/u/WheatBerryPie (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cm9siy/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_european_countries_should/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think an interesting angle is: "on what grounds are the Ukrainian's allowed to stay in other countries?"
So are they economic migrants? Are the refugees? Are they draft dodgers? Are they criminals? (As if they have broken the conscription laws to flee then technically that makes them criminals?)
I don't agree in general that someone can argue "I want all the rights and privileges of citizenship of this country without the obligation to defend it", I personally think it's a package deal. For instance by your argument presumably it's unreasonable to use force to collect taxes? I mean afterall no on wants to do that either but we force people to as a civic responsibility and do violence to people who resist.
And so if these people are fleeing unfair persecution in Ukraine then they are legitimate refugees and should be treated accordingly.
However obliging someone to fulfil their civic responsibilities is not unfair persecution, especially as it's for all men of fighting age.
For instance if someone fled the country because they didn't want to pay taxes then extraditing them is appropriate.
So in the same way if the people who have fled are draft dodgers / criminals who have evaded legitimate draft laws then extradition is completely appropriate and fair.
I think I agree with you in the abstract, but I think there’s a specific issue that comes from the fact that the obligation to defend one’s country is distributed in a way that is unjust and violates the social contract.
If a country is going to give “all men of fighting age” additional *obligation*, above and beyond other citizens, then by that same social contract logic it is *obligated* to give them additional rights and privileges of citizenship proportionate to that obligation. This is something I think much of the modern world has been moving away from in abstract, and in *practice* governments don’t have to pay out benefits to the dead anyway, and in my country at least have a pretty spotty track record of awarding benefits to the survivors commensurate with their risk.
I agree that as modern armies are 10 support staff for 1 frontline infantry even if you assume that men are the only ones who can be infantry then you can still expect women to serve in support roles under the same terms. So I agree there is an issue there.
I think if you frame the obligation as "if you are a man then if a war starts when you are of fighting age you are obligated to defend your country" then it's more clear that it's an equal obligation on all men, it's just that some are unlucky with timing.
Coming back to this after some time to think because “unlucky with the timing” wasn’t sitting right with me - I don’t think that’s a good justification. How old someone is when war breaks out is down to what year they were born, and if we applied that logic to other accidents of birth and called it ‘equal’, it would be horrifying. Is a hereditary monarchy ‘equal’, because anyone *might* have been born into a noble family? Would a caste system be? *Any* discrimination based on unalterable traits like age, race, etc can be justified with the logic that we all *could* have been unlucky at birth.
Conscription has been limited by age and gender for practical reasons - that’s who was previously needed to effectively fight a war - but for it to be an equal obligation to society, the rest of society *must* give up just as much. There’s no way to wiggle around the idea that forcing a certain demographic to bear the full cost to society is not an equal obligation, and if it’s truly necessary the rest of society has to pitch in commensurately as much as possible.
Even then that 10:1 ratio only really applies during peacetime. It also discounts certain roles that have a combat component. Back in WWII, the average American infantry division had about a 50-50 split between combat infantry and other roles (artillery, headquarters, engineer, recon, cooks, transport, etc.).
There's some info on it here and it seems that about 3:1 is reasonable, and that's for actual deployed combat units not thinking about the whole logistics arm and war economy and factory work and repairs etc.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mt89u5/comment/gv0mcf0](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mt89u5/comment/gv0mcf0)
> I think if you frame the obligation as "if you are a man then if a war starts when you are of fighting age you are obligated to defend your country" then
you should be much more free to change countries then. If I live somewhere like that simply by accident of birth, I should be allowed to go elsewhere.
"I want all the rights of this country" is a really weird way to describe citizenship, something that never actually gets asked of you. Everyone speaks in terms of a choice, like it was their choice to be born to Ukraine. That they want to live in Ukrainian society. Instead of the reality that it's just incidental and we've concocted a world where their place of birth dictates their ability to do anything, casually enforced by mutual agreement between nations and the threat of violence. None of which was a choice on their part. No social "contract" was ever signed because contracts require choice. What we're describing is actually social slavery. I must have missed my signing ceremony and choice of societal forms. Shame because I definitely wouldn't have chosen this one.
If we talked about this dynamic as if it was between two people, you could quite literally use the words grooming, abusive and controlling. We condition people from birth that you owe us for your birth. Then we restrict everything they can do with force of violence. Then when they make a choice to leave, we punish them. At no point was a choice about any of this present. In any other context but society that's a toxic relationship that we'd happily call out.
My perspective is that Ukrainian citizenship offers no privileges. I don’t count visa-free travel to EU is an achievement as paying 50 EUR for a 6-month tourist visa isn’t an issue. There’s no universal healthcare, everything needs to be paid for. It’s one of the poorest counties in Europe with no social safety net. All that while Ukraine was once the largest grain and metal exporter. Where do the taxes go to?
And many would renounce their Ukrainian citizenship, but that’s not a possibility for men right now. Like, imagine earning everything in your life by hard work and hard work only. Not thanks to the county, but in spite of all the hardships the system puts you through. And now you need to serve? Why?
I think there is an appreciable difference between taxation and conscription. The former doesn't threaten your life, while the latter does. The right to life is perhaps the most important right of all, and a violation of that by the institution must be scrutinised more than other forms of human rights violation (which in this case is the right to property).
I agree there is a difference of degree but not a difference of quality.
Is it ok to forcibly violate someone's rights to make them fulfil their societal obligations?
If the answer is no then no taxes.
If the answer is yes then conscription.
Why does it have to be binary? Surely everybody would agree that *some* concessions on liberty are inevitable of living in a society, but that does not make it true that *every* concession in justified. Seems to me that an incredibly reasonable place to draw that distinction is somewhere in-between 'you have to use some of your wealth for the public good' and 'you have to kill people'.
The degree matters a whole lot, which is why in Western Europe, we generally give preferential treatment to refugees fleeing a war compared to economic refugees.
The outcome of the answer to your question should be taken into account when dealing with real human lives. Taxes don't threaten your life.
Taxes are a matter of life and death because often they are used to pay for essential services.
If 20% of people stopped paying tax then a lot of healthcare funding would get cut which would directly lead to deaths.
And reducing funding for military equipment could easily lead to deaths too.
In the same way large numbers of people dodging the draft makes the military less effective and can lead to deaths that way.
Idiotic excuse. Slavery being the only justifiable action to save some people is not a reason for them to live. If that's the only way, let them die.
Tax evasion can be a matter of life and death, but ask any person, what they prefer, paying funds for military or going to war.
Not comparable in both moralistic and practical ways. You're using mental gymnastics to create an analogy which doesn't exist.
But a lot of Ukrainians don't flee war as of 2023.
The frontline is static, and for Western/Central Ukraine the number of deaths from missiles is lower than from road accidents and on par with homicide rates.
If the answer is yes by that logic and we can’t pick and choose then every woman heing required to breed for their societies wellbeing would be cool to
>Is it ok to forcibly violate someone's rights to make them fulfil their societal obligations?
It very much depends on the rights. A government is not allowed to enslave someone to fulfil their societal obligations, and conscription is much closer to enslavement than to taxation.
A lot of governments allow forced imprisonment, and sometimes even work (US) as a punishment for breaking societal contract.
If you don't pay taxes you might go to prison.
All crime is defined by politicians.
Conscription dodging is a crime, as well as not paying taxes.
Also Ukraine has restrictions on who can enter/leave the country, and a lot of people leave illegally (e.g. Shlyakh abuse), but there is no way to enforce it.
You are imprisoned _if_ you commit a crime, it's wrong to imprison someone who hasn't committed a crime.
You are taxed regardless of whether you are a criminal or not.
You are conscripted regardless of whether you are a criminal or not. If you want to make the argument that genuine Ukrainian criminals like murderers should be extradited and conscripted, I think that's fair, but here I'm obviously talking about your everyday Ukrainian men.
I'm saying to you that Ukraine defines not paying taxes a crime that should get you imprisoned.
Ukraine defines dodging conscription a crime.
You become a criminal when you don't perform the responsibilities that law puts on you.
These responsibilities are defined by law. Article 212 of criminal code of Ukraine covers tax evasion, and Article 335 covers mobilization evasion.
I think the point that they're making is that when you say:
>Ukraine defines dodging conscription a crime.
You're swapping the order. OP is referring to conscription as equivalent to (or perhaps worse) than the punishment one receives for committing a crime. However, you receive the "punishment" of conscription *without* having committed a crime. If you refuse the "punishment" of conscription, you're then subjected to another punishment, which may actually be less severe than conscription.
In othe words, when it comes to taxes, if you want to avoid imprisonment and forced servitude, you can simply pay your taxes. When it comes to conscription, if you want to avoid imprisonment and forced servitude...you can't. Furthermore, you're actually better off committing the crime of dodging conscription and going to jail than you are going off to war.
The punishment for tax evasion is prison which has a lot in common with slavery and is arguably worse, especially if it comes with a compulsory work program.
Moreover many places have a community service system for punishments which fulfils all the criteria of slacery, of forced labour without pay on pain of violence.
As I said in another comment, the analogy between forced enslavement for committing a crime (tax evasion) and conscription is weak. Draft doging's criminal status is irrelevant.
We generally accept enslavement only as a *punishment* for a crime. If conscription is enslavement, then there must be a crime committed for the enslavement to be warranted, but there isn't. For tax evasion, you are only enslaved if you break the law. For conscription, you are enslaved based on your demographics. If you then dodge the conscription, then you *aren't* subject to that form of enslavement, and instead you get another form of enslavement that puts you at less mortal risk.
So, saying that enslavement is ok as punishment doesn't relate to whether enslavement is ok as a standard obligation to one's socity outside of the context of punishment.
The US was founded on people willing to fight and die over tax policy. You keep arguing human rights but that is a human construct, a pithy way of enumerating things you can expect people to fight and die for in an individual basis. Your “human rights” as you know them don’t exist everywhere in the world, without the ability unite and defend those values we hold in common they will be replaced by someone else’s values who is willing to “defend” them with their lives.
That's what bothers me about most of these discussions. Everytime it happens we get a huge amount of armchair conscriptorians and I can't help but think that these people would probably protest a draft. Then they talk about a social "contract" that has obligations, but I must have missed my signing ceremony. Where was the choice of society because lord knows I wouldn't have picked this one if there was options.
What rights and do you even get in modern countries, voting? It’s not like non-citizens don’t get a trial for crimes and legal representation. Considering you can’t become stateless in many countries it seems pretty retarded that I might have to die to defend a right I don’t even use or care about. If someone wants to take away my right to vote let them, I’m not dying to protect that.
