote or join the military. big responsibilities, which IMHO means 'just kids' should have a bit more developed morality than whatever pop culture throws at them

for another, i say it's entirely possible for kids to have a well-developed sense of ethics - not just what's right, but much more importantly -why- an action's moral. i say it's possible for kids to do so without enduring a life-threatening moral dilemma.

lastly, i say i'd much rather have kids learn -before- they might legally vote or kill

as for 'involuntary servitude' - if you want power i say you should demonstrate responsibility to use the power wisely. IMHO a US citizen can claim rights without accepting corresponding responsibilities

how is that moral, -regardless of the constitution or other current US law-?

[Carter]

The founding fathers believed as I do that people are born with "natural rights".

You don't earn them.

If you don't believe in natural rights then tell me. . .

Is it okay if 90% of a nation want to murder the other 10%? Its a democratic decision. But is it okay? If you don't beleive in natural rights then how would you disagree?

I would have to say that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The constitution was written to guarantee our "pre-existing natural rights"

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany didn't believe in natural rights, with predicatable results.

And I'm pretty sure that Robert Heinlein believed in natural rights too. I've read that far from being a fascist, he was liberatarian in his thinking.

I've read the book Starship Troopers, and as I recall miliary service, even when Earth was being attacked, was voluntary.

Starship Troopers is anti-collectivist if you think about it. I mean the whole book is about fighting the collectivist "bugs".

While you're reading Robert Heinlein's books, check out "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress". I think his beliefs will become more clear.

[ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]

[Stoffel]

I joined Dutch army in 1986 as a draftee at the age of 17.

To young to drive a car,to young to vote,to young to marry without permission from the parents.

But old enough to fight a war and kill someone else.

Fortunately I never had to shoot anybody nor did anyone shoot at me in a war

There were laws that made it impossible to send us outside NATO territory or to have us fullfill offensive actions against any other country unless it attacked my country.So like me lots of boys spend 14 to 16 months in the army(In my case it meant a pay difference of 75%)

But we had no choice,we couldnt change the laws because like I said most of us were to young to vote or our parents had no influence in the government

Not that we hated the army,many of you know we had a good army!

An army wanted for by a majority of the people in my country, people that wished for a good army to protect them.But not all boys came up.

Only the rich and many students found ways to avoid service leading to problems in the 90's and the end of the draft.

We have a professional army now ,not strong enough to provide enough troops on peace missions let alone defend our country

This makes me sad in a way because if a war brakes out in the near future we have to depend on others(US,Germany,Uk) to help us

because we sure dont have enough manpower than to stop any enemy.

So there might be a chance that I will have to join again if a war brakes out while the spoiled 17/18 year olds of next generations dont have too.

This means I and many of the guys from previous generations who had allready payed our debts to the society have to risk our lives and evrything we had buildup to protect the others who never did anything for their country except wasting taxmoney(by doing very vague studies in most cases with the only purpose of avoiding working)

So I think a draft (not only military but also civil draft (helping elderly and/or disabled)for people who wont join army)in any form should be implemented by a country.

[Terry Drinkard]

Originally posted by Carter:

[QB]The founding fathers believed as I do that people are born with "natural rights".

>You don't earn them.

More's the pity. Nor do they come with balancing responsibilities, the one gaping hole in the US constitution.

>If you don't believe in natural rights then tell me. . .

>Is it okay if 90% of a nation want to murder the other 10%? Its a democratic decision. But is it okay? If you don't beleive in natural rights then how would you disagree?

A more interesting question is this: Is it OK for 90% of a nation to pass and enforce laws that incarcerate the other 10%? Read your Newsweek lately? That's about where we are as a nation.

This is clearly a two beer conversation, but I'll try to keep it short. The answer depends on how you want to address the question. Emotionally, of course it isn't right (ask your girlfriend if you doubt me). Intellectually, it can be right depending on the circumstances; that is, it may well be legal. But is it morally acceptable?

>I would have to say that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

>The constitution was written to guarantee our "pre-existing natural rights".

That's from Rousseau. A French philosopher popular in the 18th century. In my humble opinion, he was wrong. There are no "natural" rights, unless that is a reference to the right to do what comes naturally (sheep have a right to eat grass, for example). What Rousseau was trying to express was a new social contract. A new way of people relating to one another, the state, and the institutions that make up a state. It isn't "True". It's just one way of looking at the world, no better or worse than others, simply useful in the proper context.

>The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany didn't believe in natural rights, with predicatable results.

Neither do the English. Your point?

>And I'm pretty sure that Robert Heinlein believed in natural rights too. I've read that far from being a fascist, he was liberatarian in his thinking.

True, he was a libertarian. That does not presuppose a belief in "natural" rights.

>I've read the book Starship Troopers, and as I recall miliary service, even when Earth was being attacked, was voluntary.

>Starship Troopers is anti-collectivist if you think about it. I mean the whole book is about fighting the collectivist "bugs".

Starship Troopers was an anti-communist screed (and adolescent science fiction -- trying to live your life by it is rather like Dan Quayle implementing defense policy based on Red Storm Rising). Nice story. I was, and am, quite fond of it. Hated the movie.

>While you're reading Robert Heinlein's books, check out "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress". I think his beliefs will become more clear.

