Why volunteer for the armed forces?

ok doser

Well-known member
More like the cure.
Universal suffrage is a poorly considered form of democracy. Democracy that excludes the voice and opinion of the retarded portion of the population, might be viable. I would certainly be willing to give it a try, by requiring voters to first pass a training course and earn a certificate proving that they are informed and rational, the sort of education that immigrants have to master in order to earn their citizenship. When I taught, our kids learned this in 11th grade as the course we called PIG. I would also require any potential voters to demonstrate a familiarity with the candidates and the issues before they voted.
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
My Grandfather's cousin was in the Army over in Europe druing WWI
My Father was in the Navy during WWII.
My Uncle was in the Air Force over in Korean during the Korean.
I was in for 30 years during Vietnam and Desert Storm.

I admire men and women who serve their country in the armed forces. However, I am do not particulary like the people who send them off to war.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Universal suffrage is a poorly considered form of democracy. Democracy that excludes the voice and opinion of the retarded portion of the population, might be viable. I would certainly be willing to give it a try, by requiring voters to first pass a training course and earn a certificate proving that they are informed and rational, the sort of education that immigrants have to master in order to earn their citizenship. When I taught, our kids learned this in 11th grade as the course we called PIG. I would also require any potential voters to demonstrate a familiarity with the candidates and the issues before they voted.
I'm not opposed to experimenting with this. Incidentally it's not universal right now, there's an age limit, and many ex-cons can't vote either. There are probably other people who are denied too. I'm just not convinced at the moment that electing better politicians would make much material difference, but maybe I'm wrong, but also maybe the better politicians who would actually make a big difference, would get elected with our current scheme anyway--that's to me a distinct possibility.

The big thing's those liberal democratic institutions, our Constitution's been designed to force even a polity overwhelmed with ignoramuses to elect politicians who are incentivized to protect and defend them. The rule of law, the separation of powers, civilian control of the military among these institutions. They're the key to a good regime.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Ok, what is your definition of liberal?
Separation of powers, rule of law, constitutionalism, civilian control of the military.
I want to point out that you failed to counter what I said.


What you said is contrary to the founding of this country and something that was created by neocons like W who gave us such wonderful things as Iraq. One of our founding principles is that people should be allowed to choose their own government - whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy. This principle was one of the key differences between the U.S. and the French Republic. It is also why we were at relative peace in comparison.
If we could without serious carnage sweep through all the terrible regimes of the world and force them to be liberals we should do it. We would need to occupy until we fixed their polity though, it's not enough to just impose a regime and leave, the character of the polity will swallow up the politicians in corruption and the liberal institutions would be destroyed. Germany and Japan were occupied for many years after they were defeated in WWII and we did successfully force their polities to become liberal.
Worked for Caesar.
The American military are the good guys of history, the sooner you recognize that the better.
The people of a country, state, city, or community protects their rights. Armies never have and never will protect civil liberties.
Who do you think our military are? Robots? Foreigners?
Armies only destroy civil liberties which is why countries generally direct them at the enemy.
They do not, they only do that if civilian control of the military is lost, in other words in an illiberal /evil regime.
The professional military does not secure our freedoms, liberties and rights. The citizens do.
Ours absolutely does, and they are citizens.
Because

Do you think that the marines only "kill bad guys"? Hate to break it to you, but marines like all soldiers many times simply kill people who happen to be on the other side of the conflict. War is not pleasant and is not black and white.
You failed to contest my answer. One reason for joining particularly the Marines, is if you're a born killer and you want to use your talent for good. That stands.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
Separation of powers, rule of law, constitutionalism, civilian control of the military.
The Civil War. That was easy to disprove.
If we could without serious carnage sweep through all the terrible regimes of the world and force them to be liberals we should do it. We would need to occupy until we fixed their polity though, it's not enough to just impose a regime and leave, the character of the polity will swallow up the politicians in corruption and the liberal institutions would be destroyed. Germany and Japan were occupied for many years after they were defeated in WWII and we did successfully force their polities to become liberal.
Yes, conquer the world. If they won't join us, make them join us.
The American military are the good guys of history, the sooner you recognize that the better.
They have been the bad guys and can become the bad guys again. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Who do you think our military are? Robots? Foreigners?
Definitely robots and foreigners there. You obviously know nothing about the U.S. military.

