Tim has a post discussing the recent vote in the Norwegian parliament to conscript women.
I’ve engaged in his comments – with some difficulty given that his system seems to be somewhat temperamental. The usual arguments are trotted out – and it still surprises me when otherwise freedom loving folk are happy to support the idea of conscription.
The arguments tend to follow the same pattern; we owe a duty to the state, in dire circumstances, the state has the moral authority to call upon citizens to defend it. The argument being that we – the citizens – benefit from the state and therefore are duty bound to take up arms in its defence. The fatal flaw in this argument is the assumption that the state is worth preserving. What if the citizens have decided that the invader is, in fact, a liberator?
As for the idea that we owe the state anything, sorry, but that one doesn’t hold water either. We pay for everything that the state bestows upon us – whether we want it or not. Indeed, much of what the state pisses my money away on, I most certainly do not want, yet I am bound to pay for it anyway. Which brings us to the second piece of reasoning – we pay taxes which are, in effect, coerced labour, so what’s the difference? Oh, but, there’s a huge difference.
Accepting the argument about taxation being coerced, it does not of itself deprive us of liberty. We may move to a more conducive state that takes less from us with no penalty. We may work fewer hours or take a lower paid job – all of which reduce our burden. We can choose how much we work, for whom and when. Conscription is the taking of that liberty – we go where we are told and when. We kill on order and die accordingly. There is no comparison with taxation. Even if you take the line that the difference is one of degree rather than principle, that degree is big enough to leave no comparison worthy of making. An analogy here; the mugger who steals your wallet has not stolen your labour; merely the fruits of it. Taxation is similar in that it takes the fruit of one’s labour, not the labour itself – we are free to choose what that labour is. I’d also point out here that having paid those taxes, we should not then expect to do the job ourselves. Ultimately, arguing that taxation is accepted, so therefore conscription is okay is a tu quoque argument.
There are those who argue that likening conscription to slavery is overstating the matter. It is not. Conscription is the forced removal of liberty. It is forcing someone to do the will of the captor at a time and place of his choosing and for the length of his choosing. The conscript has no say about his own autonomy, because he has none. He is the captive worker of the enforcer – a slave by any other name. A slave in this case who is expected to lay down his life.
One argument was along the lines of conscription being the use of an unwilling army, it would in some way reduce the likelihood of war. Okay, so it was the conflict in Vietnam that saw the end of the draft in the USA – so arguably, the reverse was true – the draft and its unpopularity contributed to the US withdrawal. It’s an argument, I suppose. However, as an argument for the enslavement of other people it doesn’t hold up. No one, not an individual nor an organisation has the moral authority to enslave another – to justify it with the reasoning that it will ultimately lead to less war is to ignore history. It didn’t stop Argentina throwing a conscript army at the Falkands. This is one of those few issues where shades of grey are conspicuous by their absence.
Sure, there could come a time when I find myself facing the situation my grandparents faced in 1939. If this country was facing invasion by a hostile force would I volunteer? Yes, I would. Would I volunteer to join an expeditionary force as happened in 1914 and September 1939? No. I would only take up arms to defend my home, my family and my friends. If that happened to coincide with the needs of the state, well, my enemy’s enemy and all that. I would never take up arms to defend a state that I despise so absolutely – and especially when we have politicians who think that other people are mere pawns in their game of international politics. When they take risks with their own lives then perhaps they can expect others to do likewise. Until then, I wouldn’t lift a finger to defend them.
What we are left with, then is the final refuge of those who claim that conscription is in some way morally acceptable from the moral fibre argument. It will make a man of you. Or, it will give you a sense of discipline. Bollocks. The only discipline worth a damn is self-discipline. None of these arguments is a justification for the enforced removal of someone’s liberty for several years.
Fortunately, in most liberal democracies, conscription is a thing of the past and it’s a theoretical issue anyway and these discussions are just that – chewing the fat over a theoretical situation. Unfortunately, there are still some that do use this method of filling up their stock of cannon fodder, so we aren’t all as civilised as we would like to think ourselves…
XX The argument being that we – the citizens – benefit from the state and therefore are duty bound to take up arms in its defence. XX
I was not conscripted. But, as I believe in conscription, I could not honestly do that, if I had “not been there.”
