Is conscription ever justified? I figure even in a defensive war, if people viewed an invading force as an existential risk or if they believed in their state, they would just volunteer, negating the need for conscription. Which is to say, conscription being a necessary thing, even for defensive wars, seem to only be justified by a state that the people do not really support and therefore need to force the people to fight for them.
Discuss
Conscription is just an insurance. Its to be sure you have manpower regardless if people are willing or not.
That's a pragmatic answer for the ruling powers. But is it right? Is it even necessary pragmatically? If you feel like you need some level of a standing army, then volunteers should be enough.
Its right because it shows that your country is in dire need of soldiers and is using conscription as baseline to keep consistent troops each year. Having a volunteer force is not consistent and it goes up and down without veing fixed to a certain degree. Think of it as a price floor in economics.
You can't make large scale defensive plans around something as unpredictable as how many volunteers you get at any given time.
>But is it right? Is it even necessary pragmatically? If you feel like you need some level of a standing army, then volunteers should be enough.
Even if you've got more patriotic lads volunteering for frontline duty than you know what to do with, there's a whole lot more shit to do during war than shoot the enemy and you're going to run out of bright eyed patriotic young lads if you want to staff the whole thing.
That's solved by doing what Russia is doing right now, the MIC is paying better than anyone else and the market is doing it's thing.
This is why strategic wealth reserves are so important.
Not him, but voluntary taxes are stupid for good reason.
>country needs money to function
>volunteers pays taxes
>free riders utilize the resources paid by tax payers
>less and less volunteers pay taxes
>no revenue and everything goes to shit
After the revolution, the lack of tax revenues and moronic libertarian policies lead to the government not even having enough money to defend themselves from pirates or the british forcibly conscripting your citizens.
>what Russia is doing right now
Failing and losing the war? Doesn'T sound like a good plan tbh.
>That's a pragmatic answer for the ruling powers. But is it right?
There's a lot of things that are "right" for the state but clearly aren't "right" for individual people. A balance between both must be found for the system to work well.
Russia is at war with all of Nato moron
I wish it were.
Instead NATO are being cheap and supplied Ukraine with less than 2% of their yearly defense spending
If it was we'd be kidnapping and vanishing Indian trolls. Like we did with al queda around the world. We vanished hundreds of Indians every year but you were probably too young
Lots of countries had effective conscription and some still do.
>conscription never works!
Is mostly a reaction of the US military to the Vietnam draft.
The trick is to do it all the time and for all men, and not just for a handful of guys when war were declared. That way it becomes a cultural norm, a rite of passage for young men. Every boy knows it’s coming when he turns 18 or whatever, and you go and do your service then move on with your life, or become a reservist and move on with 95% of your life.
See: Finland, Switzerland, Singapore, Israel
Previous participants: nearly every country in Europe
One of the demands of the revolutionaries of 1848 was to introduce universal male conscription. That’s right, they revolted (in part) for the right to be drafted. Because universal male conscription has a democratizing effect on the military.
>Is mostly a reaction of the US military to the Vietnam draft.
funnily enough the vast majority of US troops in Vietnam were volunteers. Draftees were only used to fill in the gaps
Ukrainians seem to think so, given they are standing in line for two days now to update their information for the purposes of being mobilised.
Hey bot why would they not just volunteer rather than try to increase their chances of being conscripted
>they would just volunteer
No you moron. It's either everyone goes to war to die a horrible death or no one. Voluntary military service is fricking moronic. Same with taxes, they shouldn't be fricking voluntary.
I'm not going to go die horribly in a war if I know my butthole neighbor will just sit home all safe and dandy.
Taxes are not voluntary you bootlicking moron. If you don't let the government steal your money they will murder you or lock you in a cage. Pedo loving government worshipers like you probably think that's a good thing.
Just make your own nation bro.
Nta I agree with him
Income taxes are theft
Value added taxes or wealth transfer taxes are not.
Why should you pay for thing you do not use. Why are you paying for someone else?
Rich people make money off taxes. Never forget that. The more taxes you have the more money rich people will hoard. They'll own the system then the land and no one besides the born hyper rich will ever own a home
Look at Europe, California, Canada. Never trust the government. It only exists to build roads and keep idiots from killing each other and exploring.
Everything else it fails brutally. Everything. Housing failed. Education failed. Homelessness. Failed. Health insurance failed.
