Slavery is Wrong! Conscription IS WRONG!

[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:

Article 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!

[Atheon]

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).

[Solitary]

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.    Solitary

[mediumaevum]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2.htm#l1g2

Seems like the British want to adopt this!!!

Terrifying!

[leo]

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 .

[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.

[Jmpty]

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:

Article 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.

[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.
Costa Rica has no military and nevr has. Of course they are at the mercy of everyone else.

[Jason78]

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.

[Jack89]

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.

[mediumaevum]

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.

[Solitary]

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.   Solitary

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.

[Plu]

It'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.

[mykcob4]

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.