8 ms·

Conscription is slavery, and many conscripts will consider themselves to have a moral obligation to resist slavery. If you give them access to the whole militar

by mrob 10y ago

Conscription is slavery, and many conscripts will consider themselves to have a moral obligation to resist slavery. If you give them access to the whole military machine you greatly increase the opportunities for sabotage. With the traditional rifles in trenches style each individual conscript has very limited chance to fight back, and you can always call them traitors and murder them if they try.

ptaipale 10y ago
Conscription is a form of taxation. Many say taxation is slavery, but the argument doesn't hold very well.
- mrob 10y ago
  False, because taxes can be paid with money from any source. Conscription can only be paid with labor from your own body.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  Conscription is literally slavery. Taxation isn't slavery its an obligation to pay a fraction of what you earn ergo if you earn nothing you owe nothing and have no obligation.
  - maus42 10y ago
    Literally or literally? And that depends on your definition of slavery. It did not always mean every and all things involuntary, it used to mean trading people as property who did not have the same rights as a free citizen. Afterthought. I just remembered that some of the more radical leftists call working for a salary a wage slavery, which is similarly silly.
    - michaelmrose 10y ago
      Not every society that practiced slavery regarded your slave status as an immutable part of your being nor does slavery require trade if you are born a slave in a family and live in bondage you are a slave without having changed hands. To be a slave is to have your personal freedoms subordinated to another while people always enjoy a finite degree of autonomy which varies substantially from society to society and even between different socioeconomic groups if your owner can tell you where to go and whom to kill, and in fact to surrender ones life if asked then I cannot discern the difference between that state and slavery.
      - hythloday 10y ago
        I don't think that you literally mean literally, but an obvious difference between slavery in the United States and conscription in the United States that you can avoid the latter by permanently renouncing your citizenship.
        michaelmrose 10y ago
        Can you renounce your citizenship AFTER they conscript you and leave?
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
> Conscription is slavery I abhor hyperbole. Slavery is the legal ownership of one person over another person and their progeny. Since they are property, slaves have absolutely no rights or any access to the legal system. You commanding officer cannot rape or kill you with impunity. He/She cannot force you to do fight with another conscript to the death. Conscripts also get paid, while slaves do not and are well fed and clothed. There is no such requirement for slaves. Your commanding officer also is not going to beat you if he/she finds you reading a book. I'd advise you to actually do research on what slaves endured and stop disrespecting their ordeal by comparing it to military conscription. These thoughtless comparisons make light of how brutal and devastating chattal slavery was.
- mrob 10y ago
  There are multiple degrees of slavery. Eg. The Roman emperor Antoninus Pius forbade the killing of slaves without good reason, but they were still slaves. Slave does not have to mean literally zero rights.
  - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
    Any citizen of any modern state, is at least, to some extent, a slave.
    - mrob 10y ago
      In all civilized states you are allowed to protest against your leaders. You can march with a "not my president" sign and so long as you are non-violent you will be allowed to continue. Try a "not my commander" protest in the army.
      - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
        I don't know how that goes against my argument. Try not paying income taxes and you will find out that any citizen is at least a partial slave to their state.
    - 10y ago
vidarh 10y ago
I agree. In my refusal to serve in the Norwegian military, this was one of my arguments. Coupled with pointing out that I could not guarantee that I would agree with the political views of any future regime, and so I considered it immoral to be put in a position where I might be threatened into using violence in favour of a cause I might fundamentally be opposed to. I also made it clear that should that happen, I'd consider it my moral obligation to shoot at my own officers. They didn't like that.
- mrob 10y ago
  Whether you consider killing officers moral or not, as a practical matter I think sabotage would more effectively discourage people from taking conscripts. The military is well optimized to cope with the death of personnel. Frag an officer and the chain of command does its thing and everything continues as normal. There's not even much deterrent value because the officer was fully bought into the values of the system and ready to die. But a modern military is highly dependent on bureaucracy, and that seems more vulnerable to disruption. Falsified records, misplaced parts, incorrect maintenance, etc. could cause some real problems. The conscript might even be able to pass it off as an honest mistake if they got caught, letting them continue their resistance.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Sabotage probably would be, sure, but keep in mind this was a hypothetical situation described in a letter to the Department of Justice to make it very clear to them how unwilling I was to serve. While I stick by the overall sentiment, it was not shaped out of a need to be as efficient as possible, but to sound as offensive as possible. E.g. the described situation was a hypothetical one where the Norwegian government had decided to use the military in a way I found morally unconscionable. In practice I consider that very unlikely - offensive forces are all volunteers in Norway, so the conscripts are used for purely defensive roles. It was the principle of it first and foremost for me.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Sharlin 10y ago
That seems to be a very theoretical position with no evidence that it happens in the real world.
- vidarh 10y ago
  That may be so. What does happen on the other hand is that many countries throw people in prison for refusing to serve. This is the case in Norway, for example. And if you do show up and get processed, once you are part of the military you risk being put in military prison if you the subsequently refuse to serve. This is what happens during peace time.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >That may be so. What does happen on the other hand is that many countries throw people in prison for refusing to serve. And rightly so. The only reason the country exists in the first place, is that people were willing to fight to establish it, and to serve and fight to defend it. Else it would be not some magical global brothership of unicorns and love, but what was there before modern countries: empires and feudal overlords.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      Being willing to fight for something is orthogonal to being forced to fight for something under threat of prison. Most of those who kept up the fight for Norways freedom from German occupation under World War II, for example, were not military conscripts - the military surrendered quickly - but civilians who formed resistance groups. The idea that you need to be willing to let yourself be coerced into slavery to prove your willingness to fight is deeply offensive to me.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >The idea that you need to be willing to let yourself be coerced into slavery to prove your willingness to fight is deeply offensive to me. Well, the idea that service to your country is considered slavery and not a duty is offensive to others.
coldtea 10y ago
>Conscription is slavery, and many conscripts will consider themselves to have a moral obligation to resist slavery. On the contrary, conscription, and armies consisting of the population of a country in general (as opposed to mercenary armies) are a democratic achievement of (among a few other factors) the French Revolution. In the actual times of slavery, e.g. in Ancient Greece and Rome it was free men that first and foremost did the fighting (and who considered it their honor and what made them and kept them free), and in the dark medieval times of peasants, feudal lords used mercenary armies (including against their subjects). Conscription appeared on the scene as a way to have the army be controlled more by the population -- as opposed to it being professional soldiers ready to be used against the people.
- zzzcpan 10y ago
  "as opposed to it being professional soldiers ready to be used against the people" Things have changed a lot since then, especially with radio and television. Conscription is no longer a democratic achievement, you can brainwash people to go against anyone you want.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    Maybe. Or maybe you were brainwashed to think that.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Conscription is slavery In much the same sense as jury duty is slavery.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  You are pretty much forced to show up and provide a convincing reason why you ought not to serve beyond that its trivial to get out of if you don't want to be part of it. Its also essential to our justice system and usually a very small burden.
synicalx 10y ago
> Conscription is slavery I'm at a loss for words here, this might be the dumbest thing I've heard all week. First, go get a dictionary and look up what slavery means. Second, go get a history book and read about the last two world wars where conscription has been widely embraced by the belligerents. Not only did it have public support, but it was also the only thing that gave the Allies enough manpower to stay in and win the war.

