Authorized enslavement.

[Technosoul]

After being inducted to overcome poverty many young men and women who sign up to join the military are contracted to wave their normal consitutional rights, and in effect are owned by the Army (etc) mind, body, and soul. In effect they become slaves of the military commanders who operate that system much like a dictator form of government,
They are paid a small amount for time spent, they get trained, clothed, and housed - assuming they are not in a fox hole. And fed some chow.

However thinking for your self is taboo, and you dare not make too many personal choices, the idea is to conform and follow orders, and to act as a slave would behave relative to its master. To obey the commander in charge the same as you would obey the god of war, (Mars?).

If you do not obey orders, you are punished. If you try to escape that bondage, you are punished. At times you might be treated with great disrespect and such treatment is a "boarderline" violation of common-sense human rights (relative to a free society).

In the normal slave trade women are forced to perform prositution, in the army men (mostly so) must perform killing operations. But how would this differ much from being forced to pick cotton to earn your keep? At least a cotton picker is doing something of value in the world, instead of things that have questionable morality issues surrounding the activity.

Now I might be totally off base with this opinonated observation, but it looks like enslavement to me, even if they paid to submit to such a way of life.

So is the Army a form of authorized enslavement or not? Whatcha think?

[Morgan_Freeman]

You seem to be saying that contracts are a form of "authorized enslavement". Are you arguing against the existence of contracts? Do you have any point at all?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman You seem to be saying that contracts are a form of "authorized enslavement". Are you arguing against the existence of contracts? Do you have any point at all?

I do not make blanket statements and so would not be saying that all contracts are wrong persay, although most contracts are binding. Binding for the purposes of forsaking one party or the other from making a choice to change their minds. Binding or bondage, not sure how you split hairs on that one. It depends I guess on how the contract is worded.

The point is that slavery in in violation of international and local laws.

Being such we might also notice that the military does not use normal courts of law but has established its own system and procedings where the military has complete control over what rights are permitted, or what violations should be investigated or avoided.

Their are other types of contracts that cause great disadvantages for consumers that I could gripe about but that would alter the bearing of this topic form being about the military (and those who are sometimes enlisted into service by deceptive promises).

'be all you can be' - yeah, like be dead for example?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Technosoul The point is that slavery in in violation of international and local laws.

This fits your definition of "slavery"? In that case, I see nothing wrong with "slavery". You've just rendered the term meaningless.

You're starting to sound like grandpa.

Quote by: Technosoul Being such we might also notice that the military does not use normal courts of law but has established its own system and procedings where the military has complete control over what rights are permitted, or what violations should be investigated or avoided.

Your point?

Quote by: Technosoul Their are other types of contracts that cause great disadvantages for consumers that I could gripe about but that would alter the bearing of this topic form being about the military (and those who are sometimes enlisted into service by deceptive promises).

What "deception" are you referring to?

[Technosoul]

I request that you should not be banned for that little emotional outburst, as I (and others) would know that this might a emotionally sensitive topic, and us liberals can withstand the heat because we allow for such via compassion and love.

Now we all give praise to the men who had to defeat Hitler and who prevented Japan from attacking our homelands, and we praise those in Afganistan who responded to the 9-11 incident, but mostly it was the forefathers back in the days of Washington who combated England so that we can now enjoy freedom of speech, and freedom from overtaxation.

And freedom from slavery, don't forget that part. How can the miltary brag about creating freedom if their own military men cannot be free? What if someone joined the army for that good education you speak of but ended up in Iraq and wanted to go home, he should be free to do so without dishonor or a buch of red tape. We all know that the war in Iraq is not protecting our freedoms nor our way of life here in Ameirca, no one there can ever prevent us form speaking what we want in a limited manner. And did I not ask that you not be banned for a perceptive insult, am I not also on the front lines fighting for your "freedom of speech"? Where is my beeny badge?

I personally give permission to you and anyone to call me every name in the book, enjoy your freedom of speech to the max, however I do not agree that I am an elitist, but I did dump on the military so I guess the word crap would be suitable.

If the shoe fits, I do not mind wearing it.

But I am really dumping on what I might call "occupational slavery". If you mix slavery and freedom together you end up with a foundation that is weak, sort of like using iron and clay to hold up some monument. It will be weak and that could cause the whole stucture to crumble at the very foundaton and to topple over.

If you are in the military freedom of speech could get you into big trouble with the top brass, did you read that in your oath?

You said that any intelligent person knows what they are getting into - so tell me, what kind of I.Q. test does the enlistment officer use to determine how intelligent those 18 year olds are? What are the standards used to be able to enlist?

