Yes |
 |
60.4% (134) |
No |
|
38.7% (86) |
Poll: Is drafting people into the military a form of slavery? Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT | |
No it's yours. Being unemployed is not in the same ballpark as "the government comes and puts you in prison because you made a choice they deemed illegal" | |
...are you serious? Nations. COUNTRIES. The colored swaths of land on the globe. Those things.
Well let's say the citizenry 'wants it to', but a large portion of the folks don't 'want' to be the ones to do it. If the government is still short, it's got to put hands on those rifles somehow.
Indeed, see above.
So what if it is? The DPRK has a right to protect its lands and citizens against a foreign aggressor intent on wiping them out.
Not even if it means certain destruction of the lands and people it protects? (I probably should have asked you this first)
Doesn't have to be the Nazis, hell the Americans, the Spanish, the British, all have engaged in genocide from time to time. My example is theoretical. Some force (whomever you want it to be) intent on the destruction of your nation.
You are now putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about conscription as a precautionary measure, but as a reactionary one to a real and tangible threat. You say these extremes don't exist, but I can point to multiple points in histories where cultures have been wiped out by other ones. They may not exist now (which is why we're speaking theoretically), but they have existed and (given humanity's track record) the possibility of it coming up again is not zero. So this is a discussion of if such circumstances were to happen again (as they have happened in the past), when is conscription justified. So, here it is; the grand old question: if a nation falls under attack from a foe intent on killing everyone in it, the people demand that the government defend them but the government's voluntary resources are insufficient to fend the invaders off (but, again, the people still want to be defended) why is it better for everyone in that country to die? | |
I'm pretty sure it's not. You believe that people have the choice to leave their job even if the consequence is death. If you apply that principal to the conscription example, as the other guy does, then you do in fact have the choice to leave even if the consequence is death. Extending it further, you then apply the same principal to rape and murder. You can still choose to do it, even though the consequence would be death.
And here's the thing. You seem to think that people can still choose to do things even if the consequence of those choices are death, while I and the other guy are operating on the understandable assumption- as does the legal system- that death as a consequence rules out choice.
To be fair the terms 'nation', 'state', and 'country' are all different things. A nation is self-identified group of people. A state is a governing body for and of those people. A country is the area of land that state can defend. Examples: The Kurds are a nation, but lack a state or a country. Until Israel, the Jews were a nation and a state unto themselves, but they lacked a country. Y'see? | |
They do. No one's going to stop them.
Unemployment is not a death sentence, nor is it a guarantee that you won't find a different job. | |
Yes, I am very serious. What do you think nations are? Give me a definition.
There are numerous alterantives to conscription if that were the case.
So let me get this straight. You think a government that routinely commits human rights abuses against its citizens has the right to conscript the citizens of its country to fight for its continued existence? Yeah, you're just bullshitting right now.
You're talking in extremes again. It's highly improbable that an invasion force would want total destruction of the land its trying to conquer, even less so of the people.
Can you prove it was because of lack of volunteers?
Well, actually yes it is.
Never
Please point to one example in history where a nation was attacked by a foe intent on pilaging its lands and committing genocide against its people, prove that a lack of volunteers was the reason the defending nation lost and then prove that it will happen again in the future. | |
They have the freedom from being prevented from leaving their job. But they don't have the freedom to leave their job, if that means death. Unless they don't mind dying. Perhaps that's the key difference.
I've actually met people in person for whom it actually is. Remember, only about 1/7th[1] of the people on Earth are lucky enough to be in a situation like yours. Ex: Tenant farmer in Cambodia. He cannot own his own land. He works on someone else's land and gives that person a cut of his produce. If he stops work, he starves. If he finds another landlord to live, he's working again. Having the ability to choose your owner doesn't make you any less of a slave. So, you see, as Marx said, 'work' in general can be seen as slavery. You can simply refuse to work at all, but you won't be able to face the consequences if you do. When it comes to dodging the draft, you can still do it, you just won't be able to face the consequences if you do. I don't see the difference here. [1] USA+Europe+Canada. Could be wrong. | |
Not at all. I simply don't leap to the assumptions you do and you confuse disagreeing with you for pretending to be ignorant.