As I have already posted, most are mercenaries. The serve themselves. They aren't there to serve others. Don't fool yourself.
They do not, they only do that if civilian control of the military is lost, in other words in an illiberal /evil regime.
Nope. Stalin and Hitler were both civilian and did not hold military rank. And Hitler showed how easy it is to lose a "liberal" government.
Ours absolutely does, and they are citizens.
No they don't. Not everyone in the U.S. military are citizens. Those that are give up their rights as citizens and therefore can't protect something they don't have.
You failed to contest my answer. One reason for joining particularly the Marines, is if you're a born killer and you want to use your talent for good. That stands.
I must have missed that part of the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that killing people is good?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Liberal democracy, or just liberalism, is the opposite of evil, everything but liberalism is evil, by comparison, and I include constitutional monarchism as a type of liberalism.

Using this definition from wikipedia:

Spoiler
Liberal democracy emphasises the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. Liberal democracies are likely to emphasise the importance of the state being a Rechtsstaat, i.e. a state that follows the principle of rule of law.


I can tell you that liberal democracy is EVIL.

Separation of powers? Evil.
A single point of authority often rightly motivates.

Independent judiciary? Evil.
Authority flows downhill, naturally. That means, from God, to the leader of a nation, to the judiciary.

Checks and balances? Evil.
There is NO system which incorporates only humans that can prevent humans from being wicked, because such a system is inherently flawed.

. . . between Different branches of government? A government should not be so divided that cannot maintain excellency in the things that it does. A government should only focus on doing that which it has the responsibility to do, and that is ONLY to build and maintain infrastructure, and to enforce criminal justice and protect the rights of its citizens. Also, and only in short term emergencies, it may provide aid to those in need, but it should not try to take care of people from cradle to grave.

Now, that being said, those responsibilities do not normally overlap, and thus, such as "checks and balances" system would be unnecessary, because deviating from their assigned duties would be 1) irresponsible and 2) unnecessary, and 3) beyond the scope of their responsibilities.

Democracy is evil, because the majority is evil, according to Jesus.
 

Rusha

Silence Is The Best Reply To A Fool ...
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why give up on your personal freedom for years, and possibly risk your life in a war that somebody else decided was worth fighting?

Why do people do such a thing?
Paycheck, health insurance, free education, housing, future career and benefits.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
The Civil War. That was easy to disprove.
Yes, the thornier issue that remains to this day, all throughout the world, concerns just who is a man, when we say that all men are created equal. It is those men who we believe possess the rights, and so while it is not without merit, to accuse a polity who is racist in their perception of the world---racial supremacists---of being illiberal, it can be perceived as a distinct issue from liberalism the form of government.

In the past the primary issue regarding this in America was Blacks and how they were treated, although throughout history there have been very many ethnic categories who have been discriminated against in the law, quite a few times it has been Jews, in England it was Catholics, and in America it is Blacks and Latinos. The Chinese see themselves as superior to westerners, the Japanese see themselves as superior to the Chinese, this is all over the place, and to this day.