When I got drafted no one wanted to know how smart I was, but that was back then.

I did not support the war in Nam, in Panama, in Iraq, and in South Ameirca. Not even the war on drugs.

Now the concepts of freedom were not given to me by the military or because someone died in a war, those freedoms (which are in fact limited) were given to us by our thinkers, mostly by elitist intellectuals. Our freedom were allowed us by right thinking judges in the Supreme Court and by thinkers such a Martin King Jr. and others who protested those within our ranks that might otherwise prefer unconditional dominance over others. Freedom did not come out of the end of a gun, it came out of the minds of those who had a vision that could see beyond one that is dominated by guns.

The English enforced their rule with a well organized military, and it was that military that we had to overcome to pursue the freedoms for intellectual thinking, and/or just shooting the crap.

The military was designed to protect our real estate from getting owned by another country, but the military did not write the Consitution nor the Bill of Rights. The Vets can go on saying that they gave me my freedom to sit on my butt and protest, if that make them feel good (when they know darn well they do not want me to do so), but I am not buying into that concept. I did not need to be protected from Saddam, not then, not now, not ever.

[tivodan1116]

Where are you going with this? The military isn't conscripting anyone. People who are in the military today are volunteers. They signed a contract for their services, and if they didn't read the fine print, that's their problem.

I am against the Iraq war completely, I just don't see military service as "slavery"

[Technosoul]

Here is another point - if the people who enlist really want to fight to preserve freedom, or whatever else is at stake, then they would do so completly by choice and free will. They would not have to be enslaved with a "no exit policy" is they truely are willing to do that for America. They would stay no matter what, until the assigned task is done. We should not have to force people to fight for us if they change their minds and say "this is not for me". (and sometimes, for good reasons).

Let free men fight for freedom, not those who feel they have been trapped into something they come to feel is wrong. That is my main point. They should be motivated by a strong belief that they are doing the right thing, or set them free to return home. What is wrong with that?

[Osborn F Enready]

This brings to light an important issue, and thanks techno for doing so, though I don't necessarily agree.

I think the real question is this, and it would be a great poll for this board:

Is an individual able to sign away Constitutional rights, of their own free will, for whatever purpose deemed valid by the signing individual?

Why is it a valid question? Because, we have been conditioned to accept it as being legal for an individual to sign away their rights to serve the nation, so why should they not be allowed to sign away their rights for any purpose they deem valuable enough to themselves to be willing to sign for?

My answer is yes.

If we agree that a person has inherant rights, it must also be their ability to "give-up" those rights of their own volition, based on a "verifiable" documented contract entered into with free will of both parties, for an pre-agreed to sum of trade amounting to mutual benefit.

I would also say that is the foundation of this system. Inherant rights are just that, inherant by birth. People have a will, and with it they can comply or resist by all means afforded them by the physical world in their control. Our forefathers attempted to create a system of government that embodied those inherant rights, with the least amount of compromise to allow maximum freedom (as perceived at the time).

The compromise of our system is based on respect for those rights. The contract specifies that the people need not live under a government that violates those inherant rights, but it does not say that within that government people of free will may NOT submit their rights to waiver by contract, for a mutual agreement made in such contract, of free will by all parties involved.

For example.....

New Harmony Indiana's socialist experiment. This was perfectly legal, and constitutional, because it was an experiment BASED ON FREE WILL of the participants. One man owned the land, and opened to people of HIS OWN FREE WILL to people OF LIKE MIND, based on THEIR AGREEMENT to COMPLY to HIS RULES. If the rules were broken, the people who broke them could be expelled or forced to leave. If the system was no longer admired by a participant, they could leave of their own volition.

This is why the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights are SO perfect in their abillity to allow a lot of room for freedom of the individuals, the individuals as a voluntary collective, and the overall collective.

This is how cities form in many cases. Once they become large enough, they become "incorporated" meaning they have a "different" set of rules that can be enforced under law. It is the changes to THESE LAWS, that have helped destroy this nation.

Citizens of communities, in states, used to have the POWER to remove the "right" of incorporation from any corporation that ABUSED or BLATANTLY violated its charters promise for incorporation. That meant if citizens found out that LOCAL corporations were abusing their rights, their community, their "laws", they could be broken up and closed or forced to move OUT of that community AFTER making legal reparations from proven damages. These rights have been removed from the people, and the process ERASED from the history books. :rolleyes:

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Technosoul And freedom from slavery, don't forget that part. How can the miltary brag about creating freedom if their own military men cannot be free?

Because they aren't referring to the freedom of servicemembers.

