Quote from I Missed Boat:
Rgelitie is right that the question of when to take action requires subjective and sometimes controversial decisions. And worse, there is always the potential for intentional abuse in determining when we truly are facing grave security threats. And there lies the point of contention that can never be truly resolved in any debate over compulsory military service.
We have great luxuries today that allow the great majority of us in the West not to be burdened with worries over duty or the end of our society as we know it. Yet threats to our security and way of life still exist, but the nature of these threats has changed in many cases. And if our security and way of life are in grave danger, and the number of volunteers becomes insufficient, I will certainly support the return of the draft!
Actually, I was trying to say that the question of when to take action (take up arms in this case) is an
objective decision that can be framed correctly only within the context of an individual's life.
From my reading, you're assuming the very thing we're discussing. Your posts sometimes switch context from the individual to the collective, seemingly at their own convenience--first about independent decisions which may be controversial, then how "our" security and "our" way of life is threatened and requiring actions others deem correct, in their timeframe, with those they choose to perform them.
My point is and always has been that
there is no "our" except when people's individual decisions actually overlap voluntarily. I used those words explicitly; there is no "our" when one of the "agreeing" parties has a gun to his or her head. There is also no "our" when one of the parties engages in fraud. I think the clarifying framework might be these next points, not necessarily to convince you, but just so we're clear on what I see are the lines:
One either respects facts of reality and roots out even one's most fondly cherished illusions when realizing their contradictions,
or one doesn't.
One either gets that all living things, by their nature, require life-sustaining maintenance in order to survive (as opposed to, say, a rock),
or one doesn't.
One either knows that the uniquely human requirement is the proper application of the mind to understand nature (and that nature includes humans and all their behaviors) and affect it in order to survive,
or one doesn't.
One either understands that people's lives are their own, that they alone must make their decisions for better or worse, and that no one has the unearned authority to dispose of another individual's life,
or one doesn't.
One either grasps that the product of one's efforts is exclusively one's own and that the cost of producing additional portions of a value is often much cheaper than the first cost,
or one doesn't.
One either chooses to interact voluntarily with others who will trade value for value (each being set by the seller, to include each party simply walking away if there is no meeting of the minds at that moment),
or one doesn't.
One either realizes that each individual's set of values, and the hierarchy that orders them, is unique to them by the judgment of one's own mind (including default judgments arising from blindly following what others say),
or one doesn't.
One either sees that individual values hierarchies can coexist with others who share similar values, but that the overlap is rarely if ever 100%,
or one doesn't.
One either perceives the distinction between essential and minor differences in values,
or one doesn't.
One either trusts other people to honor these facts, to let others live by them so that they themselves can enjoy them, and to know that there are consequences when attempting to deny or otherwise circumvent these facts,
or one doesn't.
One either chooses to live among others who will protect their own interests, their values,
or one doesn't.
One either acknowledges, through candid introspection about how one would prefer to be treated oneself, that the way to enroll others in action is to convince them rationally in a way that appeals to their self-interest,
or one doesn't.
Those who find that the majority of time they are drawn to the latter conclusion about the people they live with have shown in history a predilection to either suicide, or to adopt trickery (fraud) and compulsion (force) to get their way.
The appeal to these kinds of minds is that it often works short-term. They are willing, like criminals, to drop or attempt to evade the consequences long-term of overtly demonstrating to the rest of the community that they believe that they can suspend gravity whenever it suits them. Why? Because they want what they haven't earned. And to achieve it, couch their arguments in terms of "duty" and "sacrifice" and other ways that priests and politicians regularly employ.
But to answer the essentials of all your posts, the direct answer is this: If not enough people volunteer, then it's a sad but true fact that the illusion of the country is not worth saving either. To force other citizens to prop up that illusion, to point a gun at their heads and tell them, "You will shoot that person otherwise I will shoot you," is the height of hypocrisy in a free society.
The uniquely human phrase that distills these principles, that is common to all peoples down through the centuries but perhaps best expressed in American lore is, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!" And that is why to my way of thinking Pat Tillman was a hero. And that in my sober optimism, there will be many more heroes like him in America, including those who are fortunate enough to live to enjoy another day.
