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 PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Hmm. Kind of a fuzzy area. The military doesnt 'own' the conscript, per se, but they are being forced to work a job they'd probably rather not.

That said, conscription ight soetimes be necessary, but only for defensive actions, and not just for reasons of morality; a conscript would be far more likely to fight for you if his home, country and family was on the line than if you were attacking someone else.

Involves punishment for not doing what you are told by someone you did not choose to join and/ or follow. CHECK

No or little choice for future that can be made than yourself. CHECK

People leaving their country to avoid it. CHECK

It seems very possible

Its a very strange sort of slavery that gives its "slaves" guns, medical treatment, regular food, pay, transport, human rights, sleep, bedding and clothes. Almost as if it wasn't slavery at all in any way whatsoever......

On closer inspection of Roman military records you will find that the Limitanei started off being recruited in the normal way, but due to the bad conditions and remuneration involved for the thankless task nobody wanted to do the job. This meant Rome began to use methods like press-gangs, purchased slaves, village round-ups, debtors, and so forth to fill their ranks. Desertion rates were high, and the Limitanei were definitely not volunteers, they were there under government compulsion, ergo conscripts.

In fact there is good reason to think that Constantine'e reforms of the military were one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Empire, and the role of the Limitanei formed a substantial element of that decline.

Corporal Yakob:
Its a very strange sort of slavery that gives its "slaves" guns, medical treatment, regular food, pay, transport, human rights, sleep, bedding and clothes. Almost as if it wasn't slavery at all in any way whatsoever......

It's almost as if you know nothing about slaves if you think feeding them, clothing them, giving them bedding, and letting them sleep warrant mentioning. That's just the obvious stuff. Guns, medical treatment, and transport are needed for them to do their job. But apparently according to you they don't give slaves the tools they need to do their job or transport them to the places they need them to do their jobs at. It's also as if you don't understand what involuntary servitude is. Human rights, btw, is questionable if you're forcing them to fight to the death. Some, sure. But that's nothing new.

PlatonicRapist:
In fact there is good reason to think that Constantine'e reforms of the military were one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Empire, and the role of the Limitanei formed a substantial element of that decline.

It's not the reforms, they quite simply had more land than soldiers to defend it. It had nothing to do with the calibre of the soldiers themselves. Pressganged Romans were still better soldiers than most tribal warbands because they had better gear and training. The reforms weren't a cause, they were a symptom.

The shit only started hitting the fan when Germanic tribes who had become the mayor suppliers of professional soldiers realised they'd become more powerfull than the Romans in their respective provinces. The Dutch tribe of the Batavians for instance had over 50% of the male population in Roman service when they rebelled, and still adhered to the ancient Germanic religions in which heroic death in battle was basically the only respectable thing a man could do. The Romans however had relied on the Batavians for their military strength in the Netherlands and western Germany, so the resulting destruction of two legions and the defeat and besieging of two more (likely more than four times the strength the Batavians had) wasn't so much a result of their limitanei being crap, but of the fact that the elite of their military turned on the weakest part of their military.


Basically, it doesn't matter much how a soldier is recruited. It matters what sort of training and material they receive, their willingness to remain loyal, and only then maybe some resentment.

An example that comes to mind is during Japan's late medieval period when foreign influences came in. Armies of peasant conscripts quite literally blew away feudal samurai once they'd gotten decent muskets and the training to use them.

The same occured in western Europe, when first crossbows and later gunpowder weapons made knights and their training obsolete.

Blablahb:

PlatonicRapist:
In fact there is good reason to think that Constantine'e reforms of the military were one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Empire, and the role of the Limitanei formed a substantial element of that decline.

It's not the reforms, they quite simply had more land than soldiers to defend it. It had nothing to do with the calibre of the soldiers themselves. Pressganged Romans were still better soldiers than most tribal warbands because they had better gear and training. The reforms weren't a cause, they were a symptom.

