An Open Letter to Objectivists on Ron Paul

[sjw]

Matus I'm not misrepresenting your Statist view. You think there are some contexts which justify slavery. Specifically, you believe it can be morally proper to fight slavery with slavery. Which is such a bald-faced moral/practical dichotomy that it confirms that all time spent arguing with you is a complete waste of time. You embrace the moral/practical dichotomy, which is why you embrace Statism, which is why you disagree with my positions.

That position is not consistent with Libertarian foriegn policy, you have explicitly stated, IF YOU ARE NOT ATTACKED, then it ABSOLUTELY IS NOT 'SELF DEFENSE' to attack a nation which has NOT attacked you. Apparently you have not worked out your position on this quite clearly yet. Having 'allies' which you help to defend, is by ANY reasonable interpretation an 'entangling alliance'

You may disagree if Iraq is a valid self defense endaevor, but that's not what is at issue here, FUNDAMENTALLY, libertarian foriegn policy FORBIDS retaliation against ANY nation which has not explicitly attacked them.

I don't know what statement of mine you're referring to. It was probably aimed at the specific context at hand not the general principle. I don't embrace the Libertarian/Statist view anymore than I embrace your neocon/Statist view. Both rest on the same Statist premise. On the Libertarian view, If someone attacks Israel, then it is invalid in any context to help defend, whereas if someone attacks Hawaii, it's somehow OK to help. Only a true Statist can cling to such a contradiction. Just as only a true Statist can justify invading Iraq for their oil because it is in our "National Interest". Both your view and the Libertarian view ascribe rights to The State, whereas in my view, only the individuals have rights. Government has rights only to the extent that they are *properly* delegated (as opposed to usurped), and they cannot contradict the Natural Rights of ANY individual, ever. No exceptions. Anyone making exceptions is an abject Statist and/or panderer to Statists and an enemy of Individual Rights. And that includes most Objectivists. And you.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

Matus I'm not misrepresenting your Statist view. You think there are some contexts which justify slavery. Specifically, you believe it can be morally proper to fight slavery with slavery. Which is such a bald-faced moral/practical dichotomy that it confirms that all time spent arguing with you is a complete waste of time. You embrace the moral/practical dichotomy, which is why you embrace Statism, which is why you disagree with my positions.

Actually I said that these contexts give me pause when considering this topic, but no where not one single time have I ever said that some contexts justify slavery. You should try actually reading what I write, and not be so eager to pigeanhole me into some preconevied notion. You know little about me, but I'll say again explicitly, my current opinion is that I do not think it is ever justified for a state to use conscription. This has been my position for many years, ever since I was involved in libertarianism. I don't know how to say that more explicitly, if you keep insisting on saying I am a statist and advocate using slavery to fight slavery, then you have only succeeded in demonstrating your utter disregard for intellectual honesty, not any clever insight into my beliefs.

The only thing I am talking about here is that some difficult consequences arise from that position, namely that there would have never been any progress made in the world. And that in at least historical / classical contexts, abandoning conscription would have meant absolute suicide. The problem, yet again, is that you judge all systems equally invalid if they don't stand up to your impossible platonic ideal. I acknowledge that a state which uses conscription to defend itself, but otherwise recognizes the individual freedoms and when not under direct aggression is a superior one to a state which chains it's population in perpetuity and uses conscription to permantly chain it's citizens and promulgate utter brutality.

Name call all you want, but the clarity of your position comes only from your ignorance of the complicated implications of it, not the purity of your soul.

[sjw]

The problem, yet again, is that you judge all systems equally invalid if they don't stand up to your impossible platonic ideal.

So now Individual Rights are an impossible Platonic ideal? Wonderful.

Name call all you want, but the clarity of your position comes only from your ignorance of the complicated implications of it, not the purity of your soul.

The "implications" you think you see are just a figment of your twisted imagination.

This isn't about purity of souls, but it is about purity of ideas. I'm a little amazed that this debate has come to something so clear: I stand for consistent Individual Rights, you stand for hypocritical compromises based on what you think is possible in reality.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

The problem, yet again, is that you judge all systems equally invalid if they don't stand up to your impossible platonic ideal.

So now Individual Rights are an impossible Platonic ideal? Wonderful.

So have you stopped raping your mom? Wonderful!

