this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
120 points (91.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43898 readers
1212 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja 1 points 1 year ago

On the contrary, a volunteer army allows the ruling class to prosecute wars without risk to their own families.

As does conscription, since there are always exceptions made for that explicit purpose.

So that works out the same either way.

If a war arrives that is necessary, justified, and also has broad support among the population there will still be those who avoid fighting because they know that others will do so for them.

Yes - there will always be such people. The issue is how many of them there would be.

I would say that a nation that's unhealthy enough to have so many such people that they would make the difference between winning and losing deserves to lose.

You can make a similar argument about taxation. By your logic payment should be optional, since a society that genuinely wants to be just and fair should also voluntarily want to give money to achieve that.

Yes, and I in fact would. And with the same proviso - any society that would fail as a result deserves to fail.