I agree with you that violence should be a last resort. But we live in a society where it isn't; for example, lethal force is used to prevent sales of cigarettes in quantities the government doesn't approve. If I attempt to build a tall building in SF against the will of the NIMBYs, potentially lethal force will eventually be used against me if I don't stop doing it. As you yourself note, all laws are enforced by someone willing to pick up a gun.
So I suppose that since all regulations are enforced with potentially lethal force, all regulatory apparatus should be provided by forced labor?
A draft isn’t an anti-democratic hack anymore than preventing a company from dumping toxic waste in a river is anti-democratic.
Of course it is. The demos wants a war staffed by volunteers. You want to remove that option from the set of choices available to them so that their only choices are either options unacceptable to them or the choice you want them to make. At least in terms of whether people have free choice, it's no different than "give me your wallet or I'll take your head".
Note that I'm not strongly opposed to this; I'm not a proponent of democracy at all. I'm only pointing out that neither are you. The 3 wolves would - given the choice - vote to eat those non-voting brown sheep across the world without forcing their baby wolflings to be put at risk. Democracy is allowing those 3 wolves and a sheep to vote on dinner.
Awhile back I saw an article about a private psyops contractor targeting american journalists who were critical of it,...
"Psyops" is a fancy word for using speech to influence the actions of others. There are a wide variety of actors who engage in it. I happen to know that a variety of educational institutions do; I know this because my ex-girlfriend sold them (along with various state-level democratic parties, interestingly) software to do exactly that.
This is of course ignoring the psyops operations that teachers themselves directly run. If this is our worry, we are already there and the military/mercenaries probably do far less of it than, e.g, our educational or journalistic institutions.
Again, let me emphasize that I'm not disagreeing with your goals. I'm very strongly opposed to using force. I'm also opposed to unchecked democracy that often results in voters harming non-voters (whether it be wars against foreigners, SF nimbys fighting against domestic immigration, or Shiv Sena trying to prevent Biharis from driving autos). I'm just disagreeing with the internals of your argument; it is blatantly anti-democratic (which I support!) and it also implies more than you want it to (meaning it's probably too broad).
I appreciate very much your perspective and it’s made me think. You obviously view things outside the box. Though I still believe a draft isn’t inherently anti-democratic. If the majority votes for a war, and the majority votes for conscription, then that seems to me to agree with democracy. But I do agree that a draft is anti-individual-freedom. And I agree that democracy isn’t inherently good. The majority can vote in a manner that oppresses the minority. It’s definitely occurred in our past. A democracy combined with individual rights is the key in my opinion. I just don’t think the ability to avoid service should be one of those protected rights. But since I do believe in democracy, only a majority can vote to make that so, thus my outspoken attitude toward private contractors and the all volunteer force.
So I suppose that since all regulations are enforced with potentially lethal force, all regulatory apparatus should be provided by forced labor?
A draft isn’t an anti-democratic hack anymore than preventing a company from dumping toxic waste in a river is anti-democratic.
Of course it is. The demos wants a war staffed by volunteers. You want to remove that option from the set of choices available to them so that their only choices are either options unacceptable to them or the choice you want them to make. At least in terms of whether people have free choice, it's no different than "give me your wallet or I'll take your head".
Note that I'm not strongly opposed to this; I'm not a proponent of democracy at all. I'm only pointing out that neither are you. The 3 wolves would - given the choice - vote to eat those non-voting brown sheep across the world without forcing their baby wolflings to be put at risk. Democracy is allowing those 3 wolves and a sheep to vote on dinner.
Awhile back I saw an article about a private psyops contractor targeting american journalists who were critical of it,...
"Psyops" is a fancy word for using speech to influence the actions of others. There are a wide variety of actors who engage in it. I happen to know that a variety of educational institutions do; I know this because my ex-girlfriend sold them (along with various state-level democratic parties, interestingly) software to do exactly that.
This is of course ignoring the psyops operations that teachers themselves directly run. If this is our worry, we are already there and the military/mercenaries probably do far less of it than, e.g, our educational or journalistic institutions.
Again, let me emphasize that I'm not disagreeing with your goals. I'm very strongly opposed to using force. I'm also opposed to unchecked democracy that often results in voters harming non-voters (whether it be wars against foreigners, SF nimbys fighting against domestic immigration, or Shiv Sena trying to prevent Biharis from driving autos). I'm just disagreeing with the internals of your argument; it is blatantly anti-democratic (which I support!) and it also implies more than you want it to (meaning it's probably too broad).