Hacker News Reader

"Compare that to the actual soldiers making a few grand a month, and you get the sense your country doesn’t really give a shit about you and your just a dupe."

In a sense they are dupes. Plenty of people would be willing to pay money to be "employed" as "SF soldiers". How many military members carefully consider the foreign policies for which they are pledging their lives? If the soldiers think they are being improperly compensated then they should demand more pay or quit when their term is up. That's the whole concept behind the AVF right?

If the US Government did not have a ready reserve of people willing to sacrifice themselves for its latest harebrained foreign policy perhaps it would more carefully consider its foreign adventures?

Or perhaps in the near future USG will field its first all-contractor brigade?

I remember thinking that something is going wrong when the country geared up for the Iraq war in 2003. Some people had to risk their lives for low pay while others at home got another tax cut and were told to go shopping. There simply is no personal price to be paid by the elites when the country goes to war.

It makes sense that people who can say "no" to risks they don't like have to be paid more. That's the market price and people in the actual military who can't refuse (once they signed up) are grossly underpaid. How would taking away more people's freedom help?

I'd rather see military pay go up to closer to market rates. If we ask people to take these risks they should be paid a lot more. You might even see more volunteers.

People don't join a professional army to be a cook - without the large number of cheap conscripts to fill a lot of the unskilled tail it makes sense to hire in non military contractors.

> Throughout history, private military forces are the tool of tyrants.

<evil person> drank water, so we shouldn't drink water.

Similarly, I feel that this educational contracting is a threat to democracy. Either employ forced labor to provide education or don't have public schools at all.

I understand the concern that mercenaries may revolt against the real military, but is anyone really suggesting this is a danger to the US? I don't see anyone making that case.

The article also brings up real issues that soldiers-for-hire are inadequately supervised. This is a valid concern, but again the response to that should be a measured cost/benefit analysis as to whether adequate supervision + contractors or employees is better. Teachers-for-hire are, in many cases, also not adequately supervised. That doesn't mean we should resort to forced labor to provide teaching, it just means we need a better supervisory apparatus.

It's not that mercenaries may revolt. It's that people are less likely to support war if it will affect them personally.

The is a spectrum for military participation: conscription -> volunteer professional -> mercenery. With conscription people will be more vested because it can affect their families more personally even if they don't support a war. With a mercenary army not only is the death of strangers easier to ignore, but deaths are not always made public. Look how often we had stats about army deaths/injuries reported daily vs how often you heard about Blackwater deaths during the Iraq war/occupation.

People are also less likely to support public education, road construction or cleaning up Flint's water if the result is that they will be victims of forced labor.

If your goal is simply to bind an unpopular position to a policy you oppose as a political maneuver, that's fine. But lets clearly distinguish political strategy (sneaking your favored choices through democracy by removing preferred choices from the voters) from a normative argument (we should do X because...).

I don't think your examples work. Public education and road construction don't result in forced labor, they result in increased taxes. The people who vote for public education and road construction already share in the burden of increased taxes.

War results in death, but, as the OP points out, people who support war don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.

A war with a volunteer army + contractors doesn't result in forced labor either, it results in increased taxes. The people who vote for war already share in the burden of increased taxes.

Construction results in (accidental) death, but, as I point out, people who support construction don't necessarily share in that burden of lost life.

Let me try this again.

Scenario 1: a city votes to do road construction. This results in all residents of that city paying more in taxes. All residents get to decide and all residents pay for the results of their decision.

Scenario 2: the U.S. invades Iraq. There are some casualties amongst U.S. Forces as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, many of them civilians. What's different about this scenario is that none of the dead Iraqi civilians or their families had a say in the U.S. decision to go to war. But they pay the overwhelming cost in life. Whereas no Americans at all are required to risk their lives.

That is the asymmetry in costs that the OP was talking about.

You seem to be making a totally different argument against war now. I'm not disagreeing.

I'm just saying that attaching a poison pill such as forced labor to a war-like policy is:

a) anti-democratic (since democracy involves allowing the mob to make decisions, including decisions you disagree with)

b) not a valid argument against war since all sorts of policies would be horrific if forced labor were involved.

Consider the fact you are categorizing armed conflict as labor in the first place. Not as the collective action of citizens defending themselves, for whom economic incentives would be dwarfed by more important ones.

If the draft isn't justified, how is the war justified? I'm having trouble imagining an ethical system where forced labor is obviously unethical but war for profit isn't.

I didn't say I supported war for profit. I said poof131's argument against it [1] was flawed.

