Honest question: If people can be drafted, why not property?

[Jed Dilligan]

Why can the government take your life and liberty in an emergency or "emergency," but not your property?

I guess one could argue that the government can raise taxes in wartime, but that is never as much of a total burden on personal property as military service is on one's life.

Why can't the government say, we need your house, car, clothes, shoes, or even your gold fillings for the war effort--if it's okay to take your whole body?

[mr_hat]

1. Or corporations? They're people.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. They Can [eom]

[Jed Dilligan]

But do they, ever?

I assume you're talking about "commandeering" of ships and such. I don't think that happened during Vietnam, and yet there was a draft.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. They Sort Of Have

Materials and other resources have been rationed during war.

Certainly it would be preferable to you and me that "stuff" be drafted instead of people. However, the bias is towards drafing people: in a people draft (as executed during Viet Nam), the average Joes go to war, while the children of the Predator Class stay home.

However, if "stuff" gets drafted, it would have to come from the Predator Class, since the Predator Class owns all of the stuff. The Predator Class doesn't like having their stuff appropriated.

[bryant69]

15. There's also eminent domain -

not in times of war of course, but to further economic goals.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ContraBass Black]

17. Yes. Daily.

If you own land in the way of a public construction project, it's not yours anymore. Simple as that.

[SteppingRazor]

3. um... the government CAN take your property. Eminent domain n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

5. Don't they have to pay you for it? nt

[SteppingRazor]

7. Yes. They have to pay a fair rate. And when they draft soldiers...

they have to pay them too. :shrug:

[Jed Dilligan]

8. Not a fair rate.

Property values reflect the potential future earnings, the wages and death benefits paid to common soldiers do not reflect the potential for future earnings that is lost if they die.

[SteppingRazor]

10. Yeah, but no job in the world does that...

Not a single job on Earth pays out everything a worker would have earned if that worker dies on the job.

[Jed Dilligan]

16. You can't compare it to a job, because there is no free choice involved.

Besides, plenty of jobs pay enough for someone to buy life insurance even beyond their realistic earning potential.

The job where the worker dies is presumably a job someone chose to go to. It was not an institution that took charge of the person's entire life.

[SteppingRazor]

19. Soldiers can buy life insurance the same as anyone else...

so, I guess I don't see the point you're making there.

But as to the second point, certainly the government pressing people into service does make the job incomparable to other positions. That said, I think that if you count yourself as a citizen of a certain nation-state, it's not unreasonable for said nation-state to expect a bit of service out of you. I would argue, though, that said service could just as easily be in a peaceful occupation as opposed to military service. That said, I'm certainly not for mandatory conscription, as many, many countries have. I just don't think the idea is necessarily an utterly unreasonable one.

[Jed Dilligan]

20. I'm not saying the idea is totally unreasonable,

although for myself, if I was drafted to fight one of this government's wars, the outcome would be, shall we say, not good for anyone involved.

I think it would be just as reasonable to draft property from the corporations or "US interests" that profit from the war, and then use the profits from selling the property to make soldiering so lucrative that no draft would be required. The compensation for the property owners would be their war profits.

[pitohui]

23. in cases of successful lawsuit they may

many 911 widows were compensated on basis of husband's future earnings to keep them from litigating and having the gov't and airlines go thru a discovery process that would shed light on their screw-ups

the precedent was that in many cases of on-the-job death the surviving spouse has successfully sued both for all lost future earnings and loss of companionship

so your job may provide for your survivors IF they get the right lawyer, jury, etc.

not guaranteed of course, what is?

[SteppingRazor]

25. True, but that's not the issue here...

the issue was full payment of lifetime services by the employer on point of death. Bringing lawsuits into it changes the entire debate. Naturally, I agree that, if a worker for any employer dies on the job and the company is at fault, that company can be sued for damages. But it's not the same as the company just naturally paying for a worker's untimely death.