The shit only started hitting the fan when Germanic tribes who had become the mayor suppliers of professional soldiers realised they'd become more powerfull than the Romans in their respective provinces. The Dutch tribe of the Batavians for instance had over 50% of the male population in Roman service when they rebelled, and still adhered to the ancient Germanic religions in which heroic death in battle was basically the only respectable thing a man could do. The Romans however had relied on the Batavians for their military strength in the Netherlands and western Germany, so the resulting destruction of two legions and the defeat and besieging of two more (likely more than four times the strength the Batavians had) wasn't so much a result of their limitanei being crap, but of the fact that the elite of their military turned on the weakest part of their military.


Basically, it doesn't matter much how a soldier is recruited. It matters what sort of training and material they receive, their willingness to remain loyal, and only then maybe some resentment.

An example that comes to mind is during Japan's late medieval period when foreign influences came in. Armies of peasant conscripts quite literally blew away feudal samurai once they'd gotten decent muskets and the training to use them.

The same occured in western Europe, when first crossbows and later gunpowder weapons made knights and their training obsolete.

Actually Press ganged Roman soldiers WEREN'T better than tribal warriors. They were over-run by superior nomadic cavalry, and that is why there is no Roman Empire today. Few troops were as poorly trained, or remunerated as the Roman Limitanei, and they were under-equipped too. The bulk of the "barbarians" made up the ranks of the Comitatenses, not the Limitanei. Furthermore, the Limitanei didn't have muskets, they had a spear and a shield and a helmet, and not much more, and they really didn't want to be where they were. They had no crossbows or muskets, nor any other advantage.

And yes, it does matter how a soldier is recruited. Would you fight to the death to defend someone who kidnapped you and forced you to be in their army ? I'd frag their tent, poison them or desert at the first opportunity, and I wouldn't be alone in that I assure you.

Corporal Yakob:
Its a very strange sort of slavery that gives its "slaves" guns, medical treatment, regular food, pay, transport, human rights, sleep, bedding and clothes. Almost as if it wasn't slavery at all in any way whatsoever......

"Here, have a gun. Now go pacify that village and hope you don't die-- if you disobey, we'll imprison/kill you as a deserter. Don't worry, you still have human rights. Hurray for freedom!"

Seanchaidh:
"Here, have a gun. Now go pacify that village and hope you don't die-- if you disobey, we'll imprison/kill you as a deserter. Don't worry, you still have human rights. Hurray for freedom!"

Be sure to include the bit of having enjoyed all the privileges of citizenship for years and years up to that point, and having chosen to join the army instead of serving prison time as a replacement.

PlatonicRapist:

Actually Press ganged Roman soldiers WEREN'T better than tribal warriors. They were over-run by superior nomadic cavalry, and that is why there is no Roman Empire today. Few troops were as poorly trained, or remunerated as the Roman Limitanei, and they were under-equipped too. The bulk of the "barbarians" made up the ranks of the Comitatenses, not the Limitanei. Furthermore, the Limitanei didn't have muskets, they had a spear and a shield and a helmet, and not much more, and they really didn't want to be where they were. They had no crossbows or muskets, nor any other advantage.

And yes, it does matter how a soldier is recruited. Would you fight to the death to defend someone who kidnapped you and forced you to be in their army ? I'd frag their tent, poison them or desert at the first opportunity, and I wouldn't be alone in that I assure you.

The Limitanei were perfectly well equipped compared to the average Germanic invader. They got a spear, shield and a chainmail coat, for instance. They weren't that badly paid - but they were distinctly second class compared to the comitatenses, and they lived in miserable, poor shithole border towns.

The Roman Empire - the Western half - collapsed for lots of reasons, of which barbarian cavalry was a fraction of the problem. In practice, of course, the Romans simply employed one bunch of barbarians with superior cavalry to fight another - as they'd done for centuries, right back to before they had an empire and there were Numidians, Gauls, etc. to provide superior cavalry.

