How is Putin's military draft any different from a form of slavery ?

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Putin recently issued a decree declaring deserters get 10 years in prison. If a person is drafted and can't leave without threat of punishment, can it be said they are fighting "for freedom" ?
 
donald trump is the recipient of the Purple Heart.

“And I said, ‘Man, that’s like big stuff. I always wanted to get the Purple Heart,” Trump said. “This was much easier.”

 
xtsho said:
donald trump is the recipient of the Purple Heart.

“And I said, ‘Man, that’s like big stuff. I always wanted to get the Purple Heart,” Trump said. “This was much easier.”

Click to expand...
no capitalization. His purple heart is a matter of cardiology.
 
Rob Roy said:
Putin recently issued a decree declaring deserters get 10 years in prison. If a person is drafted and can't leave without threat of punishment, can it be said they are fighting "for freedom" ?
Click to expand...

One difference is that, before the draft, you would need to be a willing participant in society where these draft laws exist, a society with laws which you were free to get away from at any time you want. Don't forget, Russia has been committing murder/rape/torture on a national scale for seven months now, so we didn't just blink and find ourselves right here. Same as how we're a willing participant with all the laws in the US, which of course we may not like, but obviously accept with our continued willing presence.

That's closer to buyer's remorse than it is slavery. If some potential legal result is truly intolerable, then fight to change it as if your life depends on it, especially when it literally does, or go someplace where society's beliefs better match your own. Or, I guess you can do what you do, which is to whine about how society should conform to your desires while you do nothing to make it happen, kind of like you expect it to happen via.....cough*mind control*cough, but it might not give you the desired results.
 
mooray said:
One difference is that, before the draft, you would need to be a willing participant in society where these draft laws exist, a society with laws which you were free to get away from at any time you want. Don't forget, Russia has been committing murder/rape/torture on a national scale for seven months now, so we didn't just blink and find ourselves right here. Same as how we're a willing participant with all the laws in the US, which of course we may not like, but obviously accept with our continued willing presence.

That's closer to buyer's remorse than it is slavery. If some potential legal result is truly intolerable, then fight to change it as if your life depends on it, especially when it literally does, or go someplace where society's beliefs better match your own. Or, I guess you can do what you do, which is to whine about how society should conform to your desires while you do nothing to make it happen, kind of like you expect it to happen via.....cough*mind control*cough, but it might not give you the desired results.
Click to expand...

So people should decide to be born in a place that doesn't feature a military draft then ?

Buyer's remorse? That's a lousy analogy. In a real seller / buyer situation, people have the option of saying no thanks or I'll buy from someone else. In government related "seller / buyer" situations, and especially with a military draft the option of saying no thanks comes with dire consequences.

I haven't forgotten what Russia has been doing....they're a distant second or third to what the USA does, but still noteworthy in their thuggery.

As far as what I do, I foment ideas, nothing changes until people gain understanding.
 
Rob Roy said:
… In a real seller / buyer situation, people have the option of saying no thanks or I'll buy from someone else.
Click to expand...
the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

The trouble is, you base much of your utopian sermons on it.

Tell me how two judicial systems might compete for the same notional customer — while still doing their appointed jobs.
 
cannabineer said:
the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

The trouble is, you base much of your utopian sermons on it.

Tell me how two judicial systems might compete for the same notional customer — while still doing their appointed jobs.
Click to expand...

Tell me how a judicial system that is a large part of a forcible monopoly, an injustice itself, can be the arbiter of justice ? That'd be like going to a rapist seeking dating advice.

There's more than one market supplier for many things, groceries for instance.

Your problem is you don't understand the feedback mechanism in a free market
 
Rob Roy said:
Tell me how a judicial system that is a large part of a forcible monopoly, an injustice itself, can be the arbiter of justice ? That'd be like going to a rapist seeking dating advice.

There's more than one market supplier for many things, groceries for instance.

Your problem is you don't understand the feedback mechanism in a free market
Click to expand...
Don’t reframe the question; answer it. The analogy to merchants fails.
 
cannabineer said:
Don’t reframe the question; answer it. The analogy to merchants fails.
Click to expand...

I did answer it. You either ignored it or don't comprehend. Perhaps poor extrapolative powers on your part. Consumer feedback exists as a regulatory tool in a free market. That's the succinct answer.

In an unfree market for justice, you can't really fire the judge or his retinue. In a free market for justice, people who render bad decisions won't get very many repeat customers, people who do, will.
 
Rob Roy said:
So people should decide to be born in a place that doesn't feature a military draft then ?

Buyer's remorse? That's a lousy analogy. In a real seller / buyer situation, people have the option of saying no thanks or I'll buy from someone else. In government related "seller / buyer" situations, and especially with a military draft the option of saying no thanks comes with dire consequences.

I haven't forgotten what Russia has been doing....they're a distant second or third to what the USA does, but still noteworthy in their thuggery.

As far as what I do, I foment ideas, nothing changes until people gain understanding.
Click to expand...

Rob toes the line.
 
Rob Roy said:
I did answer it. You either ignored it or don't comprehend. Perhaps poor extrapolative powers on your part. Consumer feedback exists as a regulatory tool in a free market. That's the succinct answer.

In an unfree market for justice, you can't really fire the judge or his retinue. In a free market for justice, people who render bad decisions won't get very many repeat customers, people who do, will.
Click to expand...
No; you moved the goalposts. The question is: describe how two judicial systems competing for the same notional customer operate.
 
Rob Roy said:
So people should decide to be born in a place that doesn't feature a military draft then ?
Click to expand...

I know it's a hard concept for those infatuated with themselves to grasp, but society wasn't created for you when you were born, you were born into a preexisting society and that society has rules which has been around long before you have and they grossly outweigh your wants and desires. If every Rob Roy out there got their way and society existed in the manner they wanted, laws would be changing a thousand times a second and this would be the dumbest country on earth.

Rob Roy said:
Buyer's remorse? That's a lousy analogy. In a real seller / buyer situation, people have the option of saying no thanks or I'll buy from someone else. In government related "seller / buyer" situations, and especially with a military draft the option of saying no thanks comes with dire consequences.
Click to expand...

It's a much closer analogy than slavery, which nobody signed up for. Once you're aware of something and choose to exist in its sphere, you have accepted it and what it has to offer. With your awareness today, you have bought into this society as a willing participant whether you like it or not. Even though your mouth says "no", your complete lack of effort to change your situation screams "yes". And as we all know, actions speak louder than words. Yap-yap-yap only gets you so far.

Rob Roy said:
As far as what I do, I foment ideas, nothing changes until people gain understanding.
Click to expand...

Understanding is certainly A step, but it's not THE step, nor is it a last step before change. In the stepping stones of change, you stopped at step 3 of 10, because after that, it gets, like...too hard and stuff.
 
cannabineer said:
No; you moved the goalposts. The question is: describe how two judicial systems competing for the same notional customer operate.
Click to expand...

It's very likely that competing service providers would have some forms of cooperation to accomodate this. Don't USPS and UPS cooperate on some things, even though they are competitors ?

Also, customer feedback, again. If your justice provider had a reputation for rendering good decisions, you'd probably like that they make an effort to work with other reputable service providers too.

It's not in the interest of a free market supplier to gain a reputation for thuggery. It's part of the business model for an unfree market "justice system" though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top