Military Debate: Is Conscription Moral?

[JagerIV]

Governments don't have rights. An individual person has rights.

The absurdity of Libertarians: arguing above that either a government has no right to do anything, and thus shouldn't exist, or that there is no limiting principle, and thus the State's power is unlimited.

Are you going now redefine rights so the clear meaning doesn't mean what it seems your saying?

Libertarian - Communism horshoe

 

[Abhorsen]

The absurdity of Libertarians: arguing above that either a government has no right to do anything, and thus shouldn't exist, or that there is no limiting principle, and thus the State's power is unlimited.

Are you going now redefine rights so the clear meaning doesn't mean what it seems your saying?

Libertarian - Communism horshoe

You are either too lazy to read my posts, illiterate, or just willfully misinterpreting them at this point. As I've stated repeatedly, the only function of a state is to be the lesser evil. I've repeatedly said that they do evils to stop bigger evils. So no, I have not argued they shouldn't exist. In fact, I've actually given the precise limiting principles you must give a state: the state can only act in order to prevent violations of the NAP (evils), and only act in such a way that it is a lesser evil than the evil it seeks to prevent.

There is no redefinition of rights. They only apply to individuals and always have, the state has none and never has had any. The state acts (always an evil as they use stolen money to act) to maximally preserve the rights of the individuals (or conversely, to stop bigger evils by doing lesser ones). It does not have a 'right' to act this way, because a) it is not acting, individual people do the acting, and b) those individual people are violating the NAP, but this is acceptable in a functioning society in order to stop some greater evil.

You also don't know what the horseshoe theory is either: crazy enough people from two sides end up having similar views. Like how nazis and the soviets both blame the Jews, continued now by the racist part of the right and nearly the entire population of leftists. Or how your insistence that a nation has a right to force people to perform labor on its behalf is very similar to communisms demand that people do specific labor for its own good.

This is distinct from one theory ushers in another, or is a useful idiot for the other, as you allege. Seriously, at least use the right terms when pulling bad arguments out of your ass.

 

[JagerIV]

You are either too lazy to read my posts, illiterate, or just willfully misinterpreting them at this point. As I've stated repeatedly, the only function of a state is to be the lesser evil. I've repeatedly said that they do evils to stop bigger evils. So no, I have not argued they shouldn't exist. In fact, I've actually given the precise limiting principles you must give a state: the state can only act in order to prevent violations of the NAP (evils), and only act in such a way that it is a lesser evil than the evil it seeks to prevent.

There is no redefinition of rights. They only apply to individuals and always have, the state has none and never has had any. The state acts (always an evil as they use stolen money to act) to maximally preserve the rights of the individuals (or conversely, to stop bigger evils by doing lesser ones). It does not have a 'right' to act this way, because a) it is not acting, individual people do the acting, and b) those individual people are violating the NAP, but this is acceptable in a functioning society in order to stop some greater evil.

You also don't know what the horseshoe theory is either: crazy enough people from two sides end up having similar views. Like how nazis and the soviets both blame the Jews, continued now by the racist part of the right and nearly the entire population of leftists. Or how your insistence that a nation has a right to force people to perform labor on its behalf is very similar to communisms demand that people do specific labor for its own good.

This is distinct from one theory ushers in another, or is a useful idiot for the other, as you allege. Seriously, at least use the right terms when pulling bad arguments out of your ass.

1) Yes, basic communist dogma. I know.

2) This is an example of libertarian redefinition, which you use inconsistently. Of course States have rights. To suggest otherwise is to say either states have no authority to do anything, or are unconstrained it what they can do.

3) Yes, Libertarians and communists come to the same view: either the state is inherently evil (anarchist communism) or it has an infinite mandate to the greater good to do anything that improves people. I am using Horseshoe correctly, you just don't understand my argument.

 

[Scottty]

Like any sovereign nation, Ukraine has the right to require its citizens to serve.

But does it? That's the whole topic here.
Does whatever gang of clowns that happens to be in power in some part of the world have "the right" to treat the people of that land as cannon-fodder?

 

[Abhorsen]

1) Yes, basic communist dogma. I know.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA, that ain't what communism says, even anarcho communism. Communism claims the state is good, because the state is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Learn a little.

2) This is an example of libertarian redefinition, which you use inconsistently. Of course States have rights. To suggest otherwise is to say either states have no authority to do anything, or are unconstrained it what they can do.

First, the concept of rights is treated differently by every philosophy, so I could call you out for 'redefining' out as well, but I wouldn't, because that would be dumb. We have different philosophies, which look at rights in different ways.

