mike777 Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yes, but even if we accept that they will never help the poorest of the poor in the old country if they leave, he advocates a fascist viewpoint of keeping them trapped to help the state because the state is more important than their freedom to leave. ----- To put it another way he says that their duty to the state or duty to the will of the people is more important than individual choice and freedom.He seems to desire a Rousseau view of the world. In many ways this goes back to the Platonic vs Aristotelian view of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onoway Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 One thing that comes to mind is that in Canada at least, the desirability of immigrants seems to be linked to the amount of money they have to make the move. If they have lots of money, then they are fast tracked. If otoh they are refugees on the run from reprisals for political activity trying to redress problems in their country, they are frequently treated as undesirables that we maybe, reluctantly, have to do something for. It appears as though many of these are now being refused. The last couple of years have seen people, usually women, legally in the country - in one case a couple of students- booted out of the country because they were working too hard and that's not allowed. It's difficult to imagine that there are so many Canadians anxious to be housekeepers and babysitters for working families that they were depriving any Canadians of work. I have to wonder if fast tracking extremely wealthy folk who come from countries where the average daily wage, as they say, is $1 or $2 is really getting us the best and brightest, or people who may possibly be just the least scrupulous about how they make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 "Duty" is not an obligation to others; certainly not to the State. It is an obligation to oneself, freely assumed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 "Duty" is not an obligation to others; certainly not to the State. It is an obligation to oneself, freely assumed. that is the debate.....not sure the answer over thousands of years is so easy as you assume. I only want to point out that this debate over thousands of years is not that easy as one may assume. At the very least in 2014 many would say they have a moral duty if not legal duty to the poorest of the poor. But clearly in 2014 many would say there is a legal duty to the point you are a criminal if Keep in mind a democratic Athens put Socrates to death, Plato thought Sparta not Athens was the better city/state to duplicate. To be fair most forget that Socrates was guilty of the crime thus the debate starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 One thing that comes to mind is that in Canada at least, the desirability of immigrants seems to be linked to the amount of money they have to make the move. If they have lots of money, then they are fast tracked. If otoh they are refugees on the run from reprisals for political activity trying to redress problems in their country, they are frequently treated as undesirables that we maybe, reluctantly, have to do something for. It appears as though many of these are now being refused. The last couple of years have seen people, usually women, legally in the country - in one case a couple of students- booted out of the country because they were working too hard and that's not allowed. It's difficult to imagine that there are so many Canadians anxious to be housekeepers and babysitters for working families that they were depriving any Canadians of work. I have to wonder if fast tracking extremely wealthy folk who come from countries where the average daily wage, as they say, is $1 or $2 is really getting us the best and brightest, or people who may possibly be just the least scrupulous about how they make money. good questions but I don't think the answers matter in the great scheme of life. You are really just asking can we devise a better immigration scheme...the answer is always yes but learn to be happy with imperfection and politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 learn to be happy with imperfection and politics.Imperfection in politics is the "new normal" here in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 "Duty" is not an obligation to others; certainly not to the State. It is an obligation to oneself, freely assumed.Tell that to one of your older colleagues, pre-suspension of Selective Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 Had I not enlisted in the Army in 1967, I would have been drafted. That's not "duty," it's slavery; the enlistment was an attempt to make the best of a bad deal. I suppose I could have run to Canada, but frankly, while the thought did cross my mind, it didn't hang around long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 Just because something is legally required it doesn't mean it isn't a duty. "duty" is a cultural thing, and the law often exists just to codify it, as well as enforce it on the few who try to violate the cultural norms (they're essentially cheating -- they get the privileges of citizenship, without the same obligations as everyone else). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Do not confuse “duty” with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anytbing from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect. But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of you, and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants “just a few minutes of your time, please--this won’t take long.” Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time--and squawk for more! So learn to say No--and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you. (This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Don’t do it because it is “expected” of you.) -- Robert A. Heinlein If I am a member of a society, one of the obligations I freely assume is the "duty" to defend that society when necessary. Parasites who are unwilling to do that deserve neither the respect nor the support of their society - but forcing them to do so is still wrong - and in the end, futile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I grew up with the draft as a fact of life. This means that I treated it as part of my decision making process. I was ok with this. In 1956, the year of my hs graduation, it was my expectation that at some point I would be spending a couple of years in the military. I considered joining the Navy but with the help of a scholarship I went on to college. There were student deferments in college and in grad school, but I was in college because that was my first choice, it wasn't some scam to avoid the draft (no war, in the late 50s). In 1966 I was still finishing up my thesis, and pretty much all deferments were canceled . I took my physical and was re-classified 1A. I recall someone asking what I intended to do. The answer for me, as for most, was obvious: If I get drafted I go but I am not volunteering. I don't recall "duty" ever being part of my vocabulary when I thought about this. I can be quite simple minded, a quality I am not embarrassed about. My thinking was along the lines of "I am an American, we are at war, we fight wars by drafting people, I'm no better than the other guy, if I get drafted I go." Many, many guys saw this in essentially this way. I never got drafted but I am as certain as I can be that I would not have changed my views if I had been. Canada is a great place, but I was not going up there to avoid the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Actually, I would have preferred the Navy - but the local Navy recruiter operated out of White Plains - the New Rochelle office, which was closest to where I lived, was a satellite, and he was never there. This in spite of the fact that I spoke to him on the phone three times, and he promised to meet me in New Rochelle three times. Three times he didn't show up. The Army recruiter was there all the time, so I went Army. I was pretty sure I was going to be drafted, and I just wanted to have some choice over what I did in the Army - which the recruiter assured me I would get if I enlisted. He was lying, of course, but I didn't know that at the time. At time I didn't think of the draft as a good or bad thing, it was just a thing. "We fight wars by drafting people". Do we? Ideally, the young men (and women, now) we send to die in the mud (or sand or whatever) volunteer, because they believe the war is the right thing for the country to do. In WWII, as I understand it, the draft was a means of organizing the introduction of a very large number of volunteers into the military - in most cases there was no need for coercion. In Vietnam, the draft was a means of forcing young men to participate in a war that nobody except the military-industrial complex and the hawks in Washington wanted and that, in hindsight, we could have avoided altogether if we had given Ho Chi Minh the (diplomatic) help he asked for against the French. The draft, as a means to force young people into the military, is evil. The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion...Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not...Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? -- Daniel Webster (December 9, 1814 House of Representatives Address) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Many people will agree that it's the duty of citizens to protect their country. The problem with the draft during the Viet Nam War isn't necessarily a disagreement about this duty, but whether that war itself was necessary in the first place. If you don't believe in the war, then you won't believe that it's your duty to fight in it. In that case, being forced to do so is morally wrong. The problem is that the law permitting the draft necessarily assumes that the government's decision to go to war is appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I grew up with the draft as a fact of life. This means that I treated it as part of my decision making process. I was ok with this. ....My thinking was along the lines of "I am an American, we are at war, we fight wars by drafting people, I'm no better than the other guy, if I get drafted I go." Many, many guys saw this in essentially this way. I never got drafted but I am as certain as I can be that I would not have changed my views if I had been. Canada is a great place, but I was not going up there to avoid the draft. Ken, I can assure you that by 1969, the year I graduated, the go or no go decision had become much more complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.