3 ms·

Moreover, this isn't a new idea, it led to the opposition many founding fathers had to "Standing Armies". Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves. A standing army is

Moreover, this isn't a new idea, it led to the opposition many founding fathers had to "Standing Armies". Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves. A standing army is a vast apparatus under direct control of an executive. But, the opposition to standing armies is long forgotten. We also forgot the reason why only congress was given the authority to declare war, which has become dead letter, and these ideas considered quaint and outdated. But 1776 wasn't that long ago in the history of human governments, and the history of human governments is the history of abusing power. "Not to know what happened before you were born is to be a child forever." - Cicero

throwaway9848 13y ago
"Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves" Except that in the US, military service is voluntary.
- learc83 13y ago
  Indentured servant is probably a better term to describe what the OP was intending. They agree to enter into a period of service, during which they give up control of most aspects of their lives that civilians take for granted, e.g., they face jail time if they leave.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  Slavery could, historically, be entered into voluntarily. John Stuart Mill wrote some interesting things about this. But clearly, this isn't the basis of my comparison. A soldier is completely subject to the arbitrary will of his superiors, without any real legal protections. See also: Ratio of reported rapes vs. prosecuted rapes, scandals of enforcement agents.
- sweettea 13y ago
  Except that WWII and the Vietnam War both involved mandatory drafts in the US, and as a result, almost all US citizens of our age are barely two generations descended from a veteran of the US military. Even if your father didn't serve, your father's father probably did, taught him with a perspective colored by having been a slave in the military, and he likely raised you with a perspective colored thereby also.
- hobs 13y ago
  Correct, but that is why it is in a sense. I think if you expand this thought it is similar to how many people buy into their own company's bullshit while you stand on the outside and just shake your head.
- anon1385 13y ago
  http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm85.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm85.htm (1) Completed or attempted desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years. (2) Other cases of completed or attempted desertion. (a) Terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years. (b) Terminated otherwise. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years. (3) In time of war. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Yes. That applies after you have volunteered to be bound by it in the current military. The draft register is still around but the draft itself was eliminated in 1973 (or thereabouts). So, that U.S. military force propping up NATO and facing down the U.S.S.R. during Reagan's saber-rattling in the 1980s? ALL VOLUNTEER, believe it or not.
    - jivatmanx 13y ago
      Also interesting is that Milton Friedman considered his role in ending the draft his proudest achievement. Friedman had no qualms about describing himself as a libertarian and not a conservative, and his influence in the Reagan administration was considerable, even outside of economics. I find it strange that so many conservatives admire Reagan as their ultimate hero, but ignore any libertarian influence in his administration.
    - throwaway2048 13y ago
      You could (and still can) voluntarily sell yourself into slavery, it's still slavery.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        It's surprisingly easy to get back out of the military, if you really want to. You just have to be willing to deal with a general or other-than-honorable discharge.
- pvdm 13y ago
  Heard of wage slavery ?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Recruiting standards have been too high since 2007 actually. You're actually more likely to get in the military as a descendant of a middle-class family than from a poor family. And if you exclude the Army, that has been true since 2001 or so. And post-2009 when active operations in Iraq were ending and the economy really went to shit it's gotten even harder to join. You essentially can't even get into the various Officer Candidate Schools without being either in peak physical shape (Army/Marines) and having good grades, or having a GPA of 3.4+ with good physical scores (Navy/Air Force).
mpyne 13y ago
> Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves. A standing army is a vast apparatus under direct control of an executive. The U.S. military's only oath is to the Constitution of the U.S., not the executive. They are to follow the orders of the executive to the point that they are in keeping with upholding the defense of the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Officers don't even take an oath to zealously follow orders, only to properly discharge the duties of their position. While I'll grant that it's true that there is a lot of leeway and deference to the executive branch in what counts as a 'lawful order', it's incredibly concerning to me that so many people here have so little understanding of the U.S. military that they can claim with a straight face that the standing army is Obama's personal political tool. Please see http://terminallance.com/2013/05/17/terminal-lance-presidential-service/ http://terminallance.com/2013/05/17/terminal-lance-president... for a description of how little reverence there is for the President within the military.
- oz 13y ago
  This is true in theory, but soldiers the world over a trained simply to follow orders without question. How many soldiers when given an order, stop and think to debate the Constitutional issues, if any? Mind you, there are good reasons for training soldiers this way - In the heat of combat, the Platoon Commander can't put everything to a vote. But this way of life does have its negatives.
  - rdl 13y ago
    Generally, in the US military, officers (which include virtually all pilots) and senior enlisted actually do take into account legal (constitutional, other laws, and rules of engagement) concerns in making decisions. Even in combat, decisions about what weapons can be used do have legal input (i.e. can we blow up a mosque? What if it's actively being used to fire on us? Or what if it just has a spotter in it relaying fire missions to a mortar team elsewhere in a crowded village square?). Junior enlisted, yes, generally just follow orders from their immediate superiors.
- getpost 13y ago
  Speaking of oaths, the President's oath is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," not to protect the health or safety of Americans in general. Do NSA officials take an oath like the President's? Every NSA employee knows they're violating the constitution. Keith Alexander's statement in an embarrassment, which only calls attention to the corruption or ignorance at the top. Edit: spelling

throwaway9848 13y ago

"Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves" Except that in the US, military service is voluntary.

