Is Mandatory Government and Military service that bad?

[Fahran]

No. A person has obligations to the society that birthed, provided for, and sustained them. If one would accept rights and liberties without acknowledging responsibilities and obligations, such a decision would be not only dishonorable and a derelection of their duty, but the height of ingratitude.

In the case of the United States, we should war less often than we do. That's not likely to change any time soon given that we're accustomed to voting for folks who support perpetual war - either in the name of human rights or for some other reason remote from our concrete interests. However, we do get to elect our leaders and therefore we, as a collective, make choices on such matters - for better or for worse. Usually for worse, because we're allergic to actually reading platforms or keeping up with policy.

Personally, I favor more depth and variety in compulsory/mandatory service. We could have people perform service under NGOs like Habitat for Humanity by working to construct houses and shelters or in conjunction with St. Jude's by participating in fundraisers and awareness campaigns. This would give conscientious objectors a means of avoiding military service and allow us to make use of service during more peaceful times while encouraging the development of skill sets and reinvestment in communities. We can even give people choices about where they'd like to do their service.

[Bassoe]

I see no difference between a guy actively trying to shoot you and a politician trying to get you drafted to be sent to get shot at by others. Both are threats to your life and anything you do to stop them is objectively self-defense.

[Fahran]

I see no difference between a guy actively trying to shoot you and a politician trying to get you drafted to be sent to get shot at by others. Both are threats to your life and anything you do to stop them is objectively self-defense.

Perhaps a person should have loyalty to something beyond themselves even when it entails the potential for sacrifices on their part? The distinction between a random person trying to shoot you and a legitimate officer of the state which emerged from the society to which you belong asking you to fulfill your obligations to said society are pretty manifest.

[Fahran]

Being conscripted in a country that never goes to war wouldn't be so bad.

Being conscripted in America is basically a death sentence.

This isn't even close to true.

4,424 Americans were killed during the Iraq War. 2.7 million Americans served in some capacity in Iraq. 0.16% of those who served in Iraq were killed. It's a high occupational fatality rate relative to other jobs, but it's nowhere close to a death sentence - even in a low-intensity active warzone. If they were sending you to fight Nazis at Normandy, on the other hand, well, then you could call it a death sentence.

Any form of forced labor is simply slavery, in my opinion.

Education and jury duty? Heck, even taxes represent a public claim on the fruit of your labor and, prior to the advent of money, it wasn't uncommon for governments to demand tax in the form of service of some sort.

I can't quite hate conscription because it was one force spreading liberalism across Europe at the edge of the bayonet.
But, y'know, then was then and nowadays weeeell lot more wars that ain't worth being stuck in than wars that it might be ok.

Two of the more well-known and unpopular wars America is embroiled in have been perpetuated in part to facilitate the spread of liberalism at the edge of the bayonet. And both of those wars have been less costly than anything the French Republic did by some metrics.

[Kubra]

I see no difference between a guy actively trying to shoot you and a politician trying to get you drafted to be sent to get shot at by others. Both are threats to your life and anything you do to stop them is objectively self-defense.

Perhaps a person should have loyalty to something beyond themselves even when it entails the potential for sacrifices on their part? The distinction between a random person trying to shoot you and a legitimate officer of the state which emerged from the society to which you belong asking you to fulfill your obligations to said society are pretty manifest.

What if it sends you into, you know, shitty wars of pure national interest?
I feel something real for the Jim Crow black soldiers sent to the Philippines, yo. Something harsh about being called the n-word and getting sent to fight n-words.

[Fahran]

What if it sends you into, you know, shitty wars of pure national interest? I feel something real for the Jim Crow black soldiers sent to the Philippines, yo. Something harsh about being called the n-word and getting sent to fight n-words.

Black soldiers have put up with more than most of their counterparts and have a long and mostly honorable history of service to a society that treated and sometimes still treats them remarkably poorly in spite of their sacrifices. They would have been well within their rights to foment a revolution at numerous points in time. As it happens, black service helped to encourage integration and civil rights in the long-term. Eisenhower, in particular, championed it. Followed shortly thereafter by Kennedy and Johnson. Many wanted to serve for precisely that reason - to show that they were patriots.