by mrob 10y ago

ptaipale 10y ago

Conscription is a form of taxation. Many say taxation is slavery, but the argument doesn't hold very well.

mrob 10y ago
False, because taxes can be paid with money from any source. Conscription can only be paid with labor from your own body.
michaelmrose 10y ago
Conscription is literally slavery. Taxation isn't slavery its an obligation to pay a fraction of what you earn ergo if you earn nothing you owe nothing and have no obligation.
- maus42 10y ago
  Literally or literally? And that depends on your definition of slavery. It did not always mean every and all things involuntary, it used to mean trading people as property who did not have the same rights as a free citizen. Afterthought. I just remembered that some of the more radical leftists call working for a salary a wage slavery, which is similarly silly.
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    Not every society that practiced slavery regarded your slave status as an immutable part of your being nor does slavery require trade if you are born a slave in a family and live in bondage you are a slave without having changed hands. To be a slave is to have your personal freedoms subordinated to another while people always enjoy a finite degree of autonomy which varies substantially from society to society and even between different socioeconomic groups if your owner can tell you where to go and whom to kill, and in fact to surrender ones life if asked then I cannot discern the difference between that state and slavery.
    - hythloday 10y ago
      I don't think that you literally mean literally, but an obvious difference between slavery in the United States and conscription in the United States that you can avoid the latter by permanently renouncing your citizenship.
      - michaelmrose 10y ago
        Can you renounce your citizenship AFTER they conscript you and leave?

