Poll: Should National Service be introduced

[The Magical Hobo]

Okay i'm gonna try to answer everyone at once here.

First of all national service isn't slavery. In national service, if its in your community, you still get to live in your home. If it wasn't, housing would be provided. You get paid at least minimum wage, for lower level work, and for higher level work you would get paid accordingly. You get to choose what type of work you do, the only difference between national service and a normal job is that you are working for your country.

At best, that just means it's serfdom and not slavery.

Second, its not really being "controlled" any more than any other job, you are employed and you usually have to do what your boss tells you to.

No, I don't have to do what my boss tells me when he says "you can't quit--get back here" and when I disobey my boss, the most he can do is fire me. How is that the same as being put in a job I can't quit and where my boss can throw me in prison for disobedience?

Also its not "being controlled" you should care about your country.

How does the fact that I should care about my country mean that I'm not "being controlled"?

If you don't agree with certain aspects of your country, you work to better it, that is the whole point of national service.

Even granting you that, why should the government get to decide when and for how long I have to work to better it? Why can't I be free to pick my own time and duration?

Its not really "serfdom" as you call it, if everyone is being paid to improve the lives of everyone in their country. If it was just you, and nobody else, and you were paid below minimum wage, had little to no rights, and had no choice in what work you did, I agree that it would be slavery or serfdom, or whatever word you want to use. However, that is not the system I am suggesting.

 

[The Magical Hobo]

What do you mean "nothing is really lost"? Two years of their liberty is lost. That's a hell of a lot!

Yes, if what I was suggesting is that people be put in work camps, treated like garbage, and relieved of their rights. What I am suggesting is simply that your job is in the service of your country, you can still vote, you are still protected under the law, you still have right to an atourney, you can speak freely, you can think your own thoughts, and you can live your life as normal. The only difference is that you have a secure job, and its a job for your government.

 

[The Magical Hobo]

Okay, clearly this discussion is becoming rather circular, neither of us is giving any ground, and i'm pretty sure we've driven everone else away, so I think it would be best if we let this thread die.

 

[The Magical Hobo]

Very well, I can see how it would be an infringement on one's rights, though I do not consider it to be a significant one. First it is only two years long, and choice of employer is the only loss, so I would not consider it losing two years of liberty. My point behind the secure job was that some of the leading causes of homelessness is lack of job experience, hygene, and health issues. The system I propose would solve these issues, as housing, and other necessities would be provided, also (in my country at least) government emplyees recieve health benefits. As such, the cycle that usually forms around homelessness would hopefully be broken. This is why what I consider a minor infringement would be more than justified.

 

[mooncalf]

The discipline, camraderie and other positive aspects of the army culture can't quite override for me the sense that I really don't like guns, nor do I want to be someone who shoots at or is shot at by other human beings. If I some day have to defend my country, so be it, but I support just about every measure in avoidance of those dire circumstances.

 

[The Magical Hobo]

The discipline, camraderie and other positive aspects of the army culture can't quite override for me the sense that I really don't like guns, nor do I want to be someone who shoots at or is shot at by other human beings. If I some day have to defend my country, so be it, but I support just about every measure in avoidance of those dire circumstances.

Please read the thread before you reply, its been clearly stated that National Service is not restricted to military service, and incorporates all services that benefit your country or people.

 

[RLBiscuit]