Taxes are part of a nations revenue to fund social services and what not. I bet you're using those social services, defense and other benefits paid by taxes.
You're forgetting the part where the government uses your taxes to oppress you and force more control so that you pay even more taxes.
>taxes to oppress you
Unless you live in a totalitarian country, I doubt that is the case.
Are you sure about that?
Yes, don't fricking protest at government property unless they explicitly said so. The supreme court has ruled that private/government properties can restrict rights. If the campus said no, you better just protest outside of their property.
>The supreme court has ruled that private/government properties can restrict rights
So people are only allowed to protest on private land that the owner agrees to allow them on?
>protest outside of their property
The government owns the sidewalk and roads too.
And this doesn't strike you as even a little totalitarian?
>So people are only allowed to protest on private land that the owner agrees to allow them on?
If the owner allows them to, they are free to do so. Government property are the same
>The government owns the sidewalk and roads too. And this doesn't strike you as even a little totalitarian?
Thats not necessarily Government property, that is public property. Government property can be defined as schools, court houses and buildings used by the feds. There's a reason to why the feds went apeshit on people attacking their court house
Ok so they are on the roads now block traffic simply because it your put several hundred people on the roads traffic is blocked.
You are saying this is legal and there is nothing police can do to remove them?
I agree, you understood my point.
>pick your fights
In a free country you tell the government you think they are wrong whenever you like, it could be over the color of stamps and free people would still have the right.
>You cannot block the road or sidewalk
So what does that realistically limit crowd size too? A couple of dozen? Kind of removes the publics ability to demonstrate power, which is the point.
>Ok so they are on the roads now block traffic simply because it your put several hundred people on the roads traffic is blocked.You are saying this is legal and there is nothing police can do to remove them?
Nope, you cannot block traffic unless its been preplanned by the city beforehand. The right to free speech is valid unless you restrict other people's right to move/live their life. The supreme court made it clear that free speech is not valid if it restricts other people's rights.
>The supreme court made it clear that free speech is not valid if it restricts other people's rights.
Unless you're Antifa/BLM
>unless
They are not an exception, riot cops and other LEOs disperse them as being unlawful assembly.
Ah yeah, that kneeling really did them good
>all that kneeling
Only a few cops, you miss when most of them were going ham
?feature=shared
A lot of people misunderstand freedom of speech, it means you won't get prosecuted for something you say. There was a protestor recently that claimed her freedom of speech was violated because she was kicked out of a party. She was making videos about Palestine at someone's house, they told her leave, omg my rights are being violated.
People misunderstand that free speech is absolute everywhere. Even though on private/specific properties by the government have the right to restrict that rights. Its the same for gun free zones, properties have the right to restrict it per supreme court.
I watch a lot of body cam videos with people crying freedom of speech all the time. They think it allows them to yell things in the middle of the night and they freak out when they're arrested for it.
Sovereign Citizen spergouts are always fun to watch
I always hate them because they are there to drain tax power money by suing. Most of them are just grifters looking to bait departments in creating a case. There was one moronic sovereign citizen that got caught taking photos of a military base and he was stuttering and everything when he was met by military police.
Can you post that video?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5DmT0xrMHs/?igsh=MWViY2xpZ2pld3N3MQ==
lol there are lots of videos like this where people think they can go to Area 51.
>So what does that realistically limit crowd size too? A couple of dozen? Kind of removes the publics ability to demonstrate power, which is the point.
You can have thousands as long as they are moving and not blocking traffic.
>In a free country you tell the government you think they are wrong whenever you like
politics are politics, you have to get an audience and make them relate to you. you're never going to do so by shrieking something over at the property of people who, for all intents and purposes, are merely going with the flow in the heads of the average joe... a bit like the average joe himself.
>you have to get an audience and make them relate to you
If you have a couple of billion this is as simple as a phone call, if you are the average citizen you will never get a meeting with policy makers.
>I agree, you understood my point.
Yes but all form of governments lead to oppressive measures. No government will ever take care of the people without a hidden agenda
The west did a pretty good job in the 50s and 60s but that was mostly because communist and socialist parties were getting votes and the ruling class feared getting lynched enough to share the wealth.
