Is conscription slavery?

TheButterHashira

TheButterHashira

Active member
Personally I think it is.

Read the thirteenth amendment

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a

punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,

shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their

jurisdiction."

To me conscription would fall under "involuntary servitude".

 
id buy a slave if i could....but i woudnt be mean to him/her i would be nice and treat them all good but more like a servant kinda deal
 
of course it is

Those who support it beat around the bush and call it everything but what it ultimately is.
 
You can already do that. It's called hired help, or a butler, or a maid. Why would you want a servant who didn't want to serve you?
 
one would think that according to that definition, a draft is in fact slavery. But a country can call upon it's people to do what is necessary for the country. There are legal ways out of a draft, not just draft card burning and such. By just registering yourself as a conscientious objector, you can alleviate your drafting. Or by having a sick parent....list goes on. This is really similar to some other heated issues like eminent domain and the likes. In fact, it's also stated elsewhere in the constitution (i'm not sure where...7th?) that the government has a right to your property as long as due compensation is given. So while it's pretty shitty to get drafted or have your house taken by the government, it's in laws.
 
In vietnam, half of the people apllying as conscientious objectors got turned down, and almost all those who actually got the status were forced to do some other kind of labor.

Also, just because something is a law doesn't mean that it is morally acceptable for some, or even most, people.
 
Theoretically yes, but I wouldn't worry about a draft bro. The Air Force cut back a few years ago because we had a lot more people than we needed. Budget cuts.
 
Heck Yes, the only time I agree with conscription is if someone is directly attacking us in our own country and everybody is needed as a sort of last stand, not because the government just has to step into the fighting a continent away.
 
Do you think that it would be slavery if a family member was injured and they called upon you to assist them?

Would you expect your father or mother to pay you to take care of them when they are too old to take care of themselves?

I think that being a citizen of some community warrants certain obligations to that community, much like you have an obligation to your parents and family. In your example of Vietnam I see it as the government not following the wills of the population, causing an excess of conscientious objectors failing the system... in turn the government was forced into making people fulfill their duty. None the less citizens still have obligations to the place that provides the land they live on.

If our definition of slavery is "forced labor with no compensation" Either you believe that government provides some benefits to its citizens, or that government does not provide any benefits to it's citizens -- in which case you'd be arguing for anarchism (If you're an anarchist I grant you're correct and conscription is slavery). But if you believe that there is benefit to living under a particular government then the citizens of that government are indebted to that government-- (chiefly so that the government can survive). Conscription is simply the government’s way of collecting that debt.
 
1)That is a rediculous analogy. So you would support the idea of say, the government deducting their nursing home payments from your salary, or forcing you to provide nursing for them yourself if you could not hire someone else to do it? BOGUS. What if your alcoholic parents beat you until you ran away from home? THIS IS WHY WE DO NOT FORCE CRAP LIKE THIS ON PEOPLE. They can make your own decisions if your family was there for you in your young age, you can make the moral decision to care for them in their old age yourself. You don't need to be legally bound to them as a servant to do so.

2)Yes we have some obligations as citizens. Such as demanding the government SERVE US AS ITS MASTERS. A free man should have no duty to kill people half way around the world who have never caused him harm. If the US homeland was actually under attack, people whould fight to protect the interests of themselves and their familes. You would not have to force them to do so. We are the most heavily armed nation on the planet.

3)Under that logic the black slaves in the south were not slaves because their slave masters provided them with clothes, food, and shelter. fail

Your insinuation that a US citizen is in debt to the government simply from being born and living in the US is hideous. The government is there to serve us, not rule over us. We are supposed to be free people in this country, and your remark suggests otherwise.

The founding fathers would cock smack you if theirs hadn't rotted off already.

 
wow you've got enough anger to fight your own Iraq war

I’m in no way justifying the war in the middle east, nor am I supportive of sending one across the globe to do something he feels is unjustified

All of your examples of "failure to duty" are suggesting that only one person has a responsibility. A country that goes to war against the wills of its people is not fulfilling its duty to its people, an alcoholic parent is not fulfilling their duties to their children... but is a child of an alcoholic parent to turn their back and run at first chance?

-- I hope that you'd feel some sort of compassion to at least attempt to aid and save a parent from alcoholism before abandoning them

you cannot rely simply on people's good will to kick in and have a completely unorganized system of government, (I.e. no draft) There are plenty of people who confidently forget about all of the benefits a government provides.........especially at a time of war, who would rather not risk themselves for protecting the way of life they so deeply love.

Conscription itself is not immoral, it is not slavery, and it is the way citizens serve their government to ensure its continued existence... any sort of conscription during an unjust war is only wrong in that it is an unjust war.

Mandatory conscription for all wars might even be a good thing -- with actual risk of you going to war you'd be more apt to ensure that any war you fight is a just war.

 
Right, like the people who fight in wars are actually the ones who decide. Unless, of course, you drafted the president of the US, thats BS.

The rest of your post was worthless. I was giving you an example with alcoholic child beaters, I never said that all kids should abandon their parents if they're alcoholics, I said they can make their own decisions.

What does not having a draft have to do with not being organized? A volunteer military is MUCH more organized than one has a million people running about who don't want to be there.

If you think the war in Iraq is in any way protecting our way of life you are severely misguided.

Conscription is slavery. ie, forced labor.

 


I concur that being a citizen of a community implies a reciprocal contract whereby the citizen owes certain obligations to that community for providing the mode of life by which they life.

However, individuals do not always have choice of their community and may be a member of a community which they do not identify with. Nor may have the freedom of mobility to a community which they do identify with. Immigration has considerable barriers to mobility and individuals may live under conditions which may be oppressive, depending on standards of living and beliefs.

Additionally, community authorities may suffer from an agency dilemma whereby their personal incentives for actions differ from the interests of the community. Thus, an authority may act in a different fashion than were he to represent the collective will of the community. Most electorates lack a recall mechanism whereby officials who dupe the public may be recanted from office. This can allow them to rule tyrannically during their term of representation. Even in continuous game states, they may be able to extract sufficient benefits for themselves and peers that losing the incumbency is merely a small price to pay.

Summarily, individuals who would prefer to reject the social contract are instead oppressed into it and those who lead the community may not act in the best interests of the collective.

I find your interpretation of his definition of slavery to be a false dichotomy.
 
you wanna talk about slavery? let's talk about the two-party system and its lobbyist stranglehold.

that's slavery.
 
i'm totally sorry dude you're 100% correct, infact anything we have to give to our government is BULLSHIT

voting= slavery

taxes = slavery

jury duty = slavery

and fuck every time i've said the pledge of allegiance i was fucking coercied into doing that...

I'm a slave when i have to throw my garbage away in the contaniers provided by the city.

At work i'm a slave when i have to wash my hands after going to the bathroom.

And aren't all of us exploited by money system? We're all slaves to the dollar.

Thank god i'm not a mother-- i fi was i'd be enslaved to the little bastard child.

Unless i'm 100% free to do whatever the fuck i want, anything i do for anyone is considered slavery isn't.

I do not support the iraq war. i do not support war unless we are fighting to protect our home, but if we have a justified war on our hands it's not slavery to call amoung country men to sacrifice thier lives for their country. When you're a slave you do not recieve anything for your labor, you have no reason other than fear of punishment to work. If the draft really is slavery, than you would see that there is no benifit to protecting your home and way of life.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top