[On Hold] Prohibition of Forced Service

[Ovybia]

Definitely opposed. A national military draft is a necessity and right of a nation.

"If a Government requires forced military service in order to defend itself, it is clearly not supported by its people."

"Not necessarily. If the nation was being invaded, many citizens wouldn't want to sign up for the draft but would be needed to protect the nation. Unless you are suggesting that, if a nation doesn't have enough military volunteers, it should just surrender to any oppressive nation that wishes to invade it? I think, in many WA nations, the citizens would be much happier fighting a war than being oppressed by another nation, even if the citizens don't realize that fact at the time."

OOC: Take, for example, the American draft in WWII. I hope you're not suggesting that the US should have let itself be attacked at Pearl Harbor simply because it's military volunteer force wasn't large enough. Or that it should have allowed Hitler to invade all of Europe and kill millions of people because some men were too lazy to volunteer.

It would be preferred that there were no wars and we were all nice and happy with one another but welcome to the real world.

"I do so enjoy hearing about reality from theocrats. Tell me more about this 'god' character, isn't it said that it is omnipotent? Could it perhaps create a stone that it could not throw?
In any case, in the real world, we do not allow Member States to engage in violations of sapient rights."

OOC: God has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and I'm not going to engage in threadjacking on the subject. If you wish to discuss God, tg me. I'll be more than happy to present proof of His existence.
IC: "A random draft is not a violation of human rights. Male citizens of a country have a certain duty to their country, whether they like it or not (excepting religious and moral dissenters, of course)."

You would be better off writing a proposal to allow for religious or moral exemptions to a draft.

"Hardly."

"Then I'll suggest a proposal on ensuring a truly random draft. That is one issue that may be of international importance."

[Imperium Anglorum]

However it is, Tinfect, if you want my vote, prove that national service is worse than a volunteer army for all nations.

Er, if you actually want all nations, than you're making a rather unreasonable request. Obviously an unpopular government needs conscription more than a popular one. But whatever, Markhov has not made any statements in this thread that I disagree with, so go read those if you haven't already.

Always happy to have a real debate with real arguments and real responses. I'll be responding in two sections: argument for why I am correct and responses to your arguments. First, responses to your arguments. I do hope you read through it all. It's incredibly long. But then again, if I transcribed one of the speeches I give in debate, it'd probably be longer (8 minutes of talking :P)

---

Since you are seemingly going to dismiss the idea that its a violation of rights to conscript someone, lets go on to practical concerns, shall we? And, uh, some other moral concerns that are not directly related to conscription, but are a part of the problem.

Always happy to go on pragmatics. However, I do not simply dismiss the idea. I believe that conscription is a part of the social contract. The state has a right to force you to do something and conscription is part of that right. The reason the state has that right is because the social contract gives it that right. You have already opted in to the social contract by accepting the state's services. Furthermore, the process of socialisation entails acceptance of the contract. Simply being a member of society means you are part of the contract and your place in it means you have consented to it. Thus, the state can conscript you.

A Conscripted Force, in practice, consists almost entirely of the lower-classes, as the wealthy are able to dodge the draft, whether by bribery or simply having a large amount of resources at their disposal. Personally, that alone should be grounds to put it down, but then again, I'm a Socialist and a member of the lower-class myself, so maybe I'm biased, but no moreso than you, as you seem to be the free-market sort that can afford to go to a debate college or whatever it is you're doing, but I digress.

I would respond with the fact that college is not free and nor is it easy to pay for. Collegiate education is expensive in the United States and I have no illusions about debts incurred. However, this is simply an argument for why conscription should be done fairly and correctly. I have no problem with conscription that is done that way. I can also freely concede any points about conscription done badly — don't do it the dumb way. Second, conscription done correctly forces wealthy individuals to interact in a structured and peaceful manner with less wealthy people. This breaks down the class barrier, something which was seen in Britain in the aftermath of the World Wars, massively decreasing the control of the wealthy over society.

Conscripted Forces universally have drastically lower morale than volunteer forces, due to being forced into military service against their own will, and in combative roles, are vastly less effective than volunteer soldiers, often resulting in their deaths, which, besides killing off a bunch of soldiers that probably had families or children or somesuch, results in resources lost for the state, as equipment may not be able to be recovered, and now the State is ass-out a bunch of soldiers, and a whole lot of public sympathy. In non-combat roles, utilization of conscripted personnel is pretty much begging for delays in supplies, and generally worse operation behind the lines.

When a country is conscripting people, it usually doesn't really have a choice. Britain in the First World War had a volunteer army. It was destroyed. So they put out a massive recruitment drive for more soldiers. They suffered further losses. Two years later, they introduced conscription for the first time. The state had no choice in the matter. The difference is not conscripts vs volunteers. It is conscripts vs nobody at all. For families and children, it is conscription or enemy armies in your town. For logistics, it is conscription or the goods sit at the factory.

