Conscription - good or bad?

[Revoltingest]

I suppose you can say that employment is slavery,
and marriage is slavery, and parent-child relationships
are slavery.

One could say that.
But it would be to use a different definition from the kinds of slavery
wherein a person has no choice, & is forced to work by another.

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.

Those who enlist do so voluntarily, even though they knowingly give up some liberty.
But a draftee is taken under threat of violent force to work against one's will. And
while the service is often temporary (except for those who die), Uncle Sam owns
them 24/7. It's absurd to equate this with working at McDonalds to earn a wage.

 

[Stevicus]

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

Yeah, that's what a lot of people say, but I would never agree with that. The whole idea of having slaves is so private sector businesses can profit. If there is no profit incentive, there is no incentive to have slaves.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah, that's what a lot of people say, but I would never agree with that. The whole idea of having slaves is so private sector businesses can profit. If there is no profit incentive, there is no incentive to have slaves.

An old Soviet saying "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."
Driving tens of millions of people into the country and working and
starving them to death as Mao did was probably worse than slavery.
The vast chain of gulags in Soviet times where people were worked
to death in their millions was definitely worse than slavery.
A Vietnamese friend of mine slaved for 10 years in a Re-education Center.
He learned how Capitalism was corrupt, and got out the same year they
opened a stock market in Hanoi.

And if you take on board the millions of Arab, African, Native American,
South American, Polynesian, Roman, Greek, Etrusian, Babylonian,
Egyptian, Assyrian etc slave owners - you will find the vast majority of
them were not Capitalist at all.

 

[Stevicus]

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

That same definition would preclude defining "conscription" as "slavery," too. That is, if one is being technical and literal with definitions. Since you seemed to be offering a more figurative interpretation of the word, I thought I'd offer a variation of the same idea.

If the central defining feature of "slavery" is the idea of "having no choice," then I would suggest that even slaves have choices. Those who are trapped in jobs with bad pay also have choices. They could walk away at any time, although if they did, they'd have to concern themselves with where they're going to get enough money to buy food, shelter, and other necessities of life.

That's why it's important to have a governmental system which, at the very least, guarantees everyone a job no matter what - or at least some sort of basic income. It's not as if people can just go out into the wilderness and live off the land - not in this day and age.

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

One can blame capitalism for fostering and encouraging the baser elements of human nature, especially if it's unrestrained and unchecked.

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

Are you talking about convict labor?

You haven't visited slave labor camps though.

No I haven't. Have you?

I certainly wouldn't argue that everyone in Americastan
is rich just because I visit only the wealthy areas.

Nonetheless, some people seem to believe that everyone in America is rich. There are a lot of misconceptions about America, just like there have been misconceptions about the USSR and other countries.

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

Interestingly enough, citation #50 indicates that the US supported the idea and even employed German POW laborers as well.

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

It would depend on who the "owner" is. If the owner is a private individual or company, then the labor only benefits that individual or company.

If the owner is the state (aka "the people"), then it's for the benefit of the entire population. There really wouldn't be any "owners," though, other than collective ownership.

Mind you, I don't agree with conscription. I'm not arguing that it's a good thing or even necessary. I just don't agree that it's slavery. That's not to say that it can't be abused or wrecked by corruption, just like anything. That's what causes all the dissension. But theoretically, if everyone was in the same boat and facing the same crisis, then I can't see how it would be defined as "slavery" if every able-bodied person was required to help out.

The real question here is not whether conscription is "slavery." We already have a 13th Amendment which forbids slavery in the United States (except as punishment for a crime), but we've also had conscription since that time.

The real question is whether a given crisis is extreme enough to warrant extreme measures (regardless of whatever one wants to call it).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, that's what a lot of people say, but I would never agree with that. The whole idea of having slaves is so private sector businesses can profit. If there is no profit incentive, there is no incentive to have slaves.

Interesting fact: at the height of slavery in the Caribbean, the second-largest slave owner in the Caribbean was the Church of England.

And in Ireland, the Catholic Church kept slaves right up until 1996: Magdalene Laundries in Ireland - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

That same definition would preclude defining "conscription" as "slavery," too.

Why do you believe that?

You wouldn't be arguing that all forms of labor which aren't technically
"slavery" are all the same level of coercion, would you? I ask cuz
some have argued that working a regular job is equivalent to being
drafted & sent off to kill or be killed.

If the central defining feature of "slavery" is the idea of "having no choice," then I would suggest that even slaves have choices. Those who are trapped in jobs with bad pay also have choices. They could walk away at any time, although if they did, they'd have to concern themselves with where they're going to get enough money to buy food, shelter, and other necessities of life.

Let me tell you what it was like for a slave to just "walk away"....
Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia

By law, slaveholders could be fined for not punishing recaptured runaway slaves.
Slave codes authorized, indemnified or required violence, and were denounced
by abolitionists for their brutality. Both slaves and free blacks were regulated by
the Black Codes, and their movements were monitored by slave patrols conscripted
from the white population. The patrols were authorized to use summary punishment
against escapees; in the process, they sometimes maimed or killed the escapees.

The parallel with conscription is strong. A draftee who resists the draft or flees the
military faces prison time. You might call "walking away" a choice, but what makes
it slavery is that exercising this choice results in violent punishment.
At issue here is "free choice", eg, if I quit my job as janitor at Springfield Elementary
School, no armed authority will chase, capture, & imprison me.

