If you don't want to pay taxes, don't earn above the tax threshold.

Now what am I supposed to do if I don't want to be conscripted. Change age? — Isaac

Even the poorest pay the VAT tax though.

To avoid having to kill people, there is always the possibility of conscientious objection.

During WW1, and perhaps many other wars, conscripts would shoot their own fingers off, break an arm or some other self injury to avoid being on the front.

Then conscription is unnecessary. So why instigate it. — Isaac

Conscription is basically a manpower issue: if you have enough people to man a wartime army on a volunteer basis, then you can have voluntary service.

If you didn't have enough manpower otherwise to counter a foe in the 20th Century (Israel, Finland, Switzerland) then conscription and basically a reservist army is the answer. The war in Ukraine has now shown that manpower in the 21st Century is important: smart gizmos won't do the trick.

You're just completely ignoring the issue. War is bad, being taken over by a foreign power is bad.

Two bad things. You can't have neither, you have to choose which.

The question at hand here is simply why does the government decide and force its decision on the people? — Isaac

And you don't understand my answer. Seems you never haven't served in the military or even thought about the issue...as likely there's no threat of war where you live. But war for a society isn't similar like paying taxes. It's not a question if the government provides some service or not. For you it seems that wars are likely fought by some other people in other countries far far away where you live. Your not involved in any way.

I've said again and again: Governments don't decide if people are willing to fight for them or not. The state can put you into the army, it can give you an uniform and an assault rifle and try to teach you to fight. But once in the battlefield, no authority will make you fight. You can always raise your hands and hope that the enemy will accept your surrender. Or you can try to flee, put on civilian clothes and try to make it home or to go abroad and hope to get political asylum somewhere.

Hence it's not just the government's decision to choose war or to choose surrender. Even if the government surrenders, military resistance or an insurgency can develop however willing a new government is to serve the new masters.

Even the poorest pay the VAT tax though. — Olivier5

Taxation is not an impositions at all, it's the government collecting its legal property.

Besides which, unless you're arguing that VAT payment risks death and torture, all this is pointless.

I've said again and again: Governments don't decide if people are willing to fight for them or not. — ssu

So? What's that got to do with conscription?

If you just want to keep a record of random things you think, I suggest a diary might be a better format for you.

This is a discussion forum. The topic is the ground on which a government has a right to conscript.

If you haven't got anything to say on that topic, maybe just focus on other threads?

Taxation is not an impositions at all, it's the government collecting its legal property. — Isaac

Nope, it's how the state pays for public goods, such as national defense.

I thought of a more costly non-choice imposition a government can make on free, innocent adults: bomb them, like the Russians are doing to the Ukrainians.

Taxation is not an impositions at all, it's the government collecting its legal property. — Isaac


Nope — Olivier5

Are you suggesting that the government is taking property not legally belong to it?

I thought of a more costly non-choice imposition a government can make on free, innocent adults: bomb them, like the Russians are doing to the Ukrainians. — Olivier5

So bombing is justified? That sounds a little sociopathic to me. I don't think you're going to get much sympathy for such a view.

So bombing is justified? That sounds a little sociopathic to me. — Isaac

That would be because of your perverse narcissism, a form of sociopathy where the diseased tries to calm his inferiority complex by putting down others.

I never said bombing was good, I siad it was worse than conscription. You asked for something worse than conscription, that a government can do. I gave that to you: a war of agression, bombing people out of the blue like Russia is doing, is worse than conscription.

Another thing worse than conscription IMO, that governments can do, is climate change denial, as done by many US governments over the years.

You asked for something worse than conscription, that a government can do. — Olivier5

No I didn't.

You did say you couldn't think of a more costly non-choice imposition a government can make on free, innocent adults. Now you can think of one: bombing folks out of the blue, like Russia is doing.

I can't even think of a non-choice imposition a government makes on free, innocent adults at all, let alone one which carries such a high cost. — Isaac

This position is precisely what I was responding to: a government can obviously do far worse than conscription: it can bomb folks.

So? What's that got to do with conscription? — Isaac

Motivation, the will to fight, is quite essential if a conscript/reservist army is effective or not. The classic view is that a professional/volunteer force is better trained and motivated than conscripts.

Conscription is basically a manpower issue. Yet how motivated and well trained conscripts/reservists depends on a lot of things starting from geopolitics and the society itself.

If you haven't got anything to say on that topic, maybe just focus on other threads? — Isaac

This thread wasn't started by you and from your comments it seems that you don't know much about the military or especially about conscription.

This position is precisely what I was responding to: a government can obviously do far worse than conscription: it can bomb folks. — Olivier5

1. Where did I make the claim that a government cannot do worse things than conscripting people?

2. How is being bombed worse then being shot/tortured?

3. What has any of this got to do with the grounds on which s government conscripts (you know, the actual topic)?

Motivation, the will to fight, is quite essential if a conscript/reservist army is effective or not — ssu

Very interesting in a thread about whether conscripted armies are effective. Why don't you start one if you'd like to discuss the issue?

This thread wasn't started by you — ssu

Yep...

when a country imposes conscription on its citizens, it begs the question, for whose interests is the country acting? Is the country mobilizing to save its citizens, or is it mobilizing to save the existing power structure? — _db

Where in that are you reading the question "what factors determine how effective a conscript army is?"

Where in that are you reading the question "what factors determine how effective a conscript army is?" — Isaac

States choose conscription or a volunteer force based on how effective the choice would be. This is essential to understand before answering @_db's question. Because if you don't think just why some country has chosen conscription and not a volunteer professional force, then you'll likely be carried away to some irrelevant reasons.

The obvious answer every armed forces would give is that their interests are both the people and the existing power structures, irrelevant of the armed forces being made up of conscripts/reservists or a volunteer force. Since a volunteer army is made of countries own citizens also, the question is actually a bit confusing. (I guess the Vatican's Swiss Guard is the only force that is genuinely made up of foreigners and not it's own citizens. There might be other mini-states with similar issues.)

If the military's primary function is to "save the existing power structure", it likely means that it's focus is on the domestic threat towards the state. For many Third World countries this is the primary objective of the armed forces: they aren't worried about foreign countries or neighbors invading them. But they are worried about keeping things peaceful inside the country. Hence the size of the wartime military depends on the size of the domestic population itself. If the primary function of the military is to deter foreign threats, meaning that the armed forces can deter hostile nations from invading the country, then obviously those threats form the requirements for your army for it to create a credible deterrence.

Hence if Ukraine is facing one of the largest armed forces in the World, it is quite rational for it to rely on conscription (as it has done in peacetime). Especially now as it is obviously fighting for it's existence.

Hence if Ukraine is facing one of the largest armed forces in the World, it is quite rational for it to rely on conscription (as it has done in peacetime). Especially now as it is obviously fighting for it's existence. — ssu

Just putting the word 'hence' at the beginning of a proposition doesn't magically turn it into a valid conclusion.

You've listed reasons why a conscript army might be useful at deterring a foreign threat. No one is questioning how useful a volunteer/conscript army is to the state. The question is about why the state overrides the decision of its citizens about the relative harms.

If your answer to that question is "because the state will find it useful", then it is power structures being defended.

The question is about why the state overrides the decision of its citizens about the relative harms. — Isaac

I think in the case of Corona pandemic, which didn't turn into the next Spanish flu or the Black Death by death count, such a debate about relative harms and the state overriding the decisions of its citizens is useful.

When a foreign entity attacks a country and the people find themselves in a war, similar debate of relative harms isn't useful. People do understand the threat if the cities they live in are bombed.

As I said, if the state would override its citizens actual will, the army simply would surrender or even simply melt away. The idea that any state can force people to take up arms when they don't want to, simply will not happen. Sure, there can be (and usually are) some individuals, but do not underestimate the ability of people to do something collectively.

Perhaps you should give a historical example where the state overrides the decision of its citizens about the relative harms to advance this discussion.

People do understand the threat if the cities they live in are bombed. — ssu

Then conscription is unnecessary. People will voluntarily join the army if they understand the need.

The idea that any state can force people to take up arms when they don't want to, simply will not happen. — ssu

So why did Ukraine instigate conscription. It can't force its citizens to fight, you say, so the only real fighters it's going to get are free volunteers. What's with all the laws then? A joke?

Perhaps you should give a historical example where the state overrides the decision of its citizens about the relative harms to advance this discussion. — ssu

Conscription. The whole point of the argument is that there is no other.

If you're seriously going to advance the argument that every conscript actually wants to fight then we've nothing more to say. I'm not discussing with such blatant nonsense.

1. Where did I make the claim that a government cannot do worse things than conscripting people? — Isaac

Oh, that's easy. Here:

I can't even think of a non-choice imposition a government makes on free, innocent adults at all, let alone one which carries such a high cost. — Isaac

2. How is being bombed worse then being shot/tortured? — Isaac

I never said it was. You are trying to misunderstand me.

3. What has any of this got to do with the grounds on which s government conscripts (you know, the actual topic)? — Isaac

The link is that governments often resort conscription once another nation starts to attack and bomb them and their citizens. For example, that's what Ukraine did. Do you understand? This is a bit of a subtle point.

governments often resort conscription once another nation starts to attack and bomb them and their citizens. For example, that's what Ukraine did. — Olivier5

What's that got to do with the OP? I don't think anyone is wondering whether governments resort to conscription, nor what circumstances they might do so in. Did you read anyone asking either of those questions?