Quote by: Technosoul What if someone joined the army for that good education you speak of but ended up in Iraq and wanted to go home, he should be free to do so without dishonor or a buch of red tape.

This can be done. It's called being a "Conscientious Objector". And of course it requires red tape. Do you think any servicemember should be able to desert at any time, for any reason, without making their case clear to their chain of command?

Quote by: Technosoul If you are in the military freedom of speech could get you into big trouble with the top brass, did you read that in your oath?

Yes, I did.

Quote by: Technosoul You said that any intelligent person knows what they are getting into - so tell me, what kind of I.Q. test does the enlistment officer use to determine how intelligent those 18 year olds are? What are the standards used to be able to enlist?

All enlistees must have a high school diploma or GED. They also must take the ASVAB, which determines their eligibilty for the various job specialties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASVAB

Quote by: Technosoul When I got drafted no one wanted to know how smart I was, but that was back then.

When did we start talking about a draft? I thought we were discussing the voluntary contract signed by enlistees.

Quote by: Technosoul I did not support the war in Nam, in Panama, in Iraq, and in South Ameirca. Not even the war on drugs.

Neither do I; what's your point?

Quote by: Technosoul Now the concepts of freedom were not given to me by the military or because someone died in a war, those freedoms (which are in fact limited) were given to us by our thinkers, mostly by elitist intellectuals.

The concept of freedon is as old as humanity. It does not require an intellectual to understand. The desire for freedom is as natural as the desire to eat or breath. It was not "given" to us by intellectuals, much less defended by them. As Thomas Jefferson said, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants".

Quote by: Technosoul Our freedom were allowed us by right thinking judges in the Supreme Court and by thinkers such a Martin King Jr. and others who protested those within our ranks that might otherwise prefer unconditional dominance over others.

ROFLMAO!! The SCOTUS is a defender of our freedom?! Oh brother man, tell me another one!

Quote by: Technosoul Freedom did not come out of the end of a gun, it came out of the minds of those who had a vision that could see beyond one that is dominated by guns.

Utter fuzzy-headed bullcrap. Freedom cannot exist unless it is defended by the force of arms.

Quote by: Technosoul The English enforced their rule with a well organized military, and it was that military that we had to overcome to pursue the freedoms for intellectual thinking, and/or just shooting the crap.

Yes, and guess who did the overcoming? Hint: It wasn't a crack team of intellectuals.

Quote by: Technosoul I did not need to be protected from Saddam, not then, not now, not ever.

Non sequitur.

[Matt W]

rdnor - you're not going to be banned, but you really have to learn to debate instead of rant or fling insults. 'Heated debate' is about the topics being heated, not the banter between participants.

Do not respond to me in this thread. PM myself or Sean with any questions.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Quote by: Technosoul The point is that slavery in in violation of international and local laws. This fits your definition of "slavery"? In that case, I see nothing wrong with "slavery". You've just rendered the term meaningless. You're starting to sound like grandpa. Quote by: Technosoul Being such we might also notice that the military does not use normal courts of law but has established its own system and procedings where the military has complete control over what rights are permitted, or what violations should be investigated or avoided. Your point? Quote by: Technosoul Their are other types of contracts that cause great disadvantages for consumers that I could gripe about but that would alter the bearing of this topic form being about the military (and those who are sometimes enlisted into service by deceptive promises). What "deception" are you referring to?

It seems you wish to offer little substance in your debate. "I sound like Grandpa" - what is your point? And how would that counter what I was saying? Are you suggesting that I should debate what Grandpa sounds like? That makes no sense to me.

I do not agree that I re-invented the meaning of the word slavery. The military is called 'the service" and that is because it is about servitude, aka - master and slave.

What do i mean by deceptive? Ask Webster.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul It seems you wish to offer little substance in your debate. "I sound like Grandpa" - what is your point? And how would that counter what I was saying? Are you suggesting that I should debate what Grandpa sounds like? That makes no sense to me. .

He means he doesn't have an argument.

Quote by: Technosoul I do not agree that I re-invented the meaning of the word slavery. The military is called 'the service" and that is because it is about servitude, aka - master and slave. What do i mean by deceptive? Ask Webster.

I agree. Typically, the main point of a contract is to create a climate of what Morgan even called "voluntary coercion." It's a contradictory term, but contradictions and double standards are apparently no problem. The interesting thing about contracts is that they do not always stand anyway, as the conditions of life are often such that abiding by a contract is difficult. That's why I tend to frown upon them, not excluding military-related contracts.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Are you both ignoring my answer in unison to partake in berating another poster?

I thought we were here to debate.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Technosoul So is the Army a form of authorized enslavement or not? Whatcha think?

I think maintaining a vaible military is a necessary evil in this world. And the only way to make it possible for average Americans to endure and prevail in the horrors of war is with a strict discipline beyond what we require of civilians.


.

[belverron]

Quote by: Technosoul Binding or bondage, not sure how you split hairs on that one.

I think that you split them where a person ceases to enter into the agreement of their own free will.

Quote by: Technosoul I do not agree that I re-invented the meaning of the word slavery. The military is called 'the service" and that is because it is about servitude, aka - master and slave.

I work at a Barnes & Noble Cafe. I am called a "Cafe Server."

There is no draft. Enlistees made their choice, and regretting it cannot and should not change it. We all make mistakes, and we all must bear the consequences.

Participating in the armed forces does not make someone a better person or a more qualified debater than I; neither does it exempt them from the responsibilities common to us all.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well said Sonart, and I agree, though I think there should be more study of the UCMJ before and after enlistment is permitted.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rdnor Quote by: Technosoul I request that you should not be banned for that little emotional outburst, as I (and others) would know that this might a emotionally sensitive topic, and us liberals can withstand the heat because we allow for such via compassion and love. Now we all give praise to the men who had to defeat Hitler and who prevented Japan from attacking our homelands, and we praise those in Afganistan who responded to the 9-11 incident, but mostly it was the forefathers back in the days of Washington who combated England so that we can now enjoy freedom of speech, and freedom from overtaxation. And freedom from slavery, don't forget that part. How can the miltary brag about creating freedom if their own military men cannot be free? What if someone joined the army for that good education you speak of but ended up in Iraq and wanted to go home, he should be free to do so without dishonor or a buch of red tape. We all know that the war in Iraq is not protecting our freedoms nor our way of life here in Ameirca, no one there can ever prevent us form speaking what we want in a limited manner. And did I not ask that you not be banned for a perceptive insult, am I not also on the front lines fighting for your "freedom of speech"? Where is my beeny badge? I personally give permission to you and anyone to call me every name in the book, enjoy your freedom of speech to the max, however I do not agree that I am an elitist, but I did dump on the military so I guess the word crap would be suitable. If the shoe fits, I do not mind wearing it. But I am really dumping on what I might call "occupational slavery". If you mix slavery and freedom together you end up with a foundation that is weak, sort of like using iron and clay to hold up some monument. It will be weak and that could cause the whole stucture to crumble at the very foundaton and to topple over. If you are in the military freedom of speech could get you into big trouble with the top brass, did you read that in your oath? You said that any intelligent person knows what they are getting into - so tell me, what kind of I.Q. test does the enlistment officer use to determine how intelligent those 18 year olds are? What are the standards used to be able to enlist? When I got drafted no one wanted to know how smart I was, but that was back then. I did not support the war in Nam, in Panama, in Iraq, and in South Ameirca. Not even the war on drugs. Now the concepts of freedom were not given to me by the military or because someone died in a war, those freedoms (which are in fact limited) were given to us by our thinkers, mostly by elitist intellectuals. Our freedom were allowed us by right thinking judges in the Supreme Court and by thinkers such a Martin King Jr. and others who protested those within our ranks that might otherwise prefer unconditional dominance over others. Freedom did not come out of the end of a gun, it came out of the minds of those who had a vision that could see beyond one that is dominated by guns. The English enforced their rule with a well organized military, and it was that military that we had to overcome to pursue the freedoms for intellectual thinking, and/or just shooting the crap. The military was designed to protect our real estate from getting owned by another country, but the military did not write the Consitution nor the Bill of Rights. The Vets can go on saying that they gave me my freedom to sit on my butt and protest, if that make them feel good (when they know darn well they do not want me to do so), but I am not buying into that concept. I did not need to be protected from Saddam, not then, not now, not ever. HMMM , Not an elitist ? Okay how about ignorant of history ? WW II , the cold war (yes it was a war) , Vietnam was part of that war . I do not like the way the democrats that ran the show back then would not let the military WIN the war but prolonged it and caused even more deaths . The supreme court has given NO ONE freedom , just the constitution backed up by the military and GOD has given freedom .As far as Saddam ? We could have waited several more years and waited for him to be nuclear armed of course . How about Iran ? Should we wait for them to nuke Israel ? The US ? Europe ? In your mind , what justifies war ? The ONLY reason saddam did not use gas or biologocals on Americans is because he knew better . Not because he did not have them . There is mounting evidence that his WMDs are in Syria . I fear that you elitist types will have to eat a lot of words in the near future !

