Poll: Required Enlistment

[themrwinkleman]

Nobody who ever joined the army wanted to be part of the Pioneer Corps, the guys that dig latrines and build trench systems etc. Perhaps this kind of non-combat orientated role could be an option for long term unemployed or non serious criminal punishments, or those with no real plan in the immediate future. Either that or menial (though not slave-type jobs/treatment) in the servicemens/womens home country, freeing up the individually specialised troops to do just the job they are employed for, rather than wasting days/weeks/months on idiotic admin tasks, etc.

However I would advise a minimum of two to three years, perhaps slightly longer, as a one year rotation will involve a huge percentage of those troops still in training, however basic, and unable to be usefully employed.

The Russian system throughout the cold war was foul. Those guys that were in their last six months of a three year draft bullied, abused and stole from the guys on their initial six month period. Violence was everyday, rape common place and death, through murder, suicide or accident was frequent.

Besides, I would argue that the better army would be one made up of volunteers, not conscripts.

 

[Nickolai77]

I voted no on this poll because i view conscription as a breach of civil liberties. It is no buisness of the state saying they "know" what is best for their citizens, the only time a state is justified in interfering with the private lives of their citizens is to stop them doing harm to others. In the words of the philosopher JS Mill-

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficent warrant

If the state adopts a paternalistic attitude towards its citizens then all sorts of breaches in civil liberties could be broken. Take ID cards, extensive CCTV, government tracking and storing of e-mails and internet activity etc- all these things would be justified in the belief that the state is acting "for the own good" of its citizens- protecting their safety and security under the watchful eye of Big Brother. If the government wanted to act for the "moral and physical" good of its citizens it could decide to enforce no more than three hours of internet activity a day and make it a law that all citizens partake in a sport which demands physical activity- all because this will be "for their own good".

That is why we need a more rock solid, moral principle which protects our freedoms and limits government involvment in our private lives to that where it protects us from harm- so such things as fraud, abuse, smoking in enclosed public spaces and robbery would be illegal and have a rational moral reason for that to be the case.

Conscription is a breach of the harm principle, and would mark a further detoration of our civil liberties in the current "war on terror".

 

[HotFezz8]

No, because I don't want anything to do with the military.

Ever.

My thoughts exactly.

So, for the sake of the thread, how would you guys act when told you would be drafted into the military? Shipped off for basic? told you will be going to Iraq/Afghanistan for six months?

i'm assuming they are both middle class enough to have their own pcs and time to burn plauing with them, so lets take your argument and look at it from a slightly wider perspective.

dear middle america,
i am your goverment,
i am going to take every child at the age of 18, regardless of background, education, whatever, and i am going to mix them with all kinds of other kids (dear mrs smith, yes i will take little sally and mix her in with thos poor vicious black kids who have known nothing but gang violence all their lives). then, once i've taught them to all viciously maim other humans, im sending them to iraq.

i would guess that a) you would have to arrest and jail about 50% of middle class families (son won't go, parents won't let you take him, all go to kail) and b) there would be riots similar to Margret Thatchers poll tax riots.

its a fine idea, but only if you are over 18, and dont' have kids. if a 18 year old brit soldier dies in afghanistan (that should be when...) the public goes "oh poor sod, oh well, at least he died doing something he believed in a volunteered for". in a conscripted state the response would be "that f*cking govermetn killed another child, and for what? oil in a country no-one gives a shit about?"

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I voted no on this poll because i view conscription as a breach of civil liberties. It is no buisness of the state saying they "know" what is best for their citizens, the only time a state is justified in interfering with the private lives of their citizens is to stop them doing harm to others. In the words of the philosopher JS Mill-

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficent warrant

If the state adopts a paternalistic attitude towards its citizens then all sorts of breaches in civil liberties could be broken. Take ID cards, extensive CCTV, government tracking and storing of e-mails and internet activity etc- all these things would be justified in the belief that the state is acting "for the own good" of its citizens- protecting their safety and security under the watchful eye of Big Brother. If the government wanted to act for the "moral and physical" good of its citizens it could decide to enforce no more than three hours of internet activity a day and make it a law that all citizens partake in a sport which demands physical activity- all because this will be "for their own good".

That is why we need a more rock solid, moral principle which protects our freedoms and limits government involvment in our private lives to that where it protects us from harm- so such things as fraud, abuse, smoking in enclosed public spaces and robbery would be illegal and have a rational moral reason for that to be the case.

Conscription is a breach of the harm principle, and would mark a further detoration of our civil liberties in the current "war on terror".

So true. That is exactly my point. Now this could be argued based upon what philosophical grounding you base a government on; If a government's job is to take care of people, protect them, or basically enforce a set of laws. I do like Mill's ideas and he was a very influential person who made society what it is today, but I tend to err on the side of a more Welfare State than what he proposes (then again it's been years since I read On Liberty). Forced service, however, is past where I draw the line. The government does not have the power over our lives; to choose if we should die for the good of others,for only you can make that choice. "Because it would build good character" is almost as bad as well.