I did not ever say or even remotely imply that 'individual rights' were a platonic ideal, only your perfect utopian society is which somehow we magically get to without ever making any salient steps of progress in the interim is. I believe a nation founded on individual rights is possible in our lifetime.

Name call all you want, but the clarity of your position comes only from your ignorance of the complicated implications of it, not the purity of your soul.

The "implications" you think you see are just a figment of your twisted imagination.

You have a spectacular ability to talk whilst making no intellectual contributions to a discussion. You could have saved some bandwidth and just said "me think you wrong" Perhaps my implications are accurate, and your blind dismissal of them is a consequence of your twisted imagination? The accuracy of your assessments of the world is not directly proportional to your confidence in them. How about some concretes? How about you try making some points? Would any nation state, in ancient greece for example, survive at all without conscription? Please try to make an informed argument suggesting as much. Otherwise I'll just start ignoring you, since over and over again you twist my comments, spew bland dismissels without argument, and generally make no intellectual contribution.

This isn't about purity of souls, but it is about purity of ideas. I'm a little amazed that this debate has come to something so clear: I stand for consistent Individual Rights, you stand for hypocritical compromises based on what you think is possible in reality.

Actually I stand for individual rights, and progressive steps toward a true respect of individual rights. You stand for absolute unrealistic perfectionism which only you are privy to and anyone who even remotely disagrees is a blithering idiot. And you are for some mystical manner to achieve it without progressing through various stages, a position which would have been suicidal if practiced.

I am a little amazed you are so blind to the obvious implications here, or to the obvious comprimises that have been made throughout history in this regard, and in some cases the apparent necessity of them in order to perpetuate and foster the growth in the long term of individual rights and freedom. The revolutionary war was won only with conscription. The Civil war was won only with conscription. World War II would have probably been lost without conscription. The constant struggle through the ages of free men and free nations against murderous tyranny has only progressed at the blood of individuals conscripted in the name of defense. The Roman Empire spread wealth and freedom throughout the world, yet was built on conscription and could only survive with conscription. Yet it was far better than every alternative.

You would have paraded through the streets of Rome demanding an end to conscription whilst the cartheginian hordes descended on the populace and killed every man, and enslaved every women. The only twisted imagination on this forum is coming from your spectacular ignorance of history.

[sjw]

So Matus is for individual rights, and conscription! Great job Matus! You've squared the circle! NOT!

I'm not sure what to make of the insane rambling that was your last post.

You blather, like the complete and total idiot that you are: "You would have paraded through the streets of Rome demanding an end to conscription whilst the cartheginian hordes descended on the populace and killed every man, and enslaved every women."

Evidently you are against intellectual discussion. You don't want to talk about right and wrong while there is a war going on. Well fine then, go join the military, and Shut The Fuck Up! I'm sure you'll do a lot better in Iraq than you're doing here.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

So Matus is for individual rights, and conscription! Great job Matus! You've squared the circle! NOT!

*sigh* No, I am not FOR conscription. However, any, even rudimentary understanding of history, would require acknowledging the role that conscription played in the progress of freedom. You have addressed none of my points, without conscription, Rome would have fallen to even more murderously oppressive tyrannies. A nation with conscription, which is used only for self defense, is a more free nation than one which uses prescription to place it's population in perpetual slavery.

The problem is Shayne that you would support NO nation unless it was PERFECTLY free, such a position would in fact reward murderous tyranny, just like absolute pacficism does. If you would support a less free nation over an even more oppressive one, please feel free to explicitly state it. Otherwise keep your 'insane ramblings' to yourself.

The point is, at various times in history (like, oh THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION) conscription was used to fight an even greater tyranny. If you do not support more free nations (even though they may not be bastions of perfect freedom that you envision) you never make any progress toward real and practical freedom. Whatever support you ever provide for more free nations over less free ones, absolute freedom for individuals should always be the end goal.

The difference between you and I is that I support practical steps toward more freedoms, you support NO steps toward more freedom unless a nation is all ready perfectly free. Historically, freedom has progressed where more free nations form from the collapse or breaking of a less free parent nation. The real, practical result of your position is that the entire world would have descended into absolute murderous subjugation and tyranny eons ago.

I'm not sure what to make of the insane rambling that was your last post.

