Military Debate: Is Conscription Moral?
- Thread starter Battlegrinder
- Start date
Personally, I lean towards the "duty" argument. The core purpose of government is to protect the rights of it's citizens, or as it was most famously put, it's purpose is "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".
The government has a positive duty to protect the freedoms and rights of its citizens and to ensure the continued ability to exercise those rights....but also to contain those rights in order to allow other people to exercise there own rights. You have the freedom to speak, but not to libel or incite violence, that sort of thing. Rights are not absolute, and the state has not only a right but a duty to restrict the absolute liberty of its citizens for the common good.
Therefore, conscription is an entirely moral extension of the state's duty to defend the rights of its citizens, by instituting a draft or similar measure to ensure its armed forces are capable of defending the state from enemies abroad that seek to destroy it and deprive the citizens of thier rights.
The government has a positive duty to protect the freedoms and rights of its citizens and to ensure the continued ability to exercise those rights....but also to contain those rights in order to allow other people to exercise there own rights. You have the freedom to speak, but not to libel or incite violence, that sort of thing. Rights are not absolute, and the state has not only a right but a duty to restrict the absolute liberty of its citizens for the common good.
Therefore, conscription is an entirely moral extension of the state's duty to defend the rights of its citizens, by instituting a draft or similar measure to ensure its armed forces are capable of defending the state from enemies abroad that seek to destroy it and deprive the citizens of thier rights.
You can call it duty all you like. You can call it fairy dust. What it is is the government putting a gun to peoples heads to force them to do specific jobs. Forced labor is commonly known as slavery. You can say it is necessary, fine, just never forget that it is an evil.
Common good is also a lie. Once you have accepted government for the common good, you have surrendered the moral argument against communism. In fact, the government cannot do good. It can only do evil to prevent other evils, as every penny it spends is gotten at the point of a gun, and every coercive act it does also occurs at the point of a gun.
So sure, you can write a bunch of stuff justifying conscription all you like. Just call it what it is: slavery. Don't pretend it's some noble duty: it's a bunch of slaves being ordered around at gunpoint. There's nothing good that can come of this, some are just in desperate situations and are more afraid of a greater evil.
Common good is also a lie. Once you have accepted government for the common good, you have surrendered the moral argument against communism. In fact, the government cannot do good. It can only do evil to prevent other evils, as every penny it spends is gotten at the point of a gun, and every coercive act it does also occurs at the point of a gun.
So sure, you can write a bunch of stuff justifying conscription all you like. Just call it what it is: slavery. Don't pretend it's some noble duty: it's a bunch of slaves being ordered around at gunpoint. There's nothing good that can come of this, some are just in desperate situations and are more afraid of a greater evil.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
I think conscription is more of a matter of realpolitik rather than an ethical discussion, Most nations do not have the GDP of the US and cannot afford to maintain large standing armies of volunteers. Conscription becomes a necessary evil in times of war for smaller poorer countries, I'd argue that a professional army with an enormous military industrial complex causes far more problems and military adventurism than a conscripted force. Politicians are far more likely go on military adventures with a volunteer force than they would with a conscripted one sort of like what Dubuya did with his middle eastern clusterfuck.
As I said before, this is just the opposite side of the horseshoe from "capitalism is slavery, because you must work or starve", and to answer your previous response, no, no that's exactly how it is. Yes, in most western countries you won't starve if you don't work, thanks to private charity (and a significant number of government programs). That's a relatively recent thing, and it's far from universal, for most of the world if you don't work you will die.
Nor is private charity a fair answer to this issue in the first place, because you're responding to a philosophical issue by pointing to a real world solution that emerged independent of that philosophy. You can't do that, and then switch over to "paying taxes is ontologically evil, who cares how useful it is to have roads" as your main argument, because you know darn well that doesn't fly in the real world.
There is a world of difference between "for the good of all, your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose" and "for the good of all, you must go do job in glorious people's ironworks, comrade", and you can in fact draw a line between the two and limit government to it's own narrow sphere of action.
"So sure, you can write a bunch of stuff justifying police all you like. Just call what it is: a protection racket. Don't pretend it's some noble duty: t's a bunch of goons running around extorting money from everyone else at gunpoint for their own use, on the thin pretense that if something bad ever happens, they'll maybe probably show up and do something about it."
That's what you sound like now.
bintananth
behind a desk
The thing is, the people who call for constription are often too old or too crippled to answer a call for volunteers.
I'm a 44yr old who is missing a toe. My dad is 76. While we both know how to use a rifle - and could teach you how to use one - either one of us would be a complete "please shoot us" liabilty if sent to the front lines while an 18yr old who doesn't know his ass from his elbow and barely got through basic is not a liability.
