Many soldiers genuinely volunteer to join the army (aren't conscripted), especially in western democracies. For the most part the powerful volunteer armies of democracies deter authoritarian regimes from committing endless atrocities. The alternative is tyranny. The right for government to conscript is still recognized in many of the most democratic countries and general conscription still happens in quite a few.
We need volunteer armies and accordingly soldiers who honor the nation deserve respect. In the meantime we can dream pf a future without war or the constant threat of war.
There's a lot to unpack from your comment, and this is made difficult by the way it sidesteps most of what I actually wrote.
Yes, the military is at present a volunteer force. That in no way negates my criticism of the recruitment and training process. The threat of selective service conscription still looms, and is still no different from slavery. What is the source of the alleged right to conscript?
You say western armies deter totalitarian regimes. I would in turn point out that the US is growing totalitarian. Anything that is not prohibited must be licensed, registered, tracked, and recorded. The economy is a stifled morass of taxes, subsidies, bailouts, trade restrictions, and regulations. What is the source of the alleged authority to impose these mandates?
We need a voluntary means of security. That was the point of the 2nd Amendment. However, the military is not funded voluntarily. The government claims to represent us without any real evidence of consent, just the veneer of democracy. And the perpetual wars fought by the political class do not secure my liberty.
I mean this question in all sincerity. Do ALL soldiers deserve respect for serving their respective governments? Patriotism isn't a uniquely American feeling. When foreign solders obey foreign governments, does this confer some sort of virtue? When foreign soldiers and civilians defend their homelands from US invasion, are they noble defenders of liberty?
My main point was that modern militaries are diverse and people join for a lot of different reasons. Your posts read like every solider in every conflict is just a mindless killing machine who thinks they are spreading liberty.
Conscription is different than slavery in the sense that the government doesn't own you. It is more akin to taxation by labour. I suppose governments that rely on it could improve conditions and pay for soldiers. It was taxation without representation that was considered exploitation by the American colonists. States, where taxes aren't spent on public welfare and the public good, are generally shitholes (low education, low life expectancy, high crime rate, poor infrastructure, etc).
The US is not a totalitarian state. They aren't 100% free and may even be creeping closer to totalitarianism. However, clearly you haven't researched actual totalitarian countries like North Korea, or even somewhat totalitarian countries like China and Russia. America doesn't come close.
The government does fund the military by taxation, but I don't subscribe to the belief that taxes are oppression. Most people don't actually. In fact, if you earn below 10,000 $ a year, the government doesn't really tax you anyway. It's when you start earning a lot that this becomes a problem. Generally, the more you earn the more you are either relying on social stability or exploitation.
All soldiers do not deserve respect simply for having served. However, most of them do. When America invades a country, usually the objective is to topple some corrupt government. This doesn't make the soldiers working for that government bad as long as they are not committing war crimes. There have been countless examples (movies made, interviews, etc) where respect for the enemy is discussed.
Taxation is the government claiming a superior right to whatever portion of your earnings they demand. It is extortion. But conscription? Aside from chattel slavery, what is a more direct claim of ownership over another's life? "You will fight, kill, and die for us, or else, because we said so." How is that right? Governments xlaim to represent the people, but if they can't find volunteer soldiers, much less volunteer funding, how can they claim to fight in the public interest?
Yes, all those who serve their Nations have my respect, even our enemies, past and present. One man's Patriot is another's terrorist.
Remember the American Revolution? Yeah, our founding fathers and the minute-men were terrorists as far as King George and his government were concerned.
Yes, they were traitors and rebels according to the political system imposed upon them at birth. The soldiers who fought to maintain that status quo felt they were acting honorably. But reality exists outside their perceptions. One side fought to maintain an authoritarian regime, and the other fought for independence. Which side would you choose? Do patriotism and loyalty trump liberty? If so, that is no honorable position.
I think they were fighting to have their own boss instead of the current one being forced upon them.
The whiskey rebellion clearly demonstrated that freedom was not the end goal of gw, and only a few pushed back on that one.
Divided, we fell.
All hail, the united snakes!
True. As with most revolutions, the result wasn't really liberty, just a new ruler.