13 ms·

I am quite surprised by the number of people here (and even larger numbers elsewhere this is being discussed) who don't seem to have any ethical problem with co

I am quite surprised by the number of people here (and even larger numbers elsewhere this is being discussed) who don't seem to have any ethical problem with conscription. Thought the idea of killer slaves was completely off limits in the West. Now all of a sudden we are debating cost effectiveness. Guess I thought wrong.

dredmorbius 10y ago
There's no such thing as a good war. There are necessary wars. And ultimately, a failure to be able to defend against neighboring beligerants is fatal to a society.
LanceH 10y ago
Conscription is straight up slavery. I don't see any way around that. The arguments seem to be, "you'll only be a slave for a while, if you live", "we need slaves", "you'll get paid to do the work you're forced to do". If you want an army, be worth defending -- both in terms of paying the soldier and being a country that a soldier would want to work for.
- briffle 10y ago
  As a male that is forced to register with the US Selective Service, (I wanted financial aid for college) it sure does stick in my mind when I vote for our leaders, who can then authorize a draft if needed...
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >Conscription is straight up slavery. I don't see any way around that. // Which person owns you in your analysis of that being slavery? Or is being owned by another person not a part of your definition? In a democracy, you're a slave to your own country, effectively. There are people making decisions on your life, all the people voting in the country including you, no? It may be wrong, just doesn't look like slavery to me.
  - LanceH 10y ago
    What does single ownership have to do with anything? Is it somehow better than any number of people can spend your life for you? What other compulsory actions does the government take that authorize the expenditure of your entire life?
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >What does single ownership have to do with anything? Is it somehow better than any number of people can spend your life for you? // No, it's not automatically better AFAICT, in practice I think it's likely to better on average. It's more that it was claimed to be "slavery" in actuality, not "like slavery" but actual slavery. So it's in some ways semantic but more it's that I think the position is substantially different to slavery - it's not just that it's a group of people, it's that it's a democratic country that you are also part of (as opposed to a corporation owning you, or an individual owning you). They're different conditions. In practice they perhaps share some [a lot of] downsides.
iamatworknow 10y ago
"killer slaves" is a bit dramatic.
- billpg 10y ago
  But is it unfair?
  - maus42 10y ago
    The traditional definition for a slave is a human who is treated as (usually tradable) property for their labor. I always like to point out that the predecessor to the Western civilization, the ancient Mediterranean, including Greek city states and then later on Rome, was famously built upon slave labor. Even the democratic Athens had a large slave population. However, in a Greek city state like Athens (or the earliest form of Roman legions) the free men -- the slaveowners of the society -- were also the hoplites fighting the wars the city would be involved in. Being a citizen of such a city-state is one the origins of the Western concept of citizenship. The distinction if you are able to view your community as "us", towards whom you have obligations and duties, not as "them" who rule over you.
    - discombobulate 10y ago
      Another definition from the Oxford Dictionary is, 'A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something'[0]. Being forced to fight in a war is being 'controlled by something'. In this case, a government. They're government slaves. [0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave
      - maus42 10y ago
        Yes, we also can say in English stuff like "Uncle Joe is slave to alcohol". Here we are discussing slavery as a concept, which is different.
        10y ago
samcodes 10y ago
What western military doesn't pay service members? Pretty sure you mean "a job, that rarely, but sometimes involves killing." There are many jobs like that: policing, security, and depending on your moral framework, murdering animals.
- chocolatebunny 10y ago
  The mandatory part of it is the problem.
- atom-morgan 10y ago
  Parent comment said nothing about pay. It's about conscription.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  I was paid less than a prison inmate as a conscript :) Had it been twice as much I would call it symbolic. It was around 10% if a regular job.
- buzer 10y ago
  Well, I guess most of the countries do "pay", but at least in Finland that pay is 5.10 euros per day for first half of year (increases first to 8.50 for days 165-256 and then to 11.90 for remaining). If someone other entity was paying that low wages for even a normal job (let alone 24/7 availability requirement), the employer would be facing criminal charges.
Nokinside 10y ago
> ethical problem with conscription None whatsoever. Individual rights has real meaning only when others protect them. Individual rights are never free. You can have freedom of speech, movement, assembly and property rights only when the group you live in agrees that you have those things and protects them when you can't. When the existence of that groups existence or freedom to organize is threatened, it's time to pay retroactively for the rights you had and pay so that you can have them in the future. In practice you can always serve unarmed or be in civil defense organization, but when whole nation prepares for self defense, everyone must make an effort. I think professional armies are ethically more problematic. You create profession that fights and kills for your nation and government and it can be used to fight wars that are not that important or well thought. If war is not big national emergency, it's probably not a just war. I think 'War Is a Racket' by Major General Smedley D Butler provides ethical solution. When there is a war, you conscript everything, people and profits. If one is not going to war, one works with the same pay as a conscript until the war is over. Business can't keep the profits until the war is over. This would take the ethical problems out from professional armies. https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
