Mandatory Service

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cool Hand, about defending our country only within its borders:
That's a very short-sighted military strategy which the "all volunteer" military avoids to a large degree and which allows fighting smaller conflicts far removed form a Nation's immediate borders.
...
As for major wars, if the US, UK, Australia, Canada, etc. had adopted the philosophy of only fighting within their own borders you would now be living under a Nazi-German or Soviet-Russian system right now. ...

quote: The EU might change some of that but there will be enough reserve trained volunteers to go for those, maybe when the Balkans light up next time ...

Let's hope so. Given it's size and wealth the EU shouldn't have to rely on the US to put a halt to the latest round of European genocide.
Click to expand...

It seems you got either part of your postulation mixed up; I guess you're saying that one can't take the war elsewhere this way. Quite right. The reason is money - we don't spend 15% of our GNP on the .mil. Still we manage to have 6% of our population in a trained, mobilizable militia and need every man in his place. Geopolitics are another reason... ;)

As for major wars and Finland, you might want to check your facts.

About that EU should be able to rein in atrocities on its own continent without US help, I agree wholly. I think the US should just throw that baby in the water and not stand by watching it learn to swim.

La Pastoletta... where to start?
...
Whether something is "positive to society" or not is completely irrelevant. It is that sort of collectivist (the individual is nothing, the collective is everything) that have resulted in so much suffering. Only that which is beneficial to the individual is of value.
...
Whether "people from all walks of life learn to cope and overcome together" or not is also completely irrelevant. I want to live my life according to my tastes and values.
...
Furthermore, your claim that it is "very democratic and very equal" is so blatantly ignorant that it blurs the text of my monitor. Democratic, you say? Hmm, how was it, what the majority wills will happen. The majority supports slavery... Equal, you say?
...
It is the same collectivist, fascist mentality that rages relentlessly throughout the Nordic countries...
Click to expand...

You see the individualist - collectivist thing as exclusively black or white. I think there is a grey area or continuum between the two extremes.

That people from all areas and subcultures of the society serve together is highly relevant. It's among the strongest factors that integrate our society. Integration (no, it's not the same as collectivism) is just about the most important thing in preventing alienation and social deprivation in society. Those breed much of all the crime and violence.

I used the word "democratic" in a warped way, so it's no wonder you didn't get it. Sorry. But I stand by the "equal" part, re-stating the obvious.

You seem to revolve quite exclusively around your own navel, in one extreme of the continuum. That kind of nihilistic individualism sure isn't "beneficial for the individual" in the end. You give some, you get some. The "collectivist, fascist mentality that rages relentlessly" ... bla bla och så vidare ... seems to produce just about the best quality of life for the biggest part of the population seen anywhere on the globe. And that I consider the foundation of the safety of our societies, war or not.

Maintaining the prerequisites for this inherent safety takes some effort, and being part of the country's life insurance is in our geopolitical environment an essential part of that. The heinleinian view on service as a path to the franchise is still pretty close to our reality on many areas of society, on an unwritten level. Your mileage will vary, as Sweden has been neglecting this integration mechanism, among others, for quite a while already. As well as its basic defence, relying on us instead...

[Swedish-bashing]That's what I call parasites. Jävlar. [/Swedish-bashing]

So Trooper, here's an applicant for a "patriot" status in your book... :p guilty on all accounts.

And for the majority here, I don't think any of this would apply in the U.S. You have your history and the resulting status quo and we have ours, just as the Swedes have theirs. I'm just picturing an alternate scenario here... from the rather exquisite groundwork your Founding Fathers laid several possibilities were open.
 
If America gets to the point where a draft is needed then America will draft. If you live in this country and enjoy this countries bounty YOU MIGHT GET A BILL! We all have dues in life to pay.
Nobody wants to see the draft. But if you get drafted and don't go you will regret it the rest of your life.
I was drafted to Vietnam. My brothers got college deferments and were not drafted. after all these years it is clear. I did my duty and they did not. They do NOT want to talk about it. Guess who flys the American flag out front of his house? yup, one of the sunshine patriot's that didn't go.
Be proud, be strong.
Remember, This is the home of the brave. If you think this is cornball B.S. then you better brush up on the koran......
 
would not die for my country, since that negates all beneficial effects that could come out of it.
Click to expand...

