Conscription

[David Floyd]

As a result of not wanting to fully threadjack another thread, for those who are interested in discussing it, here is a thread on conscription.

My position is that conscription is slavery. It is immoral, and can never be justified in any circumstance.

[Q Classic]

as long as i'm not the one conscripted, i have no problem with it.

[laurentius]

I agree with you DF. Conscription is useless in modern world
*sits and waits Pekka to arrive*

[DanS]

Conscription isn't immoral. Rather, it is not preferable at this time given the alternatives.

[chequita guevara]

Let's just agree to disagree.

[David Floyd]

The utility of conscription was not my point. It was just as wrong in WW2 as it is today.

[Pekka]

I'm conscript and I don't feel that I am a slave.
But for us, right now, there is no other way that we can defend ourselves. Maybe in the future when we have more money, we can go for full pro army though.

Of course there is the other point, we only defend our borders strictly. So no one is forced to fight on foreign countries. I see nothing wrong with the arrangement.

[Ming]

Just your opinion David... One might argue that it is your duty to give back to your country. Again, just an opinion... nothing immoral about it.

[Pekka]

laurentius, in a way I do agree with you. We need to concentrate on a common goal to establish pro army. In the long run.

But my model wouldn't 'free' conscription. We would have active pro army AND reserves, so that everyone is trained like they are these days. But they are called in when the fighting starts, and the pro army will hold the first waves enough, so the conscripts can be again trained to be active soldiers. Then conscripts will take the place and do soldiering, and pro army can start working to their true function, and cause the big damage to the enemy.

[David Floyd]

Ming,

Opinions are not immoral. Acting upon opinions can be immoral. Conscription is telling someone that they have to go be cannon fodder for a war that they very likely don't even want, and if they refuse, throwing them in prison, or worse. That easily fits the definition of involuntary servitude, which is another word for slavery.

Pekka,

But for us, right now, there is no other way that we can defend ourselves. Maybe in the future when we have more money, we can go for full pro army though.

Of course there is the other point, we only defend our borders strictly. So no one is forced to fight on foreign countries. I see nothing wrong with the arrangement.

Defend yourselves from whom, exactly?

[David Floyd]

Pekka,

The security of the state is irrelevant to me, if security conflicts with individual liberty. I see no point of a nation except to protect individual liberty, and saying that you are ultimately protecting liberty by taking it away is contradictory.

[Velociryx]

When I was growing up, my mom would make me go to church.

Every Sunday, without fail, whether I wanted to or not (and usually I didn't want to...would have rather slept in).

Deeply immoral woman.

-=Vel=-

[Pekka]

Well, I don't expect my house to burn down but I still installed the fire alarms.

You must be ready if enemy wants to invade. Sure, you should be able to know it before it happens, but then it's too late. You must have active training happening all the time, so you are ready. Otherwise there is no point in training in the first place.

Better to be safe than sorry?

[Pekka]

Also, I don't consider it a violation of my individual liberties to promise to defend the land (meaning my home too) against aggressors. And to be able to do that, we must all train.

I consider it a duty and a privilidge.

[C0ckney]

in times of national emergency then there is often no other choice (britain in 1916 for example), it's all very well arguing that it's immoral but when a country has to then it has to.

i'm not so sure about the kind of 'national service' that pekka has to do though.