Is Mandatory Government and Military service that bad?

[CoraSpia]

Well, ancient Sparta, where all had to fight ain't exactly flawless either.

Modern conscription doesn't even come close to approximating the system that was in place in Sparta. The best approximation would probably be Revolutionary France, but we do not need to resort to approximations at all when we have actually seen conscription practiced. It does create hardship on the homefront and for those conscripted, but that's usually outweighed by the hardship that would be endured in the event that the geopolitical objectives motivating the war were capsized altogether.

Question is... do we need so much manpower? Old world wars used ot demand it. But modern wars are more about quality than quantity. Besides, they all require guns, food and other thingies. Ya' don't just give em' sharp sticks and tell to just run to the enemy and try to stab one of them. How about reducing the need for manpower?

World War II didn't involve sharp sticks, and basic training doesn't take anywhere near as long as you're making out. We cannot rule out the possibility that large reserves of manpower might be needed in future conflicts and that's why due preparedness requires us to have the capacity to put tens of millions of people in the field within a few months if the need arises.

If the enemy is really that strong, then the alternative is to sleep with fishes. Both choices are bad. May there never be such a situation, for there is no saying which is worse. Alright, ya' persuaded me! In this specific case, I'll fight, shoot some bullets, then grab a knife and inevitebly die. Go to Valhalla halls with girls and booze! But if there ain't no girls and booze in the afterlife...

Or we could pull up all our resources and defeat the enemy, who may well be resorting to conscription as well. "I don't mind if we have to deal with occupation or long-term decreases in standards of living and prosperity as long as I don't have to fight" is not a morally just sentiment from most perspectives. And I'm not telling you that you have to be enthusiastic, that war is great, or that there'll be the sorts of rewards that would appeal to Vikings or fratboys at the end of it all. I'm simply asserting that it's your civic duty to answer the call when the political community feels the threat is dire enough to warrant sending out the call. You don't get to ignore it in much the same way that libertarians don't get to ignore taxes they don't want to pay.

And...if the person in question doesn't agree with the geopolitical objectives that the state is attempting to force on them, and would just head to the next safe country if the state collapsed anyway?

[Immoren]

I've once seen someone defend national service in Finland on similar lines like 2nd amendment of US constitution.
Like along lines of "if you remove right to national service you remove people's ability to train skills they can use against tyrannical government". And I'm not sure if that's funniest thing or not

[Fahran]

No wonder, I went libertarian centrist...

Libertarian ethics are simply bad ethics, anon.

[Fahran]

And...if the person in question doesn't agree with the geopolitical objectives that the state is attempting to force on them, and would just head to the next safe country if the state collapsed anyway?

In the event that the state in question possesses legitimacy and the popular will, that person is behaving immorally.

[CoraSpia]

And...if the person in question doesn't agree with the geopolitical objectives that the state is attempting to force on them, and would just head to the next safe country if the state collapsed anyway?

In the event that the state in question possesses legitimacy and the popular will, that person is behaving immorally.

Not really. The state gave said person no choice of whether to be born into it because such a thing would be impossible. The person is making the decision to cease to be associated with the state. I don't believe that you hold any sort of moral duty to something that you may find to be both distasteful and contrary to your interests.

[Fahran]

Not really. The state gave said person no choice of whether to be born into it because such a thing would be impossible.

It's almost like I don't subscribe the libertarian ethics. I've characterized the social contract as a collective inheritance in the past, and largely stand by that statement. As I pointed out earlier though, it's an inheritance the average citizen benefits from substantially. You're getting the benefits of the political community without wanting to do your part to ensure that those benefits continue to occur from generation to generation. This broad attitude, when extrapolated else-where, leads to the degeneration of institutional efficacy, communal empathy and investment, and civic virtues. It's essentially "fuck you, got mine" writ large, which is not a good system of ethics.

The person is making the decision to cease to be associated with the state. I don't believe that you hold any sort of moral duty to something that you may find to be both distasteful and contrary to your interests.

Honestly, I don't think such a person really cares about morality at all. I think they simply employ libertarian ethics as a means of serving their own interests and doing as they please with some pretense that they've occupied a moral high ground. I think the "contrary to their interests" part is the one most applicable to a lot of the arguments I've seen here, with two or three exceptions.

