It turns out Prince Harry is a jackass

[Flagg]

I can honestly say I'm no fan of compulsory military service unless the country is actually being invaded and aggressively attacked in an actual war. With that said, given that taxpayers spent a shitload of money on educating you (or at least offered to, you fucking preppy! ), demanding you do some form of compulsory service (except any organization that forces travel to a foreign country for any reason, same goes for the military, as that should be voluntary) to improve the community, the nation, or the world, it's not asking for much, TBH.

[Dominus Atheos]

I've always liked the idea of tying Basic Income, universal healthcare, and free education to a (not necessarily military) National Service, as a "pension/GI Bill" of sorts. Like the Conservation Corps, or Federal Project #1, do things that hopefully don't crowd out other private workers; someone earlier in the thread mentioned Doctors Without Borders or other humanitarian-aid works.

Then instead of being "liberal handouts", we can call all those things "benefits of completing your service to your country."

[Zaune]

If that sounds like too long a period of time to expect 18-20 year olds to give up... bluntly, we're already forcing many of them to burn that much time pursuing college degrees that basically say "this person is not a complete fuckup" and nothing more. Or to pursue slow-burn community college "pre-university" educations because they lack the resources to do more.

The problem with that, however, is that conscription doesn't do much to make you more employable unless you end up assigned to a technical specialty; there's a limited number of civilian jobs where skill-at-arms is an essential prerequisite, at least here in the nice civilised European Union...

[Flagg]

If that sounds like too long a period of time to expect 18-20 year olds to give up... bluntly, we're already forcing many of them to burn that much time pursuing college degrees that basically say "this person is not a complete fuckup" and nothing more. Or to pursue slow-burn community college "pre-university" educations because they lack the resources to do more.

The problem with that, however, is that conscription doesn't do much to make you more employable unless you end up assigned to a technical specialty; there's a limited number of civilian jobs where skill-at-arms is an essential prerequisite, at least here in the nice civilised European Union...

TBH, I'd add attending a technical school as one of the options for service since none but the overseas services would even pay if I could wave my magic dick around and make it happen.

[Grumman]

Arguably, conscription is in some ways actively better than the alternative, if it is practiced consistently without regard to economic class. An "all-volunteer" military in a modern society tends to result in the white-collar middle class having virtually no collective military experience and outsourcing all its self-defense needs to the underclass and the poorer rural areas. This creates a disconnect between the military and civilian worlds that in turn screws up politics in a variety of ways.

Compare the difference in the politics of Vietnam (where the youth vote had to actually fear the consequences of being drafted) and Iraq (where they didn't). It took FAR longer for antiwar sentiment to build up any real steam in Iraq, precisely because no voting bloc with real political clout actually felt much personal stake in what happened to "our troops." The only thing the average citizen stood to lose was tax dollars- abstract, intangible things. Not blood or relatives.

What was the result? Irresponsible military adventurism! That might never have happened with a conscript military in a democracy.

It took the deaths of ten times as many American soldiers and five times as many civilians for the Vietnam War to end compared to the Iraq War. That is not a convincing argument that the availability of conscripts hinders the government's ability to wage wars of choice.

[Lonestar]

Does your country also go on silly imperial adventures for dumb reasons?

I saw Singaporean naval vessels all over the Gulf and Northern Arabian Sea. It's safe to say that Sinagpores adventures are limited by their physical population limits more than anything.

FWIW, whenever our VBBS team visited fishing boats the locals would complain about how "the Chinese" were stopping them and beating the shit out of them. I don't think the Singaporean navy was very professional in terms of conducting MIO.

[salm]

Are you talking specifically about Germany or about conscription in general?

Well, Germany and probably most countries that do it in a similar way. In the end people were conscripted for 6 months. That was useless. Before that it was 9 months. That was equally useless. The 10, 12 and 15 months it was even before that was nonsense as well.
It might make sense for a heavily foritifed counry like Israel that requires massive amounts of soldiers and is willing to spend large amounts of resources on keeping their conscripts in the army for 3 years but for most countries it is nonsense. It´s better and cheaper to have professional soldiers who are actually motivated than a bunch of teenagers who are interested in normal stuff like getting drunk.
Furthermore, I don´t think turning people into soldiers is particularily healthy for peoples mental health. Drilling people will cause a certain percentage of fallout which will be turned into lunatics. If there is a way to turn fewer people into soldiers and use more resources per person I assume we will have less lunatics. Lunatics who know how to kill people. And even if the fallout is miniscule. Training soldiers means training them to be submissive to authorities which is bad in itself. The whole mindset that is required to be a good soldier is counter productive for a civillian life imo.
Social services on the other hand that force people to take duties like wiping old and disabled peoples asses, deal with schizophrenics and hang out with homeless junkies and alcoholics turns people into more well rounded adults who lose a lot of contempt, ignorance and fear they had before working with these groups.
The fact that a large part of the population used to have first hand experience with this kind of work was increadible. It is now lost. Probably for ever.