Yes, I'll never forget reading about the regime right after the French revolution. It was common for the people to force their way into the senate equivalent and hang deputies in front of the other to remind them who's really wielding the power
In fact, the west got it so good that they started wasting their time being kind with thirdies and now the time has come for conflict once again as they want to be the ones on the throne
>It was common for the people to force their way into the senate equivalent and hang deputies in front of the other to remind them who's really wielding the power
Based as frick and also the reason english speaking countries got force feed heaps of anti-french propaganda.
NAYRT but a good government is still preferable to anarchy
yes probably, there is really no solution but there is no need to fight for a government that caress you today and will break your neck tomorrow
There IS a need to fight for the least worst government because the alternatives are anarchy or tyranny
it depends though. if your enemy wants to genocide you then you no longer fight just for a government
yeah good point
I feel like the debate should then be from the pov of the one doing the genocide then (rdered by his government) but it's endless then
Problem is your government will tell you they are going to genocide you or put you in camps or torture you to motivate you to fight for them.
Trying to get a factual narrative during an invasion would be near impossible because everyone with power in your country wants the current government that granted them that power.
Typically these things dont happen overnight and unless one lives in some totalitarian shithole facts will have been available and government and officials will have changed regularly
In a democracy the interest of the ruler (harvest wealth and distribute it among its keys so they can act on the ideas in the rulers head) is aligned with the interest of the governed (be productive - e. g. healthy, educated, with decent infrastructure and decent standards of living)
once this starts failing the answer isn't to topple the state and deliver it to a foreign power, the answer is protest and changing the rulers
>the answer is protest and changing the rulers
yes but the rulers uses the wealth harvested to barricade themselves against the coming protest. Just as Plato (I think) said, democracy degenerates into oligarchy
Men always get corrupted by power. Even you and I, despite our best efforts, would abuse our power given the right opportunity; it may be for something inconsequential, but it adds up. Some even get desensitized and abuse their power all the time becuase they convince themselves that they are right.
There are two ways to communicate : discussion and violence. The democratic government is supposed to listen to the people (discussion), which is why we vote (because it's too complicated to get the people participation on an individual basis) or face violence - the remaining option when the masses are not heard. Yet you'll see that government always invest in "stronger" or "better" violence apparatus to be ready to crush the other side; effectively gaining a monopoly on violence and making the "democratic contract" null (or void?).
You know France is always seen, sometime with humour as a country that strike all the time; well these strike don't work anymore. As technology progresses , the state's weapons (for violence or simply propaganda)get stronger. You probably never heard about it but the president considers the people as morons ("come and get me"), the government doesn't fear for its safety.The only thing left is to find a way to finally use that violence.
It doesn't have to be "delivering it to a foreign power" but retribution is needed and if things get too unstable...
There is no country where the interests of the governed align with the self appointed parasites who claim the right to control therm. Being 'elected' does not magically grant them the right to push you around and appropriate your property.
Outright false.
>Being 'elected' does not magically grant them the right to push you around and appropriate your property.
It absolutely does. Society made its collective decision, and you will either obey or be removed from society. Deal with it.
Yeah, not how it works in the US.
Absolutely how it does work in the US. You have the rights society determined you should have. No more, no less. And elected officials have all the power society determined they should have. No more, no less. And if that includes pushing you around and appropriating your property, no amount of denial on your part is going to change that.
Rights are granted by God, you gormless atheist.
>Being 'elected' does not magically grant them the right to push you around and appropriate your property.
Being elected is a public decision. The public chose that leader to be the manager of the country, state and or local town. They get to decide the law within their own jurisdiction because the public voted them in.
>They get to decide the law within their own jurisdiction because the public voted them in.
if it doesn't violate the constitution
Anon, congress can amend or change the constitution if the public desire so. However, its really difficult because it requires states to ratify it, let alone the representatives agreeing on it. Overall, the public and how they choose their representatives/lawmakers dictates whether they want certain laws in place.
>quad tubes
>flip magnifier
>ir strobes
>dump pouches
>day packs
>all just to stand idly in the middle of the street
I hate them so fricking much.
Being in jail prevents you from fighting totalitarianism and even in a widely publicized event, 80% of people will forget about you being jailed within weeks, if anything. I'm not saying it's nice that some people have power and abuse it, but you should also pick your fights.
>80% of people will forget about you being jailed within weeks
Nelly’s are rare
>Nelly wore a bandage on his cheek for years as a sign of respect for his late collaborator City Spud, who was in prison for robbery.
Now that’s loyalty
>The government owns the sidewalk and roads too.
