Nathan Blanc is refusing military service. This is likely to involve another period of incarceration.
Okay, so I am aware of the threats Israel faces – more importantly, so is he. This, however, is not a justification for enforced military service – it never is. Conscription is always wrong in all circumstances. There may be times when as individuals our interests overlap with those of the state and military service makes sense. I would probably have volunteered in the second world war, for example, when we faced invasion – but not one moment prior to that. I certainly would not have volunteered in the previous conflict as we had no business being involved.
In the case of Israel, yes, they face a very real threat. If it was me, I might be inclined to volunteer. But conscription? No. Never. I admire someone who has the courage to stand up and say “no” and mean it, despite the consequences. We are not the property of the state to sequester at will. It is long since time that the organs of the state were made aware of this. It is a pity there are not more Nathan Blancs about.
So you would now speak german and work in a nazi coal mine. Conscription is as necessary aas taxation.
So as taxation is utterly unnecessary…
You don’t know that and no, it isn’t.
An ideal that doesn’t get free men joining the queue to fight its rival is not worth upholding.
“” I admire someone who has the courage to stand up and say “no” and mean it,””
Me too. Good man.
Those who enjoy the benefits of a free society also have the responsibility to help maintain it.
A free society that uses force is a contradiction in terms. The whole point of a free society is that it allows for dissent – even if that is a refusal to fight on its behalf. If it relies on force, it ain’t worth defending. And, no, we do not owe it any responsibility or allegiance. My body and my life are not at the state’s disposal to use as cannon fodder because it decides to engage in a conflict. let the politicians who started it fight it.
The use of force in defence is acceptable. I would suggest anyone would use force in the defence of a loved one who is facing attack or assault – and it may probably be more than just ‘reasonable’ force. In the case of Israel, if the Palestinians put down their weapons there would be no more killing. If the Israelis put down their weapons, there would be no more Israel. Blanc may have the right to refuse military service, but he also has the responsibility of accepting that the privileges he currently enjoys, safeguarded by others who are willing to protect their country, are curtailed. How that is done is up to the relevant authorities. Perhaps removal of citizenship would be a better way ofdealing with this?
You are conflating two separate issues here. Force to defend oneself, one’s family, friends or even nation is fine. That is not a justification for conscription though and never was.
I accept that Israel is a special case surrounded as it is by hostile nations that would destroy it given the chance. However, it is perfectly possible to maintain strong defence with a volunteer force. Also, Blanc’s objection is a little more nuanced. He is arguing that not all of Israel’s activities are justified as defence and is refusing to be a part of it. Nuremberg taught us that following orders is not a defence, so he has a point. Besides, if one man doesn’t stand firm, who will?
As for removal of citizenship, excuse me? The state is the servant of the citizen, not the other way around. States that remove citizenship for refuseniks are a long way into totalitarian territory. When Blanc enters the world of work, he will be more than contributing to the upkeep of the society in which he lives. That is plenty sufficient.
Right I’ve put my ( hard ) contrarian hat on and here’s another view. Normally I would agree with every word of this, especially so with Thom’s comment but here’s an uncomfortable thought, might Israel be a special case ? Israel exists ultimately as the guarantor of Jewish survival in a hostile world, it’s whole reason for existence is because Jews have never been safe relying on the goodwill of others, even within societies which, theoretically, were supposed to offer them the same security as any other citizen. Consequently it could be argued that any citizen of Israel owes a duty of service to the state whose survival ensures the survival of that individual, I can think of no other state in which that is so, either now or in the past. This a difficult one for a libertarian as it suggests that, in this circumstance at least, the individual is required to submit to the will of the collective, an idea with which I am uncomfortable to say the least. I believe Israeli libertarians are also opposed to conscription, for rather different reasons to Nathan Blanc I suspect, do any read this blog ? It would be interesting to know what they think.
I am also inclined to accept that Israel is a special case – given that it is surrounded by enemies that would cheerfully wipe it off the map. However, where we are born and live is an accident of birth, so, no, we do not owe the state anything as everything we get from the state is paid for in taxes extorted from us and we get precious little in the way of value for money, frankly. I suspect the same applies in Israel – that is, if you pay taxes, you are already contributing to defence. And, the basic principle still applies, if an ideal is really worth fighting for, free men will come forward to fight and accept that some will not and the principle of allowing that is one well worth taking up arms to protect.
I agree in principle but I feel there is an amount (here) of conflating ‘.gov’ with ‘society’.
