You keep referring to it as forced labor, and missing the central point while labeling the elimination of the moral hazards inherent with mercenaries as a "poison pill". And referring to subverting democracy.

If a fighter in a war is ever remotely close to being labor then they should not fight, in fact they should probably be fighting those trying to send them. I'm not arguing for a poison pill of forced labor, that isn't on the table. Ever.

Do you disagree that there is any form of conscription that isn't "forced labor"?

For example: defending your own home or community or democratic nation from an invading army is not labor, it's a non-economic activity. Say a contract of mutual defense with your fellow citizens in the case of an invading army? I'll go fight if they invade the east coast even though I live on the west coast because of a legally binding reciprocal agreement that is in all our best interests? In that case we are all called in to serve and organized to fight effectively. Our neighbors who can't fight take care of our kids while we're away. Is that forced labor?

I think that by definition, taking people and forcing them to do work they don't want to do is forced labor. I don't subscribe to your Orwellian redefinition of soldiering as not being labor, simply because you label it "non-economic".

I'm also not sure of the relevance of this redefinition. Whether or not your poison pill is redefined to be forced labor or not, it's subverting democracy because the public wants a war staffed by volunteers and mercenaries. You want to remove that choice from them.

In that case we are all called in to serve and organized to fight effectively. Our neighbors who can't fight take care of our kids while we're away. Is that forced labor?

If we've all contractually agreed to it, no. If we are forcing people who didn't agree to the contract to join us, yes.