That said, I don't think an individual citizen's opinion of the cause matters too much when it comes to honoring their duties and obligations to society. It's irrelevant. You don't have to like what the government is doing and you don't have to like society's attitudes or values. If you're going to take from society and from your fellows, you should be willing to give back on some level too. And, even supposing we take military service off the table, a service which already falls far heavier on the poor than on any other group, we could make a good argument that middle-class and rich kids should be compelled to serve more than they presently do.

There's no reason someone who is physically able should object to giving back to a society that has, in many ways, given them everything they have, especially if that simply entails building houses for the homeless or trying to keep children from dying of cancer. Especially when they get to choose a socially beneficial cause to serve.

I'm pretty much adhering to the same logic here as when I say we should tax the rich more and hold them accountable to society.

[Narland]

Not too long ago I was reading a Vox opinion article on what they think will be considered “unacceptable” or “socially acceptable “ in the future. One thing that peaked my interest was that they thought ending the draft would be seen as a mistake. When I read why they thought this way, it really just changed my POV on how I thought of a draft. For those who do not know what a draft is a draft is where every U.S citizen would serve in the military.

I think a draft would allow people from all walks of life to learn more about this nation and to also help contribute to society besides taxes. It would also teach respect and help build up values like honesty, strength and courage.

Now what do you think NSG? What do you think of conscription?

(My ideal form of conscription is where not everyone serves combat roles if they would not like to, is they have some choice in how they contribute. Also it would be a year or two once they hit 18.)

(Also you can choose to serve in different ways Not only combat )

A military that isn't a military but a social club is useless and we fall to our enemies. If we raise a preponderance of warmongering bullies, no who think they are Americans, we fall to ourselves. WW2 the draft was acceptable to most Americans because we were directly attacked and because Hitler. This was war, our military was to fight and win war as quickly and as decisively as possible. This is what the draft is for.

Korea War, the draft was used for a police action with no Lawful declaration of war nor commitment to win a war. The conscientious objection laws were intact, and it was over before their was a rebellion in the US to stop it.

Vietnam War, the draft was used for a police action with no no lawful declaration of war nor commitment to win a war. The guns and butter of the bureaucratic and corporate military industrial complex made fortunes off of the blood, death, and destruction of our nation's youth. The draft "lottery" drafted the rural and urban poor disproportionately "somehow." The well off parts of the nations that were touched had means to defer the draft on their youth. The conscientious objection laws were changed to jail those who who in the past had been except. This hurt the inner city minorities and rural disaffected the worst.

The "war" dragged on so long that there was enough time for the nation to foment a rebellion to lower the voting age and end the draft, but not the selective service administration whose job is to coordinate a draft. Every draftable individual male in the US upon reaching the age of majority has a short time to register with the selective service according to current legislation. But the draft as a means of sending our nation's youth to their deaths for political purposes, involuntarily is for the time being, over.

Since then we have had a volunteer military. The upside is there are no more Viet-Nams. The downside is that he nation cares less about using our nation' s youth as pawns to diplomatic disputes for the deep state industrial complex of Neoliberal Globalists. Those who are poor in corrupt and over-regulated parts of the country hostile that are hostile to business and free enterprise (such as a large portion of inner city minorities) see enlisting as a more viable option that those in less corrupt more business friendly parts of the country who have more and better prospects.

The future imo (if we do not want to become the very fascist, communist, and nazi enemies we decry) is not to turn the military into police, groundskeepers, and maintenance engineers as the military' s forte is to kill people and break things. We should make an effort to rid ourselves of the deep state, the military industrial complex, and the Neoliberal mentality of never-ending wars as a means of diplomacy that sends our nation's youth into harms way; end the administrative state intrusion into foreign and domestic affairs; dismantle the m.i.c., and vote out those who have no moral compunction to send our troops hither and thither.