Further, the large forces made possible by the use of conscripted personnel incentives the use of 'human-wave' or attrition tactics, something that if we can't agree is deplorable, we shouldn't bother to continue this discussion. Going back to the public support bit, though, conscription of personnel is all but certain to do nothing but damage support for the war effort. For obvious reasons, pulling parents and children away from their families to go shoot at people is not a good way to engender support for any war effort.

The losses that occur with conscription are applied to massive sections of the populace. When a battle ends badly, letters are sent to thousands of households informing them of casualties and, worse, deaths. This creates public support for ending the war. Furthermore, the fact that people can see these reactions coming mean that a state which is considering a war will be less inclined to it. Volunteer armies only suffer casualties to a small portion of society. Those people can be safely ignored by politicians, concentrating the problem significantly and not imposing that massive anti-war cost to the government.

Further, even those that would be willing to assist the war effort on their own, may take exception with not being given the option to do otherwise, as they were being forced to enter the military. If there had simply been a concerted effort to boost recruitment, maybe propaganda or something, the issue of morale and effectiveness would be nullified entirely, as they would likely join the Military of their own volition, and the campaign may sway those that were unsure about joining in the first place, and, it doesn't piss off the people back home because you aren't sending soldiers to the door with a slip of paper and an order to join the army or go to prison.

Similarly, just look at my responses above. Conscription is not the first response. It is the last response, when volunteers are exhausted. Generals don't want to press people into service for the reasons you put above and politicians don't want to take the political hit for the reasons right above. However, even if conscription happens, most nations have a conscientious objector system (and it's also required by the WA here, so it happens).

And if we aren't talking about conscription in wartime, then it's more or less slavery, and you're not going to be pulling any social contract bullshit to shift that position.

Conscription outside of wartime, on the other hand, is where it really shines. It forces people to learn skills, e.g. leadership, mechanical skills, exercise, following orders, and not procrastinating. It forces rich people to interact with poor people and break the class barrier. It allows reserves to be built. It forces people to move around the nation and not remain in a single place. Given that the main cost in conscription, death, is gone — conscription basically turns into vocational education for a few months (naturally, this is not doing the dumb way of eternal conscription, i.e. what rational nations would do). Furthermore, it then leads to everyone in society having a more equal stake in their nation. People understand the costs to war are real and therefore are more willing to take action to prevent it.

---

Three independent points on why conscription is better than the volunteer army:

1. Volunteer armies lead to more wars. This is for four reasons:

(a) Public apathy happens because a small portion of the populace, which does not have the ability to control massive political decisions, suffers the costs. Under national service, that apathy simply does not exist because everyone cares about their families. Because of that, politicians don't care you get more wars.

(b) Propaganda is used to get more recruits. It leads to more militarism and therefore, a higher chance for politicians to use military force in foreign affairs since the costs accrue to an invisible part of the populace. More wars.

(c) Generals make policy, putting the power to go to war into the military itself. Under a national service scheme, their actions would be under massive scrutiny by the public. More wars.

(d) There is no incentive to end wars so politicians just end up expanding the goals more and more. This leads to longer wars and everything here as a whole leads to more casualties and more suffering — which, when combined with the next point, makes it really shitty. National service, because it prevents governments from willy-nilly declaring wars and makes the government more likely to end wars, solves this problem.

2. Volunteer armies lead to crap care for veterans. Public apathy still exists. The small portion of the populace which is recruited into the army does not have the organisational strength to lobby for better veterans care. Politicians therefore don't give a crap and let them suffer because this isn't the tipping point on their reelection. In conscription, the public must care and forces the government to do better and care for veterans because everyone is affected. National service prevents this from happening.

3. Volunteer armies are even worse than conscription when it comes to class divides. While conscription has some chance of rich people dodging the draft (though doing it correctly solves for this), a volunteer army has a worse class divide. This is for two reasons. (1) Rich people will not join the army, which has low pay and has a chance of you getting killed. Recall the points on higher chances of warfare above. (2) Poor people have a higher chance of joining the military, because they see it as an employment opportunity. Because volunteer armies guarantee that the poor fight the rich man's wars — it yields an even more disproportionate result than national service.

[Louisistan]

Becker: "You see, Mr. Markhov, I had hoped we could have a somewhat civil discussion on this, although my nation opposes your proposal. Instead, you've chosen to slander my nation, my people and my government. You have an interesting concept of diplomacy, Sir.
You have made the claim, that my government is not supported by its people because we fear we may not get enough volunteers to defend our beautiful nation. That is a rather bold claim when you consider that the defence of someone's country usually involves a high risk of dying, which is something we Humans are quite afraid of. To claim that anyone who isn't willing to die for his country does not support its government is just flat out untrue. There are a lot of people who are simply so afraid of dying that their support for the government stops at that line. There are also people who do not support the government but will gladly die for their country, as it is the moral foundation of the nation that they are willing to defend as opposed to its current government (which is subject to change anyway).
So, with a general populace that is too afraid to die, we somehow need to select those who will have to if (god forbids) a state of defence were to be declared. Nothing is more fair than selecting young citizens from all walks of life, all classes, all groups and ethnicities for this. That's what conscription does.

