Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
*He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress.

I'm most disturbed by the logic that creates the above belief.

Moral decay as opposed to when? What moral decay? Is moral decay even possible? How do other countries that don't have bizarre draft laws and constant states of military conflict not suffer this moral decay?

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Compulsory conscription for Military Services is morally indefensible, no matter what country you're from.

When a State demands and compels you to serve, in whatever form (Military Service, National Service), its saying that you are the property of the State, to be used and your life expended as politicians see fit.

When a State demands and compels me to pay taxes, does that also make me their property? Or simply my money?

The state forces you to do a lot of things.

I was talking about military service, not taxes. Thats a completely different issue.

If you benefit from public services, then its entirely reasonable to be expected to pay taxes to support them. That doesn't make you the property of the State - you're just paying for things that you and everyone else benefit from.

E.g. healthcare (UK), Defense, education, police/ fire and other emergency services (US Coastguard...the UK equivalent is a charity).


The State has the right to compel you to pay taxes for the Military that protects you, but does NOT have the right to compel you to serve in it.

Personally, I don't believe in forced military service like Israel imposes, as we are not for example surrounded by other nations who's goal in life is to wipe us from the face of the planet.

However, I do believe that service in the Cadets should be mandatory once you reach secondary school.
No actual military, (ie: this is how we make you into a killing machine), training, but at least put all kids through the discipline & physical training while also teaching respect and offering the chance to learn one or more various skillsets that could applied to a trade/s later on. (and some proper history lessons wouldn't be amiss either!)
And of course, from there if you have individuals who are willing, they can go on from the Cadets to apply for full/part-time military service.

Keeps the military itself volunteer based, but puts some spine into kids and maybe even stops them from turning into fat little obese turds too!



Of course, my opinion may simply be biased after witnessing a group of teens who ignored and even laughed at everyone else who did observe today's 2 minute silence & reading of In Flander's Fields...

Only reason I didn't go over and give them a piece of my mind afterwards is because;
1. It would be a total waste of breath. (can't change ignorant & stupid)
2. My great-grandpa & grandpa fought when called upon to protect our values of freedom of speech and expression, meaning they fought so that kids today can act like little a$$hats if they so desire.

There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.

chaos0xomega wrote:
There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.

Only if in exchange I get the right to vote and be called "Citizen"!

chaos0xomega wrote:
There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.

I'm sure that National Service can be quite beneficial for some people (I myself could probably have benefited from it), so people should be encouraged to sign up and informed about the sorts of benefits that National Service can offer them (training, education, discipline, a career, friends for life etc).

But what if someone doesn't want to do National Service? You want them to be forced to it against their will? Thats 2 years of a person's life that they will not get back. What if they want to spend those 2 years differently? What if they find an ideal job, want to travel abroad, or want to spend those two years in Education?

National Service should NEVER be compulsory. The State does not own us. Just like the Military in war-time, if National Service is so good and so justified then the State should have no shortage of volunteers willing to sign up.

Also, isn't this quite a socialist attitude? To think that people should be forced against their will to spend 2 years of their lives serving the country? I thought Americans were quite against this sort of socialism.

Edit:...just to be clear and to pre-empt accusations of political bias, I consider myself a Libertarian - neither truly Left Wing nor Right Wing. It makes my blood boil when anybody, Government, religions, control freak nanny-statists, nutritionists, homo-phobes etc try to dictate how we should live our own lives. People should be left to live their own lives as they see fit so long as they obey the law and don't harm others.

This is a blog post that shares my perspective and explains it quit well.

http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2013/09/11/national-service-redux/

chaos0xomega wrote:
There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.

Heinlein, is that you?! We heard you were dead, man.

The volunteer army we have is top notch... why would we want to change that model?

If anything, I believe there should be a federal requirements to ramp up the budget/training to handle the returning forces (ie, VA Hospital has funding and staff, programs to reintegrate folks back into civilian life, etc...).

 Easy E wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.

Only if in exchange I get the right to vote and be called "Citizen"!

And if I do National Service for MORE than 2 years, can I get elevated to "Comrade"? And an extra bread ration might not go amiss..

~Tim?

I believe very strongly in prevention and addressing root cause.

Ensure that if conscription is to be put into place the first round draft for the front line will be selected from all elected political member households of eligibility male or female.

It will promote careful consideration of all the options and would be fair.

