Full Version: Taxation without Representation:
Supposedly one of our young nation's early rallying cries was something to the effect of "No taxation without representation!"
(I beleive it remains as one of our bedrock principles.) We also have a lesser principle, that no price can be put on the value of life.
Taking these two principles together, I get that we must have two "taxation markets" in place in order for us to be in compliance with them. The first market is purely cash-based, al la the IRS. The second market, however, is risk-of-life-and-limb based; and, each of us must bear an "equal burden" for the fair payment due in each market. (Ok, so maybe that's a third priciple, mea culpa!)
Now our historical practices are that it's OK, some would even say more cost effective, to draft 18 year olds for military life-and-limb risking wartime sevice. I take this as a form of the second type of "taxation", and ask for debate:
Doesn't any law allowing the drafting of our youth for military service at any age earlier than the full six years from their age of majority (18 when they can first vote), that it takes for them tobe able to vote on their full suite of representatives (i.e. so they can vote in even the longest term office holders that will be their representatives, the senators) violate our US principle of no taxation without representation?
What is the rationale for your answe?
(I beleive it remains as one of our bedrock principles.) We also have a lesser principle, that no price can be put on the value of life.
Taking these two principles together, I get that we must have two "taxation markets" in place in order for us to be in compliance with them. The first market is purely cash-based, al la the IRS. The second market, however, is risk-of-life-and-limb based; and, each of us must bear an "equal burden" for the fair payment due in each market. (Ok, so maybe that's a third priciple, mea culpa!)
Now our historical practices are that it's OK, some would even say more cost effective, to draft 18 year olds for military life-and-limb risking wartime sevice. I take this as a form of the second type of "taxation", and ask for debate:
Doesn't any law allowing the drafting of our youth for military service at any age earlier than the full six years from their age of majority (18 when they can first vote), that it takes for them tobe able to vote on their full suite of representatives (i.e. so they can vote in even the longest term office holders that will be their representatives, the senators) violate our US principle of no taxation without representation?
What is the rationale for your answe?
Doesn't any law allowing the drafting of our youth for military service at any age earlier than the full six years from their age of majority (18 when they can first vote), that it takes for them tobe able to vote on their full suite of representatives (i.e. so they can vote in even the longest term office holders that will be their representatives, the senators) violate our US principle of no taxation without representation?
What is the rationale for your answer?
This is an interesting point of view.
My first comment would be that I am against a draft (military or otherwise) on general principles anyway. Involuntary servitude and all that.
But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume some form of draft would be necessary in some extreme circumstances. (I contend that any emergency of this degree -- another World War Two -- would have as many volunteers as you need knocking at Uncle Sam's door, but that's another issue.)
You point would seem to be that young persons might be drafted without having had the opportunity to exercise their right to vote to the full degree possible. I see what you mean, but I don't think that this is enough to make a draft unconstitutional on this basis alone. (There are other, much stronger reasons to argue that it is unconstitutional.) For one thing, the draftee does not lose the right to vote while in the military. To be sure, this right means little if you are killed. However, there is nothing inherent to the draft which removes this right. Secondly, I don't see anything which suggests that you must be allowed to exercise the full extent of your rights before you must pay your dues to the government which, in theory, protects those rights. The fact that I have never made use of my right to bear arms does not mean that I don't have to pay the IRS.
Your question for debate is a fascinating intellectual exercise, but I find that I must reject its premise.
What is the rationale for your answer?
This is an interesting point of view.
My first comment would be that I am against a draft (military or otherwise) on general principles anyway. Involuntary servitude and all that.
But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume some form of draft would be necessary in some extreme circumstances. (I contend that any emergency of this degree -- another World War Two -- would have as many volunteers as you need knocking at Uncle Sam's door, but that's another issue.)
You point would seem to be that young persons might be drafted without having had the opportunity to exercise their right to vote to the full degree possible. I see what you mean, but I don't think that this is enough to make a draft unconstitutional on this basis alone. (There are other, much stronger reasons to argue that it is unconstitutional.) For one thing, the draftee does not lose the right to vote while in the military. To be sure, this right means little if you are killed. However, there is nothing inherent to the draft which removes this right. Secondly, I don't see anything which suggests that you must be allowed to exercise the full extent of your rights before you must pay your dues to the government which, in theory, protects those rights. The fact that I have never made use of my right to bear arms does not mean that I don't have to pay the IRS.
