6 ms·

>Now imagine you're a country with less than 10% of the population and need to produce a force of 200k soldiers in order to have a credible deterrent against an

by Arizhel 10y ago

>Now imagine you're a country with less than 10% of the population and need to produce a force of 200k soldiers in order to have a credible deterrent against an aggressive neighbor. How do you do that without conscription? Just go without, and tell the population that you don't have enough forces to serve as a deterrent, so if the neighbor decides to invade you're just going to voluntarily cede any territory they ask for.

dropit_sphere 10y ago
Cute, but the tragedy of the commons means that you still might not get enough. The people allow the government a monopoly on violence in expectation that it will use it for their benefit. Putting the ultimate responsibility for national defense back on them is a betrayal of that trust.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  No, it's not. It is utterly impossible for the government to defend the nation without soldiers. It's also impossible for the government to create soldiers out of thin air; they have to come from the populace (or hire foreign mercenaries perhaps, but that has its own ethical problems). If the populace isn't willing to serve as soldiers in sufficient numbers, then it's impossible for the government to satisfy its responsibility to defend the nation. The people cannot blame the government for not defending the nation if the people are not willing to be part of that defense.
  - dropit_sphere 10y ago
    >The people cannot blame the government...If the people are not willing to be part of that defense. What about a person who would fight and not desert if conscripted, but would not volunteer? Are they "willing to be part of that defense," or not? I submit that most people fall in that category, and that conscription is aimed at them.
    - Arizhel 10y ago
      That's still slavery, because some fraction of them doesn't want to serve. So if there's any punishment for refusing to serve, or for deserting, then it's slavery. If there's no punishment, or if they're allowed to opt-out, then it's not really conscription.
      - dropit_sphere 10y ago
        >That's still slavery, Sure, OK. Slavery is not the worst possible state of existence, you know. My dog is not only a slave, but a captive slave: she can't leave my property, and I punish her when she tries to leave. But, looking at her dozing off in the sun right now, she seems pretty happy. Most people prefer the soft slavery of possible conscription, to the expected outcomes of foreign invasion. It helps that when you get conscripted, a bunch of other people are getting conscripted---or in other words, part of the compensation for getting conscripted is a whole army to defend your homeland.
        zzzcpan 10y ago
        "to defend your homeland" That's actually a very typical war propaganda. In reality you are defending the order your state imposes on you and everyone. In slave terms you are defending your master's desire to control you from other masters. And that's it.
        dropit_sphere 10y ago
        Sounds reasonable, I guess you're right.
        fjdlwlv 10y ago
        In a democratic society, the people are the masters, enslaved to... themselves
sqeaky 10y ago
That does not seem like a long term plan for keeping a country. It would need to be paired with expert diplomacy at a minimum. I can think a few countries with no military Costa Rica and Lichtenstein. Costa Rica defers to allies in time of conflict and Lichtenstein just pays another country for their military. According to wikipedia most are island nations and get to rely on the ocean and vast distance for safety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_arme... It doesn't seem like anyone simply cedes territory and gets to stay a country.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  They don't, that's kinda the point. The idea is to place the blame on the people.

by Arizhel 10y ago

dropit_sphere 10y ago

Cute, but the tragedy of the commons means that you still might not get enough. The people allow the government a monopoly on violence in expectation that it will use it for their benefit. Putting the ultimate responsibility for national defense back on them is a betrayal of that trust.

Arizhel 10y ago
No, it's not. It is utterly impossible for the government to defend the nation without soldiers. It's also impossible for the government to create soldiers out of thin air; they have to come from the populace (or hire foreign mercenaries perhaps, but that has its own ethical problems). If the populace isn't willing to serve as soldiers in sufficient numbers, then it's impossible for the government to satisfy its responsibility to defend the nation. The people cannot blame the government for not defending the nation if the people are not willing to be part of that defense.
- dropit_sphere 10y ago
  >The people cannot blame the government...If the people are not willing to be part of that defense. What about a person who would fight and not desert if conscripted, but would not volunteer? Are they "willing to be part of that defense," or not? I submit that most people fall in that category, and that conscription is aimed at them.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    That's still slavery, because some fraction of them doesn't want to serve. So if there's any punishment for refusing to serve, or for deserting, then it's slavery. If there's no punishment, or if they're allowed to opt-out, then it's not really conscription.
    - dropit_sphere 10y ago
      >That's still slavery, Sure, OK. Slavery is not the worst possible state of existence, you know. My dog is not only a slave, but a captive slave: she can't leave my property, and I punish her when she tries to leave. But, looking at her dozing off in the sun right now, she seems pretty happy. Most people prefer the soft slavery of possible conscription, to the expected outcomes of foreign invasion. It helps that when you get conscripted, a bunch of other people are getting conscripted---or in other words, part of the compensation for getting conscripted is a whole army to defend your homeland.
      - zzzcpan 10y ago
        "to defend your homeland" That's actually a very typical war propaganda. In reality you are defending the order your state imposes on you and everyone. In slave terms you are defending your master's desire to control you from other masters. And that's it.
        dropit_sphere 10y ago
        Sounds reasonable, I guess you're right.
        fjdlwlv 10y ago
        In a democratic society, the people are the masters, enslaved to... themselves

sqeaky 10y ago

That does not seem like a long term plan for keeping a country. It would need to be paired with expert diplomacy at a minimum. I can think a few countries with no military Costa Rica and Lichtenstein. Costa Rica defers to allies in time of conflict and Lichtenstein just pays another country for their military. According to wikipedia most are island nations and get to rely on the ocean and vast distance for safety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_arme... It doesn't seem like anyone simply cedes territory and gets to stay a country.

Arizhel 10y ago
They don't, that's kinda the point. The idea is to place the blame on the people.