I think the Kennedys of old would have had no problem with this.

Those Kennedeys sure bred like rabbits, didn't they?

~Tim?

It's a stupid idea. The state dose not own me. Why anyone thinks it's a good idea I don't know. It dose not have the effect people think. Many European country's have, or recently had, national service. They have all the same problems of everywhere else. It is just another tax, but on time, and a tax that may have dire psychological consequences for those who do not do well in that kind of structured environment.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.

I'm sure that National Service can be quite beneficial for some people (I myself could probably have benefited from it), so people should be encouraged to sign up and informed about the sorts of benefits that National Service can offer them (training, education, discipline, a career, friends for life etc).

But what if someone doesn't want to do National Service? You want them to be forced to it against their will? Thats 2 years of a person's life that they will not get back. What if they want to spend those 2 years differently? What if they find an ideal job, want to travel abroad, or want to spend those two years in Education?

National Service should NEVER be compulsory. The State does not own us. Just like the Military in war-time, if National Service is so good and so justified then the State should have no shortage of volunteers willing to sign up.

Also, isn't this quite a socialist attitude? To think that people should be forced against their will to spend 2 years of their lives serving the country? I thought Americans were quite against this sort of socialism.

Edit:...just to be clear and to pre-empt accusations of political bias, I consider myself a Libertarian - neither truly Left Wing nor Right Wing. It makes my blood boil when anybody, Government, religions, control freak nanny-statists, nutritionists, homo-phobes etc try to dictate how we should live our own lives. People should be left to live their own lives as they see fit so long as they obey the law and don't harm others.

This is a blog post that shares my perspective and explains it quit well.

http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2013/09/11/national-service-redux/

While I mostly agree with you, the fact of the matter is that the government is, at its most basic level, a collection of people who have gathered together for mutual protection and associated benefits, and national service is a way to "pay your dues" so to speak for those benefits. You could argue that taxes are enough, I wouldn't entirely disagree with you, but this is more direct and in my opinion more valuable. In regards to your "what-if", in my opinion it should be part of the educational system following high school (either on completion of coursework or upon dropping out).

Really it would solve all sorts of problems, it would provide every American citizen with practical work experience, it would help instill discipline and maturity, the extra 2 years between high school and college would (in my opinion) make college educations more effective, because incoming freshman are, for the most part, really too immature to take higher education as seriously as they should. It would help combat the narrow-minded regional viewpoints that are becoming increasingly popular in this country by the simple virtue that it would force the younger generations to move around the country and interact with people from other areas and thus promote the spread of ideas, it would also help cut costs on certain government/municipal/etc. programs by providing a large pool of essentially cheap labor (and who knows, maybe all the extra staffing would help VA hospitals actually... you know... do something), and really I could go on for days about all the other benefits of it.

The fact of the matter, is that the concept of individuality, especially the ones propagated by Libertarians (and to a lesser extent Psychologists), is a myth. We are, ultimately, social creatures, shaped and driven by social forces, and members of a society (whether we like it or choose to accept it or not) to which we owe our existence and are in turned owed for other members existence. No, the state does not own us, this is true, but you cannot make the claim that you don't owe the state anything either. Fact is, that you're still sucking oxygen is proof enough that you owe your state for something.

And yes, I do consider myself an adherent of some of Heinlein's political philosophy.

 Steve steveson wrote:
It's a stupid idea. The state dose not own me. Why anyone thinks it's a good idea I don't know. It dose not have the effect people think. Many European country's have, or recently had, national service. They have all the same problems of everywhere else. It is just another tax, but on time, and a tax that may have dire psychological consequences for those who do not do well in that kind of structured environment.

Agreed, also people who have no interest in joining the army don't usually make for good soldiers.

chaos0xomega wrote:
national service is a way to "pay your dues" so to speak for those benefits. You could argue that taxes are enough,

No, taxes are enough. That is the point in taxes. To par for the country to run. This would just be another tax. One that falls heavier on some than others.

Really it would solve all sorts of problems, it would provide every American citizen with practical work experience, it would help instill disciplinn and maturity, the extra 2 years between high school and college would (in my opinion) make college educations more effective, because incoming freshman are, for the most part, really too immature to take higher education as seriously as they should

look at country's that do have national service still. That is simply not the effect it has.

programs by providing a large pool of essentially cheap labor (and who knows, maybe all the extra staffing would help VA hospitals actually... you know... do something), and really I could go on for days about all the other benefits of it.

indentured labor. I.E slavery. The young become slaves of the state.

