upvote

points

by TomK327 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Jcampuzano28 minutes ago|
next
[-]
There certainly are arguments against a draft at the individual level - Example being if the people being drafted do not believe in their own governments ability to lead.

A draft is by definition forced labor either way - because if enough people volunteered there would be no need for a draft in the first place.

But usually it doesn't matter either way. Either the people believe in their own government/territory and see it as worth defending, or alternatively they don't believe in it, but their government is authoritarian and will force you at risk of punishment or death into being drafted.

In both cases a draft is still forced labor for those who did not volunteer to participate.

reply
upvoteby mrob3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
States have a legitimate right to taxation. Taxes can be used to pay volunteers. While there are still people owning wealth above the poverty level, there is no excuse to force people into military slavery. And even if literally everybody has been taxed into poverty, there are more ethical alternatives than slavery, e.g. tying the right to vote to military service like in Starship Troopers. Freedom from slavery is extremely high on the scale of ethical importance, even more important than democracy.
reply
upvoteby crote7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
If there's anything worth defending, people will volunteer to defend it.
reply
upvoteby dctoedt2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> If there's anything worth defending, people will volunteer to defend it.

That's a pretty binary view of the situation. It's not enough for something to be worth defending: People have to recognize that it's worth defending — and that might not happen instantaneously, because "people" come to appreciate things at very different rates.

reply
upvoteby mitthrowaway24 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Seems like there's a clear free-rider problem, the volunteers make the sacrifice and the non-volunteers reap the benefits.
reply
upvoteby esafak4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
What if people do but not in enough numbers? Farewell, sweet country!
reply
upvoteby WJW4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If the country doesn't have enough people to defend it, perhaps it's good and just that some other community gets to control the territory? A country isn't really anything except for its people, after all.
reply
upvoteby esafak3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The occupying power may be interested in your country's resources rather than its people.
reply
upvoteby WJW2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
How does that change matters? If anything that makes it even worse. If not enough of your people can't be bothered to join the military even when an enemy army is invading, perhaps the country in question should draw the conclusion it's not viable as an independent nation.
reply
upvoteby Jensson27 seconds ago|
parent|
next
[-]
What happens in those cases is that the majority vote to force everyone to defend the country. Its just easier that way, since it means you wont be defending alone.
reply
upvoteby 2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby p-e-w6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Indeed, and there are many historical examples of this.

Today’s average Western nation-state tends to be a rathole that spits into the faces of its citizens every single day, until the moment the state is under attack, at which point everyone is told that they owe their lives to their sacred motherland that has done so much for them.

reply
upvoteby throw7348484 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
There is shit ton of opposition, people are literally defending themselves with guns from kidnappers !
reply