I’m confused, because “I was just taking orders” from the state can get you killed.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're a soldier, sure it can get you killed, in battle. And if you're a soldier, and your side loses, you may be tried for war crimes. Even if your side wins, you may be tried for war crimes if you follow illegal orders. In modern military, you're trained to refuse illegal orders. But that's an iffy thing, especially in the heat of battle.

My point is that I believe those in the Nuremberg trials were following legal orders at the time, but their side lost. And yes, it's an iffy thing to disobey when it may be the morally correct thing to do.

Forcing someone to do a job without paying them is slavery. Don't conflate things just to suit a narrative. This kind of law is problematic for legitimate reasons, not made up BS like "it's slavery."

This would possibly suggest it may not be constitutional, so I would at least expect some constitutional challenges.

Being a citizen awards you with rights and responsibilities. Whether we think that implementing backdoors is morally right, that does not mean that Australian citizens do not have responsibilities to their country. And neither does it mean that the Australian government cannot force their citizen to fulfill their legal responsibilities.

A lawful order by your government is not slavery.

Something being lawful doesn't imply it's moral. The line is blurred, since slave labor can be enshrined in law as the responsibility to their country, making slavery a lawful order.

In my opinion, responsibilities are better fulfilled by things like paying taxes and not being a nuisance.

Thought experiment: how large, either in number or geographic area, does a group of people forcing someone to do something against their will have to be to make it no longer slavery?

>A lawful order by your government is not slavery.

Don't be ridiculous, slavery itself can be made lawful and actually is in some countries.

I'm not sure that it's as straightforward as you claim. For instance, is conscription ethical? What about indentured servitude?

You could easily argue these are violations of some human rights, but these sorts of things might be lawful orders.

And let's not forget, literal slavery was legal in America until the Reconstruction Amendments that outlawed it. Was it ethical that a responsibility of being an American citizen was that you may become a slave or a slave owner? Of course not.

In Australia we have very few constitutional or statutory rights (arguably this means we are in violation of several international human rights treaties). "You have a responsibility to your country" isn't a get-out clause from a government treating its citizens ethically. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it's reasonable or morally acceptable.

(I don't think the new legislation is a form of slavery, since that's a very hyperbolic way of phrasing things. But I disagree that "it's a lawful order" is the only factor that should be considered when discussing what is moral.)

In D&D speak you would call this kind of argument 'lawful evil'.

Why can't it be both?

True. Many countries require military service of one sort or another. And more generally, governments do tend to view their citizens as resources. I recall a great book on the history of data science. But not the title :( One of the drivers, as I recall, was knowing resources to plan wars.

Still, the juxtaposition of "lawful" and "government" makes me smile.

Just to be clear, I was rather agreeing with "Forcing someone to do a job is slavery." And just pointing out that states do that a lot. But they couch it in language about "duty" and so on.

I mean, many millions of soldiers died in WWI and WWII. Many were volunteers, sure. But many were conscripts. And of course, having your country conquered may also not be such a great thing, unless your government are jerks.

Anyway, I distrust all governments above the village level. I do see the argument for ~state level government. Basically, to deal with groups of jerks. National defense is arguably the only justification for national government. And that's just because there are other national governments, controlled by jerks. So it's sort of like a multi-player protection racket.

"Seeing like a State", perhaps?

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like...

That seems a great book. But this was more about database design, and statistics. Covering maybe 17th-18th centuries, and focusing on Western Europe. I recall France and Germany, in particular.