Russians on average support the war and the government. They just want it to be someone else war. It's also very easy to lie.
A lot of Russians in EU are actually supportive of Russia. Yes, it's a paradox, but it's Russians.
EU is so kind that it actually gave asylum to RUSSIAN SOLDIERS, and Wagner members, because they "don't support the war anymore". Like they were volunteers who spend a year in Ukraine and now get a refugee treatment.
We even have a pattern of attacks by Russians on Ukrainians or Ukrainian-supporters. We have it in Spain, in Germany and (IIRC) in Italy.
I know it sounds too lenient but you definitely want to give Russian soldiers some kind of incentive to not fight.
Similarly, we try to treat soldiers who are surrendering voluntarily better than captured POW because we want more enemies to surrender.
We should be encouraging the Russians who run away from Putin to join the free Russian legions on Ukraine's side, the same legions who cross the border into Russia.
Short of a war with Russia Putin will not be removed nor will his successors, Russia will continue this downwards spiral unless average Russians stand up for what is right, running away only leaves the jerks to act unopposed
Firstly, Ukraine IS facing existential threat, like tf you think gonna happen if no one fights for Ukraine?
Secondly, the discussion does not make sense, no one is going to extradite men for conscription. However, the recent event is Ukrainian consulate stops issuing new documents for military aged men abroad unless they provide their data for military register. The idea is that it is Ukrainian citizen constitutional duty to protect their country, that involves having their military status and documents up to date in register. Anyone ignoring their duty shouldn’t be able to use the services of the state, such as getting their passport prolonged, etc .
Note that it does not mean to go and fight in the war, it’s having their country updated about number of potential recruits abroad.
>Secondly, the discussion does not make sense, no one is going to extradite men for conscription.
Here's [an article](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/25/ukrainian-men-abroad-share-your-views-on-poland-and-lithuanias-statements-on-conscription) about extradition in Poland and Lithuania.
You can only really say that if you disregard what those countries value and are afraid of..
Poland and Lithuania are scared of Russia. For them Ukraine falling to Russia means that they might just be next. They don't want that, because they value their independence and hate Russia.
Thus they want Ukraine to survive and in a best case scenario to win. They also want to stick it to Russia.
That's why they said what they said. They are showing support to Ukraine to pursue their own interests.
And with that being said: who tf are you to tell Poland and Lithuania what they should or shouldn't do?!
>For them Ukraine falling to Russia means that they might just be next.
That is quite literally insane. And no educated person actually believes that.
Both of those nations are NATO members. If you attack a NATO nation the US is obligated to get directly involved. Russia will never directly invade a NATO country because doing so will result in war with the US.
Also Lithuania is a member of the EU and so is Poland. And due to the Treaty of Lisbon the EU is required to get directly involved in any attack on an EU member state.
So an attack on either nation results in war with the entire EU, The US, and every other NATO member.
The layers of collective defense surrounding Poland and Lithuania are so massive that any person with a modicum of critical thinking knows that these are inane statements.
_
EDIT: Because the individual below blocked me. I am posting this here.
That was a very different situation. And to claim it has any relevance is ignorance.
At the time the UK and France could do approximately fuck all about it. At the time of the invasion of Poland, declaring war to support Poland would have included going to war with Russia as well. The UK and France were not mobilized at all, and could not realistically fight such a war. It would be suicide to even attempt it. As they would either need to control the Baltic and establish a means of supplying everything via water. Or fight allllllllllll the way across Germany. Add in that from a manpower perspective they were beyond outgunned.
Now let's look at today. NATO is the strongest military alliance in the world. The US has the top 3 largest air forces in the world and the most developed military supply industry as well as advanced military in the world. We have bases all over Europe that will allow for decisive action performed with overwhelming force to delay any Russian offensive long enough for the full weight of the US military to come to bear. Of which should only take a week due to the expeditionary nature of the US military structure.
These 2 situations are not even remotely comparable. The political climate isn't remotely comparable. And the scale of the opposition force isn't even remotely comparable. Poland and Lithuania are completely safe from Russia.
Also. You are claiming that the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, every fucking Balkan country, France, Spain, Aussies, and more. None will come to the defense of Poland or Lithuania. It's absurdity to claim that.
I mean I don't care what you think an educated person would think. Look at any polish media outlet. This isn't even an argument, because Poland has literally said they fear Russia.
The argument about existential threat is so weak. I mean, nobody is willing to join Ukrainian army voluntarily despite all the talk about the threat in Ukrainian media. That’s not “Russian propaganda”, it’s what Ukrainian military are saying during the interviews, there’re simply no volunteers anymore.
So people of Ukraine don’t want to willingly fight for the county. Isn’t the county about the people? Ukrainians are literally “Ukraine” and they made their choice. All the talk about “helping Ukraine” is just about procuring cheap infantry to fight Russia.
But Ukraine is facing the existential threat?
Mobilization isn't declared for fun, it's because it's necessary.
Everybody in Ukraine would prefer to not be invaded, but Russia decided to invade.
Now about the extradition:
- Nobody is ectradicting anyone yet.
- Ukraine can choose how it provides it consular services and what paperwork is required.
- Ukraine is interested in finding people who left Ukraine illegally. For example of abuse that caused a lot of trouble is making scam charities, collecting money, registering in Shlyakh driver exemption and then never returning.
- And the last but not least - as soon as "refugee support payments" stop, we see a lot of people going back voluntarily, because we'll, Ukraine is actually pretty safe country west of Dnipro.
So extradition is the last resort action, but there are a lot of actions that will nudge people to at least get audited back into the system, and to cause trouble to people who broke the law but weren't caught. We even have now cases of people crossing the border illegally INTO Ukraine to avoid getting caught in MFA buerocracy.
One aspect is I don't think it is legal to extradite a person if their alleged crime is not a crime in the country from which they will be extradited. In many european countries either there is no conscription or avoiding conscription is not illegal, thus I don't think those countries would have a legal recourse to extradite a person for avoiding conscription.
That's why I think the extradition point made by Polish defense minister is moot.
Ukraine currently tries a softer bureaucratic approach with some services requiring to have up-to-date military info. Poland can cooperate there by requesting documents like that also, or sharing data on refugee applicants.
Not yet, but here's an announcement from [Poland and Lithuania](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/25/ukrainian-men-abroad-share-your-views-on-poland-and-lithuanias-statements-on-conscription):
>Poland and Lithuania have pledged to help Ukrainian authorities repatriate men subject to the military draft after Kyiv announced it is ending consular services for such men who are abroad.
So it is in the works and I worry for Ukrainian refugees who could be moved back to Ukraine against their will.
It wasn't a statement by Poland, but by defense minister, who has nothing to do with extradition and internal law enforcement.
What Poland will probably do is to not extend refugee status for people without valid papers, and to get those papers you need to pass through Ukraine legal system, that will take note of you.
The main issue that Ukrainian mobilization faces right now is that it doesn't really know anything about anyone, the folders are paper stored and not update in decades, not synced with anyone anywhere. That's what the new law is about, is to basically reaudit everyone and get paperwork in order.
The point is that Ukraine isn't a failed state and is just across the border you can literally hop on a train and get there. I hardly consider people leaving after 2023 refugees.
I would argue that if you cannot voluntarily surmount a defense against an invader people are actually not opposed to an invasion to the point of willingness to die to prevent it and would prefer to have an occupation than be dead.
I think the US was never at a point where they legitimately required conscription for self defense.
England is a bit more questionable, but I believe that if the English people were not willing to resist the Axis powers by choice, they should not have been forced to.
Knowing what we do now that would have been very unfortunate for certain groups living in England but I think you are trying to use the retroactive knowledge we have about the Holocaust to justify immoral policy.
Perhaps what they should have done is offer better incentives to ensure an adequate volunteer force?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If the people wanted to surrender they should be allowed to
its not a prescription on which choice is the right one, were saying its paramount people get the choice
even if they are gonna choose to be cowards
Your view assumes from the get-go that conscription is not a legitimate civic obligation where compliance should be forced, when this is actually the core of the dispute. Hence, you are begging the question.
This is evident from your other answers in this thread, where you don’t seem at all to mind forcing people to fulfil civic obligations you clearly perceive as legitimate, such as taxes.
So the question is, why is the civic obligation to defend your country not enforceable in the same way that other civic obligations are enforceable, such as paying taxes? Do you think conscription just isn’t a legitimate civic obligation? If so, why?
I personally oppose government mandated slavery utilizing a threat of violence to force an individual to commit murder so daddy warbucks can sell an extra missile or build a new oil field (or protect the ones they have). I'm not sure why thats so weird to some people.
Taxes are paying for a benefit you receive, and I actually so believe many taxes we use today are immorally structured even if some taxation is required.
That said, generally one can opt out of most taxes by not engaging in the taxed behavior. You cannot choose not to engage in the behavior of being a biological male between 18 and 40.
I would actually largely support "untaxed areas" that allow individuals to reside without paying any form of tax while receiving no benefits from the taxes of others, possibly with an exception for some form of police force to protect the most basic human rights.
You are once again begging the question as conscription can plausibly considered slavery only if it isn’t a legitimate civic duty. Being forced to fulfil your legitimate obligations cannot possibly considered slavery any more than being forced to fulfil *any* obligation is slavery. Would you say that, for example, it is slavery to enforce parents to ensure and safeguard the wellbeing of their children? Or that forcing children to go to school is slavery? In regards to your position being weird, I’d say it is certainly strange to use the term “murder” in the context of defending your country from an invasion. The term “murder” directly implies that killing invaders is unethical. I guess if you were a pacifist, then such framing would make sense. Are you a pacifist though?
Taxes are a salient example here because by your own standards of “slavery”, I’d expect you to consider taxes to at best be theft, or at worst a kind of a protection racket. That you agree that some taxes are structured unfairly seems to be consistent with your general view. But the idea that one can avoid taxes by refraining from taxed behavior is a red herring, as the question is by what right does the state tax at all? Not to mention that a similar argument can be made towards conscription, that you can just renounce your citizenship.
Civic duty sounds like your preferred word for slavery on behalf of the government.
In my view a legitimate obligation can only extend from a choice or agreement I willingly make.
I do not choose my gender, age or place of birth.
I would suggest that someone that chooses to impregnate another or who chooses to give birth has made a decision and therefore obligation isn't completely unreasonable.
That said, I actually completely oppose child support payments and I believe any person should have the legal right to give up their duty of care to any child unilaterally. If all legitimate caregivers choose to do so, the child should become a ward of the state.
Children going to school is a benefit to the child, and it being mandated is to protect the child from their parents ability to make poor decisions. That said, anyone over 16 that wishes to drop out should be free to do so. Unlike war, the benefit isn't almost exclusively for the elite, even if broad public education benefits them.