You asked if I were ignorant of history (history about wars). There are many different perspectives about the history of certain wars - each version is colored by different political standings as well as by personal opinons about morality. Republicans might have an interpretation of events that are different then those of domocrats, and in addition you have a number of other independant accounts about such wars, especially concerning Nam and Iraq.

Each historian thinks the other guys version is wrong. What can I say beyond that? Just because you do not wish to hear some version that is different then the one you wish to believe in does not make the other person stupid, nor uninformed. It only means we have a mumble jumbo of opinons to select from.

I can only say "deal with it, learn to live with that fact".

I did not agree with your personal version.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Technosoul It seems you wish to offer little substance in your debate. "I sound like Grandpa" - what is your point? And how would that counter what I was saying? Are you suggesting that I should debate what Grandpa sounds like? That makes no sense to me. . He means he doesn't have an argument. Quote by: Technosoul I do not agree that I re-invented the meaning of the word slavery. The military is called 'the service" and that is because it is about servitude, aka - master and slave. What do i mean by deceptive? Ask Webster. I agree. Typically, the main point of a contract is to create a climate of what Morgan even called "voluntary coercion." It's a contradictory term, but contradictions and double standards are apparently no problem. The interesting thing about contracts is that they do not always stand anyway, as the conditions of life are often such that abiding by a contract is difficult. That's why I tend to frown upon them, not excluding military-related contracts. Grandpa h.

Lets side track a little and talk about domestic contracts. Sometimes they are written with a lot of legal terminology that the average layman would not comprehend, the contractor would just say "oh, don't worry, this is just a standard agreement". Ha! Lets say you want to buy a car on time or rent a apartment. They all use the same standard contracts and the consumer is not a party to making terms in that contract. You could drive around for miles and miles and not find one car dealership who would sell you a car on time if you did not sign the standard agreement (which is the same everywhere), designed by lawyers to the seller advantages over the buyer.

Same situation if you wish to rent an apartment.

Now you could hire a lawyer to translate the legal terms used, so that you knew what you were signing, but you got only one choice in the matter. Sign it or do without what you wish to buy or rent. If you said "I don't like that part" and you cross out that line, they would not allow you to buy that car (or whatever).

Here is another point. If a person is intelligent enough to know what he is getting into - relative to joining the Army, he is likewise intelligent enough to know when to get the hell out.

Some contracts are very long it it would take hours to read it all and digest every word down to the fine print. That causes some people to short cut the study program and just sign it on faith.
Perhaps not wise to do that, but such is human nature.

A while back I signed up for a cell phone, it gave me some problems and so I wanted to return it and try a different cell phone company, but in the contract was this line that I must pay them over one hundred dollars to cancel my phone service before the lease time ran out. Another one of those "no exit" policies. Another one of those "sorry, you cannot change your mind" clauses.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Technosoul \ What do i mean by deceptive? Ask Webster.

Then you're way off base. There is no deception involved.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Technosoul Lets say you want to buy a car on time or rent a apartment. They all use the same standard contracts and the consumer is not a party to making terms in that contract. You could drive around for miles and miles and not find one car dealership who would sell you a car on time if you did not sign the standard agreement (which is the same everywhere), designed by lawyers to the seller advantages over the buyer.

Blame your neighbor. The only reason dealers can use such contracts is that the majority of consumers will sign them, no questions asked. Clearly, you are one of a very few who objects to them.

Quote by: Technosoul Same situation if you wish to rent an apartment.

News to me. I've never had a rental agreement longer than a page or two, and it was all very easy to understand.

Quote by: Technosoul Now you could hire a lawyer to translate the legal terms used, so that you knew what you were signing, but you got only one choice in the matter. Sign it or do without what you wish to buy or rent. If you said "I don't like that part" and you cross out that line, they would not allow you to buy that car (or whatever).

Well, that certainly depends on WHO you are signing the contract with. You sure are making some serious generalizations here.

Quote by: Technosoul Some contracts are very long it it would take hours to read it all and digest every word down to the fine print. That causes some people to short cut the study program and just sign it on faith. Perhaps not wise to do that, but such is human nature.

Are you suggesting that people not be held responsible for the contracts they sign?

When I joined the USMC, I sat and read every piece of paper I signed, with my recruiter sitting there sweating. Anyone who doesn't do that has no right to complain later.

Quote by: Technosoul A while back I signed up for a cell phone, it gave me some problems and so I wanted to return it and try a different cell phone company, but in the contract was this line that I must pay them over one hundred dollars to cancel my phone service before the lease time ran out. Another one of those "no exit" policies. Another one of those "sorry, you cannot change your mind" clauses.

Which you should have known before you bought the phone. It was your responsibility to know; don't try to pass the buck off on someone else.