causes of the American War Between the States

[The Rabbi]

richyoung, the Rabbi does not understand and/or acknowledge the difference between self-imposed voluntary restrictions and loss of freedom imposed by an outside agency. So, further discussion would be just spinning our wheels.

You mean self-imposed, like football players signing up for the NFL draft?

Or do you mean self-imposed, like people choosing to commit crimes knowing the penalty can include incarceration?
Please clarify your intent here.

[Perd Hapley]

Rabbi, he's not going to answer.  That would "spinning his wheels."

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, he's not going to answer.  That would "spinning his wheels."

Actually he's going to explain carefully the differences, why NFL draft and incarceration are voluntary, and then claim I am all wrong and his argument is right.

[richyoung]

rich, I don't know much about sports.  In fact, I take pride in it.  What is slave-like about sports drafts?  

You don't get to choose who you work for (although a very few are so good that they can essentially blackmail the team with their "rights" into trading them to someone else, or not picking htem in hte first place.  The former is what Eli Manning did to the Chargers...).  Since you can't choose who you work for, your abilityto negotiate compensation is reduced.

How do they work?

In football, the pool of "draftable" players is those who have completed their college eligibility (not just football players - see Bob Hays and Carl Lewis), and those that have declared themselves "eligible" early (must have been three college seasons since their senior high school year, and they forfeit any remaining college eligability).  The NFL team with the worst record gets to pick "first:, follwed by the "next -worst" (there are various tie-breakers involved).  Until ALL the teams, up to the Super Bowl winner, (who picks last) have had a pick.  They repeat this seven times, ("rounds").  Teams can also swap picks back and forth for other picks, players on their roster, or picks in subsequent years drafts. When a player is "drafted" ONLY the team that "drafted" him has "rights" to him - they can put him on the team and play him, they can put him on the team and bench him, they can trade him to another team for players or for draft picks - but the PLAYER has no say (theoretically) in where he goes or who he plays for. All he can do is refuse to play - called a "hold out".  If he holds out the whole year, he can be drafted all over again. After a certain number of years on hte team that drafted him, he becomes a "limited" free agent - which meand other teams can try to sign him, but the team he is on has the right to match the offer, and if they don't, they get "compensation" in the form of supplimental draft picks handed out during the draft.  If he makes it to the last year ("option year") of his ocntract without re-negotiating his contract, the team he is on can "pick up his option" or designate him their "franchise player" - otherwise, he becomes a "free agent", and is able to play for whoever will pay him the most.

Why didn't anyone warn me when I was enrolled in various universities that I could be drafted and forced to play silly games for very good money?

...and compelled to stand there behind a marginal offfensive line while the likes of Micheal Strahan remove your head from your body...

[Perd Hapley]

Why didn't anyone warn me when I was enrolled in various universities that I could be drafted and forced to play silly games for very good money?

...and compelled to stand there behind a marginal offfensive line while the likes of Micheal Strahan remove your head from your body...

Don't be silly - I'd just shoot him. 

rich, are you telling me these guys are just minding their own business, and they get press-ganged into playing football against their will?  I don't buy that.

[cordex]

Any comparison between the professional football draft and any form of slavery is preposterous.

You're looking at each football team as a distinct company that the player works for.  That isn't accurate.  The NFL is the company, the teams are competing franchises subordinate to the rules of the league.  If my company transferred me to California, my choice would be to accept the transfer despite my strong dislike of California, or to leave the company.  That doesn't mean I'm a slave just because I can't choose which office I want to work in.  At any time, a professional football player may choose to leave the NFL and play for another league.  If they don't like the options they have in other leagues, they can form their own company to play for.

Trying in any way to draw comparisons between that and slavery or involuntary servitude is utterly without reason.

[richyoung]

Why didn't anyone warn me when I was enrolled in various universities that I could be drafted and forced to play silly games for very good money?

...and compelled to stand there behind a marginal offfensive line while the likes of Micheal Strahan remove your head from your body...

Don't be silly - I'd just shoot him. 

rich, are you telling me these guys are just minding their own business, and they get press-ganged into playing football against their will?  I don't buy that.

What I am telling you is that if you are good enough to be drafted, and you happen to be drafted by a team you don;t want to play for, your options are limited to:

Play for another league.  No offense to other leagues, but the NFL is where hte big bucks are at.
Hold out.  Basicly, you don't play at ALL, for the NFL, for a year - at which time you can be drafted again, perhaps by the same team that you held out on.
Try to blackmail the team that drafted you into trading you to another team by threatening to hold out.

