Lol, there was an article in some German newspaper yesterday:

The Military starts to fight conscription on it's own.

They just start to reject almost everyone.(only 40% get drafted)
26 years old was rejected because of hair loss.
18 year old because he was missing 2 teeth, which were taken out because of the braces he got when he was 11.
A professional football (soccer) player because malformed(wrong word probably) big toes.

Many want to get drafted, as people still think people who served are better citizens. That's the reason conservative parties don't want to get rid of it I think.

You get paid quite good and you're able to get your drivers license in the Bundeswehr "for free". If you later want to join the military as regular soldier you have to serve for at least 12 years.


I was drafted in Italy in the 90s and was serving 1 1/2 years in Somalia, it wasn't really fun, but I got a parachuting license and a shit load of money out of this. (it was at least much for someone who just graduated from high school)

They got rid of the conscription in 98 I think. Everyone born after 1985 doesn't have to serve any more.

More assertions. 30 years ago Carter was president. You saying he wasn't liberal by today's standards? The next was Reagan - are you saying he was liberal? By what standard?

Nixon, you could easily say was somewhat liberal as Republicans go, but none of his policies were that different in scale than recent Republican presidents. Meanwhile, his contemporary Democrats could hardly be compared to today's Republicans.

As I said originally, the fact Republicans have ended all the drafts is more a matter of coincidence corresponding with the situation at the time, but your assertions have no basis in fact.

In any case, look at who has been promoting a draft in the U.S. in the last decade. Liberals.

Republicans today are authoritarian, this is their political platform. This wasn't the case 40 years ago. They were much less conservative. In fact there is even a debate among republicans today between the moderate and conservative republicans, some still hold libertarian views even though the mainstream republicans aren't libertarian anymore (like it was 40 years ago). I remember reading an article that's probably ten years old talking about this, so I figure 40 years is actually what I meant.


>> As I said originally, the fact Republicans have ended all the drafts is more a matter of coincidence corresponding with the situation at the time, but your assertions have no basis in fact.

I wasn't even talking about this just pointing out that the political parties aren't static. Take a class in American history there is a lot of history behind just the different political parties.

You keep making assertions that you never support. You have yet to provide even one example. You suggest mainstream Republicans 40 years ago were libertarian. Ronald Reagan was a mainstream Republican forty years ago. Describe how Reagan was distinctly libertarian 40 years ago. Keep in mind, many conservative principles that Republicans embrace today and 40 years ago are shared by Libertarians. I'm looking for distinctly libertarian views held by Republicans forty years ago.

Just for the sake of my own curiosity, I'd like to ask you to confirm something - you're a fairly new convert to libertarianism right? A Ron Paul supporter maybe? I'm only guessing because you seem to have "learned" this train of thought of yours only recently. From libertarian/Ron Paul blogs/boards maybe? I suggest this because it looks like you've adopted the conclusion without learning anything about facts or principles that would support reaching it.

People new to politics and belief systems often do this. Rather than establish first principles and gather facts before building their world view, they jump straight to taking a position they find fashionable or whatever, then parrot regurgitated reasons to defend it. The problem is those regurgitated reasons are only acceptable to the already-converted. Assertions based on assertions just aren't convincing otherwise.

Again, only speculation on my part. I could be way off base. I'm only mentioning it because your behavior of continually making baseless assertions is typical of that sort of thing.

Ronald Regan is known to have said in a 1975 interview,

"REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

As you can see many of the policies being pushed by Republicans are not the same as Ronald Reagan was talking about in 1975 when he said this to a reporter. "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom"

Hardly the case today for the conservatives.I don't know what you're talking about. I'm kind of curious what you mean by "I've learned this trait recently." I've been libertarian probably sense high school though I didn't know what libertarianism was. I called myself a "liberal" because on social issues the democratic party is libertarian, the conservative party of course is the one that was trying to force their beliefs, religious or otherwise, on everyone else. I was just mention Ron Paul because even Ron Paul has talked about how the Republican Party has changed.I'm not all that political. The only politics I've ever cared about is where the government tries to take away our rights. I support individual liberties, just because I don't like the idea of the government constantly telling me what to do. I wouldn't consider myself extreme; in no way am I saying we should be living in anarchy with no laws. But things like forcing prayer and the Bible in school were important to me in high school. I was strongly opposed to those ideas and it just so happens that so were the Democrats while the Republicans supported them. I support gay rights not because I'm gay or even a gay sympathiser, just because I think it's wrong to tell someone that they cant get married. However I can tell you that I'm not an environmentalist which is something often considered "liberal," though I do think some environmental policies are good.

