i think the government should start drafting kids again. that's the only way we'll be politically active again. as long as it's a volunteer force . . . the majority of families affected are minorities and poor whites. until more people of the upper middle class are dying there won't be political activism amongst the youth of today.


i'm a conservative and this is how I feel. also I served my country proudly ......... FIN

9/12/2006 4:44:04 PM

i wish we would start rationing shit off too...like during ww2

it'd make us stronger

9/12/2006 4:45:13 PM

Quote :

"until more people of the upper middle class are dying there won't be political activism amongst the youth of today."

aren't they the people who can easily dodge the draft?

9/12/2006 4:45:18 PM

if you dont realize how stupid it would be to force a bunch of people who dont want to be soldiers to defend this country, then there's really no hope for you.

9/12/2006 4:50:16 PM

Amsterdam this argument is stupid. First you have to explain why being politcally active matters. I mean, is it really that important that people vote?

More importantly, if only military service can cause people to get politically active, and the current system majorly affects minorities and poor whites, then why is it that minorities and poor white have such abysmal voter turnout as it is?

Thank you for serving the country, I appreciate that.

9/12/2006 4:59:31 PM

I'd have to find the demographics again, but middle-class white kids are over-represented in combat forces. Most of the minorities and poor whites fill support positions (medical, supply, etc)

9/12/2006 4:59:54 PM

if you dont realize how stupid it would be to force a bunch of people who dont want to be soldiers to defend this country, then there's really no hope for you.

9/12/2006 5:02:01 PM

A Tanz, that directly contradicts what Reverend Jesse Jackson has told me and therefore it cannot be correct.

9/12/2006 5:02:42 PM

Actually, it wasn't Jesse Jackson, but a Congressman who spurred me to find demographics on the military. I don't remember where (this was a couple of years ago) but I did find them on the DOD website.

9/12/2006 5:06:35 PM

stupid people cant be officers on Nuclear Subs and shit.

9/12/2006 5:06:50 PM

my uncle captained a nuke sub. he'd probably beat your ass for suggesting we put a drafted crew under his command.

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ,]

9/12/2006 5:11:15 PM

ha my dad was an officer on a nuke, maybe they were butt buddies.

9/12/2006 5:13:11 PM

I'm trying to go subs after I get commissioned. I guess I'm destined to be a butt buddy.

9/12/2006 5:17:52 PM

THINK ABOUT IT. say if the draft came and like moderately intelligent people like tdubbers had to go serve. do you have any idea how many more parents and teens, etc would be involved in the political process.


so many liberals disagree with govn't policies, etc . . . and the youth have no interest at all. so there's no voice. the only way i think people will be active again is if kids are being drafted.

9/12/2006 5:56:54 PM

i'm gonna say take your draft and suck dick

we wouldn't be short on troops if we weren't nation building (destabilizing) all over the fuckin place

9/12/2006 6:04:17 PM

Thats not a draft.

Thats conscription.

9/12/2006 6:56:52 PM

^^

9/12/2006 7:43:34 PM

Quote :

"Amsterdam this argument is stupid. First you have to explain why being politcally active matters. I mean, is it really that important that people vote?"

Democracy cannot function if people don't vote.

I can't believe I actually read this.

9/12/2006 9:31:41 PM

SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP.

9/12/2006 9:34:59 PM

IM DOING MY PART!
http://maxdoeshispart.ytmnd.com/

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

9/12/2006 10:09:29 PM

^^^ while you have a valid point, we thankfully have a democratic republic, representative democracy, or whatever you want to call it, and don't depend on every last dumbass without a clue to call the shots.

Quote :

"i wish we would start rationing shit off too...like during ww2 it'd make us stronger "

haha, at least it might make us skinnier! i could get on board with fewer fat chicks.



but reinstating a draft is a horrible, horrible, stupid idea.

9/12/2006 10:17:54 PM

But why is voter apathy not viewed as a problem to be investigated?

9/12/2006 10:31:33 PM

Because you have not demonstrated it to be a "Problem"
Democracy is not perfect, but not once in history (that I can think of) has it produced bad results because of low turnout. The election that appointed Adolf Hitler did not suffer low turnout, neither did the one that appointed FDR and Hamilton.

You find it morally reprehensible that most people don't vote. That is fine for you but controversial for most everyone else. I don't care if most people don't vote, a lot of people don't care. So why should the government spend effort fixing something that only a few nuts (such as yourself) consider a "Problem"?

Might energy not be better spent tracking down and cutting wasteful government programs?

