You still don't explain yourself. What's the difference between the two legal systems? You realize there are many different legal systems, right? You can be a criminal in one and not another.
Whatever, call it a crime for military personal to commit adultery if you want. But take a look at the justification, it isn't about theft, it requires that "the conduct of the Soldier was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." It is just about order and perceived morality.
Exactly. That's my point. These are different systems. One contract in one system isn't going to necessarily going to apply in a different system. However, this does not mean one isn't making a contract when exchanging vows. It just happens to only be honored in the systems in which the agreement takes place.
No. It isn't a contract unless it meets the state definition of a contract. States (and, in limited instances, the federal government) define what is and isn't a contract. There is no such thing as an unenforceable contract--that is called 'not a contract.' Vows aren't enforceable and they aren't contracts.
And they aren't truly binding because the institution has no power to enforce.
Hence my issue with the state's violent monopoly over the issuance of force.
You think churches should also have the ability to use force? We have tried that before, it wasn't great.
No they are not a verbal contract.
Then what the fuck are they?
An unenforceable promise. Promises are not contracts. Promises are also not enforceable in courts (except in very limited instances, not relevant here).
And it is states that get to decide what is and what isn't a contract,
No it doesn't. The definition of a contract is what decides what is or isn't a contract.
Well it is states that define 'contract.' Hence my comment that they get to decide what is and isn't. It is fairly consistent, but if you want to know whether you have a contract you have to look to the relevant state laws and case law.
Well a country has certain limited rules and powers over its citizens, in our case, as spelled out in the Constitution, but people still have significant agency to act as they see fit. A plantation has absolute control over its slaves--they have no agency.
What agency? There is no agency. I've already explained this. Where's the difference? If the state says "jump", you have to ask "how high"?
All kinds of agency. You usually get to choose whether to re-up and you usually get to decide whether to sign up in the first place. You also get to decide what to do with your free time--which house you want to live in, if and who you want to marry, if and when you want to have children, if and when you want to have sex with someone--or not. I mean, off the top of my head those are some pretty big examples of agency that soldier still have that slaves do not.
not having absolute free-will is not the same as having no free will at all.
We have free will. That is immutable. Even slaves had free will. The problem is that we are under coercion. THAT is the issue. It's a violation of voluntaryism, self-ownership, and the non-aggression principle.
I mean legally recognized free will. Like I gave in the examples above. You are legally allowed to make those choices for yourself. Slaves are not.
You were not legal property. The 14th amendment prohibits that. There are lots of jokes and rumors about that, but it isn't literally true.
First off, your constitutional rights no longer apply when you enter the service. Furthermore, that article has a civilian attorney being quoted. Honestly, they don't know what they're talking about. I actually have first-hand experience with this, so I suggest you cede to my experience.
First off, that was a typo, I meant 13th Amendment. But your constitutional rights do still apply, even if they are somewhat more limited (as they always are with regard to your employment). A civilian and a JAG I think, but the civilian specializes in UCMJ. And they are obviously correct.
By the way, have you ever considered with the 14th doesn't apply to selective service?
Well I meant 13th Amendment, but maybe you did as well? I don't understand your point? What does either have to do with selective service?
You don't really see people going to jail when a hobo gets murdered, do you?
Uh...yes. It is not a defense to murder that the person had no family.
value of life traditionally exceeds the value of property.
lol, you just said "value". So something is being stolen, huh? Ownership. I own my life.
What? Value doesn't equal ownership. I don't care. You can say murder is just a type of theft if you want, it really isn't relevant anyways.
Slaves have no free will.
Yes they do.
Not legally, which is obviously what I meant. Agency is more accurate. They have no agency. They are not legally allowed or protected in the right to make the types of decisions I mentioned earlier.