I am not only talking about Military Conscription (compulsory enrollment into the army).
What I am talking about is any type of forced labor for innocent people. ANY type of it, and that goes beyond the definition of forced labor in Article 4 in the European Convention:
QuoteArticle 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. 3. For the purpose of this article the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:
a. any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
b. any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
c. any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
d. any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.
It is exactly these parts, B and D that I object to!
It is slavery, wether or not the European Convention says it or not, it is still equivalent of slavery.
And slavery is WRONG!
This is why it is WRONG:A state or government can rightfully prohibit its citizens from various activities. That is called prohibitions.
But when a state goes beyond this, and oblige its people to do various activities, obligations, we are not only setting up limits for people's activities,
we are actually streamlining people. People no longer have a free choice. Liberty is dramatically decreased!
I consider myself a conscientious objector, not because I'm a member of some cult like a Jehovah's Witness, but because I conscientiously object.
I am also opposed to Selective Service registration (a US thing).
How is Military Conscription not slavery when it is done against one's will? Slave: one owned and forced into service by another. Own: Have as property. Property: Something owned. Only lawyers can say it is different because they want to win and not get to the truth. :evil: Solitary
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2.htm#l1g2 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0032/cbill_2013-20140032_en_2.htm#l1g2)
Seems like the British want to adopt this!!!
Terrifying!
Quote from: "mediumaevum"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0032/cbill_2013-20140032_en_2.htm#l1g2
Seems like the British want to adopt this!!!
Terrifying!
Yep. Horrible stuff .
Playing devils advocate a moment.. In a perfect world all nations would have a standing army always sufficient to defend themselves, but in a perfect world they would never need an army at all. However, the world is far from perfect.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"I am not only talking about Military Conscription (compulsory enrollment into the army).
What I am talking about is any type of forced labor for innocent people. ANY type of it, and that goes beyond the definition of forced labor in Article 4 in the European Convention:
QuoteArticle 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. 3. For the purpose of this article the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:
a. any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
b. any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
c. any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
d. any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.
It is exactly these parts, B and D that I object to!
It is slavery, wether or not the European Convention says it or not, it is still equivalent of slavery.
And slavery is WRONG!
This is why it is WRONG:
A state or government can rightfully prohibit its citizens from various activities. That is called prohibitions.
But when a state goes beyond this, and oblige its people to do various activities, obligations, we are not only setting up limits for people's activities,
we are actually streamlining people. People no longer have a free choice. Liberty is dramatically decreased!
Maybe you should take a civics class.
The argument that nations make concerning conscription is the people are paid wages for their labor. Now I don't agree with that argument but that is the arguement that makes it different from slavery.
Costa Rica has no military and nevr has. Of course they are at the mercy of everyone else.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0032/cbill_2013-20140032_en_2.htm#l1g2
Seems like the British want to adopt this!!!
Terrifying!
Seems that this bill hasn't made it to committee yet!
I think I'm safe in assuming that mediumaevum is wrong considering that he's had a perfect track record of being wrong before.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Playing devils advocate a moment.. In a perfect world all nations would have a standing army always sufficient to defend themselves, but in a perfect world they would never need an army at all. However, the world is far from perfect.
Conscription isn't necessary to have a military capable of defense. Hell, the U.S. has an all volunteer force and we have much more than we need for defense.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Maybe you should take a civics class.
I've read a little Canonical law, and some about Roman law.
According to the ancient romans, there were three types of people in the nation:
Ius Naturale, Ius Gentium and Ius Civile were the three types of people or "citizenships", ranging from the law that governs animals, slaves and the like, to
non-citizens to citizens.
You could obtain a Roman Citizenship if you joined the army. Roman citizens were obliged to join the army.
Civics classes all tell the same story about the "Subscription":
Citizenship and residence alike, are considered subscriptions to the state. Like if I subscribe to a newspaper, I agree to pay a certain amount of money to
the owner of the newspaper, in order to recieve my daily newspaper.
But you can't really think the citizenship as a subscription that way that civics classes want to portray citizenship as.
First of all, you don't choose where to be born in. Yet, you are subject to that particular country's laws with all its rights AND duties from your birth.
Secondly, a subscription requires no action from you. It requires you to pay money, and where you get that money from is not the business of the one you subscribe to.
With the first part, some countries like South Korea, requires all people to serve in the army regardless of wether they moved abroad before they turned 18 and obtained another citizenship. Some countries, like North Korea and Cuba disallow people from even moving abroad without permission.
Even if we do allow people to move abroadl, like most western countries, you run into an ethical dilemma: To abandon the place you grew up in, thus abandon your family (in some circumstances) or to stay where you are, and be subject to the compulsory labor laws (like conscription) that exists in your country.
I think taxation should be enough requirement of residents and citizens. To demand you actually perform a certain type of labor is equivalent of slavery.
