Is drafting people into the military a form of slavery?
Yes
60.3% (135)
60.3% (135)
No
37.9% (85)
37.9% (85)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is drafting people into the military a form of slavery?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

I think it is because it's involuntary servitude.

It's worse than that, you're potentially killing them.

You get a letter from the government that you are now a soldier and should go to the nearest army base, leaving your former life behind you?

Yeah that is slavery.

It is.

It absolutely is.

Only if being made to pay taxes is theft.

I suppose it is. The question is then, whether it is justified under particular circumstances.
Some circumstances might justify something like it, but those don't really happen these days in the West anymore.

Batou667:
Only if being made to pay taxes is theft.

False comparison is false; taxes is payingfor services the government provides for you. Conscription is the government literally taking your body and demanding you do what they tell you to.

Not to mention it goes against thatwhole "freedom" thing democracies are spposed o be made of.

Depends on the situation. If the people support conscription or if it is an emergency measure then fair enough. Peacetime conscription with the current situation is not justified however.

Istvan:
Depends on the situation. If the people support conscription or if it is an emergency measure then fair enough.

So forcing people into the military against their will is fine, so long as enough other people support the idea?

Does that mean that if enough people support the idea, then Britain should bring back press gangs (the groups that went around literally kidnapping people into the navy)?

If army conscripts are slaves, then army volunteers are mercenaries.

Proof of Conscription failing: Vietman.
I read in my History textbook that some soldiers Fragged their CO's as they believed that they were actively trying to get them killed.
If this is untrue, let me know.

It would be a form of involuntary servitude which is a (slightly) less ugly cousin to slavery. Both are considered illegal and immoral for a reason, but there is a difference.

Shaoken:

Batou667:
Only if being made to pay taxes is theft.

False comparison is false; taxes is payingfor services the government provides for you. Conscription is the government literally taking your body and demanding you do what they tell you to.

Not to mention it goes against thatwhole "freedom" thing democracies are spposed o be made of.

Not a false comparison - if you are drafted, you are protecting the nation that provides services for everyone, yourself included. In a manner of speaking, conscription is a tax, just not a financial one.

I hasten to add, I don't think it should be enacted except in the most dire of circumstances (i.e. if the nation itself is at risk of being destroyed) but I don't think a slavery comparison is reasonable.

No, I don't think it's slavery. For one thing, soldiers are paid. For another, the term is limited. It's more like indentured servitude.

Lately I've been pretty convinced that we need to bring back the draft. At present with our all-volunteer army leaders can be too flippant about jumping thoughtlessly into conflict. We have this absurd notion that we as a society don't need to make sacrifices for our country- we can just depend on our professional army which tends to be drawn from the lower socio-economic rungs of society. We end up with people serving because it's their only hope of paying for more education, and that shouldn't be. Meanwhile, people at the top of the ladder get a vicarious thrill because some soldiers they really have no contact with are kicking ass for the red, white, and blue.

We have spent more on the Iraq War than TARP and the bank bailouts put together. I have a sneaking suspicion that if half of the people shouting "Umerikuh, FUCK YEAH!" in support of that war stood a good chance of being drafted and getting to spend a year dodging IEDs, we'd take a more sober view of invading another country.

This is from an American-centric point of view but I think it's pretty insulting to compare the draft to slavery.
Is it disagreeable? Yeah.

Is it slavery? No. It isn't.

Katatori-kun:
No, I don't think it's slavery. For one thing, soldiers are paid. For another, the term is limited. It's more like indentured servitude.

The defining attribute of slavery is not whether or not the person is compensated for their work (one could argue that slaves are paid in food and housing), but whether the person is being forced to work against their will. I'm not sure that limiting the term makes a difference either.

BrassButtons:

Istvan:
Depends on the situation. If the people support conscription or if it is an emergency measure then fair enough.

So forcing people into the military against their will is fine, so long as enough other people support the idea?

Does that mean that if enough people support the idea, then Britain should bring back press gangs (the groups that went around literally kidnapping people into the navy)?

This does bring up an interesting topic but it all depends on what the OT wants to discuss. I think, but may be wrong, the discussion so far has been about an ideal draft. Obviously the rich will always find a way out and even the average citizen can run to Canada or hide somewhere but I believe it is meant to be a random selection from a very wide pool. If I recall correctly it is still adult males.

On the other hand if press gangs or anyone else was entrusted with choosing who is to serve I really doubt they would be so unbiased.

Do we want to discuss whether an unbiased draft would still be wrong or do we want to bring the shortcomings of the system into it?

Batou667:
Only if being made to pay taxes is theft.

It technically is.