Right now for many the biggest deficit is perceiving the unborn as something other than persons with rights.
Yes, conquer the world. If they won't join us, make them join us.
Correct. It has worked before, it would have worked in the South even, if Reconstruction had been allowed to proceed. You have to of course defeat the regime, but you then must occupy and force the polity to recognize the liberal institutions against their will, until it is their will to continue to preserve them.
They have been the bad guys and can become the bad guys again. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
They have never been the bad guys. Exceptions prove the rule.
Definitely robots and foreigners there. You obviously know nothing about the U.S. military.
Plain. Bluster.
As I have already posted, most are mercenaries. The serve themselves. They aren't there to serve others. Don't fool yourself.
@Bradley D ---does this describe you? Are you a "mercenary"? When you served, were you "serving yourself"?
Yes.
Stalin and Hitler were both civilian and did not hold military rank. And Hitler showed how easy it is to lose a "liberal" government.
I never said there was only one way to lose a liberal regime. Hitler destroyed the separation of powers. And Stalin was a dictator after the Bolsheviks had already toppled the infant Russian liberal regime, replacing it with an illiberal regime.
No they don't.
Yes they do.
Not everyone in the U.S. military are citizens.
Correct, but most of them are.
Those that are give up their rights as citizens and therefore can't protect something they don't have.
In as much as you give up your rights as a citizen when you take a job. You give up your right to sleep in and stay home all day. Your argument is that if you hold a job, you can't try to protect human rights? Your thinking is bizarre.
I must have missed that part of the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that killing people is good?
Like all over the Old Testament.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
Yes, the thornier issue that remains to this day, all throughout the world, concerns just who is a man, when we say that all men are created equal. It is those men who we believe possess the rights, and so while it is not without merit, to accuse a polity who is racist in their perception of the world---racial supremacists---of being illiberal, it can be perceived as a distinct issue from liberalism the form of government.

In the past the primary issue regarding this in America was Blacks and how they were treated, although throughout history there have been very many ethnic categories who have been discriminated against in the law, quite a few times it has been Jews, in England it was Catholics, and in America it is Blacks and Latinos. The Chinese see themselves as superior to westerners, the Japanese see themselves as superior to the Chinese, this is all over the place, and to this day.

Right now for many the biggest deficit is perceiving the unborn as something other than persons with rights.
Waffling on your definition.
Correct. It has worked before, it would have worked in the South even, if Reconstruction had been allowed to proceed. You have to of course defeat the regime, but you then must occupy and force the polity to recognize the liberal institutions against their will, until it is their will to continue to preserve them.
Yeah, now you're saying that the "South" is not part of the U.S. Are you a 9/11-truther as well?

Can you share a picture of your tin-foil hat?
They have never been the bad guys. Exceptions prove the rule.
Paradox
Plain. Bluster.
Just facts. As usual, you hate facts.
@Bradley D ---does this describe you? Are you a "mercenary"? When you served, were you "serving yourself"?
He sure was. I'll tell him what. If the money and benefits weren't important, stop taking the benefits and return the money. People don't volunteer for free. And in addition, remember I said most. So, you're twisting what I said to mean everyone.
Nope.
I never said there was only one way to lose a liberal regime. Hitler destroyed the separation of powers. And Stalin was a dictator after the Bolsheviks had already toppled the infant Russian liberal regime, replacing it with an illiberal regime.
You're not addressing what was said.
They do not, they only do that if civilian control of the military is lost, in other words in an illiberal /evil regime.
Nope. Stalin and Hitler were both civilian and did not hold military rank. And Hitler showed how easy it is to lose a "liberal" government.
Yes they do.
No they don't.
In as much as you give up your rights as a citizen when you take a job. You give up your right to sleep in and stay home all day. Your argument is that if you hold a job, you can't try to protect human rights? Your thinking is bizarre.
No. You have no idea or clue what military service is. You don't even have to enlist to read an enlistment contract. Go read one.

Enlistment or commission involves giving up 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. amendment rights. You can still be prosecuted under civilian courts but you also can be prosecuted in military courts and you have to follow an additional group of laws for the military.

It's the same for every military service I know of. My thinking is right. Though I'm still wondering if you are a 9/11 truther.
Like all over the Old Testament.
Quote a verse that says killing is good. If they are all over, it should be easy to quote one.
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
@Bradley D ---does this describe you? Are you a "mercenary"? When you served, were you "serving yourself"?
My first enlistment was due to the draft. Did I feel like a mercenary, no. My next enlistments were due to the Cold War. I felt as if I was helping stop the spread of communism. Did I feel like a mercenary, no. My last enlisted dealt again with communism. Did I feel like a mercenary, no.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
My first enlistment was due to the draft. Did I feel like a mercenary, no. My next enlistments were due to the Cold War. I felt as if I was helping stop the spread of communism. Did I feel like a mercenary, no. My last enlisted dealt again with communism. Did I feel like a mercenary, no.
Yeah I didn't think so.

Thank you sir for your service!
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
I have never been a member of US armed forces. The year I was eligible for the draft my lottery number was 355 so unless there had been all out war that year I could not have been drafted.

