Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden brings back military conscription

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 418 posts

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#331

Post by discombobulate »

dropit_sphere wrote: post #317
entropyneur wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let them volunteer to die for it! But the existence (or even plurality) of poor Finns preferring death over becoming Russians doesn't justify forcing those who don't share their sentiment to die with them.

There are two things, one proveable and one unproveable, that I don't think you understand: 1. You are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people have some amount of ethnic, religious, or nationalist pride. They want to be ruled by one of their own. They are not eager to die for this, but are often willing to do so, as long as they're not being made chumps of. 2. They're right, and you're wrong. Or, to pu…

> You are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people have some amount of ethnic, religious, or nationalist pride.

1. There's a difference between what's popular & what's ethical.

2. Since we're being intuitive here: Throwing a bunch of amateur teenagers at the problem doesn't seem like the best solution. It could be a cheap solution. A type of hidden tax which taxes the lives of people who have no way to vote. Two foxes and a hen voting what's for dinner type of thing.

Edit: 'type of thing' added.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#332

Post by mikeash »

icambron wrote: post #316
mikeash wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afghanistan succeeded in getting the Soviets out in the end. With the US they made the mistake of badly provoking a powerful nation. It may not be the best example, but it works.

I'm having difficulty reconciling this statement > The goal is not to get invaded in the first place with this one > Afghanistan succeeded in getting the Soviets out in the end.

The example of the Soviets losing is what would deter others. That's why I then had to explain away the US trying it not too long after.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#333

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

mrob wrote: post #324
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any citizen of any modern state, is at least, to some extent, a slave.

In all civilized states you are allowed to protest against your leaders. You can march with a "not my president" sign and so long as you are non-violent you will be allowed to continue. Try a "not my commander" protest in the army.

I don't know how that goes against my argument. Try not paying income taxes and you will find out that any citizen is at least a partial slave to their state.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#334

Post by discombobulate »

maus42 wrote: post #320
billpg wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it unfair?

The traditional definition for a slave is a human who is treated as (usually tradable) property for their labor. I always like to point out that the predecessor to the Western civilization, the ancient Mediterranean, including Greek city states and then later on Rome, was famously built upon slave labor. Even the democratic Athens had a large slave population. However, in a Greek city state like Athens (or the earlie…

Another definition from the Oxford Dictionary is, 'A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something'[0].

Being forced to fight in a war is being 'controlled by something'. In this case, a government. They're government slaves.

[0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#335

Post by kristianp »

yjgyhj wrote: post #77
pinum wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't sound like conscription, then. If they didn't have enough people saying yes, do they start drawing from the "no" pile?

Yes they do - if not enough people volunteer, they will force the ones seeming most fit for the tasks at hand. Also, if I know the Swedish military, they'll chose the most fit for the task, but make absolutely sure to fill the gender quotas.

What's the required gender ratio, out of curiosity?

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#336

Post by zzzcpan »

dropit_sphere wrote: post #330
Arizhel wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still slavery, because some fraction of them doesn't want to serve. So if there's any punishment for refusing to serve, or for deserting, then it's slavery. If there's no punishment, or if they're allowed to opt-out, then it's not really conscription.

>That's still slavery, Sure, OK. Slavery is not the worst possible state of existence, you know. My dog is not only a slave, but a captive slave: she can't leave my property, and I punish her when she tries to leave. But, looking at her dozing off in the sun right now, she seems pretty happy. Most people prefer the soft slavery of possible conscription, to the expected outcomes of foreign invasion. It helps that when…

"to defend your homeland"

That's actually a very typical war propaganda. In reality you are defending the order your state imposes on you and everyone. In slave terms you are defending your master's desire to control you from other masters. And that's it.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#337

Post by icebraining »

colechristensen wrote: post #172
BurningFrog wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a ton of real world experience that "troubled" kids often become reliable citizens by a few years in the military. What they learn is working in a team, taking responsibility and being accountable.

Not to mention that actual combat skill is a small minority of what is needed and trained in the military. Sure, the cook has a gun and knows how to use it, but otherwise he's more or less a cook only. Ditto for very very many positions both high and low skilled.

That's my whole point: since it's such a small minority already, let's take it out completely and replace it with something better.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#338

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #318
mrob wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple degrees of slavery. Eg. The Roman emperor Antoninus Pius forbade the killing of slaves without good reason, but they were still slaves. Slave does not have to mean literally zero rights.

Any citizen of any modern state, is at least, to some extent, a slave.

Hogwash. A slave is property. Inherent to slavery is some form of dehumanization, being somehow below the ruling class...a subhuman.

You are not the pet of the state. You are not regarded as less than human. This is hyperbole. You may not like being subject to taxes and laws, but you have remedies, such as renouncing your citizenship or leaving for an area not governed by a state.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#339

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

mrob wrote: post #298
FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conscription is slavery I abhor hyperbole. Slavery is the legal ownership of one person over another person and their progeny. Since they are property, slaves have absolutely no rights or any access to the legal system. You commanding officer cannot rape or kill you with impunity. He/She cannot force you to do fight with another conscript to the death. Conscripts also get paid, while slaves do not and are well fed…

There are multiple degrees of slavery. Eg. The Roman emperor Antoninus Pius forbade the killing of slaves without good reason, but they were still slaves. Slave does not have to mean literally zero rights.

Being a slave means that you are property, like a pet. It also means that you are not quite recognized as a human being.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#340

Post by dropit_sphere »

discombobulate wrote: post #331
dropit_sphere wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two things, one proveable and one unproveable, that I don't think you understand: 1. You are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people have some amount of ethnic, religious, or nationalist pride. They want to be ruled by one of their own. They are not eager to die for this, but are often willing to do so, as long as they're not being made chumps of. 2. They're right, and you're wrong. Or, to pu…

> You are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people have some amount of ethnic, religious, or nationalist pride. 1. There's a difference between what's popular & what's ethical. 2. Since we're being intuitive here: Throwing a bunch of amateur teenagers at the problem doesn't seem like the best solution. It could be a cheap solution. A type of hidden tax which taxes the lives of people who have no way to…

> There's a difference between what's popular & what's ethical.

I can certainly agree with that. My citation of popularity was to defend conscription from exactly the kind of reasoning you describe: "No one really cares about national sovereignty and it's just a few suicidal wackjobs whose quixotic desires shouldn't impinge on the lives of us normal people."

>2. Since we're being intuitive here: Throwing a bunch of amateur teenagers at the problem doesn't seem like the best solution. It could be a cheap solution. A type of hidden tax which taxes the lives of people who have no way to vote. Two foxes and a hen voting what's for dinner type of thing.

Surely you're not against universal suffrage!

Post reply on HN