I think I am making my points pretty clearly, anyone else care to comment? Even Studio Kadent who has vehemently disagreed with me does not find the need to consider my comments 'insanse ramblings' Shayne you seem to feel that virtually everybody here is a blithering idiot spewing only insane ramblings, you throw a lot of insults out and deragotory comments, yet make no compelling arguments and present no evidence to back up your position. If you apparently hate everyone here and think everyone is stupid, why do you remain?

You blather, like the complete and total idiot that you are: "You would have paraded through the streets of Rome demanding an end to conscription whilst the cartheginian hordes descended on the populace and killed every man, and enslaved every women."

Evidently you are against intellectual discussion.

Again and again, I have been the one making cases, defending points, presenting arguments, and again and again you are doing nothing but appealing to superficial emotionalism and calling every body names.

You don't want to talk about right and wrong while there is a war going on.

That is what we have been talking about all along.

Well fine then, go join the military, and Shut The Fuck Up! I'm sure you'll do a lot better in Iraq than you're doing here.

Shayne

Clearly you are unable to defend your position rationally, and so you resort to name calling and yelling at me to 'shut the fuck up' Wow, you certainly are the bastion of rational and intelligent discourse!

Well fine then, why don't you go shovel manure!! Oh I'm sure you'll do a better job of that in the literal sense instead of the metaphorical sense you are doing it here on this forum. And I'll join the military and go to Iraq once you start attacking military supply lines, let me know when and where you attack US military infrastructure and I'll be sure to visit the nearest military recruiting office.

[sjw]

*sigh* No, I am not FOR conscription.

You are if you think the context demands it. You have a mind-body dichotomy so context trumps principles for you. Quit muddying the waters and just fess up to what you already admitted.

However, any, even rudimentary understanding of history, would require acknowledging the role that conscription played in the progress of freedom. You have addressed none of my points, without conscription, Rome would have fallen to even more murderously oppressive tyrannies. A nation with conscription, which is used only for self defense, is a more free nation than one which uses prescription to place it's population in perpetual slavery.

If all you did was change a tactic--conscription--then you're probably right. But your tiny mind doesn't grasp that I'm not talking about changing one tactic out of thousands, I'm talking about changing the principle, which would imply countless other changes, which would make it impossible for your tiny mind to make predictions regarding what would happen.

This is another reason I can't debate with you. Your mind is too tiny to fit my thoughts into, and you refuse to expand it. You're both arrogant and stupid, an impossible combination.

Shayne

[sjw]

Matus says that without conscription Rome would have fallen even more than it did? What the heck?

It would have been better for history if Rome fell while fighting for individual rights and refusing to usurp them, than falling anyway after enslaving people. Matus talks like a businessman who considers committing fraud in order to "save" the business and "save" his employees from not having jobs. Well it'd be far better for everyone if he didn't commit the fraud and fail--than to commit it, stay in business a while longer, and then fail anyway (or worse--to never fail!).

Shayne

[Matus1976]

*sigh* No, I am not FOR conscription.

You are if you think the context demands it.

No, I am not. I have merely said that in the past this has been what has happened. It is an observation, not a behavioral declaration.

You have a mind-body dichotomy so context trumps principles for you. Quit muddying the waters and just fess up to what you already admitted.

Sure, next you'll tell me to 'check my premises' and to 'stop evading' I have said from the beginning of this thread that considering context gives me some pause, even though my position is still that conscription is never just.

However, any, even rudimentary understanding of history, would require acknowledging the role that conscription played in the progress of freedom. You have addressed none of my points, without conscription, Rome would have fallen to even more murderously oppressive tyrannies. A nation with conscription, which is used only for self defense, is a more free nation than one which uses prescription to place it's population in perpetual slavery.

If all you did was change a tactic--conscription--then you're probably right. But your tiny mind

My 'tiny' mind. Do these comments actually make you feel good? If so, whose mind is the tiny one? oooooohh my TINY mind oooohhh. Some nobody on some internet forum says i have a TINY mind! well hot damn I oughta just kill myself now.

But lets just leave it at "you're probably right" and drop your irrelevant blathering. Glad you concede the point.

This is another reason I can't debate with you. Your mind is too tiny to fit my thoughts into, and you refuse to expand it. You're both arrogant and stupid, an impossible combination.