That said, I think there are a lot of people who do not volunteer for mercenary reasons. I know some who volunteered for family reasons. Their families had been part of the military for patriotic reasons for a hundred years or so. It was family tradition. Every generation had one or more individuals who served. I know others who volunteered for a purely altruistic reason: to help protect the nation they loved.

It's extremely cynical in my point of view to accuse all those who volunteer of selfish motives. No matter what a person's motives for volunteering are they know that they will most likely have to fight and possibly die in service to their country. So to accuse them of purely selfish reasons for volunteering is a few steps beyond cynical in my point of view.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
I have never been a member of US armed forces. The year I was eligible for the draft my lottery number was 355 so unless there had been all out war that year I could not have been drafted.

That said, I think there are a lot of people who do not volunteer for mercenary reasons. I know some who volunteered for family reasons. Their families had been part of the military for patriotic reasons for a hundred years or so. It was family tradition. Every generation had one or more individuals who served. I know others who volunteered for a purely altruistic reason: to help protect the nation they loved.

It's extremely cynical in my point of view to accuse all those who volunteer of selfish motives. No matter what a person's motives for volunteering are they know that they will most likely have to fight and possibly die in service to their country. So to accuse them of purely selfish reasons for volunteering is a few steps beyond cynical in my point of view.
I graduated high school in 1977 at the age of 17. The Vietnam war had ended. The military was reducing in size. I considered West Point. I had the recommendations from my local congresswoman and other local leaders, but didn't see it as a viable career path at that time because it was an era of the military shrinking in size. My interest at that time, as far as I can remember had to do with patriotism, had to do with career opportunity, had to do with adventure and opportunity.
 

chair

Well-known member
My first enlistment was due to the draft. Did I feel like a mercenary, no. My next enlistments were due to the Cold War. I felt as if I was helping stop the spread of communism. Did I feel like a mercenary, no. My last enlisted dealt again with communism. Did I feel like a mercenary, no.
Good for you!

I served in the Israeli army for a relatively short time. My sons did full service. Here it is expected. People identify with this country, and the need to defend it is real.

Most of the answers on this thread disappointed me, though they didn't surprise me. Most here spoke of personal advantage, or personal freedom. The ideas of national freedom and especially responsibility hardly came up.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Using this definition from wikipedia:

Spoiler
Liberal democracy emphasises the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. Liberal democracies are likely to emphasise the importance of the state being a Rechtsstaat, i.e. a state that follows the principle of rule of law.


I can tell you that liberal democracy is EVIL.

Separation of powers? Evil.
A single point of authority often rightly motivates.

Independent judiciary? Evil.
Authority flows downhill, naturally. That means, from God, to the leader of a nation, to the judiciary.

Checks and balances? Evil.
There is NO system which incorporates only humans that can prevent humans from being wicked, because such a system is inherently flawed.

. . . between Different branches of government? A government should not be so divided that cannot maintain excellency in the things that it does. A government should only focus on doing that which it has the responsibility to do, and that is ONLY to build and maintain infrastructure, and to enforce criminal justice and protect the rights of its citizens. Also, and only in short term emergencies, it may provide aid to those in need, but it should not try to take care of people from cradle to grave.

Now, that being said, those responsibilities do not normally overlap, and thus, such as "checks and balances" system would be unnecessary, because deviating from their assigned duties would be 1) irresponsible and 2) unnecessary, and 3) beyond the scope of their responsibilities.

Democracy is evil, because the majority is evil, according to Jesus.
Democracy as I said is shorthand for liberal democracy or liberalism. Absolute or pure democracy is not the issue.

The idea, existence, of human rights, you can thank liberalism for. The idea isn't clear in history until Locke, before then you had rights if you were a citizen of, for example, Rome or London. But nobody had rights just because they were a human, that idea is new with Locke.

If you believe in human rights, you are a liberal, to argue otherwise is to commit plagiarism, of liberals, like Locke. And the institutions of liberalism are how we protect, or secure, our human rights, which is the principle purpose of government.

If you believe in human rights you are a liberal.
 
Top