Conscription

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kramerman
i dont thihk we will deal with NK till we A) get UN to take burden of Iraq or B) take care of Iraq.... meaning its gonn be awhile. anyother move would be REALLY unwise, especially politically for bush

Who's to say the U.S. would attack. You don't think this pre-emptive thing will fly a second time do you?

In either case, I think it is more probably that NK attacks us first. Actually I thought they would attack during our war with Iraq, but they didn't. So perhaps they won't after all.

[Pekka]

I skipped the last few pages.

David, this discussion is more about conscription in US.
What about other countries? YOu know, if war starts there, I bet there are enough volunteers. But what about us, with less population than in NY?

What about our lands, you can drive from south to north in one day, east to west in one afternoon. If we are not ready, do you think we would last against any invader?
And still, our lands are big considering the population, lots and lots of lands with no population at all. We're one of the top countries with most lands per person. How you think we can handle it, if not conscription (at the moment, future will be different).

I know the faces of war have changed, and it's not about massing troops in lines to wait the enemy to show up, shoot them from foxholes and open field fights.
Our problem in pro army is that lands are so huge, that it could only fight tactical weapons and strikes, like aerial threats and against special operators, pretty much what the war is these days. But what if the enemy decides to pull old school and just march in? They'd be in our capital in one single damn day. I don't think we have enough time at this point to start training volunteers. Or hope we have enough volunteers so we can train conscripts.
We would be annihilated. What do you suggest we would do? Be friends with everyone so war doesn't happen? Well we do that already, but it's no reason to demolish army.

The point is, we need to have able guys ready when the time comes, and we need lots of them. I'm not going into how our defense is build and what kind of tactics it relies on and is based on, but it's pretty much the only working thing against bigger and stronger enemy. And it's not guaranteed to work, naturally. But pro army can't handle the job and plans as of now.

So, do you have alternative to our situation? If not, then I don't understand how it would be immoral, as it is necessary. We have 30 000 new privates every year, so that's not very much in big scale, but it's a lot from our perspective. It is expected, it is how it's always been, and only few people whine about it. It is a cultural thing also.

[David Floyd]

Pekka, if you want to argue a realist perspective, then a)No on is realistically going to invade Finland - sorry, not gonna happen - and b)if, say, Russia wanted to build up and invade in a few years, and was serious about doing so, the Finn army couldn't stop them, conscription or not, the Winter War notwithstanding.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My position is that conscription is slavery. It is immoral, and can never be justified in any circumstance.

What do you know, David Floyd and I actually agree on something!

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ming
My arugment is simple... You agree as a member of society/country to follow the rules to remain a member.
If you don't like the rules, you can find another society/country to join.

Uh right! Sorry, but libertarian principles of the market do not apply to the realm of citizenship. If I decide for instance, that I want to support universal health care and a decent and a decebt welfare state by moving to an EU country - they aren't going to just let me in, if they want to let me in at all (and I'm sure citizenship would require either a huge fee or a vital skill or occupation).

Funny, even the US doesn't subscribe to such a libertarian notion of citizenship. After all, all those Mexicans voted with their feet ...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who says military service is my "social duty"?

Congress (ie, the people) .

So if society can derive and justify some benefit from my death, murdering me isn't immoral?

Bingo.

If people aren't willing to defend the nation, why should the nation exist?

Because the government's first goal is self-preservation. If people are lazy ****s it doesn't matter, the government will and should fight for its own survival.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because the government's first goal is self-preservation. If people are lazy ****s it doesn't matter, the government will and should fight for its own survival.

The government is merely an instrument of the people - as such, it (like any other tool - like a screwdriver) has no desire for self-preservation. Hell, it has no desire period. Governments are ontologically more akin to tools.

What does have the desire for self preservation are the people who benefit greatly under the status quo (i.e. the wealthy, the high elected officials) etc. These are the people who want to preserve their system - it is not a case of some entity known as the government trying to preserve itself.

Lastly, if sufficient people do not volunteer to save the government during and invasion, then the people have decided their lives are not worth the system. So such a system should fail. If the people least served by the system (who are also the first who tend to get drafted), decide they don't want to fight for it, why should those who accrue the most advantage be allowed to externalize the costs of maintaining THEIR system?


As for conscription for little imperial conflicts like Bush's Iraq, an all volunteer army is a great check and balance on a leader's ambition. If Bush gets most of the military shot up in some conflict and no one new wants to join, Bush no longer gets to conduct his little private wars. Also, if current military people opt to retire when their terms are up and no new people join, then that is another great check on the ambitions of a militaristic leader.

Think of how quickly Vietnam could have been brought to an end without conscription? LBJ and Nixon run out of troops and no one else joins? That would have brough Vietnam to a crashing halt by 1968, or 1969 by the latest.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Who says military service is my "social duty"?

