I don't understand ANY argument for conscription. Of all the laws on the books that are still "acceptable" in modernity from even the "progressive" crowd, the one that perplexes me the most is conscription.
For me, it's just so simple: If a government needs to force people to fight for the government then the government has no right to exist. A legitimate government should be able to raise a fully volunteer army because all the citizens the government represents wants to fight to defend this government.
Just think about it for a moment. Supposedly some evil enemy is coming to rape your women and kill all the men or enslave everyone by taking their rights away. Everyone should want to defend against that, no? If someone doesn't volunteer to fight against that then clearly they've decided that rape and death is better than... rape and death? Or, perhaps they've decided they can still live without dying for a country and they'd rather this conclusion.
How can anyone justify using force to force something to go to war and die against their will?
I hate the concept of conscription so much I think anyone who suggests it should be hanged, tbh. You want people to fight for you? Offer them an incentive then.
I like Heinlein's idea. You can opt out of military service but then you can't vote, receive any benefits at all, and are basically a subhuman.
I still don't agree with this. So, you opt out of the US Military because you don't want to fight Israel's wars. That makes you sub-human? From my perspective, every person in the US Military is subhuman.
We're assuming an ideal, high-trust, ethnostate. Not a zionist economic zone.
I was assuming both. In a high-trust ethnostate, do you need conscription? I'd volunteer to fight in such a society. IMO, only a zionist economic zone needs conscription.
That's like saying in a high trust ethnostate there'd be no theft. You might not steal, and there'd be less theft in general, but there's always going to be people on the low end of the curve who can't be trusted.
It does mean the circumstances where it is necessary are also much more narrow though, if you actually need to conscript those extra 5% of men still too morally depraved to stand and fight to win the war, then it's gonna be a shitty time. But war is risk, so even if it's not needed to reliably win, why shouldn't the selfish shoulder the same portion of that risk as everyone else? But unwilling participants are also a liability in wartime, so maybe you allow them to recuse themselves from that risk, at a heavy personal cost in the post-war period.
The problem is the conditions in which conscription is triggered.
An existential war with savages who will rape and pillage your lands and children? Conscription is a morally understandable act to force the despicable or foolish into doing their part and increasing the chances the lands are not pillaged. Opting out of that kind of conscription should put you into a lifelong indentured servitude, they sacrificed their lives for your safety, now you must sacrifice from your life for their children's uplift.
A pointless war with a nation that has no means of threatening where you live, at the behest of parasites who will take all the spoils for themselves and have already been insulting and trying to eradicate your family back home for decades? Ain't no shame in dodging that draft, and should be seen as a badge of wisdom.
The latter case ought to call for open insurrection.
And then due to the lack of ability to receive benefits you end up with young men becoming suicide bombers when they're unable to afford to live?