I used to feel the same semck, but I do have two reasons for believing differently now.

1) I do feel we all have a civic duty, and should all serve a few years to contribute. This serving would ideally not be just in the army; people would be able to choose between the army, fire brigade, teaching etc.

2) A volunteer army is so disproportionately made up of people from lower incomes, and if we do need a military this is simply not fair. If it is needed, i.e. if we should have a notable standing army, than it should not be that only poorer people have to bear the cost, which is ultimately for the benefit of everyone. This point can be expanded.

@SD,

Point 1 is equally antithetical to a free society. We perhaps all have a duty to serve; but to the extent we are forced to serve, we are not free. Now, perhaps you don't believe a free society is actually preferable.

Point 2 is interesting, I think, but not ultimately convincing. This has largely always been true of armies, however composed -- there are, after all, more poor people, and they have more reason to stay in after the minimum. Moreover, the rich are more likely to enter as officers, etc. Also, your point that poor people "have to bear the cost" is specious. They choose to do so, because it represents a form of opportunity to them. The only time anybody HAS to bear the cost is if there is conscription.

Point 1) Maybe we disagree about what freedom is. Moreover, people should have the option to leave the state they are in. If that were too the case, they would be free.

Point 2). But they disproportionately compose the ranks. They don't have real freedom to do otherwise, because of their economic status. The college options it provides for instance is often far superior to their other chances. It is a reasonably well paid job compared to many of the other jobs they are offered. They are nigh-compelled out of economic necessity. The fact that people in the army are DISPROPORTIONATELY from lower income is a problem.

Their choice to serve is akin to someone choosing to work in a sweatshop. I guess there are some people like you that see that as a fair free choice, but I see it as immoral economic compulsion.

@SD,

1) The freedom to leave the state you're in does not make it a free state. At most, it means you have the option to leave it for a free state. And yes, we may differ on what freedom means. For me, it would certainly include the sense of not being told what career you had to pursue (or being made to choose from a narrow list of careers), even for a short period of your life, without (as I said) extraordinary circumstances.

2) Of course they have real freedom to do otherwise. For your point to work, it would have to be the case that MOST poor people enter the military. That is not true. It is -- you're correct -- a better opportunity than many on offer to them. That explains why many do take it.

What you're talking about was *somewhat* less of a thing when military service was socially praised and was highly prized in the business and political realms. I agree that the end of this is somewhat regrettable.

The comparison to sweat shops is highly inapt, because poor people in this country very rarely face conditions comparable to those suffered in sweatshop-endowed countries if they turn down the opportunity of military service.

Your whole argument depends on a "coercion" that is simply manufactured; and seeks to replace it with an actual coercion.

But yes, people take jobs in sweatshops, by and large, because they are preferable to the alternative. The economic betterment it brings to their countries is relatively swift (on the order of decades), and sweatshops typically move on to other countries because they get priced out. That's not to say there aren't abuses that should be dealt with -- there are -- but simply calling them immoral is not that helpful, as it doesn't propose any alternative that will help those people nearly as much.

1) it does, on the basis that the state does not force you to do anything. out of curiosity are you someone that believes that no state that has taxes is free? you don't choose to pay taxes - the state takes them without your consent - ergo the state isn't free. Do you believe that any state with laws is not free? I am not free to take a dump in the middle of the street, to sleep in a random house of my choosing - i am not free!

I would appreciate your help seeing how conscription = no freedom, and the same is not true for taxes, or any state with a law.

2. Oh dear, it is not, because all poor people have to enter lowered paid jobs. that is why it is called wage slavery by those enlightened ;)

a better option does not stop it being immoral or exploitative. I will steal the basics valdman's antidote case, if you don't mind. Imagine we are hiking together. You get stung by a snake. You will die without the antidote. You do not have one, and your only way to get one is through me. I have 10 of them. They cost a dollar. I tell you that for 1 you must pay me $100,000 (an amount you luckily have). Is the exchange truly free? It is your better choice, and I am not coercing you. You are forced to pay me though by circumstances. I am acting in an immoral way if I dictate to you death or this exorbitant fee.

Put military service together with other low-paying jobs then. Also, with unemployment, there will be some with the choice of military or nothing. In fact there are many with that choice now.

No, my argument does not use coercion. Forced =/= coercion, they are philosophicaly different concepts.

They are immoral though! They may help, perhaps they should even be allowed, but it is no different from saying the antidote transaction should be allowed. Exploitation is often consensual. Immoral conditions may be 'freely chosen', but in reality the circumstances force the victim to accept the immoral conditions.

@SD,

"it does, on the basis that the state does not force you to do anything."

You apparently define a state that is anything short of a complete despotism to be a free state, then. Only the most extremely despotic states prevent their people from leaving. You can define your terms as you wish, of course, but "free country" becomes a meaningless term, and we are left to search for a useful one. A free country refers to the ability to be free while IN the country, not to the ability to be free by leaving it.

The distinction between forced career choices and paying taxes is pretty clear to anybody who is not an obscurantist, I'd say. So yes, you can be free in a country with (reasonable) taxes. These are, if you wish, aspects of the (few) liberties given up to form stable society. Taxes leave entire flexibility in how to organize your life, including doing so in such a way to minimize or eliminate paying them. True, they therefore affect these decisions, but they do not coerce them.

Similarly, laws against public defecation and the like, which you cite, are the de minimis laws to keep civil society functioning. They are prohibitory of actions that would cause public health issues, but do not dictate choices otherwise. If you cannot understand the difference between those and laws requiring you (say) to be a baker, in terms of liberty, then this conversation is indeed pointless!

2) Once again, your analogy fails. Poor people do not face the choice of joining the military or dying. Perhaps you were referring to the sweatshops. I don't disagree that many sweatshop owners immorally exploit their workers. Yet nevertheless, they help them and their communities despite themselves. Which, yes, is not to say they are morally excused. It does, however, mean that the moral legal choice is to allow them.

It's interesting, by the way, that you see a good solution to the moral problem of the poor having to serve in the military to be making everybody (including the poor) serve in the military, and under conditions that would make service much less helpful for the poor. (The military would no longer have to offer nearly as much money and opportunity, since everybody would be conscripted). So you would hurt the poor and coerce them unarguably more than at present. In return, you would also coerce the rich? This is a strange view of freedom indeed, my friend.

1). That is not my definition of a free state. I am just saying that on this one thing they are free, and if the state is free besides that, why is it not a free state?

You can say what you want, but your point was a lack of choice = not being free. A conscription is just an aspect of a few liberties given up to form a stable society. I did say you should be able to choose from a range of fields, so you are not forced into anyone, and have the 'choice' you seem to want. To be honest, it is also no different to the fact right now most people are forced by economic conditions to work for the profit of some fat cat. The only difference is the conscription is at least for a good cause.

The point is that it does infringe upon liberty. You argued against the infringing on liberty. I want us to agre that the state is right to infringe upon liberty. A state can do so and still be free. This conversation is probably pointless :)

2) The analogy is not meant to be the same. It is a logical deconstruction of your argument, and either you can't do logic, or you are intentionally missing the point. You were arguing that a 'free' choice that betters your situation should not be argued as forced. I was showing you that it can. The analogy does that. Again, once you accept that a free choice that betters your situation can be forced, and not really free, we can then apply this same knowledge to cases without such dire consequences. We are finding the bases of the opinions.

I agree, that without an alternative they should be allowed, but first we should agree they are immoral. Once we do so we should try and find a moral solution.

SD,

1) If a state is free besides that? If you're saying that being able to leave is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a state to be free, then you're stating something both true and obvious, and also something different than you were stating before.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that every lack of choice in every single decision caused a state not to be free. I said that the specific force choice of conscription without adequate justification did. (Go back and read what I wrote, if your memory is getting hazy on this point). Society is already stable without conscription, so this is not necessary for that (nor, in any case, could it be justified on those grounds in the context of a free state -- it would simply mean that a stable free state could not exist). Conscription (including with a list of careers) would be an *enormous* imposition on personal liberty for the sake of societal goals not set by the individual. This is inimical to liberty.

Who says conscription is for "a good cause"? Certainly not the person being conscripted (necessarily, anyway). And he gets far less choice than now, when at least, if he cares, he can seek out a way to work for a cause that he does consider good. Frankly, you just want to substitute your choice for that of other people and call it benevolent, like every despotic temperament.

You are asking for people to have unambiguously less choice with unambiguously more coercsion, and are calling it equivalent. Take your sophistry elsewhere.

"The point is that it does infringe upon liberty. You argued against the infringing on liberty. I want us to agre that the state is right to infringe upon liberty."

Where did I argue against all infringing of any liberty by the state? You are going to have to stop putting words in my mouth. I agree that, if you continue insisting on doing so, this conversation will indeed be pointless.

2) The analogy does fail, because of the immense difference in scale. Let me give *you* an analogy.

Suppose I tell *you* the antivenom story, and you agree. Then I say, "OK, then suppose we are walking up the mountain. You feel like a snicker bar. I have one, and offer it to you for $100,000. Fortunately, you have it. You could call this a 'free' decision, but because you want the snicker bar, it really isn't. I'm coercing you just as much as with the antivenom."

That wouldn't be "logic," would it? You're trying to perform an illegitimate generalization and sweep aside the factors that actually made the antivenom situation coercion in the relevant sense. If you want to be analytical about this, we can do that. What the government can do if you don't obey it is take away your life or your actual, physical liberty. If we're talking about anything less dramatic than those choices, then we are talking about a less coercive situation than that which you are promoting. In particular, virtually nobody considering joining the military is facing that particular choice, and therefore their situation is (substantially!) less coercive.

I do *not* agree that it is immoral to offer somebody something on the terms that they can better themselves (even substantially) if they give you something. It can be immoral if you are taking overwhelming advantage of them through asymmetries. I have not seen an argument that the military does so -- in fact, I think it pays quite generously, and offers a choice that is rarely coerced in the above sense. If you want to argue against the factual positions, of course, feel free to do so. But please stop with the fallacies.

1) I’m not stating that now, I’m stating that a state that had free speech and all the variety of other freedoms people commonly think of, would still be a free state, if there was conscription, with a choice to leave.
But you didn’t offer an adequate reason why this lack of freedom was so significant, just that it infringes on freedom. Society is 1) not truly stable, and 2) the stability is like that of a stable slave state. It would not be an enormous imposition on personal liberty? A year or two serving your country still leaves you your entire life. And by being a citizen you agree to take this civic duty. If anything, alla kant or rousseau, I would argue doing your duty, could be seen as being ‘forced to be free’

I think I don’t want to substitute my choice for that of every other person, and your “like every despotic temperament” was a fallacious point.

You need to learn what the word coercion means.

I really hate having philosophical conversations with people that can’t do philosophy.

2) Scale doesn’t matter to principles. If something is right or wrong by principle it doesn’t matter the scale. If x is wrong by definition, it doesn’t matter if there is a lot of x or not much x.

It wouldn’t be logic, you’re right. Again you are misleading because I keep saying I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT COERCION, SOMETHING YOU KEEP IGNORING. You are not forced in your situation because the alternative is fine. The alternative to not working in capitalism is not fine, and people have to work. Military for poor people falls under the same principle. Key to this exploitation and force is a fair baseline, and acceptable alternative. No snicker – fine. No other stable profession/education etc. not so fine.

I’m fine to just leave this conversation, since you keep failing in basic logic, I have not committed a single fallacy, I’m not arguing against the fallacies, and this seems to be a general waste of both of our times.

fundamentally though, wage slavery is a thing, military is a particularly potent form that exploits it. that is wrong. read up the arguments for wage slavery with an open mind once you can open your eyes beyond very specious notions of freedom, liberty etc.

@"Socrates Dissatisfied"

Although I basically do agree that military service is sometimes an exploitative "offer you can't refuse" for people with no other options, forcing everyone into military or other service does not solve the problem. It does not remove the source of the duress (economic insecurity) *and* it dilutes the benefits of service by distributing them to everyone.

In order to remove the duress that makes the poor into exploitation targets, you'd have to provide some kind of basic income as a benefit from the universal service. So why not provide the benefit straightaway, without the service requirement, and leave service to those with the disposition to do that well?

SD,

1) I did, in fact, offer a distinction between the kinds of infringement of liberty involved in the examples you gave (taxation, public nuisance) and that which you propose -- forced control of (arguably) most aspects of your life for two years of adulthood. I'm sure you're too familiar with the classical treatments of liberty -- Locke, Mills -- for me to have to rehearse them for you here. Suffice to say, such laws as your examples seem, and in any event have been broadly accepted to be, necessary to any minimal social order; whereas the laws you propose manifestly are not, and involve a great many more instances of coercion.

(And yes, you are arguing for coercion. Laws operate by coercion. This is an utterly basic point in political philosophy. But perhaps you wouldn't contest that, and your problem with the word "coercion" was limited to point 2).

Society is "not truly stable," you say -- well, OK. But here we get into real vaguenesses. Society is pretty *dang* stable, and "not truly stable" could be used to justify anything at all. You are obviously very far short of an argument for this particular measure being necessary to preserve a specific type of stability. (Of course, we are on a web forum).

As for the stability being "like that of a stable slave state" -- well, first of all, you just said it wasn't truly stable, so you're contradicting yourself. Second of all, your assertion is laughable to anybody familiar with the history of different societies in the world, including slave states. Ours is among the freest organized societies ever to exist.

You can assert that I "can't do philosophy," but you should provide actual arguments.

2) "Scale doesn’t matter to principles. If something is right or wrong by principle it doesn’t matter the scale. If x is wrong by definition, it doesn’t matter if there is a lot of x or not much x."

This is just more casuistry. You are misdefining the principle so that it contains too many cases. You are right -- in capitalism, one must work (and this is fine and moral), although one is unlikely to actually die of starvation or exposure if one does not. However, once again, the choice faced by individuals entering the military is not (or, you have not shown that it is) to enter the military or not to work at all. Often, it is to enter the military or to work at a worse job and live a worse life. So, as in the snickers example, "the alternative is fine."

In brief, you are too broadly defining the "principle." Immoral force is when the person must choose between life and death, maiming or keeping their limbs. Offering them the choice between an apartment and a house does not constitute immoral force, even if the house is very attractive.

Even to the extent, by the way, that there were people who had to join the military or starve, your solution wouldn't solve a thing. They would still be forced to join the military, and presumably they would be forced to stay there for more than two years (or return to starving).

@ tendmote, i do also believe in the universal aid to everyone. i do think there is something to be said for any essential civic good being contributed to by everyone though.

@semck, as i said, im fine to stop arguing seeing as neither of us are convincing the other, and seem to just not be getting close to any new opinions. if you really want to continue i'm happy to too, over pm/email/formal articles.

SD,

If you have an article you'd like to PM me, I'll try to read it as time allows. I don't presently feel the need to add anything more on my side, thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yT4RZy1t3s you might find part 1 of interest, i haven't seen it, as a disclaimer, but i have read the book, and this was the nearest supposed summation i could find. this is just for conscription, not general wage slavery.

@"Socrates Dissatisfied"

Well, "something to be said" is a pretty flimsy basis for universal conscription.

If conscription is to be considered separately from a basic income, you need to justify conscription with more than that.

If conscription is connected to a basic income, then your system carries out the very same exploitation that the current system does; the poor still have no choice but to enter service or endure economic insecurity. In fact, I would reckon even jail would be an option for refusing to serve.

everyone should get a basic income regardless of anything, i think.

separate from basic income, is the fact that it is a civic good, everyone has a civic duty to the society that invests so much in them, and everyone should repay that, and work for the betterment of the country. a conscription of a year or two, for serving in the army, or, more importantly, teaching, fire brigade, health service etc.

The problem is that being a soldier, or firefighter, or teacher, or physician's assistant, are all occupations that require skill and motivation. Flooding the market with conscripted labor diminishes the quality of these services, and diminishes the income of those who would choose to do it, and do it well.

If somebody has a paying job, then they are investing something back in the society that has given to them. They are doing something that enough people find valuable to be worth thousands of dollars a year. A restaurant server, for example, is helping improve many people's lives, and thus society. Why single out only a few careers as improving?

Israel's army is conscript and is one of thebest most efficient in the world.

Finland has national service and handles that well.

people would be motivated if they had the correct civic values. perhaps not appropriate for a dog eat dog capitalist society.

it's not just about improving society. the argument is not utilitarian, but deontological.

"Israel's army is conscript and is one of thebest most efficient in the world."

They definitely need conscription to maintain an adequately effective military.

"Finland has national service and handles that well."

So what?

"people would be motivated if they had the correct civic values"

Are you proposing mind control?

"The problem is that being a soldier, or firefighter, or teacher, or physician's assistant, are all occupations that require skill and motivation. Flooding the market with conscripted labor diminishes the quality of these services, and diminishes the income of those who would choose to do it, and do it well. "

the points were a rebuttal fo that claim.

no, or only sort of. everyone is indoctrinated by the society they are in - not in a malicious way, but society has pervading values that influence people. if people were taught well, read the philosophy of thinkers like rousseau at school, then i think people would be more motivated to serve. an ethical society in general would have more people with righteous civic values, and why should people not be educated on philosophy well? i'm spending far too much time on here, so i hope you forgive me if my reply rate drops.

Ah, so the reason a straightforward solution to the exploitative enlistment problem (i.e. a basic income) does not appeal to you is that it is not a great enough stride toward the philosophical society you imagine. As such your concern about this enlistment issue is just a stalking horse you're using in a grander plan, you inferior little demagogue.

"if people were taught well, read the philosophy of thinkers like rousseau at school, then i think people would be more motivated to serve"

Well, maybe. That's definitely a stretch. People educated in philosophy are not inherently virtuous.

no - i would take the basic income over nothing, just like i would take the conscription over nothing too. i think your ad hominem attack of "inferior little demagogue" was rather harsh, to say the least.

depends on your definition of educated.

"rather harsh, to say the least"

Really? You've insulted people repeatedly on this thread. I did substantiate it by connecting a supposed concern for the plight of the exploited to your larger societal goals, though.

but i have not insulted you. also, my insults were warranted, and yours was factually incorrect

I would add that from my studies te military does not support the idea of mandatory conscription. A volunteer army I easier to manage and easier to train. When people are forced to serve the army must find more NCOs to manage the soldiers ad NCOs cost more. The army prefers a few hundred dedicated volunteers to several thousand angry conscriptions. The draft in particular is a political option, any military scientists will tell you this. I'm not a believer in mandatory service for this reason. I've been an NCO in JROTC and have had to deal with people who's parents made then join. They don't oerform at 100%