You can freely hold signs on the sidewalk as long as you do not impede traffic. You cannot block the road or sidewalk.
>government owns the sidewalks
Yes, but they are not going to tell you to not protest at free to access areas. What they are free to do is restrict rights for specific properties like buildings. Its like when people protest at the school board, the school board has a right to remove parents because they have the jurisdiction to do so. Within school property, you're at the mercy of the school and or government.
>Riot/protest at campus without permission
>police gets called
>OMG LITERALLY 1930S GERMANY
Based moron
We have private property rights in America. If the owner of the property wants you to leave, you have to leave.
Yea, women and boomers make less money.
Yeah of course they arent voluntary and so shouldn't military service be. And yes that conscription army should be used offensively as well. It's disgusting seeing how degenerate nations like Russia act because they know that nobody will attack them because democracies are so fricking peaceful.
>Is conscription ever justified?
I don't think so, if people want to defend the current government you'll have more volunteers than you can deploy as we saw in WW2. If the war is offensive rather than defensive then it's even less justifiable.
I think if you have mandatory basic training at 18 and a government that actually takes care of the people you end up with a solid social contract between the government and the people.
>contract between the government and the people
The concept of "contract between the government and the people" is built on the assumption that the government derives its power from the people and exercise it with their assents.
Experience and history has taught us that governments tends to take action to upset the balance and obtain more power/use it without the people's agreement.
It can be said that the aforementioned contract is void as governments keep cheating, lying, manipulating and working against the source of their mandate of power. (It is not uncommon for a government to oppress its own people when times are calm (excess spying and propaganda all the time))
basically frick the "contract" and the regime
yeees dont defend your nation goyy ahahaha your goverment lies to you hahahahhaaaaa
>>don't fight it just let us take over its going to be better for you in the long run, trust me!
>dont defend your nation
defend your nation/people, yes
defend your regime, no
I mean it's what the word "nation" means.
The nation is the people.
The state is the political entity.
A nation state is a country based on an ethnic group and their ancestral homelands.
>Is conscription ever justified?
If you enjoy the fruits of citizenship, you have an obligation to defend that system when called upon.
On a side note, one thing Homefront got wrong was the complete lack of American fifth columnists fighting alongside the North Koreans.
imagine you are a small country with a limited amount of soldiers and population bordering a nation of 144(?) million people.
What are you going to do to get enough people to man a long border with em, an enemy that has shown again and again they want to wipe you out and will try again if you ever show a moment of weakness?
>Is conscription ever justified?
Yes
>Men must be governed! Often not wisely, I will grant you, but governed nonetheless.
Military service is the price we need to pay for secure civilisations. If we could get it for free we would but we can't.
Work, paying for things, and discipline, especially military discipline, is unnatural.
The natural instinct of man is not to work, to want free shit, and to be undisciplined.
But work is a necessity, paying for things is a necessity, and military discipline is a necessity.
So yes, if it takes conscription to force people to serve, that's the price of civilisation. The same as work and paying for stuff.
>Is conscription ever justified?
for collective self defense of a nation and its people it is. The rich and the poor, the old and the young, shoulder to shoulder.
I don't think an invading country cares more about you than the country trying to conscript you to fight the former.
Depends on your current government and who is invading, there are plenty of countries that improved after changing hands.
>I don't think an invading country cares more about you than the country trying to conscript you to fight the former
The entirety of US foreign policy since the turn of the 20th century would like to have a word with you.
US foreign policy supported many nations with conscription. The most recent would be Ukraine; in the Cold War, the Federal Republic of Germany. Either you didn't get what
was saying, or by your logic, you think the Russia cared more for the welfare of Germans and Ukrainians than the US did.
You misunderstood. The whole point of US foreign policy, for better ir worse, is to believe whole heartedly that US governance and ideals are superior to the native government when it comes to the wellbeing of the people.
>when it comes to the wellbeing of the people
Even as a non-American I think this makes sense
Where Americans get confused is that they think
>foreign governments all want what is best for the wellbeing of their people
Not so.
Governments often prioritise staying in power over progress and development far more than the US does
Easy anwser OP, when it's my Glorious Homeland Invading the filthy barbarians, conscription should be mandatory, but the enemies should not have it, since it's immoral and wrong. When my Homeland is being attacked, then we should obviously conscript everyone to defend it, but the attacker should have only a small army of non-conscripts.
