"The fact these men are kidnapped while in the process of emigration also calls into question the common logic employed by supporters of conscription who claim that everyone owes some sort of "duty" or debt to his or her nation-state. This attitude, of course, is premised on the rather absurd idea that people gain grand benefits from inhabiting a particular place and therefore owe something to the regime that happens to be ruling over that place. Moreover, keep in mind that most of the people have already been paying taxes for many years to support the regime financially. But after being squeezed for their wealth year after year, they're still lectured about what they "owe" the state. "
The fact that men are kidnapped to be thrown in front of bullets that will rip through their tender flesh, sear their organs, and leave them gasping for air as innocent memories of family and friends flash before their eyes - "calls into question the logic of people who support it"?
Are you fucking kidding me with that phrase?
The idea that conscription has anything to do with what people "owe" is the equivalent of chopping your balls off and then exclaiming that your balls didn't defy gravity. "Haha physics deniers! My balls fell towards the center of gravity just like I predicted!"
This section from the article gets conscription as it exists today completely wrong
"[conscription is based on] the rather absurd idea that people gain grand benefits from inhabiting a particular place and therefore owe something to the regime that happens to be ruling over that place."
This is not the theory of conscription at all. The theory of conscription as it exists today is this:
First, don't mention there is a theory because people don't even notice when white men are forced to die.
Second, if you are forced to explain yourself, blame white men and their beliefs, because those are the beliefs of Putin, and if you disagree, you will be ostracized, no further discussion.
People who support conscription don't pretend that white men are getting benefits from their country. And they don't pretend non whites are not getting benefits just from inhabiting a particular piece of land. They know the opposite is true. Their entire theory justifies that whites serve non whites based on historical injustice, which really amounts to genetic discrimination.
To miss this is to be in a complete ivory tower bubble and be a huge coward with a nice paycheck from rich, privileged donors. And the guy who wrote this article also said secession in America was "inevitable" and praised it as the big, easy solution to everything with no risks or downsides. Now he sees Ukraine can't even get independence from Russia. Is there any clarification or apology? No. Because he's some loser literary critic with a political science degree who gets paid by a institution that doesn't face market forces and hasn't done anything great since 2010.
Putin has borders. Putin is a nationalist. Putin is a Christian. Putin is anti communist. Putin is not an egalitarian. Putin has testosterone. Putin has studied communism. He knows the trojan horse of "diversity" and how it is used to exploit a native countries wealth and punish, in general though not exclusively, traditional white people using their race and religion as an excuse.
Ukraine was the West's experiment to destroy another country by making it more communist and exploit it with threats to its leaders, and as a means to put more pressure to oust Putin, to open up Russia, a country with all the attributes I described above, to "diversification" via immigration of destructive, anti freedom groups, removing yet another obstacle to global communist dominance.
Ukraine is not a country that has the values of America's diverse population, so when Americans diverse population clamors for Ukrainian resistance and don't mention the draft, they're in reality enrolling a slave army to fight for gay rights, godlessness, anti traditionalism, anti two parent family (because that's the biggest barrier to pedophiles), and anti homogeneity (because that lessens class conflict in general).
Saying conscription calls into question the "logic of its supporters" is completely ridiculous. It's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer, who let's say is following an internal fictional demon, has a flawed logical apparatus. The whole point of power is to avoid logic and consistency. Pointing out that exercises in power lack logic or consistency is useless. It's like saying cancer is flawed because it's going to kill its host.
I'm sorry you spent a while writing your comments and I see you put a lot of thought into it. The original article was against conscription. It starts off with news but then goes into what the author thinks. It's from the mises institute. It's leading organization promoting and teaching Austrian economics.
As I read your comments don't see your theory or the major theory of conscription. His bio on the bottom states "Ryan has a bachelor's degree in economics and a master's degree in public policy and international relations from the University of Colorado." I don't know if does any literary criticism.
Do you believe the states should stay in a union? Does the current state of the union seem well to you?
The issue isn't that a smaller body of land can't just split without the larger absorbing it again. The issue is NATO has endlessly provoked Russia. If Texas split from the USA do you think another nation will provoke the union made up of the other 49 states to re-absorb Texas back into the union?
