Conscription

David Floyd · July 15, 2003, 12:41

As a result of not wanting to fully threadjack another thread, for those who are interested in discussing it, here is a thread on conscription.

My position is that conscription is slavery. It is immoral, and can never be justified in any circumstance.

Q Classic · July 15, 2003, 12:42

as long as i'm not the one conscripted, i have no problem with it.

laurentius · July 15, 2003, 12:43

I agree with you DF. Conscription is useless in modern world
*sits and waits Pekka to arrive*

DanS · July 15, 2003, 12:44

Conscription isn't immoral. Rather, it is not preferable at this time given the alternatives.

chequita guevara · July 15, 2003, 12:44

Let's just agree to disagree.

David Floyd · July 15, 2003, 12:44

The utility of conscription was not my point. It was just as wrong in WW2 as it is today.

Pekka · July 15, 2003, 12:45

I'm conscript and I don't feel that I am a slave.
But for us, right now, there is no other way that we can defend ourselves. Maybe in the future when we have more money, we can go for full pro army though.

Of course there is the other point, we only defend our borders strictly. So no one is forced to fight on foreign countries. I see nothing wrong with the arrangement.

Ming · July 15, 2003, 12:46

Just your opinion David... One might argue that it is your duty to give back to your country. Again, just an opinion... nothing immoral about it.

Pekka · July 15, 2003, 12:48

laurentius, in a way I do agree with you. We need to concentrate on a common goal to establish pro army. In the long run.

But my model wouldn't 'free' conscription. We would have active pro army AND reserves, so that everyone is trained like they are these days. But they are called in when the fighting starts, and the pro army will hold the first waves enough, so the conscripts can be again trained to be active soldiers. Then conscripts will take the place and do soldiering, and pro army can start working to their true function, and cause the big damage to the enemy.

David Floyd · July 15, 2003, 12:49

Ming,

Opinions are not immoral. Acting upon opinions can be immoral. Conscription is telling someone that they have to go be cannon fodder for a war that they very likely don't even want, and if they refuse, throwing them in prison, or worse. That easily fits the definition of involuntary servitude, which is another word for slavery.

Pekka,

Quote:

But for us, right now, there is no other way that we can defend ourselves. Maybe in the future when we have more money, we can go for full pro army though.

Of course there is the other point, we only defend our borders strictly. So no one is forced to fight on foreign countries. I see nothing wrong with the arrangement.

Defend yourselves from whom, exactly?

David Floyd · July 15, 2003, 12:50

Pekka,

The security of the state is irrelevant to me, if security conflicts with individual liberty. I see no point of a nation except to protect individual liberty, and saying that you are ultimately protecting liberty by taking it away is contradictory.

Velociryx · July 15, 2003, 12:52

When I was growing up, my mom would make me go to church.

Every Sunday, without fail, whether I wanted to or not (and usually I didn't want to...would have rather slept in).

Deeply immoral woman.

-=Vel=-

Pekka · July 15, 2003, 12:52

Well, I don't expect my house to burn down but I still installed the fire alarms.

You must be ready if enemy wants to invade. Sure, you should be able to know it before it happens, but then it's too late. You must have active training happening all the time, so you are ready. Otherwise there is no point in training in the first place.

Better to be safe than sorry?

Pekka · July 15, 2003, 12:53

Also, I don't consider it a violation of my individual liberties to promise to defend the land (meaning my home too) against aggressors. And to be able to do that, we must all train.

I consider it a duty and a privilidge.

C0ckney · July 15, 2003, 12:54

in times of national emergency then there is often no other choice (britain in 1916 for example), it's all very well arguing that it's immoral but when a country has to then it has to.

i'm not so sure about the kind of 'national service' that pekka has to do though.

David Floyd · July 15, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

When I was growing up, my mom would make me go to church.

Every Sunday, without fail, whether I wanted to or not (and usually I didn't want to...would have rather slept in).

If the state was forcing you to go to church, you'd have a point.

Pekka,

Quote:

You must be ready if enemy wants to invade. Sure, you should be able to know it before it happens, but then it's too late. You must have active training happening all the time, so you are ready. Otherwise there is no point in training in the first place.

From a realistic rather than idealistic standpoint, the chances of an invasion of Finland are so remote as to be non-existent.

Velociryx · July 15, 2003, 12:56

See...this is where DF and Marx have something in common. He will argue that just because you don't see yourself as being a slave, it doesn't mean that you aren't one. Clearly you just can't see it, having been effectively brainwashed by the system. :rollseyes:

Or, it could be that you accept that unspoken agreement that is the social contract of your country that sometimes we have to do stuff we don't like to defend the nation of our birth....

-=Vel=-

David Floyd · July 15, 2003, 12:56

Quote:

in times of national emergency then there is often no other choice (britain in 1916 for example),

The "national emergency" was your own fault. You're the ones who declared war on Germany, not the other way around. And don't give me any comments about Belgium's neutrality - considering the many crimes Belgium committed in Africa, I don't feel a bit sorry for their neutrality being violated. Yes, it was still wrong, but they weren't entirely blameless, either, and probably committed more immoral acts in Africa than Imperial Germany did in all of Europe.

Quote:

it's all very well arguing that it's immoral but when a country has to then it has to.