I know that in Law, it isn't slavery. But that's a matter of definitions. The same thing happens: You have to perform work or you will be punished.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Playing devils advocate a moment.. In a perfect world all nations would have a standing army always sufficient to defend themselves, but in a perfect world they would never need an army at all. However, the world is far from perfect.
True! And all the more reason the military needs to be professional soldiers and not drafted from the lowest ranks of mankind. When has been the last war we needed defending? The civil war that was because of separation from the Union the right wing idiots want again that don't support our government or president and call themselves patriots. :evil: Solitary
It's one thing to have conscription if the country's at risk of being invaded. It's quite another matter for countries already in a powerful offensive position to even consider it.
QuoteIt's one thing to have conscription if the country's at risk of being invaded.
And those pretty much don't exist in the western world, as far as I know. Once you get to the level of technology and infrastructure the western world has, all-out war becomes basically a huge waste of resources with practically nothing to gain.
The US Constitution doesn't provide for a standing Army. A standing Navy yes but not an Army. That is why the second Amendment is written that way, to insure a "well regulated militia" is available to defend the nation. The founders of this nation didn't see the need to defend this nation on foriegn soil. They believed that the Navy and the Marine Corps would be adequate to protect commercial interest in and on foriegn lands. That is essentially what fighting overseas is. It isn't protecting "freedom" as it is proposed, but protecting business interest.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteIt's one thing to have conscription if the country's at risk of being invaded.
And those pretty much don't exist in the western world, as far as I know. Once you get to the level of technology and infrastructure the western world has, all-out war becomes basically a huge waste of resources with practically nothing to gain.
That was the point of my post.
Sometimes semantics is an important consideration. "Slave" is a word that can have multiple meanings. Here is a typical set of multiple meanings you will find in a dictionary:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... lish/slave (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/slave)
Quotenoun
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation:by the time I was ten, I had become her slave, doing all the housework
a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something:the poorest people of the world are slaves to the banks she was no slave to fashion
a device, or part of one, directly controlled by another: [as modifier]:a slave cassette deckCompare with master1.
an ant captured in its pupal state by an ant of another species, for which it becomes a worker.
verb
[no object]
work excessively hard:after slaving away for fourteen years, all he gets is two thousand
[with object] subject (a device) to control by another:should the need arise, the two channels can be slaved together
In almost every dictionary definition of "slave", the first meaning is that a slave is a person that is property of another person. Since that is the primary definition of "slave", I think it would be worthwhile to be clear what is meant by the term "slavery" in the OP.
The question of whether or not it is a good idea to draft people into government or community service involuntarily is an important one, for sure. I was drafted into the army during the Vietnam War (wasn't stationed there), so this topic hits home with me strongly. I think the legal justification for the draft in the U.S. was so vacuous that it should have imploded into oblivion from its vacuity. Here is the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
QuoteNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And yet in the Supreme Court ruling that is the primary precedent cited as sanctioning a military draft, the Court doesn't even bother to mention the Fifth Amendment as though it had no relevance. From that ruling:
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-se ... -draft.htm (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/selective-draft.htm) [section 14]
QuoteThe highest duty of the citizen is to bear arms at the call of the nation. This duty is inherent in citizenship; without it and the correlative power of the State to compel its performance society could not be maintained.
The Constitution only has the word "duty" in it to mean a kind of customs tax the government is allowed to impose. It never uses the word "duty" in the obligation sense of the word. So through legal sophistry the Supreme Court created a duty that isn't mentioned in the Constitution. They conjure up a "duty" and ignore the liberty guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment.
If the nation can't get enough people to volunteer to fight a war then that war isn't worth fighting.
I feel everyone should have to do some service for the country. If not military, it could be peace corps, or another similar service.
Quote from: "mykcob4"The argument that nations make concerning conscription is the people are paid wages for their labor. Now I don't agree with that argument but that is the arguement that makes it different from slavery.
And, actually, it was not uncommon for slaves to get paid by their masters. It didn't happen all the time, of course, but those slaves that got paid were still slaves. They were unable to quit.
QuoteThat was the point of my post.
I assumed as much, but I still wanted to point it out :)
Quote from: "Jmpty"I feel everyone should have to do some service for the country. If not military, it could be peace corps, or another similar service.
You mean like paying taxes? :P
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "Jmpty"I feel everyone should have to do some service for the country. If not military, it could be peace corps, or another similar service.
You mean like paying taxes? :P
Well, somebody would have to pay more taxes because there are about 4 million young people in the U.S. turning 18 every year. If you wanted to have them do a year of service, it would conservatively cost at least $10,000 each person for that year (shelter, food, medical care, etc.). That's $40 billion for just one year. If you wanted to make it two years of service, the price would go up to $80 billion per year. Of course, you could fire four million public employees (or eight million for a two year program) and have the 18 year old's doing involuntary servitude to do their jobs instead which might even save money.
