Conscription - good or bad?

[Revoltingest]

Maybe true. But we don't live in an ideal world. You get a choice -
fight for your country, or allow your country to be defeated - and
live (or die) with whatever that means.

If it's "slavery" then it begs the question - one man fights for his
country, the other reaps the benefits without the exertion or
putting himself in harm's way - is that just?

We have another option.....pay enuf to hire those willing to do the job.
In wartime, the high risk would mean high pay....say $300,000/year
for those at risk. Less for REMFs.
It would mean incurring a higher debt, but it's a minimal burden
for us non-combatants compared to what soldiers face. Anyone
who thinks it too high a price, & wants conscription as a cost
saving measure isn't worth defending.

 

[Revoltingest]

I really don't have anything else to say. I gave my opinion already, and I'm not going to write a manifesto. We're not going to agree or change minds, so there's no point in going on about it. I already know your views and don't need to hear it all over again. Good day.

I understand.
Responses can become overwhelming at times.

 

[74x12]

And here's the cause of it all: Duty.
Why should we owe any duty to king or country? No-one's born a vassal. We're born free and unencumbered by duty or obligation.

What gives any person or organization the right to order me to do something I conscientiously object to?
Duty to anything but principle is fraught with danger. Nationalism and "just following orders" has generated little but misery.

Remember "What if they gave a war and no-one came?" -- That's what would happen if people renounced personal or national duty.

Think of Greece getting invaded by more powerful Turkey. Think how you could justify not defending the society you have lived in. Why should you owe duty? Because you're not a parasite. Parasites live off the host organism; taking but not giving.

 

[74x12]

Then appeal to that sense of duty. But as soon as you start talking about locking people up for disobeying the draft, you're talking about slavery.


In feudal society, nobody but the monarch was truly free. Everybody was somebody's vassal, including fighting men.

Even the Monarch was not really free when you consider he was supposed to answer to the church. And indeed the church could destroy his hopes and dreams and although it probably couldn't depose a strong monarch outright; it could make his reign and life miserable.

The black plague and the "longbow" gave English commoners more rights and privileges than most other commoners in western Europe. The black plague killed off so many people that workers became valuable to lords and so they couldn't treat them like dirt anymore. Their skills with the "longbow" made them equal or nearly equal to knights in battle; so they actually gained much respect and were considered valuable soldiers. This was thanks to wars in Scotland and France.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe true. But we don't live in an ideal world. You get a choice -
fight for your country, or allow your country to be defeated - and
live (or die) with whatever that means.

If you get a choice, then we're not talking about conscription.

If it's "slavery" then it begs the question - one man fights for his
country, the other reaps the benefits without the exertion or
putting himself in harm's way - is that just?

It's only slavery when the person fighting for their country is denied a choice in the matter.

It's as just as when slaves would flee to freedom, knowing that they were leaving others in slavery behind them.

Anyone interested in justice isn't interesred in conscription in the first place.

Conscription devalues the commitment of those who would actually choose to volunteer and fight for their country.

 

[Valjean]

Think of Greece getting invaded by more powerful Turkey. Think how you could justify not defending the society you have lived in. Why should you owe duty? Because you're not a parasite. Parasites live off the host organism; taking but not giving.

I'm not trying to discourage legitimate self defense. I'm saying forcing a person to do a job against his will is unjust, and forcing him to go against his conscience is even more unjust.

I encourage community service and consider it meritorious -- as long as the 'service' is just and does more good than harm.

If people hadn't undermined the UN almost as soon as it was formed, no-one today would fear his neighbors. As long as everybody fears his neighbors yet fears even more giving a neutral party the power to protect him, we'll likely remain a species at endless war with itself.

 

[Jumi]

I'd take some exception here. The military does teach discipline, teamwork and a host of useful skills that will be of benefit later in life.

Depends on which military. Conscription army teaches how to avoid volunteering to do more than the minimum and curbs any ambitious ideas with punishments or things that feel like punishments.

 

[Stevicus]

The last time my country had an arguably defensive war was WWII. Since then our military's been used mostly in wars of choice, largely benefiting the billionaire classes and securing markets for corporations -- often to the detriment of the general public.

I would agree with this. These wars have largely been advocated and presented as ideological wars (i.e. "making the world safe for democracy," "defending freedom," etc.), not actual homeland defense.

