9 ms·

It's not that mercenaries may revolt. It's that people are less likely to support war if it will affect them personally. The is a spectrum for military partici

It's not that mercenaries may revolt. It's that people are less likely to support war if it will affect them personally. The is a spectrum for military participation: conscription -> volunteer professional -> mercenery. With conscription people will be more vested because it can affect their families more personally even if they don't support a war. With a mercenary army not only is the death of strangers easier to ignore, but deaths are not always made public. Look how often we had stats about army deaths/injuries reported daily vs how often you heard about Blackwater deaths during the Iraq war/occupation.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
People are also less likely to support public education, road construction or cleaning up Flint's water if the result is that they will be victims of forced labor. If your goal is simply to bind an unpopular position to a policy you oppose as a political maneuver, that's fine. But lets clearly distinguish political strategy (sneaking your favored choices through democracy by removing preferred choices from the voters) from a normative argument (we should do X because...).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  I don't think your examples work. Public education and road construction don't result in forced labor, they result in increased taxes. The people who vote for public education and road construction already share in the burden of increased taxes. War results in death, but, as the OP points out, people who support war don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    A war with a volunteer army + contractors doesn't result in forced labor either, it results in increased taxes. The people who vote for war already share in the burden of increased taxes. Construction results in (accidental) death, but, as I point out, people who support construction don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.
    - toasterlovin 10y ago
      Let me try this again. Scenario 1: a city votes to do road construction. This results in all residents of that city paying more in taxes. All residents get to decide and all residents pay for the results of their decision. Scenario 2: the U.S. invades Iraq. There are some casualties amongst U.S. Forces as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, many of them civilians. What's different about this scenario is that none of the dead Iraqi civilians or their families had a say in the U.S. decision to go to war. But they pay the overwhelming cost in life. Whereas no Americans at all are required to risk their lives. That is the asymmetry in costs that the OP was talking about.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        You seem to be making a totally different argument against war now. I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that attaching a poison pill such as forced labor to a war-like policy is: a) anti-democratic (since democracy involves allowing the mob to make decisions, including decisions you disagree with) b) not a valid argument against war since all sorts of policies would be horrific if forced labor were involved.
- freshhawk 10y ago
  Consider the fact you are categorizing armed conflict as labor in the first place. Not as the collective action of citizens defending themselves, for whom economic incentives would be dwarfed by more important ones. If the draft isn't justified, how is the war justified? I'm having trouble imagining an ethical system where forced labor is obviously unethical but war for profit isn't.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I didn't say I supported war for profit. I said poof131's argument against it [1] was flawed. [1] I'm assuming he was making an argument against war. It's possible I was misinterpreting him and he was merely suggesting an anti-democratic hack to get around the populist support for war.
    - poof131 10y ago
      I’m suggesting that military service isn’t normal labor and shouldn’t be treated as such. That war isn’t just a Kissingeresque chess move, but a last resort activity. You can’t use lethal force in business. Societies shouldn’t use lethal force as a matter of business. Both people and countries should act only in self defense. War is a social cost that should be born by all members of the society. A draft isn’t an anti-democratic hack anymore than preventing a company from dumping toxic waste in a river is anti-democratic. We inhibit some freedoms to protect other freedoms. Certain actions have externalities beyond the person engaged in them. We have obligations beyond just serving ourselves. Teachers unions don’t overthrow governments, but militaries, private or public, do. I lean libertarian in certain things, but no longer regarding the military. Allowing private companies to wield lethal force with military style units scares me. The military and law enforcement underpin the very laws that the country is built upon. Congress can pass a law, the courts can judge upon it, but without someone willing to pick up a gun and enforce it, laws are nothing more than words on paper. Awhile back I saw an article about a private psyops contractor targeting american journalists who were critical of it, trying to tarnish their reputations. I scoured Google for 20 minutes but couldn’t find it. I believe there really is a threat that these private companies will engage in activities for their own self-interest at the expense of the country. I believe most of these companies do have a lot of patriotic people who are trying to make good money for their families and I don’t think the threat is extreme at the moment but that it grows over time as this becomes the pattern and the gulf widens between the military and the civilian population it’s supposed to protect. I always felt that a key component contributing to the end of the Roman Republican period was the fact the elite echelons of society no longer felt obligated to serve and the soldiers no longer felt an allegiance to them or the institutions they ruled. From wikipedia: “The extensive campaigning abroad by Roman generals, and the rewarding of soldiers with plunder on these campaigns, led to a general trend of soldiers becoming increasingly loyal to their generals rather than to the state.”[1] I don’t want our soldier’s loyalty focused on a paycheck. I’m afraid more of where we are going then where we currently are. Soldiers can’t quit. They can’t unionize. They can’t demand higher wages. But they can use lethal force to achieve their objectives. We need to make sure that those objectives are always in line with democracy. If we don’t, then you can vote all you want and one day it won’t matter, because democracy depends upon the rule of law and that depends upon the will of the military. I prefer a civilian military more than a private military and more than an all volunteer military. I think that is the greatest defense of democracy and the freedom you talk about. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic
walshemj 10y ago
Its the other way around why do you think the Foreign Legion existed