Mr. Heinlein is/was a libertarian, as shown in the book. For those whose education leaned towards the technical rather than the political, the libertarians are far right of center.

Sorry, worked this one from the bottom up. Hope it doesn't show too badly.

Terry

[Torsten Glacer]

One also would note the decline in people voting. This could be caused by a lack of a good leader. Honestly who was the last president the American people were truely proud to have in office. All we are getting is fat politicians, not leaders..and there IS a difference. Maybe if people were more proud of their country they wouldn't need to be pursuaded to serve their country, but the US promotes a very selfish set of morals in which you serve yourself and only yourself. WIth that kind of outlook on life a government can't last long. Oh well..just my opinion

[ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Torsten Glacer ]

[elementalwarre]

carter - whoa! how did you infer support for mob rule from what i wrote?

i have criticized (mostly) unrestricted democracy

i have suggested the same test given in Heinlein's Starship Troopers for the right to vote or hold public office

i have -not- said what i support

read heinlein? nah, i haven't - aside from every anthology i could find, every novel and quite a few essays. if anything i'd say he was anarchist a la bakunin - even more individualist than libertarianism

i suggested compulsory service because the US has a mandated right to vote for almost everyone who's over 17

the Starship Troopers society only gives the right to vote or hold public office to successful -volunteers- for civic service, -not- everyone

big difference there, i believe

as it happens, i prefer heinlein's idea. i only suggested required service beyond a certain age because the US confers a mostly unrestricted right to vote beyond a certain age. unless that right changes, requiring demonstrable responsibility seems to me a clear corollary

IMHO natural rights are those a person has if no other people affect them, ie no society. to the extent a society constrains a person's behavior to less than what they could do alone, the society infringes on their natural rights

that definition obviously has limits - people generally use -some- ethical framework for dealing with one another peacefully, being a member of a society seems to require some constraint on rights, immature people generally have restricted actions, etc - but i think that's where rousseau started from

MajorH - thank you for indulging us in a thread that's WAY off-topic by now. feel free to tell us to squabble via email instead!

[Carter]

Wow, I'm glad to see my strong opinions have an audience!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Drinkard:

Originally posted by Carter:

[QB]The founding fathers believed as I do that people are born with "natural rights".

>You don't earn them.

More's the pity. Nor do they come with balancing responsibilities, the one gaping hole in the US constitution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually they do come with responsibilities. Personal responsibility.

I don't see it as a hole in the US constitution. The way I see the problem is that people/governments don't respect each others rights. Governments exist to protect our rights. We don't exist to serve the government.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>>If you don't believe in natural rights then tell me. . .

>Is it okay if 90% of a nation want to murder the other 10%? Its a democratic decision. But is it okay? If you don't believe in natural rights then how would you disagree?

A more interesting question is this: Is it OK for 90% of a nation to pass and enforce laws that incarcerate the other 10%? Read your Newsweek lately? That's about where we are as a nation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We may well incarcerate too many people. But you should check your figures. There are about 2 million prisoners in the US. With a population of well over 200 million, that comes out to less than 1% of the population in jail. What was that about beer?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is clearly a two beer conversation, but I'll try to keep it short. The answer depends on how you want to address the question. Emotionally, of course it isn't right (ask your girlfriend if you doubt me). Intellectually, it can be right depending on the circumstances; that is, it may well be legal. But is it morally acceptable?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe my definition of murder isn't clear. What I mean by murder is "unjust killing" Kinda like Hilter murdering millions of Jews.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

It isn't "True". It's just one way of looking at the world, no better or worse than others, simply useful in the proper context.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly you have to admit that some philosophies are better than others. Application of theory which yields results can be compared.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

>The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany didn't believe in natural rights, with predictable results.

Neither do the English. Your point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of the English? Some of them? The English government?

My point is that if governments or societies do not respect other people's rights very bad things can happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

True, he was a libertarian. That does not presuppose a belief in "natural" rights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it does. You should read up on libertarianism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Nice story. I was, and am, quite fond of it. Hated the movie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you seen the computer-animated Starship Troopers series? It's awesome! IMHO

[Carter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre:

carter - whoa! how did you infer support for mob rule from what i wrote? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe there was some misunderstanding. I thought you were saying that people had to earn all of their rights. It seemed to me that you were advocating that it would be okay to force everyone to work for the government for two years. I see that as an infraction on natural rights that could lead to mob rule. What's to stop the mob without natural rights? I disagree that people have to earn all of their rights and that the government should be able to force everyone to work for them for 2 years. That is what I was arguing against.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

read heinlein? nah, i haven't - aside from every anthology i could find, every novel and quite a few essays. if anything i'd say he was anarchist a la bakunin - even more individualist than libertarianism<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've read a lot more Heinlein than me. Sorry for attempting to lecture you on Heinlein. I think I misinterpreted what you were saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

i suggested compulsory service because the US has a mandated right to vote for almost everyone who's over 17

the Starship Troopers society only gives the right to vote or hold public office to successful -volunteers- for civic service, -not- everyone<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see the point about wanting voters to be educated and involved. I only disagree on the methods. I would be more partial to giving up voting rights than freedom. But I don't really want to give up either.

Reasonable people disagree on what natural rights people have. I think I've made the point I wanted to make.