Cannon Fodder for the New Wars

by Stephan Kinsella on April 5, 2026

Cannon Fodder for the New Wars

April 5, 2026

Germany is preparing for war and, above all, is preparing for that particular form of enslavement represented by military conscription. Many German media outlets have highlighted the fact that, starting from January 1, 2026, all German men between the ages of 17 and 45 will be required to obtain authorization from the Bundeswehr Career Center (Karrierecenter der Bundeswehr) if they intend to leave German territory for more than three months.

As has been noted, the regulation carries no penalty, and no procedures are foreseen against those who violate it. It is also worth remembering that, under the law on the right to self-determination regarding gender, anyone can decide to be registered administratively as male, female, or diverse. Those who, although born male, choose to register as female or as “diverse” will be exempt from active armed military service (at the front), provided the choice is made at least two months before the declaration of international tension or in the case of national defense (§ 9 of the law on the right to self-determination in matters of sexual gender).² It therefore seems easy to circumvent the law simply by registering as a woman or as “diverse.”

The rule on the obligation to obtain authorization is contained in § 3, paragraph 2, of the Military Service Act (Wehrpflichtgesetz)³ and has existed since the times of the Cold War. The novelty comes from a recent amendment to § 2 of the same law, which entered into force on January 1, 2026. While previously the obligation to obtain authorization applied only in cases of international tensions or national defense needs (to be declared by parliament according to art. 80a of the German constitution),⁴ under the new regulation the obligation to request authorization for leaving the country for more than three months now also applies in peacetime.

Given the absence of any sanction for violating the obligation, it seems clear that the purpose of the rule is to measure the degree of obedience of German citizens and, in doing so, to conduct an indirect survey on the willingness of men to accept conscription. In the warmongering plans of the German government, these men are expected to prepare to be slaughtered at the front by the “Russian threat” that Germans and the European Union have been fantasizing about for years. Among other things, the recent amendment to the Military Service Act should encourage wise men to leave the country. It is better to live in exile than to be incorporated into the military organization of any country.

Military conscription is a form of enslavement, as evidenced by the fact that § 51 of the Military Service Act (Wehrpflichtgesetz) explicitly provides that the fundamental rights to personal safety, personal freedom, freedom of movement, and the inviolability of the domicile are restricted by the law itself. As always, fundamental rights apply only as long as they suit the coercive and violent structures called States. The obligation to enlist and the obligation to go and be killed or to kill in the event of war or other international tensions is, in reality, even worse than simple enslavement. While a slave loses personal freedom and is forced to work for the master, at least he is not required to sacrifice his life or participate in acts of genocide. The soldier, on the contrary, is faced with the morally reprehensible choice of either dying or killing others. Military conscription, generally described in constitutions as a sacred duty to defend the homeland, is one of the worst frauds perpetrated by governments against their citizens. It is not, in fact, about defending oneself, one’s family, and loved ones, but about participating in a mass murder operation in the interest of a tiny political elite that has effectively seized control of imaginary entities such as governments, ministries, parliaments, armies, or military ranks and hierarchies. The social function attributed to these structures corresponds to a “status function” as explained by John Searle in The Construction of Social Reality⁵ —that is, an imaginary construct existing only in the minds of those who believe they must attribute reality and legitimacy to mental entities (governments, parliamentary laws, etc.) capable of demanding obedience and imposing their will even on dissenters and the recalcitrant. In fact, the entire architecture of state laws is based on inequality—that is, on the existence of a system (procedural, religious, dynastic, or similar) capable of establishing a framework in which one more or less extensive group of people has the right to impose its will on another group of people who recognize the first group as the territorial monopolist of decision-making (and, by logical implication, of taxation and violence).⁶

We therefore find ourselves in a paradoxical system in which the victims of the coercive structure not only believe they are obliged to obey but also believe they must finance the very structure in question, even though they are opposed to the goals and actions pursued by its leadership. Not only is resistance to the monopoly of decision-making punished (draft evasion always carries severe criminal penalties, and in wartime desertion is often punished by death), but the new German law also punishes the ultimate act of self-defense: flight.

A great Swiss thinker, Karl Ludwig von Haller—unjustly neglected, perhaps because of the very superficial and negative judgment expressed by Hannah Arendt,⁷ and recently rediscovered by Hans-Hermann Hoppe—dedicated an entire chapter of his magnum opus (The Restoration of Political Science)⁸ to the means of protection against the abuse of power. Among these, he identified first and foremost the right to prevent and oppose, even by violent means, the establishment of an abusive power structure, which is nothing other than a manifestation of the right to self-defense (vim vi repellere licet). Resistance to tyranny, says von Haller, has always been considered a virtue and a duty of oppressed citizens. However, where the means of resistance and rebellion fail to achieve their purpose, no other option remains but flight or separation from the government that abuses its powers. Flight from illegitimate power is a natural right of all human beings, says von Haller, “and could one even imagine anything more cruel and more inhumane than robbing from the unfortunate, from the good man who has been persecuted, a last resort, with which he doesn’t do the least harm, even to his enemy. And yet, should the new political principles ever be put into practice to their full extent, we will see the creation of a despotism so execrable as to have been unknown in antiquity, by means of the maxims taught by the modern doctors of natural law, to wit, that one must be forced to join the State and never allowed to leave the State, that outside the State there can be no justice and every man must be considered an enemy.”⁹ The new German law, which appears to be the classic Overton window for subsequently introducing more serious and severe restrictions aimed at forcing German men into the role of cannon fodder that politicians—who love to risk the lives of others—have always pursued, is a cruel and unjust means of preparing Germans for the sad reality that they will even be denied the possibility of fleeing participation in a monstrous enterprise such as war, where the choice is between killing and dying. War, as Randolph Bourne wrote, is the health of the State.¹⁰ With war, the deleterious power of governments reaches its maximum expression, occupies the entire space of everyone’s economic and civil life, forcibly enlists everyone to participate in the so-called war effort—the most unfortunate with their blood, and all the others through the elimination of their civil and economic freedoms. During wars, even the simple expression of an opinion contrary to the government’s plans can be punished very severely. Therefore, war is the first and fundamental yardstick by which to judge any ruler.¹¹ All governments are nothing but gigantic criminal organizations, and wars are their most monstruous undertakings, but even among criminals there are degrees of wickedness and cruelty.¹² Any government that favors war deserves all our contempt, and it is the duty of everyone to resist it in every possible way.

Alessandro Fusillo is a libertarian attorney based in Italy, Spain, and Germany. [↩]
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sbgg/index.html. [↩]
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wehrpflg/index.html#BJNR006510956BJNE008507310. [↩]
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_80a.html. [↩]
J.R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality, Free Press 2010, p. 40 ff. [↩]
F. Bastiat, The Law, 1850. [↩]
H. Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Pengiun Classics 2017, p. 221. [↩]
K.L. von Haller, The Restauration of Political Science Vol. 1, Imperium Press Perth 2023, translation by Jack Vien, Chapter XV. [↩]
Id. op. loc. cit. p. 274. [↩]
R. Bourne, War Is the Health of the State, 1918, Anecdota Press 2015. [↩]
M.N. Rothbard, Extracts, from an interview in the February 1973 issue of Reason Magazine published on antiwar.com. [↩]
https://www.antiwar.com/orig/rothbard_on_war.html. [↩]