And suggesting that we should violate the most basic of human rights (self determination) by instating a draft in pursuit of bettering an issue most don't even recognize. Low voter turnout may be a big issue for you, but surely it would not compare to arresting a large portion of the adult male population and imprisoning them in military service having committed no crime beyond being born?

9/12/2006 10:49:46 PM

Quote :

"the majority of families affected are minorities and poor whites. "

becuase all minorities are poor

9/12/2006 10:58:22 PM

Quote :

"arresting a large portion of the adult male population and imprisoning them in military service having committed no crime beyond being born? "

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME ??????????/ WHEN DOES SERVING YOUR COUNTRY EQUATE TO BEING IMPRISONED. stop being a fucking pussy here . . . the point i was making is for everyone that complains about government not serving the interest of the people the way to get ppl to be politically active would be to instate the draft that's the time PEOPLE LIKE YOU would ever give a sh!t.


GROW A PAIR !!!1

9/12/2006 11:05:47 PM

LONESTAR . . . your hometown is fayetteville. that's home of the 82nd. YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER !!!1

9/12/2006 11:06:55 PM

No, I'm sorry, you did not understand my wording. Let me try to explain it better to you.

Let us imagine we are talking about me and I am being drafted. Now, at this point I want to go to Mexico, but you have arrested me for failure to appear before the draft board and then sent me to Iraq. I never agreed to go to Iraq, there was no meeting of the minds on this issue, you just kidnapped me. We used to do this a lot awhile back, it was called slavery.

It doesn't matter what you are having me do, carry a riffle or harvest cotton, the immoral principle is exactly the same. You and the U.S. Government have revoked my right to decide my own fate and imposed your own and no matter how lofty your goals it is still slavery and I will still fight you to the death to preserve the liberties of me and my fellow country men.

9/12/2006 11:25:01 PM

Draft = Slavery, plain and simple. What were we fighting for, again?

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 12:26 AM. Reason : sdfsdf]

9/13/2006 12:25:58 AM

20 people in a cave in pakiturkmanistani

9/13/2006 1:17:02 AM

Quote :

"i think the government should start drafting kids again. that's the only way we'll be politically active again."

How about we just have some politicians who actually give a shit about the average American, instead of the lobbyists, big business, and hardcore nuts of their parties.

9/13/2006 10:02:55 AM

Wow. LoneSnark spent 188 words ignoring the fact I said it ought to be investigated and didn't propose or praise any one solution whatsoever.

gg man

Turn my curiosity into an attack.

9/13/2006 2:54:03 PM

Quote :

"SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP."

GOONFLEET

9/13/2006 3:19:45 PM

Look at me, I can say that voter apathy has caused problems just as easily as LoneSnark can say it hasn't.

I think it's awesome when ~30% of the public says a guy should lead the rest, another ~30% say he shouldn't, and ~40% express a statistically uncategorizeable opinion on the matter.

Net effect: ~30% decide who leads the other ~70%.

9/13/2006 3:38:00 PM

ONE THING'S FOR SURE

THEY'LL KEEP FIGHTING

AND THEY'LL WIN

9/13/2006 3:42:12 PM

wait, gamecat == Amsterdam718? now I get it.

Anyway, you said it should be investigated and so I investigated it. Turns out the draft is just another form of slavery, only instead of enslaving people based on race you are doing based on a lottery and instead of harvesting cotton they are carrying a riffle.

As for the "problems" you claim to know, I don't see them. Sure, the laws are being made by people that were only voted upon by 30% of the population. It is an odd fate of humanity that Democracy really doesn't seem to matter to people, all that matters to people is the content of the law, not who wrote it. People in the United States respect the law, regardless of the process used to determine it. Hell, we revere our practice of "Common Law" which was not and never has been put in place based on a democratic vote. When polled the most trusted branch of government is the least democratic, the Supreme Court.

Other countries with much higher voting rates are also more likely to suffer corruption and illegality (Europe's black-market is almost twice the size of America's).

So no, you have named NO problem caused by a lack of voter turnout, not a single one beyond your philosophical objections. So, get over your quibbles and stop suggesting we make government worse.

9/13/2006 9:13:51 PM

^bingo

9/13/2006 9:29:19 PM

I'm not Amsterdam.

You didn't investigate shit. I said voter apathy was a problem to investigate. I didn't say that conscription was a good idea. Ever.

Black markets exist most prominently in countries where bad men encourage more men to exercise freedom more often than the bad men in our own do. Interesting. So why not educate enough of the public about the effect they can have on their Democracy to make the idea of trying to change things attractive enough to act on? Perhaps they wouldn't do such stupid things as they do in those other countries. And in our own.

