Poll: Should National Service be introduced

[sms_117b]

It should be brought in to those people that don't do A-levels, get a job or go on a apprenticeship after they finish their GCSE's, so that they don't hang around and mooch off the government. Instead they get skills whilst mooching off the government.

Sounds like enslavement of the lower class to me.

Nah, they still get paid. Besides my family is a low class I still managed to do A-levels now I'm at Uni, one younger brother is at college the other just starting Uni, my sister is doing her A-levels. Doesn't matter what class your family is, just depends on how your parents raised you and your own ambitions.

If you do nothing after GCSE's you generally don't know what you want to do with your life, perhaps doing some military service will give some direction, it's better than hanging around doing nothing and wasting it.

 

[murphy7801]

umm no thanks I prefer to have my longish hair freedom to get drunk and engage in no violence what so ever (aside from computer games).

 

[Zombie_Fish]

French National Service actually made the country worse, as it was a two year compulsory thing, but it wasn't even using any weapons or doing anything beneficial to the army. It was just scrubbing toilets in the bunkers and stuff like that. That then pissed off a lot of people with degrees and other good qualifications who were forced about by people who probably hadn't completed GCSEs to scrub toilets and clean bathrooms. The result being on the weekends (The only free time they had) they just went to the towns and got completely wasted as they were so pissed off. Following that, as they would need to get back to the bunkers afterwards, they would drive back in cars. So, drunk people, late at night and cars, does that need explaining? The French roadside accident rate á cause de students were drinking and driving was massive as a reult of their National Service.

As for England, I have always been against being in the army, always have and always will. College is free and University can be paid for easily enough with a student loan which you can just pay back over time. Even if it isn't just manual labour like the French, forcing people to work for something (especially something so many people stand against like the army) against their will isn't justifiable.

The only form of National Service I like is the German one (If they still do it this way), where instead of working for the army, you are working for a community (In short, community service) for two years after leaving university.

 

[Overlord_Dave]

National Service was only relevant when a nation's military power was the most important.

Now it's economic power that's most important, and National Service is nothing to do with that.

 

[Skeleon]

The only form of National Service I like is the German one (If they still do it this way), where instead of working for the army, you are working for a community (In short, community service) for two years after leaving university.

Sort of, you're meant to join the army. But you can choose what you want to do. For example, I worked in a hospital. Others drive the ambulance, bring food to the elderly or whatever.
You just have to write a short letter explaining that you're morally opposed to violence and guns and that you couldn't bear to carry arms. It's just a formality.
It's only 9 months nowadays, both community or military service (though it was a lot longer a few years ago, yeah).
But it's not after university but usually after school, so most guys are around 18-20 at that point.

 

[Bluebacon]

The only form of National Service I like is the German one (If they still do it this way), where instead of working for the army, you are working for a community (In short, community service) for two years after leaving university.

Sort of, you're meant to join the army. But you can choose what you want to do. For example, I worked in a hospital. Others drive the ambulance, bring food to the elderly or whatever.
You just have to write a short letter explaining that you're morally opposed to violence and guns and that you couldn't bear to carry arms. It's just a formality.
It's only 9 months nowadays, both community or military service (though it was a lot longer a few years ago, yeah).
But it's not after university but usually after school, so most guys are around 18-20 at that point.

That would be tolerable I guess, with the change that you dont have to have a moral objection stronger than 'I don't want to' to be able to do something else. And you'd have to get paid, you cant expect people to give away 9 months of their lives for free, especially if they live away from home and so have no other form of income. Basically, the government would make you get a job for a bit, and if you like it, you can stay on.

Actually, that's not such a bad idea. It would just be taking a job during your gap year, which I did. I guess it's not really national service, but that's why I like it.

Edit: Actually I just remembered that it was really boring and, while well paying, after 6 months I packed it in and lived off my meagre savings and the money my gf earned. Dont' judge me! She was unemployed while I was working, so really it just evened things out. So the compulsory job thing would have been really annoying.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

Someone doesn't understand economics. You have a company. You sell tables. Would you want to sell tables to an audience of 10 or 100 people? Obviously you want a greater market. Now, obviously the government isn't as stupid as an average internet user, and would invest heavily in creation of infrastructure and businesses. With those 2 things, you can build a stable economy which creates a new market for American goods, which means more jobs for Americans. In a WORLD market, it pays to help the world.

Someone doesn't understand the concept of competition in economics. Imagine we could describe the world of today to President Lincoln and suggested that with a little nudge here and there he could assure that Japan and China never rose to the power Japan attained in the 1980s and China is attaining now. I suspect that said nudge would have damned well got itself nudged.

The idea that equality among the peoples of the world is automatically a Good Thing with no qualifiers is naive at best.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Answer to this is simple. "does it infringe on the rights of the individual?" A. Yes it does henceforth it is unjust and reprehensable.

