Any government/country is actually just a kind of service (you pay taxes and get different goods from it). Every person should have the right to choose the provider of this service (change the country) or completely refrain from it. It means that mandatory military service is no less than slavery. People are not guilty for being born in a country they don’t want to fight for (or that they don’t want to fight at all)
You largely can choose the provider of this service, but they will also choose you (or not).
And you can not refrain from the service while being in the community of those that don’t refrain. In practice there are (nearly) no places where the community as a whole chooses to refrain.
If you’re in a country with compulsory military service, make yourself interesting for other countries and leave.
The current situation is not the best in my opinion. I think people who don’t agree with it (like me) should try to change it if possible (peaceful ways are always preferred) instead of adapting to the situation. Though everyone has the right not to fight and not to do anything at all. I’m not saying that fighting the regime you don’t like is mandatory
unless you’re a US citizen which requires the extra step of completely renouncing your US citizenship or continue paying US taxes (and therefore supporting the military mostly lol) regardless of where you may live in the world
It’s complicated, but not necessarily. The US has a lot of agreements with other countries for you to avoid having to pay taxes for both countries. If you’re living in a country with one of those agreements, you can file with the US to claim you’ve paid taxes to the foreign government.
And the US doesn’t force you to renounce your citizenship, it’s generally other countries that don’t allow dual citizenship; Germany and Denmark for example don’t allow it.
I was wrong about Denmark. I did some research last year and apparently what I found was wrong.
But the US has Tax treaties, the FEIE, and the Foreign Tax Credit programs for expats to avoid paying US tax when overseas. But you still need to file with the US.
I think you are on the right track with your ideals of the world, but I also guess you kinda know that this is not how states operate. Of course there are different types of states, but if you think of democracies, they are also not service providers to their citizens. On the contrary. Democratic states are the abstraction of all the private interests of their citizens. This is what they protect and advance. What arises out of that is that occasionally these interests will suggest a war is what the nation desires.
I do not believe in “nation’s interest”. That’s the thing that made USA an aggressive state. It also means that the minorities’ opinions are completely rejected. And yk politicians often like to do what people didn’t ask them to do. Democracy is good but the right of choosing the country and freely leaving one must always be there
At first you got to have a good analysis of how society and the economy works. Unfortunately this already is a tricky thing, because not everybody agrees.
Of course not everybody agrees. And we shouldn’t force them to agree. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make the world better for everyone. Ik it sounds naive but I’m just getting into all of this. Now I’m not an expert at all. I think you get the main idea. I’m not capable of detailing it very much yet
I think the point they are trying to hint at is that it makes sense to try and understand the emergent forces that culminate in events as horrific as war.
You may “not believe in national interests” but something closely resembling that is a force governing social behavior.
So while it is important to pass moral judgements on these phenomena, you will be more effective at doing so if you can abstractly evaluate them absent moral judgement. Just as you couldn’t coherently understand an ecology if you cannot accept obligate predators as a concept because of the moral implications of predation.
We will all differ in our moral and strategic assessments, but we all cohabit the same world, in which we can all recognize common truths arising from nature.
A democratic state allows its citizens to pursue their private interests. This is only possible though if this is happening in a legal framework, so that the private interests of one citizen don‘t infringe upon the ones of another. The outcome of this consideration then is the abstraction (the specific applied to the universal) of the free will of the citizens. We call it freedom and justice. Others call it the free market.
Eh… Close, but they are also a concentration social power (and fundamentally deferred violence), and rights only really exist in the context of social power. You can try and establish your own personal sovereignty but you can be sure that any state that cares to will test that. Sometimes the most you can do is accept that it is able to imprison you or go down fighting, and if you are committed to pacifism the latter is a harder option.
Fighting is the last option. It’s needed when a state becomes usurpated and (unpopular opinion) when the current situation creates an objective high risk for the society or its part and waiting for the election is not really an option (such risk can be exhibited as genocide, severe discrimination or just as creation of a good environment for spreading aggressive ideas. All are dangerous). I think the best thing to do in a democratic society is trying to promote ideas which you think are right so people who agree can join you and you all can have a bigger influence on elections and people who aren’t sure about their views can also find yours appealing. Leave the enforcement part for people who really know what they’re doing and who you’re sure are doing it for the higher good
Idk much about fascism but I don’t think my views are close to it. Afaik it relies on patriotism and nationalities and similar kind of stuff. I don’t believe in any of that. But I do believe that my English is not the best so it can be easy to misunderstand what I say
Fascism is the merging of the corporation and the state. Ignore the bullshit redefinition the US pulled out of their ass so that it wouldn’t apply to themselves. Kind of like how liberalism was redefined from class collaboration (what fascism is about) to being about progressivism.