[jwl]

The thing is, the kind of stuff harry does as a recruit is different from the kind of stuff most conscipts would do. When my grandad was a conscript he did mostly paperwork.

[Simon_Jester]

If that sounds like too long a period of time to expect 18-20 year olds to give up... bluntly, we're already forcing many of them to burn that much time pursuing college degrees that basically say "this person is not a complete fuckup" and nothing more. Or to pursue slow-burn community college "pre-university" educations because they lack the resources to do more.

The problem with that, however, is that conscription doesn't do much to make you more employable unless you end up assigned to a technical specialty; there's a limited number of civilian jobs where skill-at-arms is an essential prerequisite, at least here in the nice civilised European Union...

On the other hand, the great majority of soldier jobs do entail some degree of technical skill. For every frontline rifleman who specializes only in riflemanship, there are several (dozens, even) of technicians, drivers, medics, and clerical workers. And any of those experiences will transfer to civilian life.

And, again, frankly, it seems like in the 21st century there are very few things the average person can do with their time from the ages of 18 through 26 that reliably ensure employment, if they lack the aptitude or inclination to pursue a graduate degree. At least being a draftee would pay actual money for an extended period instead of racking up the loans... and puts "can take orders in a steady job nobody actually wanted to fire him from" on your resume.

Instead of the spray of temp jobs and part-time gigs that the average member of our generation is painfully struggling to put on there.

Plus, of course, the separate point that "national service" and military conscription don't have to be the same thing, and being drafted into a civilian labor force that works on the government's behalf can be even more transferable.

...Compare the difference in the politics of Vietnam (where the youth vote had to actually fear the consequences of being drafted) and Iraq (where they didn't). It took FAR longer for antiwar sentiment to build up any real steam in Iraq, precisely because no voting bloc with real political clout actually felt much personal stake in what happened to "our troops." The only thing the average citizen stood to lose was tax dollars- abstract, intangible things. Not blood or relatives.

What was the result? Irresponsible military adventurism! That might never have happened with a conscript military in a democracy.

It took the deaths of ten times as many American soldiers and five times as many civilians for the Vietnam War to end compared to the Iraq War. That is not a convincing argument that the availability of conscripts hinders the government's ability to wage wars of choice.

It does, however, force the government to seriously consider that their electorate and their soldiers are from the same general class of people, rather than having the soldiers mostly be drawn from poor families that don't vote and have no clout whatsoever.

As to the numbers, one cannot directly compare the Vietnam War to the second Iraq War because they happened forty years apart. Among other things, the opposition was a lot stronger in relative terms in Vietnam due to the nature of the war. The Iraqi guerillas were only a guerilla force, they had no entire country of backers with a complete army that was literally capable of launching prepared offensives and supplying them with masses of heavy weapons. Whereas the Viet Cong had a steady supply of strong firepower coming to them from North Vietnam, and the actual NVA did quite a bit of fighting against the US military.

[His Divine Shadow]

Small professional hi-tech armies are great for going invading other countries and doing "peace keeping" operations, i don't rate them highly for defense. A purely defensive military doesn't need the latest tech and have much more use for the traditional conscript army that Finland has.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Apart from during the heights WW1 and WW2 (which still remains controversial today), Canada has not had conscription or national service. And I'm pretty sure that Australia and New Zealand don't have national service atm.

Well, that's what I get for not fact checking something I read on Wikipedia.

[Elheru Aran]

With the whole 'conscription for national service' I'm getting ridiculous flashbacks of Heinlein. Not sure that's such a great thing...

[Broomstick]

The idea that the state has a right to command people to take a job that may entail dying and killing, regardless of their feelings on the matter, is abhorrent. To say that this is a national duty is to say that the nation is more important that the rights of its citizens. That is a very fascistic outlook.