Hope that clears the situation.
>Is conscription ever justified?
Yes. People are property of the State. It's completely legal and justified for State to do with people anything state wants.
Entire concept of morall, legality and justification comes from State. Whatever State says is good it is good, whatever is bad it is bad.
It is vital for the defense of the Fatherland and family. It also straightens up otherwise noodly men.
>It also straightens up otherwise noodly men.
This. Two Israeli men meet, the first topic of conversation is what unit they did their service in. It’s a rite of passage. If you skipped out, you stayed noodly (Peter Pan eternal boyhood but not cute because you’re actually 40).
Which works well in a macho, homogenous society. Where it doesn't work well is a melting pot society that now knows who the real masters are. Another quirk of the melting pot is with smart phone in hand, all those poor founding stock Americans can see many times every day how hated they are for trouble they had nothing to do with. Get this. Those poor founding stock Americans lost their civil rights in the forced integration era of the 50's and 60's. The elite class stayed so close in appearance to the founding stock, all the new immigrants aren't going to be super loyal to them. Especially if the currency they get paid in is worth less every pay cycle. Legacy Hire Elitists are just about as stupid as the poor dumbasses you know at the liquor store. The bill for their stupidity hasn't come due just yet but somewhere around the time working men find it hard to eat, it will. The modern elite probably thought this would drive recruitment but they forgot to make the currency worth fighting for. If you are building a mercenary army, especially a multiracial one, you need them to believe in the reward they are getting. Endlessly diluting currency is not a reward. That's slavery. And the elite look super white. While many of their new slaves do not. Is this who they are going to train and give weapons to?
TLDR: Those same citizens could instead ask for the authority to issue currency.
>muh authority to issue currency
Literally worthless. Nobody is gonna take your monopoly money, no matter what authority you claim. You have less than zero clue about how currency works or how its value is determined, idiot.
Your argument is based on the assumption that anyone potentially willing would go out of their way to enlist, however the fact of the matter is that a large part of the population exists that has no qualms with military service in theory, but lack the initiative to do so.
In a free country, conscription doesn't necessarily force everyone to participate either, it just makes it so you need to go out of your way to be a conscientious objector if you truly are opposed to military service as a concept, so that this large chunk of the population who simply lack the resolve otherwise become recruit able.
Pretty obvious you're an American and/ord somelne with a room-temperature IQ. Conscription is not about getting manpower during wartime, but having enough trained and capable soldiers if a war should happen. Training troops, even putting them through basic training, takes months with specialised training taking years with there only being so many instructors. You dont have that luxury if you are being invaded and you need to quickly mobilize, arm and organize your troops. That's why you conscript on a yearly basis with scheduled trainings for 20-30 years to keep their skills up to date so you have something to rely on.
For 90% of countries this is the only viable solution unless you wanna make your standing army huge, make it compete with the civlian job market and be a country where you dont offer your citizens health care, education or social services.
Volunteer armies work just fine for defensive plans. You have terrain advantage and preparation. You need far less soldiers to defend a country than you do to invade one.
Holy shit. Someone call Ukraine and tell them they can cancel all mobilization plans, we got a 4 star general here saying it isnt worth it. Just need volunteers!
....It's almost like the reality of Ukraine is that people don't really like it that much and see it as a corrupt shithole. Hence why they need conscripts.
>people don't like it
Reality says otherwise and most people don't want to live under the russian boot again. Especially when russia is the source of their corruption and they started to improve after cutting ties.
>muh conscription
The U.S. still used conscription in WW2 despite the high patriotism, so you're full of shit.
Wasn't US conscription emptying out its prisons and arming them a-la what the Russians are doing now? I don't think that's quite the same thing as conscripting free men.
No, U.S. conscription was still conscripting normal citizens. Majority of draftees never saw combat, though and the U.S. by the end of WW2 had a huge surplus of soldiers thats been drafted.
>US conscription emptying out its prisons and arming them
Hell no
Under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 wartime amendments, all US men aged 18 to 40something were liable to be conscripted.
Jailbirds were actually very much NOT preferred, because criminals tend to make undisciplined soldiers.
Who told you that? Tojo?
There are far more Ukrainian volunteers than Russian contractniki. Between the two, Ukraine is far less of a shithole, and is actively trying to unshithole itself, that's how the war began.
>hence why they need conscription
What a stupid conclusion that isn't even right to begin with.
