Forced Labor, Conscription and the like

Post Reply New Topic

Why are so many neurotypicals so keen on the idea of compulsory service, be it military (the draft) or civilian alternative service?

First of all, it takes people out of the ordinary working force and place them under the state. They are paid by the government, and this means government expenditures on trivial stuff.

It is far better to have them find a job themselves, and decide which jobs they'd choose and encourage them to work in the private companies or start their own business than to force them to become slaves of Big Government.

The only arguments I've heard from the pro-conscriptors is that people especially young people should be taught a lesson on how to provide themselves and teach them good behavior... as if this should be the task of the government in the first place. It is Fascist, outright FASCIST mindset.

I hate them. I hate those who wants to force people into specific jobs, wether it be military service or alternative civilian service.

I wish such garbage people never existed!

I am a socialist. I believe in welfare, but I'd say damn NO to be provided for by slaves!

Taxation should be the only obligation of citizens. Forced labor should be outlawed!

Those who are willing to serve seem to make the best leaders, since they understand what it means to sacrifice person interests in favor of a higher ideal.

What is forced labor? Being shackled to your work 20 hours a day and being whipped if you slow down? Signing a four-year contract of your own free will to serve an employer in exchange for money, medical care, and housing? Knowing that if you don't work, you don't eat, and you will likely have no home to live in, either?

It is a matter of being flexible.

See, if you don't work and don't earn your own money, at least some people would be able to get help from family or relatives.

With conscription the government decides for your which job to have at specific hours. You cannot say "no" without being imprisoned and have your entire life ruined and your personal freedom taken away.

That's the difference!

Actually, under the ILO Forced Labor Convention of 1930, conscription is not recognized as "Slavery".

Forced labor includes all forms of slavery, and related institutions (e.g. debt slavery, serfdom, corvée and labour camps). Many of these forms of work may be covered by the term "forced labor", which is defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO) as: "All work or service exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty, and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily".

However, under the ILO Forced Labour Convention of 1930, the term forced or compulsory labour shall NOT include:

• Any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws (e.g., "The Draft") for work of a purely military character;

• Any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations (i.e., "Jury Duty") of the citizens of a fully self-governing country;

• Any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law (i.e., "Community Service"), provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations (requiring that prison farms no longer do convict leasing);

• Any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war, of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by: animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;

• Minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.

Is it safe to assume that you are a white male in his mid-teens to mid-twenties? This is the age group that seems to have the greatest objection to mandatory government service.

Personally, I believe that it is only right and proper to require every able-bodied citizen, aged 18 to 28, to serve a minimum of two years in a military or para-military service, after which they will serve a mandatory four-year minimum term as a reservist. Of course, there would be deferments for genuine medical disabilities (not something as asinine as imaginary "bone spurs"). There would be no deferment for wealth.

Offering free tuition on a year-to-year basis for government service would seem to be a good incentive -- some kid serves his mandatory two years, and then attends a two-year school to earn an Associate Degree; four years of service returns four years of tuition. By the time a person is 26, he or she has not only earned a free Bachelor's Degree, he or she has had 4 years of military training and discipline. I would hire such a person ahead of any slacker with only a high school diploma.

I don't care what a politically ideologically established convention says, labor that is forced upon anyone is forced labor. It is a simple as that.

The only reason conscription is not included in the convention against forced labor, is because it would be impossible to write such a convention because most governments imposed conscription at the time of the convention was written.

Clearly conscription IS slavery it IS forced labor! Or they wouldn't have to write any such exeptions in the first place!



I am older and I was exempted from conscription. Yet I feel it is un-ethical/immoral to force people to do any kind of labor against their will.

I believe in personal freedom as long as you don't limit other people's liberties.

This is where your argument loses all credibility. The 'nicest' term we military veterans have for people with deferments or exemptions is 'slacker'.I will leave your silly little rant with these words: Your freedom to mock military conscription was won by military conscripts. Freedom itself is not free, but must be won through conflict, whether that conflict is enacted by conscripts or volunteers. So, on behalf of all military veterans in your country, I say to you "YOU'RE WELCOME".

Thinkinginpictures, this is what I've come to realize all of these rights including the inalienable rights in the declaration of indenpendence are arbitrary and man made. Slavery, freedom, right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are simply man made definitions and the truth be told is the society would have to recognize these rights including definitions. You can't win an argument that is subjective, open to interpretation, and arbitrary. It's like trying to argue who won in a game that is made up when the opposing player is the one who created the game and designed the rules.

Look up How I found freedom in an Unfree World by Harry Brown.

You are correct that liberty is a man-made concept. But I'd still say that humans benefits the most from having liberty and a say in their own lives rather than having to work at specific places at specific hours under threat of imprisonment, which is exactly what conscription is, wether it is military or civilian service.

Of all the goals of any society, shouldn't maximum happiness for maximum number of people as possible be the ultimate goal of any society, no matter if it is dictatorship or democracy?

Why do most nations practice the exact opposite? It's like if the state & government is here to make as many people as sad as possible.

I still say: Most people enjoy making other people sad. That's the reason human societies are so evil.

Most people believe in the death penalty, forced labor, torture and war. There is no other explanation for the world of humans. Most humans believe a good society is a society where most people are unhappy and frightened. If the opposite was true there would be no death penalty, forced labor, torture or wars.

I'm in agreement with you my friend. But, others don't see it that way. Fnord said that Freedom isn't free and even though it is an overly simplistic slogan he is right.

What it means is if you want freedom or really what you define freedom to be it means it is going to cost you and in fact anything you desire is going to have a price. I'm telling you read "How I found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne. I know you're a socialist and he's a libertarian and I'm a socialist as well. I find it just as valuable. Just google it online and download it. You don't have to pay anything but make sure you have acrobat reader if you don't have it.

If you don't want to fight in a war you may not believe in the cost may be prison. Maybe one could go to Canada which is what some draftees did to avoid the draft. And guess what? They were pardoned later on. One could claim conscientious objector status or do what Trump did and get a doctor to write bone spurs.

There are other prices you may have to pay. Some like Fnord will see you as a coward. For me, if that is the only price that one has to pay for freedom is to be called a coward I would gladly pay that price. You may think you have no choice but in my opinion you always have a choice but there is always a cost and price associated with said choice. What are you willing to pay for the brand of freedom you desire?

I agree everything has a price. But the reason I am discussing these things is to maybe change people's opinions about conscription so that the cost of liberty is not so high (imprisonment).

Being a coward... well and what's wrong with it? Better be a coward than stupid foolish idiot who go straight into death or become paralyzed or lose limbs or what else might happen to you.

People who voluntarily fight wars are idiots, unless they have everything to win and nothing to lose.
But likewise, anyone who believes in conscription are idiots as well because you vote in favor of being drafted = volunteer for war.

I'd rather be a coward than a fool.

If everybody stayed at home and did not work, did not become soldiers and everybody were lazy well, we would probably not have welfare because of lack of taxes. But we also would never have wars, because humans would be too lazy to fight them.

Lazy slackers are good people. The rest are evil.

Imagine if you get enough refused conscription and put in prison. Now, you have to house and feed these people. So, we have to pay for 3 hots and a cot now. For a country to survive the ppl have to be willing to fight and if one has to conscript then you've already lost. What kind of character will a conscripted person have and Fnord you love to perservate on the character of a person? I mean come on, would you want a conscript who especially don't want to be there to fight next to you in the fox hole?

First-of-all, what makes you think it's only NTs who believe this way? There are alot of military veteran ASDers, here, that think this way (myself, included).

Secondly, you speak of liberty and freedoms..... Who / how do you think those liberties and freedoms are secured, if not by the military----and, you think that's a government expenditure on something trivial?

Tell ya what..... You're in Denmark, aren'tcha? When Denmark (or whatever country you're in) is threatened by a hostile takeover, and you all don't have enough members of your military, to defend her, tell me if you think military defense is a "government expenditure on something trivial", THEN----and, don't come crying to US, in the U.S. to defend you, cuz most of us like that "trivial expenditure", and you wouldn't want to be defended by stupid people, now, wouldja?

Well, most Democrats seem to think that way. Alot, it seems, seem to think it's good to KEEP as many people as possible, unhappy and frightened----that way, those unhappy and frightened people will keep coming to THEM to fix it, to give it, to increase "it", so that, in turn, they'll remember them in whichever November, whichever Democrat is running.

Your rants are quite amusing..... First, you say "humans benefits the most from having liberty and a say in their own lives", then you say: "no matter if it is dictatorship"! ! LOL You can't have BOTH----make-up your mind!!

Also, you agree that everything has a price----but, then, you also say: "People who voluntarily fight wars are idiots, unless they have everything to win and nothing to lose."; if everything has a price, then there will ALWAYS be something to lose, no? A little schizophrenic, aren'tcha?

I do thank you for your service. You and Fnord are of a certain personality type to be in the military. I'm not. Like Fnord said "freedom isn't free" and I will pay the price to be free from military conscription including being considered a coward and/or prison. Truth is anything you desire has some form of price to be paid for its acquisition.



Military may be necessary but it is not sufficient. You have to have farmers to grow food to feed them. You have to have mechanics to maintain vehicles. etc. etc



And, what makes you think a a military filled with conscripts will be an effective fighting force? I bet you would have a lot more desertions? Thinkinginpictures has no desire to fight. W/o desire will he be effective or will he be concentrating more on trying to get out of missions like the protagonist in the book "Catch-22? I know I would.




What does the democratic party have to do with what he said?



Answer: The rights that are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are arbitary. There are no rights that come from nature at all b/c in order to have them they have to be recognized first and who defines what these rights even mean? I have the right to life but do I have the right to medical care that would save my life? Do I have the right to be provided a living if I can't provide myself a living? The answer is no to both. I have the right to leave the USA but do I have the right to live anywhere else. Do I have the right to something including food, clothing and shelter if I can't afford it? No, to any of this. I have the right to freedom of speech but do I have the right for others to listen to me? Again, no. A dictator can choose to give these rights and take them away just like any of our politicans even though it is a bit harder with checks and balances. But, it still can be done. What about when our nation was first formed. Would you as a woman been allowed in the military and why didn't the Native Americans and the slaves have these rights as well? So, rights are arbitrary, man-made and in our day to day lives are meaningless and don't help us.



I think what he's saying is if they think they believe they have more to gain then lose. Saying one has "everything to win and nothing to lose is just an expression that means one has more to gain then lose.

This is a difficult subject, especially since nearly all of us here in the West take part in the global marketplace. Look into cobalt mining. All of us who are using cell phones are complicit in the brutal forced child labor that produces cobalt.

I grew up on welfare. I was taught something like what you’re saying-that work should be rewarding and something you want to go in and do every day. I was amazed when I turned 16 how easy it was to simply do as you’re told for 8 hours a day and be given money for this afterward.

There is a certain freedom in doing difficult work. You become stronger and better able to handle adversity. You appreciate the little things more, like sitting down, eating your lunch, going home at the end of the day. Strife is what makes your life worthwhile.

Personal freedom... So long as they don't hold opinions you don't like, ask questions you disapprove of, say things that might be hurtful to someone or really dissent in any meaningful way...

Are you talking about the Social Justice Warriors who try to shout others down?