Conscription: State sponsored slavery?

[Seth]

So if i point a gun at you and order you to do my bidding, it's slavery. If i give you the option of fleeing your home, Ithat's conscription. I get it. Very noble.

It's like taxes. Conscription is one of the costs of living in society that you are expected to pay if it becomes necessary to demand that you serve in the military. You can refuse to serve, but the penalty is that you serve your time of service, and more, in prison. The theory being that by refusing to stand to and defend the nation you are not entitled to enjoy the benefits that are bestowed by those who do. It's a form of legitimate "taxation" just as levying taxes to pay for one's use of a road or a sewer system is legitimate...but only under certain circumstances.

A volunteer army is, of course, the best and most moral and ethical way to defend the nation, but the laws recognize that from time to time it may be necessary to call on more people to defend the nation than are willing to serve as professional soldiers.

The notion of conscripting soldiers to protect the nation if it is attacked (either internally through insurrection or externally) is hardly immoral. What is immoral is the conscription of citizens to be sent overseas to fight wars for the defense of OTHER nations. That should under no circumstances be lawful unless and until the United States is actually attacked, like Japan did.

Any expeditionary force sent to defend allies in cases where the US is not actually attacked should be comprised ONLY of volunteers who AGREE to be so deployed.

[MrJonno]

So if i point a gun at you and order you to do my bidding, it's slavery. If i give you the option of fleeing your home, Ithat's conscription. I get it. Very noble.

It's like taxes. Conscription is one of the costs of living in society that you are expected to pay if it becomes necessary to demand that you serve in the military. You can refuse to serve, but the penalty is that you serve your time of service, and more, in prison. The theory being that by refusing to stand to and defend the nation you are not entitled to enjoy the benefits that are bestowed by those who do. It's a form of legitimate "taxation" just as levying taxes to pay for one's use of a road or a sewer system is legitimate...but only under certain circumstances.

A volunteer army is, of course, the best and most moral and ethical way to defend the nation, but the laws recognize that from time to time it may be necessary to call on more people to defend the nation than are willing to serve as professional soldiers.

The notion of conscripting soldiers to protect the nation if it is attacked (either internally through insurrection or externally) is hardly immoral. What is immoral is the conscription of citizens to be sent overseas to fight wars for the defense of OTHER nations. That should under no circumstances be lawful unless and until the United States is actually attacked, like Japan did.

Any expeditionary force sent to defend allies in cases where the US is not actually attacked should be comprised ONLY of volunteers who AGREE to be so deployed.

While I actually agree with most of this ( a first I suspect!) a military doesn't just exist to defend national borders it exists to protect national interests which can be anywhere and may include other nations. What counts as a national interest of course is up to debate and is determined by a hopefully elected government not armed civil servants from the foreign office (which is what solders basically are)

[Cunt]

I am quite convinced that conscripting men to kill against their will is a form of slavery, Thumpalumpacus. You are going to have to go further to convince me otherwise.

I'm not interested in convincing you. Also, you're packing several assumptions in there which have already been addressed.

I know that those putting on military airs in this thread are insisting that being ordered to kill for a king (or kiaser, or fuhrer, or commander-in-chief) is not slavery. Perhaps it is not, but that doesn't change what it is. Cowards hiding behind conscripts.

If something is 'worth fighting for', you will know it because people will fight willingly.

Is working for a living slavery?

Those other two don't look like it, but this last one does, a bit.

Since your definition of slavery seems at odds with that used in the English language, tell us: how do you define "slavery"?

Excellent question, Thumpalumpacus. And maybe it will help me get to the bottom of this conflict I have in my thoughts/feelings.

I define slavery...fuck...it's like porn...I know it when I see it.

I know my definition needs work, but the question is whether conscription is state sponsored slavery. I think it always has been. When someone is forced to labour under direct threat of violence by a person or state, I call that slavery.

Prisoners (until their release) are slaves.

Heck, it even sounds like those who served in the military, and were 'conditioned' early enough, are still largely slaves to the idea that conscripts are not slaves.

When reason doesn't support your views, the personal attack is always there as a fallback. Not to mention that fact that you're begging the question here.

personal attacks won't get us anywhere, you're right. As to begging the question, mostly I was. I have, though, noticed that most military folk are voracious supporters of military practices and such.

Myself, I think that a country which can't do well enough on volunteers isn't worth defending anyway. It was suggested that since ALL countries drafted during WWII. Would you like to live in any of them? 1930's Germany? 'Great' Britain?

They were not worth defending, or volunteers would have defended.

I think an army should only mobilize in a very specific way. If a country wants a war, they have a vote on it. Those who wish to vote 'yes', can pack their kits and go. Vote with their actions. Crowdsourcing, you know.

[Cunt]

So if i point a gun at you and order you to do my bidding, it's slavery. If i give you the option of fleeing your home, Ithat's conscription. I get it. Very noble.

It's like taxes. Conscription is one of the costs of living in society that you are expected to pay if it becomes necessary to demand that you serve in the military. You can refuse to serve, but the penalty is that you serve your time of service, and more, in prison. The theory being that by refusing to stand to and defend the nation you are not entitled to enjoy the benefits that are bestowed by those who do. It's a form of legitimate "taxation" just as levying taxes to pay for one's use of a road or a sewer system is legitimate...but only under certain circumstances.

