To put it in perspective: the USA has it (but dormant as it was last used in the 60s) now, instead part of an automatic register. I’ve heard that last year Germany for example proposed to impose a mandatory, volunteer-focused military service model on boosting defense against threats like Russia but would you really enlist in the German Army (Bundeswehr) or refuse instead of adhereing to politicians interests?
I’ve heard a similar thing in France with them introducing a new voluntary 10-month military service program for 18-19 year olds starting this summer 2026, but would guys there be willing to enlist or outright refuse? What ever the case is, would guys in Europe either accept voluntary military service imposed by their nation or refuse to enlist as they know that politicians are the ones who instigate wars in the first place?
For EU nations that still have the draft enforced (mandatory conscription): what happens if guys refuse it? Do they end up in jail? In that case, would you rather be imprisoned for refusing or comply? I know that some countries have alternative service (civic) rather than conventional military service, but what happens if the individual refuses either? I mean, is it a criminal offense for simply refusing conscription?
I’m hypothetically in favor of abolishing war machines as well, but this can only be achieved if workers organize internationally to overthrow their and every other state everywhere in the world simultaneously. States are literally war machines funded by taxes; everything else they do is done to the extent it helps pacify the people who’d otherwise organize themselves and rise against borders, conscription and being governed rather than governing ourselves. I also understand that fighting against states will probably be comparable to a war in terms of bloodiness and chaos, and will have to repeat whenever a new gang appears and tries to become a state.
I don’t think collective agreements to de-arm internationally would need every state to be overthrown. It just needs more democracies, more stability and the insight that everyone profits from long-term peace. But the level of cooperation needed would just be unmatched. Its much easier for one actor to arm and then every neighbor needs to follow suit
I strongly agree about an unmatched level of cooperation being urgently needed for feats like slowing down climate change, but disagree that states are the type of organization required to even imagine it. Every state in history is exactly that, an armed actor, a gang who has militarily forced its way through enough territory to do protection racket over entire peoples. Gangs might introduce democratic elements (parliament, constitution) for efficiency and to calm down those people whom they don’t yet have the potential to repress. Gangs might recruit local population to sustain their numbers or provide skills and knowledge. Gangs might provide a few socially welcome policies in the territories they control, as long as they’re in charge of the provision and haven’t found a way to survive while avoiding them altogether. Gangs might call a truce and maintain it for many years while they’re fighting a bigger, more powerful gang. Some gangs have sold away a part of their weapons and instead rely on protection from neighbor gangs with more impressive arsenals. They’re still gangs, self-sustaining machines of violence, organized armed actors deontologically doomed to set the world on fire, precisely because if one armed actor decides to do good, other armed actors will eat him alive.
Thats a really negative interpretation of what a state is. I think many people benefit from the state having a monopoly on violence in democratic countries with strong protection for minorities. If the state didn’t exist the minorities would have to protect themselves. If there was no state groups would emerge instantly and minorities and the disabled would be at threat for the despotism of the masses. I’m happy there is the police I can call when someone is infringing on my rights or that there is a system of courts. But this is more of a philosophical argument than anything else
The existing protections for minorities, if we trace them to Stonewall and the Civil rights movement, are won by minorities organizing self-defense and causing enough ruckus when discriminated that the state starts worrying about its monopoly on violence. Then, when the state, against the discrimination by which the minorities have successfully organized, has a cultural and economic hegemony, the won rights slowly “trickle down” to some (but not all) of its allies, but are quickly rolled back at a whim when their leadership changes if there’s no functioning self-defense remaining and widely supported.
It’s very important not to disband the self-defense after any concession, and to organize it even, especially, when achieved peacefully. I’m from an Eastern European country where LGBT people don’t currently have self-defense, instead trusting the police and NGOs who started promising them protection because European integration requires that. Their promise is an utter lie; there are hundreds of attacks by boneheads (who are not the masses, but rather an extension of the state’s arm of violence) every year and the police does next to nothing, with the NGOs urging the attacked people and their friends to limit themselves to petitioning their representatives, who also do nothing.
What I’m trying to say is, the minorities have to protect themselves whether the state exists or not, and where the state exists, the defense has largely to be targeted against the state discrimination, the police violence, and the religious and press propaganda supported by the state. Once a group is able to protect themselves and their friends, it starts being respected by the majority of the people, so the despotism of the masses is not a threat, unlike the states, who have illegalized and then starved or otherwise killed minorities en masse numerous times. There are states where the situation is at the moment better, but that’s in such contrast to what states in general have done in the past that I can’t help but realize that the protections are temporary and under threat of a rollback at any moment.
This seems to be more of a gripe with your government honestly. I was speaking about countries with strong protection for minorities. I still think its better to have some protection than to have to fend for yourself again the masses. I definitely reject anarchy from an ideological standpoint. I get the appeal but don’t think things would be better for most people. I have gripes with many things regarding politics but I still stand behind that for the number of people we have the state is also needed from an organizational standpoint to apply rules for all, even if that not always happens perfectly. Orderly society wouldn’t exist in the same way without it
A state is a necessary organism within a country. What is unnecessary is the ease with which polititians move into a space where they think themselves as untouchable, unaccountable and unquestionable.
To occupy a position of responsability is exactly that: a position of responsability. This implies the appointing must be short, highly supervised and the actions must be transparent and easily auditable. It is not a life long appointment, with unchecked and unlimited reach and power, as we see commonly done today.
The very notion of state must change. The state is the sum of all individuals contained within a country’s borders. They all must enjoy the same rights and protections in and from the law and be capable of actively intervene on the governance of the nation, with a government assigned to do the general management.
To use a quote I find very much enlightning: people should no fear their governments; governments should fear their people.