You know who signs up for volunteer Armed Forces? Poor people. Because everyone is still afraid of dying, just some people are willing to look past that to get a little money they wouldn't be getting otherwise. So instead of having an army consisting of all kinds of citizens, you are now slaughtering your lower classes in a desperate attempt to look like your not "holding slaves".

I would like to add that the Association of Active Military Personell, an organisation which represents our conscripted military members, has asked me to relay their deepest disdain for being called "slaves".

We will not achieve a common ground here. We are both too deeply entrenched in our respective ideologies for that. But I ask that you show a little bit more respect for those who disagree with you."

[Imperializt Russia]

The People's Standing Army (the forces of the People's Republic of Samozniy Russia) maintains a national service programme for all citizens. Though mandatory, numerous deferments and exemptions are granted, and the service not only permits non-combat roles but also "non-military" roles in state service for conscientious objectors.

The education system, tax system, employment records and university systems, as well as the military itself of course, are all fundamentally built around participation in the programme, as are certain elements of citizenship.

Prohibiting national service, even if non-military roles were allowed to remain, would be unacceptably damaging to all aspects of the country. It would be particularly ruinous for the military and department of education, who under this system are in fact merged and share common systems.
The military would have no choice but to undergo a substantial downsizing and be saddled with billions of dollars in surplus equipment and facilities, and the loss of thousands of experienced training personnel.

[Tinfect]

"Not necessarily. If the nation was being invaded, many citizens wouldn't want to sign up for the draft but would be needed to protect the nation. Unless you are suggesting that, if a nation doesn't have enough military volunteers, it should just surrender to any oppressive nation that wishes to invade it? I think, in many WA nations, the citizens would be much happier fighting a war than being oppressed by another nation, even if the citizens don't realize that fact at the time."

"Hardly, but if civilians are unwilling to defend their country when an ostensibly oppressive government arrives to conquer it, perhaps they would rather the 'oppressive' state than their current government. You underestimate the willingness of a people to fight when their ideals, culture, or livelihoods, are at stake."

OOC: Take, for example, the American draft in WWII. I hope you're not suggesting that the US should have let itself be attacked at Pearl Harbor simply because it's military volunteer force wasn't large enough. Or that it should have allowed Hitler to invade all of Europe and kill millions of people because some men were too lazy to volunteer.

OOC:
I'm rather of the opinion that wouldn't have needed to resort to the Draft if we fought smarter rather than harder. But I'll admit to not being the most knowledgeable when it comes to the pacific front. On another note, I'd quite like it if we didn't immediately jump to WWII as an argument, as it boils down to 'if you support x then you are a nazi' and nothing gets really achieved.

OOC: God has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and I'm not going to engage in threadjacking on the subject. If you wish to discuss God, tg me. I'll be more than happy to present proof of His existence.

Sure you could. And it'll be something that I've never heard before from a dozen people I'm certain.
But I'll give you that, that was uncalled for on my part, and I'll refrain from it in the future.
IC:

"A random draft is not a violation of human rights. Male citizens of a country have a certain duty to their country, whether they like it or not (excepting religious and moral dissenters, of course)."

"A 'random' draft, is, in fact, a violation of Human Rights, according to the Imperium, and, should this legislation be passed in its intended form, the World Assembly, and by extension, your Government. In any case the Imperium fails to see why this supposed 'duty' applies only to the male population. The Imperium has utilized female personnel since its inception, as has our predecessor in the Union, and no ill has come of it. Further, it proves that this supposed 'random' draft, is in fact quite biased, as a large portion of your population is excluded out of hand."

"Then I'll suggest a proposal on ensuring a truly random draft. That is one issue that may be of international importance."

"Then I will expect a draft that makes no distinction between male and female personnel to be presented."

"What is a 'sufficient military force', anyways? What if 100% of the adt population is the minimum needed to be sufficient?"

"The Imperium defines a sufficient military force as a military force of sufficient size to safeguard the Imperium from internal and external threats in times of peace. It is to be interpreted as necessary, and in the event of such a ridiculous situation as you have proposed, the Imperium is likely to have already lost, thus making the point entirely moot."

"Untrue. I said our citizens fight for our nation of their own volition. There are those who do not fight, and some of them are not serving of their own volition. We allow conscientious objectors to escape combat. We do not allow them to escape conscription."

"And this is meant to support your position?"

"I will presume to do so unless you do so for yourself. In this case, I was correct in my presumption."

"In that case, the Imperium expects that you will find it perfectly acceptable for myself to speak for Excidium Planetis at any point you have not explicitly made you position clear on?"

"I fail to see what that would do. It isn't military training if we have no military."

"We shall see, though I question the point of your... 'creative' method of compliance if there is no military to utilize these personnel."

---

OOC, of course.

