4 ms·

Do you think slavery is fine then? If compelled labour in the military is permissible by you because people have 'obligations' to the government? What is a gove

Do you think slavery is fine then? If compelled labour in the military is permissible by you because people have 'obligations' to the government? What is a government except as an entity to ensure people's natural rights are not infringed. And we are somehow obligated to be slaves to this entity?

afiori 8y ago
Forced labour and slavery have little in common, for one you do not own the children of your employee. > What is a government except as an entity to ensure people's natural rights are not infringed. People cannot eat freedom nor warm up in the cold with rights. A government intended purpose is the continuation and stability of a country/culture/society. This does not mean that anything is fine if it is for survival nor that citizens are expendable.
eesmith 8y ago
"Slavery" is both a narrow term and a broad term. In the narrow term, it applies property ownership laws to people. You want to use it in the broadest of senses, including for purposes which the ILO Forced Labour Convention of 1930 excludes, listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour . You are of course free to do that, but I believe 1) it downplays the horribleness of, for example, chattel slavery in the US by equating it, among other things, being obligated to jury duty, and 2) you haven't said what isn't slavery. Most of use are wage slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery > The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass initially declared "now I am my own master", upon taking a paying job.[31] However, later in life he concluded to the contrary, saying "experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other". ... > [Marx:] The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence.
mcphage 8y ago
> And we are somehow obligated to be slaves to this entity? Nope! You can voluntarily renounce your citizenship at any point.
- mvid 8y ago
  Not really, h less you have another citizenship. If that’s the only option to avoid forced labor, it’s not a real option
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
> What is a government except as an entity to ensure people's natural rights are not infringed. If the nation is under existential threat by a tyrannical invader and there aren't enough volunteers for an effective defense, should the government stand by and allow everyone's freedom to be lost permanently?
- Pristina 8y ago
  >If the nation is under existential threat by a tyrannical invader and there aren't enough volunteers for an effective defense, Why is the existence of a particular political entity more important than the lives of people? An existential threat to a nation doesn't mean the people that live there are all going to die. It simply means that a political entity will stop existing. Thus a draft is trading human lives for the potential continued existence of a political entity.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    That's why I said "tyrannical." You said a government's paramount purpose is preserving the natural rights of its citizens. What happens when the only way to accomplish that is war? That does happen in real life. I think the draft (and war in general) is a bad thing and we should do our best to avoid it. But sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
lsiebert 8y ago
I understand there may be a need for compelled labor by the government, in a time of war or national emergency. Am I okay with it? I think that depends on whether it's a defensive war or a real national emergency. China invades, or yellow stone's super volcano erupts, yeah, those are legitimate reasons to force humans to cooperate, because survival is at stake. Vietnam type situations, or the Border Wall thing... I'd be protesting a draft. U.S. law and supreme court precedent both say that a draft is not slavery, but I understand your opinion, or definition of slavery, may differ. I also believe quarantine laws for infectious people are valid, that police should be able to arrest violent criminals, etc. Basically, I believe if your actions or failure to act endangers the health and well-being of others, then the government has a legitimate interest in compelling or restricting behavior. Most people would consider providing for the national defense and preserving the lives of citizens to be part of what a government does.
- Fjolsvith 8y ago
  I frankly agree with Robert Heinlein's attitude towards military service. Voluntary, but with the caveat that if you choose not to serve, you do not earn the right to vote.
  - lsiebert 8y ago
    You might enjoy reading his 1973 address to the naval academy. http://www.phrost.com/blog/society/the-pragmatics-of-patriotism-robert-heinlein/ http://www.phrost.com/blog/society/the-pragmatics-of-patriot... I like his books, but I don't agree with his ideas.
- Pristina 8y ago
  >preserving the lives of citizens this is completely false. a war is never about killing citizens but about imposing political will. without a defense, the occupier would simply impose their political system on the occupied. a government, being a political entity, is only forcing people to DIE so they can maintain their political hegemony over some people.
  - 8y ago

afiori 8y ago

Forced labour and slavery have little in common, for one you do not own the children of your employee. > What is a government except as an entity to ensure people's natural rights are not infringed. People cannot eat freedom nor warm up in the cold with rights. A government intended purpose is the continuation and stability of a country/culture/society. This does not mean that anything is fine if it is for survival nor that citizens are expendable.

eesmith 8y ago

"Slavery" is both a narrow term and a broad term. In the narrow term, it applies property ownership laws to people. You want to use it in the broadest of senses, including for purposes which the ILO Forced Labour Convention of 1930 excludes, listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour . You are of course free to do that, but I believe 1) it downplays the horribleness of, for example, chattel slavery in the US by equating it, among other things, being obligated to jury duty, and 2) you haven't said what isn't slavery. Most of use are wage slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery > The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass initially declared "now I am my own master", upon taking a paying job.[31] However, later in life he concluded to the contrary, saying "experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other". ... > [Marx:] The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence.

mcphage 8y ago

> And we are somehow obligated to be slaves to this entity? Nope! You can voluntarily renounce your citizenship at any point.

mvid 8y ago
Not really, h less you have another citizenship. If that’s the only option to avoid forced labor, it’s not a real option
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

> What is a government except as an entity to ensure people's natural rights are not infringed. If the nation is under existential threat by a tyrannical invader and there aren't enough volunteers for an effective defense, should the government stand by and allow everyone's freedom to be lost permanently?

Pristina 8y ago
>If the nation is under existential threat by a tyrannical invader and there aren't enough volunteers for an effective defense, Why is the existence of a particular political entity more important than the lives of people? An existential threat to a nation doesn't mean the people that live there are all going to die. It simply means that a political entity will stop existing. Thus a draft is trading human lives for the potential continued existence of a political entity.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  That's why I said "tyrannical." You said a government's paramount purpose is preserving the natural rights of its citizens. What happens when the only way to accomplish that is war? That does happen in real life. I think the draft (and war in general) is a bad thing and we should do our best to avoid it. But sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils.

lsiebert 8y ago

I understand there may be a need for compelled labor by the government, in a time of war or national emergency. Am I okay with it? I think that depends on whether it's a defensive war or a real national emergency. China invades, or yellow stone's super volcano erupts, yeah, those are legitimate reasons to force humans to cooperate, because survival is at stake. Vietnam type situations, or the Border Wall thing... I'd be protesting a draft. U.S. law and supreme court precedent both say that a draft is not slavery, but I understand your opinion, or definition of slavery, may differ. I also believe quarantine laws for infectious people are valid, that police should be able to arrest violent criminals, etc. Basically, I believe if your actions or failure to act endangers the health and well-being of others, then the government has a legitimate interest in compelling or restricting behavior. Most people would consider providing for the national defense and preserving the lives of citizens to be part of what a government does.

Fjolsvith 8y ago
I frankly agree with Robert Heinlein's attitude towards military service. Voluntary, but with the caveat that if you choose not to serve, you do not earn the right to vote.
- lsiebert 8y ago
  You might enjoy reading his 1973 address to the naval academy. http://www.phrost.com/blog/society/the-pragmatics-of-patriotism-robert-heinlein/ http://www.phrost.com/blog/society/the-pragmatics-of-patriot... I like his books, but I don't agree with his ideas.
Pristina 8y ago
>preserving the lives of citizens this is completely false. a war is never about killing citizens but about imposing political will. without a defense, the occupier would simply impose their political system on the occupied. a government, being a political entity, is only forcing people to DIE so they can maintain their political hegemony over some people.
- 8y ago