What are your opinions on conscription (a moral discussion)

[Eleas]

Then what about a lax draft, the way we have?

Your going to have to explain what a lax draft is.

Um. I just, you know, did. In my previous post. Everything from "That said, my country practices conscription in a very lax way." and down.

[Eleas]

...and then I realised you sorta answered it in your latest post, too. *thwacks himself*

[Dahak]

No, I do not find that unfair.
For one, our laws are binding for citizens, not native citizens; immigrants of proper age and qualification are drafted, too.
Also, if someone really wants to avoid service, he can, of course, try getting his parents to move to another country, and changing his citizenship before he's drafted (a.k.a. get the fuck out of my country, antisocial asshole).

As for Germany, you can pretty easily avoid being drafted into our Armed Forces by just doing the alternative civilian service, a choice which most of those in question actually choose.

[Korvan]

Here in British Columbia, our forest services use a sort of informal conscription when faced with a major forest fire. Basically, they'll send out people to local bars and anyone unemployed gets handed a shovel. Most people will comply out of some sense of civic duty, but I'm not sure if this conscription can be legally enforced.

They don't actually do that anymore do they? I thought they stopped that decades ago.

Can't say for sure. Just that when I was back home in the interior during fire season, I was told that I could be recruited into a fire squad. Our professional fire-fighters are top notch and we do have a lot of 'em. I'm pretty sure that when the fires get close to the major centres, they do get volunteers to dig fire breaks etc.

[Korvan]

A quick search with "forest fire conscription" had as its number one link, a document outlining conscription regulations as practiced in Alberta. The outline covered years from 96-2003.

[General Zod]

-I already mentioned these effects in my original post. However, most people in the U.S. join the military because they want a better life not because they want a military career or to go around killing people, blowing stuff up, and being shot at. There are plenty of other people who join the military to serve their country as it were or just to blow stuff up and kill people, but they do put a huge amount on the line during war and society needs a way to ensure that they aren't taken advantage of (e.g., by forcing them to fight unnecessary wars or by not compensating them comensurate with their worth as troops).

so. what exactly -are- you saying here? that it's not fair to make give military as an option for those that want to improve their life who have little options available, so therefore it's okay to force military service onto everyone in order to make things more fair? even those who want absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the military?

[Nova Andromeda]

-I already mentioned these effects in my original post. However, most people in the U.S. join the military because they want a better life not because they want a military career or to go around killing people, blowing stuff up, and being shot at. There are plenty of other people who join the military to serve their country as it were or just to blow stuff up and kill people, but they do put a huge amount on the line during war and society needs a way to ensure that they aren't taken advantage of (e.g., by forcing them to fight unnecessary wars or by not compensating them comensurate with their worth as troops).

so. what exactly -are- you saying here? that it's not fair to make give military as an option for those that want to improve their life who have little options available, so therefore it's okay to force military service onto everyone in order to make things more fair? even those who want absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the military?

--I'm saying society shouldn't be setup in such a way that there is a large class of people who need to resort to joining the military (since there aren't any other good options) in order to improve their situation in life.
-I'm also saying that if you think we should be fighting a war you damn well better be ready to fight it yourself you selfish bastard. Why should some poor guy who is just trying to make a life for himself be forced to fight your fights for you? Look at it this way: if anyone in the military could vote against a military campaign (such as the war in Iraq or the Vietnam war or the war against Germany) and not have to go fight in that campaign would there be enough people to fight it or would you have to start a draft? If you end up having to start a draft then failing to do so means that you are making other people fight your fights for you. BTW, just in case you're thinking "But that's what they signed up for ... it's their own problem!" suckering people who are young or ignorant or uneducated or poor into such an agreement doens't make it any less morally bankrupt.

[General Zod]

--I'm saying society shouldn't be setup in such a way that there is a large class of people who need to resort to joining the military (since there aren't any other good options) in order to improve their situation in life.

fine. then work to change society. simply saying the present reasons people go into the military sucks, therefore we need a draft is suck ass justification for actually supporting the draft itself.

-I'm also saying that if you think we should be fighting a war you damn well better be ready to fight it yourself you selfish bastard. Why should some poor guy who is just trying to make a life for himself be forced to fight your fights for you?

you don't think it's okay to make people fight when they're trying to improve themselves and volunteer for the military, yet you think it's okay to force military duty on someone who genuinely does not desire to serve in the military whatsoever? i suppose the hypocrisy in your position never occured to you eh?

Look at it this way: if anyone in the military could vote against a military campaign (such as the war in Iraq or the Vietnam war or the war against Germany) and not have to go fight in that campaign would there be enough people to fight it or would you have to start a draft?

the military is not a democracy. your analogy fails.