Congress (ie, the people) .

Quote:

So if society can derive and justify some benefit from my death, murdering me isn't immoral?

Bingo.

Quote:

If people aren't willing to defend the nation, why should the nation exist?

Because the government's first goal is self-preservation. If people are lazy ****s it doesn't matter, the government will and should fight for its own survival.

So if people don't want to fight, the government should force people to fight for a government, even though this means the government is forcing people to do something they don't want to do.

That's a pretty interesting theory of democracy. Whatever happened to government of the people, by the people and for the people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lastly, if sufficient people do not volunteer to save the government during and invasion, then the people have decided their lives are not worth the system.

People are cowardly and stupid. What else is new?

Most of them wouldn't even realize that if they lost to a dictatorship the consequences could be disasterous.

So if people don't want to fight, the government should force people to fight for a government, even though this means the government is forcing people to do something they don't want to do.

That's right.

That's a pretty interesting theory of democracy. Whatever happened to government of the people, by the people and for the people.

It takes a back seat when the government fears for its own survival. A government isn't made simply to fold because its own people are too selfish to save it. By living in it, they've sealed their fate when the government is about to collapse. And I have more trust in our elected representatives than the masses.

I'm sure if Floyd was Polish he wouldn't have raised a finger to prevent the Germans and Russians from taking over.... simply because he's an idiot, I don't think we should let a country, which we feel is better, fall.

[Berzerker]

You're making the assumption Floyd would sit by while his country is invaded. How do you explain Jefferson's words in the Decl of Ind where he says it is our duty to overthrow a government that no longer respects our freedom? It appears he, and the signers of that document did not place the preservation of the government above the people...

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by The Templar
Lastly, if sufficient people do not volunteer to save the government during and invasion, then the people have decided their lives are not worth the system. So such a system should fail. If the people least served by the system (who are also the first who tend to get drafted), decide they don't want to fight for it, why should those who accrue the most advantage be allowed to externalize the costs of maintaining THEIR system?

Everyone externalizes their costs except heros and there aren't enough of those. The only reason most people 'volunteer' is because they see personal benefit for themselves and they don't think they will be killed.

That being said, conscription is often not in the true interest of those who are conscripted, and they are not asked to share the risk, but to take risk for others who recieve more benefit from the government than they.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're making the assumption Floyd would sit by while his country is invaded. How do you explain Jefferson's words in the Decl of Ind where he says it is our duty to overthrow a government that no longer respects our freedom? It appears he, and the signers of that document did not place the preservation of the government above the people...

Times change. Jefferson's government doesn't exist anymore, except in fantasy.

Today the social good tends to mean something more than it did then.

[Kidicious]

Imran,

You fascist. I agree with you that people should be conscripted if it's in their own interest, but you are saying they should be conscripted just for the govts interest. I assume you mean an authoritarian govt then? Then that means that you want the elite to externalize their risks and that just can't be justified.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would that be an authoritarian government?

Or do you think that the US in WW2 was authoritarian?

Yes, I do believe that people should be conscripted for the state's SURVIVAL (the term 'interest' can be twisted). It is a social good.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why would that be an authoritarian government?

Or do you think that the US in WW2 was authoritarian?

Yes, I do believe that people should be conscripted for the state's SURVIVAL (the term 'interest' can be twisted). It is a social good.

If the war is in the interest of the people then the majority of the people will surely support it. I can see where a minority might be against it. Maybe they profit from the govt losing the war. There is no way that a war can be in the interest of the people and the majority of people not support the war. Now after it has been decided that the war is in the interest of the people then everyone should be forced to pay an equal price.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is it decided it is in the 'interest' of the people? I would think that a majority of their representatives shows the interest of the population at large. Simply because individuals are selfish, doesn't mean that society must always suffer.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How is it decided it is in the 'interest' of the people? I would think that a majority of their representatives shows the interest of the population at large. Simply because individuals are selfish, doesn't mean that society must always suffer.

Selfishness has nothing to do with it. If the war is in their interest they will support it. How is that selfish?

edit: I mean how would it be selfish for them to not support a war that they see as not in their interest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because they don't consider what is in society's interest... only their own. Unfortunetly it is all too human to be selfish. Sometimes it's gotta be overcome.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because they don't consider what is in society's interest... only their own. Unfortunetly it is all too human to be selfish. Sometimes it's gotta be overcome.

The people are at least just as likely to consider societies interest as their representatives. That doesn't really matter. Even if all the people were to make completely rational decisions it would still work. Each individual would decide if the war benefited them. If the war benefited the majority then that would mean that the war benefited society. At least that's much more likely than letting only a small minority make the decision.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because they don't consider what is in society's interest... only their own. Unfortunetly it is all too human to be selfish. Sometimes it's gotta be overcome.