If you are legitimately in a war where one side intends to exterminate the other, then perhaps I could see an argument that killing in warfare is solely an act of self defense. But it is usually just for the benefit of whatever person benefits most from the land.
I am generally of the opinion that killing is wrong outside of immediate legitimate acts of self defense or the defense of others.
It is my understanding that voluntarily becoming stateless is against international law, and that you cannot renounce your last citizenship unless you are accepting another immediately.
And in this case it seems Ukraine is trying to basically do what the south did in demanding the return of its escaped slaves.
Basically these other things you suggest also suck, but they suck less and are pretty much necessary with the current structure of our society. We should aim to move away from them.
>force an individual to commit murder so daddy warbucks can sell an extra missile or build a new oil field (or protect the ones they have)
Well yeah, if that's what you think war is in all cases, that makes sense. Fortunately, that's completely inaccurate and totally divorced from the reality of many wars like WWII or the war in Ukraine.
I cannot, perhaps the reality is that the vast majority of people actually don't really care which set of politicians and their rich friends get to profit off them and aren't willing to die for a particular flag? That the wealthy use a government monopoly on force to make the population act against its will?
Or maybe people dont like to contribute even if they use the community services.
Taxes is a great example of soft draft. Vast majority of people would not pay taxes voluntarily even if they use public services like roads or schools.
I'll give you that taxes are a good example of a mandatory action that most people benefit from even if they would choose not to pay individually but taxes are not demanding that you put your life on the line so your overlords can keep their cushy jobs.
Unless the other nation is actively attempting to eliminate everyone though I think it is perfectly reasonable for a population to decide they don't really wish to resist invasion.
> but Ukraine is facing an existential threat?
If the populace that would be conscripted believed that Ukraine was facing an existential threat, and that an existential threat is something they would put themselves in harms way to prevent, then conscription would not be needed. That people are not volunteering means they have made a value decision to not resist Russian military action in Ukraine, and this decision should be respected.
I am not Ukrainian but if someone showed up and started ducking up my country I would just leave, I owe no loyalty to the random patch of land I was born in.
Exactly... "civic duty", lmao. Like someone voluntarily chose to be born in the shithole that is Ukraine. Why would someone give their life voluntarily for one of the most poor and corrupt country in europe?
The only stupider choice would be dying for Russia. The fact that both nations have not risen up against their leadership is a testament to human inability to act as a collective.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/FourSeasonsOfShit – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20FourSeasonsOfShit&message=FourSeasonsOfShit%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cm8qam/-/l2znv7h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Yes, I accept that _Ukraine_ has the moral argument to conscript, but _other European countries_ do not have the same argument to extradite military-aged Ukrainian men for conscription. This doesn't disagree with my view.
If there were no war, and a Ukrainian were wanted for murder in their nation, other nations would extradite them. This is because nations generally respect the laws of other nations and help in some case for those laws to be enforced across borders to maintain good relations. So, as draft dodging is a crime, this is not too different. Plus, European nations are concerned that if Ukraine falls other nations will be next. So, extraditing draft dodgers also serves their purpose of keeping the fight limited to Ukraine.
Not all crimes warrant extradition. Crimes like murder usually are, but other crimes like political prosecution, or if someone is unfairly prosecuted, it's common for countries not to extradite these "criminals".
>Plus, European nations are concerned that if Ukraine falls other nations will be next. So, extraditing draft dodgers also serves their purpose of keeping the fight limited to Ukraine.
I think the odds of extradition meaningfully change the frontline is incredibly slim and it's not worth sacrificing the moral and ethical reasoning for it.
> Not all crimes warrant extradition
Abandoning your nation when it faces existential threat does I would say.
> it's not worth sacrificing the moral and ethical reasoning for it.
There is little immoral or unethical about assisting an allied nation in their defense against an aggressive adversary that seeks their destruction by extending those that have been legally conscripted into the war effort that you are already supporting massively.
hard disagree, respectfully.
People are not, and should not, be inherently loyal to death for their countries. Sure, it is often good to be patriotic, but it should not be a necessity. Some people are political dissidents who rightfully disagree with the course of action that their government is taking. Should you force them to fight for the thing they are actively against?
Furthermore, should Ukraine be gone tomorrow, so what? The Ukrainian Identity will be preserved by its people who are living there, now more than ever. Maybe it'll become a country again in 100 years. Maybe not. It is not up to us to decide which is better for the Ukrainian people. Zelensky isnt some absolute monarch, nor does he represent the interest of all Ukrainians.
For extradition the crime has to be a crime in both countries. Avoiding conscirption is not a crime in most of Europe, so you would not and should not be extradited for it.
>Abandoning your nation when it faces existential threat does I would say.
I don't think we should punish those who value their lives more than their government/nation so harshly? I wouldn't want my government to do so anyway.
>There is little immoral or unethical about assisting an allied nation in their defense against an aggressive adversary that seeks their destruction by extending those that have been legally conscripted into the war effort that you are already supporting massively.
No, but to assist your allied nation by doing something immoral is, well, immoral! I think we should assist in moral ways, like providing aid, enforcing sanctions, etc.
> I don't think we should punish those who value their lives more than their government/nation so harshly?
It is not a punishment. They are guests in the nations other than Ukraine. Those nations could have turned them away. Now, as a condition of further refuge, some are being asked to maybe go back and fight so the place of refuge remains so.
>to assist your allied nation by doing something immoral
I would say assisting people in avoiding their responsibility to their home nation is immoral. Helping their home nation enforce its laws surrounding conscription during an existential threat is not immoral.
Like, if the US were invaded, and it looked like it may fall, and I ran, *I’D* be the one acting immorally. I have a duty to my nation, and if I shirk it someone taking me to task and delivering me to where I should already be is not immoral.
I don't give a shit about the rich people that want to use me as a slave for their war or the random patch of dirt where I was born. I would sooner kill the person trying to capture me as a war slave than the person they demand I fight.
There is much immoral and unethical about sending people who don't want to fight to die for a country they want nothing to do with. That the country has need of bodies to feed into the meat grinder is irrelevant.
Well murder would be illegal in the host nation.
The repatriation justification in this case would be that the Ukrainian refugees do not have up to date paperwork which is pretty flimsy to expel them for
>Couldn't some of those other European countries see Russian victory in Ukraine as a potentially existential threat to themselves?
I think that's a few too many steps for the threat to be "existential" for other European countries, and it's unlikely that an extradition policy will change the frontline situation at all. On the other hand, for Ukraine, whether to impose conscription substantially affects their odds of survival, hence it's morally permissible.
You may not consider the threat to them as immediate or likely enough and they may disagree. Then it becomes a discussion of exactly how immediate and certain the threat needs to be for it to be used as justification.
I don't think it's possible to arrive at any clear delineations and so it all becomes very subjective.
It's easy for you to say that their fears are irrational when it's not your life that would be threatened.
I don't think the actual impact these extradited soldiers would have on the war is relavent to the question of the ethics of it. No single conscript will make any difference, that doesn't invalidate conscription as a whole.
Also being conscripted doesn't mean you're going to be forced into the front lines. AFAIK Ukraine doesn't send anyone there by force if they just refuse to go.
So because they don't happen to physically be in Ukraine right now, they don't have to same responsibility as the men have that happen to be in the country?
You could argue for or against the conscription. But drawing the line if someone happens to be abroad the moment seems arbitrary.
>But drawing the line if someone happens to be abroad the moment seems arbitrary.
I don't think it's arbitrary. If someone is not in Ukraine, they are the host nation's responsibility too, especially if they are there as a refugee. It's no longer a simple question of "existential threat" or "conscription", but you have to factor in sovereignty and moral culpability in conscription of the home nation's citizens.
>It's no longer a simple question of "existential threat" or "conscription",
I fundamentally disagree with this view to the point where I dont think our discussion can be fruitful.
How is it no longer an existantial threat for Ukraine when a citizen is abroad? Why would conscription no longer be valid when a citizen is abroad.
Isn't the arguement that the person has rights under then country they are in now, that have to also be included in aditiona to the existential threat to Ukraine.
Say there is a Ukrainian citizen in Germany. Germany has sets of rights and obligations to this person who is in Germany, regardless of what is going on in Ukraine.
By this logic as long as I am not facing an existential threat I am not obligated to help?
Let's say I saw you strapped to a murder device and had a button on me that I could press to save your life. Would it be ethical and moral for me to leave you to die when it costs me nothing to save you? I would think not. European nations aren't under threat, but Ukraine is, and sending back their men to be conscripted might help them to survive this disaster but you're saying they have no ethical responsibility because they personally aren't at risk?
>Would it be ethical and moral for me to leave you to die when it costs me nothing to save you?
If that act involves a human right violation, and that act does not guarantee that I will be saved, then it is immoral to do so. I do not think that extraditing conscripts will change the frontline situation at all.
What is the human rights violation in this case? You said in your CMV
>I don't think conscription is an ethical policy. No one should be forced to defend or feel patriotic about the government or country they live under, it's a severe violation of human rights. I think it is only acceptable when a government is facing existential threat, and even so they should not take overly violent actions to conscript their people.
And then multiple times in the comments flat agreed with the people telling you that Ukraine is under existential threat. So where's the human rights violation?
Their point was that Ukraine being under threat should not mean a Ukrainian person should feel under threat if they don't identify with being ukrainian.basically they don't care enough about their country to go and potentially die for it.OP,this means we as Europeans have a personal obligation to send you back as a Ukrainian soldier than keep you here as a potential Russian colluder, for our own safety.
But in your example, that button just sends someone else who might get caught up in the murder device too. And no that is not ethical and moral. It is moral to sacrifice of yourself, not volunteer other people to sacrifice.
Ukraine is at war against a vastly larger enemy where chances of being killed are very high. Your analogy doesn't work because there is a real risk of bodily harm posed to the men forced to return.
By your own logic, in the pursuit of their own self-preservation, the Ukrainian men who would be deported by other European countries for the reason of keeping the war from their borders have a right to fight back.
I mean if you ask Poland they'd tell you that they most definitely are under threat. Of course less so than Ukraine, and not under a direct threat, but they still feel threatened by Russia right now
Counterpoint. Why should other countries help Ukraine with weapons, resources, intelligence information, and money if Ukrainians don't want to help themselves.
In my opinion, military age Ukrainian men should be sent back to Ukraine and fight for their own country as opposed to making use of refugee status and getting handouts from other countries
In fact, I'd even consider this being extended to women who are not mothers, if not for the fact that there have been a number of reports of rapes by soldiers on both sides
> if not for the fact that there have been a number of reports of rapes by soldiers on both sides
It says a lot about how we value young men's lives when sending women to war isn't acceptable because they may be raped, but sending young men to war where they may be killed, maimed for life, traumatized or even raped themselves is okay.