[CoraSpia]

Not really. The state gave said person no choice of whether to be born into it because such a thing would be impossible.

It's almost like I don't subscribe the libertarian ethics. I've characterized the social contract as a collective inheritance in the past, and largely stand by that statement. As I pointed out earlier though, it's an inheritance the average citizen benefits from substantially. You're getting the benefits of the political community without wanting to do your part to ensure that those benefits continue to occur from generation to generation. This broad attitude, when extrapolated else-where, leads to the degeneration of institutional efficacy, communal empathy and investment, and civic virtues. It's essentially "fuck you, got mine" writ large, which is not a good system of ethics.

The person is making the decision to cease to be associated with the state. I don't believe that you hold any sort of moral duty to something that you may find to be both distasteful and contrary to your interests.

Honestly, I don't think such a person really cares about morality at all. I think they simply employ libertarian ethics as a means of serving their own interests and doing as they please with some pretense that they've occupied a moral high ground. I think the "contrary to their interests" part is the one most applicable to a lot of the arguments I've seen here, with two or three exceptions.

What is the 'political community?' My country is a collection of largely unhappy people ruled by a political class of corrupt politicians and only slightly less corrupt bureaucrats that is thankfully tearing itself apart. For me, it's not simply that I con't care if it ceases to exist, I want it to cease to exist in its current form as it isn't fit for purpose. Why the hell would I want to serve a country which I absolutely despise?

[Fahran]

What is the 'political community?' My country is a collection of largely unhappy people ruled by a political class of corrupt politicians and only slightly less corrupt bureaucrats that is thankfully tearing itself apart.

A community is a social unit wherein members share norms, values, customs, and a sense of identity. A political community is a community oriented towards public life and the maintenance of political processes wherein members share a common system of values, attitudes, laws, norms, and paradigms. And, with regard to unhappiness, I think the proliferation of paradigms not dissimilar to your own are a good deal more to blame for the steep increase in unhappiness than anything that state has done of late.

For me, it's not simply that I con't care if it ceases to exist, I want it to cease to exist in its current form as it isn't fit for purpose. Why the hell would I want to serve a country which I absolutely despise?

Because the alternatives are a good deal less palatable and because anything nice you have at the moment is likely tied to the extant political community to which you belong and would evaporate in its absence in all likelihood.

[Sky Reavers]

A community is a social unit wherein members share norms, values, customs, and a sense of identity. A political community is a community oriented towards public life and the maintenance of political processes wherein members share a common system of values, attitudes, laws, norms, and paradigms. And, with regard to unhappiness, I think the proliferation of paradigms not dissimilar to your own are a good deal more to blame for the steep increase in unhappiness than anything that state has done of late.

Dude, you idealize the political community, as if it's some awesomeized 5 stars resort commune with beaches, casinos and brothels, where people are all friendly, and where the booze is clean, refreshing and cheap, and sex is just like the booze and, where they let' ya' smoke weed every day or just relax and enjoy a good show after a productive workday! And trains are never late! Goddamn! Wish I lived there...

But... let us be realistic. So many people rarely agree on everything politically, can have opposite views and live on one territory (unless they live in North Korea or something, otherwise, all have one set of views, those with dissenting are goners). There are opposition parties, protests, and even civil wars and revolutions in dire cases. System of values has common things, but varies from individual to individual. And politicians apparently ain't god kings. Many of them make mistakes, screw up, steal, lie, and they manipulate people.

Because the alternatives are a good deal less palatable and because anything nice you have at the moment is likely tied to the extant political community to which you belong and would evaporate in its absence in all likelihood.

Or at least politicians love to say that to those, whom they screw over. "Obey, or else someone else will screw ya' over even more."

Now look dude, I don't know where you are, but if some junta death squad member or thought cop holds ya' somewhere and makes ya' write good things about paternalism and bad things about libertarianism, while standing behind ya', write a word "blink" in the next post twice.

[Fahran]

Dude, you idealize the political community, as if it's some awesomeized 5 stars resort commune with beaches, casinos and brothels, where people are all friendly, and where the booze is clean, refreshing and cheap, and sex is just like the booze and, where they let' ya' smoke weed every day or just relax and enjoy a good show after a productive workday! And trains are never late! Goddamn! Wish I lived there...

