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 and clothed. There is no such requirement for slaves. Your commanding officer also is not going to beat you if he/she finds you reading a book.
I'd advise you to actually do research on what slaves endured and stop disrespecting their ordeal by comparing it to military conscription. These thoughtless comparisons make light of how brutal and devastating chattal slavery was.
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.
Yes, and so are citizens of a state.
"Inherent to slavery is some form of dehumanization."
No. The definition of a slave (first hit on google) is "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." In ancient times, people who lost wars may have been subjugated as slaves, but there was no pretense that they were less human. I think you might be thinking of racial slavery, which was inspired by a belief that other races were subhumans.
"being somehow below the ruling class"
Even ordinary citizens, who may be able to vote and do all that fun civic stuff, may still be below the ruling class. As Lysander Spooner said, "A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
> "but you have remedies, such as renouncing your citizenship"
But for US expatriation, you will have to pay an exit tax as well as continue to pay income taxes, so no you aren't able to be free of bondage. Getting to pick from a new master on a different tax farm doesn't mean you are not a slave.
> "leaving for an area not governed by a state"
If there were such a place, then pretty soon, some state will likely come in and claim you for their tax revenue. Considering that states make this threat means that your relationship with them is not voluntary. Also, the "you are free to leave" argument doesn't take into account the fact that you never voluntarily entered into a relationship with them to begin with. It doesn't mean you were not a slave while under bondage. Effective slave masters realized that by giving their subjects some freedoms, that they were better off. But just because you have some freedoms again doesn't mean that you are not a slave. You are still the legal property of the state and forced to obey them in matters which the state desires you to obey.
No, I'm not thinking of racial slavery. I'm thinking of slavery defined by Aristotle, whose view is representative of the classical world: "
"anyone who, while being human, is by nature not his own but of someone else…he is of someone else when, while being human, he is a piece of property; and a piece of property is a tool for action separate from its owner."
If this doesn't sound dehumanizing, I don't know what qualifies.
As stated before, a citizen of a state can renounce said citizen and emigrate to Bir Tawil or some other unclaimed territory. Unlike Aristotle's definition, you, by nature, are not of someone else and has the free will to choose to leave. That states have laws limiting absolute freedom does not equal slavery
"Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against his or her will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour, to refer to such situations. However – and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word – slaves may have some rights and/or protections, according to laws and/or customs."
Being forced to work extra to keep the money from your labor you already worked and being partially owned by the state is de facto slavery, even if it doesn't meet Aristotle's definition.
> "That states have laws limiting absolute freedom does not equal slavery"
The argument I made was not that the lack of absolute freedom equals slavery. Even in the absence of a state, people will rationally form voluntary contracts that would limit their freedoms for mutual benefits. Provided that these contracts are entered into consensually is key to whether or not it is slavery or not.
I'd rather say that the word "slavery" has been used for certain forms of involuntary servitude with often many common characteristics. (Worker has no rights to leave, no other political and social rights of the free citizen such as right to vote if it exists, and for all intents and purposes is considered a property of their owner.) Usually it has been distinctive cultural and often also a legal institution, separate from other duties and forms of involuntary work.
This form of is generally agreed to be an evil thing (actually outright irredeemable horror in the US context that often dominates English-language boards such as this), so of course everybody likes to call any form of involuntary work they don't like slavery.
The topic of ancient Greece and Rome have already been raised, the revolutionary France likewise. (I think it's still notable to reiterate that conscription has been prominently around with these both ur-examples of modern Western concept of citizenship.)
However, let us have a more modern example: consider hypothetical case where prisoner serving a term is required to clean up their room once per week. Out of blue this sounds reasonable. Is this slavery? After all, the prison administration could hire a professional cleaner to do it.
As a slightly more realistic example, the Western concept of prison has often included working as a form of rehabilitation right from the beginning. Sometimes the "rehabilitation" part has been genuine, sometimes not; sometimes the work has been simply a meaningless punishment: sometimes goods are produced and sold; sometimes the prisoner receives a token pay, sometimes not.