Second, your fallacy of the excluded middle here is blatant and obvious. The libertarian state has a very limited set of things it can do (for example: Military, basic lawmaking for theft/harm only, judicial system, a police force, taxes to run it, maybe a diplomatic branch. That's it.). But the state does not have the right to do these things. These things are a privilege granted to it by the people under it. A privilege that can be unilaterally revoked by the people. A right cannot be unilaterally revoked, otherwise it is not a right.

So, no. Your 'clever' excluded middle fallacy is just wrong.

3) Yes, Libertarians and communists come to the same view: either the state is inherently evil (anarchist communism) or it has an infinite mandate to the greater good to do anything that improves people. I am using Horseshoe correctly, you just don't understand my argument.

Oh, then you're just a moron, who doesn't understand anything about anarchocommunism. For one, it's an oxymoron that requires a state to function. Two, because of that lack of understanding, people who espouse anCom ideas aren't anarcho communist, they are usually just communists. So no, horseshoe theory doesn't apply.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Anarcho-communism isn't inherently self-contradictory. It just never happens because its the part of communism that never happens.

Ultimately, to ultra-summarize the theoretical process of communism down, you get something like this:

1. The communists overthrow the state and impose the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

2. The DOP becomes an absolute authoritarian state that creates a perfect system in which everyone is free, happy, and productive.

3. The DOP dissolves itself over time, and the 'free, happy, and productive' state of the people continues in perpetuity with no additional systemic inputs needed.

Anarch-communism is just jumping from Step .5 (The communists overthrow the state) to 3 (everyone is 'free, happy, and productive', no state needed).

This just makes anarcho-communists even more crazy than regular communists.

 

[Scottty]

Anarcho-anything does not continue in perpetuity.
To quote myself: Anarchy lasts only until someone gets a few lads together and creates a new government.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Splitting off a derail from here, o er the question of if Conscription is totally immoral slavery or a fundamental duty of citizenship, something in between, or something else entirely?

You could make the argument that conscription is moral if its unbiased and the conscripting nation actually cares about it's people.

There's a difference between "We need you on the front lines now or we're all dead" and "Meat for the meatgrinder BRRRRRRRR!"

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I think it depends on the context.

A foreign adventure against a weaker opponent certainly doesn't necessitate it.

If your country has been invaded and is fighting a war of existential survival, then you'd have to be mad not to hit that button.

Also, once again, it is amusing to find another thread filled with lolberts who think their vaunted ideas are worth spit on the battlefield.

 

[PeaceMaker 03]

You could make the argument that conscription is moral if its unbiased and the conscripting nation actually cares about it's people.

There's a difference between "We need you on the front lines now or we're all dead" and "Meat for the meatgrinder BRRRRRRRR!"

The difference between equality a for all to share in the burden of military duty, vs. Faceless government hacks deciding what group gets equity over some other group.

Difference between equality for all to share in the burden of military duty, vs. Faceless government hacks deciding what group gets equity over some other group.

If you have conscription there should be no exemptions all bare the burden equally. The other option is what Tom Kratman writes about in his alt-universe series voluntary conscription, for the right to vote/ or hold any office. It can not be considered slavery if you are doing it voluntarily. But it would need heavy controls to ensure people in power do not game the system. To ensure even the rich and powerful bear the burden equally. A difficult task to be sure.
Otherwise, you get what we have today in our federal governmentwith elected officials exempt from laws that are felonies to peons/ normal citizens.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I think it depends on the context.

A foreign adventure against a weaker opponent certainly doesn't necessitate it.

If your country has been invaded and is fighting a war of existential survival, then you'd have to be mad not to hit that button.

Also, once again, it is amusing to find another thread filled with lolberts who think their vaunted ideas are worth spit on the battlefield.

The thing is war for existential survival is very much the exception not the norm and even in the rare cases that it is it's more often than not less about keeping a people alive and more about the king trying to use his people as a meat shield to save his own skin. Case and point Ukraine.

You're right though some ideas don't mean squat on the battlefield. Gold God and Country being one of them.

 

[Aldarion]

Anarcho-anything does not continue in perpetuity.
To quote myself: Anarchy lasts only until someone gets a few lads together and creates a new government.

Feudalism was probably the closest thing we ever had to a "sustainable" anarchy.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Feudalism was probably the closest thing we ever had to a "sustainable" anarchy.

the problem at least in America, (I'd I argue the modern world) is that even if Feudalism was this golden age system of autonomy. (I don't know as I'm removed like 500+ years away from it) People only know (and care) of the trappings of it. Plantation slavery and sharecropping was the Souths attempt at regaining that sense of feudalism and the prestige that came with it, and we saw how that turned out for everyone that wasn't of that wealthy plantation owning class.