Yet again you descend into name calling. Oh and now I am also arrogant and stupid! Do you actually think I care what you think about me? Well, ya big poopy head, No YOU are Arrogant and Stupid and YOUR tiny MIND is too confused to understand the clear thinking required to formulate accurate assements of complex scenarios. Ok lets just pretend that you called me some more names, I ignored that, you called me more in another post, I ignored that too, and then finally you abandoned the name calling and progressed to some actual discussion.

But really, if you think my mind is that tiny, and I am too arrogant and stupid to debate, by all means, STOP RESPONDING TO ME.

[Matus1976]

Matus says that without conscription Rome would have fallen even more than it did? What the heck?

Look up when Rome finally collapsed and compare that to the attack by the Carthagenians. Again, you lack the historical knowledge relevant to this discusison.

It would have been better for history if Rome fell while fighting for individual rights and refusing to usurp them, than falling anyway after enslaving people.

That's the point of contention, isnt it? How would it have been better? How do you know that? Do you mean it would have been better as in the 'right' thing to do, or it would have been better in a pragmatic sense and ultimately contributed to more freedom in the world, even though it would have meant that Rome would have been crushed in it's infancy. The Roman Empire spread through thousands of miles of territories and promulgated many of the important ideas the constitute a free progressive western nation today. It lasted for nearly a thousands years and touched nearly every culture in Asia, Europe, and Africa. While not at all free, it was far freer than probably every single other culture of the time, it adopted many individual civil liberties and tremendous economic freedoms. Would it have been better if they collapsed early on? Well I don't have this crystal ball you are apparently privy or the divine wisdom you get after thinking about something for 10 seconds that you know little about, but the growth and spread of the Roman empire, and it's classical greek values, was a critical step in the promulgation of the ideas relating to liberty in history.

Matus talks like a businessman who considers committing fraud in order to "save" the business and "save" his employees from not having jobs. Well it'd be far better for everyone if he didn't commit the fraud and fail--than to commit it, stay in business a while longer, and then fail anyway (or worse--to never fail!).

Pertty lame analogy. First, I am making an observation, not a policy prescription. Conscription has clearly in the past been used to further the cause of freedom. Second, we are talking about the lives of people, not jobs and layoffs. Third, we are talking about whether a more free nation, which never the less has conscription, is justified in fighting a less free nation, which also has conscription. Such a simple principled question, which you refuse to answer over and over again. Is a more free nation just in defending itself against the aggressions of a less free nation, yes or no?

I see you continue to make no comments on the role of conscription in the revolutionary war, or in the civil war, both of which advanced tremendously the cause of freedom in the world.

Your problem is you are full of floating abstractions, you demand absolute and perfect freedom instantly and migically to pop out of nowhere, yet actually oppose all of the progressive steps made toward freedom in the past. Do you support more free nations over less free nations, yes or no? simple question.

[sjw]

Your problem is you are full of floating abstractions,

Typical Objectivist cookie-cutter response. But the fact is, you aren't privy to the nature of my abstractions. That you believe yourself to be when the truth is the opposite says everything about you.

you demand absolute and perfect freedom instantly and migically to pop out of nowhere, yet actually oppose all of the progressive steps made toward freedom in the past.

No, I demand that we call a spade a spade. Nothing more, nothing less. Your obsession with rationalizing wickedness to the point that you can't even have a discussion about what is right and what is wrong speaks volumes.

Do you support more free nations over less free nations, yes or no? simple question.

I'll of course pick the lesser of two evils, like any other sane person. My support of Ron Paul is actually an example of that, except he is radically good in contrast to the alternatives.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

No, I demand that we call a spade a spade. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fair enough, lets look at your next statement then..

Do you support more free nations over less free nations, yes or no? simple question.

I'll of course pick the lesser of two evils, like any other sane person.

Then you are a statist!!! how dare you use conscription to defeat conscription!!! Your true nature is revealed you vile statist!!! How disgusting!!! You would hold a gun to a boy's head to force him to fight slavery!

Of course, going with the lesser of two evils is what I have been saying all along, it many contexts it is right to support a lesser evil over a greater one. In this context we are discussing supporting a more free nation, which has conscription for defense, over a less free nation, which holds the population in perpetual military conscription. In some cases you think it would be just to support such a nation. By your own stadards you are a vile statist, and obviously a hypocrite or you simply havent thought through the consequences of your position thoroughly.