That's a lot of hot air just to tell me that you didn't read the first line of the post you just replied to. I suppose I'll need to repeat it again. "Didn't" doesn't preclude "couldn't". In fact if I couldn't do something then I necessarily didn't do it. If someone couldn't do something and they say they didn't do it then they aren't lying, what they said was quite true. So again, you're still making incorrect assumptions. You assumed "didn't" precludes "couldn't". Hell, that isn't even an ignorant assumption, it's simply a flat out incorrect belief it seems.
The only thing we have to say that it is reality is... drum roll please... your word. You claim you observed something, but of course such a claim can easily be dismissed as whatever you observe cannot equate consent with a vote as consent must be more explicit.
Or you just don't understand that someone disagrees with you. It's simple, you just claim that the world is a certain way without anything to back you except your own word about what reality is. You're unable to argue on the most basic of levels.
You seem to be missing something besides your own word, like evidence. Is this really how you act all the time? You throw a fit unless someone just takes your unsupported word to be true? | |
Yeah, and die alone on the street! What a choice!!
I didn't say I was forced to do chores. I was forced to get a job. You have an incorrect definition of slavery. Get over it. | |
Fuck Marx, choosing a different person to work for is kind of significant. "Having the ability to choose your owner doesn't make you any less of a slave." Listen to yourself. Seriously. If you can switch employers on your own free will then they are not your owners and it's not slavery.
What do you mean no consequences, the government punishes you if they catch you dodging the draft. [1] USA+Europe+Canada. Could be wrong. | |
Stop being such a drama queen. It's not like unemployed will surely lead to death or there's only one job available.
What a major difference. | |
1) You're defining contracts very narrowly. Not all contracts are written. Oral and even implied contracts can still be enforced in court under English/American legal principles as well as statutes in many jurisdictions. For example, the lunchroom trade of a sandwich for a pudding cup is just as much a contract as a service agreement or EULA. 2) By residing or even simply being within a jurisdiction, you automatically consent and agree to several basic agreements (follow the law, pay taxes, etc.) for which you receive benefits (protection of the law, public education, etc.). The benefits of official citizenship (mainly the ability to influence policy, via voting, among others) comes in exchange for the greater responsibilities (the potential to be drafted when the state deems it necessary being the relevant one to our discussion). These are the social contracts that one makes with the rest of their state/nation/tribe that found the basis of civilized society. 3) If you are a citizen, you have the ability to influence policy via your actions at the ballot box, including preexisting policy (in this case, the draft). It doesn't mean you get your way all the time. A part of the agreement of a democracy is the acceptance of the will of the majority as determined by the political system (within certain constitutional limits), which, in turn, means following the law as set until the majority of voters decide to change it. In short, through your existence within a democracy, you have accepted (i.e. "okay'ed") the creation and operation of a draft as a policy. | |
PercyBoelyn, A nation as in a portion of land defined by set borders, language, culture, and governance; e.g. France, or Russia. That is what I mean. I didn't think that was so obscure. Now, regarding your requisite 'proofs', The Spanish pretty much wiped out the Aztecs, destroyed their culture (and their government) to the point that there is no Aztec nation any longer. So there's your one example. I do not need to prove that if the Aztecs had produced conscripts, they would have succeeded, because that is not relevant to my argument. My argument is theoretical as in "if producing conscripts could have made the difference, they should have". I do not need to prove that it will happen in the future because, again, this argument is theoretical. So we need not concern ourselves whether it will happen, but what would be the appropriate measures if it does. If you truly believe it cannot possibly happen, well you have a lot more faith in humanity than I do. But again, this is a theoretical argument. Mortal Gravesend was much more forthcoming when he honestly answered "Certain destruction is no