A more significant problem might be that the many problems of the Western Roman Empire caused its army to virtually cease to exist. When Aetius fought at Chalons (451), he probably couldn't scrape together even 20,000 Roman troops, hence why he needed the Visigoths and Alans to provide so much of the army. Given the population of the Roman Empire, it can hardly have been a manpower limitation, but a far more widespread collapse.

Agema:

PlatonicRapist:

Actually Press ganged Roman soldiers WEREN'T better than tribal warriors. They were over-run by superior nomadic cavalry, and that is why there is no Roman Empire today. Few troops were as poorly trained, or remunerated as the Roman Limitanei, and they were under-equipped too. The bulk of the "barbarians" made up the ranks of the Comitatenses, not the Limitanei. Furthermore, the Limitanei didn't have muskets, they had a spear and a shield and a helmet, and not much more, and they really didn't want to be where they were. They had no crossbows or muskets, nor any other advantage.

The Limitanei were perfectly well equipped compared to the average Germanic invader. They got a spear, shield and a chainmail coat, for instance. They weren't that badly paid - but they were distinctly second class compared to the comitatenses, and they lived in miserable, poor shithole border towns.

The Roman Empire - the Western half - collapsed for lots of reasons, of which barbarian cavalry was a fraction of the problem. In practice, of course, the Romans simply employed one bunch of barbarians with superior cavalry to fight another - as they'd done for centuries, right back to before they had an empire and there were Numidians, Gauls, etc. to provide superior cavalry.

A more significant problem might be that the many problems of the Western Roman Empire caused its army to virtually cease to exist. When Aetius fought at Chalons (451), he probably couldn't scrape together even 20,000 Roman troops, hence why he needed the Visigoths and Alans to provide so much of the army. Given the population of the Roman Empire, it can hardly have been a manpower limitation, but a far more widespread collapse.

Funny story here! You know how you corrected me a while back on this thread about Limitanei being conscripted? Well.. that prompted me to start reading a book about Constantine. I'm part way through it now, and am currently reading about the social decay present in the late WRE during the rise of Christianity.

The author suggests in passing that the WRE did indeed have less population growth, and a smaller recruitment pool (compared to surrounding tribes and states) as a result of the centuries-old acceptance of infanticide, desire for male children, and poor sanitation.

The rest of your post is spot on though - it could have been lifted off of the pages I'm reading! Limitanei were by and large better equipped than the barbarians, and weren't all that bad - there are apparently records of them going on extended campaign with the comitatenses as 'pseudocomitatenses', which a militia as bad as Platonicrapist describes simply couldn't do.

Certainly, the nomadic cavalries were good, but that wasn't the reason for Rome's fall - they'd defeated similar in earlier centuries, and during the migration period hired a lot themselves as auxiliaries - it didn't help them in the end!

The problem was sheer numbers - the urbanites were excluded from conscription, there were barbarian migrations and incursions everywhere, the Foedrati that fought for Rome had to be allowed to settle (causing cultural dissolution), there was no money (because the Empire was a growth based economy), and the ruling elite fought constantly and were occasionally batshit insane.

You can't really blame the barbarians, and certainly not conscription - Rome tore itself apart.

Technically yes, but sometimes you have to determine whether a situation calls for a draft or not. In World War 2, yes. But in the Vietnam war, hell no. It will probably be a very long time before this question needs to seriously asked thankfully.

Although if you call drafting outright slavery, you could call taxation theft. Very different subjects, similar logic.

Caramel Frappe:
In all honesty, it's not slavery.

In slavery, you are not treated as a human being and used for whatever the people who own you see fit thus they can punish you however they wish no matter how inhumane it is. But being drafted into the military is a 'far less' but 'still ugly' comparison to slavery. You'll be treated like a soldier, forced to improve yourself (fitness wise) and fight a cause you never felt like you needed to get yourself involved in.