Corporations should never control any states. It is what an evil corporation is. What I meant is that ultimately a government is a service because it has basically the same idea and that it must never force anyone to obey it. Laws can and should exist (it’s one of the important government’s services after all) but military service is a different thing
It’s not, mister. It’s really not. People like you make this world more aggressive. I’m not trying to fight you though. And I don’t have the energy or even the knowledge to explain. Nothing is simple. Hopefully at some point you will understand it. Though it probably would be nice to have this world simplified a little ngl
Sherut Leumi (Hebrew: שירות לאומי, lit. ‘National Service’) is an alternative voluntary form of national service in Israel, as opposed to the mandatory military conscription prevalent in the country. It is designed for individuals who do not meet the eligibility criteria for service in the Israel Defense Forces, or who hold conscientious objections to military enlistment. The program primarily was created for religious Jewish girls aged 17 to 24, although it is open to all applicants who cite diverse grounds for their decision.
The majority work in schools, but can also work in places such as special education, administration, hospitals,[3] law, geriatrics, nursing homes, health clinics, teens at risk, internal security, disadvantaged communities, immigrant assistance, and many other organizations. Acceptance is based on an interview via a placement organizations that try to find the youth appropriate skills, interests, and needs.
Although the Israeli army’s Conscience Committee can decide to allow exemption from military service, this is usually granted only to those conscientious objectors who refuse to serve on religious grounds. However, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, no discrimination is permitted “among conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs” - i.e. whether they are religious or otherwise. Even though Israeli law does allow for exemption on grounds of pacifism, the army’s Conscience Committee frequently rejects pacifists’ cases. The authorities deny objectors the possibility of performing alternative civilian service. Conscientious objectors in Israel can be convicted of and imprisoned for the same “offence” repeatedly. In 2003, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said that this practice flouts the rights of conscientious objectors under international human rights standards which prohibit “double jeopardy”.
Your point was already refuted in the article from amnesty I linked.
I mean there are good arguments both for and against compulsory military service, but only in countries that aren’t prosecuting a war of genocide. Israel can go get fucked and so can America for propping it up. In fact it’s more proper to lay the blame at America’s feet than even Israels, since they’ve been “the adult in the room” (the one with the guns) who has been enabling it.
I mean there are good arguments both for and against compulsory military service
Are there good arguments for it? If it’s compulsory, maybe you need to run your country differently so people feel its worth voluntarily defending. And/Or you can recruit heavily in areas where folks are disadvantaged and have few options, dangling education in front of them in exchange for being willing to kill or die for you.
The funny thing about knowing 18 year olds at 50+ vs being 18 years old is you can see the children these kids still are. Allowing them to join? OK. Forcing them to murder for you? As a veteran who joined at 19, no.
Edit - and arguably it’s still not a “good” idea - that’s something you do because you feel there’s no other choice at that point. It solves the short term problem, doesn’t strike me as healthy for the populace in a long term way.
It is healthy for the populace in the sense that only 26 million people die instead of the vast majority of a population of 150 million, which would have happened without conscription.
It is justified when the war is an existential threat to the people of an area, not of the state ruling the area.
I don’t disagree at all, just saying it’s not a way to keep your standing army populated that I can agree with. I don’t think this is at odds with your clarification, but if I’m missing your point please don’t hesitate to reel me in.
What about the argument that it gets more buy-in and attention from the public? That if everyone has to participate, then the public will care more and hold the military more accountable? I agree that forcing people to serve a genocidal military is wrong, though. And maybe compulsory military service doesn’t hold the military accountable (see Israel). Or maybe that is further proof that the Israeli population supports the IOF
There’s some gray - but most of it is predicated (I think) on some version of “there’s no other way” to defend the nation. I’m just less convinced now that I’m older that this is a true statement - but I don’t claim to have the answers. Any alternative approach would likely require a serious paradigm shift, and I don’t personally see that as likely without something catastrophic preceding such a shift.
My position is primarily that I’m unwilling to ever say that it’s a good idea to take an 18 year old, force them to join the military, and expect them to kill. We’ve got laws that make it clear we don’t trust them with alcohol so it seems cruel and unfair to take someone who likely has next to zero life experience past high school, and then force them into your military.
I agree. It just depends on if you can have a “good” standing military or not. If that is possible—to have a peaceful standing military dedicated to self defense that spends the rest of its time idk helping people or providing labor or something—I’d be cool with it. But sending teenagers across the world to shoot poor brown people is obviously loathsome .
Or you can recruit heavily in areas where folks are disadvantaged and have few options, dangling education in front of them in exchange for being willing to kill or die for you.
This is absolutely what we do in the U.S. and it’s abhorrent.
I guess what I want is for nobody to be so desperate for their basic needs that they feel compelled to kill and die in war.
And if we had a country that cared for all of its citizens and didn’t start wars of aggression, maybe more people would want to enlist as they have real values to protect and have a reasonable expectation that they won’t be committing atrocities?
Honestly not a criticism of you or your comment. Lot’s of people are advocating for the same thing; You just said it plainly.
…Anyway, this is all terrible and we absolutely can do better, starting with building community locally, mutual aid, protesting, and listening to marginalized and oppressed people’s.
This is absolutely what we do in the U.S. and it’s abhorrent.
I’m definitely aware and agree with all your points.
Honestly not a criticism of you or your comment. Lot’s of people are advocating for the same thing; You just said it plainly.
No worries, I did it somewhat sardonically. I don’t like that arrangement much more than compulsion. These are people we don’t trust to drink responsibly for three more years, but we tell ourselves it’s fair to expect them to make a mature, rational decision to sign their lives away for a period of time (or forever) with no life experience whatsoever.
I don’t know why this is even news. She maintains that viewpoint when she gets out then she is going back to jail.
Either way, this story is one of laziness and entitlement. She wants the comfort of living where she does without having to do what others have done before her to get that level of comfort. She isn’t doing this in protest of what is happening in Gaza, she just doesn’t want to be in the army.
Ah, yes, the “laziness and entitlement” of risking becoming a political prisoner for checks notes not wanting to participate in a plausible genocide. Clearly, political prisoners and genocides have nothing to do with Israel.
The Israeli prison system is already overflowing because of the war. Make it flow over even worse.
As of last week, the number of prisoners in Israeli jails numbered some 19,372, an increase of over 3,000 since October and significantly more than the maximum prison population of 14,500 mandated by law.
(I’m quoting Times of Israel but I don’t want to link them in any form, you can find that if you want to.)
Here’s another figured from them
Amid the war in the Gaza Strip, the IDF has called up a total of 287,000 reservists
The total prison capacity is 14.500, and it’s already overflowing.
Even if every 50th IDF reservist or conscript refuses to go, it’s still 6000 people more for them to deal with. If every tenth conscript/reservist refused, it’d be twice the total prison capacity on top of the already problematically overflowing prisons.
Swamp the system.
So even a tiny majority refusing to go and instead choosing prison over participating in genocide can have a huge impact, indirectly.
Well at least here in Finland, where we also have conscription, you go to a normal prison and serve six months (or at least it used to be 6months, the same as the shortest conscription time). And I’d like to note that there are several options for conscription. Full military service, unarmed military service (you serve in the military but don’t have to touch weapons, you’ll be a backline logistics guy or some such) and civil service, which is a bit longer, but you never serve in the military (essentially you work in an old people’s home or something for 13 months).
For one, we don’t have a “military prison”, as that’s an actual prison operated by the military. Israel does have them though. Or one with several detention centers.
Secondly, because when conscripts refuse conscription, they’re still civilians, as they’ve not been conscripted.
This one was about a reservist, so it’s probably different.
… I think the numbers might’ve been in the figures I mentioned (compare the occupancy numbers) and because a lot of the prisoners were prisoners of war, who go to these military prisons.
My point is that while a majority opposition to the war seems unlikely, getting 1/10th, 1/20th, or even 1/50th (=2%) of people refusing like the brave woman in the article, there’d be massive issues for the Israeli prison system.
They already started trying to lift regulations of the conditions in the prisons, so they could shove them even fuller.
Well I’ll forgo my dislike of linking this bullshit “news source”, so we can all be on the same page, more or less… No pun intended.
Eighty-four percent of those classified as security prisoners are currently living in an area of under three square meters in size, less than the legal limit, and 3,000 prisoners are now sleeping on mattresses on the floor rather than in beds.
This situation is potentially dangerous and “my biggest fear is that we will lose control over the prisoners in the prisons,” committee chairman MK Zvika Fogel (Otzma Yehudit) warned
They fear the exact problem I’m proposing would be easy-ish to exacerbate.
Last month [Nov -23], in the wake of Hamas’s devastating assault on southern Israel, lawmakers passed a bill allowing the government to declare an “incarceration emergency,” paving the way for the temporary lifting of restrictions on housing conditions for prisoners.
##Knesset extends Israel’s ‘incarceration emergency’ as prisons near capacity
According to the Israel Prison Service, 19,756 people are currently held in Israeli jails and ‘within a week or two, we will reach the maximum capacity for prisoners’
They mention the max capacity as 20,000.
And these must be military prisons as well, since I don’t think POW’s or “security prisoners” would be held in normal prisons.
He added that some 88% of Palestinian prisoners held for terror offenses — commonly known as security prisoners, are living in spaces of “less than three square meters per prisoner.”
Some genocidal right-wing zionist maniac then went on to say how these conditions are “a summer camp” and how “Hamas killers must be kept in the lowest conditions the law allows”.
And this is following a security prisoner getting a beat to death.
Well at least here in Finland, where we also have conscription, you go to a normal prison and serve six months (or at least it used to be 6months, the same as the shortest conscription time).
That hasn’t been the case for ages in Finland. These days you get 6 months of “house arrest” if you refuse conscription. Electronic tagging that is. You are allowed to leave your house to go to the grocery store, to work or to study etc at predetermined and agreed upon times.
Oh man. Totaalikieltäytyminen is so easy nowadays, god damn.
I served II/09 so it’s been a while.
Thanks for the info. Guess the mad bastards managed it then, because I did hang around totari people as well, and that’s where I actually learned this idea. Because he had counted prison capacity in Finland and it was something like 1-3% of every batch who would need to say “nope” and they just wouldn’t fit into prison anymore.
I really would like to know the details of when this was on the board being discussed.
I get that conscription is bad; Finland doesn’t (to my knowledge) have a history of feeding conscripts into wars. Do you mind discussing why you avoided it? just curious. I joined the mil to pay for edu, which is one of the primary intake paths for US soldiers. Always looked at it as a gamble but it mostly paid off for me, except hearing loss lol.
edit: derp, you served. doh - uh, the people you hung out with? what were their feelings I guess
For me, I also served my full time in the Finnish army because I was a coward. Back then, in the year 2000, they still put you in actual prison. (Well, minimum security one where convicts are allowed to work and study outside the facility on weekdays, but still prison). But even bigger deterrent than that was the lie that future employer would not hire you if you did not go through military service. That was a complete lie, it is actually illegal for them to ask about your service, and I haven’t included my military service record voluntarily either in my CV since the early 2000s and nobody has cared. And there is also a law which dictates that if you are sentenced as conscientious objector (“totaalikieltäytyminen”), that does not go to your criminal record, so that stays clean as well.
But why I was contemplating refusing military service, and civilian service too, was and is completely ideological. I do wish to protect and fight for the good things in this country (democracy, civil liberties, equality) against outside invader (which would obviously be Russia, and they have none of those things), but the fact that conscription is forced labour without pay just doesn’t fit right with me. It’s basically slavery, and that should be opposed, always, everywhere.
Also, that is the direct translation, yes, but a more accurate (context wise) would be conscientious objector.
I’m a supply core NCO in the reserves, served 362 days. I went in the second batch of 2009. That’s why I said “I served II/09”
I don’t think conscription is bad at all. It was one of the best years of my life.
Especially because ours is very much flexible and has options like unarmed service or civil service. (And with Russia neighbouring us with a long border, a conscription army is needed.) The only thing is that currently it only applies to males (and you can be excused for several reasons, like being a Jehova’s witness). It’s flexible when you do your conscription as well. Many people go to uni before the army. Not most, but many. And if you’re for instance a competitor in a sport on a high level, you’ll can get lots of free days from the time you serve. Some people like Kimi Räikkönen or Jarkko Nieminen for instance did “serve” their conscription, but in reality it was them going in for a few days/weeks every now and then when they had the time.
I would’ve never joined the American military, had I been American.
I believe in defending my country, not attacking others.
It is wrong to take anyone, including adult men, and make them into a soldier. There are times when it’s unavoidable, but doing so to commit genocide is obviously always fully wrong.
What an utterly stupid statement… She’s refusing to contribute to committing genocide, but that’s not enough for you. You think she should kill herself too…
If everyone refused to contribute to the genocide, then there wouldn’t be one either. There’s no reason young people resisting conscription should be making futile self-sacrifices. She’s already sacrificing her freedom in refusing to participate in a genocide, and spreading awareness and dissidence.
The western world isn’t ready for the active complicity conversation. Yes if you’re put in a situation where you’re the bad guy, you should absolutely do everything you can to disrupt it, even if it means you die in the process. To go along for your own survival is complicity.
Maybe don’t outright KYS but if even a 10th of the population acted like this evil flat out wouldn’t be able to get a foothold in society. Failing miserably and immediately dying as a direct result is still a greater good on the world than actively partaking in their crimes, and if you don’t agree there’s a guy from a nazi instance just below me you can give your upvote to instead.
Sofia Orr is likely to become the first woman since then to be jailed for refusing military service, but believes it is ‘wrong to take children and make them into soldiers’
Add comment