Your question for debate is a fascinating intellectual exercise, but I find that I must reject its premise.
Response to Victoria Silverwolf above:
In part I agree with you; but, there are also some outside concerns/philosophical arguments that "are around" that I'd like to register, without advocating pro or con! (Items for more debate if you wish.)
1. There is a medical argument that the brain, though functional earlier, is not fully developed till age 26, the average age of WW-II servers. So sending a youngster is sending him/her without his full deck, and in some sense then "an unethical cruelty"!
2. The no-draft world, essentially makes "volunteers" into mercinaries. Said that way, many think it puts a different spin on "volunteer armies and their uses" that raise new moral/constitutional issues to them and their use.
3. The ad hoc one-way re-contracting of draft service, such as Truman's extension of draftee services after war, and many similar cases, indicate that the draft may have many features of an ad hoc slush fund for cannon fodder! It's not seen as too consistent with individual rights, and at least the spirit of "the right to make and keep contracts", which is one "pre-Constitutional" basis for our even having a Constitution.
4. There seems to be "double standard" applied to those who "did", or "did not", serve militarily, that impacts the "server negatively for the rest of their lives", and that never get properly compensated (e.g. the present Viet Vet population and the growing Iraqi one.) Some of these are physical and psychological, many are financial since these "serveres" are usually at least 2, and somethimes more, years behind their non-serving contemporaries in the civilian job market.
5. Combat risks and it's damages are still not well known, e.g. PTSD, Agent Orange, Iraq skin diseases/ulcers, etc.,) so this is a "pig-in-the-poke" situation for both volunteers and for draftees, that should be made open and above board from the beginning that they will not have to pay these "hidden costs" alone, as they often do now. (See PTSD via google, and On Killing and On Combat books via Amazon for more in this vein).
Yes it's another issue; but, closer looks show that even these so-called "emergency" volunteers did not come forward until considerable public opinion and situation manipulation "set ups" by Roosevelt (WW-II) and Johnson (Vietnam) had been implemented. They did not really volunteer in those numbers in response to what hind sight says waws "the war truth" of the times. And it goes even moreso for "non emergency times" of draft fever, such as occasionally gets mentioned for our present "wars".
Ok then, how about some unjust, unfair, unwise, then styles of reasoning?
Another option is to put us all on the same moral footing by mandating a universal mil training and service "law", which may include "alternative non-military services" if you wish. So far this is, pretty unpopular and unexamined at the detail level needed; but, it would have a strong effect in having a "military activites knowledgable" electorate, something we don't even have in our "leaders of the moment" (yes, a personal opinion, but not a solo one--more on that can be provided). It may result in a "capablewar wachdog citizenry", so that, for example, Jamming M-16's, would not end up as weapons of choice, etc.
Here we disagree more fully. The issues to me is that no payment to the IRS can be made that entails the "cost of a life" or the "risk of the cost of a life". (We once allowed draftees to hire substitutes. That is now illegal. Should it ever be allowed, it would effectively make a market for determining the value of that life loss; but that's the only way we'll ever know it, I believe.)Bottom line---unless you pay both separate accounts "ethically" in the coin of each, you haven't fully paid.
The gov't actually creates such systems by designating certain goods/services/consumables to have what their "slang" calls different colors. In this system, which is meant to stop a sort of internal gov't money laundering,, payments can only be made for those items with similarly colored funds. And, one color cannot be changed into another, at least not legally. So to me it also seems to be with "life risk" and/vs consumables. They are different colored quantities, and one, life risk, cannot be converted into another, $$$$"s. We each, to be equitable, must pay each account in it's properly colored "coin".
Lastly, the "which in theory, protects those rights", has not in fact been adequately shown to be an actual and true acress the board, well and equitalby delivered "gov't service". So what is the need to inequatalby pay it? Does that not just make the inequitability worse?
Thanks for your reply!
In part I agree with you; but, there are also some outside concerns/philosophical arguments that "are around" that I'd like to register, without advocating pro or con! (Items for more debate if you wish.)