No, the state does not own us, this is true, but you cannot make the claim that you don't owe the state anything either. Fact is, that you're still sucking oxygen is proof enough that you owe your state for something.

I can claim that and do. I don't owe the state. I pay about 40-50% of my income in direct and indirect tax every year to pay for those things I get from the state. The state do not give me anything for free. I don't owe them.

@chas0Xomega: You seem to view government mandated national service as a cure-all, which is the first sign that you're delusional. Also, ever heard the phrase "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"? I think that it nicely sums up why the kinda national service you're advocating won't fix the problems you think it will.

~Tim?

chaos0xomega wrote:
No, the state does not own us, this is true, but you cannot make the claim that you don't owe the state anything either. Fact is, that you're still sucking oxygen is proof enough that you owe your state for something.

I didn't say "we owe the State nothing". I said we don't owe the State Military and National Service, or forced labour. Our lives are not National assets, to be used and expended in War at the whim of politicians to further their agenda.

We "owe" the State taxes for the securities, liberties and benefits that the State provides for us. Police, Defense, education, healthcare, transport. We all benefit from these to a greater or lesser extent, so its fair that we help pay for them. We "owe" the State obedience to the law, as long as its just and reasonable (e.g. the laws against homosexuality were not just and reasonable).

And yes, I do consider myself an adherent of some of Heinlein's political philosophy.

Who? I don't follow any political philosophers or ideologies. TBH I couldn't name a single Libertarian philosopher.

I just look at different issues, and try to read a wide range of political view points and perspectives, (e.g. conservatives like Peter Hitchens, Melanie Philips and Nigel Farage; and Julian Assange, Young Turks, Thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins; and a number of indepedent blogs etc) and I apply my own values and what I consider to be just and fair to come to a conclusion. Libertarianism is simply what I think best represents my hodge podge of views.

 Steve steveson wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
national service is a way to "pay your dues" so to speak for those benefits. You could argue that taxes are enough,

No, taxes are enough. That is the point in taxes. To par for the country to run. This would just be another tax. One that falls heavier on some than others.

I dont see how it would fall heavier on some than on others... Unless you mean it would fall heavier on all the rich kids who have to do work for 2 years instead of living off their parents and/or attending that elite university their grandpa went to... thats a sacrifice I'm willing to make for my country.

Really it would solve all sorts of problems, it would provide every American citizen with practical work experience, it would help instill disciplinn and maturity, the extra 2 years between high school and college would (in my opinion) make college educations more effective, because incoming freshman are, for the most part, really too immature to take higher education as seriously as they should

look at country's that do have national service still. That is simply not the effect it has.

Well, considering most of the countries that still do national service are apparrently the role models for Pres. Obama, what with universal healthcare and all, I would think that is exactly what we want to do.

indentured labor. I.E slavery. The young become slaves of the state.

Become implies that we aren't already.

I can claim that and do. I don't owe the state. I pay about 40-50% of my income in direct and indirect tax every year to pay for those things I get from the state. The state do not give me anything for free. I don't owe them.

I disagree, taxes are what you (at least in theory) pay the state for direct services rendered (i.e. - upkeep of roads, social security benefits, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.). National service is repayment of indirect services, for example, that military that keeps you safe at night, that military that kept your parents safe before you were born so they could reproduce and pop you out to continue the fight on communism, the regulations put into place to ensure that big pharma isn't loading those pills you pop with arsenic and lead, etc. etc.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Well, considering most of the countries that still do national service are apparrently the role models for Pres. Obama, what with universal healthcare and all, I would think that is exactly what we want to do.

Yeah, like Canada! ...Wait a minute, Canada hasn't had conscription since WW2, near the very end, and with only 2463 conscripts even involved. And even then, it ran the risk of a political crisis (as it did in 1917).

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

And yes, I do consider myself an adherent of some of Heinlein's political philosophy.

Who? I don't follow any political philosophers or ideologies. TBH I couldn't name a single Libertarian philosopher.