[1] I'm assuming he was making an argument against war. It's possible I was misinterpreting him and he was merely suggesting an anti-democratic hack to get around the populist support for war.

I’m suggesting that military service isn’t normal labor and shouldn’t be treated as such. That war isn’t just a Kissingeresque chess move, but a last resort activity. You can’t use lethal force in business. Societies shouldn’t use lethal force as a matter of business. Both people and countries should act only in self defense.

War is a social cost that should be born by all members of the society. A draft isn’t an anti-democratic hack anymore than preventing a company from dumping toxic waste in a river is anti-democratic. We inhibit some freedoms to protect other freedoms. Certain actions have externalities beyond the person engaged in them. We have obligations beyond just serving ourselves.

Teachers unions don’t overthrow governments, but militaries, private or public, do. I lean libertarian in certain things, but no longer regarding the military. Allowing private companies to wield lethal force with military style units scares me. The military and law enforcement underpin the very laws that the country is built upon. Congress can pass a law, the courts can judge upon it, but without someone willing to pick up a gun and enforce it, laws are nothing more than words on paper.

Awhile back I saw an article about a private psyops contractor targeting american journalists who were critical of it, trying to tarnish their reputations. I scoured Google for 20 minutes but couldn’t find it. I believe there really is a threat that these private companies will engage in activities for their own self-interest at the expense of the country. I believe most of these companies do have a lot of patriotic people who are trying to make good money for their families and I don’t think the threat is extreme at the moment but that it grows over time as this becomes the pattern and the gulf widens between the military and the civilian population it’s supposed to protect.

I always felt that a key component contributing to the end of the Roman Republican period was the fact the elite echelons of society no longer felt obligated to serve and the soldiers no longer felt an allegiance to them or the institutions they ruled. From wikipedia: “The extensive campaigning abroad by Roman generals, and the rewarding of soldiers with plunder on these campaigns, led to a general trend of soldiers becoming increasingly loyal to their generals rather than to the state.”[1] I don’t want our soldier’s loyalty focused on a paycheck. I’m afraid more of where we are going then where we currently are.

Soldiers can’t quit. They can’t unionize. They can’t demand higher wages. But they can use lethal force to achieve their objectives. We need to make sure that those objectives are always in line with democracy. If we don’t, then you can vote all you want and one day it won’t matter, because democracy depends upon the rule of law and that depends upon the will of the military. I prefer a civilian military more than a private military and more than an all volunteer military. I think that is the greatest defense of democracy and the freedom you talk about.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

I agree with you that violence should be a last resort. But we live in a society where it isn't; for example, lethal force is used to prevent sales of cigarettes in quantities the government doesn't approve. If I attempt to build a tall building in SF against the will of the NIMBYs, potentially lethal force will eventually be used against me if I don't stop doing it. As you yourself note, all laws are enforced by someone willing to pick up a gun.

So I suppose that since all regulations are enforced with potentially lethal force, all regulatory apparatus should be provided by forced labor?

A draft isn’t an anti-democratic hack anymore than preventing a company from dumping toxic waste in a river is anti-democratic.

Of course it is. The demos wants a war staffed by volunteers. You want to remove that option from the set of choices available to them so that their only choices are either options unacceptable to them or the choice you want them to make. At least in terms of whether people have free choice, it's no different than "give me your wallet or I'll take your head".

Note that I'm not strongly opposed to this; I'm not a proponent of democracy at all. I'm only pointing out that neither are you. The 3 wolves would - given the choice - vote to eat those non-voting brown sheep across the world without forcing their baby wolflings to be put at risk. Democracy is allowing those 3 wolves and a sheep to vote on dinner.

Awhile back I saw an article about a private psyops contractor targeting american journalists who were critical of it,...

"Psyops" is a fancy word for using speech to influence the actions of others. There are a wide variety of actors who engage in it. I happen to know that a variety of educational institutions do; I know this because my ex-girlfriend sold them (along with various state-level democratic parties, interestingly) software to do exactly that.

This is of course ignoring the psyops operations that teachers themselves directly run. If this is our worry, we are already there and the military/mercenaries probably do far less of it than, e.g, our educational or journalistic institutions.

Again, let me emphasize that I'm not disagreeing with your goals. I'm very strongly opposed to using force. I'm also opposed to unchecked democracy that often results in voters harming non-voters (whether it be wars against foreigners, SF nimbys fighting against domestic immigration, or Shiv Sena trying to prevent Biharis from driving autos). I'm just disagreeing with the internals of your argument; it is blatantly anti-democratic (which I support!) and it also implies more than you want it to (meaning it's probably too broad).

