I was thinking that it would be a good idea if it meant fewer people would go into the military. However, at the same time it's a bad idea because it would be trying to fight one kind of centralization with another kind centralization. It can't be left up the States because the Federalists didn't allow that for that. Dr. Paul voted for repeal of DADT (assuming what I heard was true) so that's a good reason to not support banning certain groups from joining the military.
That said, I haven't arrived at a solid conclusion as to whether a ban would reduce the state, increase it, or just leave it the same... that's partially because I'm not very bright and partially because this has been something on my mind until only recently (that is, I haven't thought about it much).
I don't see how it would make things worse or better. If the state needs troops and there aren't enough, they'll draft them and/or suspend the rules, or patch them like DADT. Until people question the wisdom of sending their kids off to murder and die en masse, the rules surrounding how it's done will be as likely to positvely or negatively impact any specific situation.
Yes. It does not violate anyone's property rights as there is no inherent right to be part of the state's armed force. And it at the same time serves to reveal the state as bigoted and ideological and increases opposition to it, all the while decreasing the potential manpower pool for its war machine.
In other words, it is something that is neutral from the ethical point of view and welcome for us, as opponents of the state, from the tactical point of view.
answering this question makes you a socialist!
ye its personal preference of the state.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
Dr. Paul voted for repeal of DADT (assuming what I heard was true) so that's a good reason to not support banning certain groups from joining the military.
Aristotle sayeth so!
The objections to allowing gay people and women into the military that I hear are along the lines that personal relationships endanger lives and missions by bringing more of an extreme emotional element into the fold that produces uncertainty. (The military downplays the amount of rape that occurs, but I bet women have it pretty rough.)
I would support bans based on the fact that it allows certain groups out and I would not support bans because bans make people into groups... =/
Yes, it's a real headscratcher, a refusal to take someone as a slave.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer