What are your opinions on conscription (a moral discussion)

[Rommie2006]

Coming from a country that enforces and condones conscription, I would just like to know how you folks from other countries feel about the morality of conscription.

Violation of human rights perhaps? A kind of slavery?
Or do you think it is justified or even beneficial for the state?

For the record, conscription my country means taking out male citizens in their prime (usually 18 to 22) and making them serve a compulsory period of military service for a period of 2 to 3 years.

Of course they are "paid" for their services, but their "wages" pathetic and can be considered as seriously underpaid.

[Civil War Man]

From American Heritage Dictionary:

slave (n) - 1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence.
3. One who works extremely hard
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.

With some loose interpretation, one could argue that conscripts are slaves either using the 2nd (but you could probably use the same argument for corporate drones) or 1st (if you define a soldier as being property of the state) definitions (3rd and 4th are kinda irrelevant to this topic).

A military's need for conscripts is a pretty new idea. I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that it dates back to Renaissance. Machiavelli in The Prince argued strongly for the use of conscripts as opposed to the alternative. Prior to that, mercenaries (which I guess would be the second capitalist, after prostitutes) made up a rather significant percentage of a political leader's war machine. Mercenary work pretty much fell by the wayside with the creation of large nationalistic armies (particularly with the rise of Napoleon, as even the British army hired German mercenaries).

The mercenary business has started to rise again (many are deployed under the US flag in Iraq), but for the most part the thought of employing a strong mercenary force makes nationalist leaders go apeshit. I'm sure many people would disagree, but I personally see the use of "professional soldiers" as preferable to wide-scale conscription of ordinary citizens who likely don't want to be in the military.

[Durandal]

Outside of a national crisis, conscripted military service is unjustifiable. The military is an environment where your rights to privacy and free speech are suspended, and those rights, by definition, cannot be taken away without due process of law (at least in the United States).

As I said before, in cases of a national emergency -- like China invading or something -- I cannot see the justification for a draft. And no, I don't count needs invented by incompetent administrations as justifiable, either. I would consider it grossly immoral for there to be a draft in the United States right now, since it would be spawned from a need manufactured entirely by the current administration's idiocy. If America needs to respond to a direct and severe threat, fine. But if Georgie Boy or any other president needs more troops to clean up his political mess, that's unacceptable.

And a lot of military leaders don't want it anyway. No one wants to spend shitloads of money and time on draftees who don't want to be there in the first place and who are just going to skate the minute their obligations are over. It makes no long-term sense for the military to have a draft.

[Sea Skimmer]

My only objection is that it currently isn't necessary for the defence of the United States. If it was, I'd support it, I know where my draft card is. But for many nations in the world, conscription is necessary, and abolishing it would bring national ruin, ceasing it would be governmental insanity and incompetence.

[Chmee]

My only objection is that it currently isn't necessary for the defence of the United States. If it was, I'd support it, I know where my draft card is. But for many nations in the world, conscription is necessary, and abolishing it would bring national ruin, ceasing it would be governmental insanity and incompetence.

I'd agree with that ... small countries that want any serious defense almost have to have conscription just to get a large enough trained Reserve ... bigger nations can afford standing professional armies and shouldn't need conscription except in time of serious national crisis.

[Medic]

The precedents you see in the free world now -- the Republic of Korea and Israel are the best to follow, IMO. Both I would say are national emergencies -- Israel has been invaded how many time by people sworn to destroy it's existence (regardless of whether or not Israel has a right to exist, from their perspective it's necessary). Ditto for the ROK Army which at any given moment may face a veritable clusterfuck of North Koreans.

America isn't in these situations, if we need a draft for overseas commitments than something's definitely wrong. Hell, if we get a draft and millions of American's liberties are suspended, then well, to qoute a Republican, "the terrorist's have already won."

[Nova Andromeda]

--Today's modern military needs time and a lot of resources to train its forces if it is going to be effective. If we look at this consideration in a vacuum it doesn't make sense to have a draft army since the turnover rate would be high and the people drafted probably don't want to be there.
-However, we should also consider the social implications of having an "all volunteer" military. Is it really fair to force the less well off to join the military if they want a decent chance at a good life? Personally, I think that idea is morally bankrupt. The military shouldn't be a major method of rising from the depths of poverty. In order to make sure that the rich and powerful aren't waging wars without regard to the loses of the troops fighting it, a major part of the military needs to be a random selection of people from society or the loses suffered by those in the military need to be born as much as possibly by those who are not in the military.

[Civil War Man]

Hell, if we get a draft and millions of American's liberties are suspended, then well, to qoute a Republican, "the terrorist's have already won."

Slight segway: My sister has informed me that if Dubya starts up a draft, she is going to kidnap me and drop me off in Canada.

Anyway, I already contributed my two cents in a previous post, so I'll let you all get back to the relevent topic.

[AMX]

Citizenship brings a number of benefits.
It also brings a number of duties.
Military service is one of them.

[Marksist]

It also brings a number of duties.
Military service is one of them.

Care to explain why?

[General Brock]

If military conscription is part of an overall social system of citizen indoctrination, it has a place regardless of real need. It is impractical, otherwise. I don't think it would work outside a wealthy but small modern nation because of the scale and expense; that is, if you want effective soldiers. About the only social benefit to a capitalist democracy would be to curb military adventurism, or at least have it done more carefully.

[Edi]

Outside of a national crisis, conscripted military service is unjustifiable. The military is an environment where your rights to privacy and free speech are suspended, and those rights, by definition, cannot be taken away without due process of law (at least in the United States).

In the US, yes, but the applicability of this statement is not universal.

The decision to use a conscripted or professional military is heavily dependent on population size vs land area. For countries with low populations, a conscripted military is the only affordable means of having a military, and this is especially true if it has a relatively large land area compared to the population size. Finland is a good example of this. Having a military is a vital national security requirement, and if the only way to do it is having a conscript system, then tough, that's just your duty to society. Of course, in countries that do have conscript militaries, the specifics of the system will have been set down in law, so there is no question of due process.

Another fact of conscript vs. professional military is that a system of universal conscription system is only feasible up until a point. Beyond a certain population size, it simply cannot be done and a switch to a professional army must be made or the system becomes unfair toward those who get bad luck at the draw (and usually won't be compensated in any way either).

Edi

[Rommie2006]

Citizenship brings a number of benefits.
It also brings a number of duties.
Military service is one of them.

Do you then find it "unfair" (for a lack of better term) that citizens are conscripted by virtue that they were born in that country that has enacted the conscription act.

For starters, the person who was born as a citizen into that country may not choose to be a citizen of that country if given a choice. Loosely speaking, it would seem as if that individual was born into a "timebomb slavery".

[Dahak]

Germany's often mentioned reason for conscript army is, that this means that the army still has connections to the "normal" people and will not fall back into the "state within the state" mentality of the old German armed forces. For instance, Germany's military has no juducial system of its own.

[AMX]

It also brings a number of duties.
Military service is one of them.

Care to explain why?

Before me, others had done their service - to protect our society, inculding me.
After me, others are doing their service - to protect our society, including me.
I owed those who had protected me, and those who would later protect me, to do my part, protecting them.

Do you then find it "unfair" (for a lack of better term) that citizens are conscripted by virtue that they were born in that country that has enacted the conscription act.

For starters, the person who was born as a citizen into that country may not choose to be a citizen of that country if given a choice. Loosely speaking, it would seem as if that individual was born into a "timebomb slavery".

No, I do not find that unfair.
For one, our laws are binding for citizens, not native citizens; immigrants of proper age and qualification are drafted, too.
Also, if someone really wants to avoid service, he can, of course, try getting his parents to move to another country, and changing his citizenship before he's drafted (a.k.a. get the fuck out of my country, antisocial asshole).

[Zoink]

I'm against conscription. My belief is that the country exists to serve its citizens; the citizens don't exist to serve the country.

If China were to invade Canada for example, and I saw a hopeless war in which fighting would only result in more death, then I should have the option in a democratic society not fight. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my own life, as well as that of friends and family for some unattainable concept of a free Canada. That said there would be many situation were I would volunteer to fight, however, it'd be my decision.

[Ace Pace]

For some countries, they can afford to allow only people who volunteer to join the army, for countries that have hostile borders, its a luxery. Some countries, like it or not, need conscription.

*looks at date*

3 years and a few months untill I join.

[Aaron]

For some countries, they can afford to allow only people who volunteer to join the army, for countries that have hostile borders, its a luxery. Some countries, like it or not, need conscription.

*looks at date*

3 years and a few months untill I join.

Any idea what branch of the service you'll be in, Army, Navy, Air Force?

[General Zod]

-However, we should also consider the social implications of having an "all volunteer" military. Is it really fair to force the less well off to join the military if they want a decent chance at a good life? Personally, I think that idea is morally bankrupt. The military shouldn't be a major method of rising from the depths of poverty. In order to make sure that the rich and powerful aren't waging wars without regard to the loses of the troops fighting it, a major part of the military needs to be a random selection of people from society or the loses suffered by those in the military need to be born as much as possibly by those who are not in the military.

a military composed of people that actually -want- to join will actually have better performance than a military composed of individuals that don't want have anything at all to do with the military. thus, volunteers will typically perform better than draftees, as they aren't being forced to serve their country against their will.

[The Guid]

Just as a historical note, I do not believe conscription came in with Machievelli it was around in a les organised format right from the early Feudal systems. If you were on Sir Blogs' land you had to fight for him if he asked you to. This was usually only called on by the monarch if he came through your county drumming up support but it was certainly not a free choice.

On the modern question of conscription I think it wpould rather depend on the government. I would avoid conscription into the modern day army but would likely have joined up during the Second World War.

[Kuroneko]

For starters, the person who was born as a citizen into that country may not choose to be a citizen of that country if given a choice. Loosely speaking, it would seem as if that individual was born into a "timebomb slavery".

Typically, citizenship can be renounced, but I wonder how many countries practice automatic citizenship in the first place. It seems mostly a western practice, but I cannot find any comprehensive statistics on it...

Care to explain why [military service is a duty]?

Before me, others had done their service - to protect our society, inculding me. After me, others are doing their service - to protect our society, including me. I owed those who had protected me, and those who would later protect me, to do my part, protecting them.

Your argument presupposes that there is something substantial that one's society needs to be protected from, which can be achieved through military service, whether caused by temporary emergency or by long-standing conditions in and around the society in question (e.g., Israel). There is little question that conscription could be justified in these cases, and this has been expressed by numerous people in this thread already, but to claim that military service is an unconditional duty is something else entirely.

[Civil War Man]

Just as a historical note, I do not believe conscription came in with Machievelli it was around in a les organised format right from the early Feudal systems. If you were on Sir Blogs' land you had to fight for him if he asked you to. This was usually only called on by the monarch if he came through your county drumming up support but it was certainly not a free choice.

I probably should have specified that I was referring to widespread conscription of armies. Back in the day of Sir Blog, et al, while the peasants could get drafted, the lords had their specially paid knights and also bought up a lot of mercenaries whenever they had to go to war, mostly because a mercenary was more skilled at fighting than any peasant. Conscription was not a shocking new idea with Machiavelli; he was just advocating the use of conscripts as opposed to mercenaries as part of his advice on how to consolidate power.

[Civil War Man]

Typically, citizenship can be renounced

From what I hear, trying to renounce a US citizenship is nigh impossible. Something to the effect of you saying you want to leave, and the government gets this puzzled look on their face and says, "Why would you ever want to stop being a US citizen? We're free."

[Ace Pace]

For some countries, they can afford to allow only people who volunteer to join the army, for countries that have hostile borders, its a luxery. Some countries, like it or not, need conscription.

*looks at date*

3 years and a few months untill I join.

Any idea what branch of the service you'll be in, Army, Navy, Air Force?

No Clue, but I'd rather stay in some support branch, I have nothing but respect for our Army and Air force, and for the Navy(what THEY are doing...), but I'm not cut out for that.

[AMX]

Your argument presupposes that there is something substantial that one's society needs to be protected from, which can be achieved through military service, whether caused by temporary emergency or by long-standing conditions in and around the society in question (e.g., Israel). There is little question that conscription could be justified in these cases, and this has been expressed by numerous people in this thread already, but to claim that military service is an unconditional duty is something else entirely.

Two words: Natural disasters.
e.g., the year before I joined, we had a major flood - and it's really hard to replace 10 000 conscripts when you need a lot of filled sandbags, right NOW.