samr

Zip, why was it significantly important for him to keep the Swedish citizenship?

2046, So you could argue that what is considered a free rider (a person that lives on the account of others) is something that would not exist in a free society - in a free society, a person could not live on the account of others; others would be protected from this. Ergo, he would die. But suppose one doesn't live in a society that is free to that extent. One is faced with the dillema of enlisting to the army, killing and possibly be killed according to what others tell him - or being a free rider. From the person's point of view, what should he do?

But doesn't society has the right to protect itself from free-riders?

The argument would be that if you do not enlist in the army, you rely on other people to kill and be killed for you. That would be living _from_ others.

What do you think of the following hypothetical: A country is __already__ at war with another. Compulsory military service is legislated. A certain citizen doesn't wish to obey the draft. Does he has the right to? To me it seems that on one hand, freedom is an axiomatic primary. So he does have the right. On the other hand, fairness is also. What he does can be called unfair towards others. Is there any way to solve it from objectivist axioms?