Least when you're drafted into the army, you have a reason- to fight for your country. Sure you don't have to agree with the reasons on war but you do have people wanting to hurt say America that you live in so it gives a cause. If you succeed or die- the army will treat you like one of their own and give you ether a proper burial or give you medals (if you've made it through the war). In slavery, you don't get anything and you're still used and treated like crap. The army can be harsh but they're not going to physically harm you with weapons made for slavery along with doing tormenting things to you for no given reason other then showing the others not to cross them.

Untrue, the Romans had legalized and policed slavery, it had multiple laws protecting the slaves from being murdered or abused without due cause (remember they still killed you for bumping into a consul back then) so the slaves were treated very well (except for the women and young boys...you can sorta guess what happened to them.)

And slavery is a rather harsh way of putting it, conscription is more...free guns and a holiday.

Blablahb:

Seanchaidh:
"Here, have a gun. Now go pacify that village and hope you don't die-- if you disobey, we'll imprison/kill you as a deserter. Don't worry, you still have human rights. Hurray for freedom!"

Be sure to include the bit of having enjoyed all the privileges of citizenship for years and years up to that point, and having chosen to join the army instead of serving prison time as a replacement.

So it's a choice between go and die in a muddy field or go and get the shit kicked out of you and raped in prison while the media vilifies you?

What part of that seems reasonable to you?

mdk31:
They're only slaves if they don't pay them. The definition of slavery is labor without payment. Since drafted soldiers are paid, it's not slavery. Still shitty, but calling it slavery is false.

You are incorrect.

Slavery is forced service (with or without payment) in a job you have no desire to perform, with attempts to leave said job being met with assault, death incarceration or slander.

^Conscription is slavery, but at times it is a necessary form of it.

Bob112-:
So it's a choice between go and die in a muddy field or go and get the shit kicked out of you and raped in prison while the media vilifies you?

What part of that seems reasonable to you?

The part where I ask what the hell you're talking about. I don't see any connection between my post and your weird assumptions about death, it's locations and prisons.

Blablahb:

Bob112-:
So it's a choice between go and die in a muddy field or go and get the shit kicked out of you and raped in prison while the media vilifies you?

What part of that seems reasonable to you?

The part where I ask what the hell you're talking about. I don't see any connection between my post and your weird assumptions about death, it's locations and prisons.

If that was not your reasoning, then what was your point? You said they are making a choice between prison and serving in the military: what made this hypothetical draftee deserve prison time in the first place? Are you saying that enjoying the "privileges of citizenship" (which is just great when the larger share by far of your life has been spent as a minor without many such privileges, as is typical for a draftee) is a crime worthy of prison? It justifies taxes. It does not justify imprisonment. It does not, then, justify a choice between prison and servitude.

Seanchaidh:
If that was not your reasoning, then what was your point? You said they are making a choice between prison and serving in the military: what made this hypothetical draftee deserve prison time in the first place?

That's not what Bob112 wrote, nor what that post responded to, but more along the lines of what I wrote earlier.

In that case, what makes it justified is that people make laws. These sometimes involve obligations. A nation that that creates passive or active conscription has chosen to put an obligation for (the chance of) military service in the list of duties placed on citizens of that country.

If someone knowingly enjoyed that status for years can't just 'well, I don't like this part, I want to skip it'. That's the same logic as hardcore conservatives who want a society, police, hospitals and everything but cry that taxation is theft; can't pick and choose. Either it's rights and obligations, or neither. Can't first demand all rights and then cherrypick the obligations.

And unless someone is an actual proponent of chaos and they themselves being subjected to physical harm and death arbitrarily, they're hypocrites if they oppose a draft; the primary purpose of armies is to avoid those things being inflicted on a country's citizens by foreign powers.

Well, I say that voluntary military service just strikes me as better than mandatory. Of course if things get messed up enough everyone who can hold a firearm will be drafted, but when you're at that point, going "Don't want that obligation" doesn't even make you a hypocrite; it makes you oblivious to reality.