Always happy to go on pragmatics. However, I do not simply dismiss the idea. I believe that conscription is a part of the social contract. The state has a right to force you to do something and conscription is part of that right. The reason the state has that right is because the social contract gives it that right. You have already opted in to the social contract by accepting the state's services. Furthermore, the process of socialisation entails acceptance of the contract. Simply being a member of society means you are part of the contract and your place in it means you have consented to it. Thus, the state can conscript you.

I rather dislike the Social Contract argument as it completely ignores any and all moral considerations in favour of a completely ass-backwards justification. I can't really argue against this without rejecting social contract theory entirely, and I can't exactly do that. I maintain that there is no benefit to conscription, and that's really all I can do here.

I would respond with the fact that college is not free and nor is it easy to pay for.

No shit.

Collegiate education is expensive in the United States and I have no illusions about debts incurred. However, this is simply an argument for why conscription should be done fairly and correctly. I have no problem with conscription that is done that way. I can also freely concede any points about conscription done badly — don't do it the dumb way. Second, conscription done correctly forces wealthy individuals to interact in a structured and peaceful manner with less wealthy people. This breaks down the class barrier, something which was seen in Britain in the aftermath of the World Wars, massively decreasing the control of the wealthy over society.

In practice, Conscription has never been done properly, and it likely never will so long as we remain in a capitalist society. And if you think that conscription breaks down class barriers, I think we are going to hit an impasse here. I believe that the current state of the economy is due to national laws and international agreements that more or less promote oligarchy and serve solely to raise the wealthy to a higher point, and to further weaken/pacify the lower classes. If the arguments you've used in prior debates are any indication, I don't think we'll be getting anywhere.

When a country is conscripting people, it usually doesn't really have a choice. Britain in the First World War had a volunteer army. It was destroyed. So they put out a massive recruitment drive for more soldiers. They suffered further losses. Two years later, they introduced conscription for the first time. The state had no choice in the matter. The difference is not conscripts vs volunteers. It is conscripts vs nobody at all. For families and children, it is conscription or enemy armies in your town. For logistics, it is conscription or the goods sit at the factory.

Well, maybe if they hadn't gone with War of Attrition tactics they wouldn't have lost as many troops. Frankly, I don't really care that they managed to screw up so badly that they needed to resort to conscription. If you've managed to fuck up so bad that people would rather let the Enemy march in than serve under your command, that's on you. In any case, I was fairly certain we were arguing conscription from a modern perspective. I rather dislike arguing against history because it boils down to 'either accept my position or you support [bad thing]'.

The losses that occur with conscription are applied to massive sections of the populace. When a battle ends badly, letters are sent to thousands of households informing them of casualties and, worse, deaths. This creates public support for ending the war.

Which does not necessarily mean lining up for the draft. I don't quite think that a bunch of people dying so that more people can be sent to go die is acceptable.

Furthermore, the fact that people can see these reactions coming mean that a state which is considering a war will be less inclined to it. Volunteer armies only suffer casualties to a small portion of society. Those people can be safely ignored by politicians, concentrating the problem significantly and not imposing that massive anti-war cost to the government.

... Which side are you arguing?

Similarly, just look at my responses above. Conscription is not the first response. It is the last response, when volunteers are exhausted. Generals don't want to press people into service for the reasons you put above and politicians don't want to take the political hit for the reasons right above. However, even if conscription happens, most nations have a conscientious objector system (and it's also required by the WA here, so it happens).

And those conscientious objector systems, like the one in the WA, often only allow such people to avoid combat, not the draft.

Conscription outside of wartime, on the other hand, is where it really shines. It forces people to learn skills, e.g. leadership, mechanical skills, exercise, following orders, and not procrastinating.

All things that can, and should, be dealt with outside of a military environment.

It allows reserves to be built.

Because modern countries have trouble raising a standing army? Well, first world ones don't, I suppose, but developing states aren't really what we're talking about here.

It forces people to move around the nation and not remain in a single place.

I'm not sure why you consider that a benefit. I mean, it's not necessarily a downside, but its hardly a benefit either.

Given that the main cost in conscription, death, is gone — conscription basically turns into vocational education for a few months (naturally, this is not doing the dumb way of eternal conscription, i.e. what rational nations would do). Furthermore, it then leads to everyone in society having a more equal stake in their nation. People understand the costs to war are real and therefore are more willing to take action to prevent it.

Your last point here is pretty much the only one here that I'm not going to reject. Comparing conscription to education though, is just asinine.

1. Volunteer armies lead to more wars. This is for four reasons:

(a) Public apathy happens because a small portion of the populace, which does not have the ability to control massive political decisions, suffers the costs. Under national service, that apathy simply does not exist because everyone cares about their families. Because of that, politicians don't care you get more wars.

This is more or less a solution to a societal problem that need not exist. If we stop promoting apathy like we are now, it's not really necessary.

(b) Propaganda is used to get more recruits. It leads to more militarism and therefore, a higher chance for politicians to use military force in foreign affairs since the costs accrue to an invisible part of the populace. More wars.

This is really just an argument against standing armies in general.

(c) Generals make policy, putting the power to go to war into the military itself. Under a national service scheme, their actions would be under massive scrutiny by the public. More wars.