excuse for impinging on someone's rights" (or words to that effect). That answer satisfies all questions theoretical or actual. So is that your contention? If there existed a culture bent on destroying yours (I'm not asking if there is one, but -theoretically- if there were), and you (as the man in charge) knew that the volunteers your nation has recruited thus far would not be enough to save you, you would still say -unequivocally- that it is better for you and everyone in your nation to die (or suffer substantially greater losses - why be all doom and gloom?) than put more men on the line (who may have otherwise simply sat back and hoped the troops you fielded would be enough) to defend that nation? P.S. Yes I do believe that North Korea has the right to defend itself against a force intent on wiping them out. Their social policy is irrelevant. If someone is intent on destroying them, I fully expect them to do everything they can to defend themselves - just free nations would as antithetical as the DPRK is to a 'free nation'. I probably would not shed any tears if they lost, I just acknowledge their right to do so. | |
I'm going to say "Yes" but i'm opposed to military action in general. If the war was absolutely necessary and the army was too small maybe i'd change my tune, but the last several drafts related to wars where America invaded a developing nation as part of a dick waving competition with the Soviets, and i'm DEFINITELY opposed to a draft with wars against nations that don't even remotely resemble a threat. | |
I didn't say "No consequences..." Fine, you're right. I can't be bothered with this. I'm wrong and my position is unjustifiable and clearly based on invalid arguments. | |
This was a trap you just walked into. Nations and countries are not the same and you inadvertently melded the definitions together. A nation is a group with a shared cultural identity (which often includes, but is not limited to, a shared language, culture, and mythology). For example, Russia actually has several nations within its territory, such as Russians, Chechnyans, and others. A country is a geographic area with defined political boundaries. | |
Okay, so what what this supposed "survival war" would boil down to is the preservation of culture and government. What if I want to preserve neither?
Stop trying to weasel your way around that. The effectiveness of conscription is directly tied to your argument. If the purpose of conscription, in your "theoretical example" is to prevent genocide but you fail to prove where conscription did so then your argument is null and void. You're basically saying that people should fight and die a losing battle for no reason at all instead of trying to flee and, you know, survive. If conscription doesn't make a difference then it's pointless. If the people of a nation do not want to defend their culture or government then that's their choice to make, not yours.
You're arguing for the implementation of a system that gives the government the right to force you to fight for its continued existence. You're trying to justify that position by creating a fictitious scenario in which it will happen, even though history proves you wrong. If we justified every single tyrannical law based on theoretical scenarios we'd still have slaves by now.
And I completely agree with him. What's your point?
I would never infringe on my people's right to self determination. It's THEIR choice to make whether they want to defend THEIR culture, not mine. At best, I can inspire them but at no point will I ever force them to defend something they do not believe in.
Wars are not fought to commit genocide. You're being absurd. If a war were ever to be fought against North Korea its purpose would be to remove the current regime.
And I do not. The fact that the government of North Korea would willingly throw millions of their own people's lives away just so the reigning regime would continue to reign and oppress the population makes me sick. | |
Indeed, sir, your user name does you credit. You are a gentleman, much appreciated. However; I really don't much care because it's semantics anyway. The true trap was being drawn into a discussion on what a nation or country was. Suffice it to say, I was going for the latter definition; but it's not exclusive for the sake of this argument. | |
My point was, I didn't know if that was your position because you consistently refused to answer direct questions. I got a sense that it was, but it took a fair bit of doing to get that out of you. Christ almighty, finally.
So your answer is 'yes' you would rather let them die than make them fight. Fine, thank you. I vehemently disagree, but thank you.
