Conscription: State sponsored slavery?

[Audley Strange]

t's a good question actually but I'm inclined to say no since society decided the state can to do whatever the fuck it wants with it's civilians anyway,

Um no - that's habeas corpus and charters are for.

Which they can suspend at will, if in fact they choose to adhere to them at all. In fact claim someone is a "terrorist" or "enemy of the state" these days you can pretty much do what the fuck you like.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The thing about WWII is that the allies were well fucking lucky that the Nazi's were insane because if you exclude the death camps the war would have been as pointless and stupid as the previous one.

The Allies went to war with the Nazis before we knew much at all about the vernichtunglagers.

Yes because of continued ignoring of reparations payments. If Hitler's Vernichtung had been metaphorical rather than literal the war would have been an ugly farce. I'm saying that because Hilter's gang turned out to be actual villains, everyone feels a bit better about it. Like it was necessary.

Ah, yes, monocausality raises its ugly head. We knew the Nazis were "actual villains" before Sept. 1, 1939.

Tell you what, have some light reading, 160 gigabytes worth: http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar

[Hermit]

Conscription is slavery like taxation is theft or traffic laws are a yoke on liberty. Being a member of a society is contingent on living within the rules imposed by that society. It so happens that some societies have in the past decided that conscription was necessary, and of course taxation and road rules are pretty much universally considered indispensable for the functioning of any society on a national level. The compunctions are usually decided on by the societies, members' elected representative.

In other words, conscription, taxation, road rules etc, are impositions on members of societies ultimately decided on by those members themselves. You can oppose them with every legal means available to you, but morally you can't exempt yourself from them and simultaneously insist that you are a full member of that society. Unless you are of the opinion that ordinary citizens have no role in the way a society is governed "state sponsored" is therefore a bit of a misnomer.

[Audley Strange]

Heh, cheers, but I've read through a shit load of that before. I'm not saying that the war was not on the cards, I'm saying that we publicly remember it as being something we can sort of forgive ourselves for because well the bad guys had industrial death camps. I think that without the death camps it would be more of a stain on our collective histories, however we sort of made heroes out of men who had no real idea what was going on and just killed each other because they were told to. I doubt many involved in the trenches, on the air or on sea really knew or cared about the pernicious ideology of the Nazis, they just wanted to kill "nazis". Remove the genuine mentalness of the Nazis and you have something like the First World War and I think their genuine mentalness was not the prime consideration for war against them. We only tell ourselves that now.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Heh, cheers, but I've read through a shit load of that before. I'm not saying that the war was not on the cards, I'm saying that we publicly remember it as being something we can sort of forgive ourselves for because well the bad guys had industrial death camps. I think that without the death camps it would be more of a stain on our collective histories, however we sort of made heroes out of men who had no real idea what was going on and just killed each other because they were told to. I doubt many involved in the trenches, on the air or on sea really knew or cared about the pernicious ideology of the Nazis, they just wanted to kill "nazis". Remove the genuine mentalness of the Nazis and you have something like the First World War and I think their genuine mentalness was not the prime consideration for war against them. We only tell ourselves that now.

And as I said above, we knew the Nazis were assholes before we knew about the camps. That hasn't changed. Killing Nazis was necessary and the right thing to do.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It might seem an odd thought but I took my parents off for a trip to the coast today and we got chatting. Dad may be 87 but he still has a working brain.

..anyway.

We got t walking about WW2 and the way his generation had been enthusiastic to fight Hitler. Most of them were of course conscripts. One thing led to another and it suddenly occurred to me when we got on to the way the USSR shot any soldier who so much as retreated at times that even if they are paid soldiers are in effect slaves to the state, but that this applied to the soldiers of any State. They have no personal freedom. They have no choice, at the risk of death, but to follow orders. They can't discuss their leaders objectives in any sort of critical way. Etc..

What do you think?

It's not exactly accurate. We spent a day in Basic Training going over the legal and moral obligation an American serviceman has to follow only lawful and legitimate orders of superior officers or their representatives. Illegitimate or illegal orders were to not be followed, we were instructed.

It's true that there are limitations on one's freedoms when serving in the military, but it seems a bit extreme to my mind to equate that with slavery.

Also, about being unable to "discuss their leaders objectives in any critical way", that is clearly not the case. Soldiers serving every country have a finely honed ability to gripe that would boggle the minds of most civilians.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Any military man who issues or takes illegal orders should be considered a criminal. But the movies have made that kind of thing seem for more common that it really is.