If you end up having to start a draft then failing to do so means that you are making other people fight your fights for you. BTW, just in case you're thinking "But that's what they signed up for ... it's their own problem!" suckering people who are young or ignorant or uneducated or poor into such an agreement doens't make it any less morally bankrupt.

you have to be living under a rock not to expect the possibility you might be put into a combat situation when you sign up with the military. especially considering that's its whole fucking point. it's worse for someone to jump ship after voluntarily signing up for the military, rather than someone who jumps ship because he was forced to serve in the military.

[Civil War Man]

Why should some poor guy who is just trying to make a life for himself be forced to fight your fights for you?

This statement prompts me to bring up a side note: There is a book called Lies My Teacher Told Me that goes over everything the American history textbooks get wrong (wish I had it with me, so I can quote the passage and cite the statistics. I do encourage people, particularly other Americans, to look it up.). In the chapter on Vietnam, it cites a survey that shows, contrary to popular belief, most of the opposition to the war (particularly prior to Tet) came from the less educated. High school grads were more apt to oppose the Vietnam War than college grads. The two common hypotheses for this outcome was a) the less educated were the ones being drafted and shipped overseas, and b) the US education system practically brainwashes students and makes them jingoists.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

I was in a conscript troop (Taiwan). My experience was good. I don't think it's quite a so-called slavery or "violation of human rights". Chinese people usually think "Good boys don't go to the military." So I think there is a must to draft a decent number of troops over there. Taiwan is trying to increase its volunteer enlisted. IIRC it resulted in a undermanned troop so I don't think in the short term it will work.

My only problem with conscription in Taiwan? The Taiwanese military is not improving much. Making service kind of shitty. I've also seen too many examples of chickenshit volunteer superiors giving the conscripts a bad time. But from what I see with the trend of whiny Taiwanese boys, a little pressure won't hurt. After all, such shit also happens after service.

There are also alternatives for military service in Taiwan. Some actually could make money.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

somewhat of a false analogy there. paying taxes doesn't pose any risk of getting body parts mutilated or being killed during combat. also, for those of you about to say there are other jobs involve risking your lives, it's necessary to point out that that risk is voluntary. not compulsory.

In peacetime, barring accidents, that at least doesn't apply.

In wartime, if you believe people have a duty to defend their society when required, then...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Allowing no conscientious objectors is stupid, plain and simple. What do you do with religions which are avowedly pacifist, like the Quakers? How about Jehovah's Witnesses, whose belief structure is incompatable with military service.

Well, tough. Sometimes things override your religion. What's next, avoiding taxes or breaking the law for religious reasons? Duties should apply to all citizens, regardless of their religion. This is true religious equality.

Conscientious objection is not "I don't feel like serving in the military, so I want a Get Out of the Army Free card."

Cross out "free", and if you insist you may use a stronger substitute for "don't feel like", or even replace "army" with "combat divsion" or "front-line soldiering duty" but at the end of the day, that's precisely what it is.

Read this: http://www.nisbco.org/What_Do_I.htm. It outlines the different types of conscientious objection (those both recognized and not recognized by the US Selective Service) and the responsibilities of a conscientious objector ("As a result of being classified a conscientious objector, you would be required to give two years of alternative service in some civilian agency or non-combatant service in the Army, if you are drafted.")

Alternative service is nice, but I really don't see, if we assume conscription is either acceptable or a necessary evil, why I (an atheist) should be sent to die while that Jehovah Witness guy next to me (who's a YEC if it helps any) should be allowed to survive just because he has a religion that supposedly makes him a "conscientious objector."

Reading through your articles to see one example of how this conscientious objector thing works in life, present US legislation seems pretty iffy (as this article agrees).

The law allows for religion, thus giving an advantage to those who have the correct kinds of religion. I know that technically they've redefined "religion" so you don't have to be a Christian, but what counts for "moral and ethical beliefs with the same force as religious beliefs". Besides, beliefs vary from person to person. Many people are only loosely religious, while someone may hold his atheist pacifist views strongly. So when is a "moral and ethical belief" equal in strength to a "religious belief?"

Then it requires "training & belief", again, giving an advantage to those with a religion who are indoctrinated from youth. If I came up with the ideas by yourself, my objection might be classified as "philosophical or merely personal" and rejected. Or if I don't get enough of those "letters of support", maybe because I'm surrounded by unsympathetic Jehovah Witnesses, I'd be the only guy in the village that would fail to qualify for the objection status and sent to fight, in a clusterfuck like Iraq or Afghanistan (I meant the Soviet version, not the US).