Most governments can't even get paid and trained people to do their jobs right, let alone letting some kids do it against their will :P
Quote from: "Jmpty"I feel everyone should have to do some service for the country. If not military, it could be peace corps, or another similar service.
I think everyone should do some service for their country, but it should be completely voluntary. Voluntary service is dignified and admirable, forced service is not dignified and is often met with contempt.
My son volunteered for and is currently working with FEMA Corps. I'm very proud of him because he wanted to help out and made the choice himself. He has gained dignity and earned respect for his choice. You don't get that if you're forced to serve.
I pay my taxes, that is what I owe my country. Nothing more. Because people are using "country" as a substitute word for "government".
The government is the employee of the people hired to maintain order. Taxes are the paycheck of the government. Saying that people must render service to the government (don't say country, it's not honest) reverses the concept of who is the boss and who is the employee.
Quote from: "Jmpty"I feel everyone should have to do some service for the country. If not military, it could be peace corps, or another similar service.
What exactly is your reason why someone should serve their country, and what do you mean by the term country? Do you mean serve the politicians and leaders that run our country, or what? :-? I went around and around with Marilyn Vos Savant on this and never got a reply I agreed with or made any sense. This is primitive tribal thinking in my opinion. Solitary
Quote from: "Jack89"Voluntary service is dignified and admirable, forced service is not dignified and is often met with contempt.
My son volunteered for and is currently working with FEMA Corps. I'm very proud of him because he wanted to help out and made the choice himself. He has gained dignity and earned respect for his choice. You don't get that if you're forced to serve.
That's exactly why I am against any type of forced labor.
You can't have dignity and earn respect if you are forced to to something, because you would do it anyway to avoid a penalty.
We become mere robots, not humans anymore, if we have to serve our country or just about anything else involuntarily.
Some stuff needs to be compulsory, like paying taxes. But paying taxes is not forced labor, because:
1) You don't pay taxes if you don't earn any money. And often you only pay taxes if your income goes beyond a certain level.
2) You are not forced to get your money from a certain area or work. You choose where to get the money, by legal means, and there is plenty of sources to choose from.
3) If Negative Income Tax or Basic Income becomes a reality, all that talk about taxation is slavery becomes even more meaningless.
If the country is truly threatened I think conscription is in order. I mean truly threatened though, like Poland on Germany's border in 1939, not something like Vietnam
It has to be a full-scale total war in which the countries' existence is threatened.
I think that even if the country's existance is threatened it isn't in order. If you have to make people defend their way of life, obviously they don't really care much about it and maybe you're better off fading from existance alltogether. If your country is really worth defending, you shouldn't have to conscript people, they should be lining up on their own.
Quote from: "Plu"I think that even if the country's existance is threatened it isn't in order. If you have to make people defend their way of life, obviously they don't really care much about it and maybe you're better off fading from existance alltogether. If your country is really worth defending, you shouldn't have to conscript people, they should be lining up on their own.
My thoughts exactly.
If the very existence of the country is in danger (think of a large country sending 1 million soldiers to invade a small country with a population of 50,000 people) then conscripting the entire population (which is nonsense anyway as that population includes small children and the elderly) won't do any good and merely increases the number of legal targets and turns fleeing for safety into desertion.
If two countries are closer in parity and it appears one will easily beat the other if conscription isn't used, doesn't that indicate that the people don't support their government enough to defend it? The people have spoken - they find this invading army superior to the current government. Otherwise they would have signed up without being forced.
Using conscripts is problematic no matter how you look at it, anyway. Conscripts will never be as motivated as professional soldiers, and this will be reflected in their performance. You can't really use them as officers or even as non-coms for this reason, because having an unmotivated officer is just begging for something bad to happen.
It's also problematic from the standpoint of how warfare is evolving. The way wars are fought now, pretty much everyone has to have some technical know-how; not a whole lot of room for "dumb grunts" if you get my gist. With conscripts, you still have to drill this technical know-how into them, and you have to do it against their will. That, my friends, is a disaster waiting to happen.
You're compelled to pay taxes too. Is that theft? No, it isn't, because you're gaining benefit from those taxes, presumably.
Being compelled to take part in defending the land whose hospitality you're enjoying makes sense to me, within reason. Of course, the obvious objection has already been raised, that military service and defending one's homeland are often two different things. In the absence of a threat from outside, conscription is an encroachment upon liberty, not only the personal liberty of the draftee, but also, upon every citizen, even those who don't and haven't served; because it establishes the principle that the government has the right to compel you to die even in the absence of a capital offense.
In short, I think that sometimes conscription is justified, and at other times, it isn't.
Taxes are the paycheck of the government, the government is the employee of the people.
Where does the people doing mandatory service to the government fit into that equation at all?