Charles Rangel on Stossel: Reinstate the draft

[QueenB4Liberty]

I dont think reinstating the draft would be a good thing for the liberty movement even if it would piss off some people because it would also create millions upon millions more of americans that would be loyal towards the military-industrial complex.

I enjoyed the interview though, that crook Rangel was really squirming and looking really uncomfortable because of Stossel's questioning, I dont think he is used to journalists being so hostile to him.

Just because you're forced to go to war doesn't automatically mean you'll love the MIC.

 

[outspoken]

The draft is one of the greatest violations of personal individual liberty and basically is the state claiming property of your life. Hell hath no fury for any government that tries to claim one of my children as their property.

 

[Tal]

Just because you're forced to go to war doesn't automatically mean you'll love the MIC.

Maybe not for everyone but I think a large part of the people that join the military get brainwashed into being good little agents of the state not to mention I think letting people be in the military teaches them how comfortable life can be while being an employee of the government, you dont have to worry about pleasing any customers or enduring any competition from other companies when your a government employee after all.

I think there is a connection between periods of large scale wars and militarizations of a society and these socities becoming more socialistic and hostile towards the free market, not only during the war but also after it and this is why I dont support instituting the draft under any circumstance.

 

[mikem317]

Depends on your perspective:

Draft = slavery, I suppose it does.

From the perspective Draft = "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" not in my view.

Citizens have a duty to contribute to the common defense. I now spend many weekends training people without prior military service in soldier skills. Building a unit that can serve as a credible deterrent is much easier with people who have had experience wearing uniforms that say US XXXX on them, rather than starting from zero.

I suppose citizens have a duty to contribute to the common defense. However, I don't believe people should be coerced by the state, into being pressed into any national service, be it military or otherwise. In the end, we have a singular question to ask: Do we want freedom or tyranny? Most on this board would surely chose the former. In that sense, a draft is totally incompatible since it allows the state to lay claim to your life, time and labor.

Yeah I agree with this. Bring it back, the wars might end sooner.

That's really the "silver lining" of Rangel's evil proposal. However, I'm still against it since it is totally incompatible with the central tenants of freedom.

 

[jtstellar]

Dr Paul's views are correct when taken in their totality. He is against undeclared war, he is against the war state/empire, he is against the draft in these contexts, etc.

My comments on the draft assume that we are never going to get rid of the war state/empire by choice. So within these parameters I support the draft as right now we have an "all voluntary" force comprised of bribery and false promises.

What do I mean? Well lets look at the tools used for enlistment:

1. US Citizenship for service. If you are not an American citizen you can serve and get a fast track to a green card and if you have a rgeen card you get citizenship on the first day of service. Family, by normal immigration rules, is included in this.

Reference: http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_10_18/us/military_service_citizenship.htm

2. GI Bill for college education. "Need an education? Come kill for us... We'll give you your education"

3. Sign on bonus. Come kill our enemies and we will give you $20K. Re-enlist and serve more tours we will give you more money.

Reference: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080331163040AAhUJfH

4. Unemployment is high. We offer you a "job" (and bonus in #3)

5. The military has lowered the requirements repeatedly. Criminal conviction? Not a problem. Can't pass the tests? Not a problem. Etc Etc

6. Propaganda focused at those who have nationalistic pride (Pearl Harbor in WWII or current day 9/11/01)

7. They are now allowing women in most all roles.


So, is it -really- voluntary? You take 18 to 20 year old kids and put the above in front of them. Kids who are not US citizens, kids with no money or prospects, etc.

It is about as voluntary as a single mother sucking dick for food for her kids... "Well she voluntarily sucked dick on the corner... After we destroyed the economy, destroyed the dollar bill, forced commodities through the roof, exported her job to China, after we locked her husband up in a rape cage, she was evicted from her apartment after her landlord's house was forceclosed on a liar loan, etc etc"

actually when i talked about the side benefit of a draft i forgot about the potential corruption in the drafting process and the scope of expansion it would require of the government, invasion and loss of privacy, keeping records of all sorts and the excuses for doing so even perhaps into financial matters so "it's easier and track to punish those who do not enlist"..

all sorts of acts would become justified by the fed gubmint. 4th amendment would also be slaughtered just on the premise of fed gubmint can grab citizens from states and employ whatever necessary measures to achieve so, and drafted number would be so great that state militia would be miniscule etc..

when taken in the full scope then in fact yes my small support for the theoretical benefit of a draft seems something out of a drunk and into fantasy land

in regards to the subsidized and choice-lessened younger recruits, perhaps the question really is inherent in maintaining a standing "public" army in its propensity for issues and corruption. it would be worse to maintain a standing army by draft of the whole population which by the way would drive away citizenship from better talented population who prefer peace and keep those only too poor to care. a "voluntary" army would still pose questions of many sorts as long as it is a "public" army.

 

[kpitcher]

One thing I doubt we'll ever hear any politician answer would be... Since our armed services are trying to be gender neutral, when do 18 year old females have to start signing the selective service paperwork?

 

[ChaosControl]

The apathetic would suddenly give a damn if there was a draft and you'd actually see a real protest instead of whatever kind of b.s. you call the "protests" today.
For that very reason, a draft won't occur. They know they couldn't get away with their endless wars as easily.

 

[ChaosControl]

One thing I doubt we'll ever hear any politician answer would be... Since our armed services are trying to be gender neutral, when do 18 year old females have to start signing the selective service paperwork?

I really hate the whole "gender-neutral" view of modern society, pisses me off probably more than any other thing about the modern era.