It's easy to imagine a problematic version where calling that kind of working "slavery" does not seem misplaced, but it is also possible to imagine scenarios where it does. And in any case, one is drawing a comparison to a more ancient institution.
In some regards there are similarities, but on the other hand, it's also misses some critical points and is at best a very uncharitable choice of word.
Same goes for conscription, especially in a liberal modern democracy where the draft is fairly egalitarian (contrast against the quite arbitrary press gang method of the British Navy of the wooden ships and iron men age), is temporary, citizens generally are allowed to emigrate out of the country during peacetime, can vote in any elections that happen when they are serving, and the work they perform is fairly unusual and exceptional service (compared to regular peacetime job) for the society in an exceptional situation. Would a compulsory EMT training for everybody and then a requirement to use those skills if possible in a sudden situation that warrants their use also be slavery?
But, of course, he can force a conscript to fight an adversary to the death.
On the contrary, conscription, and armies consisting of the population of a country in general (as opposed to mercenary armies) are a democratic achievement of (among a few other factors) the French Revolution.
In the actual times of slavery, e.g. in Ancient Greece and Rome it was free men that first and foremost did the fighting (and who considered it their honor and what made them and kept them free), and in the dark medieval times of peasants, feudal lords used mercenary armies (including against their subjects).
Conscription appeared on the scene as a way to have the army be controlled more by the population -- as opposed to it being professional soldiers ready to be used against the people.
Things have changed a lot since then, especially with radio and television. Conscription is no longer a democratic achievement, you can brainwash people to go against anyone you want.
E.g. the described situation was a hypothetical one where the Norwegian government had decided to use the military in a way I found morally unconscionable. In practice I consider that very unlikely - offensive forces are all volunteers in Norway, so the conscripts are used for purely defensive roles. It was the principle of it first and foremost for me.
Afterthought. I just remembered that some of the more radical leftists call working for a salary a wage slavery, which is similarly silly.
To be a slave is to have your personal freedoms subordinated to another while people always enjoy a finite degree of autonomy which varies substantially from society to society and even between different socioeconomic groups if your owner can tell you where to go and whom to kill, and in fact to surrender ones life if asked then I cannot discern the difference between that state and slavery.
In much the same sense as jury duty is slavery.
Its also essential to our justice system and usually a very small burden.
And rightly so.
The only reason the country exists in the first place, is that people were willing to fight to establish it, and to serve and fight to defend it.
Else it would be not some magical global brothership of unicorns and love, but what was there before modern countries: empires and feudal overlords.
Most of those who kept up the fight for Norways freedom from German occupation under World War II, for example, were not military conscripts - the military surrendered quickly - but civilians who formed resistance groups.
The idea that you need to be willing to let yourself be coerced into slavery to prove your willingness to fight is deeply offensive to me.
Well, the idea that service to your country is considered slavery and not a duty is offensive to others.
Perhaps it doesn't want to pay sufficient money to acquire the individuals its needs. In effect it is saying that it ought to take a minority of the citizens freedom rather than take a little bit more of everyone's money. This is pretty despicable and it ought to just raise taxes to pay sufficiently.
Perhaps it lacks the moral authority to inspire service even at any price. In that case it ought to reexamine WHY its citizens have lost faith in it instead of using force.
Lastly perhaps its facing an existential threat that can neither be ignored, nor dealt with otherwise.
You blindly suppose that the state deserves such service and neither examine whether it really does nor if it could acquire such service without trampling the rights of its citizens.
It speak like a dangerous nationalist and your attitude concerns me.
Because some citizens are selfish or unique snowflakes for whom service is beneath them, but they still like the other advantages the state provides them.
I'm at a loss for words here, this might be the dumbest thing I've heard all week.
First, go get a dictionary and look up what slavery means.
Second, go get a history book and read about the last two world wars where conscription has been widely embraced by the belligerents. Not only did it have public support, but it was also the only thing that gave the Allies enough manpower to stay in and win the war.