But my point is that any ideal or idealistic society will lead to genocide, because ideals are, by their very nature, removed from reality on the fundamental level. So the end point of everything is necessity: we can agree that conscription is evil, but there may be points when it is necessary. Should we try and avoid it if at all possible? Absolutely. Is conscription immoral? Yes. Can it be necessary? Definitely.
No, I don't think a society based on ideals leads to genocide. In fact, I'd say a society without ideals leads to evil, as its leaders want power for power's sake. I get that shit ideals can lead to a shit situation. This is true. But to just abandon morality as the basic goal of a society is to say that power/control is the goal, and that will lead to bad places regardless.
In any case, @Abhorsen, you are simultaneously making me roll my eyes at how pedantic your arguments are, and reminding me of why I probably shouldn't call myself libertarian.
A libertarian is one who puts freedom first. The draft is pretty clearly about as non-libertarian tool as one can get: forced servitude to the state to fight a war. There's a chance in hell that such an evil could be justified by a hugely greater evil (communist russia's invasion of Poland, for example), but it still remains an evil.
Look, I love America. I love America because it is the only nation founded on an ideal of freedom. I, personally, would fight for it to the death if it was under threat. But the reason I love America is because it has become a country that would not enslave its citizens. America, IMO, is the only hope for freedom in the world, no other place has it. But if it goes to complete shit, I ain't gonna have any loyalty to it's puppeteered corpse. And one significant step towards that would be conscription.
Finally, it's not pedantry to call a spade a spade. They force you to be in a place, and do what they tell you to do, as they extract labor from you, without consent. If you try to leave, you get jailed or shot. That's slavery.
Where do these human rights come from? Where does the legitimacy of the state come from? From a natural law perspective, positive rights are perfectly logical. As Bintananth says, they are often two parts of the same coin.
No. All rights descend from the NAP, the Non Aggression Principle. Positive rights require aggression, and thus are not rights.
Also, defending rights (or even defining morality) using Natural law is always iffy, as natural law means all kinds of things to all kinds of people.