OK... I guess saving your countrymen from oppression is not beneficial enough...

IMO there's more to life than just personal loss-gain-calculations. Of course you personally won't gain anything if you risk your life for your country (except maybe pride). But that doesn't mean it's a worthless effort.

I guess our points of view are so drastically different at this point that a debate gets difficult.


Trooper
 
IMO there's more to life than just personal loss-gain-calculations.
Click to expand...

IMO, one of those calulations is a very hard earned, often misunderstood pride, of which those who did not serve will never truly appreciate.

Sometimes hard to glean when you hear the GI's squawking in the desert/tropical/arctic enviornment they find themselves deployed in, nevermind the the bombs and the bullets. Most can't wait to get out of that hellish misery they find themselves in, but there is a sense of duty done which stays long after the service.
Walk into any VFW and beyond the ragging you hear - those interservice debates are so funny, there is something there which I've never heard accurately described, but its there all the same.
 
Duty implies guilt. Duty is a concept that one (in this case, the government) can invent to make someone guilty of "treason" for doing nothing at all. It's arbitrary reasoning and deserves no examining.

I'm sure the soldiers at war can feel pride. They may have overcome a troubling obstacle or made an impressive achievement, but if I ever became proud of my state, something would be wrong in my reasoning. I can be proud of myself, members of my family and to an extent, friends. That's about it.

Trooper: it was interesting, anyway. And I'm not saying that the service itself is bad. It can be used to defend people. The wrong lies in the use of force to establish service.

Now, I'm a neo-liberal in political philosophy. That means I support a free market, low taxes and purely individual rights. The first right is the right to life. Unless I endanger someone, I shall live unless I myself decide to stop living.
From the right to life comes the right to live, which basically means that I shall have the right to live as I see fit so long as I don't hurt anyone else. By examining causality/logic, you can't hurt anyone by being passive.

If I have not broken these laws (there are others as well but they're less relevant here) then no one may initiate force upon me. They may not steal my property, slander me or anything like that. Also, they may not point a gun at me and tell me to serve or die. No one has the right to do that. Now, if they try to do so anyway, they usurp their own rights. That means I get to defend myself. I also get to request (not demand) others to defend that cause.


Igor: individualism is good to the extent that it is employed, the reverse is true for collectivism. Collectivism always mean the oppression of man.
You may be right that different kinds of people in the army is a good thing, I can't say for sure. What I can say, though, is this: you may have that value. You can wish for that organisation to be true. Can you force me to value the same as you? No.

Why would you work towards "society"? Exactly what is society? A collective with magical properties that do not exist in bare individuals? A supernatural object of worship? I again claim that the only end and value of the society is the freedom of the individual. And you know what? That means all individuals (not proved criminals).

You're right that the standard of living here is relatively high. Why? Certainly not due to an efficient system. We didn't participate in WWII. We haven't been to war at all for nearly 200 years. The population is very low (what would it be with another 8 million in the lower half of the income scale, you think?) and so forth. It could be much, much better. Is it so good, really? The best thing to say about Sweden is the relative peace. Not that much turmoil. The school system is horrendous. The police is undermanned. Politics...I shouldn't have to mention those.

As for the defence, Sweden can only rely on you if you let them. You happen to be located between us and the East, that's not our fault.

Phew, long post...
 
Scary how many people "ask only what their country can do for them"

I am coming into this late...and I must admit that some of the more self centered posts caused me to skim a little...so bear with me.

I have always thought that some type of mandatory training/service level was a good idea...but I understand the challenges and barriers.

And I avoided the military pretty strenuously as a HS grad..

(Aced the ASVAB, so they were knocking on my door a lot)

But I see many advantages..

1. Causing a lot of young people to "grow up" that otherwise may never do so. Raising the overall maturity level of the country.

2. Weapons familiarity if not actual skill

3. A level of physical fitness that may turn into a lifetime tendency toward being fit rather than obesity. Could be the ONLY exercise program many of them ever see.

I don't see these people as our front line troops...the volunteer army will take care of that...but we might see an overall increase in the quality as more volunteers might result from this approach.

I can see these people filling a lot of support/logistical roles...basically the "grunt work" if you will (no pun intended)

And it gives us a huge pool of at least minimally trained people...better able to care for themselves AND each other in a state of emergency.