Or you could, you know, elect competent politicians, or have proper state oversight over the military. Maybe some transparency is in order.

(d) There is no incentive to end wars so politicians just end up expanding the goals more and more. This leads to longer wars and everything here as a whole leads to more casualties and more suffering — which, when combined with the next point, makes it really shitty. National service, because it prevents governments from willy-nilly declaring wars and makes the government more likely to end wars, solves this problem.

Well, at the moment, there are only incentives to extend warfare, but that's because we let private industries effectively run our military and government. If we got that handled we'd see that turning around right quick. I don't really buy the argument that Conscription is an incentive to not prolong wars.

2. Volunteer armies lead to crap care for veterans. Public apathy still exists. The small portion of the populace which is recruited into the army does not have the organisational strength to lobby for better veterans care. Politicians therefore don't give a crap and let them suffer because this isn't the tipping point on their reelection. In conscription, the public must care and forces the government to do better and care for veterans because everyone is affected. National service prevents this from happening.

Are we discussing the problems inherent to Democracy now? Or severe societal issues that make the problems inherent to democracy insurmountable? I suppose you have a point here, and it's that the state of modern governance, at least in the 'States needs to be completely reworked. But I already knew that. Conscription isn't the answer.

3. Volunteer armies are even worse than conscription when it comes to class divides.

Because the wealthy dodging the draft never happens, am I right?

(1) Rich people will not join the army, which has low pay and has a chance of you getting killed. Recall the points on higher chances of warfare above. (2) Poor people have a higher chance of joining the military, because they see it as an employment opportunity. Because volunteer armies guarantee that the poor fight the rich man's wars — it yields an even more disproportionate result than national service.

Are you arguing in support of Conscription, or in support of Socialism? Because Socialism seems like the answer to this problem, and a good number of the other ones raised. Not total socialism, of course, that's just impractical, but you get the idea.

So far, I'm not fond of your strategy of drowning the opposition in text, and quite frankly your logic is convoluted and doesn't really address the point. Most of your arguments for Conscription can be solved in a different way that doesn't promote dangerous nationalism, or forcing military service on the vast majority of the population.

---

Oh boy we can be IC again.
When do I get to sleep? I've been writing all night, dammit. Actually maybe just an hour but dammit I'm tired.

The education system, tax system, employment records and university systems, as well as the military itself of course, are all fundamentally built around participation in the programme, as are certain elements of citizenship.

"Then it will have to change."

Prohibiting national service, even if non-military roles were allowed to remain, would be unacceptably damaging to all aspects of the country. It would be particularly ruinous for the military and department of education, who under this system are in fact merged and share common systems. The military would have no choice but to undergo a substantial downsizing and be saddled with billions of dollars in surplus equipment and facilities, and the loss of thousands of experienced training personnel.

"It is not the concern of the Imperium if your state cannot support itself without the utilization of forced labour."

quicksnip

OOC:
You know, it'd be really nice if you quoted the posts you were responding to. Makes my job just a tad easier. Especially when it's way back on the first page.
IC:

You have made the claim, that my government is not supported by its people because we fear we may not get enough volunteers to defend our beautiful nation.

"It is rather likely to be the case."

That is a rather bold claim when you consider that the defence of someone's country usually involves a high risk of dying, which is something we Humans are quite afraid of. To claim that anyone who isn't willing to die for his country does not support its government is just flat out untrue.

"Fair enough."

So, with a general populace that is too afraid to die, we somehow need to select those who will have to if (god forbids) a state of defence were to be declared. Nothing is more fair than selecting young citizens from all walks of life, all classes, all groups and ethnicities for this. That's what conscription does.

"The threat of destruction tends to rally a population into action. The Imperium does not consider Conscription to be as necessary for national defense as you seem to believe. Quite simply, 'nothing is more fair' than not forcing citizens to march to their deaths."

You know who signs up for volunteer Armed Forces? Poor people. Because everyone is still afraid of dying, just some people are willing to look past that to get a little money they wouldn't be getting otherwise. So instead of having an army consisting of all kinds of citizens, you are now slaughtering your lower classes in a desperate attempt to look like your not "holding slaves".

"The Imperium does not have lower classes in the way you imply. Both those with specialized educations and simple educations have found their way into the Imperial Military. If this is not the case in your Nation, that is unfortunate, but perhaps you should consider the consequences of warfare."

[Imperializt Russia]

OOC: Take, for example, the American draft in WWII. I hope you're not suggesting that the US should have let itself be attacked at Pearl Harbor simply because it's military volunteer force wasn't large enough. Or that it should have allowed Hitler to invade all of Europe and kill millions of people because some men were too lazy to volunteer.

OOC:
I'm rather of the opinion that wouldn't have needed to resort to the Draft if we fought smarter rather than harder. But I'll admit to not being the most knowledgeable when it comes to the pacific front. On another note, I'd quite like it if we didn't immediately jump to WWII as an argument, as it boils down to 'if you support x then you are a nazi' and nothing gets really achieved.