Does gun control infringe on the rights of the individual? Yes, therefore it is unjust and reprehensible.

Do job security laws infringe on the rights of the individual? Yes, therefore unjust and reprehensible. Nevermind the amounts of accidents and injuries they remove, they infringe on our freedoms!

Do taxes infringe on the rights of the individual? Yes, it's my money, gorramit! Taxes are reprehensible and unjust!

Do teraffic laws infringe on the rights of the individual? Yes, it is my right to drive however I want!

Really, while you are entitled to you opinion, at least state logical reasons for it.

Gun control would be unjust, my having a gun in no way effects you, to take away the right to a firearm would be to arbitrarily remove a freedom based solely on a projected fear. Granted my right to that firearm ends when I threaten another individual with it(without need)

Job security laws(i take it that you mean workplace safety laws) can be an affront to individual freedom, you can look at many many stupid OSHA rules to see that. But a law that protects an individuals right to life and wellbeing could be seen as justified in that they protect the individual.

The traffic laws do not infringe on the rights of the individual because my right to drive like I want ends when that poses a threat to your right to live/safety

As far as taxation goes it is if you think about it nothing more than theft. I'm forced to pay (under penalty of jail/loss of property) for things I do not and will not use. Why is it required that I pay for a bailout of a company that made stupid choices? Why do I have to pay for some dumb sluts housing? Now I realize this is idealist thinking but a usage tax IMO is the only truly justified tax. You use public roads you pay mileage fee, kind of thinking.
Why does the government take 45% of my money every year and I get nothing in return? Only national defense should require a universal tax because maintaining a standing army and a judicial system is universally beneficial(and necessary)

Now this is just sort of an exploratory position for me so feel free to expound on any errors.

 

[firedfns13]

Some people are just plain unfit for service, no matter the training or drill or instruction they receive. I recently watched Generation Kill and Cpt. America was just downright retarded; yet he was a platoon leader.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

As far as taxation goes it is if you think about it nothing more than theft. I'm forced to pay (under penalty of jail/loss of property) for things I do not and will not use. Why is it required that I pay for a bailout of a company that made stupid choices? Why do I have to pay for some dumb sluts housing? Now I realize this is idealist thinking but a usage tax IMO is the only truly justified tax. You use public roads you pay mileage fee, kind of thinking.
Why does the government take 45% of my money every year and I get nothing in return? Only national defense should require a universal tax because maintaining a standing army and a judicial system is universally beneficial(and necessary)

Now this is just sort of an exploratory position for me so feel free to expound on any errors.

You wouldn't like to have an FDA? I think safe food and pharmaceuticals is pretty universal. You can't really charge people some sort of usage tax like that. As for roads, more people get benefits from the existence of roads than just drivers. If you've never used anything that was ever delivered by truck, will never need to ride an ambulance, etc., you get my point, then yeah, roads shouldn't be supported by mandatory taxes. Unfortunately you do.

Even that dumb slut whose housing you have such trouble paying for isn't going to just evaporate because you don't want to pay for her housing. Would you rather pay for a cheap apartment for her to live in or buy a new computer when she breaks into your house and steals yours because she's on the street and hungry.

As people have pointed out to me in this thread too, it all fits together. I just draw a line between Uses and Thems at a different point from other people.

 

[sneakypenguin]

As far as taxation goes it is if you think about it nothing more than theft. I'm forced to pay (under penalty of jail/loss of property) for things I do not and will not use. Why is it required that I pay for a bailout of a company that made stupid choices? Why do I have to pay for some dumb sluts housing? Now I realize this is idealist thinking but a usage tax IMO is the only truly justified tax. You use public roads you pay mileage fee, kind of thinking.
Why does the government take 45% of my money every year and I get nothing in return? Only national defense should require a universal tax because maintaining a standing army and a judicial system is universally beneficial(and necessary)

Now this is just sort of an exploratory position for me so feel free to expound on any errors.

You wouldn't like to have an FDA? I think safe food and pharmaceuticals is pretty universal. You can't really charge people some sort of usage tax like that. As for roads, more people get benefits from the existence of roads than just drivers. If you've never used anything that was ever delivered by truck, will never need to ride an ambulance, etc., you get my point, then yeah, roads shouldn't be supported by mandatory taxes. Unfortunately you do.

Even that dumb slut whose housing you have such trouble paying for isn't going to just evaporate because you don't want to pay for her housing. Would you rather pay for a cheap apartment for her to live in or buy a new computer when she breaks into your house and steals yours because she's on the street and hungry.

As people have pointed out to me in this thread too, it all fits together. I just draw a line between Uses and Thems at a different point from other people.