yummyfajitas 10y ago

People are also less likely to support public education, road construction or cleaning up Flint's water if the result is that they will be victims of forced labor. If your goal is simply to bind an unpopular position to a policy you oppose as a political maneuver, that's fine. But lets clearly distinguish political strategy (sneaking your favored choices through democracy by removing preferred choices from the voters) from a normative argument (we should do X because...).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
toasterlovin 10y ago
I don't think your examples work. Public education and road construction don't result in forced labor, they result in increased taxes. The people who vote for public education and road construction already share in the burden of increased taxes. War results in death, but, as the OP points out, people who support war don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  A war with a volunteer army + contractors doesn't result in forced labor either, it results in increased taxes. The people who vote for war already share in the burden of increased taxes. Construction results in (accidental) death, but, as I point out, people who support construction don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.
  - toasterlovin 10y ago
    Let me try this again. Scenario 1: a city votes to do road construction. This results in all residents of that city paying more in taxes. All residents get to decide and all residents pay for the results of their decision. Scenario 2: the U.S. invades Iraq. There are some casualties amongst U.S. Forces as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, many of them civilians. What's different about this scenario is that none of the dead Iraqi civilians or their families had a say in the U.S. decision to go to war. But they pay the overwhelming cost in life. Whereas no Americans at all are required to risk their lives. That is the asymmetry in costs that the OP was talking about.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      You seem to be making a totally different argument against war now. I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that attaching a poison pill such as forced labor to a war-like policy is: a) anti-democratic (since democracy involves allowing the mob to make decisions, including decisions you disagree with) b) not a valid argument against war since all sorts of policies would be horrific if forced labor were involved.
freshhawk 10y ago
Consider the fact you are categorizing armed conflict as labor in the first place. Not as the collective action of citizens defending themselves, for whom economic incentives would be dwarfed by more important ones. If the draft isn't justified, how is the war justified? I'm having trouble imagining an ethical system where forced labor is obviously unethical but war for profit isn't.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I didn't say I supported war for profit. I said poof131's argument against it [1] was flawed. [1] I'm assuming he was making an argument against war. It's possible I was misinterpreting him and he was merely suggesting an anti-democratic hack to get around the populist support for war.
  - poof131 10y ago
    I’m suggesting that military service isn’t normal labor and shouldn’t be treated as such. That war isn’t just a Kissingeresque chess move, but a last resort activity. You can’t use lethal force in business. Societies shouldn’t use lethal force as a matter of business. Both people and countries should act only in self defense. War is a social cost that should be born by all members of the society. A draft isn’t an anti-democratic hack anymore than preventing a company from dumping toxic waste in a river is anti-democratic. We inhibit some freedoms to protect other freedoms. Certain actions have externalities beyond the person engaged in them. We have obligations beyond just serving ourselves. Teachers unions don’t overthrow governments, but militaries, private or public, do. I lean libertarian in certain things, but no longer regarding the military. Allowing private companies to wield lethal force with military style units scares me. The military and law enforcement underpin the very laws that the country is built upon. Congress can pass a law, the courts can judge upon it, but without someone willing to pick up a gun and enforce it, laws are nothing more than words on paper. Awhile back I saw an article about a private psyops contractor targeting american journalists who were critical of it, trying to tarnish their reputations. I scoured Google for 20 minutes but couldn’t find it. I believe there really is a threat that these private companies will engage in activities for their own self-interest at the expense of the country. I believe most of these companies do have a lot of patriotic people who are trying to make good money for their families and I don’t think the threat is extreme at the moment but that it grows over time as this becomes the pattern and the gulf widens between the military and the civilian population it’s supposed to protect. I always felt that a key component contributing to the end of the Roman Republican period was the fact the elite echelons of society no longer felt obligated to serve and the soldiers no longer felt an allegiance to them or the institutions they ruled. From wikipedia: “The extensive campaigning abroad by Roman generals, and the rewarding of soldiers with plunder on these campaigns, led to a general trend of soldiers becoming increasingly loyal to their generals rather than to the state.”[1] I don’t want our soldier’s loyalty focused on a paycheck. I’m afraid more of where we are going then where we currently are. Soldiers can’t quit. They can’t unionize. They can’t demand higher wages. But they can use lethal force to achieve their objectives. We need to make sure that those objectives are always in line with democracy. If we don’t, then you can vote all you want and one day it won’t matter, because democracy depends upon the rule of law and that depends upon the will of the military. I prefer a civilian military more than a private military and more than an all volunteer military. I think that is the greatest defense of democracy and the freedom you talk about. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

walshemj 10y ago

Its the other way around why do you think the Foreign Legion existed