Background

I'm living in Denmark, and will soon be turning 18 years old. By law, I'm obligated to travel to the capital, and be tested, if I'm able to get drafted. As the law so happily states, if I illegally fail to show up (i.e. ignore them,) the police will "help" me attend. If I'm drafted, and refuse to participate in the military, I'll receive a fine, of undisclosed amount, or get up to 4 months jail time.

This is, of course, nothing short of slavery. For who is to say, what work I need to preform -- willingly or unwillingly? How can the common Dane say, that this is a free country, when they're denied the basic free choice of profession? How is this situation any different, from the common black's in the 1700's? They were, as well, forced by law to labor -- though, basic conscience of people today, agree, the blacks were slaves then; but not themselves now.

Is conscription slavery?

Most of the people I've debated, classmates, family, etc., some base their acceptance of military slavery on the grater good or public/national safety. Others claims it's actually voluntary, and that you actually accepted this labor, by being born in Denmark. Take the former argument, for the greater good: this is the basic utilitarian perspective: that which brings most joy, health or pleasure, to the greatest amount of people, must be ethical. In other words: the ends justify the means. This belief is inherently self-contradicting, if used to support government slavery (military conscription) and simultaneously to deny private slavery. How could the abolitionist prove, that food would be produced, in equal or larger quality and quantity, after the outlaw of slavery? He couldn't. But this doesn't disprove the immorality of enslaving people -- and most agree, even nowadays utilitarians. The contradiction comes into light, when the analogy is drawn to conscription. How can the modern day abolitionist prove, that military defense will be in equal or greater quality and quantity, after the outlaw of conscription? He could, as is the case with the book Chaos Theory, but this makes no difference. Even if he could or not, the ethical conclusion remains unaltered: forcing people to labor against their will, is inherently immoral.

To the latter argument, that military conscription is actually voluntary. This belief is often based upon the thought, that citizens are always voluntarily following the government laws -- after all, they could always leave if they don't like them, right? The question then lies in weather or not a government can rightfully impose laws on its citizens.

It's commonly accepted, that contracts between individuals can only be enforced, if both originally gave their concept to it, either by word or signature. How is it, then, that laws don't need this consent? That laws, as contracts between citizens and government, only needs the government's consent to be enforced? What differs the government, as an institution, to its private counterpart?

Take Denmark for example, it's believed that the danish government's parliament can rightfully legislate laws, and that the police can rightfully enforce them -- without ever having the laws' subjects' consent to them; as is needed in all other contracts! The core of this belief is based on the danish constitution, signed in 1849 by the then danish King, Frederik VII. Based on the King's signature, does the democratic government, then, have the rightful authority to legislate and enforce laws? That would be the case if, and only if, the King had the rightful authority to do the same, before signing the constitution -- otherwise, his signature would be meaningless. Most (that I've debated) agree that he didn't, but simply deny, that the constitution grants unjust authority to the current government. This conversational surrender doesn't alone disprove the proposition -- did the King have rightful authority? Some might claim that the King actually, and rightfully, owned everything and everyone, and therefore the signed constitution is valid. This person would also have to support slavery, before such a statement even could apply. But say that the claim was, that the King actually only owned all land of the country. How could this be possible?

Private property theory

According to the libertarian theory of private property, you can only own yourself and the nature given resources that you develop -- that is, land that you're using. You can't fence in an enormous area of land, and claim ownership over it, without setting it to use. The same theory states, that property ownership is the exclusive rightful control of it. That is, only the property owner may control his property, and any other person, without consent of the owner, that invades his property, are acting in an unjust manner (e.g. stealing, murdering, trespassing, etc.) Since the property owner has the full rightful control of his property, only he is allowed to impose trespassing rules. That is, command how people should act, while using his property (e.g. he could set a no-smoking rule, and if people broke it, he could force them off his land. It's important to notice, as well, that he would not have the power to forcefully imprison them, as that would be unjust control on the rule breakers property in their own person.) These property principles are universal for all individuals.

Back to the King

How does this theory describe the King's claim of total landownership? First of all, the land which the King (or his men) isn't developing (e.g. large empty fields) would be unowned. As an individual can only impose rules, on people using his property, the King would not be able to lay law on this land, as it isn't his property. But what about the land that's being developed? The King would only own that land, if it was acquired either by purchase from the original owner, or developed from an unused state. This all sounds fine, but there is a second major detail: how was the king able to develop the land? If the King, say, built a castle on unused land, it would be, by first glance, his. But how was he able to pay for the resources for the castle? If the building materials was purchased by taxed money (property,) that would've been taken (stolen) by force from peaceful people, the King's property in the building materials would be invalid, and by extension, the castle built by them.

This is exactly how the King had acquired "his" land property: either by direct theft from peaceful people, or by indirect theft from taxation of peaceful people.

Conclusion

This shows, that the King would actually have no right, to enforce contracts (laws) on people who have not first accepted them. This invalidates his ability to rightfully sign the constitution, and its being enforced on Denmark's citizens, be immoral. All laws, which power is based on the constitution, are unjust rules: taxation is theft and conscription is slavery.