Conscription: State sponsored slavery?

[Hermit]

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.

Gladiators were armed slaves. [/devil's advocacy]

[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.

Gladiators were armed slaves. [/devil's advocacy]

And they were also prisoners, at some were, others were well-paid professionals. The weapons were controlled, you didn't have twenty of them (and their butter bar) sleeping in the boonies with their long arms, hand grenades, K-bars, etc.

[Hermit]

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.

Gladiators were armed slaves. [/devil's advocacy]

And they were also prisoners, at some were, others were well-paid professionals. The weapons were controlled, you didn't have twenty of them (and their butter bar) sleeping in the boonies with their long arms, hand grenades, K-bars, etc.

They were conscripted fighters, ordered to kill under controlled conditions. If they mutinied, they were crucified. Conscripted soldiers were summarily executed or hanged by the hundreds for the same reason, or simply for desertion. I grant you that nowadays many of them are only gaoled after some sort of court martial.

I'm trying to get back to what the OP was suggesting.

[Seth]

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?

Conscription is not slavery because citizens have a reciprocal duty to defend the nation at need and Congress has the power to raise armies, which implies the power to force citizens to serve in the military, a concept that has been around a very long time indeed:

In 1917, a number of radicals and anarchists, including Emma Goldman, challenged the new draft law in federal court arguing that it was a direct violation of the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude. However the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the draft act in the Selective Draft Law Cases on January 7, 1918. The decision said the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies. The Court, relying partly on Vattel's The Law of Nations, emphasized the principle of the reciprocal rights and duties of citizens:[13]

It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. … To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.

Source: Wikipedia

Congress passed various Militia Acts spelling out the obligations for military service beginning with the Civil War. These are laws within the competence of Congress as authorized by Article 1, Section 8.

If you aren't willing to stand in defense of the nation at need, then you aren't qualified to receive the protection of the government, as Vattel's argument goes.

[Traveler]

I never even considered entering the military because I knew that mindless obedience was something I couldn't manage to accomplish. I'm a "question authority" kind of person. I also felt that boot camp was too much like hazing. A practice that I consider beyond cruel. Fortunately for me, women couldn't be drafted.

How is military service any more about "mindless obedience" than any other job in which you fill a subordinate role and have to answer to higher ranking employees/employer?

I can quit a job anytime I want. I don't know how it is now, but back in the days of Vietnam, when I was young, if you quit you were considered a deserter. A criminal. And by mindless obedience I mean that if I'm drafted, and my superior officer tells me to shoot. I have to shoot. How is that anything like a regular job?

[Seabass]

I never even considered entering the military because I knew that mindless obedience was something I couldn't manage to accomplish. I'm a "question authority" kind of person. I also felt that boot camp was too much like hazing. A practice that I consider beyond cruel. Fortunately for me, women couldn't be drafted.

How is military service any more about "mindless obedience" than any other job in which you fill a subordinate role and have to answer to higher ranking employees/employer?

I can quit a job anytime I want. I don't know how it is now, but back in the days of Vietnam, when I was young, if you quit you were considered a deserter. A criminal.

You can quit the military.

And by mindless obedience I mean that if I'm drafted, and my superior officer tells me to shoot. I have to shoot. How is that anything like a regular job?

Your earlier statement, "I never considered entering..." suggests you were talking about voluntary enlistment, rather than being drafted.

And as 'Zilla stated earlier, you do not have to shoot.

[Tyrannical]

Slavery is still legal in the US as punishment for a crime.

[Seth]

Slavery is still legal in the US as punishment for a crime.

No, that's not slavery, that's involuntary servitude. There's a difference. The slave has no rights and is a chattel forever. The involuntary servant or prisoner has rights and the term and conditions of his servitude is fixed by law.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, is conscription state sponsored slavery?

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

That depends. Is a policeman a thief if he commandeers your car in order to apprehend a fleeing suspect?

[Thumpalumpacus]

And by mindless obedience I mean that if I'm drafted, and my superior officer tells me to shoot. I have to shoot. How is that anything like a regular job?

This is not the case, as has been pointed out already. If the order is illegal, you'd have not only the right, but the duty to reject it.

Additionally, conscientious-objector clauses allow for a person to serve in non-combatant roles, where no shooting at all is required.

While serving in the military is not like a regular job in many respects, it is not what you've seen in the movies, either.

[Tyrannical]

Slavery is still legal in the US as punishment for a crime.

No, that's not slavery, that's involuntary servitude. There's a difference. The slave has no rights and is a chattel forever. The involuntary servant or prisoner has rights and the term and conditions of his servitude is fixed by law.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Well, that's what it says.

[Thumpalumpacus]

lmao

[PsychoSerenity]

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.

Very well said.

It's all rather complicated because you don't get to choose the society you get born into.

[Hermit]

So, is conscription state sponsored slavery?

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

That depends. Is a policeman a thief if he commandeers your car in order to apprehend a fleeing suspect?

Exactly: the issue is not black and white.

It's all rather complicated because you don't get to choose the society you get born into.

Yes, and the only options available are to either live according its laws if you can't change them, or move elsewhere. Quite a lot of conscientious objectors have done that during the Vietnam war, and they were not the only ones. One of my ancestor's family was given the choice to reconvert to catholicism or load up what they can in a cart and fuck off out of the Austro-Hungarian empire. That's why my more recent ancestors were born in East Prussia. Frederick the Great had no problem with catholics or protestants.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, is conscription state sponsored slavery?

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

That depends. Is a policeman a thief if he commandeers your car in order to apprehend a fleeing suspect?

Exactly: the issue is not black and white.

Myself, I don't think the policeman is a thief. Nor do I think a citizen has no obligation at all to the state whose protection he enjoys.

The question is, at what point does "obligation" become "slavery"?