If "the state" does not exist then it can neither give nor defend the rights of its citizens. Or, as mom explained it to me waaaaaaaay back in the mid-20th Century "if you want the rights and privileges of citizenship then you must fulfill the duties of citizenship." Yes, your feelings matter but it seems these days the notion that you owe your society something for how its existence benefits you is lost, in other words, the notion of the social contract seems to be fading.

Let me repeat my most important point here: if your nation ceases to exist then it can neither grant nor defend your rights.

If ISIL was knocking on the door of your country and its cities would you whine about conscription? Would you argue that it's more important to defend individual rights rather than insist that the able-bodied fight off those who would destroy your rights and protections?

Historically, the US has had options for the conscientious objector, but you have to demonstrate that this is a genuine moral stance (via such things as membership in certain churches like the Quakers, or a history of being anti-war/violence in some public manner) and even then some objectors have preferred jail to serving (Muhammed Ali), even as a medic or other non-combat position (the Amish, who absolutely will not work in connection with anything military for any reason. These are, after all, people who have in the past chosen to die rather than defend themselves with violent means).

IF your nation is under existential threat (as arguably one like Israel or Finland is) then national service is justified IMO. Everyone has to do his and her part to defend the nation so the nation can continue to exist. Now, this is more burdensome at some times than others but for some nations it is necessary or they would be invaded/absorbed/cease to exist.

For other nations, such as the US, threats to the actual existence of the nation are minimal at most at present, and there are ample volunteers for military requirements. No need for national service in the military sense there.

There have been discussions of "national service" in the expanded sense of serving one's country not just in the military but in other ways, but those are most frequently shot down for fear of exploitation of peoples' labor at below market rates, thereby displacing other workers who desperately need work (it being a "recession" and all). Not justifiable, since there are people already willing to do that work, indeed, a glut in many areas. Now, if there was a labor shortage in some area critical to the nation maybe it could be justified, but I can't come up with a scenario for that right now.

So, "national service" can be justified if it is actually necessary to preserve the nation, but that also means it's not necessary for all nations at present. Context matters.

[cmdrjones]

I've always liked the idea of tying Basic Income, universal healthcare, and free education to a (not necessarily military) National Service, as a "pension/GI Bill" of sorts. Like the Conservation Corps, or Federal Project #1, do things that hopefully don't crowd out other private workers; someone earlier in the thread mentioned Doctors Without Borders or other humanitarian-aid works.

Then instead of being "liberal handouts", we can call all those things "benefits of completing your service to your country."

The problem with this idea is the definitions of "basic Income," "healthcare," and "education" (we can drop 'free' because, obviously, nothing is....)

Also, My labor may be much more or less valuable than anothers, hence, the concept of national service for free stuff falls apart as readily as the labor theory of value which was the economic underpinning of communist theory.

[Thanas]

The idea that the state has a right to command people to take a job that may entail dying and killing, regardless of their feelings on the matter, is abhorrent. To say that this is a national duty is to say that the nation is more important that the rights of its citizens. That is a very fascistic outlook.

You don't know what the word fascist means.

[The Romulan Republic]

Probably not as well as you do, but nationalism and the violation of individual rights, while not exclusive to fascism, are certainly major characteristics of it.

[The Romulan Republic]

The idea that the state has a right to command people to take a job that may entail dying and killing, regardless of their feelings on the matter, is abhorrent. To say that this is a national duty is to say that the nation is more important that the rights of its citizens. That is a very fascistic outlook.

If "the state" does not exist then it can neither give nor defend the rights of its citizens. Or, as mom explained it to me waaaaaaaay back in the mid-20th Century "if you want the rights and privileges of citizenship then you must fulfill the duties of citizenship." Yes, your feelings matter but it seems these days the notion that you owe your society something for how its existence benefits you is lost, in other words, the notion of the social contract seems to be fading.

People do owe society some things, but fighting, killing, and dying are not among them. Something with such profound and permanent implications should always be an individual choice.

And I don't feel that ones' rights should be conditional upon doing some service. You don't owe a fee for your rights. If you do, they aren't rights. They're payment for doing a job.

Let me repeat my most important point here: if your nation ceases to exist then it can neither grant nor defend your rights.

If your nation violates your rights to survive, then your rights are getting violated either way.

