Conscription

[Boris Godunov]

Conscription certainly is a moral evil. The question is, should a nation be faced with a true emergency that threatens its very existence, is it a necessary evil?

Hypothetically, I can justify it. Say a powerful Fascist country, akin to Nazi Germany, was poised to invade your country. The only way to repel the invasion would be to institute a draft. If this country invades successfully, it is a given they will commit horrible atrocities, including genocide and slavery.

Now, clearly the best interests of the people is to stop the invasion. Since it is the duty of government to protect society, the only way it could feasibly do so would be to institute a draft.

I don't buy the notion that government is solely to protect individual rights. On the contrary, most governments are established to protect collective rights and society. Perhaps that's not the case in the U.S (and I'd argue about that), but it is in most places.

[laurentius]

Vel, theoretically you are right but in fact the other choice->civil service is more like a punishment in Finland...

[Sava]

I don't buy the notion that government is solely to protect individual rights. On the contrary, most governments are established to protect collective rights and society. Perhaps that's not the case in the U.S (and I'd argue about that), but it is in most places.

agreed

The constitution states "we the people", not "I, David Floyd"...

[Pekka]

I'm not telling anyone to leave. It's their own choice. But this is how our country works now. And if someone disagrees, they can go find happiness in other places. I'm not saying 'go away commie', I'm saying 'why stay, set yourself free and be happy'. I feel, that I have a contract with my country as I have its passport and citizenship. I have agreed to its duties by not giving it up.

And if you want to stay and still think it's wrong, well they can go ahead and raise their voices. Sure they have to go to prison for a short period of time, but they can fight against it. It's their right. And they are able to do it because our grandfathers didn't start thinking about the moral sides

It's ironic, that the soldiers protect and fight so that other people can protest against them. But that's the way it goes and I have nothing against it.

[Velociryx]

Laurentius....good point....I didn't say the other alternatives were GOOD choices...

And Sava....DANG! You mean DF isn't named individually in the Constitution! Oh the shame of it!

-=Vel=-

[Kirnwaffen]

I don't see the temporary sacrifice of liberty in order to ensure it's long term survival as immoral.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Richelieu,

Certainly not. First off, I can't give up what is natural and inherent (but that's a different argument). Secondly, once a nation forces me to "give up" my liberty, it ceases to protect my liberty, and then your argument becomes invalid anyway.

The nation forces you to give up temporarily your freedom so that you may enjoy that freedom later on. That's part of the deal: if you are wiling to take the benefits, you have to be willing to pay in order to get them.
Fighting to preserve the nation's existence, when that nation is the one that initially and ultimately has and will provide the context in which you exercise your liberty is the price to pay for liberty.
If you don't agree, don't fight. But don't stay.

[David Floyd]

Vel,

DF: The answer to the question you asked Pekka is simple. That is the way his country's "social contract" is structured. People there understand that in exchange for the benefits of living there, they must (whether the feel like it or not) help provide for the defense of the country.

He has a choice. If he was dead set against doing so, he could find a new country to call home. Barring that, he could round up any and everybody else who didn't want to, and try to change that part of the social contract (if they were a majority).

Fine, that's the way the "social structure" is set up. But that does nothing to answer the point that conscription is slavery or immoral, and it does nothing to answer the point that if indeed that is the social structure, then the nation is not protecting freedom.

Oh I see....so in some cases (presumably, as defined by your whim....if "you" see it as silly and irrelevant, for example), suppression of liberty is okay....gotcha!

It's not at all defined by my whim. A parent has the responsibility to protect their child. This responsibility is quite obviously implied by choosing to have a child that cannot protect itself. Part of this protection includes not leaving small children at home alone for extended periods of time.

Now, should a parent force a 15 year old to go to church? Probably not. But the fact remains that rights are different for minors than for adults, in that minors are under the protection of their parents until majority age.

If you want to argue that majority age is arbitrary, then I fully agree - it should probably be lower, and not only that, but it should have more to do with each individual case than an age limit in general. Age limits are kinda silly. But that's an entirely different argument. If you want to debate majority age, start a thread for it.

This thread is about conscription. Whether or not parents forcing their children to go to church violates liberty is irrelevant as to the point of whether or not conscription violates liberty.

[DAVOUT]

Re: Conscription

Originally posted by 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.

Do you deny a nation the right to have a defence against aggression, or only the conscription principle?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The constitution states "we the people", not "I, David Floyd"...