[stop the bleeding]

4. I'm stupid - but I thought that they could

under some extreme situations - I think it has to be in a time of war - uh oh

[Kolesar]

6. Or a kidney

Ok, ghastly thought

[Jed Dilligan]

9. Whatever it takes to keep Bin Laden alive and scaring us....

[ComerPerro]

11. cause that's where conservatives draw the line

mainly, because the rich run the risk of having their porperty siezed for usage in the war effort, since they have so much, but don't have to worry about actually giving their lives or being drafted.

[ryanus]

13. Ah! You ask a good question

There are discussions in economics about the ecnonomic costs of drafting equipment rather than people. Why not just confiscate a tank or a plane or a factory instead of people? The sad truth is that humans are cheaper, at least if you just count dollars.

Also, there is discussion about which is cheaper: voluntary enlistment or draft? Answer: draft. This is because obviously the cmopensation for voluntary enlistment is too low (otherwise there would be enough people for enlist), so the gov. has to force people to enlist at the current pay level.

So if the army paid each soldier $10 million, you may not have to use a draft. But at $30,000, most people will choose to work in the private sector.

So then this begs the question, rather than forcibly drafting people, why not confiscate a lot of money from corporations and offer super-high pay for people to enlist? Something to think about.

There are some good econ. articles on this, but I'll probably get flamed if I post where they are.

[slackmaster]

14. Third Amendment expressly forbids taking your house

For use by soldiers.

[lostnfound]

18. The same warped value system applies to our foreign policy

Traditionally our government will befriend this,that,andtheother brutal dictator who takes away people's lives (like the numerous military dictatorships installed in Central and South America, allowed a free hand in wiping out opposition and/or union organizers) but try to take away land or property from the landed and propertied class, and they'll have a coup, an untimely death, or a war on their hands.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Why would the government want to?

The only reason to conscript something is if you can't get it by spending money (or at least, if you can't get it semi-efficiently by spending money). I don't know of any forms of property advantageous to prosecuting a war effort that the government can't easily buy, except for land (which it can and does seize).

[Jed Dilligan]

26. Simple:

Take things worth money to sell and use profits to increase the pay for soldiers to such an extent that drafts are not needed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. But you can do that far more efficiently with taxation

rather than with confiscation of specific property, and it also has the advantage that people can choose what to keep.

[Jed Dilligan]

28. I'm not sure that's true.

Let's take the hypothetical case of Democrats taking over the government simultaneously with an escalating war with Iran. They can raise taxes for the war at their political peril (GOP will scream, Bush did it while cutting taxes! Unfair, but the public will eat it).

Or they could just say, Halliburton, we are drafting your assets; the signing bonus for combat soldiers will now be one million dollars. No draft required.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Um...

Doing that would destroy the American economy at one fell swoop. I may be exaggerating slightly, but not by much.

Once investors in a country start worrying that their assets will be seized by the government, especially without full compensation, they'll be far, far less willing to invest in that country.

[Jed Dilligan]

30. Fine with me.

I refuse to buy into the idea that your stock portfolio's value has anything to do with my basic-needs well-being.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Aaargh.

If you really don't understand that, then you have a civic duty not to vote.

If investor confidence falls, fewer people invest and the ones who do demand higher returns. That means that a) there are fewer jobs and fewer goods being produced, and b) companies need to pay less and charge more to remain equally viable, so wages fall and prices rise.

Economics isn't just some giant conspiracy dreamed up by the Man to oppress the masses.

[Jed Dilligan]

32. Well, I may not be an econ. wiz,

but my multimillionaire former boss, a board member of several major companies, with a doctorate in math, believed there should be a death penalty for companies. This was during the MS antitrust case.

"Civic duty not to vote." That's the most condescending thing I have ever heard in my life. Sure makes me respect you and your position! :sarcasm:

[pitohui]

22. they can, it's called eminent domain

if your property is needed, it will be taken, hopefully you will be fairly compensated

your right to your property is in no way absolute, never was, never will be

but we might as well get over ourselves -- nobody wants our clothes or shoes or, god forbid, tacky gold fillings

[Jed Dilligan]

24. Not yet, anyway

but there are in fact precedents for the taking of such personal property for use in war industries, as well as hair, skin, fat, etc.