So, I joined voluntairily.
Why?
Not for the “State”, but for my fellow “Landsmänner” (Lands men) (You DO go on to say similar,later in your post, I believe).
1943/44/45 Germany.
Although there were still idiots that “believed in Hitler”, MOST were there because they KNEW what would happen “If the Russians come!”.
(On this point Goebells was perfectly correct.)
It was the instinct for survival that drove them. NOT (in general) some little twat with a bad choice in moustaches.
That is the way I see conscription now. Always have done.
In fact I have done it, or similar, twice.
Royal Military Police, G.B, and now similar with the reserve here (Feldjäger/Marine (That is not like a U.K/Dutch/U.S “Marine”. It means simply “Navy”)). Although my “active” time is ever so quickly running out. 🙁
Not because I like the FDJ/Stassi Tussi, but because I rather like my countrymen, and am willing to defend them. (EVEN when they refuse to defend themselves (Commy twats))
Er, yes, well, why were the Russians going to come? Oh, yeah, because Germany had invaded them. Circular argument that one…
if the young men of Germany, Britain, France, Belgium and so on had refused in their droves to fight for the Royal houses of Europe in 1914 and again in 1939, the nasty little man in a moustache wouldn’t have been able to wage his war. And that’s the point. They get away with it because we allow them to. A mass refusal would leave them all looking a bit silly.
In the case of the Russians in 1941 – they were being invaded and in that case – despite despising the regime, I would have fought to repel the invader. No conscription would have been necessary. And that is the point I make here. Conscription is morally indefensible. It is rarely used for defence, rather for aggression.
XX Er, yes, well, why were the Russians going to come? Oh, yeah, because Germany had invaded them. Circular argument that one…XX
That is byond the point. The intake of 1942/3 had NOTHING to do with the initial invasion, They were still in school.
What they WERE doing, was “saving their, and their familys skin.”
They were in effect, paying for the mistakes of their Fathers.
Does that mean they should have rolled over, played dead, and said “O.K, I surrender Stalin, ‘cus my Father was a right arse?”
They were fighting for their EXISTANCE.
The same as the army at Dunkirk.
Indeed they were paying for the mistakes of those who had gone before – or, more accurately, the regime currently in place at the time. Doesn’t make a case for conscription though.
I didn’t know that Norway had conscription, though clearly if it has, and men are conscripted, then so should women.
But I do not approve of conscription. Conscription effectively means that you owe the state your life. What has the state given me that commands such a high price? The British state might say, the welfare state, the NHS, and so on, but I would say in response that these were provided by the ordinary people of this country consenting to pay for them. If it has been left up to the ruling class, we would have none of these things. Yet the duty of conscription is for the benefit of our ruling class not the ordinary people of this country. Our soldiers fight wars for the greater glory of Tony Blair or David Cameron. They do not fight wars to safeguard the people of this country. So why should I put my life in jeopardy for such people? What exactly have they done for me that justifies such a sacrifice?
Quite – although Norway should adopt an equal approach by doing away with it for the men.
XX Our soldiers fight wars for the greater glory of Tony Blair or David Cameron. They do not fight wars to safeguard the people of this country. XX
Tell that to Douglas Bader.
1939 was entirely avoidable (as was 1914) and should have been avoided if the signatories at Versailles had adopted a sensible approach to their defeated foe. Douglas Bader should never have been called upon in the first place. Politicians made that war and politicians should have been forced to fight it. When those bastards sacrifice their own blood, maybe they will be less willing to engage in warfare to settle their differences.
That said, yes, by 1940, WWII was a fight for our survival. And, yes, at that time, I would have volunteered.
No. 1914 was NOT avoidable.
Germany came to the aid of an attacked and Allied Nation (Austro-Ungarn).
Same as France and Britain did in Poland in 1939.