A volunteer army is, of course, the best and most moral and ethical way to defend the nation, but the laws recognize that from time to time it may be necessary to call on more people to defend the nation than are willing to serve as professional soldiers.

The notion of conscripting soldiers to protect the nation if it is attacked (either internally through insurrection or externally) is hardly immoral. What is immoral is the conscription of citizens to be sent overseas to fight wars for the defense of OTHER nations. That should under no circumstances be lawful unless and until the United States is actually attacked, like Japan did.

Any expeditionary force sent to defend allies in cases where the US is not actually attacked should be comprised ONLY of volunteers who AGREE to be so deployed.

Sounds a bit more agreeable, allowing prisons, but when they stack up an army, don't they usually (the US, at least) do it to fight something overseas? Often renting them to other 'Allied' forces (but not selling them, of course)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know that those putting on military airs in this thread are insisting that being ordered to kill for a king (or kiaser, or fuhrer, or commander-in-chief) is not slavery. Perhaps it is not, but that doesn't change what it is. Cowards hiding behind conscripts.

If something is 'worth fighting for', you will know it because people will fight willingly.

A fair point, perhaps; except that the draft system, as practiced in America, was as much for the orderly induction of manpower as it was for laying claim to a man's services. Many conscripts were willing servants of the state, but simply couldn't enlist because of recruiters being overwhelmed -- again, in America. Not being very familiar with European conscription, I can't say the same for their various systems.

Those other two don't look like it, but this last one does, a bit.

All three of them involve doing things, often unpleasant, that are required to live. Mind you, "working for a living" can be simply breaking your own sod on your own farm for your own victuals.

Now, when we work in a society, we do so with the understanding that others are also doing work which benefits us. For instance, I eat vegetables daily, but I grow none. I benefit from the work that a farmer does. I don't have the right to call upon his produce for free.

Many social goods have a cost which must be borne, even though we don't wish to pay it.

I define slavery...fuck...it's like porn...I know it when I see it.

A fair answer. It's not very useful, though.

I know my definition needs work, but the question is whether conscription is state sponsored slavery. I think it always has been. When someone is forced to labour under direct threat of violence by a person or state, I call that slavery.

Again, if you don't labor, in life, you don't eat. By this standard, all of life is slavery: you must do something you may not wish to do in order to ensure your continued well-being. Conscription is only a division of labor, in this view.

personal attacks won't get us anywhere, you're right. As to begging the question, mostly I was. I have, though, noticed that most military folk are voracious supporters of military practices and such.

I agree that there are blind supporters of military matters. There are also knee-jerk critics who regard everything the military addresses as automatically corrupt, and it hasn't escaped my notice that the vast majority of them have never served in the military, and many have never even known anyone who has; and yet they're happy to peddle stereotypes about veterans with an authoritative voice. Your qualms with them seem noticeably less vocal.

Myself, I think that a country which can't do well enough on volunteers isn't worth defending anyway. It was suggested that since ALL countries drafted during WWII. Would you like to live in any of them? 1930's Germany? 'Great' Britain?

They were not worth defending, or volunteers would have defended.

Many millions of volunteers did, on all sides. Enacting conscription did not in any country I'm aware of prohibit any legally competent volunteer from enlisting. As to whether I would want to live in any of the countries that did conscript troops, I would do as I always have, and think the matter through; those causes I didn't wish to support, I'd avoid supporting.

I think an army should only mobilize in a very specific way. If a country wants a war, they have a vote on it. Those who wish to vote 'yes', can pack their kits and go. Vote with their actions. Crowdsourcing, you know.

I don't have a problem with that, in principle. Our American system of representative democracy was supposed to provide that in the form of a declaration of war issued by the Congress in the name of the people -- admittedly not a perfect embdiment of what you desire, but better than the war-by-fiat system that we have seen in place with the erosion of the Congress's power and the advent of the Imperial Presidency. I would love to see a return to that strict standard, at the least, as it would prevent the useless and tragic shit like Iraq.

However, your position seems overly idealistic, insofar as it relies on the broad public understanding the issues at stake, and also on the public not being swayed by positions which may or may not be well-thought-out, or even ingenuous. A "fifth-column" sort of activity to lull the public debate while aims are accomplished could be much more dangerous than an open war, even though the public might not see the danger until it's too late.

It also seems to me to suffer the difficulty of organizing combat forces out of these multitudes in a timely manner, and perhaps even ensuring that the "yes" votes are made to fulfill their commitment -- voting here is on a secret ballot.

Thanks for your answer. I appreciate you taking the time to do more than toss off clinkers.

[Hermit]

There are also knee-jerk critics who regard everything the military addresses as automatically corrupt, and it hasn't escaped my notice that the vast majority of them have never served in the military, and many have never even known anyone who has; and yet they're happy to peddle stereotypes about veterans with an authoritative voice.