>Make a claim
>"BUT ACHSUALLY THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO NAZI HOHOL UKRAINE"
So when does it apply then? Do you have any examples at all of a volunteer force only successfully repelling an invasion force or is this some thinly veiled vatnig slide thread again?
If a government has to conscript its men to fight a war, then it is not a government worth fighting for.
You're assuming that humans are completely rational beings. We are not. We have competing desires and an externality can just be the deciding factor in which one we go with.
Reminder that soldiers are literally being handed the Second Amendment privilege to bear arms. If they don't support the State they can just start shooting it.
By and large the act of conscription just impresses upon the conscript the need to fight and that everybody is in it together.
Just as nobody would voluntarily pay taxes, but it doesn't take much to get you to pay them, it also doesn't take much to get people to fight in a war they wouldn't volunteer for.
it's justified if it is necessary to guarantee the survival of your country during a defensive war (either instated during the war or before it if you're in constant threat of one of your neighbors starting such a war)
If your nation requires conscription to resist a foreign invasion, then your leaders have failed you. However, it doesn't mean your nation isn't worth saving and reforming once the fighting is done.
when weapons become chea, ubiquitious and effective without much training, such as first muskets or fpv drones large conscription-based armies become inevitable.
Yes, it's justified at least within the context of "the social contract"
You get: the advantages of being a citizen and the rights it brings
Society gets: your compliance to the law, your taxes to fund public works and services and in case of invasion your manpower to defend the nation.
Of course you can make do without conscription but in that case, do not complain if soldiers that voluntarily risked their lives to defend the country get certain privileges. Let's say after the war is done the homes of deserters get seized and redistributed to veterans that lost their homes in the bombings. Or they will have more votes for the next few elections (like a veteran's vote having the voting power of 4 people that fled the country).
So when these war refugees return THEY may be the ones finding themselves homeless. But it's completely justified in my eyes since that territory staying part of the nation was something these soldiers fought for to begin with and something the refugees were willing to abandon permanently (since the enemy would have seized it either way) to begin with.
After all any respect to your land as property is also based on the social contract, but you violated it first by abandoning your fellow citizens to the invasion. So now they don't need to respect your property rights either.
"I want all the advantages of living in a free nation, but none of the responsibilities" is peak hypocrisy.
>"I want all the advantages of living in a free nation, but none of the responsibilities" is peak hypocrisy.
I want all the advantages of being a human with 2 legs to go wherever I want, 2 arms to take whatever I can hold and a mouth to say whatever I want, Black person.
I don't need a superior authority to grant me what I already possess. The only thing that governments give you is absolution of sins when you're doing its biding (killing the ones he doesn't like).
You talk as if government are what allows us to live ,to have things and to do things.
>You get: the advantages of being a citizen and the rights it brings
Governments don't offer you any rights, they just promise to only use violence in certain circumstances
>t. I generate my own electricity and purify my own water, trust me
that's not a right, you can trade anything for these
>you can trade anything for these
You already do by buying it.
But what if it's not for sale?
Governments are useful in providing services that are too large for small groups of people to generate, for example, utilities. So no, you're wrong; you actually do enjoy many benefits of government, even if you pay for them. Because you wouldn't even have the option to buy them otherwise.
>You talk as if government are what allows us to live ,to have things and to do things.
Yes, actually. Sorry you're only just now figuring this out.
Then anarchist I become.
Your social contract theory is pointless since the government does NOTHING for me while still demanding my taxes, labor and obedience
Wrong. Everything you have, every right, every property, was either enabled by or outright given to you by society and the social contract. You want out? Get out. Nobody is forcing you to stay.
>Governments don't offer you any rights
The fact that you can whine like this on an internet forum without any fear of real consequences in itself proves this claim to be utterly false.
