You can call it duty all you like. You can call it fairy dust. What it is is the government putting a gun to peoples heads to force them to do specific jobs. Forced labor is commonly known as slavery. You can say it is necessary, fine, just never forget that it is an evil.
Common good is also a lie. Once you have accepted government for the common good, you have surrendered the moral argument against communism.
So sure, you can write a bunch of stuff justifying conscription all you like. Just call it what it is: slavery. Don't pretend it's some noble duty: it's a bunch of slaves being ordered around at gunpoint. There's nothing good that can come of this, some are just in desperate situations and are more afraid of a greater evil.
The thing is, the people who call for constription are often too old or too crippled to answer a call for volunteers.Personally, I'd have more respect for the argument in favor of conscription if it was made by people who were themselves willing to die to see it implemented.
Slavery is one of those words that's well defined: Someone holding another in bondage, forcing them to work, preventing them from leaving. Normal work does not hit that. One can leave, choose not to work for that someone, choose not to work for anyone, etc. The 'wage slave' argument is trying to end around consent. It fails on a number of levels though. They are not held in bondage. They are not forced to work (free to starve in the most extreme example, but also you can/could go into the woods and subsistence live, soup kitchens, live with family, etc). Depending where in history you are, they are a number of possible answers.As I said before, this is just the opposite side of the horseshoe from "capitalism is slavery, because you must work or starve", and to answer your previous response, no, no that's exactly how it is. Yes, in most western countries you won't starve if you don't work, thanks to private charity (and a significant number of government programs). That's a relatively recent thing, and it's far from universal, for most of the world if you don't work you will die.
Nor is private charity a fair answer to this issue in the first place, because you're responding to a philosophical issue by pointing to a real world solution that emerged independent of that philosophy. You can't do that, and then switch over to "paying taxes is ontologically evil, who cares how useful it is to have roads" as your main argument, because you know darn well that doesn't fly in the real world.
The reason why a line exists is because it's not for the 'good of all'. It's for the individual right of the person possessing the nose. It's the right of the individual vs the 'good' of the many. If you use the 'good of the many', the only objection to communism left is that it doesn't work, not that it is inherently unethical, as you've already accepted it's ethical basis: "it's fine to violate rights for the good of the many".There is a world of difference between "for the good of all, your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose" and "for the good of all, you must go do job in glorious people's ironworks, comrade", and you can in fact draw a line between the two and limit government to it's own narrow sphere of action.
See, the part where this falls apart is the comparison. You are comparing a job to a law. My issue is not with the job, it's with a law."So sure, you can write a bunch of stuff justifying police all you like. Just call what it is: a protection racket. Don't pretend it's some noble duty: t's a bunch of goons running around extorting money from everyone else at gunpoint for their own use, on the thin pretense that if something bad ever happens, they'll maybe probably show up and do something about it."
That's what you sound like now.
People like @Abhorsen often like to forget about or ignore the inconvenient responsibilities part of "rights and responsibilities" ...It's funny cause liability for military service used to be synonymous with citizenship with all early democracies and republics, and thus the exact opposite of slavery, peonage, serfdom, etc, all of which are people the ruling class don't want armed.
In the U.S., the word Militia was synonymous with the body of adult male citizens at the Founding, and remains that legally today. Speaking of clearly defined terminology, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 13th Amendment does not cover conscription, jury duty, etc, and it's super obvious that not one drafter of the 13th would have understood what you were on about were you to make such a claim about conscription being slavery to them.
The thing is, the people who call for constription are often too old or too crippled to answer a call for volunteers.
I'm a 44yr old who is missing a toe. My dad is 76. While we both know how to use a rifle - and could teach you how to use one - either one of us would be a complete "please shoot us" liabilty if sent to the front lines while an 18yr old who doesn't know his ass from his elbow and barely got through basic is not a liability.
That's all on Russia being dumb.Basic training is a thing that conscripted soldiers are suppose to do, Although Russia thought to ignore that for some reason.
The State should be a tool of the people. When you conscript people, you make people the tools of the State. I think it is ethically wrong.
If you cannot make the case to the people that the State should survive and they should fight for it then perhaps it should die. Volunteers should defend the State, not conscripts.I think Israel is a good example of when conscription is necessary, You have a small state surrounded by hostile countries that seek not only its annihilation but likely its citizenry as well. In a situation like that you can't rely on the hopes of having enough volunteers you have to maintain a sizeable force at all times for continued existence.
When did the person consent to this? Seriously, you can use that justification to justify any demand of citizenry. Just call it a responsibility.People like @Abhorsen often like to forget about or ignore the inconvenient responsibilities part of "rights and responsibilities" ...
Okay. Let's accept for sake of argument that it is necessary. Can you still call it slavery and acknowledge it as a necessary evil? That's what I've been arguing for. It's important to recognize evil comes not just from outside forces but also from your own government.I think Israel is a good example of when conscription is necessary, You have a small state surrounded by hostile countries that seek not only its annihilation but likely its citizenry as well. In a situation like that you can't rely on the hopes of having enough volunteers you have to maintain a sizeable force at all times for continued existence.
You don't have to consent.When did the person consent to this? Seriously, you can use that justification to justify any demand of citizenry. Just call it a responsibility.
No, they don't. Fuck that nonsense. There are only human rights, and your only duty is to respect other's rights. That's it. There are no positive rights. If you allow positive rights, you've accepted all communism needs. You owe no one anything from the day you are born until as an adult you willingly decide to owe someone something.You don't have to consent.
Rights also come with responsibilities and you get both the day you are born.
Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin.No, they don't. Fuck that nonsense. There are only human rights, and your only duty is to respect other's rights. That's it. There are no positive rights. If you allow positive rights, you've accepted all communism needs. You owe no one anything from the day you are born until as an adult you willingly decide to owe someone something.