The OP opens with...

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine imposed a general mobilization of all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 60, and banned them from leaving the country. — _db

So how could you possibly read that and think the thread was about whether and when a government might use conscription?

The question is about why the state overrides the decision of its citizens about the relative harms. — Isaac

Because for all practical intents and purposes the state owns its citizens. The citizens are subjects of the state.

Because for all practical intents and purposes the state owns its citizens. The citizens are subjects of the state. — baker

Yep. That's the answer I'd go for. Conscription is about the aims of the state, not the population.

What's that got to do with the OP? — Isaac

The Russian aggression of Ukraine is literally mentioned in the OP. How could it be irrelevant to it?

So how could you possibly read that and think the thread was about whether and when a government might use conscription? — Isaac

Because the OP speaks about that too. You should try and be a better reader.

In any case, I think now you agree that a government can do far worse than conscription. Like it can bomb folks.

Even its own folks like they did in Chechnya.

Of all the evils of government, forcing individuals to kill and die is by far the worst. — Tzeentch

I would think that the worse a government can do is kill a whole lot of people. Like waging a war of aggression, or committing a genocide, or anihilating the chances of survival of future generations.

@Isaac, @Olivier5

Stop this.

'This' being what, may I ask?

@Isaac

You both derailed the thread by getting into a condescending insult spiral. Any complaints, take it to PMs or feedback, not here.

Stop this. — fdrake

Fair enough.

You both derailed the thread by getting into a condescending insult spiral. — fdrake

I might steal this.

Then conscription is unnecessary. People will voluntarily join the army if they understand the need. — Isaac

Training an army from civilians doesn't happen in an instant. In WW1 for the British Army it took one year to man a larger force into France after the war had started. Initially the so-called "Kitchener's Army" of half million men was intended to be ready in mid 1916, but it was used first in September 1915. Another example is just how long in WW2 it took to create the US wartime armed forces after Pearl Harbour as prior to the war the US army was smaller than the army of Belgium.

And if the opponent can invade your country before that, then it's meaningless to try to create an army that will take a year to create. Hence one option is to have conscription to create a large reserve force.

So why did Ukraine instigate conscription. It can't force its citizens to fight, you say, so the only real fighters it's going to get are free volunteers. What's with all the laws then? A joke? — Isaac

Manpower and actual combat capability are two different things, Isaac. Don't confuse the two. With conscription your manpower problems are solved. But morale, training and good equipment are needed to form military capability.

With conscription you simply get far more men (in some countries women) to train in the military than by having military service voluntary. (I can speak of my own experience: I would have never thought to join the armed forces if it was voluntary. I simply thought it wasn't for me, I wasn't good in shape, I was a bit shy in my youth and didn't think I was the type for military service. Well, my prejudices about military service were proved false).

With conscription you have the potential for a large reservist army, but naturally then that reserve has to be trained an has to have equipment for it. Large countries opt not have a large reserve. Basically Ukraine has this problem now: it has a lot of potential reservists, but it lacks the equipment and training to form capable military formations from this source.

Russia is a case example where you do have conscription, but basically after the obligatory military service the reservists aren't actually used: there is no logistical system to mobilize them and they haven't been trained afterwards their conscript service. Hence Putin has a real manpower problem, even if there are many under 30-years males that have done their military service as potential reservists. And naturally he doesn't dare to draft reservist from Moscow or St. Petersburg, as this isn't a war, remember? Soviet Union had basically on paper a huge reserve, but mobilizing this reserve would have meant such a gigantic effort, something that to mobilize was basically more theoretical than realistic.

If you're seriously going to advance the argument that every conscript actually wants to fight then we've nothing more to say. — Isaac

Your strawmanning again, Isaac

Even in a volunteer force likely not every one will fight when the bullets start flying.

Conscription is about the aims of the state, not the population. — Isaac

I think this is your main point. And when you can't (or won't) understand that conscription is basically a manpower issue, you'll just stick to this meaningless dichotomy of the state's agenda and the "people's" agenda.

Yet answer this, if conscription is about the aims of the state, not the population, then just what aims of the state aren't for itself, but for the people?

Read twice, couldn't find an argument. It seems the OP has lost interest anyway, so there's little point in my replying. If you and @Olivier5 just want to swamp the thread with pointless diversions about how conscription works, then do so. With no one discussing the justification for it it seems a waste of time trying to keep such a line of debate open.

A Discussion with you is quite pointless. You won't even engage in discussion, just respond that others' answers are 'irrelevant', you can't find an argument, others are reading the OP wrong or not answering it etc. When asked questions, you don't answer.

Luckily there are others here than you.