Mandatory Service

[Paco]

Hey All,

The Full-auto thread has got me thinking (not the smoothest seque, but it works):

-What do you folks think about mandatory service in the Armed Forces. It would get everyone the firearms training we'd like them to have. Plus, it might help people to better understand and appreciate our full-timers and we could use the folks doing mandatory service for other things like community work and whatnot.

Alot of countries do this and some countries actually let the folks keep their firearms after service to be used as a true standing militia as our forefathers had wished.

Pros and Cons, please

 

[Reno]

I like the idea of everyone doing something for their country, but mandatory service is the functional equivalent of slavery.

However, I think that the government should provide for proper weapons training to able-bodied males age 18+ for the sake of having a "well regulated militia."

 

[Paco]

Reno, I like that idea alot! This would be a very good thing if implemented.

 

[Vibe]

In many ways we already are. With a few time induced modifications, (the original "White Males of certain age" no longer completely reflects the rights of humans as we recognize them) aren't we all part of the unorganized militia? (At least in the USA). As part of this militia we are to be ready should we be called into the organized militia or active armed service. This would include at least a minimum working knowledge of the various firearms and the UCMJ.

But then this is just a short form of my opinion.

 

[crebralfix]

I'd like to see something along the lines of the Swiss attitude where to be armed means you are a citizen. This is not necessarily something codified into law, just a culture. But, given the television driven culture we have now, that won't happen anytime soon.

There's the other idea of service = citizenship (Heinlein and others). I think there are certain advantages to it. This service could be in the military, with the Church doing volunteer work, or through some other formal organization doing whatever is necessary. However, the result of this work is that each young person leaves the service with a skill at the journeyman level.

Another idea comes from the previous poster, with an extension. At age 17, each able bodied and sound of mind person enrolls in a service class. This class is like JROTC...they do their marching and such. Each student is also trained in military procedures, including first aid, riflery, handgunnery, ordinance, guerilla war, etc. This forms the backbone of the militia. The few that wish to continue can join up with the professional military.

Upon completion of the "class" at age 18, he or she is issued the common infantry weapon, 2000 rounds of ammunition, a pack, uniforms, and everything else that would be needed in case of war. This is theirs to keep and maintain. Severe criminal penalties would be enforced for those who abuse this trust. There would also be annual training weeks where each person's equipment is inspected, weapons training is continued, and each person must qualify with their weapons. It is at this point they become eligible to vote.

Failure to vote in the upcoming elections means some sort of punishment, generally in the form of work useful to the local community (versus punitive punishments like fines or confinement). Furthermore, failure to qualify in the core militia skills results in additional training time.

Is forcing someone to participate in the electoral process slavery? I assert that it is not. Instead, it is a reminder of responsibility to yourself, the community, and your country. Too many people today refuse to be responsible for anything, much less decide how the country is led.

But, since this system demands individuals be responsible for themselves, it will not happen anytime soon.

On a side note, I noticed some interesting comments from a friend who has been living in Europe for the last 4 years. She said that she couldn't stand to see the Americans with their "life sucks" t-shirts wandering around the countryside. That's a very interesting comment upon our culture and shows how sick it truly has become. I lived in South America for a year; when I returned I was shocked at the banality, corruption, and negativity in our music and television. How long can the US continue to function when significant parts of the culture tend toward negativity, self-loathing, and victimization? We seem to be marching the path of Rome.

 

[Barbara]

I'd prefer fewer people who vote without caring, rather than more. I like the mandatory military training idea, although I'd object to mandatory service.

 

[jfh]

two years for everyone who's a citizen or RA, period.

In 1967, I was one of two people of a group of 400 who flunked their draft physical that day in Mpls--and I thought it was great, being a well-educated fresh college graduate.

In 1968, I started working as a teacher--then deferable until at least the end of the contract--and I thought it was great.

In 1969, I spent a month in Switzerland and met a 'young couple'--people my age; we hit it off. Pierre was a studio artist, and not really very interested in military service--but he did it.

I also met other (men) in Lausanne in the early Seventies, some of whom were other indifferent recruits--and a few, as I knew them in the late Eighties, became Colonels and a General or two.

All these experiences and my own continuing growth had by then taught me that we owe it to our country, period. From my perspective as an American, this is simple unabashed patriotic support, and it should never be overplayed OR underdone. But we all should do it.

Stage the military side in out of the willing, to maintain the benefits of a "professional" military. But everyone MUST do this. Two kids I know whose names are on The Wall did it--they didn't have the choices and advantages I had--and that is grossly, grossly wrong.

I'm convinced that had my 'Woodstock' generation done it, we might have been better overall.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'm convinced that had my 'Woodstock' generation done it, we might have been better overall.

I'm sure we would have been.