learc83 13y ago
Indentured servant is probably a better term to describe what the OP was intending. They agree to enter into a period of service, during which they give up control of most aspects of their lives that civilians take for granted, e.g., they face jail time if they leave.
jivatmanx 13y ago
Slavery could, historically, be entered into voluntarily. John Stuart Mill wrote some interesting things about this. But clearly, this isn't the basis of my comparison. A soldier is completely subject to the arbitrary will of his superiors, without any real legal protections. See also: Ratio of reported rapes vs. prosecuted rapes, scandals of enforcement agents.
sweettea 13y ago
Except that WWII and the Vietnam War both involved mandatory drafts in the US, and as a result, almost all US citizens of our age are barely two generations descended from a veteran of the US military. Even if your father didn't serve, your father's father probably did, taught him with a perspective colored by having been a slave in the military, and he likely raised you with a perspective colored thereby also.
hobs 13y ago
Correct, but that is why it is in a sense. I think if you expand this thought it is similar to how many people buy into their own company's bullshit while you stand on the outside and just shake your head.
anon1385 13y ago
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm85.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm85.htm (1) Completed or attempted desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years. (2) Other cases of completed or attempted desertion. (a) Terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years. (b) Terminated otherwise. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years. (3) In time of war. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Yes. That applies after you have volunteered to be bound by it in the current military. The draft register is still around but the draft itself was eliminated in 1973 (or thereabouts). So, that U.S. military force propping up NATO and facing down the U.S.S.R. during Reagan's saber-rattling in the 1980s? ALL VOLUNTEER, believe it or not.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    Also interesting is that Milton Friedman considered his role in ending the draft his proudest achievement. Friedman had no qualms about describing himself as a libertarian and not a conservative, and his influence in the Reagan administration was considerable, even outside of economics. I find it strange that so many conservatives admire Reagan as their ultimate hero, but ignore any libertarian influence in his administration.
  - throwaway2048 13y ago
    You could (and still can) voluntarily sell yourself into slavery, it's still slavery.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      It's surprisingly easy to get back out of the military, if you really want to. You just have to be willing to deal with a general or other-than-honorable discharge.
pvdm 13y ago
Heard of wage slavery ?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Recruiting standards have been too high since 2007 actually. You're actually more likely to get in the military as a descendant of a middle-class family than from a poor family. And if you exclude the Army, that has been true since 2001 or so. And post-2009 when active operations in Iraq were ending and the economy really went to shit it's gotten even harder to join. You essentially can't even get into the various Officer Candidate Schools without being either in peak physical shape (Army/Marines) and having good grades, or having a GPA of 3.4+ with good physical scores (Navy/Air Force).

mpyne 13y ago

> Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves. A standing army is a vast apparatus under direct control of an executive. The U.S. military's only oath is to the Constitution of the U.S., not the executive. They are to follow the orders of the executive to the point that they are in keeping with upholding the defense of the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Officers don't even take an oath to zealously follow orders, only to properly discharge the duties of their position. While I'll grant that it's true that there is a lot of leeway and deference to the executive branch in what counts as a 'lawful order', it's incredibly concerning to me that so many people here have so little understanding of the U.S. military that they can claim with a straight face that the standing army is Obama's personal political tool. Please see http://terminallance.com/2013/05/17/terminal-lance-presidential-service/ http://terminallance.com/2013/05/17/terminal-lance-president... for a description of how little reverence there is for the President within the military.

oz 13y ago
This is true in theory, but soldiers the world over a trained simply to follow orders without question. How many soldiers when given an order, stop and think to debate the Constitutional issues, if any? Mind you, there are good reasons for training soldiers this way - In the heat of combat, the Platoon Commander can't put everything to a vote. But this way of life does have its negatives.
- rdl 13y ago
  Generally, in the US military, officers (which include virtually all pilots) and senior enlisted actually do take into account legal (constitutional, other laws, and rules of engagement) concerns in making decisions. Even in combat, decisions about what weapons can be used do have legal input (i.e. can we blow up a mosque? What if it's actively being used to fire on us? Or what if it just has a spotter in it relaying fire missions to a mortar team elsewhere in a crowded village square?). Junior enlisted, yes, generally just follow orders from their immediate superiors.
getpost 13y ago
Speaking of oaths, the President's oath is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," not to protect the health or safety of Americans in general. Do NSA officials take an oath like the President's? Every NSA employee knows they're violating the constitution. Keith Alexander's statement in an embarrassment, which only calls attention to the corruption or ignorance at the top. Edit: spelling