Slavery is one of those words that's well defined: Someone holding another in bondage, forcing them to work, preventing them from leaving. Normal work does not hit that. One can leave, choose not to work for that someone, choose not to work for anyone, etc. The 'wage slave' argument is trying to end around consent. It fails on a number of levels though. They are not held in bondage. They are not forced to work (free to starve in the most extreme example, but also you can/could go into the woods and subsistence live, soup kitchens, live with family, etc). Depending where in history you are, they are a number of possible answers.
Meanwhile the conscription argument is nice and direct. A man tells you you've been conscripted. If you try to leave, you will be arrested or shot if they catch you.
Again, the wage slave argument fails the definition of slavery. The 'wage slave' has choice. Tons of choice.
The reason why a line exists is because it's not for the 'good of all'. It's for the individual right of the person possessing the nose. It's the right of the individual vs the 'good' of the many. If you use the 'good of the many', the only objection to communism left is that it doesn't work, not that it is inherently unethical, as you've already accepted it's ethical basis: "it's fine to violate rights for the good of the many".
See, the part where this falls apart is the comparison. You are comparing a job to a law. My issue is not with the job, it's with a law.
It conflates the individual choice of a person to become a cop, which they can make for a multitude of reasons (from noble duty to legalized thuggery to making a paycheck), to the government mandate which will guarantee that people are forced against their will into labor they do not want to do.
Though I will note you down for accidentally libertarian, for noticing that yes, that is what cops are: people paid to do what would otherwise be called thuggery to prevent more of it. I wouldn't call them a racket, because most of them have so little to do with collecting money, with the exception of some towns that use traffic tickets to raise money.
It's funny cause liability for military service used to be synonymous with citizenship with all early democracies and republics, and thus the exact opposite of slavery, peonage, serfdom, etc, all of which are people the ruling class don't want armed.
In the U.S., the word Militia was synonymous with the body of adult male citizens at the Founding, and remains that legally today. Speaking of clearly defined terminology, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 13th Amendment does not cover conscription, jury duty, etc, and it's super obvious that not one drafter of the 13th would have understood what you were on about were you to make such a claim about conscription being slavery to them.
In the U.S., the word Militia was synonymous with the body of adult male citizens at the Founding, and remains that legally today. Speaking of clearly defined terminology, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 13th Amendment does not cover conscription, jury duty, etc, and it's super obvious that not one drafter of the 13th would have understood what you were on about were you to make such a claim about conscription being slavery to them.
bintananth
behind a desk
People like @Abhorsen often like to forget about or ignore the inconvenient responsibilities part of "rights and responsibilities" ...
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
Basic training is a thing that conscripted soldiers are suppose to do, Although Russia thought to ignore that for some reason.
bintananth
behind a desk
That's all on Russia being dumb.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
I think Israel is a good example of when conscription is necessary, You have a small state surrounded by hostile countries that seek not only its annihilation but likely its citizenry as well. In a situation like that you can't rely on the hopes of having enough volunteers you have to maintain a sizeable force at all times for continued existence.
Robovski
Well-known member
If you cannot make the case to the people that the State should survive and they should fight for it then perhaps it should die. Volunteers should defend the State, not conscripts.
People unwilling to fight for the State should not have any say over it. In other words, they should not be citizens. And yes, the State should have to make the case for all of its actions to its citizens, but no one else.
Of course, as a matter of principle, I would like to see the ability to opt out of citizenship and all its rights and obligations at adulthood.
Of course, as a matter of principle, I would like to see the ability to opt out of citizenship and all its rights and obligations at adulthood.
When did the person consent to this? Seriously, you can use that justification to justify any demand of citizenry. Just call it a responsibility.
Okay. Let's accept for sake of argument that it is necessary. Can you still call it slavery and acknowledge it as a necessary evil? That's what I've been arguing for. It's important to recognize evil comes not just from outside forces but also from your own government.
bintananth
behind a desk
You don't have to consent.
Rights also come with responsibilities and you get both the day you are born.
No, they don't. Fuck that nonsense. There are only human rights, and your only duty is to respect other's rights. That's it. There are no positive rights. If you allow positive rights, you've accepted all communism needs. You owe no one anything from the day you are born until as an adult you willingly decide to owe someone something.
bintananth
behind a desk
Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin.
Do I have a right to use that sidewalk? Yes. Do I have a responsibility to not leave trash or damage in my wake? Also yes.
That's just a simple example of how rights come with responsibilities.