- literallycancer 10y ago
  >When there is a war, you conscript everything, people and profits. Wouldn't you have issues with the most capable people just leaving?
  - Nokinside 10y ago
    I don't think you realize how everything changes when nation is mobilized and war powers step in. People can't just step in a plane and leave the country, or move large amounts of money.
    - Strom 10y ago
      Everything doesn't change overnight. There are plenty of warnings beforehand, and plenty of opportunity even during war. It takes quite a bit of time to lock everything down.
literallycancer 10y ago
Some people wouldn't volunteer unconditionally, but would fight to defend their country, as long as everyone does. If you only differentiate between voluntary/non-voluntary these people will just be in the non-voluntary group. That said, I'd be one of the first to get the hell out if it came to war. I have better things to do with my life.
executesorder66 10y ago
> seem to have any ethical problem with conscription. Here's my personal perspective: I was born in 1991, in South Africa. South Africa was involved in the South Africa Border War[0] from 1966 to 1989. Because of this war, we had conscription up until around 1994. So I have no obligation to join our military, nor do I want to. (It has become really shitty since after the war). I look at my father and his generation. None of them wanted to go to the army because it seemed like a waste of time, and no one believed in the war. But they went anyway because it's better than going to jail for 2 years. Reading up on the war, I also don't agree with the justification behind it at all. Nevertheless I would have loved to be conscripted into the army. A 2 year (paid) break from studies and/or work. A time to get super fit, learn new skills, make new friends. And the best part of it, is that no one can give you shit for it because it's expected of everyone. I really wish I had the time/money to just take 2 years off (where I am provided with food and shelter by someone else) and I can just focus on self improvement. I mean, I could join the army voluntarily, but it sucks, we are not at war(less to do, less to learn, less exciting etc), and it puts me back 2 years in my career. (But if everyone was forced to do it, I wouldn't really be 2 years behind) [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Border_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Border_War
- ValentineC 10y ago
  > Nevertheless I would have loved to be conscripted into the army. A 2 year (paid) break from studies and/or work. A time to get super fit, learn new skills, make new friends. And the best part of it, is that no one can give you shit for it because it's expected of everyone. I am a former conscript. We were paid approximately $350 USD a month and rarely had time for personal improvement. The way I see it: many of us lost two years of earning potential, and entered the workforce two years later than our peers.
  - executesorder66 10y ago
    I don't remember the exact figures, but my uncle said he wished he did an extra year in the army, because the money was pretty good. (to be fair, he also really didn't feel like going to university) Why were you conscripted and not your peers? > rarely had time for personal improvement. I guess it depends on which army you are in, and at what point in history. My dad joined the Signal Units (He got a degree in Electrical Engineer before doing service) and he got a ton of practical experience which helped him in his career after the army. Everyone I talked to that was conscripted into the SADF didn't regret it.
ocschwar 10y ago
As others have pointed out, if the nation state you live in does not have a secure hold on its territory, then you can either lose some of your freedom to conscription, or lose a whole lot more in foreign occupation.
- mynameishere 10y ago
  So, will the new Swedish conscripts be securing any territory?
  - ocschwar 10y ago
    What do you think they'll be doing?>
    - fwn 10y ago
      If it's like it was in Germany they are probably drinking and messing things up. Which is reasonable, given someone disrupts your life and gives you a force hourly pay that borders satire.
- entropyneur 10y ago
  > lose a whole lot more in foreign occupation I don't think that's the case in modern times. Unless you believe Russia (that's what we are talking about here, right?) would enslave swedes or subject them to genocide this argument doesn't work.
  - ocschwar 10y ago
    Dude, you don't have to be enslaved outright for your life under military occupation to suck.
    - entropyneur 10y ago
      I am not saying my life wouldn't suck under occupation, but rather that it wouldn't suck "a whole lot more" than under conscription at war time. In fact I'd argue it would suck quite a bit less (and I'd have a lot more chances to have a life at all).
doublerebel 10y ago
Does conscription tend to make armies (and the soldiers in them) more violent or more peaceful? Is there any data on that? My human guess and desire is that conscription would give the average citizen a better understanding of what their human rights are and why they are worth defending. I think a major issue with the US military is that the average citizen is distant from the decisions and consequences of military actions made on their behalf.
robert_foss 10y ago
Well, the opposite of conscription is a professional military. And that has issues too, like for example in the US where mostly impoverished people join.

dredmorbius 10y ago

There's no such thing as a good war. There are necessary wars. And ultimately, a failure to be able to defend against neighboring beligerants is fatal to a society.

