[mgkimsal]

Was going to post something like this - you beat me to it.

"I don't think the role of government is to protect our country, because it isn't the government protecting our country. It's the government coercing others to protect our country, against their will."

Obviously, we have a volunteer force, but haven't always had that - conscription, as you brought up. It's fine to have a volunteer force, until we need more. Then force is brought in.

[nickff]

If you can't convince others to defend your country through rhetoric and compensation, perhaps the country isn't worth defending; your comment implicitly assumes every state is worth sacrificing young lives for.

[mgkimsal]

> your comment implicitly assumes every state is worth sacrificing young lives for.

no, it assumes those in control of the state believe it is worth sacrificing young lives for.

[nickff]

Apologies if I misread your comment, but I read the following quote to imply that coercion was acceptable once the volunteer army was not enough:

>It's fine to have a volunteer force, until we need more. Then force is brought in.

[mgkimsal]

I don't believe it is acceptable, but the people in power probably (often?) do believe that it's acceptable, generally because it's not their own lives at risk.