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

> Conscription is slavery I abhor hyperbole. Slavery is the legal ownership of one person over another person and their progeny. Since they are property, slaves have absolutely no rights or any access to the legal system. You commanding officer cannot rape or kill you with impunity. He/She cannot force you to do fight with another conscript to the death. Conscripts also get paid, while slaves do not and are well fed and clothed. There is no such requirement for slaves. Your commanding officer also is not going to beat you if he/she finds you reading a book. I'd advise you to actually do research on what slaves endured and stop disrespecting their ordeal by comparing it to military conscription. These thoughtless comparisons make light of how brutal and devastating chattal slavery was.

mrob 10y ago
There are multiple degrees of slavery. Eg. The Roman emperor Antoninus Pius forbade the killing of slaves without good reason, but they were still slaves. Slave does not have to mean literally zero rights.
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  Any citizen of any modern state, is at least, to some extent, a slave.
  - mrob 10y ago
    In all civilized states you are allowed to protest against your leaders. You can march with a "not my president" sign and so long as you are non-violent you will be allowed to continue. Try a "not my commander" protest in the army.
    - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
      I don't know how that goes against my argument. Try not paying income taxes and you will find out that any citizen is at least a partial slave to their state.
  - 10y ago

vidarh 10y ago

I agree. In my refusal to serve in the Norwegian military, this was one of my arguments. Coupled with pointing out that I could not guarantee that I would agree with the political views of any future regime, and so I considered it immoral to be put in a position where I might be threatened into using violence in favour of a cause I might fundamentally be opposed to. I also made it clear that should that happen, I'd consider it my moral obligation to shoot at my own officers. They didn't like that.

mrob 10y ago
Whether you consider killing officers moral or not, as a practical matter I think sabotage would more effectively discourage people from taking conscripts. The military is well optimized to cope with the death of personnel. Frag an officer and the chain of command does its thing and everything continues as normal. There's not even much deterrent value because the officer was fully bought into the values of the system and ready to die. But a modern military is highly dependent on bureaucracy, and that seems more vulnerable to disruption. Falsified records, misplaced parts, incorrect maintenance, etc. could cause some real problems. The conscript might even be able to pass it off as an honest mistake if they got caught, letting them continue their resistance.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Sabotage probably would be, sure, but keep in mind this was a hypothetical situation described in a letter to the Department of Justice to make it very clear to them how unwilling I was to serve. While I stick by the overall sentiment, it was not shaped out of a need to be as efficient as possible, but to sound as offensive as possible. E.g. the described situation was a hypothetical one where the Norwegian government had decided to use the military in a way I found morally unconscionable. In practice I consider that very unlikely - offensive forces are all volunteers in Norway, so the conscripts are used for purely defensive roles. It was the principle of it first and foremost for me.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Sharlin 10y ago

That seems to be a very theoretical position with no evidence that it happens in the real world.

vidarh 10y ago
That may be so. What does happen on the other hand is that many countries throw people in prison for refusing to serve. This is the case in Norway, for example. And if you do show up and get processed, once you are part of the military you risk being put in military prison if you the subsequently refuse to serve. This is what happens during peace time.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >That may be so. What does happen on the other hand is that many countries throw people in prison for refusing to serve. And rightly so. The only reason the country exists in the first place, is that people were willing to fight to establish it, and to serve and fight to defend it. Else it would be not some magical global brothership of unicorns and love, but what was there before modern countries: empires and feudal overlords.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Being willing to fight for something is orthogonal to being forced to fight for something under threat of prison. Most of those who kept up the fight for Norways freedom from German occupation under World War II, for example, were not military conscripts - the military surrendered quickly - but civilians who formed resistance groups. The idea that you need to be willing to let yourself be coerced into slavery to prove your willingness to fight is deeply offensive to me.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >The idea that you need to be willing to let yourself be coerced into slavery to prove your willingness to fight is deeply offensive to me. Well, the idea that service to your country is considered slavery and not a duty is offensive to others.

coldtea 10y ago

>Conscription is slavery, and many conscripts will consider themselves to have a moral obligation to resist slavery. On the contrary, conscription, and armies consisting of the population of a country in general (as opposed to mercenary armies) are a democratic achievement of (among a few other factors) the French Revolution. In the actual times of slavery, e.g. in Ancient Greece and Rome it was free men that first and foremost did the fighting (and who considered it their honor and what made them and kept them free), and in the dark medieval times of peasants, feudal lords used mercenary armies (including against their subjects). Conscription appeared on the scene as a way to have the army be controlled more by the population -- as opposed to it being professional soldiers ready to be used against the people.

zzzcpan 10y ago
"as opposed to it being professional soldiers ready to be used against the people" Things have changed a lot since then, especially with radio and television. Conscription is no longer a democratic achievement, you can brainwash people to go against anyone you want.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  Maybe. Or maybe you were brainwashed to think that.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Conscription is slavery In much the same sense as jury duty is slavery.

michaelmrose 10y ago
You are pretty much forced to show up and provide a convincing reason why you ought not to serve beyond that its trivial to get out of if you don't want to be part of it. Its also essential to our justice system and usually a very small burden.

synicalx 10y ago

> Conscription is slavery I'm at a loss for words here, this might be the dumbest thing I've heard all week. First, go get a dictionary and look up what slavery means. Second, go get a history book and read about the last two world wars where conscription has been widely embraced by the belligerents. Not only did it have public support, but it was also the only thing that gave the Allies enough manpower to stay in and win the war.