As far as I see it the nation state is an abstract and fluid form of organization that is only as legitimate as the people it governs consider it to be. If the powers that be can't convince enough people of the importance of fighting a war, or (if the war is of an existential importance to the state) convince people that the current nation state is sufficiently better at providing them safety, services and representation than the opposing nation state that seeks to replace it, then it has no right to force people to fight against their will.

I have absolutely no problem with granting government a license to do a lot of things, given reasonable oversight and accountability. But human life is such an invaluable thing that nobody has the right to take it or risk it except for the person who owns it, period.

tl;dr
Drafts are unethical, only volunteers should be soldiers.

Shaoken:
False comparison is false; taxes is payingfor services the government provides for you. Conscription is the government literally taking your body and demanding you do what they tell you to.

That's not a valid way to approach it. Military service through conscription is a duty as part of citizenship, just like paying taxes. Conscription is used to provide a government service, namely defense against foreign armed forces, and if worst comes to worst, the final word in keeping order domestically.

Besides, if people are so horribly opposed to a few months of working out, shooting at target discs and camping in the woods, they can also refuse and go camping in a prison instead.

BrassButtons:
So forcing people into the military against their will is fine, so long as enough other people support the idea?

The people determine how a country is ruled, yes. If they want conscription rather than a professional military, than that's what they want. Most countries that can afford it have opted for partial or passive conscription, and a professional standing army.

For instance I've got a service number and could theoretically be called to military service at a mobilisation, but this won't be used otherwise.

That is definately a fair system. If somebody wants to avoid ever being mobilised, they have plenty of time to emigrate and renounce citizenship.

Batou667:
Only if being made to pay taxes is theft.

This.

While I don't think there should be drafts unless there is some real good reason to do so (see world war 2) it sickens me when I hear people call it slavery. Its just an excuse to only care about yourself and make everyone else do the fighting for you. History has proven that during times when lots of soldiers were needed using only volunteers isn't enough. Just look at World war 2, where the majority of the soldiers on all sides were drafted.

Shaoken:

Batou667:
Only if being made to pay taxes is theft.

False comparison is false; taxes is payingfor services the government provides for you. Conscription is the government literally taking your body and demanding you do what they tell you to.

Not to mention it goes against thatwhole "freedom" thing democracies are spposed o be made of.

.
Freedom has to be protected at times. When career soldiers are not enough to withstand the onslaught, young men and women are called to the fray. This is our live, we can't do much.
Unless you're a republican and have an excuse like going on a Mormon mission to France or having a giant zit on your ass you can't sit on. Fuck you mitt Romney.

Diablo1099:
Proof of Conscription failing: Vietman.
I read in my History textbook that some soldiers Fragged their CO's as they believed that they were actively trying to get them killed.
If this is untrue, let me know.

.
Diablo.... You're Irish.
This is your motto-

It's basically your government telling you that you need to fight for its causes whether you like it or not. It sickens me.

Danyal:

Batou667:
Only if being made to pay taxes is theft.

It technically is.

No, it technically isn't.

"Taxation is theft" is based on concepts of rightful ownership that are unprovable, modern philosophical constructions, particularly undermined as any kind of fundamental reality by their lack of historical precedent.

BrassButtons:

Istvan:
Depends on the situation. If the people support conscription or if it is an emergency measure then fair enough.

So forcing people into the military against their will is fine, so long as enough other people support the idea?

Does that mean that if enough people support the idea, then Britain should bring back press gangs (the groups that went around literally kidnapping people into the navy)?

It's a question of national defence. If the only means by which collective security can be assured is a number of mandatory reservists in case of war then this is unfortunate. Thankfully technology and our political developments seems to have rendered this state of affairs obsolete.

If all individuals from a free society can benefit from it I see no reason why they should be above defending it if the collective agrees upon that. If a society is so bitterly divided that it cannot agree that it should survive then conscription is the least of your concerns.

Also nice straw man argument there, you two have fun.

Zachary Tarlow:
I think it is because it's involuntary servitude.

You get paid.
You have rights.

So no. It's no different than a law that requires you to come to the aid of others if you can, which while not universal is not uncommon.

BTW, to become a lawyer or accountant or plumber or electrician or many other trades and professions you have to do a period of low paid/overworked employment that you have little control over in order to prove yourself to the profession and be able to choose your work.

Hmmm...depends.

Normally when most people speak of conscription, they seem to mean something like a big lottery, if your birthday gets picked, you go to 'Nam, and everyone else does not. That's really not fair and can be compared to slavery.

If it was something like, you hit 18, and you spend 2 years in the military/something, same as absolutely everyone else in your nation, that's fair enough, and isn't the same as slavery.

