It depends if you think of your country as an accessory burden or as the ensemble of your fellows.
Incidentally, this seems to be an argument towards smaller, culturally homogeneous countries, where it is much easier to feel connected to the whole set of your countrymen.
> Mandatory military service otherwise known as government mandated slavery
>> It depends if you think of your country as an accessory burden or as the ensemble of your fellows.
This "depends" clause doesn't logically follow, since the "slavery" label applies in either circumstance. If one's country is an "ensemble of your fellows", then volunteering for military service may logically follow from that; forcing others to do so, does not. In either case, whether one feels connected to one's country or not, being compelled by force to participate in the military can legitimately be seen as a form of slavery -- since the victim is unable to withdraw unilaterally from their compelled service.
If one cares deeply about their own countrymen, why would one want to enslave them, and remove their choice and freedom in the matter?
I think mandatory military service is the only way to get sufficient people interested in participating and educating themselves about current issues to have a functional democracy.
I think all this praise for people that go into the military as having “served” and whatnot is nationalistic brainwashing. I really don’t see any other option for Americans to start caring about what their politicians do than to make them personally feel it.
That has failed miserably for getting people to care - at least as they should because of attributation. It is their bread and butter to claim successes they had nothing to do with pin their failures on their foes or a scapegoat who is now their foe.