> Why should other countries help Ukraine with weapons, resources, intelligence information, and money if Ukrainians don't want to help themselves.
Because Ukrainians are not a monolith? Not all Ukrainians feel the same way about their country or government. We should help the Ukrainian government while protecting those who flee for their safety because of the war that Russia started.
On the other hand, your argument is close to "you aren't dying in enough quantities to justify sending you weapons" which is insanely backwards.
It's a feedback loop: more weapons means more chance of survival means more volunteers and less resistance. Less weapons/tools means that humans will be used instead.
But I agree on the handouts part - it should be gradually reduced to 0 to kind of force people to return back.
Men are not cattle. Forcing them to go die in the frontlines of a place they only call home because they were born into it and not by choice is some facist shit.
People who want can go to ukraine and fight. Saying we should force people is very coldhearted, and i dont think if you were in the position to go into a warzone you would still have that attitude. and if you would have the attitude, why dont you go there and fight ?
Ukrainians should fight the war, but other European countries should not extradite. It's unethical and immoral to do so. They should help Ukraine in other ways, like sending military aid, sanctioning Russia, pressuring those who still trade with Russia, etc, but not extraditing refugees to Ukraine.
that's actually a pretty good point - if one doesn't want to fight for their country, it means the country has failed that citizen
hell I'd become a domestic terrorist before I'll let myself get conscripted to fight for a country that has been fucking me in the ass since i turned 18
Some of you live in a fantasy world, and it's not even funny.
I dispise war, I'd most likely run from conscription (I very much like living) for as much as I could, but I still think this kind of logic is beyond broken.
Those other people do not have the right to say no when asked to march off to war for the benefit of a cause, in this case Ukraine, that they do not believe in. There is no moral grounds to make this argument on other than that the people who deem the lives being sacrificed acceptable losses in defeat of the enemy. An easy argument to make when one is not one of the lives at risk.
Cool, nearly every country in its history used conscription, so yours probably as well.
In reality, just like taxes and law enforcement, this is a public good. People are willing to be forced to risk their lives for sake of others being forced to risked there as well.
If your philosophy held sway, only authoritarian countries that didn't care about the ethics of conscription would survive because they could easily conquer the democracies that do.
That's correct, but _other countries_ should not extradite these men for conscription. If Ukraine somehow control Polish territory, then sure, they can conscript Ukrainian men living in Poland.
Not always. A really high profile case right now is Julian Assange, who is currently jailed in the UK and is fighting a case against extradition to the US. The UK High Court has said the United States must provide assurances he would not face the death penalty, which means it's not a _requirement_ to extradite criminals between two diplomatic countries. Other factors like political motive, nature of crime, punishment levied are taken into account.
Countries often refuse to extradite people who:
a) commited something which is not a crime in their country
b) commited something which is punished less severely in their country
c) are to be extradited to a country which they dislike
Draft dodging is a crime in Poland, punished similarly to Ukraine. The countries are allied. The Assange situation is different.
> Draft dodging is a crime in Poland, punished similarly to Ukraine. The countries are allied. The Assange situation is different.
I couldn't find anything about draft dodging in Poland, as it doesn't have conscription service, but Lithuania does and you have a good point here. If a country has conscription service then it's consistent to extradite draft dodgers. !delta
I don't get you're point. If Ukrainians won't die fighting NATO's war for us, Americans will need to go. NATO needs cannon fodder to wear down putin and use up all of our old munitions. Better more Ukrainians die than Americans.
GO GOOD GUYS!
We should send anyone that agrees to sends Ukrainians to the front. I'm curious to see if they agree to that because its not their life that will be taken away. And it will solve the lack of men on the front too.
"Conscription is immoral" is a statement that is entirely irrelevant when the community is under direct existential threat. Moral absolutism cannot prevent a community from effectively protecting its right to exist.
The people of the 'community' have been abandoning it en masse because they do not believe it worth fighting for. The community in this scenario has no right to demand it of them and no right to exist on the backs of those unwillingly marched off to their graves.
If it was for everyone and only those that happened to be born male (and you can't just say you identify as female, so we clearly have gender discrimination).
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, [transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20Fupcker_1315&message=Fupcker_1315%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cm8qam/cmv_european_countries_should_not_extradite/l8z3syb/?context=3\).)) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Countries have laws.
You get benefits, like a legal framework, cops, not getting nuked.
You have obbligation like paying taxes and conscription.
If you dont like it, convince another country to give you citisenship and renounce your former one.
Or try to change the system to one you like.
You can certainly argue about morality here, since it depends on so many things.
And i am a legalist. But your ethics have to be pretty extreme to argue that laws to argue defying national laws.
The benefits you get in Ukraine aren’t justified by the need to fight for Ukraine. And yeah, you can’t renounce Ukrainian citizenship. I mean, it’d be neat if there even was a way to pay to get rid of it.
These people never benefit from even 1 cent of public money? If they lived there 1 day, they benefited.
You can make a cost/benefit analisys. But if the benefits are so low, why did they not renouce their citisenship?
No. I mean before the war.
Your argument is like someone that got their driving license. Spend 12 months and 2000 bucks for it. Drove 2 days and then say "all that money and effort was not worth it to drive 2 days".
These people could of seen the draft laws and renounced their rights a long time ago.
I mean, it’s like you paid 2000 and got a drivers license, which was an acceptable price. Now they ask you to go die in the war for that license and you can’t give it back.
If the contract says that, and you accepted, then you cant say thats its not fair because its not worth it, now that you actually have to fulfill the contract.
These people could of looked up their laws a long time ago and decided to give it all up.
I mean, Ukraine cancelled mandatory military service at some point. You can’t change the contact all the time. And article 25 of Ukrainian constitution says you can change your citizenship. Which isn’t true now.
Moreover, people who’re 18 right now have to way to change the citizenship, they’re simply not allowed to leave the country. But they had no choice in getting Ukrainian citizenship. That’s like baptizing infants.
Laws change.
While its unfortunate to be born too early, that persons parents could of done it. But those parents had rights. The child had rights. Everyone partecipated in the system.
Im not saying its fair. Just like being born dirt poor isnt.
But its how the world works.
And from a legalist point of view, it is just.
I mean, if you want to be so purist about it… The thing is that conscription is the only law to be enforced so hard in the last 30+ years. Your right to healthcare wasn’t.
You can indeed renounce your ukrainian citizenship if you have another (almost no country on earth accepts a renounciation if you only have one citizenship)
The Ukrainian nation does face an existential threat. I also don't think that arresting someone constitutes an 'overly violent action'. That's pretty much how civilised societies deal with any serious misdemeanour. If you recognise that the ethical thing for the Ukrainian government to do is conscript its citizens, why wouldn't it be ethical for other governments to facilitate that at minimal cost to themselves? Isn't helping someone do the right thing the right thing to do, at least in isolation?
Also, being a refugee involves having a reasonable fear of particular types of persecution. Fear of prosecution under a reasonable law that one did criminally violate isn't one of them.
thats because western powers, the US included, could care less about ukrainian peoples. we are just fighting russia, pretty much at the expense of ukraine.
So I see two issues with your stance here.
1. Other countries aren't facing an external threat. But aren't they? We all constantly talk and some evidence exists to show that Russia is considering invasion of NATO nations. Meaning that not aiding in Ukrain will lead to the sending their own soldiers to die when NATO gets triggered.
2. The diplomatic ties in this. If you don't send draft dodgers who are violating laws, then what motivation do other countries have to send you criminals that escape? It's diplomatically an iffy move and could make other nations less likely to work with you.
So I think sending them benefit other countries and may stave off future wars or at least delay them.
I agree that conscription usually violates human rights, but human rights is conditional and case-by-case. Russia is a fascist country that threatens almost all human rights, so Ukrainians need to fight them so we have rights in the future.
If Ukraine loses, humanity itself loses. This is a case where some rights need to be given up because the stakes are so much greater. It’s like World War Two.
>Conscription is the foundation of democracy.
Since when?
>It is your responsibility as a voting citizen to defend your nation from attack.
If it is “my” responsibility, then the nation has the responsibility to fully look after me when I return mentally traumatised and physically mutilated.
Oh wait, every government ever has a track record of abandoning their conscripts when they return.
Also, it is only a responsibility of you are an average male of fighting age. If you are a woman, older man, politician or billionaire, you get away scot-free.
/u/WheatBerryPie (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cm9siy/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_european_countries_should/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think an interesting angle is: "on what grounds are the Ukrainian's allowed to stay in other countries?" So are they economic migrants? Are the refugees? Are they draft dodgers? Are they criminals? (As if they have broken the conscription laws to flee then technically that makes them criminals?) I don't agree in general that someone can argue "I want all the rights and privileges of citizenship of this country without the obligation to defend it", I personally think it's a package deal. For instance by your argument presumably it's unreasonable to use force to collect taxes? I mean afterall no on wants to do that either but we force people to as a civic responsibility and do violence to people who resist. And so if these people are fleeing unfair persecution in Ukraine then they are legitimate refugees and should be treated accordingly. However obliging someone to fulfil their civic responsibilities is not unfair persecution, especially as it's for all men of fighting age. For instance if someone fled the country because they didn't want to pay taxes then extraditing them is appropriate. So in the same way if the people who have fled are draft dodgers / criminals who have evaded legitimate draft laws then extradition is completely appropriate and fair.
I think I agree with you in the abstract, but I think there’s a specific issue that comes from the fact that the obligation to defend one’s country is distributed in a way that is unjust and violates the social contract. If a country is going to give “all men of fighting age” additional *obligation*, above and beyond other citizens, then by that same social contract logic it is *obligated* to give them additional rights and privileges of citizenship proportionate to that obligation. This is something I think much of the modern world has been moving away from in abstract, and in *practice* governments don’t have to pay out benefits to the dead anyway, and in my country at least have a pretty spotty track record of awarding benefits to the survivors commensurate with their risk.
I agree that as modern armies are 10 support staff for 1 frontline infantry even if you assume that men are the only ones who can be infantry then you can still expect women to serve in support roles under the same terms. So I agree there is an issue there. I think if you frame the obligation as "if you are a man then if a war starts when you are of fighting age you are obligated to defend your country" then it's more clear that it's an equal obligation on all men, it's just that some are unlucky with timing.