Exactly. People are too shelfish, especially people like Bush who want to fight a war with someone else's sone and daughters. Given this selfishness on the part of leaders, conscription should be banned as a check on said selfishness.

Sorry Imram, but that paternalistic argument against selfishness cuts both ways. So find another argument to make.

BTW, how does a putative libertarian such as yourself argue in favor of conscription with a straight face? Of course, I guess most libertarians are willing to sacrifice their principled stances when their real socially conservative stripes have a chance to show.

[Kidicious]

He's no more a libertarian than Hitler was against the capitalists.

[The Templar]

Oh Imram, I also argued that government itself has no desires. Do you wish to let my point stand? If you do (and I can't blame you, the point is fairly unassailable) then I guess I win the argument because your argument is predicated on the position that government must be able to actualize its desire for self preservation.

[Berzerker]

Times change. Jefferson's government doesn't exist anymore, except in fantasy.

Umm...change the last word to "history" and we'd agree, but that only shows that the "duty" we once had has been replaced by a new "duty" without our consent.

Templar -

I guess most libertarians are willing to sacrifice their principled stances when their real socially conservative stripes have a chance to show.

The libertarians in this thread oppose conscription, Imran's a Republican. He's only a libertarian in that many liberals and conservatives will say they are "libertarian" on this or that issue.

[Kidicious]

I could say that I'm a Libertarian then. Hmmmmm. Just can't think of any reason right now though.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

Congress (ie, the people)

So Congress can create any "social contract" that they want? How is this Constitutional?

Bingo.

Note that I said "murder", not "kill". I said that deliberately, so that we couldn't bring in the death penalty debate. With that in mind, you think that if 51% of people decide that killing me and confiscating my property would benefit the majority of people, then it is OK for them to do so?

Because the government's first goal is self-preservation. If people are lazy ****s it doesn't matter, the government will and should fight for its own survival.

Well, I might give this argument some credence if I saw every member of government who supported a war being the first to sign up to fight on the front lines.

People are cowardly and stupid. What else is new?

Most of them wouldn't even realize that if they lost to a dictatorship the consequences could be disasterous.

So now the government is also the thought police? Or maybe the government is psychic, and can read minds.

It takes a back seat when the government fears for its own survival.

A government is a concept, not an object. Concepts don't have human emotions. You might be talking about the people involved in government, and if so, I'd like to see them volunteer en masse to go fight the war they think is so necessary, before drafting others to do their dirty work.

Case in point, the British in WW1. Cockney said their backs were against the wall in 1916, but the fact remains that the government started the war, not the British people, so the members of government should be the first to fight it, along with any people who happen to agree and want to volunteer. But in reality, Britain would have been in no trouble at all if the politicians hadn't started the war to begin with, so it seems wrong to ask millions of people to bail out the politicians by violent means, when these same politicians refuse to try to end the war by peaceful means, and when the politicians were the ones who started the war to begin with.

A government isn't made simply to fold because its own people are too selfish to save it.

Uh, sure it is. Government doesn't exist for the sake of government.

I'm sure if Floyd was Polish he wouldn't have raised a finger to prevent the Germans and Russians from taking over.... simply because he's an idiot, I don't think we should let a country, which we feel is better, fall.

Well, first of all, Poland was under the control of a dictator, so why would I fight to prop up this dictator? Secondly, though, I might have decided that my dictator was the lesser of the other two dictators, and volunteered to fight. Either way, though, I fail to see how it is OK for the Polish government to force me to fight, when I don't consent to the war.

Today the social good tends to mean something more than it did then.

The "social good"? What exactly do you believe the "social good" is? Surely you can define your own concept.

How is it decided it is in the 'interest' of the people? I would think that a majority of their representatives shows the interest of the population at large. Simply because individuals are selfish, doesn't mean that society must always suffer.

No, if a war is "in the interest of the people", that means that the war is in defense of the nation, of the people themselves, and in US history, there has not been a problem raising volunteer armies to combat threats to the people.

Because they don't consider what is in society's interest... only their own.

If millions of people don't consider something to be in their own interest, for example the Vietnam War, then how can "society" say otherwise? That is, unless your definition of "society" is something other than "the people", then how can you say that an unpopular war is for the good of society, if, as you have claimed previously, society decides it's own good?

You might, of course, be talking about government deciding what is good for society/the people, rather than the people deciding what is good for themselves.

[Pekka]

SUre, we're not under threat but... I wouldn't like to trust on my personal feelings or what the political atmoshpere is now. Trust no one! Better be ready than sorry.

[Velociryx]

DF....here's where you're losing me.

It does not matter whether you "consent" to the war or not. The war happens. Frankly, it doesn't give two $hits whether you consent to it happening or not.

