It's also the home of people being drafted (even more so than for political elite of the country). If some of them want to get the fuck out (yes, from their home) then those thay have elected shouldn't have the right to force them to stay and die.
It's a little more complicated than that (and the original post is a ridiculous oversimplifications with the intellectual level of a 5-year-old, if that much).
It's down to how much do each of us owe to the Society we grew up in and the Society we live in (if not the same) and thus how much do we have a moral duty to pay it back when called upon it to protect said Society.
Different people will decide differently on those things and thus determine in their own minds what they think their "duty" is.
Then of course, on top of this there's also the whole "protecting my family", "fight alonside my friends", plain old "warrior spirit" and such motivations on one side, as well as "having to stay to work to feed my family" and such on the other, but that's not really to do with "duty" and "moral".
In this specific case there is also the HUGE moral element that they're paying to avoid the draft, and those doing so actually have money, so they're likelly bigger beneficiaries from Society than those who can't afford to make such payments, which brings in a massive element of injustice (one might make the case that the richer the person the more they have a duty towards the Society that made the and kept them thus).
Ultimatelly the draft itself should include some elements to make it fairer (and it does, up to a point, thinks like not drafting poor people with lots of kids - who need to earn a living for their family - or people who don't have the local citizenship - who likely owe much less to local society than the locals) but in this specific case it absolutelly make sense to throw the book at those who are local citizens who have more money than most and yet use it to evade a duty to Society which is likely higher than that of most other people.
Only certain political subcultures in the United States and most absolute dictatorships (like China and Russia) think the State is Society.
States are just one form of organisation that naturally emerges in Societies to manage certain aspects of it. They're not Society, just as Legal is not the same as Moral (i.e. sometimes what's lawfull is imoral and what's moral is illegal).
In fact I agree that people have no duty to the State.
And in Russia that does mean that they have no duty to obey the draft, because it was the Russian State that made the war and it's not being done for the good of Society.
However in Ukraine people would be fighting for Society, not the State and in fact they would be fighting against the State: the Russian State, which is trying take over their land, their things and even control their lives and impose their will on them.
On the Ukranian side this is very much a fight for Freedom from a State which does not operate for the good of people and doesn't even want them to be free.
In fact it even makes sense for some Ukranians to be against the Ukranian State as it operates and still join to fight because the Russian State would be even worse - they're fighting for their families, their friends, their neighbours, even themselves, not for the Ukranian State.
I'm surprised so many people read your post without holding the simple truth that Society (all of us) is not the State (just a few people, sometimes not even elected and when elected, often only through lies and rules that mathematically rig the voting systems). I suppose there are a lot of politicans that want people to confuse such things as Nationalism and Patriotism, hence people who are constantly fed that political spin also end up confusing related elements such as the State, the Nation and Society.
(Also most actual Political Thinking has been killed in the last 4 decades and replaced by techniques from Marketing, so it's unsurprising that most people haven't really pondered by themselves on these things which were all the rage for ideologies back in the first half or the XX century, especially in the US where politics has long ceased to be about grand visions for the future of society).
So society owes us nothing, but we owe society our lives? Why? I'm not sure I agree with that. I would risk my life protecting myself and my loved ones, but asking me to protect strangers and to die for them is a tall ask IMO.
Those people happily enjoyed the benefits of their society, and now try to get around the contribution part - by spending money they got trough their position in this very society.
Everyone is free to dislike this deal, but then you should find yourself a country which doesn't have a draft. It's as simple as that. But they didn't. They lived in their comfort zone and now try to get around the rules.
Last, this discussion should be about the officials who took the bribes.
That you can read and write, have Internet and are alive past (I assume) the ripe old age of 20, is because of Society: anything that you cannot do with your own hands only exists because people have organised to achieve more than single individuals can by themselves and to protect what they achieved from other individuals that would take it by force.
Being outside Society would basically mean having the same rights as a wild animal: you can be killed at will by anybody, enslaved, own nothing that you cannot yourself protect, will be left to die if hurt, will likely be run over and/or killed if you enter communal spaces (such as road, parks). Forget about more complex rights than that such as the rights that come from citizenship: wild animals are not citizens.
It would be immenselly educational for people who parrot this kind of libertarian crap if there was indeed a way for them to be free of all duty to Society and Society free of all duty to them.
As there isn't, if you want a (even partially so) place where people have little or no duty to Society, I suggest you move to a place like Somalia, though I expect that if you take such an extreme "I have no duty to the group" take as you wrote here you would be dead pretty quickly (or maybe just enslaved, who knows): even in a place like that which is pretty much an Anarchy when it comes to the power of the State, people still group up in large groups with a mutual duty of protection (a Society of tribes), and funnilly enough that is same kind of mutual duty of protection you want to evade in the "tribe" you are part of currently whilst enjoying all the benefits only made possible by that very thing you do not want to fight to protect.
Even cavemen had Societies, just very small and called tribes, only back then those who didn't want to contribute to the defense of the group were pushed out and generally died.
I think that when you grow up and live in a society, you owe many parts of your life to it, to the people who educated you, taught you, protected you or served you, but also the people who came before and made it possible for all those previous people to be there for you.
Therefore, you have a moral responsibility to defend that.
Yeah, we have the moral responsibility to defend our corrupted politicians and billionares who brought humanity to the brink of extinction. This system must be saved at all cost
Do you think what Putin wants to bring to Ukrain is any better? It's what you describe multiplied by a thousand. So yes, we have the moral responsability to resist against the worse even if the current is not great.
