The god of Equality demanded more sacrifice this week

[eddie]

From Tom Woods daily email:

The god of Equality demanded more sacrifice this week

A federal judge has just declared that a military draft that excludes women is unconstitutional.

Are we at peak crazytown yet?

The correct position is that, as Daniel Webster (not exactly a left-winger) said all the way back in 1814, the draft itself is unconstitutional.

As Webster put it in a speech before the House of Representatives that no teacher ever assigned you:

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. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves.

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?

Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.

More recently, Russell Kirk, among the most influential architects of modern American conservatism, called conscription "slavery."

Kevin Gutzman and I devoted a chapter of our book Who Killed the Constitution? to precisely this issue. The case for the draft has been reduced to a bloody pulp by the time we're done with it.

Extension of the draft to women is the direction the Department of Defense favors, I might add. In 2017 DoD report to Congress, we read: "It would appear imprudent to exclude approximately 50 percent of the population – the female half – from availability for the draft in the case of a national emergency. And, if a draft becomes necessary, the public must see that it is fair and equitable. For that to happen, the maximum number of eligible persons must be registered."

I understand that the United States has had an all-volunteer military for over four decades, and that that practice is unlikely to change.

But in principle, am I, as the father of five daughters, actually expected to hand them over to the war machine? And if I lose them, am I to console myself that at least the god of "equality" was appeased?

Meanwhile, we have progressives cheering this latest advance for "equality." Why, as long as the state is enslaving us, let's make sure it enslaves everyone equally!

Reminds me of the progressives who cheer rulings in favor of transgender people in the military. Sure, the U.S. government's foreign policy is a moral, material, and strategic disaster, but yay: trans people can do some bombing, too!

The god of Equality is insatiable.

Whatever deranged religion this is, I am a heretic.

So are you.

There's a place for people like us.

The Tom Woods Show Elite.

I spend plenty of time there, and so should you. Best way I've yet found to keep sane in the world of 2019.

Are you a heretic, too?

Then stand up with me and be counted:


http://www.SupportingListeners.com


Tom Woods

Do you intentionally NOT capitalize God? Its your choice, but it stands out to me, kind of like a slug in the gut.

[Fiannan]

There is a reason that on a farm you only need to have one bull for dozens of cows. I hate to note this but one reason young men were put in dangerous situations (like war) is that, from a purely biological perspective, they are not as valuable for the long-term survival of a nation or culture.

Kill off the women and you have no way to replenish your population.

Another consideration, Darwin noted in "Descent of Man" that standing armies were bad for the overall health of a population as you generally take the healthiest men and put them in harm's way. The weaker ones stay home and can pass on their weaknesses. At least in our history healthier women survived wars and could at least compensate for this to a degree. Now our leaders want to deplete both healthy men and women?

[ajax]

From Tom Woods daily email:

The god of Equality demanded more sacrifice this week

A federal judge has just declared that a military draft that excludes women is unconstitutional.

Are we at peak crazytown yet?

The correct position is that, as Daniel Webster (not exactly a left-winger) said all the way back in 1814, the draft itself is unconstitutional.

As Webster put it in a speech before the House of Representatives that no teacher ever assigned you:

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. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves.

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?

Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.

More recently, Russell Kirk, among the most influential architects of modern American conservatism, called conscription "slavery."

Kevin Gutzman and I devoted a chapter of our book Who Killed the Constitution? to precisely this issue. The case for the draft has been reduced to a bloody pulp by the time we're done with it.

Extension of the draft to women is the direction the Department of Defense favors, I might add. In 2017 DoD report to Congress, we read: "It would appear imprudent to exclude approximately 50 percent of the population – the female half – from availability for the draft in the case of a national emergency. And, if a draft becomes necessary, the public must see that it is fair and equitable. For that to happen, the maximum number of eligible persons must be registered."

I understand that the United States has had an all-volunteer military for over four decades, and that that practice is unlikely to change.

But in principle, am I, as the father of five daughters, actually expected to hand them over to the war machine? And if I lose them, am I to console myself that at least the god of "equality" was appeased?

Meanwhile, we have progressives cheering this latest advance for "equality." Why, as long as the state is enslaving us, let's make sure it enslaves everyone equally!

Reminds me of the progressives who cheer rulings in favor of transgender people in the military. Sure, the U.S. government's foreign policy is a moral, material, and strategic disaster, but yay: trans people can do some bombing, too!

The god of Equality is insatiable.

Whatever deranged religion this is, I am a heretic.

So are you.

There's a place for people like us.

The Tom Woods Show Elite.

I spend plenty of time there, and so should you. Best way I've yet found to keep sane in the world of 2019.

Are you a heretic, too?

Then stand up with me and be counted:


http://www.SupportingListeners.com


Tom Woods

Do you intentionally NOT capitalize God? Its your choice, but it stands out to me, kind of like a slug in the gut.

1- Who cares

2-Copy paste job

3-The god in question has a name: Equality, which is capitalized, so the grammar seem is correct. Just like, Thor is a nordic god or the Romans believed in a god named Jupiter. In this case, it is a play off that concept, as in: the progressive god of Equality.

Generally, when capitalizing god, it refers to the Judeo-Christian God or God of the Bible, which I am not.

https://grammarist.com/style/god-capitalization/
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/educa ... talize-god

[eddie]

God cares

[ajax]

lol, it doesn't reference the Christian God, so why would it be capitalized? Do you capitalize "god" when referring to Thor?

And He probably doesn't care as much as you think.

[captainfearnot]

God cares

Dude. Read the first three verses of Exodus chapter 20. When you understand why "God" is capitalized in verses 1 and 2 but not in verse 3, then you'll understand why ajax didn't capitalize "the god of Equality."