You seem to be of the opinion that "fighting smarter" somehow precludes conscription. I'd be very interested to hear why you believe this to be the case.

I'd also be very interested to see a refutation better than "well you had better change", I'm honestly disappointed in you and might as well have not bothered replying to the thread.

[Tinfect]

You seem to be of the opinion that "fighting smarter" somehow precludes conscription. I'd be very interested to hear why you believe this to be the case.

OOC:
Well, that's not quite true, 'fighting smarter' would rather make conscription unnecessary, is the idea there.

I'd also be very interested to see a refutation better than "well you had better change", I'm honestly disappointed in you and might as well have not bothered replying to the thread.

If you wanted a better response than don't stack posts on me at 02:30.
I mean, I get that that's kind of out of your control, but still. I don't know, I'll work on something better in the morning, I clearly should not be allowing myself to write long NS posts when lacking sleep.

[Imperializt Russia]

You seem to be of the opinion that "fighting smarter" somehow precludes conscription. I'd be very interested to hear why you believe this to be the case.

OOC:
Well, that's not quite true, 'fighting smarter' would rather make conscription unnecessary, is the idea there.

I said I was interested in hearing why you think one precludes the other, not for you to restate the point.[/quote]

[Liagolas]

Okay. Well, when I present draft good, the main counter-argument is pretty much always about rights infringement. National service, however, is framed as a responsibility of citizenship, so it isn't really a rights infringement. OOC: World school? Never heard of it. I do APDA. However it is, Tinfect, if you want my vote, prove that national service is worse than a volunteer army for all nations.

"Ah." The Mouth nods, then, slightly quirking its head, it asks, "Could Ambassador Markhov not somehow prove that national service ought not to be considered an obligation of citizenship? The WA has already seemed to agree that nations do not have the right to force their citizens to work as, say, secretaries in a bureaucracy for the Internal Affairs department given the prohibitions on forced labor. Assuming a repeal of the necessary legislation happened, why should military service be different?"

The Mouth seems to notice the Hand looking at it, and it quickly adds, "Not that the Dominion believes compulsory military service ought to be prohibited. It is just... curious."

OOC: World School's not a very common event; it's sort of internationally recognized, but still not used at many tournament. Basically, a three person team with three eight minute speeches a side and one four minute rebuttal/crystallization a side. APDA is parliamentary, right?

[Louisistan]

Becker: Allow me to clarify one more point here:

Withholding Citizenship from any individual on the grounds that they have not completed Military Service

This is indeed a practice which we deem immoral. Citizenship is not bound to Military Service in our nation. One can be a citizen without having served in the Military (or one of the alternatives).

Let's not mix these two things up. Not every country that has conscription actually withholds citizenship from those who haven't served (yet).

[The Sheika]

Becker: Allow me to clarify one more point here:

Withholding Citizenship from any individual on the grounds that they have not completed Military Service

This is indeed a practice which we deem immoral. Citizenship is not bound to Military Service in our nation. One can be a citizen without having served in the Military (or one of the alternatives).

Let's not mix these two things up. Not every country that has conscription actually withholds citizenship from those who haven't served (yet).

*The Colonel holds up a finger and clears his throat uncomfortably* Actually, the Federation had at one point exercised this very practice for immigrants up until this very idea had been put before the Senate in the homeland. Not one of our best aspects, nor was it the worst.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Utilizing military service as an option to achieve citizenship isn't any kind of moral affront. The C.D.S.P. has one such pathway to citizenship through the Foreign Legion. It being the only option is questionable, but one can always choose not to become a citizen of a particular country. The element of choice remains. There is no choice for the citizen who is required to serve or go to jail."

[John Turner]

There is no choice for the citizen who is required to serve or go to jail."

Which is where I see a problem. Unless a nation is in mortal danger of being completely annihilated, there is little to no reason to force anyone into military service, especially to lead a war of aggression. If you can't fight a war with professional, volunteer troops then you probably shouldn't run around starting them.

[Separatist Peoples]

There is no choice for the citizen who is required to serve or go to jail."

Which is where I see a problem. Unless a nation is in mortal danger of being completely annihilated, there is little to no reason to force anyone into military service, especially to lead a war of aggression. If you can't fight a war with professional, volunteer troops then you probably shouldn't run around starting them.

"I might argue that a state willing to trample individual rights to save it's own existence doesn't have the right to exist in the first place, regardless of the military situation. But, yes, you are quite right."

[The Sheika]

"Utilizing military service as an option to achieve citizenship isn't any kind of moral affront. The C.D.S.P. has one such pathway to citizenship through the Foreign Legion. It being the only option is questionable, but one can always choose not to become a citizen of a particular country. The element of choice remains. There is no choice for the citizen who is required to serve or go to jail."

Yeah it had, had being the keyword, been the only option to immigrants, sort of a "I wasn't given my citizenship, I earned it " sort of deal.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Honestly didn't bother to read everything on the last 1.5 pages, but just wanted to inject here that the claim that conscripted army had a lower morale than volunteer one is really weird to me.