That's why it's important to have a governmental system which, at the very least, guarantees everyone a job no matter what - or at least some sort of basic income. It's not as if people can just go out into the wilderness and live off the land - not in this day and age.

This doesn't relate to conscription.

One can blame capitalism for fostering and encouraging the baser elements of human nature, especially if it's unrestrained and unchecked.

Oh, you anti-capitalists...always blaming it for everything.
When you find a system which works better, let me know.
And no, I won't accept theoretical systems which are based upon the
assumption of better humans. Find something evidenced in the real world.

Are you talking about convict labor?

No.

No I haven't. Have you?

No. But unlike you, I recognize that they exist.
A modern example...
Chinese internment camp factory sends sportswear to US

Interestingly enough, citation #50 indicates that the US supported the idea and even employed German POW laborers as well.

Americastan does have a history of slavery.
History doesn't justify its continuing, btw.

It would depend on who the "owner" is. If the owner is a private individual or company, then the labor only benefits that individual or company.

Are you saying that slavery isn't slavery if government is the owner?

If the owner is the state (aka "the people"), then it's for the benefit of the entire population. There really wouldn't be any "owners," though, other than collective ownership.

Oh, dear.
That is an interesting idea.
Slavery is a good thing if "the people" benefit from it.

I was going to invite you to join the Libertarian Party,
but now I've realized that you won't fit in well.

The real question is whether a given crisis is extreme enough to warrant extreme measures (regardless of whatever one wants to call it).

If a crisis is extreme, then the pay to fight should be extreme.
Thus, all who serve do so voluntarily.
What's odd is that I've received no support for the idea of
high pay in lieu of conscription in times of war.
What's the problem....too expensive for those who don't fight?

 

[Stevicus]

An old Soviet saying "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."
Driving tens of millions of people into the country and working and
starving them to death as Mao did was probably worse than slavery.
The vast chain of gulags in Soviet times where people were worked
to death in their millions was definitely worse than slavery.
A Vietnamese friend of mine slaved for 10 years in a Re-education Center.
He learned how Capitalism was corrupt, and got out the same year they
opened a stock market in Hanoi.

What you're referring to were temporary conditions brought about by the accumulated resentment and anger over centuries of oppression over the peasant and working classes by the upper class aristocrats who profited off the misery of others. Of course, they're going to want revenge and turn the tables on their former oppressors. I can't justify or defend what they did, but I can understand cause and effect and realize that what happened was due to a build up of volcanic resentment which was carried from generation to generation. In any case, those harsh policies eventually subsided, as the revolutionary fervor and the anger which fueled it also subsided.

Whether it was "worse than slavery" is a judgment call. One could argue that if there never was any slavery to begin with, if people were treated justly, fairly, and equally, with guaranteed human rights, then we might not have ever had to face anything that could be considered "worse than slavery." Man's inhumanity to man begets man's inhumanity to man. It seems to be a recurring theme throughout history.

And if you take on board the millions of Arab, African, Native American,
South American, Polynesian, Roman, Greek, Etrusian, Babylonian,
Egyptian, Assyrian etc slave owners - you will find the vast majority of
them were not Capitalist at all.

It depends on how technical you want to get with definitions. I've heard some capitalist ideologues attempt to argue that the United States is not truly capitalist - or at least not as capitalist as they would like it to be.

It also depends on how one defines "slave." The U.S. officially outlawed slavery with the passage of the 13th Amendment, but there was an exception which allowed involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Likewise, prisoners of war were made to work. That seems to be a mainstay all throughout history, when a tribe, kingdom, or empire went to war, taking enemy captives and turning them into slaves was a normal thing.

The Romans and these other past empires may not have been "capitalists" as we define the term today, since we live in a liberal democracy which has rejected such concepts as "noble birth" that were embraced by the Romans and other societies. I think the Roman and other such empires of the past are actually the product of human greed and desire for wealth and power run amok - it's the result of unrestrained, unchecked, unbridled capitalism. Yes, they had slaves - and they had this idea that a few deserving people were "special" and entitled to live in the lap of luxury, while most of the rest of the population had to scrape by however they could. Sound familiar?

Of course, in recent centuries, most Western societies have liberalized and implemented social programs and supported individual human rights. Apparently, some leaders in the West believed that by restraining capitalism to some degree (without eradicating it completely), it's a good measure which can ensure political stability.

 

[Koldo]

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.
​

A country worth defending will be defended by its citizens. You only need to coerce people into doing it if it is not a country worth defending in the first place. Therefore I would never support conscription.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the central defining feature of "slavery" is the idea of "having no choice," then I would suggest that even slaves have choices. Those who are trapped in jobs with bad pay also have choices. They could walk away at any time, although if they did, they'd have to concern themselves with where they're going to get enough money to buy food, shelter, and other necessities of life.

Slavery = forced labour, instituted by law.

Some of the ways a normal job is different from slavery:

- you don't get the job in the first place unless you consent to take it.

- not having a job doesn't make you a criminal in the eyes of the law.

- if you find another job you like better, you can take it and quit your current job without being arrested.

- you can decide how much or little you want to work based on your own needs and wants.

- if you have the money to pay your expenses without working (e.g. you save up for retirement, then retire), the law doesn't force you to work.