Would you please keep in mind that this thread is not about "stereotypes about veterans"? And that we've talked about that and the nature of war generally and conscription in particular, but spent precious little time stereotyping veterans? Please don't attempt to pull rank. Having served in the military gives you personal experience, but not special authority or insight on the matter.

For the record: I have consistently argued against the notion that conscription is slavery, and while I am grateful never to have been in the military, I've heard enough from people close to me who have been, to have an inkling about what it means to be a soldier. Among them are my father and both my grandfathers. They all came out of the wars as officers, one with a bullet through the leg and my father with a mortar fragment in his shoulder.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are also knee-jerk critics who regard everything the military addresses as automatically corrupt, and it hasn't escaped my notice that the vast majority of them have never served in the military, and many have never even known anyone who has; and yet they're happy to peddle stereotypes about veterans with an authoritative voice.

Would you please keep in mind that this thread is not about "stereotypes about veterans"? And that we've talked about that and the nature of war generally and conscription in particular, but spent precious little time stereotyping veterans? Please don't attempt to pull rank. Having served in the military gives you personal experience, but not special authority or insight on the matter.

I was pointing out specifically that Cunt was silent when the knee-jerk stereotypes comported with his own. I consider that anyone who has actually served in the military, or knows military people (which I mentioned above) has more insight into the psychology of servicemen than those who have never served and don't know any servicemen. I would never presume to speak about the character of, say, deep-sea fishermen or police officers; I've never been one, and don't know any.

For the record: I have consistently argued against the notion that conscription is slavery, and while I am grateful never to have been in the military, I've heard enough from people close to me who have been, to have an inkling about what it means to be a soldier. Among them are my father and both my grandfathers. They all came out of the wars as officers, one with a bullet through the leg and my father with a mortar fragment in his shoulder.

I'm grateful for your family's service, and sacrifices. I'm unsure why you thought I was addressing your competence to speak about veterans, and haven't denigrated it. The point I was making to Cunt is that if he's going to complain about veterans being biased towards pro-military attitudes, fairness would indicate a need to point out the anti-miilitary biases of those who have never served and don't know anyone who has.

That said, I regard the experiences of a serviceman as carrying more weight in this discussion, because the rights, privileges, and prerogatives of a serviceman are different from those of a civilian, they directly impact this topic, and a GI is much more likely to have useful knowledge in that regard. It's not "pulling rank"; it's acknowledging the obvious. Direct experience matters.

[Cunt]

Thumpalumpacus, i don't think you know what stereotypes i .have, outside of the obvious dislike for conscription

[Hermit]

I'm grateful for your family's service, and sacrifices.

Grateful? I've posted these pictures before. You might want to reconsider having used that word.

My father and his father in 1944. Lieutenant and colonel (Or major. Perhaps a WWII expert is a member here, and can tell me by the bits on the uniform.)



My paternal grandfather in 1914. He was a captain then. The use of the cane is the result of a bullet through his leg just above the knee during a cavalry charge. It killed his horse.



My maternal father was an actual Nazi. He was a judge before the war, and there is no way that he would have been allowed to be one under Hitler had he not been one. He was a colonel on the eastern front who insisted on participating in reconnaissance patrols. He was captured during one of them and spent the next seven years in Siberia.

[Tyrannical]

The problem in a free society is not the draft, but needing the draft. On the one hand you should not need force, but on the other hand you should not need suffer the unwilling. So I suppose it comes down to the necessity of the war.

[Svartalf]

If I read the insignia right, it looks like your father was a corporal rank in officer training, not yet a real Leutnant
and your grandfather a major, though the angle on the epaulette may be hiding the pips of an Oberstleutnant or Oberst.

[Hermit]

If I read the insignia right, it looks like your father was a corporal rank in officer training, not yet a real Leutnant
and your grandfather a major, though the angle on the epaulette may be hiding the pips of an Oberstleutnant or Oberst.

I vaguely remember being told that the photo was taken on the occasion of my father's promotion to first lieutenant, but that's only a vague recollection. He certainly would not have got a place on a ship to get out of Prussia when he was wounded. Only officers managed that by January or February 1945.

[Svartalf]

The epaulette is definitely not an officer's, it corresponds to that of a trainee. Same with the collar insignia... they are those of a candidate, not an actual officer (which would have looked much like his father's, especially on such a picture)... You sure it was not taken when he was admitted to officer training rather than actually commissioned? Makes no sense to get the picture taken with the old uniform.

[Hermit]

The epaulette is definitely not an officer's, it corresponds to that of a trainee. Same with the collar insignia... they are those of a candidate, not an actual officer (which would have looked much like his father's, especially on such a picture)... You sure it was not taken when he was admitted to officer training rather than actually commissioned? Makes no sense to get the picture taken with the old uniform.

Not sure at all. I'd say you are right.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, are the following points relevant?

1. Slaves don't get paid. Soldiers do.
2. Slaves are the property or chattel of their owners; soldiers aren't.

While conscription means that a person is legally required to a term of service in the military, it would seem that there is enough of a distinction. I mean, if the argument is that the State compelling you to do some work means you are a slave, then anyone serving on jury duty is also a slave. Anyone subpoenaed to testify at a trial or hearing is a slave. Etc.