The guy who wrote Stranger in a Strange Land and (more importantly to the topic) Starship Troopers.

chaos0xomega wrote:


I dont see how it would fall heavier on some than on others... Unless you mean it would fall heavier on all the rich kids who have to do work for 2 years instead of living off their parents and/or attending that elite university their grandpa went to... thats a sacrifice I'm willing to make for my country.

What I mean is that those not suted to that kind of structured situation would suffer. It is like a flat tax.

Become implies that we aren't already.

eh? Not last time I checked.

I disagree, taxes are what you (at least in theory) pay the state for direct services rendered (i.e. - upkeep of roads, social security benefits, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.). National service is repayment of indirect services, for example, that military that keeps you safe at night, that military that kept your parents safe before you were born so they could reproduce and pop you out to continue the fight on communism, the regulations put into place to ensure that big pharma isn't loading those pills you pop with arsenic and lead, etc. etc.

Last time I checked part of my taxes go to pay for the military to pay those who want to do the job. Same with the police. And pay for managing the regulation. Paying for NICE and PHE in the UK (the equivalent of the FDA). Those are all things I pay my taxes for. I don't get why you think people need to do national service to pay for it in some strange "other" way. I don't understand why you think the military is any different to any other government body paid for by taxes. I pay taxes, people do those jobs. I do my job (in the public sector) that others might hate doing.

Perhaps everyone should also be forced to spend 2 years working in low level government bauracracy, like I did when I was younger, so they have more respect for people who are just trying to do there job as best they can next time they have to deep with seemingly pointless form filling and not resort to abuse, like working in the service sector should also be compulsory so people have basic respect for shop assistants and restaurant staff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Well, considering most of the countries that still do national service are apparrently the role models for Pres. Obama, what with universal healthcare and all, I would think that is exactly what we want to do.

Yeah, like Canada! ...Wait a minute, Canada hasn't had conscription since WW2, near the very end, and with only 2463 conscripts even involved. And even then, it ran the risk of a political crisis (as it did in 1917).

Oh, and the UK... Hold on a second... Universal healthcare may not be related to national service.

I disagreed with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (or more accurately, as I was about 13 at the time those wars started and I thought it was "cool", but later came to my senses when I learnt about the horrific aftermaths and costs in human life).

I'm against any Western military intervention (interference) in Syria.

I have nothing but contempt for the incompetent and corrupt politicians who govern Britain, and I refuse to participate in their illegal and futile wars that have killed millions of innocent people simply to further their agenda and boost their sanctimonious egos.

Do you seriously believe I would consent to compulsory Military Service? I'd flat out refuse and risk prison, or at the very least, I'd be a disgruntled recalcitrant, reluctant to cooperate.The Army's worst nightmare. Multiply me by a hundred thousand, and you'd have an Armed Service crippled by poor morale and ill discipline.


If theres ever a war that I considered justified, and which I felt genuinely threatend my country (2nd invasion of the Falklands by Argentina) then I would consider volunteering. Compelling people to serve in the Military is wrong, has always been wrong and will always be wrong.

Woah, where did I say compulsory military service? I said NATIONAL service, and then listed off like a dozen things that weren't military service... reading comprehension, it helps.

What I mean is that those not suted to that kind of structured situation would suffer. It is like a flat tax.

What structured situation? Being on a volunteer ambulance squad is nothing like being in the military (and conveniently enough isn't a full time deal, so you would still be able to pursue the oh so important college education at the same time).

Perhaps everyone should also be forced to spend 2 years working in low level government bauracracy, like I did when I was younger, so they have more respect for people who are just trying to do there job as best they can next time they have to deep with seemingly pointless form filling and not resort to abuse, like working in the service sector should also be compulsory so people have basic respect for shop assistants and restaurant staff.[\quote]

Thats basically what I'm proposing, minus the service sector component...

Oh, and the UK... Hold on a second... Universal healthcare may not be related to national service.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Woah, where did I say compulsory military service? I said NATIONAL service, and then listed off like a dozen things that weren't military service... reading comprehension, it helps.

Now you're being dishonest.

National service is repayment of indirect services, for example, that military that keeps you safe at night, that military that kept your parents safe before you were born so they could reproduce and pop you out to continue the fight on communism,

This is what I was replying to.

You mentioned National Service, then went on to talk about how it would be repayment for the Military. Typically, National Service is considered synonymous with Military Service, in the UK at least.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Woah, where did I say compulsory military service? I said NATIONAL service, and then listed off like a dozen things that weren't military service... reading comprehension, it helps.