Does an individual have a responsibility to defend ‘the state’? I don’t believe so. Should they feel a responsibility to defend the society f which they are a member and whose benefits they enjoy? Yes. But people being, in general, insular, self-interested individuals just how is this end reached if insufficient take ‘patriotism’ and other notions as sufficient motivation? (a major issue considering modern trends, ‘education’, the ‘me first society’, and the general ‘disengagement’ of most of the population – at least here, is it not?).
I have no idea, but at least general conscription (which I am against) appears ‘fairer’, in that all sections of a society should be represented in the military, instead of the, as is usual even in an all volunteer force, just/predominantly the ‘poorer’ sections.
As I said, I have no idea, but more consideration, on my part, is apparently now called for. But I feel that assuming that in the moment of national/societal need (even one generally seen as such) people will spontaneously line up to serve is … optimistic.(Also the issue of assuming monetary contribution via taxes, which the military personnel also pay, as an ‘excuse’ not to ‘fight’ seems to offer many problems – eg. the rich again being excused).
I believe I’d have more ‘sympathy’ if he’d elected for a non-combat role as a conscientious objector than simply refused any/all contribution because (true or not) what it appears he is saying to his friends/colleagues/neighbours is ‘I’ve paid some money so you go off and possibly die to protect me’
There is an overlap. Government and the state represent a society and serve it. So, too, does the military. There are other things that the state does for us – would it be reasonable to conscript people into those areas as well? That would be obviously absurd.
Ultimately, whether people should feel a responsibility or not is neither here nor there. Society and/or the state does not own the individual and has no claim on his body or life – and certainly has no right to send that person to their death on its behalf unless they do so willingly. The only moral military is a volunteer one. Frankly, these days, only a volunteer one is sensible from the time and effort taken to train the modern operative.
Incidentally, I am not and never will be a patriot. I am English by birth. That was merely happenstance over which I have no control. I would not go to war on my country’s behalf unless my home, my family and my friends were directly threatened. In which case, my interests and the state’s would coincide as in my enemy’s enemy. Nothing more. Certainly Queen and country gets no allegiance from me.
If you think that volunteering is optimistic – maybe so, but if there are not enough people volunteering, then the state and that society deserves to fail. However, I recall that in the summer of 1982, the recruiting offices were well visited…
He did, but because he was not a conscientious objector – his objection isn’t that simple – they refused this option.
“state does for us” True, but there are also things that the state/society require of us too. I’m thinking of disease and ‘herd immunity’. For it to be effective it requires at least a 97% uptake of an immunisation within a population. Leaving the matter to personal choice results, currently, in far less uptake and so diseases such as Measles are resurfacing.
Is it ‘fair’ for an individual to ‘opt out’ in such circumstances, for whatever reason, whilst relying on the rest of society acting in a manner to protect them?
Is the example similar? An individual who enjoys, and benefits, from a society who, when that society is threatened, chooses to rely on everyone else. (force is used in the example, exclusion and even confinement and forced medication in the case of TB, is this wrong?)
I also don’t consider patriotism anything other than ‘foolishness’ but I enjoy, and within limits, believe in the system inherent here and as such I would, and have, fought for my ‘country’.
Whilst the recruitment offices post 82 did enjoy a brief up-tick, this translated into a few thousand new recruits. In a situation where the society faces extinction (as does Israel and by extension Mr Blanc) surely a general mobilisation is not unacceptable (remember this is a country where school teachers, life-guards and traffic wardens are ‘required’ to deal with terrorists). Whilst I can, intellectually, understand his stance, emotionally, and morally, I can’t say I can condone it (whilst remaining open to persuasion).
Individual rights and choice should be pre-eminent but we are ‘not’ individuals, we are members of families, communities, societies and a species, so as such don’t some issues require us to sublimate our choice/freedom (and I feel VERY uncomfortable using this phrase) for the collective good?
If everyone did as Mr Blanc has done and had the courage to say “no” and mean it, the politicians of this world would find it more difficult to engage in warfare. No one has the right to force another to lay down their life – not an individual and not the state. Never. Under any circumstances and not for any reason.
In 1982, we were not facing a dire threat, so a few thousand was pretty good, frankly. Translated to the threat of invasion of the UK mainland, that would have been significantly higher. If the country cannot convince free men to come to its aid, it doesn’t deserve to survive.
The herd immunity argument is alluring and the principle makes obvious sense. However, compulsion is wrong on all levels. Forced medication is so USSR… If you cannot convince people with reason and education, you have lost the moral authority to compel. I, for one, would have refused the flu vaccine when there was talk of a bird flu epidemic (or was it swine flu) because I was not convinced that this was in my best interests. What the rest of society chose to do was up to them. I don’t make their decisions, so I don’t allow them to make mine.
Never. “The collective good” is the language of the totalitarian.