I don't think we have the same system of values. That's not how I envision paradise and I find it a touch suspect that you do envision paradise in this way. And the extant political community in place in most liberal democracies is comparatively nice in terms of concrete material concerns for the overwhelming majority of citizens. I have no idea how anyone could be born in America, the UK, Norway, or Germany and think that the destruction of their society would be preferable to its continued existence, especially not from a liberal or libertarian perspective.

But... let us be realistic. So many people rarely agree on everything politically, can have opposite views and live on one territory (unless they live in North Korea or something, otherwise, all have one set of views, those with dissenting are goners). There are opposition parties, protests, and even civil wars and revolutions in dire cases. System of values has common things, but varies from individual to individual. And politicians apparently ain't god kings. Many of them make mistakes, screw up, steal, lie, and they manipulate people.

Almost everyone in the West is a liberal or liberal-adjacent. You've been framing most of your arguments within the context of liberal and individualist values - as have most of the other opponents of conscription here. I've hopped between conservative and liberal arguments because one may arguably use Plato, Burke, or Locke to arrive at a conclusion that supports conscription. The notion that the political community doesn't exist because people have different opinions is not an especially powerful argument. Nor is the fact that liberal democracies aren't perfect, especially when, again, you're presenting these arguments from a liberal framework. If you were a fascist or an old school communist, it might be a touch more convincing. But then you might well argue for conscription under a different system.

Or at least politicians love to say that to those, whom they screw over. "Obey, or else someone else will screw ya' over even more."

The poster to whom I was responding is a socioeconomic elite. The state ceasing to exist or suffering a monumental setback would probably not be good for his concrete material interests given he's at the top of the social ladder in the extant community. If you're middle-class and a liberal of any stripe, the state ceasing to exist or suffering a monumental setback would probably not be good for your concrete material interests. Depending on the precise conditions, it could even be universally bad for everyone belonging to the political community.

Now look dude, I don't know where you are, but if some junta death squad member or thought cop holds ya' somewhere and makes ya' write good things about paternalism, write a code phrase in the next post.

I'm not living under a junta. I strongly suspect you aren't either.

[Sky Reavers]

I don't think we have the same system of values. That's not how I envision paradise and I find it a touch suspect that you do envision paradise in this way. And the extant political community in place in most liberal democracies is comparatively nice in terms of concrete material concerns for the overwhelming majority of citizens. I have no idea how anyone could be born in America, the UK, Norway, or Germany and think that the destruction of their society would be preferable to its continued existence, especially not from a liberal or libertarian perspective.

Not that I wanna destroy the society. I want it to become more relaxed, more chill. Less boring and pushy! Change doesn't mean destroy. Change means awesomize! Upgrade! Lake it more comfortable for all and any!

And what does your paradise look like? I wanna know... of course if ya' feel to embarrassed or something, don't. No one forces ya'. Seriously. It made me really curious, because from what I've read from ya', that's definitely ain't no North Korea or Oceania under INGSOC.

Almost everyone in the West is a liberal or liberal-adjacent. You've been framing most of your arguments within the context of liberal and individualist values - as have most of the other opponents of conscription here. I've hopped between conservative and liberal arguments because one may arguably use Plato, Burke, or Locke to arrive at a conclusion that supports conscription. The notion that the political community doesn't exist because people have different opinions is not an especially powerful argument. Nor is the fact that liberal democracies aren't perfect, especially when, again, you're presenting these arguments from a liberal framework. If you were a fascist or an old school communist, it might be a touch more convincing. But then you might well argue for conscription under a different system.

Not to say, political communities don't exist. They are just not homogenous, cause this is not a hivemind. They may have common goals or mutual trust or something. And I am agaisnt conscription under any system. Especially in peacetime, when there is no need for it at all.

The poster to whom I was responding is a socioeconomic elite. The state ceasing to exist or suffering a monumental setback would probably not be good for his concrete material interests given he's at the top of the social ladder in the extant community. If you're middle-class and a liberal of any stripe, the state ceasing to exist or suffering a monumental setback would probably not be good for your concrete material interests. Depending on the precise conditions, it could even be universally bad for everyone belonging to the political community.