Anyway, when do you ship out to Ukraine, soldier? Your comments in this thread make it sound like you’re happy to go to war to help defend them against an invading force. After all, you’re in support of other people being forced to fight so shouldn’t you be joining them?
There a huge difference between parents making a child do something, with basically no legal repercussions if they don't, and the government forcing an adult to do something against their will at the threat of prison.
It's not just land, land is intimately related to culture. Also millions moving to a neighbor country will generally create a political and humanitarian crisis, it's not a magical solution with no negative consequences.
One of the foundation of culture is transforming the land, starting from agriculture. The way the natural land was shaped by the people living on is a first marker of culture. Then comes the art and the buildings, in Europe we have a very dense network of historical remains spanning thousands of years, from cave paintings to modern art museums.
If you have ever seen with your own eyes or touched with your own hands a famous remain of your place, you know the emotion is not quite the same as seeing it on the internet. It creates a feeling of belonging to a line of people who have created things bigger than them, and you reach a better understanding of how everything that allows your life today was progressively developed. It makes you want to protect this inheritance for others to access the same knowledge and emotions, and it may motivate you to produce something that could reach a similar value.
Land inspire artists and creators in general. The most evident example is how Mount Fuji inspired the creation of an insane quantity of art in Japan, such as the Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji by Hokusai. The famous Great Wave off Kanagawa from this series, which is actually about the Mount Fuji, had a massive impact on the world culture.
The end of 19th century classical guitar piece Recuerdos de la Alhambra written by Spanish composer Francisco Tárrega is an interesting example. It was inspired by the Alhambra palace in Spain, which was built during the 13th century by the Emirates who conquered Spain during the previous centuries. Nonetheless, it became part of the Spanish culture and inspired new art pieces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjX-m4LkYk
To get back to the mountains, but with a historical scientific experiment this time (science is part of culture). Blaise Pascal did a historical experiment in 1648 at the Puy-de-Dôme (volcanic mountain in the middle of France) in order to test the "weight of air" that later led to the understanding of atmospheric pressure (immortalized by the Pascal unit of measurement). This would not have been possible in Holland (because it's flat). https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/blaise-pascal-florin-p-and-puy-de-d.html
There are countless examples of how ancient Greece and Rome inspired arts and architecture at different centuries: 16th century St. Peter's basilica, 17th century Versailles palace or Neoclassicism art in the 18th and 19th centuries.
There are many other examples about rivers, lakes, seas, cities etc...
That is to say, the land and how it is transformed and built are major sources of culture. If you take the same people but magically modify their history, so they lived on a different land, you will have a different culture. Probably not worse nor better, but different, because the land inspires the culture.
If your people are not living on its history soaked land anymore, you lose those major culture nutriments. I'm not saying people cannot carry part of their culture with them, nor that culture cannot reinvent itself and be inspired by different origins, but you have more chances to dilute or lose culturally important works of the past if they are not set in stone. Stones that you can access.
This comment was specifically about why land is essential to culture.
About drafting, In other comments, I explained how I think that you have the responsibility to defend the culture that raised you. It's like paying taxes in a social-democracy, you may have become self-sufficient and don't need the social system anymore, but you have the moral responsibility to contribute back (at least through taxes), so the next underprivileged group can benefit from what allowed you to reach this point: public education, medicine, culture, research, other public infrastructure and services, etc.
So defending your people/culture/land is an extension of this thought.
Of course, I wish people would enlist out of free will, but not everyone has high moral standards (imperfect education perhaps), so you need constrains, that's also why laws and enforcement are needed.
To be honest, I had a pacifist period where I would have preferred to run away from any military conflict. But now, I think we can't deal in absolute, we have to work with compromises, in this case, supporting the lesser evil that will reduce the amount of deaths and destruction. I think getting drafted people killed to stop Putin's imperialism is a lesser evil than letting it destroy a democracy and its culture. I believe he will not stop until he has done the same to all the ex-USSR countries, and that stopping him in Ukraine should reduce the amount of destruction.
Better than the invaders? I agree with the general statement, but when you're in the line of sight of an automatic rifle, they're not going to be impressed by your ethics.
I'm all for giving the good example and building peaceful relations, but when you're faced with extremists who immediately endanger your life, you have to defend yourself first. It's like a violent aggression in the street, you have to defend yourself against the immediate aggression first, to protect your body, your life and maybe your relatives', before you can find a more civilized alternative like deescalating or getting help from the police.
You are mixing up bullshit. In order to defend themself one of the best thing ukrainian people can do is to ditch their own government who is drafting them to a meat slaughter over invisible lines on the map. Does this mean they have to stop fighting another authoritarian government trying to impose their laws and drafting on them? Nope, people exists with or without a flag on top of their head and a bunch of politicians ruling on them.
There is also the case of Afghanistan, but they are a quasi-organized paramilitary fundamentalist organization of loose warlords that terrorize their citizens when left unabated.
Peace through superior firepower is something illogical that does not make much sense. There will be peace once "fighting for your country is always a good thing" propaganda is no more.
There was peace, which was disrupted by a foreign power using firepower against Ukraine. Peace will be achieved once superior firepower is established by either side. It's very logical. Only thing that will happen if the peaceniks get their wish is rus*ia winning, and that simply can't happen.
Keep ignoring my points btw you're doing a great job at it.
Conscripting a guy to go to war on your behalf, watching them die in your defense, and then breathing a sigh of relief because at least you didn't lose anything.