Going back to your Britain example. The people of Britain elected their parlimentarians. They chose who they wanted to lead them. Their chosen governors got them into a tricky situation that required them (as the elected heads of the government...elected by the people) to make some tough choices. One of those tough choices was to call on all people who called themselves English...who enjoyed the benefits of BEING English, to serve to defend what that meant.

Didn't matter that not everyone "consented to" or agreed with the war.

What I'm mystified about is why you're so eager to reap the benefits of being a member of a wealthy, affluent nation that provides you with a host of opportunities, but are absolutely unwilling to lift a finger to protect or support it when called, choosing instead to whine about how they're squelshing your liberty as you continue to reap the benefits of being a member of the club.
-=Vel=-

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Going back to your Britain example. The people of Britain elected their parlimentarians. They chose who they wanted to lead them. Their chosen governors got them into a tricky situation that required them (as the elected heads of the government...elected by the people) to make some tough choices. One of those tough choices was to call on all people who called themselves English...who enjoyed the benefits of BEING English, to serve to defend what that meant.

This is not an argument under a modern democracy. Most modern democracies place some rights off limits to government interference. So for instance, even if the majority want to ban lap dances or communism, the first amendment makes that impossible. Nor would the majority suddenly being in favor of slavery make that legally possible (or morally right for that matter).

Moreover, your argument does not grapple with the morality and legitimacy of conscription. Legislators once thought slavery was a good idea - does that make slavery legitimate?

Finally, if those who enjoy the benefits of being English don't want to defend England - who cares. Let the people vote with their feet - either by walking into the recruitment office or staying at home.

What I'm mystified about is why you're so eager to reap the benefits of being a member of a wealthy, affluent nation that provides you with a host of opportunities, but are absolutely unwilling to lift a finger to protect or support it when called, choosing instead to whine about how they're squelshing your liberty as you continue to reap the benefits of being a member of the club.
-=Vel=-

What I'm so mystified about is that on other threads you were so vehemently against governmental control of the economy but here you are so willing to allow conscription. On other threads you have complained that governmental control of the economy would squelch your freedom to innovate and prosper, yet when the government wants to expropriate your labor for the military you actually defend the practice. So let me get this straight, it is OK for the government to place your life in danger (and take away all the rights military people are forced to give up while serving) so long as it is for the "common good" (as defined by the government) but not OK for the government to take your property? That's insane! You have it absolutely backwards.

Vel, I had thought you were at least something of a principled libertarian, but you sound more and more like a boring social conservative.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Given this selfishness on the part of leaders, conscription should be banned as a check on said selfishness.

There is already a check. It's called Congress, and it's called voting.

BTW, how does a putative libertarian such as yourself argue in favor of conscription with a straight face?

Because I'd rather see a free state survive, with conscription, rather than see it overrun by a dictatorship, without conscription.

The better of two evils is conscription.

So Congress can create any "social contract" that they want? How is this Constitutional?

Berzerker already pointed out how conscription is Constitutional. Secondly, Congress is the representative of the people. Therefore they represent society. Just about any law they pass, which passes muster, is part of a social contract.

With that in mind, you think that if 51% of people decide that killing me and confiscating my property would benefit the majority of people, then it is OK for them to do so?

If we are taking about a hypothetical society, then yeah, sure. Why not?

A government is a concept, not an object.

So Congress doesn't exist? The President doesn't exist? The Supreme Court doesn't exist? Are they all simply concepts?

Either way, though, I fail to see how it is OK for the Polish government to force me to fight, when I don't consent to the war.

Because the Polish government doesn't want to get destroyed by the Soviets and Nazis and realizes that its citizens should not have to suffer under those regimes, even if they are too dumb to realize what that will really mean.

The "social good"? What exactly do you believe the "social good" is?

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? I'm sure you can even find a suitable definition for it. What is the good for the whole of society.

If millions of people don't consider something to be in their own interest, for example the Vietnam War, then how can "society" say otherwise? That is, unless your definition of "society" is something other than "the people", then how can you say that an unpopular war is for the good of society, if, as you have claimed previously, society decides it's own good?

You've heard too much anti-Vietnam propaganda. The fact was that a MAJORITY did think going to Vietnam was a good idea. If they didn't Nixon would have lost to McGovern. The 'people' considered this important and good for society.

(btw, personally I wouldn't have supported conscription in Vietnam or Korea... I might have during WW2)

[Velociryx]

Templar: Your "take" on my stance here, while grossly simplified (and therefore, exaggerated to inaccuracy) is not entirely wrong.

The difference between the two in my mind's eye is this: Conscription only occurs in the short term. It is not (or at least in most places, and certainly not in the USA) a permanant condition lasting the whole of my life, and is used only in situations that the elected governing body of a nation considers most grave and dire. No one is proposing flippant or reckless use of conscription.

Contrast that with governmental siezure of property which is intended to be permanant. For all time. No thanks.

-=Vel=-