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 9:41 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2006 9:36:26 PM

Then you understand my confusion. My statements that "Draft == Slavery" were directed against those that suggested a draft, namely Amsterdam.

Therefore, since that was not your suggestion, the only point of mine that mattered to you was "You find it morally reprehensible that most people don't vote. That is fine for you but controversial for most everyone else. I don't care if most people don't vote, a lot of people don't care. So why should the government spend effort fixing something that only a few nuts (such as yourself) consider a "Problem"?"

In other words, I have investigated low voter turn-out and found that it is irrelevant. It is a waste of time to do anything, and since "doing nothing" is a valid option then I suggest we take it.

And since you have responded the same way multiple times, I'll explain yet again that a philosophical objection does not count as a Problem. I don't care if you are happy, I only care about real problems. Examples would include "Low voter turn out kills 1000 Americans every year" or "if not for low voter turn out Vietnam and Iraq would have been avoided"

30% are rulling 70% is a complaint, not a problem.

9/13/2006 10:16:57 PM

The fact though, LoneSnark is that your argument is inherently philosophical in nature as well. Trust some armchair economist's unscientific speculation.

I have huge difficulty accepting that you simply summoned data from the effects of high and low voter turnout in the modern United States about the effects it has had. Nor do I think your analysis addressed the potential effects of allocating at least a jet fighter or two towards a scientific study on the matter.

Where is the economist in you?

I'm arguing there's an opportunity cost to doing nothing. Do you deny that?

If you fear a voting public, I fear for our future.

You say high turnout doen't tend to produce good results. I can just as logically say that high turnout is often a product of corruption, AND a result of it. That would be a more complex cause than your simplistic: "High turnout causes corruption" bullshit. In other words, your nutty ass is creating a huge logical fallacy here by asserting that your data represent more than a correlation. And so could I, if I believed I knew for sure. The difference is, you are.

Correlations aren't great for philosophy, LoneSnark. They do not establish causes.

I'd also assert that another variable I'm sure you've ignored is the state of accurate information available to the average voter. Educating the average voter, or at least seeing to it that they have accurate information about their candidates by Election Day, would alleviate pretty much every fear I can imagine you have about high turnout.

What's so frightening about solving the problem of the opportunity cost of uneducated voters?

9/13/2006 10:36:40 PM

Gamecat, [expletive removed] I did not posit a correlation to argue causation, I did so to prevent you from arguing one.

It is obvious to me that if high voter turnout produces better government then it should be correlated, but since it is not either way then the two must be uncertainly linked, potentially independent.

I said explicitly that high or low voter turnout is irrelevant. Do I need to define the word irrelevant for you?

Quote :

"I'm arguing there's an opportunity cost to doing nothing."

Such as? If you do nothing then voter turn out remains low, if you do something then maybe you make it higher. But what I can guarantee is that by doing something you have distracted Congress from the business of running the country, thus wasting treasure and lives.

This is all before I point out that you cannot make people care, so fixing low voter turnout will most likely just be an illusion.

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 10:54 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/13/2006 10:51:45 PM

Perhaps if they had accurate information they would care. That's my hypothesis. That, and that they'd be able to make sound, informed decisions about who's best to lead the country, state, or district in which they live.

Corruption is already a problem in government. Even with low turnout.

If turnout's irrelevant, I'm establishing that a voter's access to accurate information may be.

Nonetheless, until we define voter apathy as a problem worth investigating, or whose effects are worth scientifically establishing at all, you certainly aren't free to argue that your view makes any sense.

Again, the difference is that I'm arguing it's worth discovering. You are arguing that you know already.

9/13/2006 11:02:08 PM

Quote :

"Again, the difference is that I'm arguing it's worth discovering. You are arguing that you know already."

an apt description because I do know. I know that we are all responsible for tending to the market of ideas to kill bad ideas and grow good ideas. In-so-far as this market fails there is no use debating what should be done, we know what must be done: form a community action committee and get the word out. Call the press, fund-raise, buy advertising, debate people in the street, pay others to debate people on the street.

But if the majority does not care what we have to say then the market has worked, we just don't like the results: over 70% don't feel it is not worth the effort of having an opinion (if Democracy means anything then they must be right). That is their prerogative. And that is fine, you must remember that the marketplace of ideas does not require universal participation, it only requires free discussion among whatever percentage remains (30% in this case). And to the best of my knowledge this discussion is still somewhat free (McCain-Feingold did a shit-load of harm to freedom of expression, but it is not dead). So, get back out there and campaign for your candidate. Maybe you will convince that 70% to get educated.