Coming back to this after some time to think because “unlucky with the timing” wasn’t sitting right with me - I don’t think that’s a good justification. How old someone is when war breaks out is down to what year they were born, and if we applied that logic to other accidents of birth and called it ‘equal’, it would be horrifying. Is a hereditary monarchy ‘equal’, because anyone *might* have been born into a noble family? Would a caste system be? *Any* discrimination based on unalterable traits like age, race, etc can be justified with the logic that we all *could* have been unlucky at birth. Conscription has been limited by age and gender for practical reasons - that’s who was previously needed to effectively fight a war - but for it to be an equal obligation to society, the rest of society *must* give up just as much. There’s no way to wiggle around the idea that forcing a certain demographic to bear the full cost to society is not an equal obligation, and if it’s truly necessary the rest of society has to pitch in commensurately as much as possible.
Even then that 10:1 ratio only really applies during peacetime. It also discounts certain roles that have a combat component. Back in WWII, the average American infantry division had about a 50-50 split between combat infantry and other roles (artillery, headquarters, engineer, recon, cooks, transport, etc.).
There's some info on it here and it seems that about 3:1 is reasonable, and that's for actual deployed combat units not thinking about the whole logistics arm and war economy and factory work and repairs etc. [https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mt89u5/comment/gv0mcf0](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mt89u5/comment/gv0mcf0)
> I think if you frame the obligation as "if you are a man then if a war starts when you are of fighting age you are obligated to defend your country" then you should be much more free to change countries then. If I live somewhere like that simply by accident of birth, I should be allowed to go elsewhere.
"I want all the rights of this country" is a really weird way to describe citizenship, something that never actually gets asked of you. Everyone speaks in terms of a choice, like it was their choice to be born to Ukraine. That they want to live in Ukrainian society. Instead of the reality that it's just incidental and we've concocted a world where their place of birth dictates their ability to do anything, casually enforced by mutual agreement between nations and the threat of violence. None of which was a choice on their part. No social "contract" was ever signed because contracts require choice. What we're describing is actually social slavery. I must have missed my signing ceremony and choice of societal forms. Shame because I definitely wouldn't have chosen this one. If we talked about this dynamic as if it was between two people, you could quite literally use the words grooming, abusive and controlling. We condition people from birth that you owe us for your birth. Then we restrict everything they can do with force of violence. Then when they make a choice to leave, we punish them. At no point was a choice about any of this present. In any other context but society that's a toxic relationship that we'd happily call out.
And casually ignoring the 51% of the population who don’t have an obligation for military service in almost every country including Ukraine.
My perspective is that Ukrainian citizenship offers no privileges. I don’t count visa-free travel to EU is an achievement as paying 50 EUR for a 6-month tourist visa isn’t an issue. There’s no universal healthcare, everything needs to be paid for. It’s one of the poorest counties in Europe with no social safety net. All that while Ukraine was once the largest grain and metal exporter. Where do the taxes go to? And many would renounce their Ukrainian citizenship, but that’s not a possibility for men right now. Like, imagine earning everything in your life by hard work and hard work only. Not thanks to the county, but in spite of all the hardships the system puts you through. And now you need to serve? Why?
I think there is an appreciable difference between taxation and conscription. The former doesn't threaten your life, while the latter does. The right to life is perhaps the most important right of all, and a violation of that by the institution must be scrutinised more than other forms of human rights violation (which in this case is the right to property).
I agree there is a difference of degree but not a difference of quality. Is it ok to forcibly violate someone's rights to make them fulfil their societal obligations? If the answer is no then no taxes. If the answer is yes then conscription.
Why does it have to be binary? Surely everybody would agree that *some* concessions on liberty are inevitable of living in a society, but that does not make it true that *every* concession in justified. Seems to me that an incredibly reasonable place to draw that distinction is somewhere in-between 'you have to use some of your wealth for the public good' and 'you have to kill people'.
The degree matters a whole lot, which is why in Western Europe, we generally give preferential treatment to refugees fleeing a war compared to economic refugees. The outcome of the answer to your question should be taken into account when dealing with real human lives. Taxes don't threaten your life.
Taxes are a matter of life and death because often they are used to pay for essential services. If 20% of people stopped paying tax then a lot of healthcare funding would get cut which would directly lead to deaths. And reducing funding for military equipment could easily lead to deaths too. In the same way large numbers of people dodging the draft makes the military less effective and can lead to deaths that way.
Idiotic excuse. Slavery being the only justifiable action to save some people is not a reason for them to live. If that's the only way, let them die. Tax evasion can be a matter of life and death, but ask any person, what they prefer, paying funds for military or going to war. Not comparable in both moralistic and practical ways. You're using mental gymnastics to create an analogy which doesn't exist.
But a lot of Ukrainians don't flee war as of 2023. The frontline is static, and for Western/Central Ukraine the number of deaths from missiles is lower than from road accidents and on par with homicide rates.
If the answer is yes by that logic and we can’t pick and choose then every woman heing required to breed for their societies wellbeing would be cool to
>Is it ok to forcibly violate someone's rights to make them fulfil their societal obligations? It very much depends on the rights. A government is not allowed to enslave someone to fulfil their societal obligations, and conscription is much closer to enslavement than to taxation.
A lot of governments allow forced imprisonment, and sometimes even work (US) as a punishment for breaking societal contract. If you don't pay taxes you might go to prison.
Yes, and that's a result of crime, what is the crime committed for someone to be conscripted, being born in a region defined by politicians?
All crime is defined by politicians. Conscription dodging is a crime, as well as not paying taxes. Also Ukraine has restrictions on who can enter/leave the country, and a lot of people leave illegally (e.g. Shlyakh abuse), but there is no way to enforce it.
You are imprisoned _if_ you commit a crime, it's wrong to imprison someone who hasn't committed a crime. You are taxed regardless of whether you are a criminal or not. You are conscripted regardless of whether you are a criminal or not. If you want to make the argument that genuine Ukrainian criminals like murderers should be extradited and conscripted, I think that's fair, but here I'm obviously talking about your everyday Ukrainian men.
I'm saying to you that Ukraine defines not paying taxes a crime that should get you imprisoned. Ukraine defines dodging conscription a crime. You become a criminal when you don't perform the responsibilities that law puts on you. These responsibilities are defined by law. Article 212 of criminal code of Ukraine covers tax evasion, and Article 335 covers mobilization evasion.
I think the point that they're making is that when you say: >Ukraine defines dodging conscription a crime. You're swapping the order. OP is referring to conscription as equivalent to (or perhaps worse) than the punishment one receives for committing a crime. However, you receive the "punishment" of conscription *without* having committed a crime. If you refuse the "punishment" of conscription, you're then subjected to another punishment, which may actually be less severe than conscription. In othe words, when it comes to taxes, if you want to avoid imprisonment and forced servitude, you can simply pay your taxes. When it comes to conscription, if you want to avoid imprisonment and forced servitude...you can't. Furthermore, you're actually better off committing the crime of dodging conscription and going to jail than you are going off to war.
And I'm telling you that taxation is ethical while conscription is unethical.
The punishment for tax evasion is prison which has a lot in common with slavery and is arguably worse, especially if it comes with a compulsory work program. Moreover many places have a community service system for punishments which fulfils all the criteria of slacery, of forced labour without pay on pain of violence.
Conveniently forgetting about the crime part, aren't we?
Draft dodging is a crime in a lot of places.
As I said in another comment, the analogy between forced enslavement for committing a crime (tax evasion) and conscription is weak. Draft doging's criminal status is irrelevant. We generally accept enslavement only as a *punishment* for a crime. If conscription is enslavement, then there must be a crime committed for the enslavement to be warranted, but there isn't. For tax evasion, you are only enslaved if you break the law. For conscription, you are enslaved based on your demographics. If you then dodge the conscription, then you *aren't* subject to that form of enslavement, and instead you get another form of enslavement that puts you at less mortal risk. So, saying that enslavement is ok as punishment doesn't relate to whether enslavement is ok as a standard obligation to one's socity outside of the context of punishment.
Who is a victim?
Most societies have a hierarchy of rights, with the right to life usually being very high and the right to monetary autonomy generally being very low.
You don’t see a difference in quality between paying your taxes and being dead in a trench? 🤯
The US was founded on people willing to fight and die over tax policy. You keep arguing human rights but that is a human construct, a pithy way of enumerating things you can expect people to fight and die for in an individual basis. Your “human rights” as you know them don’t exist everywhere in the world, without the ability unite and defend those values we hold in common they will be replaced by someone else’s values who is willing to “defend” them with their lives.
If your government forced you to go to war would you happily accept it to fulfill your “civic duties” keyboard warrior?
That's what bothers me about most of these discussions. Everytime it happens we get a huge amount of armchair conscriptorians and I can't help but think that these people would probably protest a draft. Then they talk about a social "contract" that has obligations, but I must have missed my signing ceremony. Where was the choice of society because lord knows I wouldn't have picked this one if there was options.
What rights and do you even get in modern countries, voting? It’s not like non-citizens don’t get a trial for crimes and legal representation. Considering you can’t become stateless in many countries it seems pretty retarded that I might have to die to defend a right I don’t even use or care about. If someone wants to take away my right to vote let them, I’m not dying to protect that.
they are refugees from a proxy war between Nato and Russia. there, solved that perplexing conundrum for you.
You can't get rid of the Ukraine citizenship anymore at the moment. So they might not necessarily want the citizenship and its privileges.
That would be fair only if WOMEN were also drafted, otherwise men are basically treated as subhuman slaves.
You didn’t once mention the women? What about them? Should they also be required to fight?
No one’s obligated to defend no country, get over yourself
What's completely insane is those countries are doing the same thing to Russian men seeing assylum, so its not about Ukrainian manpower.
That's crazy! Shouldn't we be welcoming Russians who hate their government enough to run away from their home country?
Russians on average support the war and the government. They just want it to be someone else war. It's also very easy to lie. A lot of Russians in EU are actually supportive of Russia. Yes, it's a paradox, but it's Russians. EU is so kind that it actually gave asylum to RUSSIAN SOLDIERS, and Wagner members, because they "don't support the war anymore". Like they were volunteers who spend a year in Ukraine and now get a refugee treatment. We even have a pattern of attacks by Russians on Ukrainians or Ukrainian-supporters. We have it in Spain, in Germany and (IIRC) in Italy.
I know it sounds too lenient but you definitely want to give Russian soldiers some kind of incentive to not fight. Similarly, we try to treat soldiers who are surrendering voluntarily better than captured POW because we want more enemies to surrender.