 

[Cherico]

Feudalism was probably the closest thing we ever had to a "sustainable" anarchy.

The fact is as a system it worked for hundreds of years

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The fact is as a system it worked for hundreds of years

and for hundreds of years, someone of high power could actually be killed if he or she angered the people who served them.

Rich elites back then: have to fear their food getting poisoned or drowned in their bathtub if they messed up.

Rich elites now: have to worry about their spouse's sex tape being released or getting #internetcancelled.

when was the last time someone of any great position of power was epstined?

the world in a way has become too safe. Every conflict is heavily controlled and prepared to where those that are actually causing problems in the world won't have to face the consequences till judgment day when the plebes that they hurt get equally as punished as they do.

 

[Abhorsen]

Feudalism was probably the closest thing we ever had to a "sustainable" anarchy.

There was no anarchy. It was honestly pretty rigid hierarchically, with little social mobility. It's like anarchy in practice, in that anarchy in practice immediately devolves into having a bunch of small warlords and little freedom, but not at all like anarchy envisioned by anarchists, regardless of the type of anarchist.

 

[Marduk]

The difference between equality a for all to share in the burden of military duty, vs. Faceless government hacks deciding what group gets equity over some other group.

Difference between equality for all to share in the burden of military duty, vs. Faceless government hacks deciding what group gets equity over some other group.

If you have conscription there should be no exemptions all bare the burden equally. The other option is what Tom Kratman writes about in his alt-universe series voluntary conscription, for the right to vote/ or hold any office. It can not be considered slavery if you are doing it voluntarily. But it would need heavy controls to ensure people in power do not game the system. To ensure even the rich and powerful bear the burden equally. A difficult task to be sure.
Otherwise, you get what we have today in our federal governmentwith elected officials exempt from laws that are felonies to peons/ normal citizens.

The problem with that is that it puts some ideology before military needs, while conscription in the first place is supposed to exist as a way to fulfill military needs without a ruinous budget.

For example the military doesn't need an equal number of drivers and old literary arts graduates, obviously drivers and fit young men are more needed, and just taking everyone leads to the military having to spend big money to train, supply and house a huge bunch of people they have little to no use for - and the whole thing exists to be cheap in terms of staffing in the first place?
Most of the rich and powerful are old and/or have important enough jobs that need to be done during a war anyway, so it's doubly pointless as any sort of check on them - it's not middle ages anymore, when nobles funded by their estate (which they may or may not spend much time running so they have plenty left to train) with their expensive gear and a bunch of retainers they pay and supply would act as expensive shock cavalry and low-mid level officers at the same time.

It just doesn't translate to government officials (not funded by own property anyway and not very skilled in military matters most of them) or businessmen (spending too much time running business to be successful to have time to get good at military stuff). Also at the current military hardware prices this would be a billionaire's game mostly.
To train and equip and then supply just a mechanized company one would need to set aside something like 200-400m USD without going bankrupt.

40k and BT try to kinda replicate that system with non-medieval warfare through the use of 1 pilot mechs at least as capable as a good tank even at the low end with relatively tame maintenance costs and tech progress, but there is no close real world equivalent right now to even try that.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

There was no anarchy. It was honestly pretty rigid hierarchically, with little social mobility. It's like anarchy in practice, in that anarchy in practice immediately devolves into having a bunch of small warlords and little freedom, but not at all like anarchy envisioned by anarchists, regardless of the type of anarchist.

Now now don't you know it's a sin to envy your better's social status? Now shut up and eat your bug burger.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Still conflicted about it : if they offer like something free stuff (like many sections of the Italian Army DO) or like the USA with college, you could make military conscription mandatory but give something to alleviate this.

In my opinion one should also be mentally and physically fit to be conscripted.

Otherwise you get a situation like Mcnamara Morons.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Still conflicted about it : if they offer like something free stuff (like many sections of the Italian Army DO) or like the USA with college, you could make military conscription mandatory but give something to alleviate this.

In my opinion one should also be mentally and physically fit to be conscripted.

Otherwise you get a situation like Mcnamara Morons.

Honestly I would be more willing to go with it if civil service could count as conscription. "Your religion states you can't fight or you think this an unjust war, fine you can work on the home front in the hospitals." That way you don't have a reason to kill or banish the pacifists (more than likely not christians) who would otherwise be productive citizens. History has shown if a war is considered just l, enough people will willingly fight it.