Its the same old false dichotomy between freedom and security.

If ISIL was knocking on the door of your country and its cities would you whine about conscription? Would you argue that it's more important to defend individual rights rather than insist that the able-bodied fight off those who would destroy your rights and protections?

I object to characterizing my moral/philosophical objection to conscription as whining. It implies that my position is simply petty and childish.

And yes, I would object to conscription during an ISIS invasion. Not that I think it would be needed. If ISIS invaded the US with any force larger than small groups of terrorists, you'd have lines of volunteers miles long and militias forming to fight them throughout Republican territory (and probably targeting every Muslim/brown or black person/liberal they see, unfortunately).

Historically, the US has had options for the conscientious objector, but you have to demonstrate that this is a genuine moral stance (via such things as membership in certain churches like the Quakers, or a history of being anti-war/violence in some public manner) and even then some objectors have preferred jail to serving (Muhammed Ali), even as a medic or other non-combat position (the Amish, who absolutely will not work in connection with anything military for any reason. These are, after all, people who have in the past chosen to die rather than defend themselves with violent means).

The conscientious objector exemption is something I support, but only because we haven't gotten rid of conscription all together.

IF your nation is under existential threat (as arguably one like Israel or Finland is) then national service is justified IMO. Everyone has to do his and her part to defend the nation so the nation can continue to exist. Now, this is more burdensome at some times than others but for some nations it is necessary or they would be invaded/absorbed/cease to exist.

National service is not synonymous with military service, as this thread demonstrates. Are you arguing for mandatory national service, or mandatory military service specifically?

For other nations, such as the US, threats to the actual existence of the nation are minimal at most at present, and there are ample volunteers for military requirements. No need for national service in the military sense there.

Indeed.

There have been discussions of "national service" in the expanded sense of serving one's country not just in the military but in other ways, but those are most frequently shot down for fear of exploitation of peoples' labor at below market rates, thereby displacing other workers who desperately need work (it being a "recession" and all). Not justifiable, since there are people already willing to do that work, indeed, a glut in many areas. Now, if there was a labor shortage in some area critical to the nation maybe it could be justified, but I can't come up with a scenario for that right now.

Interesting point.

So, "national service" can be justified if it is actually necessary to preserve the nation, but that also means it's not necessary for all nations at present. Context matters.

[/quote][/quote]

National service maybe. Military service, no. And I would argue that even mandatory national service of any sort is ruled out by the US constitution's 13th. amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. You don't like it, pass an amendment.

Edited to fix quotes.

[Thanas]

Probably not as well as you do, but nationalism and the violation of individual rights, while not exclusive to fascism, are certainly major characteristics of it.

It is a long-standing principle of any democracy that the citizens of the state might very well be called upon to defend it, in fact, it is the elemental principle which formed the first democracies, and one which is true to this day. Only libertarians claim that they do not owe the state any duty at all.

[cmdrjones]

The idea that the state has a right to command people to take a job that may entail dying and killing, regardless of their feelings on the matter, is abhorrent. To say that this is a national duty is to say that the nation is more important that the rights of its citizens. That is a very fascistic outlook.

If "the state" does not exist then it can neither give nor defend the rights of its citizens. Or, as mom explained it to me waaaaaaaay back in the mid-20th Century "if you want the rights and privileges of citizenship then you must fulfill the duties of citizenship." Yes, your feelings matter but it seems these days the notion that you owe your society something for how its existence benefits you is lost, in other words, the notion of the social contract seems to be fading.

Let me repeat my most important point here: if your nation ceases to exist then it can neither grant nor defend your rights.

If ISIL was knocking on the door of your country and its cities would you whine about conscription? Would you argue that it's more important to defend individual rights rather than insist that the able-bodied fight off those who would destroy your rights and protections?

Historically, the US has had options for the conscientious objector, but you have to demonstrate that this is a genuine moral stance (via such things as membership in certain churches like the Quakers, or a history of being anti-war/violence in some public manner) and even then some objectors have preferred jail to serving (Muhammed Ali), even as a medic or other non-combat position (the Amish, who absolutely will not work in connection with anything military for any reason. These are, after all, people who have in the past chosen to die rather than defend themselves with violent means).

IF your nation is under existential threat (as arguably one like Israel or Finland is) then national service is justified IMO. Everyone has to do his and her part to defend the nation so the nation can continue to exist. Now, this is more burdensome at some times than others but for some nations it is necessary or they would be invaded/absorbed/cease to exist.