I’m aware that most of the language surrounding such topics has been usurped by the statist fanatics but that doesn’t negate the concepts they originally inferred, does it? Let’s say ‘the general welfare of the population as a whole’, would that work?
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly as a concept, it relies almost entirely on the preconception that ‘people’ are not only inherently moral and ethical, but that they are both intelligent, educated, informed and above all else, reasonable. I’d suggest both history, a visit to a local court/A&E or even a stroll down a high street of an evening to raise doubts about any of that (I’m aware you are probably more familiar with historical facts than I, I’m merely illustrating my point, I hope).
People will do only what they have to. Would you work if you didn’t have to? Have studied, etc., maybe but many (I’d even go so far as to say most) would not (witness the growth of the ‘benefit class’ who with only a little more effort would be working and better off, yet can’t be bothered).
As I said, communities (family, town, country) are made up of continuous compromises and quid pro quos, many unconsciously so due to ‘socialisation’, no? One of these is the understanding that if attacked you would act to aid me, just as I would act to aid you. Remove that and … well since that is exactly what .gov. the police and courts are doing, we can see it happening now (people standing by as others are mugged/robbed saying ‘where are the police’ or Mr. Blanc saying it’s not my job to protect my society).
One reason, other than familiarity, that I prefer the Anglo model of ‘law’ (that which is not expressly forbidden, is allowed) as opposed to the European model (that which is not expressly permitted, is forbidden) is that it (should) limit the intrusiveness of the government. Despite that certain acts have always been seen as ‘required’ in our culture. One of those is defence against aggressors (be they personal or community).
So, since a significant percentage of the population simply wouldn’t be bothered, demanding it was someone elses problem (I paid my taxes) – just how would you deal with an attack? (hire in some mercenaries – that didn’t work out to well for Rome, it’s people being too busy with bread and circuses to defend themselves?)
Stating ‘if only everyone was reasonable’ won’t work, as in addition it presupposes that the other nation/culture agree with you too. (It would end as other more ‘free’ countries bordered by statists always does, with destruction and slavery if not genocide).
I see I shall have to simply agree to disagree but, in my humble opinion, your proposal equates quite well to the rambling delusions of the Communists (marxist utopian everyone will get just what they need) and Greens (unicorn fart powered world peace) whilst being a better, rational and more moral dream, it’s still just a dream.
Oh, “so USSR” – negating an action because others have misused it is an oversimplification is it not. Consider that with ‘herd immunity’ and a particularly deadly infection (a matter of when not if) you and 96% of the rest of us can choose to be immunised, and it won’t make the slightest bit of difference. Because those 4% didn’t we will all face the disease. In such a situation is their ‘right to choose’ because they’re an idiot, uninformed, confused, lazy worth more than your life?
Not being contrary/argumentative – simply trying to understand. I also believe the ‘barbarians are at the gates’ so it’s a current topic.
The reality is that most people are good most of the time. Those who abuse others for their own selfish means are the minority and will always be with us. This is not a communist rambling, but an observation of humanity as a whole. Really, if we were faced with aggression and invasion, people would volunteer in their droves. They’ve done it before, they will do so again.
And my USSR comment was only half in jest. Forcing medication, like forcing military service is usurping the sovereignty of the individual, it is deeply totalitarian in nature and has no place in a liberal democracy. The common good is one of the most chilling phrases I have ever heard. Society consists of individuals and the only reasonable collective – the only one I would subscribe to or support – is a voluntary one. I do not belong to society, nor do I owe it anything – let alone my life.
On the herd immunity one, I would have refused because I was not prepared to take a vaccine that had not been properly trialled on the basis of panic and scaremongering – the idiots in this case were those deliberately misinforming the rest. The risk of taking the vaccine outweighed the risk of getting the disease. My body, my life, my decision of risk. If others choose differently, that is up to them. I do not owe society my health, nor would I allow it to usurp my decision making about something so personal. I refuse to have my decision to manage my own risk taken from me for the common good. Any attempt to use force in these circumstances is an abuse – the USSR is simply a recent example.
I am a man, not a number. I am not part of the collective.
So the theft of Palestinan property is A-OK? So much for libertarian principles, eh?
Sigh…
It wasn’t stolen. UN Resolution 181 set up the state of Israel as a dual state split between Jews and Arabs. Please try to keep on topic as I’m not prepared to entertain any nonsense about the poor ickle Palestinians being kicked out of their land. They chose not to sign up to the resolution. Tough shit..
ANY one should be free to refuse military service.
So long as they are willing to be put on a boat to some island, where EVERY arse in the world is free to attack them.
“WHAT!!?? NOW you want us to defend you!? FUCK OFF!!”
Strawman. Objectors are not expecting anyone to defend them.