And if we ever had an immediate need for more troops...we would be a HUGE step ahead.

I see so many people that do not posses the most basic skills related to self reliance...and feel we are failing them.

And yes...I think many of us are ungrateful slobs....or we would see the concept as an opportunity .....for free training...rather than an obligation or...GASP...slavery.
 
Durn, igor, that was a fine post!

La Pistoletta:
************************************************************
"Unless I endanger someone, I shall live unless I myself decide to stop living.
From the right to life comes the right to live, which basically means that I shall have the right to live as I see fit so long as I don't hurt anyone else. By examining causality/logic, you can't hurt anyone by being passive."
************************************************************

These are false precepts, you know. Since you do not live in a social vacuum (I know-Sweden isn't that bad) then you are, in fact, at the mercy of the social forces around you.

There would be literally millions of victims from the 20th century alone, from Cambodia to Armenia, the Ukraine to China, Zaire and Rwanda who would, if they hadn't been murdered, dispute your statement about "you can't hurt anyone by being passive". You cannot resist an aggressor with passivity.

You do see the problem with your argument, right?

You are assuming/demanding that all those around you agree to your terms. It has never been so in the history of humanity, and that is a fact not likely to change in the near future.


************************************************************
"If I have not broken these laws (there are others as well but they're less relevant here) then no one may initiate force upon me."
************************************************************

Why? Because you don't want them to?

How do you prevent this from happening....especially if they are armed and organised into groups of several hundred thousand?


************************************************************
"They may not steal my property, slander me or anything like that. Also, they may not point a gun at me and tell me to serve or die. No one has the right to do that. Now, if they try to do so anyway, they usurp their own rights. That means I get to defend myself."
************************************************************

Again, do you believe your defence will be effective? Why?
Because it it "just"?

There'd be over700,000 Rwandan Tutsis you ought to talk to, if you could....they probably felt something along those lines themselves.


************************************************************
"I also get to request (not demand) others to defend that cause."
************************************************************

And why, La Pistoletta, would they want to defend your cause?
They might be quite happily minding their own business, or elsewhere.:)

Perhaps in Sweden it is possible to sustain this sort of worldview, but to do so would seem to require an almost total ignorance of history to accomplish.:eek:
 
Obiwan: your values, not mine. Live by them if you wish, but don't make me do it. I have my own.

Ojibweindian: what responsibilities?

Fallingblock: you can't hurt anyone by being passive. Or maybe you can kill by sight? It is the aggressor who hurt people. It's not a failing bulletproof vest that kills its wearer, it is the bullet who strikes him.

I'm not assuming everyone agrees. Far from it.
My defence will not be effective, since the government has a tad bit more power than I do. Also, we do not have a right to bear arms here.
There are people who agree with me on this.
There would be volunteers in war. As people have pointed out, the US have the most powerful military system in the world. People sign up for that military, they aren't dragged there by the police.
 
Pistoletta

Are you saying that you have no responsibilities/duties?

Are you employed? If so, you have a duty to perform your assigned tasks to the best of your abilities because you promised your employer that you would do so in exchange for compensation.

Are you a father? Then you have a duty to provide for, and protect, the children you brought into this world.

You do have a duty to your country; that duty is to, if need be, protect your countrymen from extermination and subjugation to a destiny that is not of their choosing.
 
A society that forces its citizens to serve involuntarily is not a free society.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of a "free society"? A society is never free, because a society owes its very existence to an agreed-upon set of rules. This agreement can be defacto, due to the general inaction of the society's members, or it can be active, through the process of open, spirited debate and elections.

Also, it is interesting to note that many here want to enjoy the freedoms enumerated in the BoR, but there are a few who do not want to sacrifice anything to keep these freedoms. A case of "having their cake and eating it, too". Sounds quite a bit like the welfare queens we've all complained about, wanting a big screen t.v. while not wanting to work for it.
 
Duty is an invention made to justify slavery.

ojibweindian: I'm not employed. If I would be, it would be my contract asigned job to perform my work, not my duty.
I am not a father, but you're right that if I was (or when I become), it would be my responsibility to care for the children, since I would make them be.
I do not, however, have a duty to protect my "countrymen" with my or anyone else's life, since I never signed up for that duty (unlike with parenthood). See statement at the top.