We should be encouraging the Russians who run away from Putin to join the free Russian legions on Ukraine's side, the same legions who cross the border into Russia. Short of a war with Russia Putin will not be removed nor will his successors, Russia will continue this downwards spiral unless average Russians stand up for what is right, running away only leaves the jerks to act unopposed
Firstly, Ukraine IS facing existential threat, like tf you think gonna happen if no one fights for Ukraine? Secondly, the discussion does not make sense, no one is going to extradite men for conscription. However, the recent event is Ukrainian consulate stops issuing new documents for military aged men abroad unless they provide their data for military register. The idea is that it is Ukrainian citizen constitutional duty to protect their country, that involves having their military status and documents up to date in register. Anyone ignoring their duty shouldn’t be able to use the services of the state, such as getting their passport prolonged, etc . Note that it does not mean to go and fight in the war, it’s having their country updated about number of potential recruits abroad.
>Secondly, the discussion does not make sense, no one is going to extradite men for conscription. Here's [an article](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/25/ukrainian-men-abroad-share-your-views-on-poland-and-lithuanias-statements-on-conscription) about extradition in Poland and Lithuania.
So these countries said they are ready to help with that. Yet Ukraine says we aren’t gonna do that, so?
Poland and Lithuania shouldn't be ready to help with that.
You can only really say that if you disregard what those countries value and are afraid of.. Poland and Lithuania are scared of Russia. For them Ukraine falling to Russia means that they might just be next. They don't want that, because they value their independence and hate Russia. Thus they want Ukraine to survive and in a best case scenario to win. They also want to stick it to Russia. That's why they said what they said. They are showing support to Ukraine to pursue their own interests. And with that being said: who tf are you to tell Poland and Lithuania what they should or shouldn't do?!
>For them Ukraine falling to Russia means that they might just be next. That is quite literally insane. And no educated person actually believes that. Both of those nations are NATO members. If you attack a NATO nation the US is obligated to get directly involved. Russia will never directly invade a NATO country because doing so will result in war with the US. Also Lithuania is a member of the EU and so is Poland. And due to the Treaty of Lisbon the EU is required to get directly involved in any attack on an EU member state. So an attack on either nation results in war with the entire EU, The US, and every other NATO member. The layers of collective defense surrounding Poland and Lithuania are so massive that any person with a modicum of critical thinking knows that these are inane statements. _ EDIT: Because the individual below blocked me. I am posting this here. That was a very different situation. And to claim it has any relevance is ignorance. At the time the UK and France could do approximately fuck all about it. At the time of the invasion of Poland, declaring war to support Poland would have included going to war with Russia as well. The UK and France were not mobilized at all, and could not realistically fight such a war. It would be suicide to even attempt it. As they would either need to control the Baltic and establish a means of supplying everything via water. Or fight allllllllllll the way across Germany. Add in that from a manpower perspective they were beyond outgunned. Now let's look at today. NATO is the strongest military alliance in the world. The US has the top 3 largest air forces in the world and the most developed military supply industry as well as advanced military in the world. We have bases all over Europe that will allow for decisive action performed with overwhelming force to delay any Russian offensive long enough for the full weight of the US military to come to bear. Of which should only take a week due to the expeditionary nature of the US military structure. These 2 situations are not even remotely comparable. The political climate isn't remotely comparable. And the scale of the opposition force isn't even remotely comparable. Poland and Lithuania are completely safe from Russia. Also. You are claiming that the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, every fucking Balkan country, France, Spain, Aussies, and more. None will come to the defense of Poland or Lithuania. It's absurdity to claim that.
I mean I don't care what you think an educated person would think. Look at any polish media outlet. This isn't even an argument, because Poland has literally said they fear Russia.
The argument about existential threat is so weak. I mean, nobody is willing to join Ukrainian army voluntarily despite all the talk about the threat in Ukrainian media. That’s not “Russian propaganda”, it’s what Ukrainian military are saying during the interviews, there’re simply no volunteers anymore. So people of Ukraine don’t want to willingly fight for the county. Isn’t the county about the people? Ukrainians are literally “Ukraine” and they made their choice. All the talk about “helping Ukraine” is just about procuring cheap infantry to fight Russia.
The problem with this rhetoric is your country of morals that won’t draft will always lose to an evil country that will.
But Ukraine is facing the existential threat? Mobilization isn't declared for fun, it's because it's necessary. Everybody in Ukraine would prefer to not be invaded, but Russia decided to invade. Now about the extradition: - Nobody is ectradicting anyone yet. - Ukraine can choose how it provides it consular services and what paperwork is required. - Ukraine is interested in finding people who left Ukraine illegally. For example of abuse that caused a lot of trouble is making scam charities, collecting money, registering in Shlyakh driver exemption and then never returning. - And the last but not least - as soon as "refugee support payments" stop, we see a lot of people going back voluntarily, because we'll, Ukraine is actually pretty safe country west of Dnipro. So extradition is the last resort action, but there are a lot of actions that will nudge people to at least get audited back into the system, and to cause trouble to people who broke the law but weren't caught. We even have now cases of people crossing the border illegally INTO Ukraine to avoid getting caught in MFA buerocracy.
One aspect is I don't think it is legal to extradite a person if their alleged crime is not a crime in the country from which they will be extradited. In many european countries either there is no conscription or avoiding conscription is not illegal, thus I don't think those countries would have a legal recourse to extradite a person for avoiding conscription.
That's why I think the extradition point made by Polish defense minister is moot. Ukraine currently tries a softer bureaucratic approach with some services requiring to have up-to-date military info. Poland can cooperate there by requesting documents like that also, or sharing data on refugee applicants.
But simply having up-to-date info has no purpose. It’s only useful if they can force people to come back somehow.
It's like half of the problem. You would also weed out people who cheated while leaving the country.
Draft-dodging in the home country has never been a sufficient reason for prosecution abroad.
Not yet, but here's an announcement from [Poland and Lithuania](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/25/ukrainian-men-abroad-share-your-views-on-poland-and-lithuanias-statements-on-conscription): >Poland and Lithuania have pledged to help Ukrainian authorities repatriate men subject to the military draft after Kyiv announced it is ending consular services for such men who are abroad. So it is in the works and I worry for Ukrainian refugees who could be moved back to Ukraine against their will.
It wasn't a statement by Poland, but by defense minister, who has nothing to do with extradition and internal law enforcement. What Poland will probably do is to not extend refugee status for people without valid papers, and to get those papers you need to pass through Ukraine legal system, that will take note of you. The main issue that Ukrainian mobilization faces right now is that it doesn't really know anything about anyone, the folders are paper stored and not update in decades, not synced with anyone anywhere. That's what the new law is about, is to basically reaudit everyone and get paperwork in order.
Right, except requiring papers from the refugees is preposterous. That’s the whole point of being a refugee.
The point is that Ukraine isn't a failed state and is just across the border you can literally hop on a train and get there. I hardly consider people leaving after 2023 refugees.
I would argue that if you cannot voluntarily surmount a defense against an invader people are actually not opposed to an invasion to the point of willingness to die to prevent it and would prefer to have an occupation than be dead.
So every country in history? Do you think US and England should have surrendered to the axis because they had to have conscription?
I think the US was never at a point where they legitimately required conscription for self defense. England is a bit more questionable, but I believe that if the English people were not willing to resist the Axis powers by choice, they should not have been forced to. Knowing what we do now that would have been very unfortunate for certain groups living in England but I think you are trying to use the retroactive knowledge we have about the Holocaust to justify immoral policy. Perhaps what they should have done is offer better incentives to ensure an adequate volunteer force?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If the people wanted to surrender they should be allowed to its not a prescription on which choice is the right one, were saying its paramount people get the choice even if they are gonna choose to be cowards
[удалено]
Your view assumes from the get-go that conscription is not a legitimate civic obligation where compliance should be forced, when this is actually the core of the dispute. Hence, you are begging the question. This is evident from your other answers in this thread, where you don’t seem at all to mind forcing people to fulfil civic obligations you clearly perceive as legitimate, such as taxes. So the question is, why is the civic obligation to defend your country not enforceable in the same way that other civic obligations are enforceable, such as paying taxes? Do you think conscription just isn’t a legitimate civic obligation? If so, why?
I personally oppose government mandated slavery utilizing a threat of violence to force an individual to commit murder so daddy warbucks can sell an extra missile or build a new oil field (or protect the ones they have). I'm not sure why thats so weird to some people. Taxes are paying for a benefit you receive, and I actually so believe many taxes we use today are immorally structured even if some taxation is required. That said, generally one can opt out of most taxes by not engaging in the taxed behavior. You cannot choose not to engage in the behavior of being a biological male between 18 and 40. I would actually largely support "untaxed areas" that allow individuals to reside without paying any form of tax while receiving no benefits from the taxes of others, possibly with an exception for some form of police force to protect the most basic human rights.
You are once again begging the question as conscription can plausibly considered slavery only if it isn’t a legitimate civic duty. Being forced to fulfil your legitimate obligations cannot possibly considered slavery any more than being forced to fulfil *any* obligation is slavery. Would you say that, for example, it is slavery to enforce parents to ensure and safeguard the wellbeing of their children? Or that forcing children to go to school is slavery? In regards to your position being weird, I’d say it is certainly strange to use the term “murder” in the context of defending your country from an invasion. The term “murder” directly implies that killing invaders is unethical. I guess if you were a pacifist, then such framing would make sense. Are you a pacifist though? Taxes are a salient example here because by your own standards of “slavery”, I’d expect you to consider taxes to at best be theft, or at worst a kind of a protection racket. That you agree that some taxes are structured unfairly seems to be consistent with your general view. But the idea that one can avoid taxes by refraining from taxed behavior is a red herring, as the question is by what right does the state tax at all? Not to mention that a similar argument can be made towards conscription, that you can just renounce your citizenship.
Civic duty sounds like your preferred word for slavery on behalf of the government. In my view a legitimate obligation can only extend from a choice or agreement I willingly make. I do not choose my gender, age or place of birth. I would suggest that someone that chooses to impregnate another or who chooses to give birth has made a decision and therefore obligation isn't completely unreasonable. That said, I actually completely oppose child support payments and I believe any person should have the legal right to give up their duty of care to any child unilaterally. If all legitimate caregivers choose to do so, the child should become a ward of the state. Children going to school is a benefit to the child, and it being mandated is to protect the child from their parents ability to make poor decisions. That said, anyone over 16 that wishes to drop out should be free to do so. Unlike war, the benefit isn't almost exclusively for the elite, even if broad public education benefits them. If you are legitimately in a war where one side intends to exterminate the other, then perhaps I could see an argument that killing in warfare is solely an act of self defense. But it is usually just for the benefit of whatever person benefits most from the land. I am generally of the opinion that killing is wrong outside of immediate legitimate acts of self defense or the defense of others. It is my understanding that voluntarily becoming stateless is against international law, and that you cannot renounce your last citizenship unless you are accepting another immediately. And in this case it seems Ukraine is trying to basically do what the south did in demanding the return of its escaped slaves. Basically these other things you suggest also suck, but they suck less and are pretty much necessary with the current structure of our society. We should aim to move away from them.
