5 ms·

> Conscription is slavery I abhor hyperbole. Slavery is the legal ownership of one person over another person and their progeny. Since they are property, slave

> 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.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    Hogwash. A slave is property. Inherent to slavery is some form of dehumanization, being somehow below the ruling class...a subhuman. You are not the pet of the state. You are not regarded as less than human. This is hyperbole. You may not like being subject to taxes and laws, but you have remedies, such as renouncing your citizenship or leaving for an area not governed by a state.
    - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
      "A slave is property." Yes, and so are citizens of a state. "Inherent to slavery is some form of dehumanization." No. The definition of a slave (first hit on google) is "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." In ancient times, people who lost wars may have been subjugated as slaves, but there was no pretense that they were less human. I think you might be thinking of racial slavery, which was inspired by a belief that other races were subhumans. "being somehow below the ruling class" Even ordinary citizens, who may be able to vote and do all that fun civic stuff, may still be below the ruling class. As Lysander Spooner said, "A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." > "but you have remedies, such as renouncing your citizenship" But for US expatriation, you will have to pay an exit tax as well as continue to pay income taxes, so no you aren't able to be free of bondage. Getting to pick from a new master on a different tax farm doesn't mean you are not a slave. > "leaving for an area not governed by a state" If there were such a place, then pretty soon, some state will likely come in and claim you for their tax revenue. Considering that states make this threat means that your relationship with them is not voluntary. Also, the "you are free to leave" argument doesn't take into account the fact that you never voluntarily entered into a relationship with them to begin with. It doesn't mean you were not a slave while under bondage. Effective slave masters realized that by giving their subjects some freedoms, that they were better off. But just because you have some freedoms again doesn't mean that you are not a slave. You are still the legal property of the state and forced to obey them in matters which the state desires you to obey.
      - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
        > be thinking of racial slavery, which was inspired by a belief that other races were subhumans. No, I'm not thinking of racial slavery. I'm thinking of slavery defined by Aristotle, whose view is representative of the classical world: " "anyone who, while being human, is by nature not his own but of someone else…he is of someone else when, while being human, he is a piece of property; and a piece of property is a tool for action separate from its owner." If this doesn't sound dehumanizing, I don't know what qualifies. As stated before, a citizen of a state can renounce said citizen and emigrate to Bir Tawil or some other unclaimed territory. Unlike Aristotle's definition, you, by nature, are not of someone else and has the free will to choose to leave. That states have laws limiting absolute freedom does not equal slavery
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  Being a slave means that you are property, like a pet. It also means that you are not quite recognized as a human being.
  - danharaj 10y ago
    Chattel slavery isn't the only form of slavery.
- maus42 10y ago
  I have written now a quite many comments on this subject in various subthreads on this post, I'll try to summarize my position here ... I'd rather say that the word "slavery" has been used for certain forms of involuntary servitude with often many common characteristics. (Worker has no rights to leave, no other political and social rights of the free citizen such as right to vote if it exists, and for all intents and purposes is considered a property of their owner.) Usually it has been distinctive cultural and often also a legal institution, separate from other duties and forms of involuntary work. This form of is generally agreed to be an evil thing (actually outright irredeemable horror in the US context that often dominates English-language boards such as this), so of course everybody likes to call any form of involuntary work they don't like slavery. The topic of ancient Greece and Rome have already been raised, the revolutionary France likewise. (I think it's still notable to reiterate that conscription has been prominently around with these both ur-examples of modern Western concept of citizenship.) However, let us have a more modern example: consider hypothetical case where prisoner serving a term is required to clean up their room once per week. Out of blue this sounds reasonable. Is this slavery? After all, the prison administration could hire a professional cleaner to do it. As a slightly more realistic example, the Western concept of prison has often included working as a form of rehabilitation right from the beginning. Sometimes the "rehabilitation" part has been genuine, sometimes not; sometimes the work has been simply a meaningless punishment: sometimes goods are produced and sold; sometimes the prisoner receives a token pay, sometimes not. It's easy to imagine a problematic version where calling that kind of working "slavery" does not seem misplaced, but it is also possible to imagine scenarios where it does. And in any case, one is drawing a comparison to a more ancient institution. In some regards there are similarities, but on the other hand, it's also misses some critical points and is at best a very uncharitable choice of word. Same goes for conscription, especially in a liberal modern democracy where the draft is fairly egalitarian (contrast against the quite arbitrary press gang method of the British Navy of the wooden ships and iron men age), is temporary, citizens generally are allowed to emigrate out of the country during peacetime, can vote in any elections that happen when they are serving, and the work they perform is fairly unusual and exceptional service (compared to regular peacetime job) for the society in an exceptional situation. Would a compulsory EMT training for everybody and then a requirement to use those skills if possible in a sudden situation that warrants their use also be slavery?
zeveb 10y ago
> He/She cannot force you to do fight with another conscript to the death. But, of course, he can force a conscript to fight an adversary to the death.
- dvtv75 10y ago
  Only if the state has deemed the death of the adversary a necessity, and as I understand it, soldiers aren't obliged to perform illegal killings (for example).