Blablahb:

Seanchaidh:
If that was not your reasoning, then what was your point? You said they are making a choice between prison and serving in the military: what made this hypothetical draftee deserve prison time in the first place?

That's not what Bob112 wrote, nor what that post responded to, but more along the lines of what I wrote earlier.

In that case, what makes it justified is that people make laws. These sometimes involve obligations. A nation that that creates passive or active conscription has chosen to put an obligation for (the chance of) military service in the list of duties placed on citizens of that country.

If someone knowingly enjoyed that status for years can't just 'well, I don't like this part, I want to skip it'. That's the same logic as hardcore conservatives who want a society, police, hospitals and everything but cry that taxation is theft; can't pick and choose. Either it's rights and obligations, or neither. Can't first demand all rights and then cherrypick the obligations.

So it's democratically justified? Non-discriminatory? Conditional? Whether it is justified or at times necessary isn't the question. The question is whether it is slavery.

And unless someone is an actual proponent of chaos and they themselves being subjected to physical harm and death arbitrarily, they're hypocrites if they oppose a draft; the primary purpose of armies is to avoid those things being inflicted on a country's citizens by foreign powers.

... assuming that a draft is actually necessary to maintain an army capable of preventing such. There is no hypocrisy in thinking that the state should have a volunteer army if one thinks that a volunteer army is sufficient for the needs of the state and its people. There is no hypocrisy in thinking that the draft is the wrong way to expand the army if one is a proponent of utilizing other means, such as giving potential recruits a signing bonus or soldiers better compensation. There is no hypocrisy in saying "I don't want to be a soldier, nor should I have to be, but if we need more soldiers then we should look for ways to increase the number of volunteers."

The hypocrisy that you speak of would exist if the draft was the only way to maintain a capable army, but that is clearly and obviously false.

Drafting would only be slavery if done for no real purpose. Drafting people to defend the country for instance seem perfectly reasonable. Isn't that just asking the people to help their government preserve their country/society? (a bit like taxation or following laws)

Now if it's to start wars abroad that have no real direct impact on the survival of the country it's rather dodgy.

And if we're just talking about mandatory military service than it's nothing more than preparing these people to defend their country if the day would ever come it would be needed. Thinking that's slavery is basically thinking your country isn't worth defending and tbh i find that rather anti-patriotic.

I would say it isn't, and in fact is actually good for a country. Job skills training and the like. Now I think people drafted should be put in non combat roles. But I think it would be a good idea.

Could the allies have won world war 2 without conscription?

generals3:
Drafting would only be slavery if done for no real purpose. Drafting people to defend the country for instance seem perfectly reasonable.

But how do you determine what is reasonable and what is not? Are the interests of the country justifiable reasons to force someone to fight? What if said person did not agree with the interests? What if the interests of the country are things such as production and work? Would it be reasonable to force someone to work in order to stimulate a business which in turn helps the country?

Where do you draw the line?

SillyBear:
Could the allies have won world war 2 without conscription?

Could Germany have started the war without conscription?

PercyBoleyn:

SillyBear:
Could the allies have won world war 2 without conscription?

Could Germany have started the war without conscription?

Started? Yes. Lasted six years? No.

generals3:
Drafting would only be slavery if done for no real purpose.

Quite untrue. It isn't the purpose that makes it slavery or not, it's how it treats people's freedom.

Drafting people to defend the country for instance seem perfectly reasonable. Isn't that just asking the people to help their government preserve their country/society? (a bit like taxation or following laws)

It's asking them to risk their lives when they do not want to. I do not see my life as something that ought to be considered equivalent to money, like a commodity that can be taxed. Sure they can ask for money from me, they do stuff that benefits me, but nothing they do for me is worth my life. Take my money and use it for the greater good, I'll benefit from it as well. Don't risk my life, I may not be alive to reap any rewards. Quite a different scenario.