[Albrenia]

I see no difference between a guy actively trying to shoot you and a politician trying to get you drafted to be sent to get shot at by others. Both are threats to your life and anything you do to stop them is objectively self-defense.

Perhaps a person should have loyalty to something beyond themselves even when it entails the potential for sacrifices on their part? The distinction between a random person trying to shoot you and a legitimate officer of the state which emerged from the society to which you belong asking you to fulfill your obligations to said society are pretty manifest.

Why does one's obligations to society include risking your life in wars which are probably not defensive and potentially not justified?

[Crabaiaia]

One shouldn't be forced to serve his country against his will, we already have too many responsibilities to the government in a voluntary state, like taxes, basic education, vaccination (though I am not anti-vax), and requirements to participate in other government services. Unless if the Government is willing to subtract some responsibilities to their citizens, it is one man's right to conscentiously object.

[Crabaiaia]

In other words, if a government wants to draft it's citizen it needs to subtract one less responsibility.

[Imperium Latine]

I think it's overall positive and I support a obligatory military service even if not in military roles per se, also most countries aren't that involved in wars so half of what people are saying about go and get killed in a warzone somewhere doesn't really apply that much for a lot of countries, my rl country had this and wasn't involved in wars, it's a good civic duty and is a good caracther building experience specially in a all rights no obligation society that we live in where everyone's always against anything that's required of them.

[Crabaiaia]

I think it's overall positive and I support a obligatory military service even if not in military roles per se, also most countries aren't that involved in wars so half of what people are saying about go and get killed in a warzone somewhere doesn't really apply that much for a lot of countries, my rl country had this and wasn't involved in wars, it's a good civic duty and is a good caracther building experience specially in a all rights no obligation society that we live in where everyone's always against anything that's required of them.

Conscription should only be enforced if there are alternatives for people who just personally don't want to join the military, for example Civil Service.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

I'm opposed to compulsory national service as a matter of principle. However, I can understand why countries such as Israel and Singapore have them given how small and vulnerable they are. In countries where women are drafted to serve, compulsory national service also greatly empowers women to defend themselves with their extensive military combat training. One could almost argue that compulsory national service is a feminist policy. It is a gender equalizer of sorts. Israeli and Kurdish women in particular ought to be feared and respected.

[Page]

No. A person has obligations to the society that birthed, provided for, and sustained them. If one would accept rights and liberties without acknowledging responsibilities and obligations, such a decision would be not only dishonorable and a derelection of their duty, but the height of ingratitude.

You're saying we should have gratitude for having rights and liberties. Is that another way of saying we should be grateful for not being oppressed and exploited? Since when does one owe thanks to anyone who doesn't do harm to them?

Should I call my father and be like "Hey dad, I was just thinking, there are a lot of dads out there who beat the shit out of their kids, some even molest their kids, but you didn't! Thank you for not molesting me, I'm going to buy you a new car to show my appreciation for you not molesting me!" Or maybe I should be demanding some acts of gratitude from my wife like "Hey, I let you wear whatever you want and I don't control your diet and I don't look through your phone, I give you so much freedom, how are you going to thank me?" Hell, I guess every time I'm walking down the street and a stranger passes by I should shout "thanks for not mugging me!"

If that's a ridiculous philosophy for personal relationships, why isn't it ridiculous when it comes to society? Liberty is not a gift, not any more than air is. I am not thanking anyone for not enslaving me and it's not as if we even have a great deal of freedom now. It pisses me off that I have had to write emails to state and federal government urging them not to criminalize the one herbal supplement that effectively helps with my depression and anxiety. I should not have to ask permission to consume a plant, what right could be more fundamental than making use of plants? But the state tells us there are plants we're not allowed to use, it tells us we need a permit to put panels on our homes to collect energy from the sun - the sun! A star that has been burning for billions of years, a resource that is for all intents and purposes infinite, but the state demands we get their permission to benefit from sunlight. In some places it's illegal to collect rainwater! And if the state really provided for us, why do so many people sell their bodies in order to have enough money for housing, health care, and food - but of course it's illegal to sell your body, if your only recourse is to let someone pay you to have sex with you so you can pay for what you need, the state will lock you up for that. By the way, in America, the land of the free, human trafficking victims including minors are still being criminally charged for being raped, and in "progressive" Europe those human trafficking victims end up in a cell while they wait to be deported. Children still don't have the right to not be tortured in an attempt to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. People dying in agony don't even have the right to a quick and peaceful death. And as thanks for all these rights and liberties, I had to give my information to the federal government so I could be drafted the next time they need to wage war in a country that doesn't want to be a colony like Vietnam, I had no choice in that.