Good examples of why the concept of splitting everyone's ideologies into two simple camps - liberal and conservative (or even three camps - liberal/conservative/libertarian) is nothing short of idiotic. It's like trying to catalogue a library with a 2 or 3 category system (and no alphabetical order) instead of Dewey-Decimal.

That's pretty rich coming from someone so willing to throw others in such a camp.

1veedo, thanks for the Reagan quote. It does nothing to support your position, but I always like to read Reagan's opinion on something.

If you read my earlier posts carefully, especially the context where you see I have the word "distinctly" underlined, and compare it to Reagan's words "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
" you see that what I've said (or at least implied) is consistent with what Reagan said. That leaves me waiting for you to provide an example of a Republican from forty years ago taking a distinctly libertarian position.

Another thing you said that makes me question whether you've thought through first principles:

I believe we need government to protect our constitutional right to defend ourselves. I understand you're trying to make the point that government's role is to keep law and order, but there's the perception you believe its better for government to defend us than for each individual to defend himself. Just something to think about. Personally, I believe its always better when the individual thinks first about taking care of himself in any matter rather than relying only on the government. This, by the way, is why liberals hate the 2nd Amendment.

I will join you in saying that today's Republican party is a disappointment. But that's the party, not necessarily the conservatives in general. The odd thing is, on quite a few issues, the large majority of Americans take a conservative view.

As for prayer in school, I'd call that a Bible thumper thing much more than a Republican thing. Personally, I'm against it too simply because government schools have enough trouble teaching the basics without devoting time to spiritual things and other junk that has no business in school - like sports. Kids need exercise? Fine - make them do push ups, sit ups, and run around the block for the last 45 minutes of the school day and send them home sweaty. Sports can be organized and played outside of school. But that's another thread.

What I don't get, is why Bible thumpers would even want their kids praying in school. It typically means someone else is doing the praying for them, and they're just listening and following along or whater. It makes no sense to me that a Bible thumper or anyong with strict spiritual beliefs would want to turn something that intimate over to strangers.

Must I repost this quote or will you go back and reread what he said?They were more libertarian. Today the Republican presidents / nominees are authoritarian and believe in big government, pretty much the opposite what Reagan was talking about.Ok. I think this is similar to what I said in my previous post?Like I said earlier there is a divide among conservatives today between what you can say are classical Republican views and the new ultra-conservative authoritarians. Pretty much the difference between Reagan Republicans and current Bush/McCaine Republicans.That's why the Republicans were the ones who wanted to do it. You may disagree with it, hence like kevmartin was saying you cant stereotype people, but we're talking about the Republican party.


Btw here's a little chart w/ Bush placed on it.



I imagine Reagan would have been bellow the "x axis" on the right (maybe half-way or less). McCaine just from what I've seen would be higher than Bush, but definitely in the first quadrant there.

If you still don't believe me look at what Ron Paul has said about the Republican party. On the Colbert Report he described himself as a a "traditional republican" or something. What I'm saying is not profound it's something that is very well known. I was trying to search for some quotes and found this article, What Is a Ron Paul Republican? - Political Machine

It talks about how Ron Paul disagrees with most Republicans and has support from Democrats.

"The Republican Party is not defined by folks that led it 50 yrs ago. It is defined by the people here and now that must deal with the problems here and now. Stances are determined by what American people deem necessary and desirable. Over the years the party has changed on many issues because circumstances have changed. Smart folks know that as time and circumstances change so must solution and ideals. Otherwise, lets all go back to the dawn of civilization and live like cave men. That said, let me tell you what Republicans believe BASED ON POPULAR OPINION among the party."

I really cant believe you're trying to argue your point other than the sake of not admitting that you were wrong. When I think about it, it really is ridiculous to think that the parties stay the same. Even Reagan talked about how conservatism in 1975 was similar to liberalism in the 18th century, liberals similar to Tories. These are things you learn about in your standard college level American History class. Seriously.

The point you miss:

I do not use the term 'conservative' as meaning 1 of a limited 2 (or 3) options. I use the word by its true meaning - a simple adjective to describe something - not as a noun to categorize something. It might be acceptable to use it as a noun if it wasn't for the limited scope of the 2 or 3 category system you place it in.

Good gawd veedo, you were starting to do well, then you cite Ron Paul as if he's the final arbitor of rational thought or something. Like I've been telling you throughout the thread, you have some conclusions that you're basing your assertions on, but no basis whatsoever. Maybe you could show me which planks of the Republican platform today are so authoriatarian and different from Reagan's? Just a few examples is all I'm asking for.

Who's really making assertions with no basis here? I think you just wont admit that I'm right. You're post does not back up your opinion at all, and you have yet to address what I have said. Even the words of Ronald Reagan disagree with you. What are you trying to play at?