1. There is a medical argument that the brain, though functional earlier, is not fully developed till age 26, the average age of WW-II servers. So sending a youngster is sending him/her without his full deck, and in some sense then "an unethical cruelty"!
2. The no-draft world, essentially makes "volunteers" into mercinaries. Said that way, many think it puts a different spin on "volunteer armies and their uses" that raise new moral/constitutional issues to them and their use.
3. The ad hoc one-way re-contracting of draft service, such as Truman's extension of draftee services after war, and many similar cases, indicate that the draft may have many features of an ad hoc slush fund for cannon fodder! It's not seen as too consistent with individual rights, and at least the spirit of "the right to make and keep contracts", which is one "pre-Constitutional" basis for our even having a Constitution.
4. There seems to be "double standard" applied to those who "did", or "did not", serve militarily, that impacts the "server negatively for the rest of their lives", and that never get properly compensated (e.g. the present Viet Vet population and the growing Iraqi one.) Some of these are physical and psychological, many are financial since these "serveres" are usually at least 2, and somethimes more, years behind their non-serving contemporaries in the civilian job market.
5. Combat risks and it's damages are still not well known, e.g. PTSD, Agent Orange, Iraq skin diseases/ulcers, etc.,) so this is a "pig-in-the-poke" situation for both volunteers and for draftees, that should be made open and above board from the beginning that they will not have to pay these "hidden costs" alone, as they often do now. (See PTSD via google, and On Killing and On Combat books via Amazon for more in this vein).
QUOTE
I contend that any emergency of this degree -- another World War Two -- would have as many volunteers as you need knocking at Uncle Sam's door, but that's another issue.
Yes it's another issue; but, closer looks show that even these so-called "emergency" volunteers did not come forward until considerable public opinion and situation manipulation "set ups" by Roosevelt (WW-II) and Johnson (Vietnam) had been implemented. They did not really volunteer in those numbers in response to what hind sight says waws "the war truth" of the times. And it goes even moreso for "non emergency times" of draft fever, such as occasionally gets mentioned for our present "wars".
QUOTE
Your point would seem to be that young persons might be drafted without having had the opportunity to exercise their right to vote to the full degree possible. I see what you mean, but I don't think that this is enough to make a draft unconstitutional on this basis alone.
Ok then, how about some unjust, unfair, unwise, then styles of reasoning?
Another option is to put us all on the same moral footing by mandating a universal mil training and service "law", which may include "alternative non-military services" if you wish. So far this is, pretty unpopular and unexamined at the detail level needed; but, it would have a strong effect in having a "military activites knowledgable" electorate, something we don't even have in our "leaders of the moment" (yes, a personal opinion, but not a solo one--more on that can be provided). It may result in a "capablewar wachdog citizenry", so that, for example, Jamming M-16's, would not end up as weapons of choice, etc.
QUOTE
Secondly, I don't see anything which suggests that you must be allowed to exercise the full extent of your rights before you must pay your dues to the government which, in theory, protects those rights. The fact that I have never made use of my right to bear arms does not mean that I don't have to pay the IRS.
Here we disagree more fully. The issues to me is that no payment to the IRS can be made that entails the "cost of a life" or the "risk of the cost of a life". (We once allowed draftees to hire substitutes. That is now illegal. Should it ever be allowed, it would effectively make a market for determining the value of that life loss; but that's the only way we'll ever know it, I believe.)Bottom line---unless you pay both separate accounts "ethically" in the coin of each, you haven't fully paid.
The gov't actually creates such systems by designating certain goods/services/consumables to have what their "slang" calls different colors. In this system, which is meant to stop a sort of internal gov't money laundering,, payments can only be made for those items with similarly colored funds. And, one color cannot be changed into another, at least not legally. So to me it also seems to be with "life risk" and/vs consumables. They are different colored quantities, and one, life risk, cannot be converted into another, $$$$"s. We each, to be equitable, must pay each account in it's properly colored "coin".
Lastly, the "which in theory, protects those rights", has not in fact been adequately shown to be an actual and true acress the board, well and equitalby delivered "gov't service". So what is the need to inequatalby pay it? Does that not just make the inequitability worse?
Thanks for your reply!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.