Freedom, liberty, rights, what a joke. There's no freedom anywhere. Not in America, not in Europe, not in Asia. There is literally not a single square inch of habitable land on this planet that isn't under the dominion of a state, there are only lesser degrees of oppression. At least up until 150 years ago if someone wanted to make a go at living on the frontier they were free to try, not anymore.

The universe doesn't afford us much freedom or control in the first place, we are bound by the laws of physics, we are controlled by our needs to feed ourselves and maintain homeostasis, we don't get a say in what emotions we feel, we don't get to choose whether we have well balanced brain chemistry or if our brains just suck at making the right amount of serotonin or dopamine, to be alive in this universe is to be a feather in a hurricane, we don't get to steer all that much. But that's fine, that's the way of the world and I accept that, there's no sense in being upset that reality isn't a kinder, gentler place, it is what it is and we take the lives we're given. And that may mean being struck by lightning, that may mean getting cancer, there is all kinds of suffering nature can inflict on us.

So why in a world where we have very little control and endure all kinds of suffering do human beings choose to take even more control away from each other and inflict even more suffering? We can't cure cancer overnight but we can end involuntary homelessness, it's as simple as a person walking into a vacant house, one that is deliberately left vacant by the real estate developer because if they wait 10 years the neighborhood might gentrify and they can make money selling luxury housing, and the rest of saying "go ahead, no one is going to stop you." There are people dying of covid in jail, people locked up in jail for unpaid parking tickets, for having some pills in their pocket, for failing to adhere to some capricious probation or parole condition that they were sentenced to for a past crime that was victimless or trivial. At any point, we as human beings could have let them out, we could have saved their lives by letting them walk out of a crowded death trap with badly circulated air where infection is almost 100% guaranteed. Why didn't we?

The state of society is abysmal and the only way we can delude ourselves into thinking that the way we treat each other is acceptable is to point to somewhere like North Korea where people are starved put in concentration camps for not looking enthusiastic enough for some propaganda event and say, "at least we're not them." We're children whose parents beat us saying "at least we're not the kids whose parents sexually abuse them."

And even if our society was a good one and even if gratitude were owed for that, a person has no right to demand the kind of repayment that involves inflicting harm. If my friend does something to save my ass, I am willing to do a great number of things to reciprocate, but if he asks me to go beat up his neighbor's 8 year old kid and steal his allowance for him, that's still unacceptable no matter what he has done for me. Soldiers in Afghanistan who spoke out against working with warlords who had child sex slaves were dishonorably discharged for it while the Blackwater terrorists who murdered kids have just been pardoned. Chelsea Manning exposed a massacre and she was tortured for it. There are Iraqi civilians burned by white phosphorous, babies being born with birth defects because of depleted uranium. Meanwhile in Syria, America aided Islamist terrorists who would butcher ever Shi'a, Christian, atheist, Yazidi - anyone who doesn't adhere to their fanatical ideology, if given the chance, because it was preferable to let Syria collapse into a failed state than for Russia to score a win in the great game by preserving an allied government. And no doubt the people being literally sold into slavery in Libya are grateful for the NATO pilots whose bombing enabled the overthrow of Gaddhafi which made it possible to openly buy and sell slaves in the power vacuum.

There has not been a just war since World War 2 where by the way the Nazis had the same philosophy about the German people owing them, even to go so far as to demand adolescents and elderly people join the Volkssturm to absorb bullets from the Soviet army. See, that's the problem with conscription - even if your cause is just and victory would benefit the world, the enemy is conscripting their people too to serve their agenda. But if no one was forced to fight against their will, then maybe good would win faster and more often, because when there is a real need, people fight of their own volition.

