With governments making noises about war and as a consequence, conscription, it is worth analysing how politicians who tell us they are protecting our freedoms are actually the first to take them away. Conscription is just such an example of taking away liberty and then throwing millions of people in front of no end of horrors, with many then either returning in body bags, with missing limbs or not returning at all.
Conscription is the compulsory enlistment of individuals into military service and has long been a contentious issue. While it is often justified as a necessary measure for national defence or collective security, its implementation raises profound questions about individual liberty, free will, and the nature of state power. When examined through the lens of political philosophy, conscription can be seen as a hallmark of authoritarianism; and in its most extreme form, a characteristic of fascism. The following explores how conscription undermines individual autonomy, aligns with authoritarian principles, and reflects the ideological underpinnings of fascist regimes.
The Philosophical Foundations of Free Will and Autonomy
At the heart of liberal political philosophy is the principle of individual autonomy; the idea that individuals have the right to self-determination and the freedom to make choices about their own lives. Thinkers such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill have emphasised the intrinsic value of personal liberty. Locke, for instance, argued that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property, which governments are obliged to protect rather than infringe. Kant, meanwhile, posited that autonomy is the foundation of human dignity, asserting that individuals must be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end.
Conscription directly contravenes these principles by coercing individuals into service, effectively treating them as instruments of the state. It deprives them of the right to choose how they live their lives, what risks they are willing to take, and how they contribute to society. This imposition of state will over individual choice is inherently authoritarian, as it subordinates personal freedom to collective demands.
Authoritarianism and the Subjugation of the Individual
Authoritarian regimes are defined by their concentration of power and their prioritisation of state interests over individual rights. Conscription is a tool that exemplifies this dynamic. By compelling citizens to serve in the military, the state asserts its dominance over the individual, reinforcing the idea that the needs of the collective, or, more accurately, the ruling authority, supersede personal freedoms.
In his seminal work The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek warned against the dangers of state control, arguing that the erosion of individual choice is a stepping stone to totalitarianism. Conscription fits this pattern, as it removes the individual’s ability to dissent or opt out of state-mandated roles. It creates a society in which the state dictates the terms of service, and individuals are reduced to cogs in a machine, their lives and labour appropriated for purposes they may not support.
Conscription and Fascism: The Ultimate Subordination of the Individual
Fascism, as a political ideology, takes authoritarianism to its extreme. It glorifies the state, emphasises collective identity over individual rights, and seeks to mobilise society for nationalist or militaristic ends. Conscription is a natural fit for fascist regimes, as it embodies their core principles: the subjugation of the individual to the state, the militarisation of society, and the suppression of dissent.
Historically, fascist regimes have relied heavily on conscription to build their military power and enforce ideological conformity. In Nazi Germany, for example, conscription was not only a means of bolstering the armed forces but also a tool for indoctrinating citizens into the regime’s ideology. Similarly, in Mussolini’s Italy, conscription was used to cultivate a sense of nationalistic duty and to suppress opposition by integrating individuals into the state’s militaristic framework.
Fascism’s emphasis on the collective, often framed in terms of national or racial superiority, requires the suppression of individual autonomy. Conscription serves this purpose by compelling individuals to sacrifice their personal freedoms for the supposed greater good of the nation. This sacrifice is not voluntary but enforced, reflecting the fascist belief that the individual exists to serve the state, not the other way around.
The Illusion of Consent and the Erosion of Democracy
Even in so called democratic societies, conscription raises troubling questions about the nature of consent and the limits of state power. While some argue that conscription can be justified in times of existential threat, its implementation often relies on a narrow definition of collective will that overlooks individual dissent. The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of the “general will” is often invoked to justify such measures, suggesting that individuals must sometimes be “forced to be free” by aligning their actions with the collective good. However, this reasoning is deeply problematic, as it assumes that the state can legitimately override individual autonomy in the name of an abstract collective interest.
In practice, conscription undermines democratic principles by prioritising state authority over individual rights. It creates a system in which citizens are compelled to serve, regardless of their personal beliefs or circumstances. This coercion is incompatible with the ideals of liberal democracy, which emphasise voluntary participation, pluralism, and the protection of individual freedoms.
The Moral and Ethical Implications of Conscription
From an ethical standpoint, conscription is difficult to justify. It forces individuals to participate in activities, such as warfare, that may conflict with their moral or philosophical convictions. For pacifists, for example, conscription represents a profound violation of their principles, compelling them to engage in violence against their will. Even for those who do not identify as pacifists, the imposition of military service raises questions about the morality of using individuals as instruments of state policy.
The philosopher Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between “negative” and “positive” liberty is relevant here. Negative liberty refers to freedom from interference, while positive liberty refers to the ability to act according to one’s own will. Conscription undermines both forms of liberty: it interferes with individuals’ lives by compelling them to serve, and it restricts their ability to act in accordance with their own values and desires.
Conscription as a Threat to Freedom
In summary, conscription is more than a practical policy; it is a reflection of a society’s values and priorities. By depriving individuals of choice, it undermines the principles of autonomy, free will, and individual dignity that are central to liberal democracy. In its most extreme form, conscription aligns with the authoritarian and fascist tendencies that seek to subordinate the individual to the state.
While the need for national defence is undeniable, it must not come at the cost of fundamental freedoms. A society that values liberty must seek alternatives to conscription, ensuring that service to the state is voluntary and consensual. To do otherwise is to risk sliding into the authoritarianism that has characterised some of history’s darkest regimes. As the philosopher John Stuart Mill famously warned, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Conscription, by its very nature, exceeds this limit, making it incompatible with a free and democratic society.