Floyd's does .

Conscription is NOT morally wrong when faced with a substantial threat to the state. By living in the country you enter into an implicit contract that you will fight for the country if it needs you. If you don't like that implicit contract then you can move out.

That's just the way it is. Who cares if you don't like it and think it's slavery? Leave the country then and don't come back so your implied contract is nullified.

[Sava]

Age limits are kinda silly.

No... age limits are practical, and perfectly acceptable. Young people are immature and don't have experience. Limits on driving, drinking, cigarettes use, voting, and military service are perfectly moral and just. Personally, I don't think 8 year olds are capable of driving 4,000 vehicles. But I'm sure the ACLU would commend your outspoken support of the enslaved children of America.

[David Floyd]

Pekka,

David, also you must understand, that in the case of US it is different. You have a big army, volunteers, already.
Well we don't. And right now we can't afford having pro army. Simple.

The US should not have such a big military, as it faces as few conventional threats as Finland does, and, for that matter, is bordered by weaker nations.

I'm not telling anyone to leave. It's their own choice. But this is how our country works now. And if someone disagrees, they can go find happiness in other places. I'm not saying 'go away commie', I'm saying 'why stay, set yourself free and be happy'. I feel, that I have a contract with my country as I have its passport and citizenship. I have agreed to its duties by not giving it up.

Yes, yes, but this STILL doesn't answer the point that conscription has nothing to do with freedom.

Boris,

Now, clearly the best interests of the people is to stop the invasion. Since it is the duty of government to protect society, the only way it could feasibly do so would be to institute a draft.

Really? In the case of national destruction, you don't think there would be a flood of volunteers?

And even if they weren't, if the people aren't willing to fight to ensure national survival, then obviously they aren't interested in the nation, and possibly even prefer the foreign power.

I don't buy the notion that government is solely to protect individual rights. On the contrary, most governments are established to protect collective rights and society.

"Collective rights" are nothing more than a bunch of individual rights. If conscription violates individual rights, then it must also violate the "collective right", if you want to make that distinction. Personally, I don't make that distinction, as I feel that it's sorta redundant.

Kirnwaffen,

I don't see the temporary sacrifice of liberty in order to ensure it's long term survival as immoral.

Great! Then go volunteer! But don't force your views onto others.

DAVOUT,

Do you deny a nation the right to have a defence against aggression, or only the conscription principle?

First of all, define "aggression". In the context that aggression means invasion or direct attack, then of course I don't deny the right to self defense, just that self defense must be voluntary.

[Velociryx]

This thread is in the OT, and you know how that goes....

As to the conscription question itself....the government's job is not to protect your individual liberty. That's not what it's there for. There's not a cadre of government officials who are assigned to the task of protecting DF's individual liberty.

There IS, however, a cadre (a rather large one, actually) of government officials who are assigned to the task of preserving liberty and the ideals set forth in our nation's constitution.

Sometimes, that means that in the short run, *individual* liberties might get bruised or subverted for the greater good, and WHEN that happens, it doesn't mean the state so doing has abandoned all thoughts of liberty, it means that the state is responding to a crisis (real or percieved) of the moment.

You're a smart fella...surely you can see that....

Surely you can also see that you, AS an individual, have choices. If you don't like the way our social contract is written....if you believe that the government should be all about individual liberty and preserving that (and the rest of it be damned), then your choices are:

a) Gather like-minded individuals around yourself, and elect someone who thinks like you do....do that often enough to gain a majority in our governing bodies and change the contract itself.

b) Dissent, and suffer the consequences

or

c) Go somewhere else.

Not a big mystery.

-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ming,
Opinions are not immoral. Acting upon opinions can be immoral.

Your opinion that it is immoral is what I'm aruging. Just because YOU label it so doesn't make it so.

Some would argue you that it's YOUR DUTY to serve time, and that your lame attempt to call it slavery is just a straw dog line... Their opinion is as VALID as your opinion.

Without conscription in WWII, you might be speaking german now, and have none of the rights you so sadly think came to you for free.

[C0ckney]

whether or not you think britain should have entered ww1 is wholly irrelevent. the government and the public at large thought belgium was worth going to war and we did so.

we did have our back against the wall, our armies in france were under pressure and we simply didn't have enough men to replace losses, our allies' armies were in a far worse state. we were 6 weeks away from starvation in 1917 due to german submarine action. how that can be be described as anything other than with our backs against the wall is beyond me.