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.
Other way around. How can anyone in good conscience think that pacifism is moral?
I don't think pacifism is good but conscription isn't the opposite of pacifism. There's many good reasons not to fight for your country.
I didn't say it was the opposite.
But it is your position.
"I want to benefit from the common defense without contributing anything to it, because I don't wanna!"
Parasitism is inherently immoral. Pacifism is just parasitism applied to the common defense.
Not "many", no. Most of the ones you think there are, are just abdication of your duties as a citizen, and thus a moral crime.
I have no duties to a country that lets invaders walk in the front door, rob me and then expects me to die for these invaders.