[Kubra]

I can't quite hate conscription because it was one force spreading liberalism across Europe at the edge of the bayonet.
But, y'know, then was then and nowadays weeeell lot more wars that ain't worth being stuck in than wars that it might be ok.

Two of the more well-known and unpopular wars America is embroiled in have been perpetuated in part to facilitate the spread of liberalism at the edge of the bayonet. And both of those wars have been less costly than anything the French Republic did by some metrics.

Bit of a different context, innit? going to war with austria spread liberalism to feudal monarchy, while war in vietnam spread liberalism to, um, different liberals, at least in terms of common tradition. At in the case of the french they at least left a lasting legacy, rather than a stain.
That aside, invading minor countries costs less than invading *all* of Europe, news at 11.

What if it sends you into, you know, shitty wars of pure national interest? I feel something real for the Jim Crow black soldiers sent to the Philippines, yo. Something harsh about being called the n-word and getting sent to fight n-words.

Black soldiers have put up with more than most of their counterparts and have a long and mostly honorable history of service to a society that treated and sometimes still treats them remarkably poorly in spite of their sacrifices. They would have been well within their rights to foment a revolution at numerous points in time. As it happens, black service helped to encourage integration and civil rights in the long-term. Eisenhower, in particular, championed it. Followed shortly thereafter by Kennedy and Johnson. Many wanted to serve for precisely that reason - to show that they were patriots.

That said, I don't think an individual citizen's opinion of the cause matters too much when it comes to honoring their duties and obligations to society. It's irrelevant. You don't have to like what the government is doing and you don't have to like society's attitudes or values. If you're going to take from society and from your fellows, you should be willing to give back on some level too. And, even supposing we take military service off the table, a service which already falls far heavier on the poor than on any other group, we could make a good argument that middle-class and rich kids should be compelled to serve more than they presently do.

There's no reason someone who is physically able should object to giving back to a society that has, in many ways, given them everything they have, especially if that simply entails building houses for the homeless or trying to keep children from dying of cancer. Especially when they get to choose a socially beneficial cause to serve.

I'm pretty much adhering to the same logic here as when I say we should tax the rich more and hold them accountable to society.

Sure, but this particular war was pretty nakedly fought for commercial reasons. I must ask: if a war isn't even worth volunteering for, ain't it worse to be conscripted into it?

[CoraSpia]

I think it's overall positive and I support a obligatory military service even if not in military roles per se, also most countries aren't that involved in wars so half of what people are saying about go and get killed in a warzone somewhere doesn't really apply that much for a lot of countries, my rl country had this and wasn't involved in wars, it's a good civic duty and is a good caracther building experience specially in a all rights no obligation society that we live in where everyone's always against anything that's required of them.

But you don't have obligations to a government. You could argue that you have some obligations towards your fellow citizens, like not mugging them on the street, but the government of the country is not owed loyalty by citizens. Even if your country does not regularly involve itself in wars, you are still being forced to give up some of your time for the benefit of an institution to which you owe nothing.

[Fahran]

Why does one's obligations to society include risking your life in wars which are probably not defensive and potentially not justified?

It's a matter of basic principle that we may extrapolate from the more rudimentary functions of the state in relation to society and the general citizenry. Common defense is a service that cannot reliably be provided by the free market because of problems involving positive externalities and free riders. You hypothetically acquire the benefit of other people serving in the military without having to serve yourself. As a result, the state, society, and the general citizenry may find it practical and necessary to ensure that potential free riders pay taxes in the form of money and service - thereby imposing the cost of the positive externality more equitably on all citizens. In this case, the middle-class and rich seem to have the greatest aversion to service despite gaining the greatest benefits from the military.

