119
Do you believe conscription is okay? Why or Why Not?
(reddthat.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
119 points (91.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43950 readers
1116 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
IMO, it's always wrong.
At heart, I believe that the claimed authority by which governments draft people is illegitimate - that all nominal justifications for it are necessarily insufficient, self-contradictory or self-defeating.
But that's a more fundamental point, and one about governance as a whole.
Even if I pretend that such authority is legitimate, I still oppose conscription.
A volunteer army serves as a check on militaristic excess. If a war is both legitimate and necessary, then people will willingly fight it. If people will not willingly fight it, then it's almost certainly the case that it's not necessary or justified.
And if it is indeed the case that a war is necessary and justified and there's still insufficient support to provide for a volunteer army, then frankly, the nation is too sick to be worth saving anyway.
On the contrary, a volunteer army allows the ruling class to prosecute wars without risk to their own families. Volunteer armies are primarily recruited from poorer and disadvantaged families, and the "volunteers" are serving because they see no other option to support themselves.
If a war arrives that is necessary, justified, and also has broad support among the population there will still be those who avoid fighting because they know that others will do so for them. They will unjustly reap the benefits of victory without making any sacrifices.
You can make a similar argument about taxation. By your logic payment should be optional, since a society that genuinely wants to be just and fair should also voluntarily want to give money to achieve that.
As does conscription, since there are always exceptions made for that explicit purpose.
So that works out the same either way.
Yes - there will always be such people. The issue is how many of them there would be.
I would say that a nation that's unhealthy enough to have so many such people that they would make the difference between winning and losing deserves to lose.
Yes, and I in fact would. And with the same proviso - any society that would fail as a result deserves to fail.