Part 1: The Return of Coercion: A Global Reality Check
The German Case Study: A "Turning Point" for Citizen Control
In May 2024, Germany's political discourse took a sharp turn. A major party began outlining a phased plan to reintroduce conscription, potentially leading to a mandatory year of service. The justification was predictable: national defense. Johannes Winkel, Chairman of the Junge Union, argued that Germany "cannot defend itself against external aggression" and that hope alone is an insufficient defense strategy.
This narrative, echoed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz's "Zeitenwende" (turning point) initiative, claims to be about protecting democracy. From a freedom-oriented perspective, however, the subtext is clear: the state, in its quest for security, demands the right to use its citizens as pawns. The goal of recruiting over 20,000 new soldiers by 2027 reveals a system hungry for personnel, not one fostering individual liberty. The discussion even includes the "Swedish model," which imposes a general defense obligation on both men and women, widening the net of state control.
The fundamental question isn't whether conscription is right or wrong; it's an attempt to find moral justification for an inherently coercive institution. While leaders like Scholz, Biden, and Putin orchestrate geopolitical moves from a safe distance, they expect ordinary people—who overwhelmingly desire peace—to bear the ultimate cost.
The Expat's Dilemma: Your Passport Can Call You Back
For a digital nomad, the idea of being called back to serve a country you may not have lived in for years is a critical threat. It's a mistake to assume your life abroad exempts you. Many nations explicitly retain the right to conscript their citizens, regardless of residency. Failure to comply can result in severe penalties upon return, including fines and imprisonment.
Countries where expatriates may be subject to conscription include:
Israel: All citizens, including dual citizens living abroad, are subject to military service.
South Korea: Male citizens must complete service, and it's notoriously difficult to emigrate long-term before fulfilling this duty.
Switzerland: Men remain obligated to serve even when living abroad and can be required to complete service upon their return.
Turkey: Citizens abroad must either serve or pay a significant fee for an exemption.
Greece: Men aged 19-45 are required to serve, and this includes those living overseas.
Singapore: Mandatory service is a prerequisite for long-term emigration for male citizens.
Russia: Citizens living abroad can be called up, facing legal consequences if they return without having served.
Ukraine: In times of crisis, citizens of conscription age living abroad can be compelled to return for military service.
Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Iran, Cyprus, and many others maintain similar laws, making your passport a direct link to potential forced servitude.
The only true safeguard is to legally sever ties. This is where Flag Theory and strategic citizenship planning become essential tools for self-preservation, not just tax optimization.
A World Apart: Countries Without Armies
In stark contrast stand nations that have abolished their standing armies, proving that statehood does not necessitate a permanent military force. These countries often rely on diplomacy, police forces, or defense agreements with larger allies. Examples include:
Costa Rica: Famously abolished its army in 1949 and redirected funds towards education and health.
Panama: Dissolved its military after the 1989 US invasion, relying on a national police force.
Iceland: A NATO member without a standing army, relying on the treaty for defense.
Liechtenstein: Dissolved its army in 1868 due to being too expensive.
Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and various island nations like Dominica, Grenada, and Saint Lucia also operate without a traditional military.
These examples demonstrate that alternative models for security exist, challenging the assumption that a state must be militarized to survive.
Part 2: The Anatomy of the State: War as an Engine of Growth
Rothbard's Insight: The State Thrives on Conflict
To understand why states gravitate towards war and control, we turn to the work of economist and historian Murray Rothbard. In his 1974 book, The Autonomy of the State, Rothbard argues that the state's natural tendency is conflict. War is the ultimate opportunity for the state to expand its power, wealth, and authority over society.
"In war, the state truly comes into its own: it grows in power, in numbers, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and society."
- Murray Rothbard
The state manufactures consent for this power grab with a manipulative narrative:
"To defend you from external threats, you must give me more power. I need to know where you travel, what you buy, and who you talk to. You must serve me, for serving the country is the highest honor. I am the only one who can protect you from the tyrants who want to take your freedom."
The irony is breathtaking. To protect you from a potential tyrant, you must first surrender your freedom to the one in front of you. The state doesn't defend its people; it defends itself and the power of its ruling class.
State Interference as the Root of Crisis
The logic extends beyond conscription. Consider the issue of extremist terrorism and mass migration. Are these spontaneous crises, or are they the predictable blowback from state actions?
Western governments have a long history of intervening in foreign affairs, not to promote peace, but to secure geopolitical and economic interests. These actions directly fuel the very problems they later claim to be fighting:
Proxy Wars: During the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union armed and funded opposing factions (like the Mujahideen in Afghanistan), creating instability that persists to this day.
Direct Intervention: The 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya dismantled existing power structures, creating vacuums filled by extremist groups like ISIS.
Ongoing Support: The Syrian and Yemeni civil wars are fueled by international powers—including the US, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia—backing different sides, prolonging the conflict and causing immense human suffering.
Islamic extremism did not arise in a vacuum. It was cultivated in the fertile ground of chaos, war, and resentment created by foreign state interference. The resulting waves of refugees are not the problem; they are a symptom of states destroying social well-being in their home countries.
The Only Viable Solution: The Individual Opt-Out
If the state's nature is to seek conflict and control, waiting for it to reform itself is futile. A mass rebellion is often ineffective and simply replaces one set of rulers with another. The only logical path to freedom is the individual one.
This is the essence of being "staatenlos" (stateless) in philosophy and practice. It means consciously and legally minimizing your dependence on and obligations to any single government. It's about becoming a Perpetual Traveler, structuring your life and business internationally, and using Flag Theory to build a fortress of personal sovereignty. The greater the state's power, the less freedom you have. The ultimate protection is not _from_ the state, but _by_ becoming independent of it.