I appreciate very much your perspective and it’s made me think. You obviously view things outside the box. Though I still believe a draft isn’t inherently anti-democratic. If the majority votes for a war, and the majority votes for conscription, then that seems to me to agree with democracy. But I do agree that a draft is anti-individual-freedom. And I agree that democracy isn’t inherently good. The majority can vote in a manner that oppresses the minority. It’s definitely occurred in our past. A democracy combined with individual rights is the key in my opinion. I just don’t think the ability to avoid service should be one of those protected rights. But since I do believe in democracy, only a majority can vote to make that so, thus my outspoken attitude toward private contractors and the all volunteer force.

>This is of course ignoring the psyops operations that teachers themselves directly run.

It always struck me as a conflict of interest to have government employees teach young voters what to think.

Poof131:

Perhaps the best historical analogy to the present USG is transitioning from "the Roman Republic" to "the Roman Empire". Even with foreign troops and "contractors" (people who were promised retirement land in exchange for military service) the Roman empire lasted a long time. I wish it were otherwise, but it seems that the US and its empire is set for a long-term decline in public virtue.

I hope otherwise too, but believe you may be right. A similar theme was purported in a book I read awhile back: Empire of Debt.[1] I try to be optimistic that the future will be better. Many things are better. But there is a self-righteous, self-centered aspect to modern western society that seems to be indicative of a decline in public virtue, where words matter more than actions, and where the elite believe it is there right to lead and service and sacrifice is for poor people without other options. For my daughter and others, I hope the Pax Americana lasts a long time.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Debt

You keep referring to military service as labor, the draft as forced labor and comparing it to other labor. That's an economic concept. The only type of war where that is a coherent position to take is a war for profit. So obviously the draft would be forced labor and unethical, because the war itself would have to be.

Few people are pro-conscription, they are choosing between the incentives present when conscription is the only path to war and when mercenaries or professional soldiers recruited from those of lower status are used. If the war is considered just by a democracy then many will want to fight, because it will be obviously necessary, defensive, and those chosen must be chosen fairly.

Perhaps you think this is an argument for the continuation of American global continuous war combined with conscription? Because it's very much not. It's a statement that the only just wars would inevitably result in conscription also being just, even without the incredible moral hazard present when democracies can vote for wars to be fought by labor.

I agree with you that tying a policy choice you oppose to a horrible poison pill like forced labor is a potentially effecitve way to subvert democracy and prevent popular policies you dislike from being enacted by the public.

I said so two comments up, and reiterated this in the very comment you replied to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12286281

The tone of your post suggests you disagree with me about something. Am I misinterpreting? If not, what do we disagree on?

I guess we're just not arguing at the same level of abstraction?

You keep referring to it as forced labor, and missing the central point while labeling the elimination of the moral hazards inherent with mercenaries as a "poison pill". And referring to subverting democracy.

If a fighter in a war is ever remotely close to being labor then they should not fight, in fact they should probably be fighting those trying to send them. I'm not arguing for a poison pill of forced labor, that isn't on the table. Ever.

Do you disagree that there is any form of conscription that isn't "forced labor"?

For example: defending your own home or community or democratic nation from an invading army is not labor, it's a non-economic activity. Say a contract of mutual defense with your fellow citizens in the case of an invading army? I'll go fight if they invade the east coast even though I live on the west coast because of a legally binding reciprocal agreement that is in all our best interests? In that case we are all called in to serve and organized to fight effectively. Our neighbors who can't fight take care of our kids while we're away. Is that forced labor?

I'm not arguing for a poison pill of forced labor...Do you disagree that there is any form of conscription that isn't "forced labor"?

I think that by definition, taking people and forcing them to do work they don't want to do is forced labor. I don't subscribe to your Orwellian redefinition of soldiering as not being labor, simply because you label it "non-economic".

I'm also not sure of the relevance of this redefinition. Whether or not your poison pill is redefined to be forced labor or not, it's subverting democracy because the public wants a war staffed by volunteers and mercenaries. You want to remove that choice from them.

In that case we are all called in to serve and organized to fight effectively. Our neighbors who can't fight take care of our kids while we're away. Is that forced labor?

If we've all contractually agreed to it, no. If we are forcing people who didn't agree to the contract to join us, yes.

Its the other way around why do you think the Foreign Legion existed

I agree, the government-education complex is as much a threat to liberty as the military-industrial-contract services complex.