[dcwusmc]

Can you or anyone take my money or property by force in defense of the country? In a word, NO. If you cannot convince people to buy bonds or fund the defense voluntarily, then it would appear that you have so alienated your population that that nation does not deserve to survive.

If you are headed into a JUST war, I’ll be there. Old, fat and out of shape, maybe, but I’ll be there and even bring my own weapons, just as the Founders intended. If you cannot convince the Congress to declare war and openly and firmly commit itself and the nation to swift victory, then your “war” is more than likely not worth waging.

And on your other remark, there is NO HIGHER AUTHORITY (besides God) THAN THE INDIVIDUAL. There can ONLY BE individual ownership of property, whether it be a harbor or a mountain top. Now, in wartime, the rules can change a bit. But only when the Congress does its job and declares that a state of war exists. However, if private property MUST be taken for war use, it must be returned to its original state and returned to its owner, with full compensation, when hostilities end. If private property rights are not respected by government, which, in our case is why government is allowed to exist in the first place, then it is time that government be removed and replaced.

Can someone who is IN the service be ordered into danger? Yes. That is what the armed forces are for. If you do not believe in the cause, stay home. If you believe your society is worth protecting, you BELONG in the service. (And, to me, only those who have served should be able either to vote or to hold elective office.)

Can cops commandeer someone’s property in some sort of emergency? Probably not but provide an example.

As far as Amendment III goes, it is not the norm for troops of any sort to be involuntarily quartered in people’s homes. Which is a good thing. Could our current government try to put its watchers in our homes under any future circumstance? They might try, but I suspect they’d fail abjectly!

[LearsFool]

Now, in wartime, the rules can change a bit.

Your rules cannot be both inflexible and flexible. The individual cannot be sovereign AND be overruleable at the same time.

It’s not and I said so.

Okay, I didn't see that in your earlier post, but do see it in #249 and #250.

If you cannot convince people to buy bonds or fund the defense voluntarily

That was just one example of expenses authorized by the Constitution. (There are several others specifically mentioned and implied.) Surely you don't think the founders expected all the expenses authorized by the Constitution would be funded by donations from generous citizens! :-)

They didn't, which is why they authorized Congress to take some of your money. (Article 1, Section 8.) Was this something else they got wrong?

I understand and share your affinity for liberty. But surely you can see by now that liberty has its limits, those limits varying with varying circumstances. Defending liberty demands more from us than just railing against abuses of power. And constructing a hyper-individualist state does as much to guarantee the loss of liberty as constructing a despotic tyranny. The only difference is that one is a slow death.

Just as a man seeks protection by sacrificing some solitude and independence and joining himself with others, so liberty is protected by being blended with other elements.

Inflexible, absolute liberty is only available to the man who lives alone on an island. The rest of mankind must compromise here and there in order for the societies we're a part of to function and survive. And as we've seen so plainly in the last century and already in this one, our free, Western societies are called upon frequently to protect liberty.