LanceH 10y ago

Conscription is straight up slavery. I don't see any way around that. The arguments seem to be, "you'll only be a slave for a while, if you live", "we need slaves", "you'll get paid to do the work you're forced to do". If you want an army, be worth defending -- both in terms of paying the soldier and being a country that a soldier would want to work for.

briffle 10y ago
As a male that is forced to register with the US Selective Service, (I wanted financial aid for college) it sure does stick in my mind when I vote for our leaders, who can then authorize a draft if needed...
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>Conscription is straight up slavery. I don't see any way around that. // Which person owns you in your analysis of that being slavery? Or is being owned by another person not a part of your definition? In a democracy, you're a slave to your own country, effectively. There are people making decisions on your life, all the people voting in the country including you, no? It may be wrong, just doesn't look like slavery to me.
- LanceH 10y ago
  What does single ownership have to do with anything? Is it somehow better than any number of people can spend your life for you? What other compulsory actions does the government take that authorize the expenditure of your entire life?
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >What does single ownership have to do with anything? Is it somehow better than any number of people can spend your life for you? // No, it's not automatically better AFAICT, in practice I think it's likely to better on average. It's more that it was claimed to be "slavery" in actuality, not "like slavery" but actual slavery. So it's in some ways semantic but more it's that I think the position is substantially different to slavery - it's not just that it's a group of people, it's that it's a democratic country that you are also part of (as opposed to a corporation owning you, or an individual owning you). They're different conditions. In practice they perhaps share some [a lot of] downsides.

iamatworknow 10y ago

"killer slaves" is a bit dramatic.

billpg 10y ago
But is it unfair?
- maus42 10y ago
  The traditional definition for a slave is a human who is treated as (usually tradable) property for their labor. I always like to point out that the predecessor to the Western civilization, the ancient Mediterranean, including Greek city states and then later on Rome, was famously built upon slave labor. Even the democratic Athens had a large slave population. However, in a Greek city state like Athens (or the earliest form of Roman legions) the free men -- the slaveowners of the society -- were also the hoplites fighting the wars the city would be involved in. Being a citizen of such a city-state is one the origins of the Western concept of citizenship. The distinction if you are able to view your community as "us", towards whom you have obligations and duties, not as "them" who rule over you.
  - discombobulate 10y ago
    Another definition from the Oxford Dictionary is, 'A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something'[0]. Being forced to fight in a war is being 'controlled by something'. In this case, a government. They're government slaves. [0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave
    - maus42 10y ago
      Yes, we also can say in English stuff like "Uncle Joe is slave to alcohol". Here we are discussing slavery as a concept, which is different.
      - 10y ago

samcodes 10y ago

What western military doesn't pay service members? Pretty sure you mean "a job, that rarely, but sometimes involves killing." There are many jobs like that: policing, security, and depending on your moral framework, murdering animals.

chocolatebunny 10y ago
The mandatory part of it is the problem.
atom-morgan 10y ago
Parent comment said nothing about pay. It's about conscription.
alkonaut 10y ago
I was paid less than a prison inmate as a conscript :) Had it been twice as much I would call it symbolic. It was around 10% if a regular job.
buzer 10y ago
Well, I guess most of the countries do "pay", but at least in Finland that pay is 5.10 euros per day for first half of year (increases first to 8.50 for days 165-256 and then to 11.90 for remaining). If someone other entity was paying that low wages for even a normal job (let alone 24/7 availability requirement), the employer would be facing criminal charges.

Nokinside 10y ago

> ethical problem with conscription None whatsoever. Individual rights has real meaning only when others protect them. Individual rights are never free. You can have freedom of speech, movement, assembly and property rights only when the group you live in agrees that you have those things and protects them when you can't. When the existence of that groups existence or freedom to organize is threatened, it's time to pay retroactively for the rights you had and pay so that you can have them in the future. In practice you can always serve unarmed or be in civil defense organization, but when whole nation prepares for self defense, everyone must make an effort. I think professional armies are ethically more problematic. You create profession that fights and kills for your nation and government and it can be used to fight wars that are not that important or well thought. If war is not big national emergency, it's probably not a just war. I think 'War Is a Racket' by Major General Smedley D Butler provides ethical solution. When there is a war, you conscript everything, people and profits. If one is not going to war, one works with the same pay as a conscript until the war is over. Business can't keep the profits until the war is over. This would take the ethical problems out from professional armies. https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