And if we're just talking about mandatory military service than it's nothing more than preparing these people to defend their country if the day would ever come it would be needed. Thinking that's slavery is basically thinking your country isn't worth defending and tbh i find that rather anti-patriotic.

I'm quite sure I can decided myself if I need to prepare. If I don't intend to fight, well then no need to prepare.

Isn't worth defending? Nah. Nonsense. The worthiness of the cause is irrelevant to it. As for not bothering to defend it myself, why the hell should I care if that's anti-patriotic? I find patriotism generally rather distasteful. Less so than blatant nationalism, but still distasteful.

PercyBoleyn:

SillyBear:
Could the allies have won world war 2 without conscription?

Could Germany have started the war without conscription?

Yes.

Given that Germany was much more militaristically inclined (and twice the population anyway), a war of volunteer armies would have made the WW2 German invasion of France a vast mismatch, and they went through France (even with UK support) fast enough as it was anyway.

* * *

Conscription is what I would term a regretful necessity.

There are perfectly good pragmatic reasons to support it. Waving around arguments on ideology is nice on paper, but precious little use with tanks about to roll over your border.

Put simply, were your nation under threat, in an ideal situation, enough of your population simply offers themselves to fight. However, this is based on a deeply unsafe assumption that all these many individuals have sufficient knowledge or judgement to make the right decision. There are many reasons they may not.

Nor is conscription some sort of one-way street of government control. A government cannot force a sufficiently unhappy population to fight. Miserable troops will desert, mutiny, flee, surrender, and generally fail to fight. In a worst case scenario (for their government), they'll rebel with the nice shiny weapons they've just been given.

Arsen:
Garner resources? Some other agreement between nations? It's all moral to me. .

Is it ok for me to take a plane trip to sweden and kill an old lady for her money?

Mortai Gravesend:

generals3:
Drafting would only be slavery if done for no real purpose.

Quite untrue. It isn't the purpose that makes it slavery or not, it's how it treats people's freedom.

Drafting people to defend the country for instance seem perfectly reasonable. Isn't that just asking the people to help their government preserve their country/society? (a bit like taxation or following laws)

It's asking them to risk their lives when they do not want to. I do not see my life as something that ought to be considered equivalent to money, like a commodity that can be taxed. Sure they can ask for money from me, they do stuff that benefits me, but nothing they do for me is worth my life. Take my money and use it for the greater good, I'll benefit from it as well. Don't risk my life, I may not be alive to reap any rewards. Quite a different scenario.

And if we're just talking about mandatory military service than it's nothing more than preparing these people to defend their country if the day would ever come it would be needed. Thinking that's slavery is basically thinking your country isn't worth defending and tbh i find that rather anti-patriotic.

I'm quite sure I can decided myself if I need to prepare. If I don't intend to fight, well then no need to prepare.

Isn't worth defending? Nah. Nonsense. The worthiness of the cause is irrelevant to it. As for not bothering to defend it myself, why the hell should I care if that's anti-patriotic? I find patriotism generally rather distasteful. Less so than blatant nationalism, but still distasteful.

I would argue the purpose is very important. Would you consider taxation a form of slavery if it's used for the common good? Now what would you think if politicians taxed you only to fill up their own pockets? Wouldn't that be borderline slavery "give me half your wealth or you go to jail". Yet the only difference is the purpose of the action.

I concur that your life isn't the same as money. But than again the situations are different too. When i'm talking about defending your country i mean just that. Your money is merely used to make people's lives a bit more enjoyable, something that isn't worth lives. Meanwhile facing an invading enemy god knows what might be the costs of a defeat. How many millions were persecuted and killed under the commie and nazi occupations? I think drafting people to defend your country against such aggressors is very well worth it. Just like it's worth taxing people for your country not to fall into extreme decrepitude.