Go enforce it b***h
I fricking dare you, I actually work in Government and honestly if there was less of it, the world would be a better place
Yes.
t. Finn
it's hard to answer this and it depends on your country I guess. my government has been doing nothing but making life harder for it's citizens and doesn't seem intent on stopping anytime soon, gun laws got slightly, slightly better but it's still expensive as frick to own them if you also want to reasonably be able to use them and being a car gay is even fricking worse. kinda hard to want to fight for that but... when the enemy is a subhuman horde of gypsies like the russians, you kinda start to reconsider, I guess, as many ukrainians seem to have done
but I'm a pussy so it doesn't matter either way, but I sure am glad there's still some people willing to fight when countries like r*ssia and c*ina, etc, exist. I only wish the EU woke the frick up and maybe gave it's citizens a bit of room to breath every now and then, instead of sabotaging itself with muh CO2 propaganda
Yes, if your country is worth fighting for and you have a larger and aggressive neighbor next to you. The Swiss don't have that so they arguably could live without a conscription system, but like we have seen with many European countries that ended theirs because of lack of immediate threats, having a conscription system in place is a benefit even during peace times because it requires significant investments and institutional knowledge and experience to be properly implemented, and those can be acquired only over time.
t. Finn
This whole thred are bootlickers defending the ~~*goverment*~~
Conscription works if the population actually likes their country and way of life. Finland for example has a very good conscription, it's just a way of life. But I don't think it could ever work in the US.
Morally it's a debatable point. Practically, in the era when your central bankers saw to it that everyone got a smart phone and learned English, conscription is going to be a very dicey affair. You guys probably haven't studied enough banking and finance in college, if you even went, to understand why but here's the short version: Anyone with brainpower now knows how currency is issued. Anyone without brainpower likes learning how to get a loan for a house, care, equipment, whatever. The many different races and religions are all sharing notes on who issues the currency and sets interest rates. The Great Noticing is about a decade old or more. The soldiers are all starting to wonder why they are slaying each other on the battlefield for a bunch of central bankers who don't every risk their own lives or families. They currency they get paid in gets ever more worthless with each new issuance. Something really funny starts to happen. Commoners of all races realize that other commoners don't have their money. They learn that glass windows are not the enemy and that sacking the local department store only drives investors away from their communities. The ones that go on to college start to wonder how they too might gain the authority to issue currency and fund their own adventures/projects.
Whoever pays the soldiers calls the war. If the soldiers learn how they could in theory pay themselves and or issue their own currency, times get interesting. That's why the lesson is gate kept hard until college finance and even then, only if you specifically study banking. If you want to determine where the next war will start, look at the central banks of the world and note which ones are making trade difficult and where they are making it difficult. That's the likely new target of a war, even if it is years or decades away. The old quip is, when goods stop crossing boarders, soldiers do.
>muh central bankers
>muh inflatiooooooooon
>muh commoners
>muh jooooos undertones
What a schizo pile of tired old fascist and commie tropes. You need to go back, tourist.
>If the soldiers learn how they could in theory pay themselves
Absolute schizo nitwit take. You literally understand less than nothing about how currency even functions on a basic level.
Conscription should only exist (by law and, in extreme cases, in practice) if women lose the right to vote.
Women should not be conscripted and they should have voting rights to send Men to die.
Should not* have voting rights
This is completely logical and is why women in Switzerland did not have the right to vote until the 1970s when pop feminism made things lame and gay
In Ukraine's case, conscription is justified because Russia conscripts in the occupied areas.
And frankly, if you really don't want to be conscripted, you can flee and become stateless.
This supposes that people aren't morons.
You are part of society. You enjoy the privileges and advantages this brings with it. And that means you also carry the obligations of being part of it, be that taxes or the duty to defend against external threats. If you don't like the obligations, nobody will stop you from leaving. But you won't be allowed to have your cake and eat it, too.
Paying conscripts in endlessly diluting currency in a society that blames them for the actions of the central banking class is a good way to create rebels. Who do the central bankers expect to blend in with? Indians and East Asians? I bring those two groups up because they have the discipline and the numbers to pose serious challenges to elite power. They can effectively challenge it without violence, which is critical. They also can't pretend to be white so that throws the race trouble into the mix. Thus, you have two ethnic groups, now with enough numbers to challenge the elite and most importantly, they don't have to wage war to do it. That means they can make a plausible case for a ton of common whites to work with them on various projects which might or might not align with elite goals. Anyone still stuck so deep in their hatred for the white macho man (because he wins too often and steals all or close to all of the girls everyone else is hot for,) is going to get totally outmaneuvered then routed by a well educated and non violent Indian or East Asian challenge. But that's worth it in the eyes of idiots who can only think in terms of white man = Bad. Everyone else = Good. They will wake up poor one day, still seething that Chad got all the girls.
Mandatory military service for citizens has been a requirement since ancient Greece
Only in modern times after the completly asinine idea to give women franchise has military service and citizenship been decoupled.