Now you're being dishonest.

Well, he DID include other non-military services. Volunteer firefighter was one of them that I recall him mentioning specifically. Not that I agree with his views necessarily.

For example, I don't see how, simply because it's a national service, it automatically provides more value to society than a gas station or the electric company, for example. Perhaps more worthy of respect, as it is a job that risks one's life for others, but the guy who keeps my bulbs lit is owed my thanks more to date by me than the guy who hasn't needed to put out my house fire yet.

National service is repayment of indirect services, for example, that military that keeps you safe at night, that military that kept your parents safe before you were born so they could reproduce and pop you out to continue the fight on communism,

This is what I was replying to.

You mentioned National Service, then went on to talk about how it would be repayment for the Military. Typically, National Service is considered synonymous with Military Service, in the UK at least.

I choose to argue that my taxes are good enough. Abstracting this to a "money as a function of time" argument, this is some weird new tax that I am very uncomfortable with, especially since one person's time is worth more than another's. I wouldn't want to be sitting there, having a job that makes me 10x the stipend I'm making for my mandated service that I can't return to because I have to pay back to the state because it's "benevolently" protecting me (with the money that I'm paying it already from the really nice job I could have, oh, you just lost out on taxes since I'm not working that job anymore, BTW).

How do you deal with the fact that you're abducting people for two years of their life in situations where it's detrimental to things in the private sector? Sons who need to help tend to the farm. Scenarios where people are unwell and unable to provide service though the prescribed duration? What years do you take them away from their private lives to do this to them during? 18? So they can't start college until they're 20? That means that you're aging your professional and white collar entry age by two years. You might not still be in your 20s after completing a graduate degree. You certainly won't after your doctorate. Any later than that? Unfeasible, because that only increases the odds of the "already have a job" scenario I describe earlier.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I got into a debate with a veteran over on a political forum I go to. Basically, his position is that "there should be a national draft for EVERY single conflict the US gets involved in"*. Now, maybe I'm crazy, but this seems like a really bad idea, since the vast majority of the conflicts the USA has been involved in since WWII have been needless and wasteful (think Vietnam and the Middle-East conflicts of the past decade)

Am I just totally off-base?

~Tim?

*He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress.

I think its a brilliant idea, if:
1. There are no deferments.
2. There is no guard units to hide in.

If the Elite's kids could get killed, there will be no unnecessary wars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I did over 22 years at the sharp end and the folks who start the wars in America never have their family members dying in them....

A draft with NO exceptions for anyone unless they have already served in combat or are missing a limb sounds fine to me....

You want to save money on the DoD bring back the draft, do not pay them, only the Volunteer units, see how quick we get out of our current war....

Good points


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
There should be compulsory national service. Do 2 years in the military, ambulance squad, volunteer firefighter, join the peace corps, or bring back labor corps like back in the New Deal days for public works projects, but it should be left to individual choice as to where those 2 years are spent, because military brass wants nothing to do with a draft, and I honestly don't blame them.

Only if in exchange I get the right to vote and be called "Citizen"!

Remember, Service..Equals..Citizenship!

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Who? I don't follow any political philosophers or ideologies. TBH I couldn't name a single Libertarian philosopher.

Heinlein wasn't a libertarian, and the draft isn't a libertarian ideal. No idea why you would've went there.

Well on the one hand a mandatory draft would probably vastly reduce any politicians desire to get involved in a military conflict for spurious reasons. It would be electoral suicide to get conscripts killed for no good reason. I’m convinced that one of the major reasons that there aren’t the same vocal demonstrations against Afghanistan as there where against Vietnam in the States is because there is no draft.

Also conscript armies are on the whole ineffective except in the direst of circumstances. Though some conservative politicians have proposed re-introducing national service in the uk, one of the biggest opponents of the doing so are the armed forces themselves who fear that it would reduce their effectiveness by turning them into a babysitting service. Currently the British armed forces are turning away applicants, they can afford to be picky and that’s the way they like it. They enjoy their ‘elite’ status.


On the whole I'm against the idea of compulsory millitary service.

While I like Heinlein, I am very much against mandatory conscription. Honestly most of you civilian types are useless feths, putting you in a unit of any kind would just endanger lives and mission success. Besides, without a civilian population's girlfriends to steal, leave would be so much more boring.