So to put it in your terms, the situation is that IF they choose to play in the NFL at all, they get "press-ganged" on to whatever team "drafts" you - regardless as to your preferences for geographic location, quality of team, coaching philosophy, dedication of ownership, etc.  Say you live in Wisconsin, and its your dream to play for the Packers.  Say you go to Notre Dame and win the Heisman as the top quaterback your senior year.  Suppose the Arizona Cardinals have the number one draft pick the next year, and they need a QB.  You ain't going to Green Bay....

[The Rabbi]

But of course you know all that going into it.  Just like people who sign up for the military know they can be sent anywhere and can be recalled after their tour is up.  And yet they volunteer to do these things.
Do you see the difference between this and chattel slavery yet, or do we need to beat you over the head with it more?

[richyoung]

Any comparison between the professional football draft and any form of slavery is preposterous.

You're looking at each football team as a distinct company that the player works for.  That isn't accurate.  The NFL is the company, the teams are competing franchises subordinate to the rules of the league.  If my company transferred me to California, my choice would be to accept the transfer despite my strong dislike of California, or to leave the company.  That doesn't mean I'm a slave just because I can't choose which office I want to work in.  At any time, a professional football player may choose to leave the NFL and play for another league.  If they don't like the options they have in other leagues, they can form their own company to play for.

Trying in any way to draw comparisons between that and slavery or involuntary servitude is utterly without reason.

In essence, the NFL has a monopoly on the business of professional football in the US.  Plus your analogy is flawed - if you get fired at a Pizza Hut restaurant, there is nothing that prevents you from being hired by a Taco Bell or a Burger King, even though they are owned by the same company.  Heck, you can even BUY a franchise.  Not so with the NFL, and their government-protected monopoly on new talent, to play in their taxpayer funded arenas...

[richyoung]

But of course you know all that going into it.

knowing it doesn't mean you can do anything about it.  The Dallas Cowboys even drafted Bob Hayes and Carl Lweis - neither of whom were even football players.  Hayes chose to go ahead and play - Lewis told them to pound sand.  There'snothing voluntary about the system - you don't "go into" it - the draft, and likewise the restriction on employing young men until 3 years after their high school graduation (how can that NOT be age discrimination?) are THRUST UPON the young men - no option.

 

Just like people who sign up for the military know they can be sent anywhere and can be recalled after their tour is up.  And yet they volunteer to do these things.

If I work for Gemeral Motors, and suddenly I don't want to work for them any more, I can tell the boss to "take this job and shove it".  A Spec 4 can't.  Why?  And how is that not salvery?  Not to mention ('cause you didn't) I have principly been discussing the MILITARY DRAFT, under which the unwilling either "go into" the military, or "go into" prison.

Do you see the difference between this and chattel slavery yet, or do we need to beat you over the head with it more?

I see no difference between military conscription and slavery, except who owns the slave.

[cordex]

In essence, the NFL has a monopoly on the business of professional football in the US.

Bull.  The NFL is the most successful league, to be sure, but they have no monopoly on it.  In fact, in 2007 a new league known as the All American Football League will be started utilizing major University stadiums.

If you want multi-million dollar contracts and major TV time, you'll have to play for the NFL and play by their rules.  If you want to work for the largest and most successful search company in the world, you've got to get hired by Google and play by their rules.  No difference.

Plus your analogy is flawed - if you get fired at a Pizza Hut restaurant, there is nothing that prevents you from being hired by a Taco Bell or a Burger King, even though they are owned by the same company.  Heck, you can even BUY a franchise.  Not so with the NFL, and their government-protected monopoly on new talent, to play in their taxpayer funded arenas...

That's because PepsiCo's rules are different than the NFL's rules.  Why is that so hard to understand?  PepsiCo could choose to commoditize their workforce amongst their franchises and incorporate a type of draft.  That solution simply doesn't fit their business model, nor would it be efficient with the number of employees and their rate of turnover.

knowing it doesn't mean you can do anything about it.  The Dallas Cowboys even drafted Bob Hayes and Carl Lweis - neither of whom were even football players.  Hayes chose to go ahead and play - Lewis told them to pound sand.

Tell me, Rich, did Hayes and Lewis just get the draft notification out of the blue?  Did they have a choice whether or not to accept it?

  There'snothing voluntary about the system - you don't "go into" it - the draft, and likewise the restriction on employing young men until 3 years after their high school graduation (how can that NOT be age discrimination?) are THRUST UPON the young men - no option.

There's nothing voluntary about any employer's requirements.  That's life.

I see no difference between military conscription and slavery, except who owns the slave.