So if we can support a lesser evil against a greater one, the natural question to arise then, if conscription for self defense is a lesser evil against permanent conscription and is sometimes proper to support when another nation if fighting a worse one, how different then is it to support conscription for defense in your OWN nation when fighting a GREATER EVIL, like the soviet union, which would have simply killed almost everyone. Frankly by your own standards you are an evil statist.

Your obsession with rationalizing wickedness to the point that you can't even have a discussion about what is right and what is wrong speaks volumes.

Yet here you are acknowledging that sometimes it is right to support a lesser evil against a greater one. Looks like you are rationalizing wickedness too.

[sjw]

Do you support more free nations over less free nations, yes or no? simple question.

I'll of course pick the lesser of two evils, like any other sane person.

Then you are a statist!!! <snip>

Are you paid to troll this forum?

Shayne

[UncleJim]

Do you support more free nations over less free nations, yes or no? simple question.

I'll of course pick the lesser of two evils, like any other sane person.

Then you are a statist!!! <snip>

Are you paid to troll this forum?

Shayne

Cute trap.

There is no such thing a free nation - or not. There are only individuals. And by their nature, individuals are free to do whatever they choose.

The issue of freedom is whether another's freedom to do whatever they choose is impinged by the actions of the first.

[Matus1976]

Shayne, Well I'll take the lack of an intelligent response on your part as a concession to the point. It's clear that you think at some times it's ok to support a lesser evil against a greater one, and obviously conscription for self defense is a lesser evil than North Korean style totalitarian conscription, and as I demonstrated clearly throughout history conscription has been used to make progress toward more complete freedoms. So ultimately it seems we both feel the same on this issue, but you are to arrogant to admit it, so either you are also a statist, or lovers of individual freedom can support practical steps toward increase in freedom and still remain lovers of freedom.

I do not think any current contexts of warfare would make conscription something reasonable to be used to fight a greater evil, as modern combat is based on technology and weaponry, not on man power and attrition, massive manpower would not be required to fight a greater evil, but clearly something more indirect, like higher taxes, might be.

Uncle Jim, no trap here, we merely had to meander around about in order for Shayne to realize more of the implications of his own beliefs. As for your comment on Free nations, I find writing "free nation" or less free nation or more free nation, more reasonable than writing "the extent to which a collection of governed individuals rights are protected by the governing body" A nation which protects all individual civil liberties and economic liberties is what I would call a (truly) "free nation"

[sjw]

Shayne, Well I'll take the lack of an intelligent response on your part as a concession to the point.

Well you'll take anything any which way, but in fact my question is serious: Are you paid to post nonsense here? Since you refused to answer I'll take it as a "yes".

Shayne

[Matus1976]

Shayne, Well I'll take the lack of an intelligent response on your part as a concession to the point.

Well you'll take anything any which way, but in fact my question is serious: Are you paid to post nonsense here? Since you refused to answer I'll take it as a "yes".

Shayne

Are you paid to anal rape monkeys? Boy you love those begging the question fallacies, thought I'd give you another one.

Still you have yet to refute the obvious implications of your position that sometimes it is right to support a necessary evil, and as such, less evil conscription might sometimes be supported when used to defeat more evil conscription. Your response to my highlighting this obvious implication of your very own stated beliefs? To call me a troll. I think this discussion has run it's course, you are apparently not mature enough to acknowledge the points I made or the obvious contradiction in your own position on this matter and seem inclined to devolve into more name calling and red herrings. I'll leave it up to the forum owners to decide I am a 'troll' and what to do about that, defending baseless 'trolling' accusations against someone who has no interest in intellectual discussion is a waste of time. My point has been made here and for all intents and purposes conceded by you, and any further discussion is useless with you on this topic unless you would like to start actually making some points or arguments.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, I am hoping you guys work it out and set the abrasiveness aside.

You both have good minds.

Michael

[mvir9]

Actually, I am hoping you guys work it out and set the abrasiveness aside.

You both have good minds.

Michael

You are such an optimist!

After envisioning anal-raped monkeys and trolls, I'm going to take an aspirin now.

[tjohnson]

You both have good minds.

Michael

You are such an optimist!

After envisioning anal-raped monkeys and trolls, I'm going to take an aspirin now.

LOL I guess some bad shit can come out of "good minds".

[georgedonnelly]

"bad shit" can come from any mind, good or bad. It's the values that guide the practical use of the good or bad mind. In fact, that a mind is labeled as good or bad by an individual is entirely a subjective judgment, I think.