(Although why this treaty did not mean they went to war with Russia, who invaded Poland FIRST, is beyond any resoning.)
Do NOT confuse “Strategy” with “war aim.”
Of course it was avoidable. Austria-Hungary was not obliged to declare war on Serbia as a consequence of one assassination and set the whole stack of dominoes over. Germany was itching for a conflict and the events of June 1914 handed it to them on a plate. But if the young men of Germany had refused to go to war, it would have made it somewhat difficult for the Kaiser to fulfil his ambitions.
I’m with Stephen on this one. 1914 was not about survival – unless you were one of the Royal houses of Europe. The only satisfying outcome of that conflict was that a significant proportion of them had fallen by the end of the decade. Well deserved, frankly.
XX I’m with Stephen on this one. 1914 was not about survival XX
It was for Österreich-Ungarn.
(The same with Poland in 39.)
Then France declares war on Germany, “An enemy at your back door.” Because we had the utter CHEEK to honour an alliance(??)
Or should we rip up all international treatys? (Think carefully “Do not mistake strategy with war aim….)
Britain would have looked a bit sick in 1941, if the Canadians, South Afrikans, ANZACS, Free French and Polish airforces/armys, had said “Bugger you pal, we are staying at home!”
Austria-Hungary was in decline by 1914, but did not have to declare war on Serbia. That decision was not about survival it was about punishing Serbia.
Behind that was the power build up going on in Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm was enviously eyeing the empires of France, Britain and Belgium. He wanted some of that, thank-you very much. His advisers at the time were ruthlessly preparing for war some while before the assassination in Bosnia. All they needed was a spark. For Germany, the matter of a treaty with the Austrians was a side issue. They wanted a war of aggression and were planning it long before 1914. It was, for them, unfinished business from 1870 – as it was for the French, of course. For Britain, the balance of power in Europe was important for stability. The Belgium ports falling to Germany would have made life very difficult for the Royal Navy.
“Tell that to Douglas Bader”
He is dead so I can’t. If he weren’t, I’d ask him why the working classes of the 1930s, who were shat upon by the political classes, starved and impoverished by a brutal means test, should have put their lives on the line to save the skins of the people who abused them?
So, you are saying, the working class scum should have laid down, cutting theiur noses to spite their faces, and let Hitler walk all over them, just to “punish” the “ruling classes?”
Wierd little man.
“So, you are saying, the working class scum should have laid down, cutting theiur noses to spite their faces, and let Hitler walk all over them, just to “punish” the “ruling classes?”
I am am saying that they had no duty to give their lives for people like you, who think working class people are “scum”.
“Wierd little man”
Says the entitled little yob who thinks that other should give their lives for him!
You have not read my previous posts HAVE you wierd little man, who is so much of a snivwlling lily livered cowaed, that he would not even defend himself.
I HAVE been there, I HAVE put myself in a position wherby it is possible I would have to do JUST that.
I still do, in fact.
Bothe as a reservist and a Policeman, here in Berlin.
So basically,
Up yours.
“I HAVE been there, I HAVE put myself in a position wherby it is possible”
Bully for you. Quite why you think that entitles to coerce others to do the same I have no idea.
“of a snivwlling lily livered cowaed, that he would not even defend himself.”
I I’ll defend myself. I just won’t defend right wing tossers who refer to working class people as “scum”. You are on your own.
This is the argument being used over at Tim’s to make the case for conscription. The logic being that conscripted lives lost would make such a war untenable for the politicians waging it. I feel that in practice, they would wage it anyway, being so sure of their own virtue and the morality of their cause.
One word; “Vietnam”. You mentioned it. You are correct, it does not deter the politicians.
“Enough with history, already.” as my friend Jacob once said. Well, actually, he said it a shed-load of times but that’s another story (or two). Dependent on the circumstances, conscription can be a really good thing. At present in this country we have several million y0ung people out of work. Some want to work but can’t find jobs; some want to work, but only if it’s in show business where they can earn millions of pounds a week and bed the most shaggable airheads in the country; some don’t want to work and are happy with the status quo – the circumstances, not the band. A form of conscription would provide a method of teaching these people that if you want something, you have to work for it, and it therefore becomes of value. It can teach them discipline, especially self-discipline; it can teach them various trades and further their education; it can make them physically fitter than they were – and therefore more attractive to the airheads if that is what they wish for – but it can also give them a purpose in life to strive for. As an unemployed regular at the local working mans club, I was one of the last to be called up for national service but opted to sign on as a regular for the extra year (and the extra money). I retired from the Army at a fairly high rank after 22 years and, with the qualifications and experience gained, began a second (fairly successful) career. Military life was, initially, a mind-bending experience, but by accepting the circumstances I found myself in, began to enjoy the advantages it brought. Instead of quietly continuing to pay millions of people a shed-load of money to lie in their pits all day before dragging themselves down to the boozer, give them an option of either taking a job, even if it’s not what they would have wanted, signing themselves off the dole or accepting conscription. It could be a form of a self-defence force, which could be employed on aid to the community during natural disasters such as floods, as well as military training with the option of volunteering for the regular forces with higher pay and possibility of postings abroad – yes, I know, Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be the most prolific at the moment, but there are other places. That there may be disadvantages, there is no doubt – there are disadvantages in everything we do – but could offer a possible solution to some of society’s problems.
“Some want to work but can’t find jobs; some want to work, but only if it’s in show business where they can earn millions of pounds a week and bed the most shaggable airheads in the country; some don’t want to work and are happy with the status quo”
Perhaps we should have forced education for airheads who think that large numbers of young people only want to work as rock stars? Still it avoids you having to admit there is a severe recession going on.
“As an unemployed regular at the local working mans club, I was one of the last to be called up for national service”
Well if you couldn’t get a job back then you must have been pretty useless and prone to making unintelligent generalisations about other people. Oh … wait.
XX Still it avoids you having to admit there is a severe recession going on. XX
Recession my arse.
No such thing.
Not when we can give billions to Greece, and others, give billions for attack drones that do not work, give billions to India, so they can keep their Nuke and space programmes going.
“Crisis? WHAT crisis?!
“Not when we can give billions to Greece, and others, give billions for attack drones that do not work, give billions to India, so they can keep their Nuke and space programmes going”
Isn’t that a counter-example to the claim that “there is no money left” when governments want to reduce disabled people to penury?
EXACTLY “Recession” is a load of bollox,. There IS no “recession”.
Stephen, I have no idea where you live but suggest it isn’t in the North East where, in the late 50’s, in an already deprived area of the country, jobs – any jobs – were harder to find than rocking horse droppings. I could have travelled to another part of the country to look for work but 32 shillings a week dole money didn’t allow much to put away to save for travelling and accommodation expenses. My visits to the WMC were subsidised by collecting empty glasses and lugging crates of beer up from the cellars in exchange for the odd pint or two. Despair, rather than apathy, was forefront in my mind, and that of quite a few others. The notification of conscription was the beginning of a new life for me and I suggest it could be for others. The descriptions I gave of the unemployed were meant to be light-hearted, though accept humour is subjective, and therefore understand your misinterpretation.
Penseivat
“Stephen, I have no idea where you live but suggest it isn’t in the North East where, in the late 50?s, in an already deprived area of the country, jobs – any jobs – were harder to find than rocking horse droppings. I could have travelled to another part of the country to look for work but 32 shillings a week dole money didn’t allow much to put away to save for travelling and accommodation expenses”
OK, sorry, I take back what I said. But that makes your insulting comments about young people today unfathomable. Young people have it a lot worse today than your generation or my generation had it.
“Young people have it a lot worse than your generation or my generation had it.” Something I really do disagree with. How many unemployed have the latest iPhones, HD flat screen TV’s, brand name clothes and trainers, and even a car to get around in? How many people on unemployment benefit manage to go on foreign holidays, eat in fast food places, smoke, go to nightclubs and drink to excess? None of these were available to me on the dole, apart from the fast food, which was the local chippy (peeling potatoes for a ‘free’ meal was rather character building, I’m told). Sorry, must agree to disagree. You are correct though about the sarcasm. Out of order. Sorry.
Penseivat
Leaving aside the moral argument as I’ve already covered it, what you are proposing is that a highly trained, highly motivated and expensive professional army be used to wet-nurse a bunch of malcontents?
What the unemployed really need is proper work and apprenticeship schemes with real jobs at the end of their training, not made up stuff and conscripting them into the military is definitely of the made up variety – quite apart from the temptation for politicians to use them as cannon fodder in whatever incursion into someone else’s conflict they happen to choose.
I for one, would have hated military life as I don’t follow orders (as I discovered during a stint in the RNR during my twenties) – being a free spirit. It’s largely why I slotted so readily into self-employment.
“I for one would have hated military life as I don’t follow orders.” If, for instance, you have a driving licence and a car, do you fasten a seat belt when you drive your car, stop at red traffic lights, obey the speed limits, insure and tax your car? If you do, then you follow orders. Just one example. I am sure there are many more. As I have suggested, any form of conscription would be for a UK based defence force which could also be used to help with natural disasters. As well as military training, they could be taught to be engineers, plumbers, drivers, or a myriad of artisan trades with proper qualifications they could take with them at the end of their service. Those more academically suited could train as teachers, in accounts, logistics, communications, nursing or other medical professions such as physiotherapy. It has been said that for every infantry soldier on the front line there are six other people providing training, support and supply so it’s not only those ‘deceived into spilling their blood for corrupt politicians seeking glory’ who would be sought. Overseas service would only apply for those transferring to the Regular forces. I mentioned Iraq and Afganistan earlier. Dangerous as they are, are they any more dangerous than Malaya, Borneo, Aden or Northern Ireland were in my day, when we had no idea who was friend or foe. Fortunately, I had retired when the Falklands war started, though was told I would be held on reserve ‘in case’. Fortunately, I was not needed (any sane person who has been involved in a shooting conflict never wants to be involved in another one). My comments were not meant to promote mindless nationalism but to suggest ways of installing pride and a sense of purpose in those who are in the same position I was in, in the late 50’s. The Army has over 4,000 trained soldiers being made redundant. How many of them could use their skills and experience to train the UK Defence and Disaster Force?
Penseivat
Without wishing to get bogged down in side issues, some of those things I would do anyway, regardless of whether they were mandated or not. When I am talking about orders, it is something rather different – the barked order to get my hair cut or to clean a sink all over again because it has a drip in it. Pointless stupid orders designed to wear the independence out of me. And, of course, the order to kill.
As for conscripts being a defence force only – well, again, I’ve already covered the moral objection. Another fairly obvious practical one being mission creep.
“Pointless stupid orders designed to wear the independence out of me.” You should perhaps start binning those old tapes of “The Army Game” and “Get Some In”. Cleanliness (and short hair) help prevent disease and lice in case you are ever posted to some of the world’s sh*t holes like Croydon or Sunderland. I always found a wodge of chewing gum shoved up the tap stopped it dripping, at least until the Cpl was out of the room! Initial military training seems pointless, though it does have a cohesive, team building, purpose and you will always find power hungry idiots in every walk of life, but once it is over (roughly 3 months) then the trade training can start and modern military discipline is a lot different from your RNR days (anyway, everyone knows the sadists join the Navy as they have a captive group of victims when on ship). Current instructions for military personnel are to fire weapons either in self-defence or to prevent an attack on friendly forces, such as the (authorised) actions of a sniper. To do otherwise is classed either as a criminal offence or war crime. Recent media reports have shown military facing criminal courts for actions deemed outside authorised operations. The receiving of wanton orders to kill are therefore extremely unlikely. As mentioned to Stephen, will have to agree to disagree. Now, have we discussed in any detail the advantages, or otherwise, of conscription for women, which was the original post?
Penseivat 😆
Taxes that pay for government services are just a synonym for service fees. The only difference between a tax and a service charge is that the latter is voluntary while the former offers you no say in the matter: pay up, or go to jail / pay a fine.
Shopkeepers and internet hosting providers don’t demand you take up arms to defend the privilege of paying for their services on pain of imprisonment, so why should governments expect it? Especially a government that still persists with describing the country as “UK Plc.”? I’m not going to lay down my life for a corporate entity, no matter how contrived. I owe no allegiance to UK Plc., any more than I owe an allegiance to First Capital Connect, or WH Smiths. (I’ve never been big on that whole tribalism bollocks in any case, whether it’s disguised as nationalism, religion, or any of its myriad aliases.)
Whether I *choose* to help defend my family, my friends, my community, my preferred cultural philosophy, etc.—and there are many who do just that—it remains my decision, and mine alone, to make. Nobody has the right to force me to spill my blood, or kill some mother’s son, against my will.
Surely if someone can alter their circumstances to avoid/minimize taxation, they can also choose which state to be ruled by.
Therefore they must believe the state they’ve chosen is the best possible option for them.
And if that state has conscription, then by living there, they’re giving their consent to be drafted when necessary.
If they don’t agree, they need to leave or face the relevant punishment.
And if the state knows what’s best for education, law, business regulation, etc. then surely it knows what’s best for what is arguably its most important role?
Disagreeing because it would directly affect your life is two-faced cowardice.
I’ve read some claptrap in my time but this takes the biscuit. Your whole comment is a series of non sequiturs.
Emigration for the majority is often impracticable and people rarely move for tax reasons anyway. Anyone who has been following the news will realise that states are colluding on tax so there is no escape.
Living somewhere does not mean that you agree the state knows best on any particlular matter. And even if you did, it doesn’t follow that it knows best on another.
As for cowardice, refusal takes courage. There’s nothing two faced about it.
“Surely if someone can alter their circumstances to avoid/minimize taxation, they can also choose which state to be ruled by.
Therefore they must believe the state they’ve chosen is the best possible option for them”
What a silly reductive argument, which could be used to justify any abusive law or state policy.
It is also based on a false premise that people can alter their circumstances to reduce their tax bill. The super rich can But the rest of us cannot winter in Monaco or route our pay through the Maldives so that we pay 1% marginal rate in income tax. If we lived in a world where there was free movement of people (funny how right wingers support the free movement of capital but not of people) then your argument might have some merit. But we don’t, so it doesn’t.
@Andrew:
“Therefore they must believe the state they’ve chosen is the best possible option for them.”
Most people don’t get a choice. The rich can afford to buy (or, more commonly, lease through a private company based in the Canary Islands), homes in Mayfair, Monaco and Geneva; the poor don’t have that option.
Furthermore, conscripts tend to be *young*: governments know full well that the older you are, the more opportunities you’ve had to repair the damage caused by mass education systems, so the younger your cannon fodder, the less likely it is to question your orders.
LR – “I’ve read some claptrap in my time but this takes the biscuit.”
Thank you 😆
Now, I wonder how much Comment Is Free pays…
Stephen – “What a silly reductive argument, which could be used to justify any abusive law or state policy.”
Well, yes. That’s why it’s so popular.
“It is also based on a false premise that people can alter their circumstances to reduce their tax bill.”
That was LR’s argument in the post, I was just carrying it along.
S. Baggaley – “Most people don’t get a choice.”
They do not. Which is one of the reasons people shouldn’t be threatened with death for not obeying the state, regardless of whether it’s for going to die in a desert or to pay for a “5 a day” advisor, or anything else.
Surely the question is how much are you prepared to accept in order to prostitute yourself? 😉
The taxation argument was very much a theoretical one to demonstrate the difference between that and conscription. One deprives you of liberty for a number of years, whereas the other deprives you of wealth and you have some (not much) control over how much – that is; for most of us it is impracticable. Being self-employed I can do more than most to reduce my exposure to tax, for example.
His blog platform has been like that for many, many months now. He should have fixed it long ago.