9/13/2006 11:23:38 PM

I lack the resources to educate them.

The federal government does not.

Period. I refuse to accept your premise on faith alone.

9/14/2006 12:00:20 AM

Quote :

"I lack the resources to educate them. The federal government does not."

But is that not the point? The federal government doesn't have any resources, all it has is what it has taken from the American People. In a Democracy, if you are unable to sway a plurality of the voters then you have no right to partake of their resources. Thus, you are left only with the resources you yourself have earned in the non-democratic marketplace of resources.

9/14/2006 7:19:07 AM

vietnam

9/14/2006 3:26:11 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: The federal government doesn't have any resources, all it has is what it has taken from the American People."

Who commands the actions of the United States military?

Who commands the actions of our warplanes?

Who owns the land beneath our nation's federal offices in Washington D.C.?

Who owns the White House?

Surely an economist would admit all such things represent capital: militarily trained personnel, weapons, land, and facilities. Who owns the capital? I certainly didn't own a warship that a federal government came and stole from me. My family never claimed land in Northern Virginia for the federal government to steal and build a Pentagon on top of. Those things were not taken from the people, they were paid for by the people.

You seem to be ignoring a fundamental aspect of the system of the United States government. It is made up of its people, by its people, and for its people. The government is an entity, not unlike a corporation, and can own things, have employees, and create a revenue stream to please its shareholders and stakeholders.

And in the United States corporation, I am a shareholder and stakeholder by way of the taxes my government has taken from me. So are the rest of the taxpaying population. The rest of the non-taxpaying population represent stakeholders. Part of the Mission Statement of this grand American corporation is that its executives and legislators rule by the informed consent of the governed.

The governed, who are to provide informed consent to the leadership, includes shareholders and stakeholders in this case because you are governed by this corporation whether you're a shareholder or not. This is especially true if you live within the territory claimed by this corporation. If you disagree that the governed are giving their informed consent at a time that you simultaneously admit they lack sufficient accurate information to be informed, how does this not create a problem?

I allege they fail miserably at their mission and ought to take steps to establish how and why it has failed to inform the governed of objectively accurate information, and from there take rational steps to correct or ignore it once it's been established objectively to be a problem or not. I will not accept your backyard experiment on faith alone.

On some level, the consequences of failing to do so are the same for a government that they are for a corporation. Shareholder apathy, leading to a mass voting by proxy (i.e. the effect of political parties), ending in a lack of original ideas about how best to the governance of the organization. Corporations that stagnate from a lack of original ideas do so because of groupthink practically every time. Hard to argue it didn't bring down Enron, or Discovery.

I can't believe I have to outline the negative consequences of this to an economist. For every attempt I could make to describe decentralizing the source of ideas for consideration, you would make an argument that idea consolidation is good. It's baffling.

You seem to confuse me with somebody running for office, and unfairly judge me as such. I am not running for office, nor do I ever plan to. However, I have an opinion about a problem facing this country that is based in rational, objective, and economic reality.

The consolidation of accurate information and ideas into twin opposing camps leads to the blurring of the objective information available to the American shareholders who can vote, and a considerable amount of groupthink among its executives and legislators.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 7:32 PM. Reason : ...]

9/14/2006 7:25:02 PM

Dude, you've gone off the deep end already. You have restated the same points numerous times without yet swaying into anything concrete.

The U.S. Government spends a shit-ton of money every year on educational programming, every cent of which was probably wasted. Yet, this is what it sounds like you want more of. But like I said this is not a field where government belongs. It is not Government's job to teach us what is important in life because government is not just people it is politicians and politicians deal with politics. And as my favorite philosopher P.J. O'Rourke said, "Politics are a lousy way to get things done. Politics are, like God's infinite mercy, a last resort."

Do you really want George Bush teaching your children what is important in life? Your kids will run off and join the military, kill brown people, and appoint Harriet Miers. Is that really the America you want to live in?

Quote :

"The government is an entity, not unlike a corporation"

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Can you imagine a corporation with the right to compel shareholders to invest? Or, worse, the ability to compel customers to buy its products. PLEASE do not imply the U.S. government is anything like a corporation, it is just too damn depressing and liable to encourage me to raise up arms against it.

9/14/2006 9:16:32 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Dude, you've gone off the deep end already. You have restated the same points numerous times without yet swaying into anything concrete."

I think you're confusing "concrete" with "attackable." The construction of our government and its mission do not represent piss in the wind. You've asserted the government doesn't have resources, and I've soundly rejected the notion and proven my case. You've done nothing to attack that case whatsoever.