Now I can sympathize with this. I've often thought we'd be perfectly fine with just a National Guard and Coast Guard. But, on the other hand, how many wars are you going to win playing a purely defensive game; without an attempt to cripple the enemy's offensive capacity?

I suppose in this day and age, crippling the enemy's infrastructure and offensive capacity could be adequately done by air bombardment or missile barrages from the sea (or through the use of drones). Unless we actually need to conquer and control a territory (and why would we want to), do we really need boots on the ground with armies of conscripts?

 

[Stevicus]

It's only slavery when the person fighting for their country is denied a choice in the matter.

It's as just as when slaves would flee to freedom, knowing that they were leaving others in slavery behind them.

Anyone interested in justice isn't interesred in conscription in the first place.

Conscription devalues the commitment of those who would actually choose to volunteer and fight for their country.

I wouldn't compare it to slavery. Slavery implies a permanent state of affairs, and it is also generational. If you're a slave, then your children would automatically be slaves as well. A slave would not be a citizen, so a slave would have no rights whatsoever, such as the right to vote, right to marry, right to own property - rights which a conscript would still have. Conscripts would still get a salary for their service, while slaves do not typically get paid.

However, the biggest difference is that slavery is a capitalist invention, designed for the profit and benefit of private sector entities. It does not benefit the state as a whole, as exemplified by how terrifically outmatched the Confederacy was against the Union. The irony in the result was that the very cause the South was fighting for was what doomed them to defeat.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wouldn't compare it to slavery. Slavery implies a permanent state of affairs, and it is also generational. If you're a slave, then your children would automatically be slaves as well. A slave would not be a citizen, so a slave would have no rights whatsoever, such as the right to vote, right to marry, right to own property - rights which a conscript would still have. Conscripts would still get a salary for their service, while slaves do not typically get paid.

None of that is true. Slavery in the American south is not the be-all and end-all of slavery.

For instance, in the Roman Empire, people could be made slaves over unpaid debts, then work - for pay - until they saved enough to buy their freedom.

However, the biggest difference is that slavery is a capitalist invention, designed for the profit and benefit of private sector entities. It does not benefit the state as a whole, as exemplified by how terrifically outmatched the Confederacy was against the Union. The irony in the result was that the very cause the South was fighting for was what doomed them to defeat.

Do you seriously believe that there was no slavery before capitalism?

 

[Shad]

Is conscription a good idea? – do/would you support it, as a policy?

Should young people be compelled to serve in the military?

Would this be good for society?

Would this be good or bad for the military?

Would this be good for individuals?

What about non-military compulsory national service?

Should only males be compelled to serve, or females too?

Has anyone here done national service? If so, what was it like? And for how long?

I have to be careful whenever I travel to Greece, as I’m liable for conscription there. I know they’d consider me unsuitable (I can’t even speak Greek) for numerous reasons but I can imagine it being a huge pain.
​

1. It is a good idea for those wishing to maintain their power by forcing people to fight for said figure or their cause. For those fighting, not so much in the case of a lot of wars.

I object to any sort of conscription as it violates the free will of the individual. If a population isn't willing to fight for their nation they can face the consequences of that inaction.

2. No

3. No

4. Situational thus unanswerable as a general question. Conscription worked well for the Red Army in a desperate time. During Vietnam it caused it's own collapse as it was an unpopular war.

5. No as I consider enforced servitude to be a gross negative regardless of benefit ergo the ends does not justify the means.

6. No. Unless you consider public K-12 education a national service. I think some nations mandate enrollment of children in any education system.

7. For argument sake if I supported conscription, both. Duties would vary as per current statistics.

8. No; see 6

I assume conscription for you is tied to citizenship?

 

[Revoltingest]

Conscripts would still get a salary for their service, while slaves do not typically get paid.

Slaves were sometimes paid.
Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia
Some slaves even went on (after buying their freedom) to become slave
owners themselves. (I visited one such plantation once in the Carolinas.)
Yet no draftee was ever paid enuf buy buy his way out of conscription.
It wasn't even possible to buy one's way out of the draft (after the
Civil War), excepting political corruption.

However, the biggest difference is that slavery is a capitalist invention.....

Tell that the Egyptian slaves, who clearly lived long before modern capitalism.
Note also that commie/socialist states were big on enslaving people.

Temporary slavery is still slavery.
Getting some pay as a slave is still slavery.

 

[Valjean]

I would agree with this. These wars have largely been advocated and presented as ideological wars (i.e. "making the world safe for democracy," "defending freedom," etc.), not actual homeland defense.