That our modern usage of the military has often been aggressive and aimed at spreading democracy is not especially consequential, especially not when that is, to a significant extent, the end result of deliberation within a broadly democratic system. The obligation still exists in spite of that. There's no reason it would fade away, as a matter of law or philosophical/ethical principle. It's built into both the Constitution and into the concept of the state. In point of fact, a more generalized obligation might well temper our bellicose nature and our willingness to commit to foreign adventures - as it eventually did in Vietnam.

[Fahran]

A military that isn't a military but a social club is useless and we fall to our enemies. If we raise a preponderance of warmongering bullies, no who think they are Americans, we fall to ourselves. WW2 the draft was acceptable to most Americans because we were directly attacked and because Hitler. This was war, our military was to fight and win war as quickly and as decisively as possible. This is what the draft is for.

You do realize that the public will of American citizens was actively shaped by propaganda, right? If we had taken a similar approach to the Second Persian Gulf War as we did to World War I or World War II, we could probably have kept popular support for the conflict extremely high. The number of outright atrocities we committed was much, much higher in World War II especially, owing to the nature of total war against mobilized civilian populations. The fire-bombing of urban centers like Tokyo and Dresden left hundreds of thousands of people who weren't combatants dead. The fatality rate at Normandy was exceedingly high compared to that in any conflict outside the Civil War, World War I, and Vietnam.

Korea War, the draft was used for a police action with no Lawful declaration of war nor commitment to win a war. The conscientious objection laws were intact, and it was over before their was a rebellion in the US to stop it.

You have to examine the Korean War in the context of the Cold War, where the Soviet Union often had deep tendrils in the left-wing parties of countries and sought to sponsor revolutions everywhere it could. The long-term geopolitical goals of the Korean War, save the reannexation of the DPRK, have been largely met, and that's a big part of why the conflict isn't well-remembered despite being bloodier than any war since with the sole exception of Vietnam.

Vietnam War, the draft was used for a police action with no no lawful declaration of war nor commitment to win a war. The guns and butter of the bureaucratic and corporate military industrial complex made fortunes off of the blood, death, and destruction of our nation's youth. The draft "lottery" drafted the rural and urban poor disproportionately "somehow." The well off parts of the nations that were touched had means to defer the draft on their youth. The conscientious objection laws were changed to jail those who who in the past had been except. This hurt the inner city minorities and rural disaffected the worst.

The "war" dragged on so long that there was enough time for the nation to foment a rebellion to lower the voting age and end the draft, but not the selective service administration whose job is to coordinate a draft. Every draftable individual male in the US upon reaching the age of majority has a short time to register with the selective service according to current legislation. But the draft as a means of sending our nation's youth to their deaths for political purposes, involuntarily is for the time being, over.

Because the need for it hasn't really arisen since then. The government could reimplement conscription at a moment's notice and that is a constitutional power granted to the government. Vietnam was a nasty war that shouldn't have happened, but the fact that middle-class kids could theoretically be conscripted probably contributed a good deal to demonstrations against it. The level of investment has been much lower for wars fought by volunteers, who remain disproportionately poorer than the general population.

The future imo (if we do not want to become the very fascist, communist, and nazi enemies we decry) is not to turn the military into police, groundskeepers, and maintenance engineers as the military' s forte is to kill people and break things. We should make an effort to rid ourselves of the deep state, the military industrial complex, and the Neoliberal mentality of never-ending wars as a means of diplomacy that sends our nation's youth into harms way; end the administrative state intrusion into foreign and domestic affairs; dismantle the m.i.c., and vote out those who have no moral compunction to send our troops hither and thither.

There's not really much of a risk of us becoming totalitarians. We're more akin to the French Republic setting up sister republics all across Europe. Everything else is broadly correct, though I will point out that the purpose of the military isn't really as simple as killing people either.

[Fahran]

Bit of a different context, innit? going to war with austria spread liberalism to feudal monarchy, while war in vietnam spread liberalism to, um, different liberals, at least in terms of common tradition. At in the case of the french they at least left a lasting legacy, rather than a stain. That aside, invading minor countries costs less than invading *all* of Europe, news at 11.

I was more so referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure, but this particular war was pretty nakedly fought for commercial reasons. I must ask: if a war isn't even worth volunteering for, ain't it worse to be conscripted into it?