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

generals3:
Drafting would only be slavery if done for no real purpose.

Quite untrue. It isn't the purpose that makes it slavery or not, it's how it treats people's freedom.

Drafting people to defend the country for instance seem perfectly reasonable. Isn't that just asking the people to help their government preserve their country/society? (a bit like taxation or following laws)

It's asking them to risk their lives when they do not want to. I do not see my life as something that ought to be considered equivalent to money, like a commodity that can be taxed. Sure they can ask for money from me, they do stuff that benefits me, but nothing they do for me is worth my life. Take my money and use it for the greater good, I'll benefit from it as well. Don't risk my life, I may not be alive to reap any rewards. Quite a different scenario.

And if we're just talking about mandatory military service than it's nothing more than preparing these people to defend their country if the day would ever come it would be needed. Thinking that's slavery is basically thinking your country isn't worth defending and tbh i find that rather anti-patriotic.

I'm quite sure I can decided myself if I need to prepare. If I don't intend to fight, well then no need to prepare.

Isn't worth defending? Nah. Nonsense. The worthiness of the cause is irrelevant to it. As for not bothering to defend it myself, why the hell should I care if that's anti-patriotic? I find patriotism generally rather distasteful. Less so than blatant nationalism, but still distasteful.

I would argue the purpose is very important. Would you consider taxation a form of slavery if it's used for the common good? Now what would you think if politicians taxed you only to fill up their own pockets? Wouldn't that be borderline slavery "give me half your wealth or you go to jail". Yet the only difference is the purpose of the action.

I wouldn't consider it slavery regardless of the purpose it's used for. So that argument fails there. I'd consider it practically extortion though. Why? Because it's not being used for legitimate purposes, it's the same as the mob making me hand over money. But theft and slavery are different, so that's not going anywhere.

I concur that your life isn't the same as money. But than again the situations are different too.

Situation's not going to fix any of my complaints about it.

When i'm talking about defending your country i mean just that.

And if I'm dead it doesn't benefit me. Furthermore, I have been given nothing that is worth my life. I am given services for my taxes.

Your money is merely used to make people's lives a bit more enjoyable, something that isn't worth lives.

Nothing is worth lives. They are irreplaceable for those who lose them, no compensation is great enough because no compensation can be enjoyed while dead.

Meanwhile facing an invading enemy god knows what might be the costs of a defeat. How many millions were persecuted and killed under the commie and nazi occupations?

Doesn't really matter.

I think drafting people to defend your country against such aggressors is very well worth it. Just like it's worth taxing people for your country not to fall into extreme decrepitude.

Taxing people benefits society as a whole, and generally those being taxed. Those being taxed also benefit. Drafting gives me nothing in return. It might be worth it for you, but if I die it is not worth it for me.

Mortai Gravesend:

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

Quite untrue. It isn't the purpose that makes it slavery or not, it's how it treats people's freedom.

It's asking them to risk their lives when they do not want to. I do not see my life as something that ought to be considered equivalent to money, like a commodity that can be taxed. Sure they can ask for money from me, they do stuff that benefits me, but nothing they do for me is worth my life. Take my money and use it for the greater good, I'll benefit from it as well. Don't risk my life, I may not be alive to reap any rewards. Quite a different scenario.

I'm quite sure I can decided myself if I need to prepare. If I don't intend to fight, well then no need to prepare.

Isn't worth defending? Nah. Nonsense. The worthiness of the cause is irrelevant to it. As for not bothering to defend it myself, why the hell should I care if that's anti-patriotic? I find patriotism generally rather distasteful. Less so than blatant nationalism, but still distasteful.

I would argue the purpose is very important. Would you consider taxation a form of slavery if it's used for the common good? Now what would you think if politicians taxed you only to fill up their own pockets? Wouldn't that be borderline slavery "give me half your wealth or you go to jail". Yet the only difference is the purpose of the action.