These are PR slogans, to sell the war to the people. In your examples, the US rushed in at the last moment so it could claim a share of the spoils.

The US has been involved in dozens of wars, annexations and puppet regimes since then, not for any righteous principle or to benefit the people on either side, but to benefit United Fruit Company, Raytheon, Exxon-Mobile, or Halliburton. In the US, the military fights for corporations; for the 1%, not for 'the country', the people or any abstract notion like freedom.

I suppose in this day and age, crippling the enemy's infrastructure and offensive capacity could be adequately done by air bombardment or missile barrages from the sea (or through the use of drones). Unless we actually need to conquer and control a territory (and why would we want to), do we really need boots on the ground with armies of conscripts?

Interesting point. I hadn't really broken it down by methodologies, but since you brought it up, it seems like aerial bombardment would be the 'easiest', least disruptive to the homeland, most dehumanizing, and most harmful to civilians and infrastructure. Victims characterize it as cowardly.

These days conquering, controlling and exploiting territory is largely done by proxy. We threaten, we trick them into debt, we create or support anti-government militias, we install puppets willing to exploit their own people in exchange for our maintaining them in power, &c. Boots on the ground are a last resort.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with promoting democracy or with any benefit to The People in general. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - Wikipedia

Boots on the ground risks public disapproval, but may be necessary to 'mop up' after an actual attack, till puppets can be installed.

The "military, industrial complex" requires continual conflict to sell and create demand for its products; to maintain the thousands of military related jobs and the communities they support.

I wouldn't compare it to slavery. Slavery implies a permanent state of affairs, and it is also generational. If you're a slave, then your children would automatically be slaves as well. A slave would not be a citizen, so a slave would have no rights whatsoever, such as the right to vote, right to marry, right to own property - rights which a conscript would still have. Conscripts would still get a salary for their service, while slaves do not typically get paid.

However, the biggest difference is that slavery is a capitalist invention, designed for the profit and benefit of private sector entities. It does not benefit the state as a whole, as exemplified by how terrifically outmatched the Confederacy was against the Union. The irony in the result was that the very cause the South was fighting for was what doomed them to defeat.

There are degrees of "slavery." It's a catch-all term, denoting varying degrees of inequality; unfair, hierarchical relationships, contractual inequality or servitude. &c.

 

[Stevicus]

None of that is true. Slavery in the American south is not the be-all and end-all of slavery.

For instance, in the Roman Empire, people could be made slaves over unpaid debts, then work - for pay - until they saved enough to buy their freedom.

Well, yes, there were other forms of slavery. Even when slavery first came to the colonies, it wasn't race-based or generational. It was more like "indentured servitude," which differed from actual slavery. It was for a fixed period with the idea that the indentured servant would learn a viable trade. Some even received parcels of land after their period of servitude was up.

Conscription might be similar in that one might learn a trade in the military, too. But it doesn't seem like it would be the same thing as actual slavery. It might seem that way, especially when it was possible for people to buy their way out of military service. That's why so many people reacted sharply against it, since it was obvious that the wealthy were able to get out of it one way or another, while the brunt of the fighting was left to the poor and working classes.

But if everyone was in the same boat and treated fairly and equally - no better or worse than anyone else, then it's a different situation than outright slavery. It might still be wrong from various points of view, but it wouldn't be slavery.

It might be more like a town being threatened by flooding. If you were living in such a town and able to help save it by putting up sandbags or taking other flood prevention measures to save the community, then everyone would be in the same situation.

I remember a scene from the movie Earthquake where George Kennedy is a cop who stops Charlton Heston on the street and tells him they need his vehicle as an ambulance to take injured people to an aid station. It was an emergency, and they needed everyone to help who could help. As it turned out, George Kennedy couldn't drive it, since it had a customized transmission, so he essentially "drafted" Charlton Heston into becoming an ambulance driver against his will. I wouldn't say he was "enslaved," as it was just a temporary thing.

Do you seriously believe that there was no slavery before capitalism?

The goal of slavery was profit and greed, which are timeless phenomena throughout history. Same for capitalism, even as much as we try to sanitize it and liberalize it for political reasons.

 

[Revoltingest]

The servant voluntarily agreed to indentured servitude.
Ref...
Indentured servitude - Wikipedia

So while it could be seen as onerous, it was not fundamentally slavery.
Conscription is much more like slavery because the one serving was
coerced under great threat.

