Yes. Even if it wouldn't fall under a technical definition (didn't use my googler), it's still grossly immoral.

They pay you, so I think indentured servitude is the closer descriptor.

Ask LeBron?

schmendeler said:

---

They pay you, so I think indentured servitude is the closer descriptor.

---

All slaves are paid in one form or another...be it food and shelter, or money. It's slavery because it's involuntary.

I don't think keeping you from dying is payment. Filling your car up with gas isn't compensation for the car.

AstroAg17 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

They pay you, so I think indentured servitude is the closer descriptor.

---

Indentured implies that it's an agreement. Is there a term for slavery with pay?

---

I also think indentured servitude is a good description. Per a google, the agreement can be forced. And while I was never drafted, I'm fairly certain those that are drafted enter into an "agreement" with the government to fulfill their service time in exchange for certain pay/benefits, and not deserting.

schmendeler said:

---

I don't think keeping you from dying is payment. Filling your car up with gas isn't compensation for the car.

---

...well the draft doesn't even do that. There's a really good chance a draftee will die. It doesn't matter how much a draftee is paid, it's still slavery.

Interesting.

The difference between slavery and a job is the one's decision to do it.

For as much as Americans have historically prided themselves on "freedom", it also amazes me that there is such disdain for those who dodge the draft. Heck, it's not uncommon to see people argue that military service should be mandatory.

The touchstone of the American conscience is equality, not liberty.

I can see this view. But I think there is a sense of duty to one's country. We're losing that culture in the US and many see it as a good thing. I'm not so sure. I think there are some things that are worth fighting for. I wish our leaders made better judgements in this area but I don't think the existence is wrong. I think it's just an unfortunate reality of human civilization.

I think it's liberty.

one of those is printed on every coin minted since 1792.

it wasn't called the "sons of equality".

the rights of all men are not "life, equality, and the pursuit of happiness."

the constitution was formed to "secure the blessings of liberty", not equality.

schmendeler said:

---

I think it's liberty.

one of those is printed on every coin minted since 1792.

it wasn't called the "sons of equality".

the rights of all men are not "life, equality, and the pursuit of happiness."

the constitution was formed to "secure the blessings of liberty", not equality.

---

What people say and what they do are two entirely different things. The republicans say they're fiscally responsible. The democrats say they care about the poor. We talk a good game about liberty, but we aren't outraged by the deprivation of liberty.

But that's not really the point. Equality is an implicit assumption required to arrive at the formulas and slogans listed above. Why are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness inalienable rights - specifically, why can't a monarch deprive those rights from his subjects? Why do the collective states have a right to organize for themselves a government to secure those blessings? Clearly, because his subjects are equal to him in that they are human beings. Mutual equality under the law, before God, before each other, is the foundation beneath our cultural and political framework.

The rejection of hierarchical structure is absolutely necessary to "think like an American". We don't notice it so much because we are raised in it...water to fish, I suppose. But it was a glaring and even jarring feature of American society to de Tocqueville, for example.

Frok said:

---

I can see this view. But I think there is a sense of duty to one's country. We're losing that culture in the US and many see it as a good thing. I'm not so sure. I think there are some things that are worth fighting for. I wish our leaders made better judgements in this area but I don't think the existence is wrong. I think it's just an unfortunate reality of human civilization.

---

I would argue that if something is worth fighting for (obviously I disagree on the notion of taking up arms at all in the first place, but that's another discussion), then people won't need to be forced to participate at the point of a bayonet.

I think, in reality, one of the major problems with the draft is the inequality that we see in how it's applied. The rich and connected often get deferments or find some way around it. Whether it's bone spurs or going to college, there are ways around it that typically are more readily available to the wealthy and/or connected.

Quote:

---

then people won't need to be forced to participate at the point of a bayonet.

---

Good point. And I agree that the rich and connected were generally able to avoid it while others were not so fortunate.

AstroAg17 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

They pay you, so I think indentured servitude is the closer descriptor.

---

Indentured implies that it's an agreement. Is there a term for slavery with pay?

---

I wouldn't say it's slavery because the person is selected to perform their social duty. I know Pacifist would say this duty doesn't exist, but slavery is forced labor for profit. Military duty is not (despite Pacifist's obvious quip about the war machine).

Of course you can point out similarities, but there are also differences.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

They pay you, so I think indentured servitude is the closer descriptor.

---

Indentured implies that it's an agreement. Is there a term for slavery with pay?

---

I wouldn't say it's slavery because the person is selected to perform their social duty. I know Pacifist would say this duty doesn't exist, but slavery is forced labor for profit. Military duty is not (despite Pacifist's obvious quip about the war machine).

Of course you can point out similarities, but there are also differences.

---

I think the use of 'social duty' justifies some discussion / clarification. Who determines what our social duties are and are those people always right? I don't feel any obligation to fight in a war that I think is unjust, do you?

You said slavery is forced labor for profit. But, not all profit is measured by coin in your pocket.

I don't think it's slavery.

Slavery is owning another person as property. In a military draft, as understood in the United States, the state does not own the draftees as property. It cannot sell or rent the draftee to another owner. There is no transfer of ownership because there is no ownership. I don't think it's helpful to think of draftees as property in that it diminishes the evils of slavery and misidentifies the nature of the relationship between the state and the draftee.

Instead, I think it's better understood as involuntary servitude. As such, I think it's evil, that it violates the individual's rights, and it should be abolished.

I'm not sure that ownership of person as property is slavery. That's certainly chattel slavery. But that's a specific instance of slavery.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I think the use of 'social duty' justifies some discussion / clarification. Who determines what our social duties are and are those people always right? I don't feel any obligation to fight in a war that I think is unjust, do you?

You said slavery is forced labor for profit. But, not all profit is measured by coin in your pocket.

---

Exactly. The term "social duty" or "social contract" is such a generic term that varies from person to person. I would agree that I have no "social duty" to fight in a war I consider unjust. It's a meaningless term because it means whatever the user wants it to mean, and it is almost always used as a way to pressure others to violate their conscience or faith. As a Christian, my duty is to love my neighbor and my enemy (and obviously, most of all, God). I don't do that by killing them. I also don't do that by forcing them, at the point of a gun, to do something they consider grossly immoral.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

They pay you, so I think indentured servitude is the closer descriptor.

---

Indentured implies that it's an agreement. Is there a term for slavery with pay?

---

I wouldn't say it's slavery because the person is selected to perform their social duty. I know Pacifist would say this duty doesn't exist, but slavery is forced labor for profit. Military duty is not (despite Pacifist's obvious quip about the war machine).

Of course you can point out similarities, but there are also differences.

---

I think the use of 'social duty' justifies some discussion / clarification. Who determines what our social duties are and are those people always right? I don't feel any obligation to fight in a war that I think is unjust, do you?

You said slavery is forced labor for profit. But, not all profit is measured by coin in your pocket.

---

Good questions. Just pointing out the distinction.

PacifistAg said:

---

For as much as Americans have historically prided themselves on "freedom", it also amazes me that there is such disdain for those who dodge the draft. Heck, it's not uncommon to see people argue that military service should be mandatory.

---

I don't understand why we exempt some people but not others.

Woody2006 said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

For as much as Americans have historically prided themselves on "freedom", it also amazes me that there is such disdain for those who dodge the draft. Heck, it's not uncommon to see people argue that military service should be mandatory.

---

I don't understand why we exempt some people but not others.

---

I agree. None should be compelled to join the military, especially in wartime.

If a nation isn't worthy of garnering the passion of those that live in it to defend it to the death of their own free will, then it's not worth defending.

While that is all true, it does not disprove the fact that the founders valued liberty as a essential part of the nation.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The idea of a sovereign implies sovereignty. Sovereignty is absolute. A subject of a sovereign may be free in some kind of ideal sense - their soul is free, their mind is free, you might say - but freedom of action is subject to the sovereign authority.

Just because we have diluted the responsibility of sovereignty among the whole of the population does not mean we have done the equivalent dilution of the authority to carry out sovereign decisions. The collective sovereignty of the US lies in the body of its citizens, yes, but the authority to act on behalf of those citizens is invested in the particular members of the government.

The government has every right to exercise that authority in the lawful execution of its duties as determined by its sovereign. Whether that sovereign is a single kind or millions of citizens is irrelevant. If the nation decides to go to war, it has the right to execute that decision with the draft as much as a king had the right to levy soldiers. You obey the law or you suffer the consequences. The nature of the law - speeding ticket or draft - is not relevant, nor are the consequences - fine or jail or death.

Who said they didn't? I said the fundamental touchstone of the American mindset is egalitarianism. We tolerate locking criminals up or sacrificing all kinds of personal liberty for the public good. We do not tolerate saying people are unequal because they are criminals and the idea of social inequality on the basis of anything other than personal merit is anathema to us.

Put another way. An American can do things that we believe justify curtailing their liberty. We do not believe that a persons fundamental equality as a man can be changed. The latter is accepted as an a priori assumption in everything we do.

Edit to say - this is more apparent when you encounter societies that do not share this concept. The Japanese, for example, are fundamentally hierarchical in their mindset.

It is inherent in this nation to question laws and even find them unjust and invalid.

We have built into our court system the ability for juries to do just that with Jury Nullification.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin


Only when one has violated other's inalienable rights, do we find justification to curtail their liberty.

PacifistAg said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

For as much as Americans have historically prided themselves on "freedom", it also amazes me that there is such disdain for those who dodge the draft. Heck, it's not uncommon to see people argue that military service should be mandatory.

---

I don't understand why we exempt some people but not others.

---

I agree. None should be compelled to join the military, especially in wartime.

---

I don't agree with you, but I certainly understand why you would feel that way. I think the draft should be a last-resort measure if our country is invaded (I don't agree in instituting the draft for foreign wars in which we were never attacked like Vietnam or Korea). However, if the draft is instituted, I don't think it's fair that we allow people to simply declare a certain religion or go to college instead. I also don't agree it should only be men who are subject to the draft.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

It is inherent in this nation to question laws and even find them unjust and invalid.

We have built into our court system the ability for juries to do just that with Jury Nullification.

---

This is proving my point actually.

The decision making process of whether a law is unjust or not is not subject to the collective whim of the sovereign as a whole. In an absolute monarchy (which for all practical purposes has never existed) the concept of sovereign authority and responsibility are easy to spot - they're both the same person.

For us, they're not. The responsibility is collectively invested in the citizenry at large, while the authority is selectively invested temporarily or personally to individuals selected by a variety of methods. This is the same whether we're talking about the decision of the purse in the members of congress, the absolute authority to execute military decisions in the person of the president, or the judgment about laws in judges or back to individual citizens as jurors.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin


Only when one has violated other's inalienable rights, do we find justification to curtail their liberty.

---

This is completely not true. It is ludicrous on the face of it. There are innumerable examples of the curtailing of personal liberty that do not in any require a citizen to previously violate another's right to life, liberty, or property. We restrict liberty all the time without individuals committing any act whatsoever on the premise of reducing public risk.

The entirety of the social contract is the balance of personal liberty with collective security. The entire statement by Benjamin Franklin hinges on the definition of "essential".

Even if your premise were true, though, it still doesn't change my point. Violating another's inalienable rights may be justification for a person to sacrifice their own, but we still would categorically reject that there is any way whatsoever for a person to sacrifice their fundamental equality as a human. In this framework human rights can not be abdicated or lost through any action of any person, because all men are fundamentally equal in this way.