I have no love for military conscription.  Your other positions are so ridiculous, however, that they poison any valid points you might have.

[The Rabbi]

But of course you know all that going into it.

knowing it doesn't mean you can do anything about it.  The Dallas Cowboys even drafted Bob Hayes and Carl Lweis - neither of whom were even football players.  Hayes chose to go ahead and play - Lewis told them to pound sand.  There'snothing voluntary about the system - you don't "go into" it - the draft, and likewise the restriction on employing young men until 3 years after their high school graduation (how can that NOT be age discrimination?) are THRUST UPON the young men - no option.

So they just out of the blue received notices to report to Dallas?  No, I suspect there was more there going on.

Just like people who sign up for the military know they can be sent anywhere and can be recalled after their tour is up.  And yet they volunteer to do these things.

If I work for Gemeral Motors, and suddenly I don't want to work for them any more, I can tell the boss to "take this job and shove it".  A Spec 4 can't.  Why?

Um, because you signed an agreement saying you wouldn't do that?  Remember, you had a choice going into it.

  And how is that not salvery?  Not to mention ('cause you didn't) I have principly been discussing the MILITARY DRAFT, under which the unwilling either "go into" the military, or "go into" prison.

And chattel slavery benefits chiefly the owner while a war time draft benefits, whom?  If you said the citizens of this country, including draftees, you win.  See the difference?  No, I didnt think so either.

Military service is a duty of citizenship.  Every immigrant who becomes a citizen commits himself to that in theory.  Don't like it?  You can move someplace else.

[roo_ster]

I don't agree that NFL Draft=slavery...or even that conscription=slavery (though conscription is closer than the NFL draft).

But, the NFL & MLB*have special dispensation from COTUS so as not to be subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act.  That is, they are immune from prosecution for colluding to give it to the players up the p00p chute.  This leaves the players in a much weaker bargaining position and places the MLB/NFL in a preferred & advantageous position relative to upstart leagues.  One heckuva barrier to entry.

* Oh, heck, I think that one does & the other doesn't...or is it the NHL that doesn't?  Somebody, throw me a bone!

[Perd Hapley]

Rich, might I inquire about any diagnosed conditions you may have?  How old are you?  Do you enjoy your work?


Any man who wants to play children's games for a living should shut up and like it.  Especially for that kind of money. 

I can't stand...
These people who pay retarded amounts of money for sports-related dreck (tickets, jersey's, etc.) and then complain that the athletes make too much or make more than teachers do.  Who's fault might that be, genius?  Then there are those who whine about pro sports being all about the money.  What do they expect? 

[richyoung]

In essence, the NFL has a monopoly on the business of professional football in the US.

Bull.  The NFL is the most successful league, to be sure, but they have no monopoly on it.  In fact, in 2007 a new league known as the All American Football League will be started utilizing major University stadiums.

..and what has happened to all of those leagues.  USFL ring any bells?

If you want multi-million dollar contracts and major TV time, you'll have to play for the NFL and play by their rules.

Try this on for size: "If you want to build cars in a plant owned by Ford, Gm, or Chrysler, you have to accept being drafted, beign told which one you work for, - or you don;t work for them at all." That would be closer to the situation...

If you want to work for the largest and most successful search company in the world, you've got to get hired by Google and play by their rules.  No difference.

The DIFFERENCE is Google doesn't get to "draft" colege graduates, who, if they DON'T want to work for Google, are then prohibited from working for 29 OTHER companies.

Tell me, Rich, did Hayes and Lewis just get the draft notification out of the blue?  Did they have a choice whether or not to accept it?

Yes.  Out of the blue.  Neither of them sought to be drafted.  No choice.  After the fact, "Bullet" Bob Hayes decided to go ahead and play for Dallas.  Carl Lewis didn't - but if he had WANTED to play for the 49ers or the Bears, he would have been prohinited from doing so - once Dallas drafted him, it was them or nothing.

There's nothing voluntary about any employer's requirements.  That's life.

Age discrimination is illegal.  Thats the law.

I have no love for military conscription.  Your other positions are so ridiculous, however, that they poison any valid points you might have.

I am pointing out tothose who howl that "slavery is wrong!", as an intellectual exercise, that they routinely except aspects of slavery, however small they may be in your sight, without question.  Such a contradictionis inconsistant with intellectual honesty and rigorousness.

[richyoung]

Rich, might I inquire about any diagnosed conditions you may have? 

..and the reason I would choose to share my medical information publicly on the internet would be...?

How old are you?

Mid-fourties.

  Do you enjoy your work? 

Absolutely love it.