[macdoc]

Which they can suspend at will, if in fact they choose to adhere to them at all. In fact claim someone is a "terrorist" or "enemy of the state" these days you can pretty much do what the fuck you like.

That's invoking war measures acts which are usually of limited duration and any extension viewed pretty dimly.

Our Charter is pretty strong on these protections and the idjit gov had to back down on "terrorist" detentions without charge etc.

Still Charters etc are only as good as the independent judiciary's willingness to act and the citizen's willingness to take to the streets to protest illegal acts by the state.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Heh, cheers, but I've read through a shit load of that before. I'm not saying that the war was not on the cards, I'm saying that we publicly remember it as being something we can sort of forgive ourselves for because well the bad guys had industrial death camps. I think that without the death camps it would be more of a stain on our collective histories, however we sort of made heroes out of men who had no real idea what was going on and just killed each other because they were told to. I doubt many involved in the trenches, on the air or on sea really knew or cared about the pernicious ideology of the Nazis, they just wanted to kill "nazis". Remove the genuine mentalness of the Nazis and you have something like the First World War and I think their genuine mentalness was not the prime consideration for war against them. We only tell ourselves that now.

With all due respect, this isn't borne out by much of what was happening at the time. Between Italy's aggressions in Africa (including the use of chemical weapons upon the natives), Japanese atrocities in China, and Hitler's provocations in Europe, there were many, at least in America (and I'm assuming elsewhere) who understood that they didn't approve of the ideologies being spread at gunpoint. The Good War from Terkel, along with several oral histories from Gerald Astor, seems to show that to be the case, although it's true that oral history suffers the risk of "romanticization".

However, both FDR and Churchill were warning about the NaZi regime long before even Kristallnacht, much less the establishment of extermination camps. Indeed, Churchill's language in condemning the Munich Agreement to the House of Commons ("... we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and that France has suffered even more than we have") implicitly recognizes that not only is a contest of wills underway, but that it would soon come to be answered only by resort to arms.

And a year before that, FDR, in his quarantine speech:

It began through unjustified interference in the internal affairs of other nations or the invasion of alien territory in violation of treaties; and has now reached a stage where the very foundations of civilization are seriously threatened. The landmarks and traditions which have marked the progress of civilization toward a condition of law, order and justice are being wiped away.

Without a declaration of war and without warning or justification of any kind, civilians, including vast numbers of women and children, are being ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air. In times of so-called peace, ships are being attacked and sunk by submarines without cause or notice. Nations are fomenting and taking sides in civil warfare in nations that have never done them any harm. Nations claiming freedom for themselves deny it to others.

Clearly there was a public awareness that these regimes weren't interested in peace. Many Americans were alarmed by the intervention of Italy and Germany in the Spanish Civil War, and that caused them to pay attention to what was going on with those countries. Not enough, it's true; FDR always had tough sledding getting us involved in world events ... but the fact that he actively tried is evidence itself that the leadership here understood they were faced with foreign governments uninterested in peace.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Any military man who issues or takes illegal orders should be considered a criminal. But the movies have made that kind of thing seem for more common that it really is.

Indeed. We were explicitly told that we were responsible moral agents (not in such high-falutin' language, but that was the gist), and that we were expected to assess the orders we received for legality.

It's true that if we were going to disregard an illegal order, we'd damned sure better be right.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've read the first section of several major US newspapers for every day between January 31st, 1933, and Dec. 8th, 1941. They show that the US knew the Nazties were going to be a problem long before Pearl Harbor.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agreed. It was no surprise.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Any military man who issues or takes illegal orders should be considered a criminal. But the movies have made that kind of thing seem for more common that it really is.

Indeed. We were explicitly told that we were responsible moral agents (not in such high-falutin' language, but that was the gist), and that we were expected to assess the orders we received for legality.

It's true that if we were going to disregard an illegal order, we'd damned sure better be right.

Disregarding the was the last step when I was in. First you told the issuer that you had a problem with the order. If they insisted you followed up with a formal complaint unless you were in the heat of battle. Even if you were you could refuse to follow the order. Things did get a bit tense at that point.

I found it easier just to shoot the cocksucker.


Not that I ever did that, of course.

[Hermit]

So, is conscription state sponsored slavery?

I argued above that the issue is not black and white.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, is conscription state sponsored slavery?

I argued above that the issue is not black and white.

It's not slavery, because the troops have guns. Slaves don't. Piss off a bunch of heavily armed men a bit too much and watch what happens.