I haven't really seen too many conflicts fought for nakedly material reasons. The US, in particular, has a penchant for painting its conflicts in an ideological light, though, on some level, one could always draw out an argument relating to national security or the extension of American influence. In times of crisis, it is not for the individual to decide if a war is worthwhile in much the same as it is not for the individual to decide which other government services deserve their support. That decision is made collectively through the apparatus of the government and then imposed on all, including free riders, by the state.

[Fahran]

You're saying we should have gratitude for having rights and liberties. Is that another way of saying we should be grateful for not being oppressed and exploited? Since when does one owe thanks to anyone who doesn't do harm to them?

Yes. You should also seek to ensure the preservation of the worthwhile aspects of the society and institutions that have given you your rights, liberties, material wealth, sense of identity, etc. At least if you value the worthwhile things that you possess. As a citizen of a liberal democracy, you have a massive amount of privilege. I'm merely advocating that you honor the obligations explicitly spelled out through law and through custom so that you may be worthy of that privilege.

Again, a tax which demands service is not too different functionally from a tax on wealth earned through labor, especially not when you hypothetically benefit from that service regardless of whether or not you're willing to provide it. Because conscription is one of many solutions to the problem of positive externalities.

You should also be grateful to your parents for being good parents - for what it's worth. A lot of people do have parents that physically and emotionally abuse them. You consider the state giving you the right to speak freely or your parents not being overly strict the bare minimum because you probably have a very nice life compared to a lot of people, a lot of people who are extremely grateful for much less.

Also, I'm not going to countenance an individualist anarchist perspective on conscription or the state because those arguments are utopian and silly.

[CoraSpia]

You're saying we should have gratitude for having rights and liberties. Is that another way of saying we should be grateful for not being oppressed and exploited? Since when does one owe thanks to anyone who doesn't do harm to them?

Yes. You should also seek to ensure the preservation of the worthwhile aspects of the society and institutions that have given you your rights, liberties, material wealth, sense of identity, etc. At least if you value the worthwhile things that you possess. As a citizen of a liberal democracy, you have a massive amount of privilege. I'm merely advocating that you honor the obligations explicitly spelled out through law and through custom so that you may be worthy of that privilege.

Again, a tax which demands service is not too different functionally from a tax on wealth earned through labor, especially not when you hypothetically benefit from that service regardless of whether or not you're willing to provide it. Because conscription is one of many solutions to the problem of positive externalities.

You should also be grateful to your parents for being good parents - for what it's worth. A lot of people do have parents that physically and emotionally abuse them. You consider the state giving you the right to speak freely or your parents not being overly strict the bare minimum because you probably have a very nice life compared to a lot of people, a lot of people who are extremely grateful for much less.

But there are other liberal democracies, right? So if the one I'm in was in trouble, I could just go to another.

[Fahran]

But there are other liberal democracies, right? So if the one I'm in was in trouble, I could just go to another.

It rather depends on the sort of trouble you've managed to find. People, usually those living abroad, have renounced their citizenship to escape the applicability of certain laws or to diminish long-term tax liabilities. They have to pay a fee and an expatriation tax. That works fine if you have dual citizenship. Of course, a lot of liberal democracies still require compulsory military service similar to the United States. Additionally, why should one of these societies accept citizens they know will bail when asked to honor social, moral, and legal obligations to the state? As a matter of principle, it feels like taking on dead weight and free riders. Perhaps if having the new citizens offered some other tangible benefit to society as a whole...

[Xmara]

I support our troops, but I don’t support conscription. You shouldn’t be forced by the government to join the military.

[Fahran]

I support our troops, but I don’t support conscription. You shouldn’t be forced by the government to join the military.

Should the government be able to force you to do other things?

[Xmara]

I support our troops, but I don’t support conscription. You shouldn’t be forced by the government to join the military.

Should the government be able to force you to do other things?

Like?

If you’re talking about laws such as those against murder or theft, or in regards to needing a license to drive, I fail to see the equivalence between those and conscription laws.