If you think Obligated National Service is "Slavery" that is your option. I disagree.
If its forced technically it is slavery but the experience, for most draftees, isn't like what the experience was like for most people who have been enslaved. What they experience doesn't have a lot of the baggage and connotations that the words slave or slavery would normally imply.
You've argued that it can be beneficial for the individual and for the country, but even if both are true it doesn't make it not slavery. If its forced involuntary servitude then it is a form of slavery, even if it isn't nearly as nasty as most forms, at least not in America's military, and even under countries less free then the US, there is the important distinction that it is temporary. Slavery for a couple of years isn't as bad as slavery for life.
People hear "slavery" and they think of 19th century farm slaves getting abused by their owners, or similar things. But Greeks who served as teachers to rich Romans where sometimes slaves, even if they where slaves with better lifestyles then many free Roman citizens.
The one argument that I can think of for the draft not being an example of enslaving people would be that the draftee doesn't have an owner, but to an extent the government is treating the citizen like he is owned by the state if it can force involuntary servitude from the draftee.
If the word slavery is causing a problem in the discussion, I'd be willing to substitute "involuntary servitude". I think involuntary servitude" is wrong, even if it has practical benefits for the servant.
Tim |