So, then, the power of the state should be absolute?

Pekka · July 15, 2003, 12:57

David Floyd, True. It is very unlikely to happen. But we should still be ready. It also sends a message to everyone that we are ready, so they think twice about getting hostile.

Richelieu · July 15, 2003, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Pekka,

The security of the state is irrelevant to me, if security conflicts with individual liberty. I see no point of a nation except to protect individual liberty, and saying that you are ultimately protecting liberty by taking it away is contradictory.

A nation that protects your liberty isn't worth giving up your liberty for ?

Velociryx · July 15, 2003, 12:57

DF: No. Absolutely not essential that "the state" forces me to. The point is still valid, regardless of "who" is forcing me to do anything. Suppression of liberty is supperssion of liberty, is it not?

-=Vel=-

David Floyd · July 15, 2003, 12:58

Quote:

See...this is where DF and Marx have something in common. He will argue that just because you don't see yourself as being a slave, it doesn't mean that you aren't one.

OK. Is a conscript a volunteer? No, by definition he is not. Is he performing a service. Obviously. So, could you say that conscription meets the definition of involuntary servitude? Seems clear to me.

As to "not feeling like a slave", why did Pekka not just volunteer? What about those people who DO feel like slaves and DO NOT want to be in the military?

I suppose you could say Pekka is a moral volunteer, if he would have volunteered absent conscription. But this certainly isn't true of everyone.

C0ckney · July 15, 2003, 13:01

personally david, i don't really care about your opinions on the start of ww1. you are simply using that to dodge the point. the fact remains that the country has its back against the wall, and had no other choice, i see any point about the morality or otherwise of it as moot.

Pekka · July 15, 2003, 13:01

I didn't have to volunteer

. And as for the rest of them, they don't have to go to army. They can always do civil service. Or if they don't feel like serving the country, they can go to prison then. And they're not real prisons they go here, more like summer camps.

And this is a free country. If you don't really feel like it, and feel it's wrong, then you can apply for another countries citizenship. No one is stopping.

David Floyd · July 15, 2003, 13:02

Quote:

David Floyd, True. It is very unlikely to happen. But we should still be ready.

Wouldn't you agree that things such as free trade and understanding other people's POV in disputes is more useful to avoiding war than military preparedness, in this day and age?

Richeliu,

Quote:

A nation that protects your liberty isn't worth giving up your liberty for ?

Certainly not. First off, I can't give up what is natural and inherent (but that's a different argument). Secondly, once a nation forces me to "give up" my liberty, it ceases to protect my liberty, and then your argument becomes invalid anyway.

Vel,

Quote:

DF: No. Absolutely not essential that "the state" forces me to. The point is still valid, regardless of "who" is forcing me to do anything. Suppression of liberty is supperssion of liberty, is it not?

Comparing a parent forcing an 8 year old to go to church and the state forcing a 22 year old to join the military is silly and irrelevant. They are not the same thing, unless you believe that the relationship between adult and state is the same as the relationship between child and parent.

Velociryx · July 15, 2003, 13:02

DF: The answer to the question you asked Pekka is simple. That is the way his country's "social contract" is structured. People there understand that in exchange for the benefits of living there, they must (whether the feel like it or not) help provide for the defense of the country.

He has a choice. If he was dead set against doing so, he could find a new country to call home. Barring that, he could round up any and everybody else who didn't want to, and try to change that part of the social contract (if they were a majority).

You have that choice too....

-=Vel=-

Sava · July 15, 2003, 13:03

Freedom must be fought for David. Conscription in Vietnam's case was wrong. But that has more to do with a war being unjust. Conscription for a just war is not immoral... but rather, a necessity. Considering the alternative is to be enslaved by a ruthless dictator, I think Conscription is the lesser of the two evils.

Velociryx · July 15, 2003, 13:05

Oh I see....so in some cases (presumably, as defined by your whim....if "you" see it as silly and irrelevant, for example), suppression of liberty is okay....gotcha!

-=Vel=-

David Floyd · July 15, 2003, 13:05

Cockney,

Quote:

personally david, i don't really care about your opinions on the start of ww1.

The start of WW1 is very valid. If your politicians got themselves unnecessarily into a mess, to save a neutral that committed vast atrocities abroad, then why should the people bail the politicians out?

Quote:

you are simply using that to dodge the point. the fact remains that the country has its back against the wall, and had no other choice, i see any point about the morality or otherwise of it as moot.

The country in no way had its back against the wall. Unless and until the RN was defeated (unlikely), an invasion of Britain was impossible.

Further, you are saying that in extreme situations, moral behavior is not important. Is that correct?

Pekka,

Quote:

And as for the rest of them, they don't have to go to army. They can always do civil service.

The service in the army isn't the primary point. The forced, involuntary service IS the point.

Quote:

Or if they don't feel like serving the country, they can go to prison then.

So much for the nation being free or protecting freedom.

As to telling people to leave if they disagree, then obviously you don't agree that the nation should be in the business of protecting individual liberty, but rather, primarily, in the business of protecting the state. That is, power and authority for its own sake.

Pekka · July 15, 2003, 13:06

David, also you must understand, that in the case of US it is different. You have a big army, volunteers, already.
Well we don't. And right now we can't afford having pro army. Simple.