literallycancer 10y ago
>When there is a war, you conscript everything, people and profits. Wouldn't you have issues with the most capable people just leaving?
- Nokinside 10y ago
  I don't think you realize how everything changes when nation is mobilized and war powers step in. People can't just step in a plane and leave the country, or move large amounts of money.
  - Strom 10y ago
    Everything doesn't change overnight. There are plenty of warnings beforehand, and plenty of opportunity even during war. It takes quite a bit of time to lock everything down.

literallycancer 10y ago

Some people wouldn't volunteer unconditionally, but would fight to defend their country, as long as everyone does. If you only differentiate between voluntary/non-voluntary these people will just be in the non-voluntary group. That said, I'd be one of the first to get the hell out if it came to war. I have better things to do with my life.

executesorder66 10y ago

> seem to have any ethical problem with conscription. Here's my personal perspective: I was born in 1991, in South Africa. South Africa was involved in the South Africa Border War[0] from 1966 to 1989. Because of this war, we had conscription up until around 1994. So I have no obligation to join our military, nor do I want to. (It has become really shitty since after the war). I look at my father and his generation. None of them wanted to go to the army because it seemed like a waste of time, and no one believed in the war. But they went anyway because it's better than going to jail for 2 years. Reading up on the war, I also don't agree with the justification behind it at all. Nevertheless I would have loved to be conscripted into the army. A 2 year (paid) break from studies and/or work. A time to get super fit, learn new skills, make new friends. And the best part of it, is that no one can give you shit for it because it's expected of everyone. I really wish I had the time/money to just take 2 years off (where I am provided with food and shelter by someone else) and I can just focus on self improvement. I mean, I could join the army voluntarily, but it sucks, we are not at war(less to do, less to learn, less exciting etc), and it puts me back 2 years in my career. (But if everyone was forced to do it, I wouldn't really be 2 years behind) [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Border_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Border_War

ValentineC 10y ago
> Nevertheless I would have loved to be conscripted into the army. A 2 year (paid) break from studies and/or work. A time to get super fit, learn new skills, make new friends. And the best part of it, is that no one can give you shit for it because it's expected of everyone. I am a former conscript. We were paid approximately $350 USD a month and rarely had time for personal improvement. The way I see it: many of us lost two years of earning potential, and entered the workforce two years later than our peers.
- executesorder66 10y ago
  I don't remember the exact figures, but my uncle said he wished he did an extra year in the army, because the money was pretty good. (to be fair, he also really didn't feel like going to university) Why were you conscripted and not your peers? > rarely had time for personal improvement. I guess it depends on which army you are in, and at what point in history. My dad joined the Signal Units (He got a degree in Electrical Engineer before doing service) and he got a ton of practical experience which helped him in his career after the army. Everyone I talked to that was conscripted into the SADF didn't regret it.

ocschwar 10y ago

As others have pointed out, if the nation state you live in does not have a secure hold on its territory, then you can either lose some of your freedom to conscription, or lose a whole lot more in foreign occupation.

mynameishere 10y ago
So, will the new Swedish conscripts be securing any territory?
- ocschwar 10y ago
  What do you think they'll be doing?>
  - fwn 10y ago
    If it's like it was in Germany they are probably drinking and messing things up. Which is reasonable, given someone disrupts your life and gives you a force hourly pay that borders satire.
entropyneur 10y ago
> lose a whole lot more in foreign occupation I don't think that's the case in modern times. Unless you believe Russia (that's what we are talking about here, right?) would enslave swedes or subject them to genocide this argument doesn't work.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  Dude, you don't have to be enslaved outright for your life under military occupation to suck.
  - entropyneur 10y ago
    I am not saying my life wouldn't suck under occupation, but rather that it wouldn't suck "a whole lot more" than under conscription at war time. In fact I'd argue it would suck quite a bit less (and I'd have a lot more chances to have a life at all).

doublerebel 10y ago

Does conscription tend to make armies (and the soldiers in them) more violent or more peaceful? Is there any data on that? My human guess and desire is that conscription would give the average citizen a better understanding of what their human rights are and why they are worth defending. I think a major issue with the US military is that the average citizen is distant from the decisions and consequences of military actions made on their behalf.

robert_foss 10y ago

Well, the opposite of conscription is a professional military. And that has issues too, like for example in the US where mostly impoverished people join.