Finland has universal draft for males and voluntary for females, it allows civilian service instead of military, but if you outright refuse to do either, they put you in prison. We get a lot of flack on that last bit from Amnesty International, but being such a small country (population of about about 5.5 millions) next to one (Russia) that we don't exactly trust due to events within living memory, we don't have the money to hire enough mercenaries to defend a mostly-forested, uninhabited land border with the aforementioned nation, and because we don't exactly trust the other option (USA NATO) either, having our own army is the only option.

It was a conscripted army that held off the Soviet troops in WW2, enabling us to keep our independence, despite Cold War making things difficult. Patriotism has a bad rep these days, but it, added to practical realities, can clearly be enough for high morale in a conscripted army, especially if the situation is desperate enough. And, frankly speaking, comparing conscripted soldiers to slaves is fucking impolite and smells of flamebaiting, albeit being done in IC.

I'll have a hard time debating this in IC, since PPU and Araraukar are pacifist nations and WA Kitty Kops is, well, a bunch of half-grown kittens. Also flu in RL is still making detailed planning and thinking difficult. If this debate is still going on by the time half of my brain is no longer full of snot, I'll read through everything and think of a way to talk about it in IC.

[Bears Armed]

"If a Government requires forced military service in order to defend itself, it is clearly not supported by its people."

OOC: That's a false dichotomy. When a nation's very freedom is threatened by outside forces, unless its government is verry unpopular with the populace and the attackers are actually seen widely as a better alternative, there are likely to be quite a few people who are willing to serve in their homeland's defence as long as they know that other people will also be doing their fair share... and who will therefore be reasonably happy with the introduction of an honestly-run system of conscription even if it calls they themselves into service.
Are you perchance from the USA, and motivated here by accounts of opposition to the draft during the Vietnam War? Because I'm from the UK, and have read about how the system worked -- and was responded to -- during both of the 'World Wars'... which were rather different situations to Vietnam.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Honestly didn't bother to read everything on the last 1.5 pages, but just wanted to inject here that the claim that conscripted army had a lower morale than volunteer one is really weird to me.

Finland has universal draft for males and voluntary for females, it allows civilian service instead of military, but if you outright refuse to do either, they put you in prison. We get a lot of flack on that last bit from Amnesty International, but being such a small country (population of about about 5.5 millions) next to one (Russia) that we don't exactly trust due to events within living memory, we don't have the money to hire enough mercenaries to defend a mostly-forested, uninhabited land border with the aforementioned nation, and because we don't exactly trust the other option (USA NATO) either, having our own army is the only option.

It was a conscripted army that held off the Soviet troops in WW2, enabling us to keep our independence, despite Cold War making things difficult. Patriotism has a bad rep these days, but it, added to practical realities, can clearly be enough for high morale in a conscripted army, especially if the situation is desperate enough. And, frankly speaking, comparing conscripted soldiers to slaves is fucking impolite and smells of flamebaiting, albeit being done in IC.

I'll have a hard time debating this in IC, since PPU and Araraukar are pacifist nations and WA Kitty Kops is, well, a bunch of half-grown kittens. Also flu in RL is still making detailed planning and thinking difficult. If this debate is still going on by the time half of my brain is no longer full of snot, I'll read through everything and think of a way to talk about it in IC.

OOC: Civil service is a long way off conscripted military service. However, compelling service where the compelled party has no option to unilaterally withdraw from the arrangement is the same arrangement as indentured servitude, which is slavery by another name. It is a serious restriction of civil liberties and, unlike imprisonment, is not preceded by a crime of any kind to justify it, but by political expediency. Regardless of how practical that may be, it isn't morally defensible. I don't see how noting that is anywhere near flamebait. Nobody is attacking you or a group you belong to, but a political policy.

[Imperializt Russia]

There is no choice for the citizen who is required to serve or go to jail."

Which is where I see a problem. Unless a nation is in mortal danger of being completely annihilated, there is little to no reason to force anyone into military service, especially to lead a war of aggression. If you can't fight a war with professional, volunteer troops then you probably shouldn't run around starting them.

>implying that there is a black and white divide between conscription and all-volunteer troops

After all in WWI, the British Army enjoyed an almost 50/50 split in total number volunteering and total conscripted. In 1917, more men were exempted service than were actually serving that that time.

For instance, my own IC situation is that "national service" actually constitutes a sort of finishing school. The focus is very clearly military.
The actual army is an all-volunteer force, though some national service units do make up its strength.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Civil service is a long way off conscripted military service.

OOC: ...what does that have anything to do with anything?

Actually...

Wiktionary wrote:

Noun

conscription ‎(countable and uncountable, plural conscriptions)

1. involuntary labor, especially military service, demanded by some established authority
2. An enrolling or registering.

According to that definition at least there's no difference between civil and military service, or indeed any involuntary labour, such as children doing homework, or people dodging prison sentences via community service sentences (which often consist of doing labor of some sort).

Regardless of how practical that may be, it isn't morally defensible.

Wars and violence and training for those in general aren't, in my opinion. That wasn't the point here, but the morale of the conscripted soldiers.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Civil service is a long way off conscripted military service.

OOC: ...what does that have anything to do with anything?

Actually...

Wiktionary wrote:

Noun

conscription ‎(countable and uncountable, plural conscriptions)

1. involuntary labor, especially military service, demanded by some established authority
2. An enrolling or registering.

According to that definition at least there's no difference between civil and military service, or indeed any involuntary labour, such as children doing homework, or people dodging prison sentences via community service sentences (which often consist of doing labor of some sort).

OOC: I would personally agree, but from a practical standpoint, such policies do not run into the same moral harms involved with service in a military system. More is the pity that this isn't more widely considered the same.

Regardless of how practical that may be, it isn't morally defensible.

Wars and violence and training for those in general aren't, in my opinion. That wasn't the point here, but the morale of the conscripted soldiers.

OOC: I see. I was responding mostly to this:

And, frankly speaking, comparing conscripted soldiers to slaves is fucking impolite and smells of flamebaiting, albeit being done in IC.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

I was responding mostly to this:

And, frankly speaking, comparing conscripted soldiers to slaves is fucking impolite and smells of flamebaiting, albeit being done in IC.

OOC: Then we both managed to miss directing our replies correctly.

Nobody is attacking you or a group you belong to, but a political policy.

I also see you made an edit. Personally that doesn't change anything, as you weren't the one who made the original comments that prompted my original OOC reply. And calling my brothers (I have 2, one did military service the other civilian) and father (he did civilian service) slaves is pretty damn offensive to me. Had I been the right gender at birth, I would've done one or the other myself. Not because of patriotism or political policy, but because it's just something you do when you're male and about to become an adult.

To go back to this bit...

However, compelling service where the compelled party has no option to unilaterally withdraw from the arrangement is the same arrangement as indentured servitude, which is slavery by another name. It is a serious restriction of civil liberties and, unlike imprisonment, is not preceded by a crime of any kind to justify it, but by political expediency.

It actually is against the law to refuse to do either service, so it is preceded by a crime. Think of it as a student talking back at a teacher at the wrong time, and being put on detention. Morally okay? Perhaps not. Still legal? Yes.

So, to prevent more misunderstandings; I call bullshit on the claim that conscripted soldiers would have lower morale than voluntary ones, and also state that I am personally offended to having every adult Finnish male (for sake of some sanity in this argument, let's not go into trans issues here) I know, including members of my own family, being called slaves by anyone.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I would personally agree, but from a practical standpoint, such policies do not run into the same moral harms involved with service in a military system. More is the pity that this isn't more widely considered the same.

SP, that's special pleading. If you can't demonstrate why one form of involuntary labor should be promoted and another prohibited, your argument isn't going to hold water.

I'm also a little confused here. Are you saying you think requirements that children receive education are bad?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I would personally agree, but from a practical standpoint, such policies do not run into the same moral harms involved with service in a military system. More is the pity that this isn't more widely considered the same.

SP, that's special pleading. If you can't demonstrate why one form of involuntary labor should be promoted and another prohibited, your argument isn't going to hold water.

I'm also a little confused here. Are you saying you think requirements that children receive education are bad?

OOC: I am arguing from a practical standpoint that the moral impacts of compulsory civil service are less than that of military conscription, especially to the voters. I thought I had come out pretty clearly against compulsory civil service as well. Both are reprehensible. One has fewer political and moral issues attached, because one doesn't involve waging war.

Children, assuming you are referring to minors below the age of majority and not something bizarre, are chattel property from a legal perspective, as they are not wholly competent persons. Legally speaking, their parents are making the legal decisions on their behalf. I imagine very few individuals object to education for their children so much as they object to how an education is applied. Since education in a government facility is in no way servitude or service, and since there are alternatives to state schools, there is not a similar onus with the same inability to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. That's a false analogy.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

A tortoise, wearing a powder blue ribbon draped around her shell, and a silver necklace with the Flag of TurtleShroom as a pendant, entered the room.

"Sorry ah'm late. The guy before me was recalled due to lackin' official capacity for the state. So, let's see hee-yuh..."

"In those terms, that's true. But you know what else is a good thing? Military officers treating civilian politicians as proper authorities rather than potential coup victims."

"Aside from declarin' war and managin' budgetary al-uh-cay-shuns, why would anyone go further in puttin' civilians over the military? You don't put no laymen in charge of medical boards, there ain't no laymen tellin' clergy what ta preach, and you don't have no city slickers runnin' farmin' co-ops. Why would ya'll put people with no idee-yuh on how war n' peace work in charge-a those that do?
Civilian politicians normally get in the way of wagin' war and tie the soldiers' appendages behind them by saddlin' 'em with onerous rules of engagement. In my country, the military is fully autonomous, aside from givin' it its budget and actually declarin' war.
Civilian politicians have no othuh place tellin' the military what to do."