For other nations, such as the US, threats to the actual existence of the nation are minimal at most at present, and there are ample volunteers for military requirements. No need for national service in the military sense there.

There have been discussions of "national service" in the expanded sense of serving one's country not just in the military but in other ways, but those are most frequently shot down for fear of exploitation of peoples' labor at below market rates, thereby displacing other workers who desperately need work (it being a "recession" and all). Not justifiable, since there are people already willing to do that work, indeed, a glut in many areas. Now, if there was a labor shortage in some area critical to the nation maybe it could be justified, but I can't come up with a scenario for that right now.

So, "national service" can be justified if it is actually necessary to preserve the nation, but that also means it's not necessary for all nations at present. Context matters.

We agree again.... Wonder of wonders....

[The Romulan Republic]

Probably not as well as you do, but nationalism and the violation of individual rights, while not exclusive to fascism, are certainly major characteristics of it.

It is a long-standing principle of any democracy that the citizens of the state might very well be called upon to defend it, in fact, it is the elemental principle which formed the first democracies, and one which is true to this day. Only libertarians claim that they do not owe the state any duty at all.

Owing a duty to the state does not necessarily mean owing a duty to serve in the military. Their are other ways to serve.

And I do not feel that one owes the state anything, though I am far from being a libertarian (maybe I am libertarian about certain issues, but not generally). One does owe their fellow citizens a great deal, and the state is a convenient means of organizing how people fulfill those obligations, but I view the state as an instrument to serve the people, worth supporting only insofar as it serves the people, and not as something that has inherent value or is worthy of unquestioning loyalty. But in practice it comes to the same thing a lot of the time. Its just a theoretical distinction that I choose to make.

[Thanas]

Owing a duty to the state does not necessarily mean owing a duty to serve in the military. Their are other ways to serve.

If the state is in mortal danger, it does.

And I do not feel that one owes the state anything, though I am far from being a libertarian (maybe I am libertarian about certain issues, but not generally). One does owe their fellow citizens a great deal, and the state is a convenient means of organizing how people fulfill those obligations, but I view the state as an instrument to serve the people, worth supporting only insofar as it serves the people, and not as something that has inherent value or is worthy of unquestioning loyalty. But in practice it comes to the same thing a lot of the time. Its just a theoretical distinction that I choose to make.

That is just semantic quibbling. The state is allowed to extract a duty from its citizen for the good of all. Conscripting its citizens when the state is threatened is just one of those duties, like taxes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Owing a duty to the state does not necessarily mean owing a duty to serve in the military. Their are other ways to serve.

If the state is in mortal danger, it does.

Even in war time, their are other duties one can perform that are still necessary.

Regardless, I maintain my position that forced service of any sort in the US is a violation of the 13th. Amendment which prohibits involuntary servitude except as a sentence for a crime.

And I do not feel that one owes the state anything, though I am far from being a libertarian (maybe I am libertarian about certain issues, but not generally). One does owe their fellow citizens a great deal, and the state is a convenient means of organizing how people fulfill those obligations, but I view the state as an instrument to serve the people, worth supporting only insofar as it serves the people, and not as something that has inherent value or is worthy of unquestioning loyalty. But in practice it comes to the same thing a lot of the time. Its just a theoretical distinction that I choose to make.

That is just semantic quibbling. The state is allowed to extract a duty from its citizen for the good of all. Conscripting its citizens when the state is threatened is just one of those duties, like taxes.[/quote]

I consider it an important distinction.

I do agree that "The state is allowed to extract a duty from its citizen for the good of all."

However, it does not logically follow that any duty, no matter how costly or invasive, is therefor acceptable.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Romulan Republic, if you feel you owe the State nothing, do you also object to paying taxes? That's something you owe the state which is used (supposedly) for the good of all.

[Purple]

Romulan Republic, if you feel you owe the State nothing, do you also object to paying taxes? That's something you owe the state which is used (supposedly) for the good of all.

I think he probably just has enough common sense to make the separation between paying money and putting your life on the line. Since one is kind of far more valuable than any amount of the other can ever be.

[Batman]

He has repeatedly demonstrated that he does indeed understand the difference. He is however also on record explicitly saying 'And I do not feel that one owes the state anything'.