Ahhh but why do I need to be forced to pay for said slut? She wont take anything from me and if she does I have insurance. Americans are actually nice we wont let you starve in our streets, but doing something with good intent (helping the poor) but going about it the wrong way (forcibly taking money) isn' right.

You do have a point on the roads but supposedly the gas tax(usage tax) pays for that.

As for the FDA I could file that under a judicial or legal entity and justify it though my "rights of the individual" (right to life/health) not to mention it's wouldn't require a huge budget. Plus every individual benefits (if you eat).

Okay modified idea, flat rate sales tax. IE just a say 10% tax on everything, if you use gas 10% tax for roads, food 10% for FDA. Plus 10% on other new items to fund judicial/military.
This would be a "just" tax in that you don't pay for something you don't use. Like I said exploratory idea based on idealism on my part

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

As far as taxation goes it is if you think about it nothing more than theft. I'm forced to pay (under penalty of jail/loss of property) for things I do not and will not use. Why is it required that I pay for a bailout of a company that made stupid choices? Why do I have to pay for some dumb sluts housing? Now I realize this is idealist thinking but a usage tax IMO is the only truly justified tax. You use public roads you pay mileage fee, kind of thinking.
Why does the government take 45% of my money every year and I get nothing in return? Only national defense should require a universal tax because maintaining a standing army and a judicial system is universally beneficial(and necessary)

Now this is just sort of an exploratory position for me so feel free to expound on any errors.

You wouldn't like to have an FDA? I think safe food and pharmaceuticals is pretty universal. You can't really charge people some sort of usage tax like that. As for roads, more people get benefits from the existence of roads than just drivers. If you've never used anything that was ever delivered by truck, will never need to ride an ambulance, etc., you get my point, then yeah, roads shouldn't be supported by mandatory taxes. Unfortunately you do.

Even that dumb slut whose housing you have such trouble paying for isn't going to just evaporate because you don't want to pay for her housing. Would you rather pay for a cheap apartment for her to live in or buy a new computer when she breaks into your house and steals yours because she's on the street and hungry.

As people have pointed out to me in this thread too, it all fits together. I just draw a line between Uses and Thems at a different point from other people.

Ahhh but why do I need to be forced to pay for said slut? She wont take anything from me and if she does I have insurance. Americans are actually nice we wont let you starve in our streets, but doing something with good intent (helping the poor) but going about it the wrong way (forcibly taking money) isn' right.

You do have a point on the roads but supposedly the gas tax(usage tax) pays for that.

As for the FDA I could file that under a judicial or legal entity and justify it though my "rights of the individual" (right to life/health) not to mention it's wouldn't require a huge budget. Plus every individual benefits (if you eat).

Okay modified idea, flat rate sales tax. IE just a say 10% tax on everything, if you use gas 10% tax for roads, food 10% for FDA. Plus 10% on other new items to fund judicial/military.
This would be a "just" tax in that you don't pay for something you don't use. Like I said exploratory idea based on idealism on my part

10% would not be sufficient. If 45% isn't enough now and the government is still going into debt, what are you going to do with 10%? What are you going to cut? You said that Americans won't let you starve in the streets, but who are these Americans who won't let you starve in the streets? I step over homeless people every day here in Japan and I do the same when I go to America. Do you on the other hand sprinkle some money on them every time you see one? No? Why not? Aren't you letting them starve?

Start nominating some of these government programs that aren't the military or the judiciary or the police since you said they are necessary that are going to be cut to make your 10% tax sufficient. Remember, you have to somehow get rid of over 3/4 of the total government expenditures to do it. You can't just cut the fat. Some bone and sinew have to go with it.

1 in the morning here. I'll check up on you in 7 hours when I've had some sleep. Have fun gutting your government while I'm gone.

 

[MarcusMang]

I think we also run into one very big problem. Most American kids are fatties.

Actually, no need for we Americans to dump on ourselves: most Westerners are fatties, and there's particularly little difference between Westerners in English-speaking countries:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/INTGUIDE/sp/obesity.htm

Are you implying that speaking English is actually is what is making us fatter?

 

[Ignignoct]

As a military brat, being born to a service man, raised by them, and spending most of my live surrounded by barb wire. I may be slightly more bias to the concept of National Service than others.

My father left the army 6 years ago, and since then, I have been in civilian life. In my personal opinion, many of todays problems, I think could be partially, or even fully cured by National Service. it worked for our Grandfathers, and their dads, and so on.

2 years, discipline, friends, travel, possibly find a calling. It could help sort out yob culture, show the reality behind violence. I don't want to sound like the fascist everyone associates with National Service Nowadays.

Also, I am open to people showing my the downsides of it. Personally, I can't think of many, other than preference.

(I am not aware in concrete about other countries outside the UK, as I don't want to assume certain countries don't have it when they might)

SoOoOo...

You've not been enlisted/commissioned yet?

Too young?