If your country doesn't have it, should it have mandatory military service?

[Norton II]

Absolutely not. Conscription is slavery, no matter what the courts say.

 

[skadistic]

Yes, killiing people and following orders without thought is a wonderful skill.

What abot the mechanics and carpenters and electricians and pilots and drivers and fork lift operaters and logistics and and doctors and EOD and heavt equipment operators and ohhhhhhh any number of other skills.


This reminds me of when Kerry said the army was stupid and all the people ignorant of what the military is really about stuck both feet in their mouths.

 

[Shylock]

What abot the mechanics and carpenters and electricians and pilots and drivers and fork lift operaters and logistics and and doctors and EOD and heavt equipment operators and ohhhhhhh any number of other skills.


This reminds me of when Kerry said the army was stupid and all the people ignorant of what the military is really about stuck both feet in their mouths.

Yes, but pretty much everyone starts out as a grunt.

What, a draft?

Arver v. United States (1918) disagreed when that was claimed during WWI conscription.

Personally, I think "servitude" would mean something uncompensated anyway.

Forcing people at point of a gun and threat of a cage to do things for you no matter how mundane and "noble" those things are is still slavery.

 

[Shylock]

double post

 

[skadistic]

Yes, but pretty much everyone starts out as a grunt.

No actualy they don't. Every one goes through boot camp. Every one starts as a low rank. Not everyone starts as cannon fodder. If you have skills you are put to work using those skills.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Forcing people at point of a gun and threat of a cage to do things for you no matter how mundane and "noble" those things are is still slavery.

If the government wasn't selected by the people, I would agree.

 

[Norton II]

If the government wasn't selected by the people, I would agree.

By that argument, if 51% of the people wanted to enslave the other 49%, they could just put the matter to a vote and it would be legitimate.

 

[Shylock]

If the government wasn't selected by the people, I would agree.

The government will do what it always does regardless of whoever's butt is warming the big chair.

Voting is like playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic. Every choice is bad.

 

[Norton II]

The government will do what it always does regardless of whoever's butt is warming the big chair.

Voting is like playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic. Every choice is bad.

The only difference is that if you don't play Russian Roulette, you can't get shot, while if you don't vote, you can still be taxed and regulated into virtual serfdom.

 

[Irish Caesar]

By that argument, if 51% of the people wanted to enslave the other 49%, they could just put the matter to a vote and it would be legitimate.

The United States isn't, nor has it ever, been a democracy, thank the wise men who founded it.

The government will do what it always does regardless of whoever's butt is warming the big chair.

Voting is like playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic. Every choice is bad.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against a draft and don't think very highly of the government, but my only argument against personally being handed a gun and told to stand on a wall is that I think I could do more for the country at a lab.

Out of pure, morbid, curiosity, do you vote?

Ninja Edit: Do you plan on voting once you're 18?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes, but pretty much everyone starts out as a grunt.

Not if you:

attend Officer Candidate School when you enlist
graduate from a service academy
graduate college on an ROTC scholarship

 

[Norton II]

The United States isn't, nor has it ever, been a democracy, thank the wise men who founded it.

True, but your original argument was that "a government selected by the people" could legitimately do things that a hereditary monarchy, for example, would not have a right to do. Such a government, even if not strictly democratic, still bases its legitimacy on the will of the majority. As such, my counter-argument was imprecise, but your argument does suggest that if a lagislative majority decided to curtail or even completely eliminate some people's freedoms, it would have a right to do so because a majority of voters put them into power.

 

[Irish Caesar]

True, but your original argument was that "a government selected by the people" could legitimately do things that a hereditary monarchy, for example, would not have a right to do. Such a government, even if not strictly democratic, still bases its legitimacy on the will of the majority. As such, my counter-argument was imprecise, but your argument does suggest that if a lagislative majority decided to curtail or even completely eliminate some people's freedoms, it would have a right to do so because a majority of voters put them into power.

Point taken.

Freedom of movement is a necessity, then. As is some Constitution guaranteeing the protection of certain rights, which should be written or at least approved by the people.

I guess basically, my thought is that during time of war, if a draft is deemed necessary by the military, they probably know better than the people or the government as to how best to go about fighting the war. But yes, when the government gets involved, even a democratic one, problems are bound to ensue. After all, if governments were good at running wars, things would have been very different for most of history...

 

[Norton II]

Point taken.

Freedom of movement is a necessity, then. As is some Constitution guaranteeing the protection of certain rights, which should be written or at least approved by the people.

Unfortunately, we've seen how the American government has treated its constitution--the legislature and the executive obey it only when convenient, and the courts interpret it so as to give more and more power to the central government (when the Supreme Court imposes restrictions on governmental power, it usually imposes them on the state governments).

I guess basically, my thought is that during time of war, if a draft is deemed necessary by the military, they probably know better than the people or the government as to how best to go about fighting the war. But yes, when the government gets involved, even a democratic one, problems are bound to ensue. After all, if governments were good at running wars, things would have been very different for most of history...

Maybe so, but IMHO the draft is itself a gross violation of people's fundamental rights, a form of involuntary servitude. It would be so even if it weren't unconstitutional, which it is: both explicitly according to the 13th amendment and implicitly according to the 10th amendment. A 9th amendment case could be made against it as well.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Unfortunately, we've seen how the American government has treated its constitution--the legislature and the executive obey it only when convenient, and the courts interpret it so as to give more and more power to the central government (when the Supreme Court imposes restrictions on governmental power, it usually imposes them on the state governments).

Well then, the USA isn't one of those countries it would be okay by my standards, is it?

 

[Grisu]

What abot the mechanics and carpenters and electricians and pilots and drivers and fork lift operaters and logistics and and doctors and EOD and heavt equipment operators and ohhhhhhh any number of other skills.

first of all, these people are a small minority compared to the number of grunts/combat troops.

Furthermore, many of these (doctors for example) aren't trained in the army, the army takes people that already have those skills...

and third, yes, it's such a great thing to be forced to learn some 'important' skill that I could have learned better in the real world had I wanted to....

the skills I learnd included such usefull stuff as radio operation (great, much needed skill), ability to identify a plane on sight (yep, also very useful), cleaning my rifle thoroughly, how to turn your brain off (otherwise you'd go mad), cleaning boots without water, how to wear a beret properly, why your rifle is your best friend, how to shoot a missile at a plane/chopper. yep, switzerland is so much better off with me knowing all this stuff

 

[sysyphus]

What with college admissions and stuff, community service has become almost complusory these days to get into top schools. Personally, I think it makes people look at service as another way to be a selfish jerk; mandatory service eliminates the bit about doing something good for others.

And how is mandatory miltary service any different form that?

At least with community service, people see a different side of tehir society they otherwise would never have seen and gain a greater understanding of their country and community as a whole, which in a democracy, is pretty much a necessity.

 

[Che Guava]

I was surprised when i visited NOrway how many young men there were totally supportive of mandatory military service. Even the ones that hated the actual experience told me that they beleived strongly in 'everyone pitching in' and thoght that it was good for the military to ensure a diversity of views within the ranks.

Certainly gave me some food for thought....

 

[Grisu]

come to switzerland and you'll find the opposite I would bet that 7 out of 10 (that have actually served) would tell you it's crap

either that, or I'm totally out of touch with the other common men

 

[Swedishguy]

Absolutely not.

Can't ya read the OP? GIVE REASONS FOR YOUR ANSWER!