If a personal belief can be squashed (stated in the law), then why not a religious belief? After all, a religious belief is ultimately also a personal belief.

To avoid such things, I'd say that if we are to have conscription, let's have it without inequality. Some people would be hurt more than others, but that's the same as taxes. It doesn't mean the guys that particularly feel the pinch don't have to pay them.

[Gunhead]

I might point out that here Jehovah's witnesses are exempt from military service on religious grounds. They can serve if they want to.
Others who morally object to serve in the military can choose civil service.

Thing is that here civil service is always 13 months, in the army it's 6-12 months of service.

-Gunhead

[General Zod]

somewhat of a false analogy there. paying taxes doesn't pose any risk of getting body parts mutilated or being killed during combat. also, for those of you about to say there are other jobs involve risking your lives, it's necessary to point out that that risk is voluntary. not compulsory.

In peacetime, barring accidents, that at least doesn't apply.

and therein lies my point. many people don't want to serve the military because wars aren't exactly predictable. if someone joins the military with expectations that they'll never have to see combat because it's peacetime, then they're joining for the wrong reasons.

In wartime, if you believe people have a duty to defend their society when required, then...

drafts should only be necessary in terms of a national emergency (such as ww2), when present troop requirements are extremely low and necessary to defend the country's ground imo. situations such as iraq are dubious on that requirement at best.

[PainRack]

A need that can be met with civilian organizations if the government wishes to organize such. There is no reason why having protection against natural disasters must include military service, which seems to be the only remotely reasonable interpretation of your position. There are already plenty of civilian organizations that protect--and unlike the police and firefighters, those that respond to natural disasters need not serve in this function full-time.

You do know that conscription CAN also apply to Civil Defence duties? Approximately 10% of the conscript levy is dedicated to the police and CD units here.

Would you thus say your orginal invalidation of conscription still applies if it was used to increase the manpower for above said units?

[Kuroneko]

You do know that conscription CAN also apply to Civil Defence duties? Approximately 10% of the conscript levy is dedicated to the police and CD units here.

Yes, I do, although I have no idea how widespread it is (I'm attempting to keep the argument without policies of specific countries), but more importantly that is not at all what AMX had proposed.

Would you thus say your orginal invalidation of conscription still applies if it was used to increase the manpower for above said units?

No. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that persons have certain duties to society, just the notion that military service is an absolute duty regardless of need or lack of it.

[Zoink]

For military service in warfare, how about this system:

The gov't is entrusted with the obligation to instill trust and confidence in the population through moral and just actions. This needs to be done to a degree that people will volunteer to serve their country. I think if those people are given the needed respect and reward for their service then there will be no shortage of volunteers.

If a country has a small army now, then perhaps they have problems:

-they may need to increase the salary and equipment of troops. This will show they are appreciated enough to be given the tools needed to support their family and get the job done. I'm mainly thinking of my own Canada here!

-their actions are judged to be unjust by the population. If Saddam has trouble getting enough volunteers then perhaps not enough people want to live under his rule. If the US has trouble with troops levels after Iraq War II, perhaps not enough people thought it was really needed for the national security of the home soil.

If a country still has trouble getting people to step up to the plate in an invasion of their homeland, then perhaps the sacrifice is too great. For example:

A Native American tribe wants to conscript every able-bodied person to fight against European invasion during the colonial days. 60% of the tribe wants to fight; the remaining 40% (who only see fighting as leading to slaughter and possible extinction) feel the resisting will only do more harm than good. The 60% think that going out in a blaze of glory is just fine; while the 40% want to see their children grow old. Are the 40% obligated to charge a musket line with a sharp stick because "defend your homeland" sounds like a good ideal to the majority? That'd be the situation if we say conscription is just. We're assuming the desires of the majority are just and will lead to the best outcome.

I think there will be cases when this could lead to a worse outcome. Perhaps the sight of every citizen in armed defiance will prevent a war. However, I feel that this situation would be far less common than cases where either conscription wasn't necessary or it was used for an unjust cause.

[Eleas]

For military service in warfare, how about this system:

The gov't is entrusted with the obligation to instill trust and confidence in the population through moral and just actions. This needs to be done to a degree that people will volunteer to serve their country. I think if those people are given the needed respect and reward for their service then there will be no shortage of volunteers.

DANGEROUS.

The easiest way to do that is through state-funded propaganda. Giving the country an obligation to make its people believe something sounds awfully dangerous. A populace essentially convinced and unified in their approval of their country's military is one I would be wary of. Generally, people seem to want to concentrate on peaceful pursuits, not war. I'd say that's a healthy psychological mindset, even if it's less effective, military-wise. But then, for their size, Iraq had a huge army back in the day.