And there is a critical point somewhere, when crooked politicians are so blinded with greed and power tripping (Yes, authority is a really addictive stuff), they screw over the people so much, that collapse of state only improves the situation for most folks round' there. It's rather hard to reach though. But it's possible. But so far, I just advocate for removal of conscription. If that alone can destroy the state because of it's overreliance on underpaid job, then there are many things to fix.

I'm not living under a junta. I strongly suspect you aren't either.

So, ya' don't live udner the junta. I don't either. And there was no codephrase. Wait, I'll check it, it might be encrypted. Very clever. Or maybe there ain't no codephrase... Wonder, what place do ya' live in then? Gotta be some beautiful, warm and maybe a lil' bit arid place!

And. I know, ya' might not feel that way, but there is something about ya', I like.

[The Marlborough]

Not really. The state gave said person no choice of whether to be born into it because such a thing would be impossible.

It's almost like I don't subscribe the libertarian ethics. I've characterized the social contract as a collective inheritance in the past, and largely stand by that statement. As I pointed out earlier though, it's an inheritance the average citizen benefits from substantially. You're getting the benefits of the political community without wanting to do your part to ensure that those benefits continue to occur from generation to generation. This broad attitude, when extrapolated else-where, leads to the degeneration of institutional efficacy, communal empathy and investment, and civic virtues. It's essentially "fuck you, got mine" writ large, which is not a good system of ethics.

The person is making the decision to cease to be associated with the state. I don't believe that you hold any sort of moral duty to something that you may find to be both distasteful and contrary to your interests.

Honestly, I don't think such a person really cares about morality at all. I think they simply employ libertarian ethics as a means of serving their own interests and doing as they please with some pretense that they've occupied a moral high ground. I think the "contrary to their interests" part is the one most applicable to a lot of the arguments I've seen here, with two or three exceptions.

I just want to say this is an incredibly based post.

[The Marlborough]

I would say I'm pro-conscription for home defense, but expeditionary forces should be composed of units made up of volunteers and perhaps something akin to the French Foreign Legion. These units and their veterans should evidently have more social prestige and benefits as a result not to mention it could help encourage people joining them which in turn would allow more force projection. Though it depends on the society, not all might be opposed to conscripts being sent on expeditionary campaigns. You have to know your people more or less.

Conscientious objectors, those too unfit for military service, and women* should have a different form of national service centered around community work.


*Though for countries such as Israel, I understand why they have female military conscription and so in situations like that it's understandable.

[Suriyanakhon]

It's almost like I don't subscribe the libertarian ethics. I've characterized the social contract as a collective inheritance in the past, and largely stand by that statement. As I pointed out earlier though, it's an inheritance the average citizen benefits from substantially. You're getting the benefits of the political community without wanting to do your part to ensure that those benefits continue to occur from generation to generation. This broad attitude, when extrapolated else-where, leads to the degeneration of institutional efficacy, communal empathy and investment, and civic virtues. It's essentially "fuck you, got mine" writ large, which is not a good system of ethics.


Honestly, I don't think such a person really cares about morality at all. I think they simply employ libertarian ethics as a means of serving their own interests and doing as they please with some pretense that they've occupied a moral high ground. I think the "contrary to their interests" part is the one most applicable to a lot of the arguments I've seen here, with two or three exceptions.

I just want to say this is an incredibly based post.

Fahr is the best quality poster on NS.

[Sky Reavers]

Fahr is the best quality poster on NS.

Do ya' like writing or views? What should I change to become better poster?

[Kowani]

Fahr is the best quality poster on NS.

Do ya' like writing or views? What should I change to become better poster?

Step one for being a quality poster? Coherency and an ability to consider frameworks alternative to your own.

[Suriyanakhon]

Fahr is the best quality poster on NS.

Do ya' like writing or views? What should I change to become better poster?

Reading and considering different political and philosophical theories which might confirm or differ from your own views and developing in response to them.

[Sky Reavers]

Reading and considering different political and philosophical theories which might confirm or differ from your own views and developing in response to them.

What about my posts so far? Gimme' feedback, pretty please.