"The fact these men are kidnapped while in the process of emigration also calls into question the common logic employed by supporters of conscription who claim that everyone owes some sort of "duty" or debt to his or her nation-state. This attitude, of course, is premised on the rather absurd idea that people gain grand benefits from inhabiting a particular place and therefore owe something to the regime that happens to be ruling over that place. Moreover, keep in mind that most of the people have already been paying taxes for many years to support the regime financially. But after being squeezed for their wealth year after year, they're still lectured about what they "owe" the state. "
The fact that men are kidnapped to be thrown in front of bullets that will rip through their tender flesh, sear their organs, and leave them gasping for air as innocent memories of family and friends flash before their eyes - "calls into question the logic of people who support it"?
Are you fucking kidding me with that phrase?
The idea that conscription has anything to do with what people "owe" is the equivalent of chopping your balls off and then exclaiming that your balls didn't defy gravity. "Haha physics deniers! My balls fell towards the center of gravity just like I predicted!"
It has everything to do with that. Do you owe your country anything?
Countries don't exist.
This section from the article gets conscription as it exists today completely wrong
"[conscription is based on] the rather absurd idea that people gain grand benefits from inhabiting a particular place and therefore owe something to the regime that happens to be ruling over that place."
This is not the theory of conscription at all. The theory of conscription as it exists today is this:
First, don't mention there is a theory because people don't even notice when white men are forced to die.
Second, if you are forced to explain yourself, blame white men and their beliefs, because those are the beliefs of Putin, and if you disagree, you will be ostracized, no further discussion.
People who support conscription don't pretend that white men are getting benefits from their country. And they don't pretend non whites are not getting benefits just from inhabiting a particular piece of land. They know the opposite is true. Their entire theory justifies that whites serve non whites based on historical injustice, which really amounts to genetic discrimination.
To miss this is to be in a complete ivory tower bubble and be a huge coward with a nice paycheck from rich, privileged donors. And the guy who wrote this article also said secession in America was "inevitable" and praised it as the big, easy solution to everything with no risks or downsides. Now he sees Ukraine can't even get independence from Russia. Is there any clarification or apology? No. Because he's some loser literary critic with a political science degree who gets paid by a institution that doesn't face market forces and hasn't done anything great since 2010.
Putin has borders. Putin is a nationalist. Putin is a Christian. Putin is anti communist. Putin is not an egalitarian. Putin has testosterone. Putin has studied communism. He knows the trojan horse of "diversity" and how it is used to exploit a native countries wealth and punish, in general though not exclusively, traditional white people using their race and religion as an excuse.
Ukraine was the West's experiment to destroy another country by making it more communist and exploit it with threats to its leaders, and as a means to put more pressure to oust Putin, to open up Russia, a country with all the attributes I described above, to "diversification" via immigration of destructive, anti freedom groups, removing yet another obstacle to global communist dominance.
Ukraine is not a country that has the values of America's diverse population, so when Americans diverse population clamors for Ukrainian resistance and don't mention the draft, they're in reality enrolling a slave army to fight for gay rights, godlessness, anti traditionalism, anti two parent family (because that's the biggest barrier to pedophiles), and anti homogeneity (because that lessens class conflict in general).
Saying conscription calls into question the "logic of its supporters" is completely ridiculous. It's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer, who let's say is following an internal fictional demon, has a flawed logical apparatus. The whole point of power is to avoid logic and consistency. Pointing out that exercises in power lack logic or consistency is useless. It's like saying cancer is flawed because it's going to kill its host.
I'm sorry you spent a while writing your comments and I see you put a lot of thought into it. The original article was against conscription. It starts off with news but then goes into what the author thinks. It's from the mises institute. It's leading organization promoting and teaching Austrian economics. As I read your comments don't see your theory or the major theory of conscription. His bio on the bottom states "Ryan has a bachelor's degree in economics and a master's degree in public policy and international relations from the University of Colorado." I don't know if does any literary criticism. Do you believe the states should stay in a union? Does the current state of the union seem well to you? The issue isn't that a smaller body of land can't just split without the larger absorbing it again. The issue is NATO has endlessly provoked Russia. If Texas split from the USA do you think another nation will provoke the union made up of the other 49 states to re-absorb Texas back into the union?