All the same, genocide can be a side effect. --So good, we've established that you are of the opinion that "if they choose not to fight, what happens to them is their own doing for better or worse". Outstanding. I can't believe it took that many posts to get that out of you. So now we've got something to talk about. My position, frankly, is much broader than that. First, I do believe that the government has the right to compel its citizens -at the very least- to defend their borders if attacked. That just comes with the territory of being a part of whatever nation you happen to be a part of. I believe that the virtue of being a citizen reserves an inherent duty to defend the country you are a citizen of. Throughout the years, conscription has accomplished a lot. From preserving the very Union of my home country, to keeping barbarian hordes at bay. Now, yes, it can be and often has been abused. Which is why I appreciate and -to a degree- agree with the trepidation surrounding it. But this, in my view, does not exclude it as a viable option when the entire nation is threatened. Personal liberty is important to me, I think Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" quote is one of the most important with regard to the Revolution itself, and the government established thereafter. Ironically, that is exactly and literally what you are advocating; which weakens my position some, no doubt. I, however, contend that liberty has its limits. That there are times for personal liberties to be suspended to serve the collective good. Those. Are. Dangerous. Times. Not just because 'suspension' can easily turn into 'dissolution'. But because where, exactly that line begins and ends is hazy. So great care must be taken to ensure that whatever liberties are suspended, it should be for a specific reason and the length of which should be for a specific time. See, I appreciate the value of being academically, morally 'right', but I also appreciate that being morally 'right' may not always be worth it when the alternative is death. How I rationalize that is as follows: assuming the enemy, with his superior force, does not believe ANY of that; that if he is successful in his conquest our high-and-mighty morals will die with us - then nothing is gained if he succeeds, and the world is a darker place for it; and we slide that much backwards as a species. If, however, we acknowledge what we are doing would be in all other cases 'wrong', but is in this case necessary to preserve the culture we value so dearly; then our course may be unpalatable, but at least it is clear. And maybe someday, long after the last bullet is fired, someone who wasn't facing down what we were facing down will have the freedom to hop on the internet and complain about how terrible it was. | |
What questions did I refuse to answer?
No. It's becoming very clear to me that you're purposefully misinterpreting what I said. The point isn't about letting them "die" in this fictitious scenario of yours. It's to let them choose if they want to fight and support their culture and, more importantly, their government. Choice is extremely important, it's the difference between tyranny and democracy. If you don't understand that then visit North Korea for a couple of days.
Again, you're misinterpreting what I said.
A citizen of any state should not be forced to fight for that states ideals based on some arbitrary factors that he had no control over. Just because you live somewhere doesn't mean that particular area owns your life and can do with it whatever it desires. If you believe your ideals are worth fighting for then go ahead and fight. However, don't pretend like everyone has the same beliefs as you and don't try and force other people to join your fight.
Why? What part of my birth and life compells me to give away my life for a nation because of arbitrary factors if I do not want too? The government works for me, not the other way around, and in a democratic society it will obey my command. If it refuses to do so it will be removed. A government cannot force me to fight for its ideals if I do not want to do so. Maybe I agree with the invader's cause and want to fight for them, should I not have that right? Should I not have the possibility to fight for what I believe in, instead of fighting for what my government believes in?
The only thing it has accomplished is subjugate the liberty of the people. You live in the US, a country that supposedly values liberty, and yet you want to have a draft. That's assinine.
If certain states wanted to secede they should have been allowed to do so. What the US did was conscript a bunch of people against their will to fight in a war they might not have agreed with in order to conquer a part of your union that did not want to be subjected to the rule of your government.
I don't remember the Roman Empire ever instating a draft.
But the collective good is whatever the people want it to be. What you're suggesting is that we instate a system that forces the people to work towards a "goal" that is not their own. Essentially, you want them to fight for your ideals whether they like it or not.
You're trying to justify the draft by giving fictitious examples of a worst case scenario that has never happened in the entire history of humanity.
I don't know if your opinion is based on American nationalistic propaganda or not but it sure as hell sounds like it.
You're making the assumption that everyone in your country appreciates its culture.
