Conscription = Slavery ?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-06-2016, 02:17 AM)Dill Wrote: Don't get the rape reference. Do rapists pay their victims?

The question was whether conscription in the service of one's country was slavery, otherwise known as becoming some private individual's property to serve that person.

While I've got your ear, Roto, I'm just wondering how you would respond to this dilemma.  Imagine that the US stayed out of  WWII and the UK and Soviet Union were defeated by '43. By '46, Japan and Germany are poised to invade the US from Mexico and Canada.  There is a chance we could repel the invaders in a two front war; we have the manpower.  But our military is too small to defend both fronts, in part because we don't want to "enslave" citizens to defend their country. And we don't have enough volunteers.

Would you submit to the invasion because it's not ok to force someone to do something against his will? 

If China and Poland are any indication, Japanese and Germans imposed something much harsher than conscription on subject populations.

Please don't say "we're not under threat right now." I am just asking a question about a principle. What would you do in this hypothetical case?

I'm not Roto, However I agree with you and others that conscription is not slavery.  I do believe that it should only be used in an absolute national emergency (I agree with Harley that Vietnam was not one.)  If we are attacked directly, every person in this country should be able to be called upon to defend it.  On the other side of this argument is that I think an all volunteer force is preferable (and the generals agree), because you get a more professional military.  But sometimes you need all hands on deck!