Thank you for a great post I like it ^^
Yes, there is "social contract". Think about it, the Nazis guarding the camps did not think that they did something wrong. Because social contract did not say its wrong.
Please check my new post, I think you will like it!
@paps
Yes, it's the same thing. But is it a contract? Isn't that brainwashing? Many socialist and communist doesnt believe that there is anything wrong with robbing others of money, basically because they are the ones most likely to net profit from it. A, excuse my french, butt ugly fat woman with low IQ wouldn't be on the front lines fighting for liberty and freedom. She would vote communist or socialist, because then things would be stolen fro m others and given to her.
For a 20 year old nazi-guard in the 1940s nazi germany, what was the option? Did they even understand that they were doing wrong? Probably not. But was it a contract? Could the soldier chose not to participate? Could he say..nah, I'll refuse to fight in the war, or I refuse to join the army. No. There is always an element of force and threat. That's what governments do. Some more and worse than others, but the idea is always the same. Violence, threat, redistribution of money.
Ofc they could refuse, they did not have to join the army in the first place... it wasn't mandatory. In soviet union it was and you had no option.
I think you are mistaken. Read this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrkraftzersetzung
Can't find where it's said mandatory :)
Please quote to me
'Conscientious objectors in articular were frequently convicted of Wehrkraftzersetzung in addition to other charges.'
The term 'Conscientious objectors' is the giveaway.