[richyoung]

So they just out of the blue received notices to report to Dallas?  No, I suspect there was more there going on.

i don't think they even get notices.  The other teams are all aware of who owns the "rights" to who, and for how long.

Um, because you signed an agreement saying you wouldn't do that?  Remember, you had a choice going into it.

The draftee has no choice.  In what other professions does one not have the right to quit?  Don't argue "public safety", because I remember seeing on TV the reports talking about all the New Orleans police who just up and quit right after Katrina.  If they can do it, why not soldiers?

And chattel slavery benefits chiefly the owner while a war time draft benefits, whom?

The government  that is unwiulling to pay fair price for what it takes.

  If you said the citizens of this country, including draftees, you win.

Yes, we "win" meatgrinders like World War I, Korea and Vietnam, which would have been unsusttainable in the form they took without a draft.  The draftees "win" death and disfiguration.  Whoopie!

See the difference?  No, I didnt think so either.

I beleive it was Neitzche wo said, "A difference that makes no difference IS no difference..."

Military service is a duty of citizenship.

Says who?  And if so, why is it not a duty of FEMALE citizens?  Physically imparied citizens?  Gay citizens?

Every immigrant who becomes a citizen commits himself to that in theory.

 

No, they don't.  And even if they did, there is an element of "volunteering" when one CHOOSES to immigrate.

Don't like it?  You can move someplace else.

How about YOU provide some support for the outragous position that involuntary military service in a standing army in the absence of a declared war is somehow a "duty of citizenship".  If you are right, it should be in the Constitution, right about where they talk about who citizens are, and how to become one.  Please feel free to quote the relevant articles of the Constitution.

[The Rabbi]

At what point will you cease making stupid absurd comparisons and ridiculous claims?
NO Police had the right to quit at any time.  That is part of their contract.  Soldiers in a draft do not have contracts with the government.  One of many many differences.  Soldiers get pay, unlike slaves.  Soldiers serve a specified term.  I could go on and on but suspect I am wasting time.
Where does Congress have the power to draft?  Try Article 1 Section 8.  I dont see any mention of wartime there.
Meatgrinders?  Carnage?  Now who is throwing emotive terms around?

[richyoung]

At what point will you cease making stupid absurd comparisons and ridiculous claims?

Way to be polite there, "teacher"...suffice it to say that I don't find them so.

NO Police had the right to quit at any time.  That is part of their contract.

 

You sure about that?

Soldiers in a draft do not have contracts with the government.

Oh, they have contracts, all right.  Just not fair, freely entered contracts.

One of many many differences.  Soldiers get pay, unlike slaves.

Are you so uninformed on the subject you are pontificating about, as to NOT know that many slaves were, in fact paid wages.  The DIFFERENCE, which seems to escape your grasp, is that neither the slave nor the soldier are fee to NEGOTIATE their pay, by withholding services until a mutually agreed-upon rate is determined.  THAT, and the ability to walk away, is what makes the draft slave-like.

  Soldiers serve a specified term

.

This will be news to everybody thats been "stop-loss'ed" and sent to the Big Sandy monthes and years after their enlistment was supposed to expire....

Where does Congress have the power to draft?  Try Article 1 Section 8.  I dont see any mention of wartime there.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

I don't see anything there that grants the Fedgov the authority and power to FORCE people into the army and navy involuntarily - in fact, NO ONE saw any such authorization, until Lincoln, but he is hardly a Constitutional originalist, is he?  On the other hand, I DID find this...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

...meaning if no SPECIFC delegation of "draft authority", there IS NONE.

Meatgrinders?  Carnage?  Now who is throwing emotive terms around?

Don't like meatgrinders and carnage?  Don't feed the machine free troops....

[The Rabbi]

"Raise armies" means by any means, including the draft.
Contracts under a draft?  Do you have the text of one handy?  No, I didnt think so.

[cordex]

..and what has happened to all of those leagues.  USFL ring any bells?

I'm not sure I get your point.  They won a monopoly suit against the NFL (and collected $3!) and still went under because of poor management.

I don't care about the NFL.  I rarely watch games, and when I do it is to be courteous to others.  I'm not trying to rush to the defense of my favorite sport or anything, it just doesn't make sense that you're claiming that the players are slaves.  They're a bunch of guys who want to make huge amounts of money playing a game.  Fantastically enough, they're able to do so.  In no way do I believe they are slaves in any sense of the word.