 

[444]

I like the idea in theory. I think it would be a very good thing on many levels. However the reality of the situation given our present day society is that our military standards would be lowered to the point that it would be more like a college frat party. People would demand luxery accomodations, gormet cuisine ....................... Any attempt at disipline would be met with a charge of a hate crime. The trainees would demand to carry cell phones on their web gear, make up, designer fashions, cable, piercings, obnoxious and inpractical hairstyles......................
The average American is so spoiled as to be worse than useless in anything other than an affluent urban enviroment where every weakness is considered positive because you are then a victim which is a privilaged group in our society.

 

[Devonai]

I've heard enough bellyaching from willing volunteer soldiers, which fortunately is rare. But I don't want to share a foxhole with a draftee.

This is said with all due and tremendous respect to prior draftees who "cowboyed-up" and served with pride.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

I think that military service should be purely voluntary, partly because I disagree with the government forcing law-abiding citizens to do anything, partly because I fail to see the preservation of government as overwhelmingly important, and partly because I fail to see how an unwilling fighter accomplishes anything.

 

[mercedesrules]

*tries to maintain a "high road" civility*

Ahem,...I am against this idea.

MR

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The active duty military must be voluntary or else quality and deployability will decline significantly.

I can see merit to a mandatory boot camp for the able-bodied with firearm instruction and small unit tactics for the Minute Men.

However, I also do not believe in mandatory anything regarding the government.

I am conflicted.

There is no doubt that active duty makes men out of boys. It also changes the perspective on social structures, command authority, respect, etc.

 

[fjolnirsson]

The point of Heinlein's service=citizenship idea was this:
Serve two years(or more) of civil service and you recieve your franchise. At this point, you have invested something for the common good, and will exercise your vote. Those who aren't interested don't have to do it. Those who do it have a vested interest in the vote.
Non servers are still entitled to most rights, they merely can't vote. I don't believe our forefathers ever intended for everyone to vote. If they did, would it have been restricted to white landed men?
The truth is, most people can't be bothered. Or they only vote when emotion stirs them.
Civil service needn't mean military. It can, but it could just as easily mean time in a church, or something like a domestic version of the peace corps.
It isn't a perfect idea, but what we have now isn't, either.

 

[jfh]

I think the linchpin here for disagreement

'mongst us here probably rests in our principled adherence to abstract concepts and beliefs.

Personally, I'm not very doctrinaire (I think) on my political values--the ONLY real principle I look is the individual-2ndA right--but I'm sure many of us in this forum are--and that's particularly true of the Libertarians.

So, for me--and I have lived in another country and, as noted above, have a real touchstone in MC-UMC Swiss Society (at least in Lausanne and Bern)--I do feel a strong obligation to maintain the primary national identity here--i.e., what makes us ALL "Americans"--and strongly so, simply because I really believe there is some truth to this nation being "the very best, overall" for individual rights and freedoms. And, quite frankly, relying on a "fully" 'professional' military and mercenaries makes me a bit nervous. We--citizens--simply have to pull our own weight.

I say this even though the two years I lived in Canada gave me a perspective on the USA that one simply cannot get until you live where you aren't part of the biggest, as it were. (Who posted on that earlier; the Norwegian guy? Let's hear from you again.)

I will not now progress to a patriotic rant, however--but for some of you whose posting seems a bit contrary to my POV, and whose posting always impresses me--I will ask for a response:

How about more comment from you 7.62FullMetalJacket? Standing Wolf? And, Sodium Benzoate, while I think you think well, I also think you're still a bit wet behind the ears, as it were.

Jim H.

 

[Delmar]

I find it tough to believe the military would degrade if a draft was started. WWII was a draftee war-sure, a lot enlisted, but a lot of them were drafted as well. The result speaks for itself.
Elvis was drafted, did his two years and had a good record, and people who served with him said he was a good NCO.

Got a good laugh about how people would be demanding this and that-I would not recommend you try that with anyone remotely resembling my drill sergeant. You'd be doing pushups for 5 years after he retired. BTW, my drill sgt was a draftee who found the military to his liking and stayed 30 years.

It's a shame to consider a draft in a way. I'd like to think most people would take military service to their country as a personal duty, if only for a couple of years.

 

[Art Eatman]

I had two years of ROTC before I was drafted in January of '54, which might color my attitude. I did occupation duty in S. Korea. There was an ongoing worry about a restart of hostilities. I'm in agreement with those who say men fight for the good of themselves and their brothers in arms, their buddies, and not for all the abstract ideas discussed in college and on the Internet.

A draftee wants to survive just as much as an RA, and will fight just as hard. He might gripe more about KP, but so what?

That said, I don't care for the Draft because of many abstract ideas. And, to some extent, I figure a society which cannot get enough willing volunteers isn't really worth saving.

