DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       WebWar
  HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 20854--------------------------------------------------
       Όχι στη Σκλα&#
       946;ιά της Επισ&#96
       4;ράτευσης
       By: Pinochet88 Date: February 12, 2016, 4:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Επί της
       ευκαιρίας
       του
       εξαιρετικο&#97
       3;
       άρθρου του Ryan
       McMacken για την
       επέκταση
       της
       κρατικής
       καταναγκασ&#96
       4;ικής
       σκλαβιάς
       της
       επιστράτευ&#96
       3;ης,
       οφείλουμε
       όλοι να
       αναρωτηθού&#95
       6;ε
       το εξής:
       Υπάρχει
       κάτι το
       κοινωνικό ή
       το
       πατριωτικό
       ή το
       φυλετικό
       στο να
       προτείνει
       κανείς την
       ωμή και
       βίαιη
       σκλαβιά για
       την
       κοινωνία,
       την πατρίδα
       ή τη φυλή που
       διατείνετα&#95
       3;
       ότι
       επιθυμεί να
       σώσει;
       Επίσης, όλοι
       εκείνοι οι
       οποίοι
       είναι οι
       κατεξοχήν
       υπέρμαχοι
       της
       σκλαβιάς,
       συμπεριλαμ&#94
       6;άνουν
       και τους
       εαυτούς
       τους μέσα
       στους
       σκλαβωμένο&#96
       5;ς
       ή ομιλούν
       από τη θέση
       ατομικού,
       εγωιστικού,
       προσωπικού
       συμφέροντο&#96
       2;
       του
       ανθρώπου ο
       οποίος
       κερδίζει ή
       οραματίζετ&#94
       5;ι
       ότι θα
       κερδίσει
       προσωπικά
       από τη
       σκλαβιά των
       συνανθρώπω&#95
       7;
       του;
       Τρισάθλια
       εγωιστικά
       τομάρια, τα
       οποία έχουν
       όνειρο να
       ζήσουν εις
       βάρος των
       συνανθρώπω&#95
       7;
       τους και οι
       οποίοι
       επενδύουν
       πάνω στη
       σκλαβιά των
       συνανθρώπω&#95
       7;
       τους, είναι
       εκείνοι οι
       οποίοι
       διαδίδουν
       τον
       αλτρουισμό,
       την
       "κοινωνική
       αλληλεγγύη"
       και λοιπές
       ασυνάρτητε&#96
       2;
       κρατικιστι&#95
       4;ές
       σοφιστείες
       και
       υποστηρίζο&#96
       5;ν
       τον κρατικό
       καταναγκασ&#95
       6;ό
       της
       επιστράτευ&#96
       3;ης,
       ο οποίος
       αποτελεί
       όνειδο για
       κάθε
       πολιτισμέν&#95
       1;
       κοινωνία
       και στερεί
       τη ζωή από
       τους
       ανθρώπους
       και την
       κοινωνία
       για να
       εξυπηρετού&#95
       7;ται
       τα ατομικά
       συμφέροντα
       των
       παρασιτούν&#96
       4;ων
       εξουσιαστώ&#95
       7;.
       [hr]
       Why Drafting Women Is a Terrible Idea
       Ryan McMaken
       [font=times new roman]During last Saturday’s GOP presidential
       debate, the candidates were asked if they would support
       mandatory registration for women with the Selective Service
       System now that women are allowed combat positions in the US
       military. The Selective Service, of course, is the federal
       agency that maintains a list of potential conscripts should the
       US government ever decide to reinstitute the draft.
       Most of the candidates applauded the idea while Ted Cruz
       denounced the notion. But, as is often the case, Cruz was right
       for the wrong reasons. Cruz seemed to base his reaction on
       sentimentalism and gender politics. He should be opposing an
       expansion of the draft for the simple reason that it’s
       potentially a massive tax increase. Here’s why:
       Make no mistake about it. Expanding Selective Service from 50
       percent of young adults to 100 percent is not about equality, or
       progress, or patriotism. While these notions will no doubt be
       used to bully people into supporting such a move, the real-world
       effect will be a massive expansion in government power over the
       lives of the population. Conscription, after all, is simply a
       draconian tax on the conscripts who lose their freedom for the
       duration, but who may also be coerced into being killed in order
       to promote the state’s policy agendas:
       “Conscription is slavery,” Murray Rothbard wrote in 1973,
       and while temporary conscription is obviously much less bad —
       assuming one outlives the term of conscription — than many other
       forms of slavery, conscription is nevertheless a
       nearly-100-percent tax on the production of one’s mind and body.
       If one attempts to escape his confinement in his open-air
       military jail, he faces imprisonment or even execution in many
       cases.
       Conscription remains popular among states because it is an
       easy way to directly extract resources from the population. Just
       as regular taxes partially extract the savings, productivity,
       and labor of the general population, conscription extracts
       virtually all of the labor and effort of the conscripts. The
       burden falls disproportionately on the young males in most
       cases, and they are at risk of a much higher tax burden if
       killed or given a permanent disability in battle. If he’s lucky
       enough to survive the conflict, the conscript may find himself
       living out the rest of his life as disfigured or missing his
       eyesight and limbs. He may be rendered permanently undesirable
       to the opposite sex. Such costs imposed on the conscript are a
       form of lifelong taxation.
       Fortunately for those who escape such a fate, the term of
       slavery ends at a specified time, but for the duration, the only
       freedom the conscript enjoys is that granted to him by his
       jailers.
       If the debate over this issue continues, we’re likely to hear a
       lot about how “fairness” and egalitarianism requires an
       expansion of the Selective Service System. But those claims are
       all distractions from the central issue here, which is the
       state’s power over the citizen.
       After all, if women want to go help out Al-Qaeda in Syria (which
       is what the US is doing there), they are free to volunteer.
       Whether or not women can be directly involved in blowing up
       revelers at Afghani weddings, however, is a completely separate
       issue from conscription and the Selective Service.
       The two issues are already being conflated, as was made clear by
       Chris Christie’s comment at the debate when he pounced on the
       issue of female conscription and declared it’s important that
       "women in this country understand anything they can dream,
       anything that they want to aspire to, they can do."
       After hearing this, one is left wondering if Christie is aware
       that there’s a difference between being a soldier and being
       forced to be a soldier by the state.
       Besides, if fairness is a concern, there’s an easy way to
       achieve fairness on this issue: abolish the Selective Service
       for everybody. It’s as easy as that. It wouldn’t even cost a
       dime of taxpayer money. Simply shred the records, fire everyone
       who works for Selective Service, and lease out the office space
       to organizations that do something useful. Then, we won’t have
       to hear anything about “discrimination” or the alleged sexism
       implicit in a policy that outrageously neglects to force women
       to work for the government against their will.
       But Isn’t This Just a Symbolic Gesture?
       Some who want to expand Selective Service for egalitarian
       reasons are claiming that it’s all just symbolic anyway, because
       the draft “will never happen.”
       “The US hasn’t had the draft since the early 1970s,” one
       columnist loftily intoned as if that were evidence that the
       draft could never return. Wow, the 1970s? Did they even have
       electric lights back then?
       Moreover, it’s a mistake to think that the draft could never
       return because people would overwhelmingly oppose people being
       forced into combat. Even if that is the case, there is no reason
       at all why conscription could not be used to draft people for
       non-combat positions. After all, only a very small portion of
       the military ever sees combat. The vast majority of soldiers are
       involved in logistics, transportation, and desk jobs such as
       computer programming.
       Only a small portion of military deaths occur in combat. Most
       deaths in the military are due to accidents.
       Additionally, there is no reason that Selective Service could
       not be modified to be used to draft people for so-called
       “national service” positions in which conscripts would perform
       non-combat bureaucratic and manual-labor jobs. Austria and
       Switzerland (which have conscription) allow this option for
       those morally opposed to combat. And historically — such as
       during World War II — “service” was imposed on conscientious
       objectors who were forced to work on farms or perform other
       types of manual labor in special camps.
       So no, the draft is not “hypothetical,” “symbolic,” or something
       that “will never happen.”
       Numerous countries in Latin America, Europe, and Asia still
       employ conscription, and it is hardly some kind of never-used
       relic from the distant past.
       Alas, much of the opposition to the expansion of Selective
       Service has taken the form of National Review’s opposition which
       is based on the idea that conscripting women is some kind of
       special unique evil, quite unlike conscripting men. Military
       service is one thing, the editors write, but forcing women into
       it is “barbarism,” they admit. They’re half right. It is
       barbarism to force women to fight wars for the state. But the
       same is also true of conscription for men.
       source
  HTML http://bc.vc/0tsTEF[/font]
       *****************************************************