In this case it seems that good manners are not a value at this time to these two minds.

Good manners are an important value and it is in a person's self-interest to practice them. Why is a topic for another thread.

Edited April 7, 2008 by George Donnelly

[Matus1976]

Shayne and I have come to agreement on other topics, primarily the matter of innate talent, where he and I disagreed with virtually everyone else.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=12019

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=16218

I hoped that the tone of my posts would have demonstrated that I was not making an 'anal rape monkey' comment seriously, I find Shayne's perpetuall "have you stopped beating your wife yet" type questions intellectually dishonest and a complete waste of time, and I think if one is going to start slinging insults and baiting questions, well, why pull punches?

In game theory, tit for tat wins all other modes of competition, EXCEPT, tit for tat with an occasional co-operate. In debating, my goal is to challenge my ideas (such as my notions of conscription in this case), form ever more accurate understandings of reality, hash out the implications of my own opinions, and generally grow intellectually, etc. As such, I don't care if Shayne thinks I am 'not a good philosopher' or that I 'troll' and any such distractions from the core of the discussion are yet more time wasted. So in response to many of these things, I usually repeat them back verbatim, showing how pointless they are, or (try to) only present them in response to someone's vague accusationsa gainst me. That is the 'tit for tat', often people also realize how pointless such comments are and stop making them, and move on with the discussion. I try to throw a frequent co-operate in there as well. I find this the most productive manner of disccusion, it serves to whiddle away useless insults from discussions and focus back on the topic at hand.

I am surprised to hear so few other comments to this thread, it seems like many people are reading it. What is every one else's thoughts on conscription? If it is just to support a more free nation against a less free one, Is it just for a more free nation, which for example uses conscription only for defense, to use it when fighting off a less free nation, which holds citizens in perpetual slavery? Are all nations which ever use conscription always unjust, even if it means the certain destruction in the face of a much more oppressive nation? It is clear throghout history that often more free nations utilized conscription to defeat more unfree ones, especially when manpower was the most critical component in warfare. It could be argued that in that case, the more oppressive a nation is, the more controlling it is of it's population, the more likely it is to win in battle, when man power is the most important factor. Would the very concept of freedom even taken hold and spread throughout the world had the greek city states not used conscription to fight the persians, who held all their population in permanent slavery? I think these are uncomfortable questions that deserve analysis.

[georgedonnelly]

I am surprised to hear so few other comments to this thread

Very few people are interested in wrestling with pigs or raping monkeys. Sad, but true.

[Matus1976]

I am surprised to hear so few other comments to this thread

Very few people are interested in wrestling with pigs or raping monkeys. Sad, but true.

Agreed, so what are your thoughts on the topic sans pigs and monkeys?

If it is just to support a more free nation against a less free one, Is it just for a more free nation, which for example uses conscription only for defense, to use it when fighting off a less free nation, which holds citizens in perpetual slavery? Are all nations which ever use conscription always unjust, even if it means the certain destruction in the face of a much more oppressive nation? It is clear throghout history that often more free nations utilized conscription to defeat more unfree ones, especially when manpower was the most critical component in warfare. It could be argued that in that case, the more oppressive a nation is, the more controlling it is of it's population, the more likely it is to win in battle, when man power is the most important factor. Would the very concept of freedom even taken hold and spread throughout the world had the greek city states not used conscription to fight the persians, who held all their population in permanent slavery? I think these are uncomfortable questions that deserve analysis.

[georgedonnelly]

If it is just to support a more free nation against a less free one,

The measure is self-interest. Justice is not a rock-solid concept but self-interest is.

Is it just for a more free nation, which for example uses conscription only for defense, to use it when fighting off a less free nation, which holds citizens in perpetual slavery?

If the nation has conscription it is not free, period. These nations are only mm apart on a scale from slave to free. It's one gang of looters against another. An Objectivist should distance himself from both.

Are all nations which ever use conscription always unjust, even if it means the certain destruction in the face of a much more oppressive nation?

Are all nations which have ever stolen/murdered/looted always unjust etc etc. ? They're definitely not free, that's for sure.

Would the very concept of freedom even taken hold and spread throughout the world had the greek city states not used conscription to fight the persians, who held all their population in permanent slavery?

Undoubtedly, yes. Obviously it is impossible to know for sure. I don't see this being very relevant, though.