You lost me, you seriously did. I have no fucking clue what you're talking about. | |
If I am misinterpreting anything, it's not on purpose. So let's hear it. I have gone out of my way several times to express what I do and do not believe, so why don't you make your position crystal clear before we discuss anything else, k? Now I get that you are against conscription, even if it leads to destruction. I don't understand how commuting that to "Let everyone die rather than conscript" is such a gross misinterpretation. Help a brother out. | |
I do know that, hence why I'm involved in this discussion at all. I recognize that it's probably the vast majority of the public agree with your opinion and I don't understand why, though I am starting to get a better picture. | |
I had to sign up for the draft, and if I had gotten drafted, I would have done everything in my power to avoid it. Fuck that. I am NOT getting sent off to get my ass shot in some fucking war designed primarily to enrich those in power, as pretty much all modern American military excursions are. Easiest way to get out of being drafted? Join the Air Force. You have FAR less chance of seeing combat in the AF than in any other branch. Not that the draft is ever coming back. | |
I've already explained it in my previous reply to you.
I'm glad you are. People don't like to be messed with, even less so when it's an entity that supposedly serves in their best interests. I do believe a certain ammount of personal liberties need to be limited for the good of society as a whole, for example taxes and healthcare, but I cannot and never will agree to giving the government the right to decide whether I live or die. I refused to be dragged into a conflict just because my government needs cannon fodder. | |
They were a huge detriment to the government but not to individuals. Multiple corporations and politicians linked with them made insane amounts of money due to Iraq/Afghanistan. Ignoring all of the contracts given out (many given to companies who would hire the officials they got the contracts from after they left the government) massive profits were made off of selling Afghani resources. Many of the people who made money off of the war were the people who ok'd it in the first place. Rumsfeld is a great example of a complete bastard who got rich off of soldiers dying. Soldiers he helped convince people should be sent. | |
You are fed well, you can live your life, and you aren't forced into it forever. Slavery is life long. In the armed forces, you're more than a person. | |
Surely there are things one can do for their country that do not involve being in the armed forces.
No, you're not. I'm sorry, I just don't buy into all this "uniform equals heroism and should warrant automatic respect" bullshit. | |
You dont know all there is to know about slaves do you? Some slaves got paid, and slaves in Rome had rights. It was merely illegal to not follow orders. BAM! there. They were slaves, got paid and had rights. But they were slaves. This is being put into a job against your will to potentionally risk your life. Aand its illegal not to follow orders. Alright, maybe its more akin to Indebtured Servitude, but in many western countries that illegal too. For are reason. Also, we dont have drafting. And our military is doing fine, so this is never something that would be required. There will always be enough volunteers to shoot people.
No, we were arguing whenever it was slavery or not. Or whenever Drafting is something that should be implemented 'now'. | |
Actually, not even that. You're less than a person. You're a tool to be expended. | |
Yeah, it probably is a bit of slavery. So what? What's your goddamn point, aside from going for the kneejerk 'slavery is bad' response. You know what else is bad? Tyranny, injustice, and genocide. Also, for the record ahead of time - mentioning the Nazis in a thread like this is not an invocation of Godwin's Law, so kindly fuck off into a gutter. Alright, here we go. You're facing an enemy - like, say, the fucking Nazis - who are genocidal, tyrannical, conquering maniacs bent on world domination. They have a draft going, they're throwing as many soldiers into the field as you can. Can you seriously tell me that the correct response is to lie back and wait to die because you can't get enough people willing to sign up to fight? Because that's what would have happened in World War II. Russia, Britain, the United States, -every- nation would have fallen under the Nazi jackboot if the Allied nations had refused to utilize a draft to field sufficient numbers to attack the Germans. There simply would not have been enough soldiers to stop the enemy, because most people are not brave enough to sign up knowing that they'll be sent to the front lines and have to kill or be killed. Contemplate that. And don't tell me I'm wrong, you all know I'm not. If the Allied Nations had not drafted soldiers the Allied Nations would have been defeated. Now, maybe eventually the Nazi state would have collapsed under one form or another but World War II would have been an Axis victory. The RAF would likely have been defeated in the Battle of Britain, unable to field enough planes to stop the Luftwaffe. The Russians would have been unable to stop the German advance, they had enough trouble with conscripts. The United States wouldn't have had near the numbers with an all-volunteer force to fight wars in three theaters of war. So congratulations, all your strict morality has bought you is the heel of a jackboot because you refused to do what must be done to stop tyranny. Human beings are frail, cowardly beings and if you have to force them to fight evil at the barrel of a gun or by shackling them so be it, better to be a slave for a time than to be enslaved for your life. Now, are all drafts justified? No, of course not. But the idea that the draft is -never- justified, as Boleyn seems to think, is not only idiocy, it's insanity. You're not being brave and sticking to your morals, that mindset is pure imbecility. | |
You can't really live your life if you get killed, which has a fair chance of happening.
