- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,762
- Reaction score
- 1,619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Where is the choice in "conscription?"
You can choose to go to Leavenworth.
Where is the choice in "conscription?"
Blackdog said:We are not talking about volunteering for service. We are talking about conscription or drafting of UNWILLING participants into any military org.
Draft = no choice. Draft = slavery.
Conscription does not include a draft. Conscripts are willing soldiers.
Draft = no choice. Draft = slavery.
Conscription does not include a draft. Conscripts are willing soldiers.
I think this is less political and more philosophical. However, the answer has profound political implications I think.
Now there are obvious extremes that everyone would agree with. There are some very obvious forms of slavery, such as forced labor or sex. Also, there are obvious examples of the free man, such as the 1800s frontier farmer who is beholden to no-one.
What I am more curious about is people's thoughts about the more borderline cases. Examples could possibly include taxation for things a person does not like, oppressive social expectations (a woman belongs in the home!), forced life choices due to constraints, etc. Are these things an example of a type slavery or not? Why?
My bad.
I was under the impression that conscription was voluntary self-admission, nto a draft.
In that case, conscription would be slavery. Volunteering is not.
Absolutely not. Conscription is coercion but there is no concept of property. Slavery requires human beings being property.
If you are have no choice in the matter, you are essentially property.
It's implicit.
My lineage goes back to Roman Times. they held the whip.:shock:You're fortunate to live in a time and a place where you can't tell the difference between honest labor and slavery. For the majority of human history, you would have learned the difference at the end of a whip.
No. You do not have a market value. You are not bought and sold.
You don't have to be bought and sold, if there is only one owner.
If you can't make a choice of whether or not you want to do something, you are enslaved to that person or entity.
My only problem with that definition is that it would mean any law, including things we all agree on like murder, is slavery.
Slavery is when one benefits from the labor of another in inequity. Capitalism is slavery.
Murderers eliminate the choice of the pre-murder victim, so it is an anti slavery law.
But it also has a coercive effect on the murderer due to the threat of punishment, this is essentially how any law works.
Given your defitnion, would you agree that slavery also covers forcing people to provide welfare benefits?Any form of imposing authority on another is oppression at the least. Slavery is when one benefits from the labor of another in inequity.
You don't have to be bought and sold, if there is only one owner.
If you can't make a choice of whether or not you want to do something, you are enslaved to that person or entity.
Give me an example in America where you do not have a choice.
We are not talking about just America. We are talking about slavery in general as a term and if it is subjective.
Sure but you have to weigh which is greater, to enslave a person for no logical reason or enslave a person for a logical reason.
Murder is an act of unreasonable force, like theft.
Given your defitnion, would you agree that slavery also covers forcing people to provide welfare benefits?
Why not?
Give me an example in America where you do not have a choice.