 

[Stevicus]

Slaves were sometimes paid.
Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia
Some slaves even went on (after buying their freedom) to become slave
owners themselves. (I visited one such plantation once in the Carolinas.)
Yet no draftee was ever paid enuf buy buy his way out of conscription.
It wasn't even possible to buy one's way out of the draft (after the
Civil War), excepting political corruption.

Yeah, conditions varied for some regarding actual payment. One might even question whether people earning minimal or subsistence wages aren't also in a position comparable to slavery. It depends on how you want to define the word.

Tell that the Egyptian slaves, who clearly lived long before modern capitalism.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the human conditions of greed and lust for wealth/profit are timeless, and that would be just as true in Ancient Egypt as anywhere else.

Note also that commie/socialist states were big on enslaving people.

They paid their workers. The main complaint was not that they weren't paid for their work; it's just that there was very little for them to actually buy with the money they earned. But at least they got housing, education, healthcare, and enough to have a reasonably livable existence. Not as luxurious as Western standards, but it wasn't as horrible as some people make it out to be. I visited there; I've seen it. It wasn't that bad.

Temporary slavery is still slavery.
Getting some pay as a slave is still slavery.

Well, in the examples I gave in my previous post, if it was fair and equal - and everyone in society was in the same boat - then it wouldn't necessarily be such. It would be more analogous to a town facing a disaster or some kind of emergency which involves everyone. If you were driving along and came across a scene of people bleeding and dying - and yours was the only working vehicle to get the people to medical help - then you might be "drafted" into helping out. But it wouldn't be slavery - and you'd probably be entitled to some form of payment after all is said and done.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, conditions varied for some regarding actual payment. One might even question whether people earning minimal or subsistence wages aren't also in a position comparable to slavery. It depends on how you want to define the word.

Real slaves have no choice in having become slaves.
It is entirely imposed upon them by others.
Someone who feels trapped in a job with bad pay is not a slave using this primary definition.....
Slave definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

As I mentioned in my previous post, the human conditions of greed and lust for wealth/profit are timeless, and that would be just as true in Ancient Egypt as anywhere else.

Aye, but one cannot blame capitalism for the greed & inhumanity which has occurred in every economic system.

They paid their workers.

While not relevant, it's also not true for slave labor, eg, the PRC, USSR.

The main complaint was not that they weren't paid for their work; it's just that there was very little for them to actually buy with the money they earned. But at least they got housing, education, healthcare, and enough to have a reasonably livable existence. Not as luxurious as Western standards, but it wasn't as horrible as some people make it out to be. I visited there; I've seen it. It wasn't that bad.

You haven't visited slave labor camps though.
I certainly wouldn't argue that everyone in Americastan
is rich just because I visit only the wealthy areas.

Ref....
Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia
Note citation #50.

Well, in the examples I gave in my previous post, if it was fair and equal - and everyone in society was in the same boat - then it wouldn't necessarily be such. It would be more analogous to a town facing a disaster or some kind of emergency which involves everyone. If you were driving along and came across a scene of people bleeding and dying - and yours was the only working vehicle to get the people to medical help - then you might be "drafted" into helping out. But it wouldn't be slavery - and you'd probably be entitled to some form of payment after all is said and done.

Being paid for forced labor by one's owner is still slavery.

 

[PruePhillip]

The servant voluntarily agreed to indentured servitude.
Ref...
Indentured servitude - Wikipedia

So while it could be seen as onerous, it was not fundamentally slavery.
Conscription is much more like slavery because the one serving was
coerced under great threat.

I suppose you can say that employment is slavery,
and marriage is slavery, and parent-child relationships
are slavery.
In fact, a traditional standing army like the USA has
is slavery because you have to go to work every
every day, plus go on active service too.
Ban all slavery.

 

[PruePhillip]

However, the biggest difference is that slavery is a capitalist invention, designed for the profit and benefit of private sector entities.

This is the Marxist view of slavery.
Marxist, by the way, is just another form of slavery.

Africans had slaves - other Africans.
Arabs had over a million European slaves.
Romans made slaves of the English
Native Americans had slaves - some of them white.
Jews were slaves in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Christian Europeans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose you can say that employment is slavery,
and marriage is slavery, and parent-child relationships
are slavery.
In fact, a traditional standing army like the USA has
is slavery because you have to go to work every
every day, plus go on active service too.
Ban all slavery.

So you don't understand consent, then?