Period of Compulsary Service to the Nation (Needed or Not)

Team,

Heres a question which has been tossed around by some Congressional Members in one form (draft) or another ever more recently, and it's intriguing. What I'm talking about is very similar to the programs the Israelis have, two years of service for each and every young American man or woman when they turn 18 years old. This service can be in many forms; Military Service , Fire or Police Departments, Medical Fields, Teaching, Construction, etc., but it must be mandatory for everyone who's age eligible. From the Presidents Daughters to the Poorest American Families Sons with no exceptions or special treatments.

IMHO, this service would instill a national service before self mentality which is badly needed in many of today's young Americans. It would take a generation or two for many mindsets to change, but over time the Nation would benefit.

~ Never Ask Someone to do Something You Wouldn't Do Yourself ~

 

Ben,that would help curb a lot of crime.Singapore has a national service programme.It's a pity that New Zealand doesn't,as compulsory military training (CMT) was abolished over here back in 1972.In hindsight,I think that was a mistake.

Aidan.

 

Milton Friedman referred to compulsory national service as "an army of slaves." Nothing will demonstrate more clearly how badly the education system in the nation is failing than the results of this poll. Compulsory national service is incompatable with a functioning republic and the preservation of individual rights. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, government was established to secure the rights of men, not the other way around. In my considered opinion, support for forced national service is very close to treason.

 

Perhaps it could be looked at as an additional 2 years of practical schooling. Much like "Shop Class" or Work Release" some schools send certain students. You know to build character and enable our youngsters to take a little more pride in all that they do or stand for. There are lawmakers today on both sides which would have benefited from a program such as this, I have no doubt.

Ben

 

Ben,

I think any form of involuntary servitude to the state is undesirable. But I agree with your characterization of it as "work release" for it isn't much different from the way we currently treat criminals. Government is supposed to exist to serve the citizens, not the other way around. It is a sad day for the nation to watch a majority of people roll-over on this issue and support a temporary suspension of liberty for their fellow citizens. In my opinion, it would also be unconstitutional since this power is not delegated to the federal government. So at a minimum, I would like to see the government at least follow the process and amend the Consitution with the permission of the people to permit them to impress the citizens into involuntary service.

I would also guess, but have no way to know, that the people voting yes in the poll would for the most part be the people who are not at a stage of their life where they are likely to be called into service. It's so much easier to send the other guy.

 

Compulsary service may provide young Americans a sense of national duty and pride, but mostly it will be only in those who already feel a sense of it to begin with. The others will see it more as a national labor sentence... waiting for their time to be served so they can get out... most don't even like having to register for selective service. I can see both good and bad in the idea, but the bigger question for me is whether or not it is a move that would be supported by the principles this country was founded on... my feeling is that it is not... so I chose other.

Compulsary service is in opposition to our right to choose what we will do with our lives... even if just for 2 years... you are essentially the property of the government for that time. While I can see the benefit, I agree that it would take at least 2 generations... the first generation will be resentful. The second generation will have some of the resent felt by the first instilled into them. By the third generation it will have become more common practice with less memory of a time before compulsary service. However, I still feel that the idea stands against Constitutional ideals.

It is wholly different from a wartime draft. In a time of war, to go into towns and call those who are able into service has generally always been accepted practice.

This is a large country. We have more than enough who volunteer for service to fill the need. To add those who would not wish to serve could stand to diminish the quality of the work that is being done by those do it willingly. You can force someone to work, but you cannot force them to care about what it is that they are doing. In higher end service, this could be a great problem.

Compulsary service also serves to expand the government. How many millions of Americans range 18-20 would have to be employed by the government each and every year? How much would it cost in federal wages to employ them? Who picks up the tab?

I am not entirely against all forms of compulsary service, mind you. There are MANY in this country who have chosen paths that have cost them their rights and Americans are already picking up the tab for it. Throughout our prison system we have a great stock of candidates for compulsary service. I have a brother who seems to enjoy the occasional stay in our correctional facilities... odd term correctional facility since most who wind up there tend to go back, doesn't seem like a great deal of correction... He's there now and taken a job in the kitchen for which he is paid $.25/hour of which the prison system takes half. I like this. Go to prison, go to work. Surely there are all levels of service within our country that these people can be placed into based on their ability, severity of crime, and sentence duration that can make them productive far beyond the cost to keep them....

 

But, wouldn't a program like this guarantee a more well-rounded Democratic service base for the nation. Everyone would be treated the same, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, all would be called to serve in some capacity when they came of age.

As I'm sure you know, virtually all the individuals who join the Service Organizations (now) are politically alined to the Republican Right, different degrees of allegiance but still the Right. These are the nuts who would really give their life to protect their country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Keep in mind they give these individuals guns, sometimes really BIG guns, guns which can be used to overthrow governments, both foreign and domestic...

There are those who would liken the United States of America to the Roman Empire. One doesn't have to look too closely at Roman history to realize this has happened in the past with relative ease and a great deal of success...

 

I cant speak for the US but over here I think it would be a bad thing I would much rather that the services pay a better wage and try to attract the best that they possibly can, I would hate to see some of the yob's that I see on a daily basis given guns!! Also has to be said that time & time again the millitery establishment over here has come out against conscription.

De Orc

Ps as for the other services perhaps but not the Army/Navy/Airforce or Police/Fire they need to be volentery as people are knowingly joining a service that might put there lifes at risk.

 

This is a very good question Bone. If done right I think it would be a good thing for this country but it would have to be radically different than past conscriptions. We are well beyond mass recruiting of only 18 year old males for military or other purposes. That is an old concept that may have worked in the past but we are a different society now.