I'd support some variant of the Heinleinian idea of service and voting. One variant might be one extra vote for having served; one or five more if having been in actual combat.

Art

 

[Treylis]

Quite frankly, I think the imposition of the draft would be serious starting grounds for exercising Second Amendment rights in the way they were meant to be used--against tyrannical governments.

Before those of you who support it all jump on me here, I seriously ask you to think long and hard about the primary purpose of government and the nature of the draft in regards to that. Please.

 

[Art Eatman]

Treylis, there is one aspect of the Draft which is not often considered: Order and timing.

For instance, in WW II, many of those who were drafted had already volunteered but there was not room in the training camps. They were sent home to wait until called. And, once the initial numbers met the demands of the moment, the Draft allowed a steady flow of trainees without the "clumps and blanks" of pure volunteerism.

Personally, the main reason I'm against the Draft is more from pragmatism than philosophy. (That doesn't mean I ignore the philosophical aspects.) I don't see any need. My opinion is that we don't need to be in NATO (or in the Balkans), and those people could fill whatever needs exist for any more manpower on active duty. Further, Congress could merely raise the present limit on numbers--and add enlistment bonuses if need be.

Art

 

[spartacus2002]

Mandatory service presupposes that the government owns the people, not the other way around. It is slavery, pure and simple, and would give a bottomless barrel of fresh cannon fodder to leaders who would send a nation out on boondoggle wars. And, in a highly individualistic nation like America today, it would have the potential to bring blood in the streets.

Mandatory military training has the potential to lead to the militarization of the populace, with all the negative outcomes that may result.

What fascinates me is the concept that military service equates to serving your country. While being willing to defend your homes and American soil is noble and necessary, isn't it more akin to serving the current governmental leaders than the country itself?

I would like to hear some rational discussion of my last statement.

 

[crebralfix]

This had been touched upon in a previous post, but I'd like to take the idea a bit farther.

First, my idea is there would be NO exceptions except for mental or physical disability. No college deferments unless the person is enrolled in ROTC. I think this would take alot of the "unfairness" from the system...not sure; it'd have to be looked at. (Besides, it won't happen because laws are made by committee in this country.)

If a draft is implemented, what would that mean for the military age population?

I think it would force responsibility upon them. They'd have to stop thinking in terms of buying the next CD and in terms of what they have to do to survive in a military environment. Reality would come crashing down HARD on alot of people.

Does this mean I agree with a general draft? I'm not sure and there are philosophical issues about helping a government that is not upholding its directives. I know several marines who quit the corps because of the 1994 Gun Ban (they were really upset!).

Even so, I'd probably volunteer even though I'm too old. You'd think they'd love to have a bunch of educated (or skilled) shooters helping out! Alas, when folks like Kim du Toit volunteer, they turn 'em away. The very least we could do is train the young 'uns, do maintenance, and stand guard on US bases...provided, of course, we get to shoot our daily allotment of .223, 7.62, 9mm, and 45 ACP!!!

 

[Fastlane]

For all those in favor of a draft, I have several questions.

Who will moderate or pick from the pool of people who registered for the draft?

Will the sons and daughters of the political or rich be drafted along with the poor?

What deferments for the draft will be used? Will the deferments be such that only the select few will qualify for them?

What about people with religious believes that refuse to be drafted?

Will the draft be fair and equal for all or will it be 1966 all over again with the poor and minorities being the majorities of the people drafted.

 

[ID_shooting]

I do not support mandatory service for the military but I support mandatory service as stated above.

Not everyone is physically cut for military service, but that does not meen that a person can not help serve the greater good. There are many services which could give a person a sence of community and learn the lessons that serving others gives. law enforcement, postal, forrest service, education service, and many many more.

Some rights can and should be earned before they can be exercised.

Webtser's defines rights as "n, expected reward"

Now, there are the "unalienable Rights" as defined in the Declaration of Independence, but these are "Life, Liberty and the Prusuit of Happiness."

Therefore, I find that asking a person to serve the cummunity before certain rights are rewarded to be complety acceptable, IMO of course.

 

[spartacus2002]

ID,

then certain rights do not exist except insofar as the state grants them to those who earn them? Would that apply to, say, RKBA?

I don't say that to flame you. It is easy to say people should be responsible citizens, people should support their community, etc. But, when govt enforces responsible behavior, govt forces people to support their community, things can get ugly.

 

[Al Norris]

This whole "the draft is slavery" position that some of you hold is absolutely hilarious, when juxtaposed against the Constitution that I always hear many of these same people hold so dear!

Much that has been discussed about, is already a power of congress.

Article I, section 8, clause 12: To raise and support Armies,...

clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia....

and finally:

clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The draft, whether you agree or not, is perfectly legal and has been since the inception of this country.