It sickens me to hear of military service referred to as 'slavery' or 'serfdom.' Yes, compulsory service is an issue that draws out many complaints. I for one think that I would be better off right now if I had done military service. But no, I had to follow the 'cool kids' throughout school and looked at military service in much the same way as many of you. I am the son of a 26 year vet, and the co-worker of another 26 year vet, both of which, through their service and intelligent finance, are set for life. Military service is not just having a rifle shoved into your hand an a finger pointed at your target. The military community takes care of its own. I regret not putting my hand up for Uncle Sam, and you that would flee the country instead of defending it make me sick. At least in America there are enough people who realize the sweet deal that military service provides, negating the need for compulsory service. However, the fact still remains that if you are unwilling to take up arms in defense of your country, who will? You might disagree with a war, but that doesn't mean your enemy would be so understanding. Would you be a police officer? A firefighter? What is the difference really? I am sure being stationed overseas away from friends and family sucks but when you consider the alternative, your ***** becomes moot. I still believe that the best thing that could happen to me would be to be drafted, because I don't have the balls to sign up. Agree with a particular war or not, your country's well being directly impacts you, whether you are too dense to see it or not. Negative propaganda from within a country is worse than from outside.

Hippies Suck.

 

[mooncalf]

*snip*

Please read the thread before you reply, its been clearly stated that National Service is not restricted to military service, and incorporates all services that benefit your country or people.

Like Isreal using their National Service to irrigate farmland, yes I understand... So correct me if I'm wrong that if a war were to break out, those in the national service would be automatically conscripted?

 

[olicon]

The definition for this thread's national service seems more like government workers in general.. nonetheless, I still think that national service is just a very dumb idea in general.
In wars: You DON'T want to use conscripts in a war, if possible. They're low quality, and only serve as meat shield. Russia has proven that time and time again in the past 100 years. Ultimately, all those conscripts they threw at German didn't make any difference, as it's winter that won them the war.
Especially because war and defense nowadays is about a few pieces of elite technology--especially if you're the defender. You don't need man-power. You need proper brains and skilled-individuals, who are willing to dedicate their lives to pursue the cause. They are the ones who win the war, not the grunts on the front line.
Example: 1 tank with 3 well trained crews and 10 engineers supporting it is much more effective than 300 no-good grunts will ever be.

I have seen many people argue that it builds character. And having known at least a few hundreds people who went through it, I'd say it doesn't build character anymore than good, loving parents. It serves as an OK substitute for those without ones, but doesn't help anyone who are endowed with common sense. (And military service doesn't teach you common sense either. Suppressing the negative doesn't make something positive.)

In other area:
You will still want to rely on specialists when push comes to shove. More hands can always be hired locally, and volunteers can always be recruited. Sure, it's good to have a large pool of people that you can draw on. But do you really want to waste all that budget upkeeping this force? After all, they are of no use in emergency situations like forest fire, since they lack the expertise to fix the situation. So like I said, you might as well recruit some homeless folks to do what is suggested here when the need actually arises.

 

[thiosk]

here in america, national service means doin 25-to-life for somethin' heinous

like writin' twilight

 

[RLBiscuit]

I am sorry if I misunderstood the usage of the words 'slavery' and 'serfdom' in this thread about national service versus military service. I fail to see how the government forcing you to pick up trash on the side of the highway would be worth such a discussion. I am familiar with a military draft but not with compulsory civic duties, short of jury duty.
I cannot speak for those who served 'in country' in Vietnam. I know several guys personally that served during that time that did just fine. One, who I don't personally know, ran for President of the United States in 2004. He seems to be doing alright.
Yes, I didn't take the time to read every syllable of the thread before I made my comments, but I don't think I was unreasonable in my statements. In the future I will attempt to take other member's semantics into consideration.

 

[Skeleon]

No. We have that here and I wasted time with my civil service (no way in hell am I going to join the army) I could've spent studying.
I'm especially pissed because girls don't have to do the service, so they can begin studying earlier than most boys.

 

[Bat Vader]

People care about a country they *chose* to help build, or they *needed* to rebuild. There's a difference.

I dont disagree that people would care more if they had volunteered, however not everyone will choose to help build their country, so by putting people to work for their country or community they will at least gain an appreciation for those who do volunteer, and they might decide that they care about their country, and enjoy working to improve it.

They could end up hating everyone instead. If I am forced to work I am not going to appreciate those who volunteer. I will hate them more because they are not being forced.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

As an Authoritarian most definitely yes.