A little devotion and appreciation for this country by our youth couldn't hurt. It really depends on how it is done. It could be a massively expensive undertaking with little real gain for the country as a whole. If it were treated as a two year committment and an alternative to college or going straight into the public work force and it was voluntary enlistment with a mandatory 2 year service, I'd be for it. In other words, you don't have to do it but if you do it is 2 years without an exit before that time is up.

 

Doesn't it sound a bit like a step in the direction of communism? Everyone in service to the government, treated equally...

The freedom to choose is the foundation of this country.

As far as service goes for inmates, not all service has to involve carrying guns... though boot camp might actually work as correction for many. Services provided could be in construction (even as simple as carting the bricks, blocks and lumber around and cleaning up the grounds), janitorial, there are many jobs that can be done that do not put the population at risk but can alleviate the financial burden... In that respect, I would also change the welfare system to a low wage labor system.

 

Now this idea, I can support. It protects the right of the individual to choose what they wish to do with their lives. I like the idea that once the choice is made that you are committed to serve your 2 years fully. Providing the right incentive would bring plenty of recruits and it could instill that sense of national pride. Each generation would likely see a larger number of enlistments as those who have come from parents who served would likely follow suit as well as some who come from families that had not but are looking for a new direction. I like this idea. Dang, Moen... I'm becoming frightened. Over the past couple of days I find myself agreeing with most of what you have expressed.

 

To see the effects of required service we could look at some places where they have such a program in place. We've mentioned the northern Scandinavian nation of Norway a couple of times, so that might be a good example. Required service is a part and parcel of citizenship there, and shows clearly that there are duties as well as rights that come as part of citizenship. (I am citing the below from memory, if there are errors I will gladly accept correction)

1. In Norway, no non-citizen can own land. If you want to purchase property you must FIRST be a citizen.
(by contrast, here in the US anybody with the cash can own land, or purchase businesses. A large fraction of our business interests are owned by non-citizens)

2. In Norway, there is a two-year national service requirement for every person, which is entered after high school or college. There are many ways of completing the requirement aside from military service if there are religious or philosophical conflicts with the concept of conflict. For those who choose the military, you can choose to stay in as a career, or go back to the private sector. However, you are still considered active "reserve" up to age 45, and have to go through 2 weeks of training each year. The guys I have spoken to about it are not at all resentful about those two weeks, but regard it as a kind of vacation when they get to run around in the mountains with the guys and shoot guns and stuff. The military trains for two sorts of missions. On the one hand, they are well aware of their strategic position vis-a-vis the Russian Bear, but they also train to respond to civilian floods and disasters... building emergency bridges... moving food supplies... and providing emergency shelter etc.
(by contrast, our military services train almost exclusively to hunt and kill, and they often have trouble dealing with more mundane emergencies such as hurricanes. Also, our National Guard units are now routinely sent overseas into combat zones, whereas their primary function was always intended to be homeland protection.)

3. If you want to purchase property or a business in Norway, you have to be a citizen, and to become that, along with being able to speak the language, you must then put in your two years of service. This is a very large "investment" of time and energy and serves to discourage immigration by all but the most ardent and committed applicants.
(by contrast we will sell anything to anybody and we don't care who they are. For all we know, the Chinese may now own half of the American economy through shadow corporations. They sell us cheap plastic crap and buy gold, land, and businesses. Nikita Kruschev once said that we would sell him the rope he would use to hang us... well... we're still selling it and the noose is slowly tightening.)

4. The suggestion has been made that the idea of national service is somehow slavery or compulsory servitude. But before you buy into that argument please look at the experience of some of the places where it is in effect. Think about the fear of high school students finishing their senior year with no prospects and no job lined up. In Norway they know they've got a job for two years... a little breathing space to learn some things and get their feet on the ground and bank up some cash for later.

So what I'm getting at is that a program of required service... IF PROPERLY DONE... could instill in Americans a sense of pride and of belonging that has been lacking. Rights always come with commensurate obligations. We talk an awful lot about rights, but very little about obligations. There has to be a balance.

 

I think its best to have an all volunteer army unless something comes up that forces us to draft...has worked fine thus far...Dont see a need to change it.

Norway is a great place to visit but I wouldnt want to live there...the taxes are so high its almost like slavery.

 

You're right about Norway. The system Tom described is horrifying to anyone who values liberty. But once you accept the concept that the government owns the property and the government is the nation and the government has the right and obligation to control the actions of citizens, everything becomes possible.

 

I don't think it should be mandatory or compulsory, but if you want the right to vote, hold political office, work in govt service (local or state) own property, etc you should serve for a minimum of two years (male and female alike.

 

but if you want the right to...
1) Vote
2) Hold political office
3) Work in govt service (local or state)
4) Own property
5) Etc...

I don't think you thought this through very well or you have a very dry sense of humor. In the future, you might want to add a smiley face to your jokes so that we can all tell you were just kidding. Otherwise your idea sounds like a litmus test for Americanism.

 

I don't think he was joking.

Big J

 

Maybe he should added...Before you have the right to own a computer with access to the internet. :mouth:

 

I agree that this is an interest concept. The rights of Americans used to be thought of as "unalienable," as described in the Declaration of Independence. Now certain people want to make people "earn" the rights that were endowed by our Creator. Where do those folks obtain the moral authority to require others to earn-back that which we were born with? If an individual doesn't have the right to force me to mow his lawn, then he cannot, by definition, delegate that power which he does not have to the government in order to force me to mow their lawn. To do so is despotism.

Anyway, this used to be the underlying political theory behind representative government. Now, Americans are becomming addicted to authority and seem to want to be told what to do and to tell others what they must do. I miss the old America.

 

dont kid yourself, the good ol days werent so good...if you were black..there is no such thing as the good ol days