Gautam Mukunda schreef:
> > Behalf Of William T Goodall
> > on 30/5/01 2:21 AM, Gautam Mukunda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> Behalf Of William T Goodall
> > >> William T Goodall
> > >
> Propose an alternative to
> conscription, then, that's not equivalent to national suicide.
>
> > > Conscription, of course, is not slavery.
> >
> > Yes it is.
>
> And saying so makes it true, of course. Here's the thing about
> slavery - you don't get paid. You have no rights. You can be bought
> and sold.
So soldiers can freely choose where they go or how they operate or when
they wanne leave the service? :o)
> Amazingly enough, _none_ of these are true about
> conscripts. Conscripts are paid. They do have rights.
Among which they have the right to obey and get shot at, if ordered so by
their superior officer. :o)
> And they can't be sold.
But they can be send to other countries without their consent. Doesn't
sound like being a free citizen to me.
> They aren't owned by anyone.
They aren't free to do as they please either. If you are drafted I doubt
you can say: 'Well I don't wanne go there. It is much too dangerous'.
> They are citizens, engaged in the ultimate duty of citizenship -
> protecting the existence
> of their society by risking their own lives in its defence.
....and without any way to object to decisions made previously that put
them in that spot in the first place.
> > > Oddly enough, people have responsibilities in society as well as
> rights.
Yeah they do. But fighting wars just because the 'boss' says so? Doesn't
sound like democratic bliss to me.
> > Society is people banding together for mutual benefit. When society
> starts
> > trying to kill you, that isn't a benefit any more.
Indeed I agree with this statement. As for most of the EU, people serving
voluntarily in our armies get a lot of benefits to compensate for the
chance of their lives, eventually, being put at risk on an instants notice
and on behalf of the country they serve. As long as it is peace time
everybody envies them. In wartimes however that turns into a totally
different story. Still there are plenty of men (and women) who are willing
to take the benifits alongside the risks that go with it. And I do admire
them for that. So this sounds like an alternative to me. Albeit an
expensive one. On the other hand I do think that this type of army also
contributes to prevention of thoughtless and unnecesary agressive wars. It
is more likely to be put into service in the name of protection then
agression. But I could be totally wrong here.
> So obviously society _does_ have the right to inconvenience some of its
> members in
> order to protect the rest. Society is a compact for both individual
> and collective benefit, and sometimes the individual is trumped by the
> collective.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement as such. Although
interpretation might vary a bit due to the differences in point of view. I
enjoy the benifits of the society I live in and try to adhere as best I
can to the collectively stated or via the government stated collectively
enforced behavioural rules that go with that. (Of course always keeping in
mind that this is peace time). So what would happen during war time? I
don't know, I have no idea what that would feel like ..... never been in a
war zone.
> The Bill of Rights in the United States is a set of
> standards laying out exactly those times when that is not acceptable.
> But if you _never_ sacrifice some individual person's welfare for the
> good of the society as a whole, then society will cease to exist,
> because you won't be able to punish criminals, or collect taxes, or
> punish people who speed, for that matter, since they too obviously
> gain individual welfare by doing so.
>
> > > Among those responsibilities is one to help defend that society
> > > against its enemies.
> >
> > Tax. That pays for defence.
>
> And when that's insufficient? Or just inefficient?
>
> > > Conscription is nothing more than the government's
> > > enforcement of that responsibility.
> >
> > An enforced responsibility is an oxymoron.
>
> Really? You have a responsibility to obey contracts. The government
> enforces it.
I don't think they do. Of course if I'm some one who is responsible I make
sure I obey the contracts or else nobody will work with me anymore, but
government enforcement? Isn't it more like that my contractpartner will
enforce this contract upon me. I don't think the government as such
enforces anything (with the exception of course if the government is my
contract partner that is). In theory the society we live in (by way of
government) makes the rules we play by and gives the players the means to
enforce the rules if they deem this necesary. But if I don't obey my
contract and my contractpartner doesn't want to enforce it using the
availably means, then nothing will happen to me on account of the
government (again unless my contract partner is the government that is
;o)).
As I see it I just happen to live on this piece of earth, that happens to
be Dutch. I pay my taxes to help the state in taking care of a nice social
security network thereby laying the foundation for a nice comfortable
lifestyle in relative security, as well as to pay for the defence by
members of this same society who are willing to take the risks that go
with the extra benifits for serving their country voluntarily. And since
this is a mutual agreement, I can profit from the social security and the
protection I help pay for with my taxes.
> You have a responsibility to pay your taxes.
I don't think I do. At least not all taxes. If I don't wanne pay all of
the rather high taxrates (especially those paying for the social security)
in the Netherlands I can ask for exemption of them (this saves up to 27%?
in incometaxes). But then I also cannot profit from the benifits those
taxes pay for anymore. I think it's the same for the US?
> The government enforces it. You have a responsibility to take care of
> your children. The government enforces that too.
I don't think it does. (Allow me to simplify to black and white here to
state my case) If you don't take care of your kids and they are at risk
due to the fact that parental care is insufficient, the government steps
in and simply takes over from you, the parent. Correct me if I'm wrong but
I don't think that they enforce anything. They just make sure the kids
aren't harmed because the society has consented that kids shouldn't be at
risk. But that is a far cry from enforcing parental care as such. If you
don't take care of your kids you loose them to the state.
> Now, I'm not British, but I have a feeling that all of those
> responsibilities are
> enforced in Britain as well as the United States.
I think that it is a matter of the point of view. I agree that there are
always consequences for not playing by the rules made by the society you
live in. But going so far as to explicitly say they are enforced by the
government I'm not sure that applies to all the cases you cited. Maybe
putting it that enforcement is done through the governemental system if so
desired by all participants or for the benifit of the weakest (as
concented by the society you live in) might be a touch nearer to the
truth.
Or maybe I just read too much Culture stuff during the last couple of
weeks. ;o)
Sonja
