5 ms·

You keep referring to military service as labor, the draft as forced labor and comparing it to other labor. That's an economic concept. The only type of war whe

You keep referring to military service as labor, the draft as forced labor and comparing it to other labor. That's an economic concept. The only type of war where that is a coherent position to take is a war for profit. So obviously the draft would be forced labor and unethical, because the war itself would have to be. Few people are pro-conscription, they are choosing between the incentives present when conscription is the only path to war and when mercenaries or professional soldiers recruited from those of lower status are used. If the war is considered just by a democracy then many will want to fight, because it will be obviously necessary, defensive, and those chosen must be chosen fairly. Perhaps you think this is an argument for the continuation of American global continuous war combined with conscription? Because it's very much not. It's a statement that the only just wars would inevitably result in conscription also being just, even without the incredible moral hazard present when democracies can vote for wars to be fought by labor.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I agree with you that tying a policy choice you oppose to a horrible poison pill like forced labor is a potentially effecitve way to subvert democracy and prevent popular policies you dislike from being enacted by the public. I said so two comments up, and reiterated this in the very comment you replied to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12286281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12286281 The tone of your post suggests you disagree with me about something. Am I misinterpreting? If not, what do we disagree on?
- freshhawk 10y ago
  I guess we're just not arguing at the same level of abstraction? You keep referring to it as forced labor, and missing the central point while labeling the elimination of the moral hazards inherent with mercenaries as a "poison pill". And referring to subverting democracy. If a fighter in a war is ever remotely close to being labor then they should not fight, in fact they should probably be fighting those trying to send them. I'm not arguing for a poison pill of forced labor, that isn't on the table. Ever. Do you disagree that there is any form of conscription that isn't "forced labor"? For example: defending your own home or community or democratic nation from an invading army is not labor, it's a non-economic activity. Say a contract of mutual defense with your fellow citizens in the case of an invading army? I'll go fight if they invade the east coast even though I live on the west coast because of a legally binding reciprocal agreement that is in all our best interests? In that case we are all called in to serve and organized to fight effectively. Our neighbors who can't fight take care of our kids while we're away. Is that forced labor?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I'm not arguing for a poison pill of forced labor...Do you disagree that there is any form of conscription that isn't "forced labor"? I think that by definition, taking people and forcing them to do work they don't want to do is forced labor. I don't subscribe to your Orwellian redefinition of soldiering as not being labor, simply because you label it "non-economic". I'm also not sure of the relevance of this redefinition. Whether or not your poison pill is redefined to be forced labor or not, it's subverting democracy because the public wants a war staffed by volunteers and mercenaries. You want to remove that choice from them. In that case we are all called in to serve and organized to fight effectively. Our neighbors who can't fight take care of our kids while we're away. Is that forced labor? If we've all contractually agreed to it, no. If we are forcing people who didn't agree to the contract to join us, yes.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

I agree with you that tying a policy choice you oppose to a horrible poison pill like forced labor is a potentially effecitve way to subvert democracy and prevent popular policies you dislike from being enacted by the public. I said so two comments up, and reiterated this in the very comment you replied to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12286281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12286281 The tone of your post suggests you disagree with me about something. Am I misinterpreting? If not, what do we disagree on?

freshhawk 10y ago
I guess we're just not arguing at the same level of abstraction? You keep referring to it as forced labor, and missing the central point while labeling the elimination of the moral hazards inherent with mercenaries as a "poison pill". And referring to subverting democracy. If a fighter in a war is ever remotely close to being labor then they should not fight, in fact they should probably be fighting those trying to send them. I'm not arguing for a poison pill of forced labor, that isn't on the table. Ever. Do you disagree that there is any form of conscription that isn't "forced labor"? For example: defending your own home or community or democratic nation from an invading army is not labor, it's a non-economic activity. Say a contract of mutual defense with your fellow citizens in the case of an invading army? I'll go fight if they invade the east coast even though I live on the west coast because of a legally binding reciprocal agreement that is in all our best interests? In that case we are all called in to serve and organized to fight effectively. Our neighbors who can't fight take care of our kids while we're away. Is that forced labor?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm not arguing for a poison pill of forced labor...Do you disagree that there is any form of conscription that isn't "forced labor"? I think that by definition, taking people and forcing them to do work they don't want to do is forced labor. I don't subscribe to your Orwellian redefinition of soldiering as not being labor, simply because you label it "non-economic". I'm also not sure of the relevance of this redefinition. Whether or not your poison pill is redefined to be forced labor or not, it's subverting democracy because the public wants a war staffed by volunteers and mercenaries. You want to remove that choice from them. In that case we are all called in to serve and organized to fight effectively. Our neighbors who can't fight take care of our kids while we're away. Is that forced labor? If we've all contractually agreed to it, no. If we are forcing people who didn't agree to the contract to join us, yes.