 

[Kaymish]

it is a foolish idea troops who don't want to be there are treated like cannon fodder because that's all they are useful for because they tend to ignore their training and cost the lives of the professionals who have to baby sit them because they ignored their training

additionally you have whole bunches of potentially useful 18-20 year olds who could be training themselves to block up skill shortages or otherwise contributing to society wasting their time being taught skill they don't want and likely wont use past their time of service

and on top of this they will be costing the taxpayer the money it costs to feed pay and train them an army marches on its stomach and food costs money and armies don't make much profit

and as said by those above the riots and ill will towards the government would make everyone's life harder

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

I wouldn't force active service, but one of my proposed ideas (if I were to ever get in Parliament) would be a mandatory year (maybe less), right after leaving school, in the armed forces. This would consist of basic training in everything. I'd also consider people returning for a few months at later stages in life. Just to keep the knowledge and fitness there.
This would ensure a basic level of physical fitness in the population, which would combat growing obesity (2 birds, 1 stone) as well as have an entire country able to defend themselves (from muggers etc.) And, if World War 3 ever broke out we'd have a population capable of fighting it.

But that's just one of my weird ideas for if I ever got in charge.

 

[Om Nom Nom]

I'd have to say that it wouldn't really work, there's no better way to ruin moral and actual quality of the armed forces than to force everyone to join. In times of real crisis, though, it's a very different matter and definitely should be considered.

-snip-

I like your thinking. It wouldn't be too popular though, I would imagine.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

-snip-

I like your thinking. It wouldn't be too popular though, I would imagine.

Yea, that's partly why I only say basic training. No one wants to be sent off to a war against their will. I reckon the majority of people would be ok with basic training.

 

[samstewiefisher]

quote from OP: 'the military instills (or tries to) certain values that people should follow such as Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage (those are the Army values), and teaches the important bits about firearm use and safety which should lead to a decrease in accidental firearm death'.

Many of these values are exclusive to the country you happen to be fighting for. What about respect of human life and other cultures, selfless service to human kind rather than a country to which you only owe loyalty by an accident of birth. Its only propaganda. Armies mourn troops lost in afghanistan/iraq, but what about about the local population. Armies are for the most part tools of imperialistic oppression, and I would considered it a violation of my human rights if I were forced to serve in one.

 

[Darth Awesome]

In Egypt, all men have to finish some sort of military training either a 3-week thing during summer vacation or a full service in the army for up to 3 years.

 

[Phlakes]

Hell no. Just because I live in America doesn't mean want to risk my life fighting for it. I'd be just as happy in the UK or something like that.

 

[Jack_Uzi]

A year befor I would get drafted, my country (luckally) changed it and only took on people who wanted to join. Otherwise I would probably be a draft dodger, go to their department and yell something like: "F*ck you, I won't do what you tell me!" and get jailed or try and see if I could do some mental tricks so I wasn't fit to join. I think it could be good for some people to get some discipline, but then again, isn't that your parents/schools duty?
I think it's better for the army too, just have some people in it who are motivated to do things get you far better results than people like me who don't see it like they do.

 

[rokkolpo]

i'm for it.

a year aint so bad.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I'm against it, forcing people intoany job seems like a bad idea, especially the military which's prime purpose is killing. To me, making people study critical thinking and philosophy and ethics seems much more sensible, then we can have a wiser society that would avoid violence rather than one that is trained in violence.

 

[swolf]

no. its called conscription, israel does it becuase its a tiny state which has alienated every country within 100 miles of it, and if it were to weaken at all it would be invaded and destroyed within about a week.

the uk, us, hell almost all of europe doesn't need conscripted armies becuase we are powerful enough to not be threatened. finland has national service becuase of their experiences in the second world war.

generally i believe most of the arguments against conscription; the british army is amongst the best in the world, and certainly british infatry are the best in the world becuase theu are all volunteers. a conscript has to be forced into enduring hardships, and will not stand as long, as opposed to a volunteer who knows they put themselves in this position.

full time armies will hate the idea of suddenly needing to nurse maid thousands of men who have no commitment to being there.

the young criminals of uyour society will suddenly be organised and trained to kill or maim, and have some knowledge of military and police tactics, and weapon handling skills.

and you realise they would be sent to afghansitan? other wise what the f*ck else are they going to be doing in the ARMY. and how do you explain to some family why you forced their 18 year old son who had his whole life ahead of him to go to a foreign country he knew nothing about and die?

I didn't say it was a good idea. Just an interesting one.

 

[DarkHourPrince]

No.. and there's so many reasons why. I have a bad knee anyway (which occurred when I was 16, so even if the age was 18) not to mention those who would have to hide who they are. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is just.. ugh. I'm not even going there.

 

[Sparrow]

No, because I don't want anything to do with the military.

Ever.

My thoughts exactly.

Indeed. My point exactly. Also, You can't force people to fight for their country, because they might not like what you're fighting for or generally just not like their country.

 

[Bagaloo]

-snip-

I like your thinking. It wouldn't be too popular though, I would imagine.

Yea, that's partly why I only say basic training. No one wants to be sent off to a war against their will. I reckon the majority of people would be ok with basic training.

I probably would be okay with the training. Like you say, it's the thought of being forced off to war that doesn't sit well with me.

I would suffer a lot though. I have never been physically fit, but in the long run if it can break some of my bad habits and sort out my flabby physique, without the risk of having to kill or be killed, ultimately when it is all over I would be grateful for it.

As for regular conscription, no thanks. If someone told me, regardless of my life ambitions, that I had to become a trained killer and then also (because we are at war at the moment) that I would have to go and utilise those skills...I would politely and efficiently kick them in the balls and run for the hills.

 

[mr.aravaro]

No, forced labor is bad.