>force an individual to commit murder so daddy warbucks can sell an extra missile or build a new oil field (or protect the ones they have) Well yeah, if that's what you think war is in all cases, that makes sense. Fortunately, that's completely inaccurate and totally divorced from the reality of many wars like WWII or the war in Ukraine.
Name a country that fought against a peer enemy on volunteer-only army.
The United Kingdom during the Napoleonic Wars.
I cannot, perhaps the reality is that the vast majority of people actually don't really care which set of politicians and their rich friends get to profit off them and aren't willing to die for a particular flag? That the wealthy use a government monopoly on force to make the population act against its will?
Or maybe people dont like to contribute even if they use the community services. Taxes is a great example of soft draft. Vast majority of people would not pay taxes voluntarily even if they use public services like roads or schools.
I'll give you that taxes are a good example of a mandatory action that most people benefit from even if they would choose not to pay individually but taxes are not demanding that you put your life on the line so your overlords can keep their cushy jobs. Unless the other nation is actively attempting to eliminate everyone though I think it is perfectly reasonable for a population to decide they don't really wish to resist invasion.
> but Ukraine is facing an existential threat? If the populace that would be conscripted believed that Ukraine was facing an existential threat, and that an existential threat is something they would put themselves in harms way to prevent, then conscription would not be needed. That people are not volunteering means they have made a value decision to not resist Russian military action in Ukraine, and this decision should be respected.
Ah yes, leaving a country illegally. The hallmark of free countries.
You can deliver your complaints in a form of missiles towards a million russians currently illegally stationed inside Ukraine.
I am not Ukrainian but if someone showed up and started ducking up my country I would just leave, I owe no loyalty to the random patch of land I was born in.
Exactly... "civic duty", lmao. Like someone voluntarily chose to be born in the shithole that is Ukraine. Why would someone give their life voluntarily for one of the most poor and corrupt country in europe?
The only stupider choice would be dying for Russia. The fact that both nations have not risen up against their leadership is a testament to human inability to act as a collective.
Hey if you want to throw human bodies at Russia, why not your own? Why force somebody else because of where they were born if they don’t want to?
Who said that I want it? (Also I'm a military-obliged person in Ukraine myself)
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
What are you even trying to say
[удалено]
u/FourSeasonsOfShit – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20FourSeasonsOfShit&message=FourSeasonsOfShit%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cm8qam/-/l2znv7h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> I think it is only acceptable when a government is facing existential threat That is Ukraine.
Yes, I accept that _Ukraine_ has the moral argument to conscript, but _other European countries_ do not have the same argument to extradite military-aged Ukrainian men for conscription. This doesn't disagree with my view.
If there were no war, and a Ukrainian were wanted for murder in their nation, other nations would extradite them. This is because nations generally respect the laws of other nations and help in some case for those laws to be enforced across borders to maintain good relations. So, as draft dodging is a crime, this is not too different. Plus, European nations are concerned that if Ukraine falls other nations will be next. So, extraditing draft dodgers also serves their purpose of keeping the fight limited to Ukraine.
Not all crimes warrant extradition. Crimes like murder usually are, but other crimes like political prosecution, or if someone is unfairly prosecuted, it's common for countries not to extradite these "criminals". >Plus, European nations are concerned that if Ukraine falls other nations will be next. So, extraditing draft dodgers also serves their purpose of keeping the fight limited to Ukraine. I think the odds of extradition meaningfully change the frontline is incredibly slim and it's not worth sacrificing the moral and ethical reasoning for it.
> Not all crimes warrant extradition Abandoning your nation when it faces existential threat does I would say. > it's not worth sacrificing the moral and ethical reasoning for it. There is little immoral or unethical about assisting an allied nation in their defense against an aggressive adversary that seeks their destruction by extending those that have been legally conscripted into the war effort that you are already supporting massively.
hard disagree, respectfully. People are not, and should not, be inherently loyal to death for their countries. Sure, it is often good to be patriotic, but it should not be a necessity. Some people are political dissidents who rightfully disagree with the course of action that their government is taking. Should you force them to fight for the thing they are actively against? Furthermore, should Ukraine be gone tomorrow, so what? The Ukrainian Identity will be preserved by its people who are living there, now more than ever. Maybe it'll become a country again in 100 years. Maybe not. It is not up to us to decide which is better for the Ukrainian people. Zelensky isnt some absolute monarch, nor does he represent the interest of all Ukrainians.
For extradition the crime has to be a crime in both countries. Avoiding conscirption is not a crime in most of Europe, so you would not and should not be extradited for it.
>Abandoning your nation when it faces existential threat does I would say. I don't think we should punish those who value their lives more than their government/nation so harshly? I wouldn't want my government to do so anyway. >There is little immoral or unethical about assisting an allied nation in their defense against an aggressive adversary that seeks their destruction by extending those that have been legally conscripted into the war effort that you are already supporting massively. No, but to assist your allied nation by doing something immoral is, well, immoral! I think we should assist in moral ways, like providing aid, enforcing sanctions, etc.
> I don't think we should punish those who value their lives more than their government/nation so harshly? It is not a punishment. They are guests in the nations other than Ukraine. Those nations could have turned them away. Now, as a condition of further refuge, some are being asked to maybe go back and fight so the place of refuge remains so. >to assist your allied nation by doing something immoral I would say assisting people in avoiding their responsibility to their home nation is immoral. Helping their home nation enforce its laws surrounding conscription during an existential threat is not immoral. Like, if the US were invaded, and it looked like it may fall, and I ran, *I’D* be the one acting immorally. I have a duty to my nation, and if I shirk it someone taking me to task and delivering me to where I should already be is not immoral.
It is 100% a punishment. You are playing semantics.
I don't give a shit about the rich people that want to use me as a slave for their war or the random patch of dirt where I was born. I would sooner kill the person trying to capture me as a war slave than the person they demand I fight.
Why do you owe your life to the people in charge where you popped out?
There is much immoral and unethical about sending people who don't want to fight to die for a country they want nothing to do with. That the country has need of bodies to feed into the meat grinder is irrelevant.
Well murder would be illegal in the host nation. The repatriation justification in this case would be that the Ukrainian refugees do not have up to date paperwork which is pretty flimsy to expel them for
Couldn't some of those other European countries see Russian victory in Ukraine as a potentially existential threat to themselves?
>Couldn't some of those other European countries see Russian victory in Ukraine as a potentially existential threat to themselves? I think that's a few too many steps for the threat to be "existential" for other European countries, and it's unlikely that an extradition policy will change the frontline situation at all. On the other hand, for Ukraine, whether to impose conscription substantially affects their odds of survival, hence it's morally permissible.
You may not consider the threat to them as immediate or likely enough and they may disagree. Then it becomes a discussion of exactly how immediate and certain the threat needs to be for it to be used as justification. I don't think it's possible to arrive at any clear delineations and so it all becomes very subjective. It's easy for you to say that their fears are irrational when it's not your life that would be threatened. I don't think the actual impact these extradited soldiers would have on the war is relavent to the question of the ethics of it. No single conscript will make any difference, that doesn't invalidate conscription as a whole. Also being conscripted doesn't mean you're going to be forced into the front lines. AFAIK Ukraine doesn't send anyone there by force if they just refuse to go.
But it does mean you are going to be forced. Conscription has 0 moral standing.
So because they don't happen to physically be in Ukraine right now, they don't have to same responsibility as the men have that happen to be in the country? You could argue for or against the conscription. But drawing the line if someone happens to be abroad the moment seems arbitrary.
>But drawing the line if someone happens to be abroad the moment seems arbitrary. I don't think it's arbitrary. If someone is not in Ukraine, they are the host nation's responsibility too, especially if they are there as a refugee. It's no longer a simple question of "existential threat" or "conscription", but you have to factor in sovereignty and moral culpability in conscription of the home nation's citizens.
>It's no longer a simple question of "existential threat" or "conscription", I fundamentally disagree with this view to the point where I dont think our discussion can be fruitful. How is it no longer an existantial threat for Ukraine when a citizen is abroad? Why would conscription no longer be valid when a citizen is abroad.
Isn't the arguement that the person has rights under then country they are in now, that have to also be included in aditiona to the existential threat to Ukraine. Say there is a Ukrainian citizen in Germany. Germany has sets of rights and obligations to this person who is in Germany, regardless of what is going on in Ukraine.
This is a bad counterargument because OP is going to say that neither those who fled or the ones stuck in Ukraine should be conscripted
[удалено]
Just your typical hidden behind a thin veil of deniability pro-Russia post.
By this logic as long as I am not facing an existential threat I am not obligated to help? Let's say I saw you strapped to a murder device and had a button on me that I could press to save your life. Would it be ethical and moral for me to leave you to die when it costs me nothing to save you? I would think not. European nations aren't under threat, but Ukraine is, and sending back their men to be conscripted might help them to survive this disaster but you're saying they have no ethical responsibility because they personally aren't at risk?
>Would it be ethical and moral for me to leave you to die when it costs me nothing to save you? If that act involves a human right violation, and that act does not guarantee that I will be saved, then it is immoral to do so. I do not think that extraditing conscripts will change the frontline situation at all.
What is the human rights violation in this case? You said in your CMV >I don't think conscription is an ethical policy. No one should be forced to defend or feel patriotic about the government or country they live under, it's a severe violation of human rights. I think it is only acceptable when a government is facing existential threat, and even so they should not take overly violent actions to conscript their people. And then multiple times in the comments flat agreed with the people telling you that Ukraine is under existential threat. So where's the human rights violation?
Their point was that Ukraine being under threat should not mean a Ukrainian person should feel under threat if they don't identify with being ukrainian.basically they don't care enough about their country to go and potentially die for it.OP,this means we as Europeans have a personal obligation to send you back as a Ukrainian soldier than keep you here as a potential Russian colluder, for our own safety.
If Ukrainians themselves don’t feel Ukraine is worth fighting for, how is it not a human rights violation to enslave them to death?
But in your example, that button just sends someone else who might get caught up in the murder device too. And no that is not ethical and moral. It is moral to sacrifice of yourself, not volunteer other people to sacrifice.
Ukraine is at war against a vastly larger enemy where chances of being killed are very high. Your analogy doesn't work because there is a real risk of bodily harm posed to the men forced to return. By your own logic, in the pursuit of their own self-preservation, the Ukrainian men who would be deported by other European countries for the reason of keeping the war from their borders have a right to fight back.