Katatori-kun:
Lately I've been pretty convinced that we need to bring back the draft. At present with our all-volunteer army leaders can be too flippant about jumping thoughtlessly into conflict. We have this absurd notion that we as a society don't need to make sacrifices for our country- we can just depend on our professional army which tends to be drawn from the lower socio-economic rungs of society. We end up with people serving because it's their only hope of paying for more education, and that shouldn't be. Meanwhile, people at the top of the ladder get a vicarious thrill because some soldiers they really have no contact with are kicking ass for the red, white, and blue.

We have spent more on the Iraq War than TARP and the bank bailouts put together. I have a sneaking suspicion that if half of the people shouting "Umerikuh, FUCK YEAH!" in support of that war stood a good chance of being drafted and getting to spend a year dodging IEDs, we'd take a more sober view of invading another country.

That's an interesting idea, but probably wouldn't work, you'd still get people avoiding the draft.

Hell, in the US during Vietnam, people were understandably upset with conscription, so MacNamara came up with the clever idea of specifically conscripting the mentally handicapped, because every one of Project 100,000 that was drafted meant someone that people might actually care about was not.

Nope. Conscription/draft falls under the list of one's obligations as citizens. If your country has it (and many first world countries do), then the collective social contract demands that you participate.

EDIT: And for those Americans, here's some food for thought on some other reasons to bring back conscription.

Kendarik:

Zachary Tarlow:
I think it is because it's involuntary servitude.

You get paid.
You have rights.

Government has no mandate to forfeit the right to liberty (from innocent people) or life (period). I have yet to hear a good argument for why drafts are ethical or necessary for that matter, especially in the MAD-dominated, globalized world we're living in today.

So no. It's no different than a law that requires you to come to the aid of others if you can, which while not universal is not uncommon.

That's the catch. These laws not universal, in that you are not expected to aid someone if doing so would put you at very high risk of injury or death yourself. There is a mile of a difference between expecting people to help someone stuck under a tree on the street and expecting people to help someone stuck inside a burning building filled with lethal smoke.

BTW, to become a lawyer or accountant or plumber or electrician or many other trades and professions you have to do a period of low paid/overworked employment that you have little control over in order to prove yourself to the profession and be able to choose your work.

Working a shitty job =/= being dead. Though the distinction can feel pretty non-existent at times...

Pain Is Inevitable:

Kendarik:

Zachary Tarlow:
I think it is because it's involuntary servitude.

You get paid.
You have rights.

Government has no mandate to forfeit the right to liberty (from innocent people) or life (period). I have yet to hear a good argument for why drafts are ethical or necessary for that matter, especially in the MAD-dominated, globalized world we're living in today.

MAD hardly matters in international war anymore. All recent wars have been conventional and there is no threat of a MAD level nuclear incident because few players in recent wars even have nukes.

Also, according to the laws of many countries, backed by the courts of many countries, they in fact do have the right and mandate to draft/conscript you.

So no. It's no different than a law that requires you to come to the aid of others if you can, which while not universal is not uncommon.

That's the catch. These laws not universal, in that you are not expected to aid someone if doing so would put you at very high risk of injury or death yourself. There is a mile of a difference between expecting people to help someone stuck under a tree on the street and expecting people to help someone stuck inside a burning building filled with lethal smoke.

BTW, to become a lawyer or accountant or plumber or electrician or many other trades and professions you have to do a period of low paid/overworked employment that you have little control over in order to prove yourself to the profession and be able to choose your work.

Working a shitty job =/= being dead. Though the distinction can feel pretty non-existent at times...

Often in war more civilians die than soldiers. Being a soldier =/= being dead.

Its not slavery.

Slavery means that the individuals have no rights and they are not paid. Also very few slaves nowadays are issued expensive weaponry and given military training (it happens but its exceptionally rare).

Is conscription unfair, yeah but life isnt fair and at the end of the day a country may need conscription to ensure its survival and consequently the survival of the law system that guarantees the freedoms you do have. Conscription however is not slavery.

Agema:

Danyal:

Batou667:
Only if being made to pay taxes is theft.

It technically is.

No, it technically isn't.

"Taxation is theft" is based on concepts of rightful ownership that are unprovable, modern philosophical constructions, particularly undermined as any kind of fundamental reality by their lack of historical precedent.

Wait, let's improve your reasoning.

"Taxation is Theft" is based on concepts of rightful ownership that are unprovable, modern philosophical constructions, particularly undermined as any kind of fundamental reality by their lack of historical precedent.

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

theft (thft)
n.
1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theft

steal (stl)
v. stole (stl), sto·len (stln), steal·ing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stealing

To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.

A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation

Stealing is taking something without permission or consent from the owner. Taxing is taking something without permission or consent from the owner.

Danyal:
Stealing is taking something without permission or consent from the owner. Taxing is taking something without permission or consent from the owner.

By being in society, you consent to being taxed, much in a similar manner to how operating a car means you consent to following the jurisdictional traffic laws.

CAPICHA: hoity-toity

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked