And many people believe the draft is morally equivalent to slavery (which they do not support either).[1]

[1] http://gregmankiw.blogspot.ca/2006/11/rangel-and-friedman-on...

That's fine, I personally don't support the draft, but still. What about the legal system? Don't you see there is a problem with forcibly locking a portion of our population away behind bars? After all, that's what the government does, "for your own safety". Do you really feel safe in a country where the government can decide that murder is a "crime" for which you should be inhumanely LOCKED AWAY FOR LIFE?

P.S. Extreme sarcasm above...

The only justifiable coercion is against coercion. Someone injures you physically or financialy. Forcing someone to do something they don't want to including dieing or giving you their things is coercion. Coercion is always unjust and only fit as a reciprocation for coercion.

So you're prepared to invalidate close to 100% of all employment contracts in the US?

Quite the contrary. Those are entered into willfully and not coercively.

But they are paid, largely, via taxes that I would believe many people would like to not pay. Taxation's gotta be a coercive thing... what's your take on that?

Does financial coercion exist? If wage slavery doesn't count, what does count as financial coercion?

Cite?

*The Golden Rule. "Treat others as you would like to be treated"

I have recently revised my views in light of Michael Huemer's latest book, which I found convincing (, despite my initial reluctance to accept many of his findings).[1] It takes at least a book to explain his reasoning (which rightfully separates political legitimacy and political obligation from each other and independent moral obligations), and I won't bore you with poor paraphrasing here.

[1] http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/the-problem-of-political...

You admit to sarcasm, but say the murder victim was an 3rd trimester fetus... now you have yourself a modern day political issue.

Was going to post something like this - you beat me to it.

"I don't think the role of government is to protect our country, because it isn't the government protecting our country. It's the government coercing others to protect our country, against their will."

Obviously, we have a volunteer force, but haven't always had that - conscription, as you brought up. It's fine to have a volunteer force, until we need more. Then force is brought in.

If you can't convince others to defend your country through rhetoric and compensation, perhaps the country isn't worth defending; your comment implicitly assumes every state is worth sacrificing young lives for.

> your comment implicitly assumes every state is worth sacrificing young lives for.

no, it assumes those in control of the state believe it is worth sacrificing young lives for.

Apologies if I misread your comment, but I read the following quote to imply that coercion was acceptable once the volunteer army was not enough:

>It's fine to have a volunteer force, until we need more. Then force is brought in.

I don't believe it is acceptable, but the people in power probably (often?) do believe that it's acceptable, generally because it's not their own lives at risk.

"... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ..."

it's almost like our government is supposed to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare", right?