No, you don't. They've never given me anything more valuable than my life.
You do know sometimes they could be freed? Or were you too busy making up definitions for your own convenience to stop to check the real one?
Nah, you're a tool. Like a tool to kill people.
No, you certainly aren't. I don't gain extra rights by being in the armed forces, I lose rights. | |
Ozzie, Ozzie, Ozzie... sucks to be you. | |
Rome conscripted people to become Limitinae or "border guards" shortly before they were over-run by the Age of Invasion. They conscripted the kids and offered them the most meagre mustering out benefits, and expected them to fight. It didn't work. Conscription is a desperate move by a scared government and should be taken as a sign of weakness. | |
I just feel that while it may be better in the long run, the ends do not justify the means in this case (I don't think people should be enslaved by their own country under almost any circumstances[1]). I mean, it is easy to look back at past conscription and say "Well I'm alive because of that, therefore it is good", but the point was that at the time of conscription, you didn't (probably) exist, so that ceases to be a valid argument (you would be arguing for lives that haven't actually happened). If conscription happened today, you probably wouldn't argue that it is good because your possible future-babies will get to live (completely ignoring the fact that by killing enemy soldiers through conscripted service you'd likely be killing THEIR future-babies, who, just by the way, had no say in the war and would be just as justified in not being killed as your babies). If you really want to promote socially beneficial actions (like volunteering for the military in times of war, to keep with the conscription theme), then you could probably get a hold of a social psychologist to give the government a few pointers on how to rally the troops. EDIT: I just saw a way that conscription could be a valid way to recruit (senordosel mentioned it, though I probably got the name wrong). If the country, democratically (with a HUGE majority), wants to institute conscription, possibly because they don't want either a) everyone volunteering and then having too few remainders to work the factories/whatever, or b) they don't want the selection process of who has to stay to be an executive power belonging to anyone, so they'd prefer it to be random selection to remove biases, or c) they only want conscription if almost everyone wants it, but they don't want the people who care about the country the most to be the ones who die in war[2]. So yeah, conscription as a way of random selection in a conscription-supporting nation. [1] I say almost any because there may be a situation I can't presently think of in which I might find it acceptable. [2] So almost everyone wants to go, but you don't want the people most likely to volunteer first to be the ones who die the most, because they are the same people who would be the more motivated contributors after the war, and seeing as everyone wants the best for the country, they wouldn't want the 'best for the country' to be the ones most likely to die. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT | |
Everyone has the right to quit their job. Everyone has a right to try to live on their own without a job. You're right that not everyone will succeed but they can all try.
Yes they can. There are consequences to it that some people may not be able to deal with, but they can still do it.
If I have a job I hate there's a way to get out if it. It may not be the wisest thing to do but you can still do it. Drafted? No way out except maybe shooting yourself in the foot (literally).
I don't see how that's blackmail but I guess that makes the draft not OK.