Can compulsory military service be considered slavery?

For a start, how can we define slavery exactly? Is it about not being paid to do a work, or about having to do compulsory work (whether or not you're being paid for it), or about being considered as a private property? Or does it necessarily have to be a mix of all three of those conditions?

Many countries still have compulsory military service, but all of them pay their soldiers. Though I'm strongly against the draft (even in times of desperate defensive war), I still hesitate to call it slavery, though it is clearly power abuse in my opinion. But many people do call it slavery, and I don't entirely disagree with them.

What are your thoughts?

I have to say I rather like this question.

1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.

These are the the first two definitions of slavery in the "dictionary." and they cover your 3 general questions. So technically, no, compulsory military service is not slavery.

But when we say "slavery" I think we really mean something more than property/power of/over another person. The core of immorality of slavery is that it is an extreme use of a person as an ends to a means. Allow me to explain, When an individual is either owned, controlled, forced to do something against their will for a given goal, the person is reduced to a cog in a machine. You become the extension of another's will! And therefore you have become an object. A thing! to be used, killed, abused, or what have you....you have no value.

By this general ethical maxim, that it is immoral to treat a person as an object, then of course conscription is an abhorrent abuse of individual human dignity, values and rights. However, I have to say, that it is really irrelevant. In a case of defense at any level, the state has the right to use you this way.

First, your human dignity and value is irrelevant without the state, because your life has no protection without the order created by the state. In the state of nature, your are an object unless you have a "a will to power." (An ability to establish and enforce your own will and value as a being. ) Therefore if your "state" is destroyed you will have no value anyway. The state can sacrifice its citizens in the hope of saving the society, and any society under invasion or destruction with a chance of defending itself would do this.

The greatest good/pleasure/happiness of the greatest number is one of the highest moral maxims and it takes priority over all other maxims, even the use of people as objects, and as a means to an end, (but only with special justification)....

Upon reading your response, had to take exception primarily with this paragraph. Even though you've done pretty well in establishing whether a person becomes a "slave", in this case as applied to the governmental system of inducting recruits to whom are subject to order into battle with little chance of survival.

While the state has indeed offered protections and (ideally) an improved living environment, this may NOT always be the case. And for the state to expect something in return for nothing is not only ludicrous but very near-sighted in that assuming any type of government takes care of ALL it's citizens. This is simply not true.

Not sure whether you'll choose to say you believe in evolution or creativity, either way the first civilized men were not subject to any kind of state. They were more likely part of an extended family, a tribe or a community of tribes. Human dignity doesn't derive from which nation a person inhabits nor is it even granted by any means to people under it's government(s).

Not sure if you are calling Mother Nature a state, but think that may be comparing apples and oranges. And living beings, be it higher level thinkers like humans or even some animals which use "tools" aren't merely objects. While they could be manipulated, it in no way devoids that being's essential ego/will.

While it makes perfectly good sense for someone to fight for whatever system or state in which they choose (or reside), they support it voluntarily. Even though selected for service by the government, individuals still have a right to choose to live elsewhere, face imprisonment to indicate their resolve in their principle(s) or simply do whatever is needed to avoid the impending service. It isn't unusual that people have bought their way out of military service. Sometimes it is because of a family's ranking or ties.

Argumentatively, if a state sacrifices it's people for it's own survival... it isn't looking out for the best interest of it's populace... in their right to live (even if subject to other, enemy authority). Hence the reason that surrender is an option when facing assured destruction. The Japanese were a prime example after the dropping of two nuclear weapons onto their majour cities. There is no shame in protecting life. And government officials would do well to be able to look at each person and see a face instead of counting the number of bodies they can cast into a fight.

No, the state does not have the right to simply use people in order for IT to survive. It is a non-living entity.