I wouldn't consider it slavery regardless of the purpose it's used for. So that argument fails there. I'd consider it practically extortion though. Why? Because it's not being used for legitimate purposes, it's the same as the mob making me hand over money. But theft and slavery are different, so that's not going anywhere.

I concur that your life isn't the same as money. But than again the situations are different too.

Situation's not going to fix any of my complaints about it.

When i'm talking about defending your country i mean just that.

And if I'm dead it doesn't benefit me. Furthermore, I have been given nothing that is worth my life. I am given services for my taxes.

Your money is merely used to make people's lives a bit more enjoyable, something that isn't worth lives.

Nothing is worth lives. They are irreplaceable for those who lose them, no compensation is great enough because no compensation can be enjoyed while dead.

Meanwhile facing an invading enemy god knows what might be the costs of a defeat. How many millions were persecuted and killed under the commie and nazi occupations?

Doesn't really matter.

I think drafting people to defend your country against such aggressors is very well worth it. Just like it's worth taxing people for your country not to fall into extreme decrepitude.

Taxing people benefits society as a whole, and generally those being taxed. Those being taxed also benefit. Drafting gives me nothing in return. It might be worth it for you, but if I die it is not worth it for me.

Death is a risk, but it is one as well even if you aren't fighting. And many come back alive from wars. Drafting is not asking you to give up your life but to risk it, there is a difference. It's not like the army asks you to suicide bomb the enemy. But than again, it is obvious that we have different levels of patriotism and i doubt any of us will be able to change the mind of the other.

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

generals3:

I would argue the purpose is very important. Would you consider taxation a form of slavery if it's used for the common good? Now what would you think if politicians taxed you only to fill up their own pockets? Wouldn't that be borderline slavery "give me half your wealth or you go to jail". Yet the only difference is the purpose of the action.

I wouldn't consider it slavery regardless of the purpose it's used for. So that argument fails there. I'd consider it practically extortion though. Why? Because it's not being used for legitimate purposes, it's the same as the mob making me hand over money. But theft and slavery are different, so that's not going anywhere.

I concur that your life isn't the same as money. But than again the situations are different too.

Situation's not going to fix any of my complaints about it.

When i'm talking about defending your country i mean just that.

And if I'm dead it doesn't benefit me. Furthermore, I have been given nothing that is worth my life. I am given services for my taxes.

Your money is merely used to make people's lives a bit more enjoyable, something that isn't worth lives.

Nothing is worth lives. They are irreplaceable for those who lose them, no compensation is great enough because no compensation can be enjoyed while dead.

Meanwhile facing an invading enemy god knows what might be the costs of a defeat. How many millions were persecuted and killed under the commie and nazi occupations?

Doesn't really matter.

I think drafting people to defend your country against such aggressors is very well worth it. Just like it's worth taxing people for your country not to fall into extreme decrepitude.

Taxing people benefits society as a whole, and generally those being taxed. Those being taxed also benefit. Drafting gives me nothing in return. It might be worth it for you, but if I die it is not worth it for me.

Death is a risk, but it is one as well even if you aren't fighting.

Not as high. And if it's my life on the line I get to choose how to risk it. Why? Because they don't own me.

And many come back alive from wars.

And we *know* some won't.

Drafting is not asking you to give up your life but to risk it, there is a difference.

It is saying my death is an acceptable risk. It isn't. It is taking my life out of my control.

It's not like the army asks you to suicide bomb the enemy.

No, they just ask me to risk giving up everything when I get nothing in return worth that risk.

But than again, it is obvious that we have different levels of patriotism and i doubt any of us will be able to change the mind of the other.

Different levels of patriotism? Bleh. Patriotism is not an argument. Patriotism doesn't give you my life as a commodity.

like i always say, i'd rather be a merc than a soldier, you dont have to follow their bullshit and they get what they want

like i always say, i'd rather be a merc than a soldier, you dont have to follow their bullshit and they get what they want

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked