Conscription = Slavery ?

[Rotobeast]

With the debate of women registering for selective service, I began thinking about the idea of a draft.

How can it not be considered slavery ?
People (majority of them) are forced into doing something they otherwise would have no part of and will be jailed should they outright refuse.

I really don't see how the Supreme Court could view slavery and conscription as being different.

I know we have some military guys here and I'm anxious to hear your thoughts.
I respect what you've done to help our country and do not feel that anyone is above those of you who've served.
My thoughts dwell mostly on the government's hypocrisy and our freedom, which you've helped preserve.

So.....

[Belsnickel]

Truthfully, the only thing that makes conscription not slavery is one qualifier: they get paid. We also have to keep in mind that forced labor is, by some definitions, a form of slavery (and conscription is forced labor) but chattel slavery is what the 13th was all about. Essentially, it is a question of society. This was all hashed out in 1918 in Arver v. United States. Here is the last paragraph of the court's opinion:

Quote:Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

Essentially, it is because of the court's view of serving in the military as "supreme and noble duty" that made them see the imposition of involuntary servitude, which conscription is, to not be in violation of the 13th. They are saying with this that you shouldn't not want to fight, so your opinion doesn't matter.

[HarleyDog]

In the event of a draft, it would be for the greater good of the nation. The draft would take place if/when the military felt under staffed to fight a war, or multiple wars. At this point it becomes for the greater good and survival of a nation. Vietnam was not a good example of what I am speaking, but in general, that's the difference.

[xxlt]

(12-04-2016, 10:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Truthfully, the only thing that makes conscription not slavery is one qualifier: they get paid. We also have to keep in mind that forced labor is, by some definitions, a form of slavery (and conscription is forced labor) but chattel slavery is what the 13th was all about. Essentially, it is a question of society. This was all hashed out in 1918 in Arver v. United States. Here is the last paragraph of the court's opinion:


Essentially, it is because of the court's view of serving in the military as "supreme and noble duty" that made them see the imposition of involuntary servitude, which conscription is, to be in violation of the 13th. They are saying with this that you shouldn't not want to fight, so your opinion doesn't matter.

I think they are saying it is bullshit, but what can they do, they are only only the Supremes. 

[xxlt]

(12-04-2016, 10:53 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: In the event of a draft, it would be for the greater good of the nation. The draft would take place if/when the military felt under staffed to fight a war, or multiple wars. At this point it becomes for the greater good and survival of a nation. Vietnam was not a good example of what I am speaking, but in general, that's the difference.

But what you get is always a Vietnam. In a "just" war you don't need to conscript. Look at the old photos from 1941 forward of guys standing in line to volunteer. Even conscientious objectors volunteered for non-combat roles.

[xxlt]

(12-04-2016, 08:44 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: With the debate of women registering for selective service, I began thinking about the idea of a draft.

How can it not be considered slavery ?
People (majority of them) are forced into doing something they otherwise would have no part of and will be jailed should they outright refuse.

I really don't see how the Supreme Court could view slavery and conscription as being different.

I know we have some military guys here and I'm anxious to hear your thoughts.
I respect what you've done to help our country and do not feel that anyone is above those of you who've served.
My thoughts dwell mostly on the government's hypocrisy and our freedom, which you've helped preserve.

So.....

Great thread topic. I assume you have seen Platoon. King's line about the rich always ***** over the poor comes to mind. 

[fredtoast]

The draft is not slavery for the same reason that taking taxes is not stealing.

[xxlt]

(12-04-2016, 12:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The draft is not slavery for the same reason that taking taxes is not stealing.

Two things:

1. Why, if you know, are there questions in another thread about you being banned? 

2. Government expenditures are, at some level, inevitable, and so taxes at some level are also. An army is not inevitable or necessary. (Costa Rica, for example, does not have an army.) If a government chooses to maintain an army it can recruit and hire soldiers or mercenaries, it is not required to conscript them. So, while the government may like your argument, I do not. 

[Bengalzona]

(12-04-2016, 12:36 PM)xxlt Wrote: 1. Why, if you know, are there questions in another thread about you being banned?

[Bengalzona]

Conscription is archaic and a move for the desperate only. The morale of conscripts is generally so low that an army needs to commit a significant percent of its forces just policing the conscripts and keeping them from running from battle. If the war is bad enough, you end up with your forces fighting themselves more than the enemy.

It will be even less necessary in the future as we will see more and more fighting done by drones (air, sea and land as the technology improves).

[HarleyDog]

(12-04-2016, 12:11 PM)xxlt Wrote: But what you get is always a Vietnam. In a "just" war you don't need to conscript. Look at the old photos from 1941 forward of guys standing in line to volunteer. Even conscientious objectors volunteered for non-combat roles.

Not necessarily. Vietnam was arguably an interest and not a war, specially not our war. I am speaking in terms of a WW and the need for a country to self-sustain its ability to exist under it's own rule. We will inevitably face this one day and I hope a draft is not needed, but is there in case. We have sheltered our younger generations from these possibilities. They cannot fathom how quickly things can change and how the skies can change quickly from sunshine to soot and smoke. If our youth are forced to fight a WW, our nation, as we know it, will die! When it does, then they will fully understand the difference between conscription & slavery.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

After Vietnam I don't think you'll see a draft again unless the US is in a war for it's existence.

[Dill]

(12-04-2016, 08:44 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: With the debate of women registering for selective service, I began thinking about the idea of a draft.

How can it not be considered slavery ?
People (majority of them) are forced into doing something they otherwise would have no part of and will be jailed should they outright refuse.

I really don't see how the Supreme Court could view slavery and conscription as being different.

I know we have some military guys here and I'm anxious to hear your thoughts.
I respect what you've done to help our country and do not feel that anyone is above those of you who've served.
My thoughts dwell mostly on the government's hypocrisy and our freedom, which you've helped preserve.

So.....

I'm not a military guy, but I don't think conscription, in itself, is slavery or even a bad thing. Much depends on what sort of military you are conscripted into and for what purposes. E.g., British style impressment in the 18th and early 19th century might qualify as slavery or involuntary servitude.

In the US context I don't think it ever has been slavery. People are not bought and sold. They are paid. They have time off. There is time limit for service. The goal is not some master's profit but preserving the conditions under which the rest of society, including possibly the conscript's family, can remain free. 

We can have discussions like this because the US has not really been under existential threat since the height of the Cold War, and we've not been engaged in a hot war that was an existential threat since WWII.

Until recently, Germans had universal male conscription. Those who did not want to join the military could serve the country in other capacities, such as ambulance drivers.  I don't know why that would be bad in the US, where so much of the population is so far from sacrificing anything to keep their 1st-world lifestyles.  Perhaps people would take politics more seriously if they had some skin in the game.

[Dill]

(12-04-2016, 03:14 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: We have sheltered our younger generations from these possibilities. They cannot fathom how quickly things can change and how the skies can change quickly from sunshine to soot and smoke. If our youth are forced to fight a WW, our nation, as we know it, will die! When it does, then they will fully understand the difference between conscription & slavery.

I don't find myself often agreeing with Harley, but I am with him on this point.

[*bfine32*]

I think every able-bodied American should be sworn to and trained in Defense of the Nation.

[Rotobeast]

So, some seem to think that it is ok to force someone to do something against their will as long as they are compensated financially ?

Well...... that kind of blows rape out of the water, I guess.

[fredtoast]

(12-04-2016, 03:14 PM)HarleyDog Wrote:  We have sheltered our younger generations from these possibilities. They cannot fathom how quickly things can change and how the skies can change quickly from sunshine to soot and smoke. If our youth are forced to fight a WW, our nation, as we know it, will die! When it does, then they will fully understand the difference between conscription & slavery.

Wars are won with technology and industrial might.  The modern generation of the UNited States would still kick ass in a war.

The older generations who think they are so tough would be wiped out by today's soldiers with their advanced technological weapons.  

[Bengalzona]

(12-05-2016, 01:03 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: So, some seem to think that it is ok to force someone to do something against their will as long as they are compensated financially ?

Well...... that kind of blows rape out of the water, I guess.

Just leave a tip on her nightstand. You'll be fine.

[Belsnickel]

(12-05-2016, 01:03 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: So, some seem to think that it is ok to force someone to do something against their will as long as they are compensated financially ?

Well...... that kind of blows rape out of the water, I guess.

What you're seeing is the same attitude that led SCOTUS to uphold the draft. The idea that military service in defense of your country is somehow above the idea of involuntary servitude because it is seen by many as a noble role is one that is rooted strongly in our country.

[Au165]

(12-05-2016, 08:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What you're seeing is the same attitude that led SCOTUS to uphold the draft. The idea that military service in defense of your country is somehow above the idea of involuntary servitude because it is seen by many as a noble role is one that is rooted strongly in our country.

I agree with you if it is to defend the country, however in cases where we go to other countries that have not declared war on us this is where I have a problem. We should never even think to draft when we decide to play world police. We need to look at our current military staffing before we make the decision to be world police not after then decide to use a draft to make up the gap.