Instead you cower behind "well the government's not defined as a corporation," and refuse to see any similarities whatsoever. Simple as that. You can't simply dismiss the idea out of hand without providing at least some cogent rebuttal to it.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: The U.S. Government spends a shit-ton of money every year on educational programming, every cent of which was probably wasted. Yet, this is what it sounds like you want more of."

You commit a grand error by putting such words in my mouth. I'd love to see you backpedal away from this one.

Where exactly did I say I wanted more of the same tired, ineffective, biased educational program from our government?

You could also interpret, if you were reading properly, that I'm arguing for better educational programming from our government. And better standards within our educational curricula.

In fact, I have repeatedly stated the need for objectively accurate information on the effects of voter apathy. You argue first that it exists in some ascientific backyard lab study, then that it's not a problem, now you misrepresent what I've said. I'm starting to wonder if you're ever going to address my assertion in a rational manner at all.

If you'd read between the lines, I'm referring at most to restrictions on the deliberate tailoring of bullshit during elections by manipulative political campaigns. Information should have some recognizeable degree of accuracy attributed to it when peddled by future legislators and executives. Most, I'd argue, are unqualified to accurately recognize those degrees themselves. If government lacks accountability, it's explicitly because of this reason. The winner of elections isn't determined by the accuracy of his information or the inherent logic of his platform, but his capacity to appeal to emotion.

How else does Hamas get elected in Palestine? Or Nazis elected in Germany?

I'm astounded that you do not agree. That doesn't mean you should, or are stupid for disagreeing, but it's still surprising to me.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: But like I said this is not a field where government belongs. It is not Government's job to teach us what is important in life because government is not just people it is politicians and politicians deal with politics."

Who argued they should teach us what's important in life? I'm arguing they should be required to disclose more accurate, and more relevant information. If crooks continue to become politicians, it's because they are permitted to so easily obscure the truth by appealing to emotion and not informed belief or reason. But all of this is a tangent, and ends here.

I've argued for a proper investigation into the effects of voter apathy. You've argued the cloak of ignorance over this subject is a good thing.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: And as my favorite philosopher P.J. O'Rourke said, "Politics are a lousy way to get things done. Politics are, like God's infinite mercy, a last resort.""

I agree with O'Rourke. You just prefer corporate politics shape the arbiters of information instead of governmental ones.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Do you really want George Bush teaching your children what is important in life? Your kids will run off and join the military, kill brown people, and appoint Harriet Miers. Is that really the America you want to live in?"

No. That's why I don't propose perpetuating stupid systems that obviously allow such things to happen out of some Candide-like defiance that things could improve with better governance.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: This is the dumbest thing I've ever read."

I love how after you say that, you do absolutely nothing reasonable to butress your claim but ask questions and employ argumentum ad metam (appeal to fear) logical fallacy.

Quote :

"Can you imagine a corporation with the right to compel shareholders to invest? Or, worse, the ability to compel customers to buy its products. PLEASE do not imply the U.S. government is anything like a corporation, it is just too damn depressing and liable to encourage me to raise up arms against it."

Clearly, I can imagine a corporation with the right to compel shareholders to invest. The United States government resembles one in both ways you've mentioned--which you've yet to deny, and yet it's described as "the dumbest thing [you]'ve ever read."

Well done.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ...]

9/14/2006 9:36:13 PM

I'm pretty satisfied by having people there that wanted to be there

they took the job knowing what it would entail... and many did it because it is a great chance to make something of themselves


if there ever were to be a draft, I'd join as soon as the first person I knew was drafted

9/14/2006 10:21:54 PM

Quote :

"I'm arguing they should be required to disclose more accurate, and more relevant information."

And who gets to decide what is relevant and accurate? Oh, right, politicians do.

Quote :

"Who argued they should teach us what's important in life?"

You said the Federal Government should educate them because you cannot. Information is just facts, what is meant by education is discerning what the facts mean which gives the "Teacher" immense power to ignore what they consider irrelevant and concentrate on what they consider important. Being politicians, what is irrelevant is their failures and what is important are their successes.

Quote :

"Clearly, I can imagine a corporation with the right to compel shareholders to invest."

A "corporation" is a construct based on the "meeting of the minds" between voluntary individuals. A Corporation capable of using force to compel individuals is no longer a corporation, it is a "gang" as Ayn Rand called it, or a Government as the dictionary calls it.
Using "Corporation" to describe a Government is akin to calling a slave an "employee."

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/14/2006 10:31:53 PM