At the root of the slavery matter, it wouldn't matter if the NFL had an absolute monopoly on football and could prohibit anyone from playing it professionally or not. 
The facts of the matter are that they:
1. Cannot require someone who doesn't choose to work for them to do so.
2. Cannot force a player to work without pay unless that is so specified in the contract the player chose of their own volition to sign.
3. Do not in any way "own" the player except insofar as the player has willfully sold or leased their time, likeness, name, personality and other aspects to the NFL.

Prove that even one of these three points are incorrect and we'll re-examine your claim.

This other unrelated gibberish you keep throwing out there about choosing what team to play for, drafts, monopolies and so forth are all meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Try this on for size: "If you want to build cars in a plant owned by Ford, Gm, or Chrysler, you have to accept being drafted, beign told which one you work for, - or you don;t work for them at all." That would be closer to the situation...

Actually, the situation is more like saying "If you want to build cars in a plant owned by Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover or Aston Martin then you have to be willing to take a job at the plant where Ford wants your talent."  But as I said before, all of this is beside the point because it does not in any way support your claim that NFL players are slaves.

The DIFFERENCE is Google doesn't get to "draft" colege graduates, who, if they DON'T want to work for Google, are then prohibited from working for 29 OTHER companies.

Rich, you aren't making sense.
Google gets to "draft" any one who wants to take a job with them into any department they choose.
It's like someone applying for a job within Google and expecting to tell Google management that they want to work in research and development when Google wants to put them in custodial services.  You're focusing way too much on this draft thing.

Yes.  Out of the blue.  Neither of them sought to be drafted.  No choice.

They had no choice?  I thought one chose to go with it and the other didn't.  Sounds like they had a choice.
They were offered jobs.  The companies who did the offering have a non-compete agreement when it comes to hiring players and have worked out a system for dividing up the talent pool.

Age discrimination is illegal.  Thats the law.

I don't care.  Age discrimination has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Take it up with a judge if it is such a big deal to you.  The NFL draft isn't slavery in any sense of the word.

I am pointing out tothose who howl that "slavery is wrong!", as an intellectual exercise, that they routinely except aspects of slavery, however small they may be in your sight, without question.  Such a contradictionis inconsistant with intellectual honesty and rigorousness.

If that is truly your intent, sir, you are failing miserably.

[richyoung]

"Raise armies" means by any means, including the draft.

Got any proof of that?  Why didn't General Washinton draft Continentals, instead of having to worry about them returning to their farms when their enlistment was up?  How was it possible to fight the Mexican American war without the draft?  In fact, didn't we go to war against France in the Franco-American Naval War, and against Britain in 1812, becausethey were "drafting" Americans into their navies?  Last I checked, the Constitution sex "NO condition of slavery or INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE...." - no exception for the armed services.  Even IF there was previous Constitutional justification, (which I do not conceed), the passage of that ammendamnt removed it.

[The Rabbi]

You have provided your own proof.  The USC bars involuntary servitude and slavery.  And yet we have had a draft many times since then.  Obviously there is no contradiction.

[richyoung]

1. Cannot require someone who doesn't choose to work for them to do so.

Technically true, but misleading.  They can require someone to work for a particular team in the league, or not in the league at all.  With the exception of major league baseball, I know of no other busniess or businesses that are allowed to operate in this way, inapparent defiance of federal law.

2. Cannot force a player to work without pay unless that is so specified in the contract the player chose of their own volition to sign.

A non-issue.  Yes, the players get paid, and yes, they sign a contract.  However, the amount they get paid isn;t set by the market, as there is no competition, under the draft system.  Further, some slaves get paid.  Its the inability to quit and go to workk for another employer that is at issue here.

3. Do not in any way "own" the player except insofar as the player has willfully sold or leased their time, likeness, name, personality and other aspects to the NFL.

In a situation were the player is not free to "market" his skills to thte highest bidder, one can hardly claim that such contracts are "willfully" entered into.

Rich, you aren't making sense.
Google gets to "draft" any one who wants to take a job with them into any department they choose.

No, Google doesn't get to "draft" anybody.  If they did, it would go like this:

Say you graduate college with a computer science degree.  Google picks you in the third round of the "IT" draft, and tells you you HAVE to work for Google, writing Java aplets.  No matter that you want to work for Microsoft, working on internet browsers, Google owns your rights, and will pay you an average 'third round" wage - or you don't work in the IT field at all.

If that is truly your intent, sir, you are failing miserably.

I acknowledge your position, and promise to weigh it in accordance with the source.

[richyoung]

You have provided your own proof.  The USC bars involuntary servitude and slavery.  And yet we have had a draft many times since then.  Obviously there is no contradiction.

It also says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" - how's THAT  working out?