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.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  Hogwash. A slave is property. Inherent to slavery is some form of dehumanization, being somehow below the ruling class...a subhuman. You are not the pet of the state. You are not regarded as less than human. This is hyperbole. You may not like being subject to taxes and laws, but you have remedies, such as renouncing your citizenship or leaving for an area not governed by a state.
  - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
    "A slave is property." Yes, and so are citizens of a state. "Inherent to slavery is some form of dehumanization." No. The definition of a slave (first hit on google) is "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." In ancient times, people who lost wars may have been subjugated as slaves, but there was no pretense that they were less human. I think you might be thinking of racial slavery, which was inspired by a belief that other races were subhumans. "being somehow below the ruling class" Even ordinary citizens, who may be able to vote and do all that fun civic stuff, may still be below the ruling class. As Lysander Spooner said, "A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." > "but you have remedies, such as renouncing your citizenship" But for US expatriation, you will have to pay an exit tax as well as continue to pay income taxes, so no you aren't able to be free of bondage. Getting to pick from a new master on a different tax farm doesn't mean you are not a slave. > "leaving for an area not governed by a state" If there were such a place, then pretty soon, some state will likely come in and claim you for their tax revenue. Considering that states make this threat means that your relationship with them is not voluntary. Also, the "you are free to leave" argument doesn't take into account the fact that you never voluntarily entered into a relationship with them to begin with. It doesn't mean you were not a slave while under bondage. Effective slave masters realized that by giving their subjects some freedoms, that they were better off. But just because you have some freedoms again doesn't mean that you are not a slave. You are still the legal property of the state and forced to obey them in matters which the state desires you to obey.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
      > be thinking of racial slavery, which was inspired by a belief that other races were subhumans. No, I'm not thinking of racial slavery. I'm thinking of slavery defined by Aristotle, whose view is representative of the classical world: " "anyone who, while being human, is by nature not his own but of someone else…he is of someone else when, while being human, he is a piece of property; and a piece of property is a tool for action separate from its owner." If this doesn't sound dehumanizing, I don't know what qualifies. As stated before, a citizen of a state can renounce said citizen and emigrate to Bir Tawil or some other unclaimed territory. Unlike Aristotle's definition, you, by nature, are not of someone else and has the free will to choose to leave. That states have laws limiting absolute freedom does not equal slavery
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
Being a slave means that you are property, like a pet. It also means that you are not quite recognized as a human being.
- danharaj 10y ago
  Chattel slavery isn't the only form of slavery.
maus42 10y ago
I have written now a quite many comments on this subject in various subthreads on this post, I'll try to summarize my position here ... I'd rather say that the word "slavery" has been used for certain forms of involuntary servitude with often many common characteristics. (Worker has no rights to leave, no other political and social rights of the free citizen such as right to vote if it exists, and for all intents and purposes is considered a property of their owner.) Usually it has been distinctive cultural and often also a legal institution, separate from other duties and forms of involuntary work. This form of is generally agreed to be an evil thing (actually outright irredeemable horror in the US context that often dominates English-language boards such as this), so of course everybody likes to call any form of involuntary work they don't like slavery. The topic of ancient Greece and Rome have already been raised, the revolutionary France likewise. (I think it's still notable to reiterate that conscription has been prominently around with these both ur-examples of modern Western concept of citizenship.) However, let us have a more modern example: consider hypothetical case where prisoner serving a term is required to clean up their room once per week. Out of blue this sounds reasonable. Is this slavery? After all, the prison administration could hire a professional cleaner to do it. As a slightly more realistic example, the Western concept of prison has often included working as a form of rehabilitation right from the beginning. Sometimes the "rehabilitation" part has been genuine, sometimes not; sometimes the work has been simply a meaningless punishment: sometimes goods are produced and sold; sometimes the prisoner receives a token pay, sometimes not. It's easy to imagine a problematic version where calling that kind of working "slavery" does not seem misplaced, but it is also possible to imagine scenarios where it does. And in any case, one is drawing a comparison to a more ancient institution. In some regards there are similarities, but on the other hand, it's also misses some critical points and is at best a very uncharitable choice of word. Same goes for conscription, especially in a liberal modern democracy where the draft is fairly egalitarian (contrast against the quite arbitrary press gang method of the British Navy of the wooden ships and iron men age), is temporary, citizens generally are allowed to emigrate out of the country during peacetime, can vote in any elections that happen when they are serving, and the work they perform is fairly unusual and exceptional service (compared to regular peacetime job) for the society in an exceptional situation. Would a compulsory EMT training for everybody and then a requirement to use those skills if possible in a sudden situation that warrants their use also be slavery?

zeveb 10y ago

> He/She cannot force you to do fight with another conscript to the death. But, of course, he can force a conscript to fight an adversary to the death.

dvtv75 10y ago
Only if the state has deemed the death of the adversary a necessity, and as I understand it, soldiers aren't obliged to perform illegal killings (for example).