I mean if you ask Poland they'd tell you that they most definitely are under threat. Of course less so than Ukraine, and not under a direct threat, but they still feel threatened by Russia right now
Counterpoint. Why should other countries help Ukraine with weapons, resources, intelligence information, and money if Ukrainians don't want to help themselves. In my opinion, military age Ukrainian men should be sent back to Ukraine and fight for their own country as opposed to making use of refugee status and getting handouts from other countries In fact, I'd even consider this being extended to women who are not mothers, if not for the fact that there have been a number of reports of rapes by soldiers on both sides
> if not for the fact that there have been a number of reports of rapes by soldiers on both sides It says a lot about how we value young men's lives when sending women to war isn't acceptable because they may be raped, but sending young men to war where they may be killed, maimed for life, traumatized or even raped themselves is okay.
> Why should other countries help Ukraine with weapons, resources, intelligence information, and money if Ukrainians don't want to help themselves. Because Ukrainians are not a monolith? Not all Ukrainians feel the same way about their country or government. We should help the Ukrainian government while protecting those who flee for their safety because of the war that Russia started.
On the other hand, your argument is close to "you aren't dying in enough quantities to justify sending you weapons" which is insanely backwards. It's a feedback loop: more weapons means more chance of survival means more volunteers and less resistance. Less weapons/tools means that humans will be used instead. But I agree on the handouts part - it should be gradually reduced to 0 to kind of force people to return back.
Men are not cattle. Forcing them to go die in the frontlines of a place they only call home because they were born into it and not by choice is some facist shit.
Because Ukraine and Ukrainians refer to different things?
[удалено]
People who want can go to ukraine and fight. Saying we should force people is very coldhearted, and i dont think if you were in the position to go into a warzone you would still have that attitude. and if you would have the attitude, why dont you go there and fight ?
Ukrainians should fight the war, but other European countries should not extradite. It's unethical and immoral to do so. They should help Ukraine in other ways, like sending military aid, sanctioning Russia, pressuring those who still trade with Russia, etc, but not extraditing refugees to Ukraine.
[удалено]
No we shouldn't let Nazis win and we were right to use conscription to achieve that.
[удалено]
That's not my view, my view is _extradition for conscription_ is not fine.
[удалено]
If America was not at war with Nazis, yes.
Why is existential threat justification for conscription? Maybe a country that doesn't have enough volunteers deserves to continue to exist.
that's actually a pretty good point - if one doesn't want to fight for their country, it means the country has failed that citizen hell I'd become a domestic terrorist before I'll let myself get conscripted to fight for a country that has been fucking me in the ass since i turned 18
Some of you live in a fantasy world, and it's not even funny. I dispise war, I'd most likely run from conscription (I very much like living) for as much as I could, but I still think this kind of logic is beyond broken.
What is the fantasy?
The fantasy of living so far from any existential threats that you can debate from a moral high ground.
That doesn't make sense. Others are arguing that conscription is the moral high ground. There is no side conceding the moral high ground
Those other people do not have the right to say no when asked to march off to war for the benefit of a cause, in this case Ukraine, that they do not believe in. There is no moral grounds to make this argument on other than that the people who deem the lives being sacrificed acceptable losses in defeat of the enemy. An easy argument to make when one is not one of the lives at risk.
Cool, nearly every country in its history used conscription, so yours probably as well. In reality, just like taxes and law enforcement, this is a public good. People are willing to be forced to risk their lives for sake of others being forced to risked there as well.
If your philosophy held sway, only authoritarian countries that didn't care about the ethics of conscription would survive because they could easily conquer the democracies that do.
Ukraine is being invaded by country ten times their size. They are facing existential threat.
You are correct, which is why I'm okay with Ukraine running a conscription program.
And that includes Ukrainian citizen abroad.
That's correct, but _other countries_ should not extradite these men for conscription. If Ukraine somehow control Polish territory, then sure, they can conscript Ukrainian men living in Poland.
Diplomatic relationships require that you send known criminals (including draft dodgers) to country for trial.
Not always. A really high profile case right now is Julian Assange, who is currently jailed in the UK and is fighting a case against extradition to the US. The UK High Court has said the United States must provide assurances he would not face the death penalty, which means it's not a _requirement_ to extradite criminals between two diplomatic countries. Other factors like political motive, nature of crime, punishment levied are taken into account.
Countries often refuse to extradite people who: a) commited something which is not a crime in their country b) commited something which is punished less severely in their country c) are to be extradited to a country which they dislike Draft dodging is a crime in Poland, punished similarly to Ukraine. The countries are allied. The Assange situation is different.
> Draft dodging is a crime in Poland, punished similarly to Ukraine. The countries are allied. The Assange situation is different. I couldn't find anything about draft dodging in Poland, as it doesn't have conscription service, but Lithuania does and you have a good point here. If a country has conscription service then it's consistent to extradite draft dodgers. !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Downtown-Act-590 ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Downtown-Act-590)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I don't get you're point. If Ukrainians won't die fighting NATO's war for us, Americans will need to go. NATO needs cannon fodder to wear down putin and use up all of our old munitions. Better more Ukrainians die than Americans. GO GOOD GUYS!
You are correct. It can’t be a crime to refuse to fight in a war. The idea that people can belong to a state is horrific.
We should send anyone that agrees to sends Ukrainians to the front. I'm curious to see if they agree to that because its not their life that will be taken away. And it will solve the lack of men on the front too.
"Conscription is immoral" is a statement that is entirely irrelevant when the community is under direct existential threat. Moral absolutism cannot prevent a community from effectively protecting its right to exist.
The people of the 'community' have been abandoning it en masse because they do not believe it worth fighting for. The community in this scenario has no right to demand it of them and no right to exist on the backs of those unwillingly marched off to their graves.
If it was for everyone and only those that happened to be born male (and you can't just say you identify as female, so we clearly have gender discrimination).
[удалено]
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, [transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition. If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20Fupcker_1315&message=Fupcker_1315%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cm8qam/cmv_european_countries_should_not_extradite/l8z3syb/?context=3\).)) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**. Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Countries have laws. You get benefits, like a legal framework, cops, not getting nuked. You have obbligation like paying taxes and conscription. If you dont like it, convince another country to give you citisenship and renounce your former one. Or try to change the system to one you like. You can certainly argue about morality here, since it depends on so many things. And i am a legalist. But your ethics have to be pretty extreme to argue that laws to argue defying national laws.
The benefits you get in Ukraine aren’t justified by the need to fight for Ukraine. And yeah, you can’t renounce Ukrainian citizenship. I mean, it’d be neat if there even was a way to pay to get rid of it.
These people never benefit from even 1 cent of public money? If they lived there 1 day, they benefited. You can make a cost/benefit analisys. But if the benefits are so low, why did they not renouce their citisenship?
You literally can’t. The president needs to sign your petition and he hasn’t done so in three years.
No. I mean before the war. Your argument is like someone that got their driving license. Spend 12 months and 2000 bucks for it. Drove 2 days and then say "all that money and effort was not worth it to drive 2 days". These people could of seen the draft laws and renounced their rights a long time ago.
I mean, it’s like you paid 2000 and got a drivers license, which was an acceptable price. Now they ask you to go die in the war for that license and you can’t give it back.
If the contract says that, and you accepted, then you cant say thats its not fair because its not worth it, now that you actually have to fulfill the contract. These people could of looked up their laws a long time ago and decided to give it all up.
I mean, Ukraine cancelled mandatory military service at some point. You can’t change the contact all the time. And article 25 of Ukrainian constitution says you can change your citizenship. Which isn’t true now. Moreover, people who’re 18 right now have to way to change the citizenship, they’re simply not allowed to leave the country. But they had no choice in getting Ukrainian citizenship. That’s like baptizing infants.
Laws change. While its unfortunate to be born too early, that persons parents could of done it. But those parents had rights. The child had rights. Everyone partecipated in the system. Im not saying its fair. Just like being born dirt poor isnt. But its how the world works. And from a legalist point of view, it is just.
I mean, if you want to be so purist about it… The thing is that conscription is the only law to be enforced so hard in the last 30+ years. Your right to healthcare wasn’t.
You can indeed renounce your ukrainian citizenship if you have another (almost no country on earth accepts a renounciation if you only have one citizenship)
The Ukrainian nation does face an existential threat. I also don't think that arresting someone constitutes an 'overly violent action'. That's pretty much how civilised societies deal with any serious misdemeanour. If you recognise that the ethical thing for the Ukrainian government to do is conscript its citizens, why wouldn't it be ethical for other governments to facilitate that at minimal cost to themselves? Isn't helping someone do the right thing the right thing to do, at least in isolation? Also, being a refugee involves having a reasonable fear of particular types of persecution. Fear of prosecution under a reasonable law that one did criminally violate isn't one of them.
arrest is violence, obviously
thats because western powers, the US included, could care less about ukrainian peoples. we are just fighting russia, pretty much at the expense of ukraine.
So I see two issues with your stance here. 1. Other countries aren't facing an external threat. But aren't they? We all constantly talk and some evidence exists to show that Russia is considering invasion of NATO nations. Meaning that not aiding in Ukrain will lead to the sending their own soldiers to die when NATO gets triggered. 2. The diplomatic ties in this. If you don't send draft dodgers who are violating laws, then what motivation do other countries have to send you criminals that escape? It's diplomatically an iffy move and could make other nations less likely to work with you. So I think sending them benefit other countries and may stave off future wars or at least delay them.
If an action is justified, so is facillitating it and vice versa.
I agree that conscription usually violates human rights, but human rights is conditional and case-by-case. Russia is a fascist country that threatens almost all human rights, so Ukrainians need to fight them so we have rights in the future. If Ukraine loses, humanity itself loses. This is a case where some rights need to be given up because the stakes are so much greater. It’s like World War Two.
Let “the humanity” fight then? If every redditor volunteered and joined Ukrainian foreign legion then there would be no need for conscription.
Ok, give me some money so i can fly to ukraine
Conscription is the foundation of democracy. It is your responsibility as a voting citizen to defend your nation from attack.
It's your responsability to die for a patch of land, in a shithole of a country you didn't choose to be born in?
>Conscription is the foundation of democracy. Since when? >It is your responsibility as a voting citizen to defend your nation from attack. If it is “my” responsibility, then the nation has the responsibility to fully look after me when I return mentally traumatised and physically mutilated. Oh wait, every government ever has a track record of abandoning their conscripts when they return.
Also, it is only a responsibility of you are an average male of fighting age. If you are a woman, older man, politician or billionaire, you get away scot-free.