Construction results in (accidental) death, but, as I point out, people who support construction don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.
Scenario 1: a city votes to do road construction. This results in all residents of that city paying more in taxes. All residents get to decide and all residents pay for the results of their decision.
Scenario 2: the U.S. invades Iraq. There are some casualties amongst U.S. Forces as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, many of them civilians. What's different about this scenario is that none of the dead Iraqi civilians or their families had a say in the U.S. decision to go to war. But they pay the overwhelming cost in life. Whereas no Americans at all are required to risk their lives.
That is the asymmetry in costs that the OP was talking about.
I'm just saying that attaching a poison pill such as forced labor to a war-like policy is:
a) anti-democratic (since democracy involves allowing the mob to make decisions, including decisions you disagree with)
b) not a valid argument against war since all sorts of policies would be horrific if forced labor were involved.
War results in death, but, as the OP points out, people who support war don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.