Delmar: I pay my taxes. Motivation for why/why not doesn't matter, I do.

Augustwest: correct. Either you have the right to live freely or you don't.
 
A society is never free, because a society owes its very existence to an agreed-upon set of rules. This agreement can be defacto, due to the general inaction of the society's members, or it can be active, through the process of open, spirited debate and elections.
Click to expand...

Who is making the agreement? I already spend 1/3 of my life working for "society." I already voluntarily served "society" in the military. "Society" has no further claims on me, I would say. In fact, "society" is already taking too much from me.

Nobody is going to convince me that "freedom isn't free" means that it has to be paid for with slavery, either.
 
Pistoletta

Do you not, in some fashion, benefit from the society in which you live? Are you not given some sort of legal means of redress from any injustice you may experience? Are you not, in some fashion, protected from your society's enemies by your society?

If so, then you have a duty to serve your society to the best of your abilities. To not serve your society in such a manner, after willfully receiving the benefits your society provides, paints you as being a "freeloader", for lack of a better term.

If you do not wish to serve your society in some fashion, then maybe you should not partake in the benefits your society provides.
 
If you do not wish to serve your society in some fashion, then maybe you should not partake in the benefits your society provides.
Click to expand...

If I get merchandise in the mail that I did not order, I'm free to keep it w/o paying for it or to send it back if I choose. In either case, I've no "duty" to the vendor that sent it to me. The "benefits" of society that you describe fall into the same category, especially when we get to talking about benefits beyond basic things like roads. I didn't order a great many of the "benefits" this society offers, so I don't feel any duty to pay for them with my life.
 
Who is making the agreement? I already spend 1/3 of my life working for "society." I already voluntarily served "society" in the military. "Society" has no further claims on me, I would say. In fact, "society" is already taking too much from me.
Click to expand...

You have served. No one can dispute that. And there is definitely an argument to be made that society has taken to much from many of us. Did you ever think that society taking too much from you may be because there are those that have taken too much from society?

The best way for me to describe my position on this is to say that if one partakes in the benefits a society offers, then they are obligated to that society in some manner. If one does not want that obligation, then one should not willingly accept the benefits.
 
Obiwan, Trooper, ojibweindian, Delmar; good points. Thank you very much, fallingblock.

La P.:
individualism is good to the extent that it is employed, the reverse is true for collectivism. Collectivism always mean the oppression of man.
...
You may be right that different kinds of people in the army is a good thing, I can't say for sure. What I can say, though, is this: you may have that value. You can wish for that organisation to be true. Can you force me to value the same as you? No.
Click to expand...
I can't subscribe to this black and white method, but happily agree to disagree with you about individualism - collectivism. You're right about the extremes but ignore the space in between.

Experience here shows that mirroring the whole (albeit male) society in its military is a very beneficial thing. Living in a country with a mercenary army would indeed place much harder demands on RKBA among other jacks and palances in the system than we have. I wouldn't trust such a .gov as far as I could throw my passport.

As to imposing my values on you, well :rolleyes: :scrutiny: why would I? This discussion would be far less interesting ;) . Thank you for your time.
 
If I get merchandise in the mail that I did not order, I'm free to keep it w/o paying for it or to send it back if I choose. In either case, I've no "duty" to the vendor that sent it to me. The "benefits" of society that you describe fall into the same category, especially when we get to talking about benefits beyond basic things like roads. I didn't order a great many of the "benefits" this society offers, so I don't feel any duty to pay for them with my life.
Click to expand...

I would argue that if you are sent something from a vendor that you did not order, yet then used to your benefit, you have an obligation to compensate the vendor for the use of the item.

Anway, examples of the benefits I am referring to are the courts, police and fire protection, and the defense of our country. As far as the other benefits, i.e. social security, medicare/medicaid, are concerned, I didn't want them, either. However, we, collectively, have demanded them from our society. Those benefits are a direct consequence of our shirking a duty to actively participate in the direction of our society.
 
The best way for me to describe my position on this is to say that if one partakes in the benefits a society offers, then they are obligated to that society in some manner. If one does not want that obligation, then one should not willingly accept the benefits.
Click to expand...

I would agree that those who benifit from society should contribute to that society. But, it is narrow minded to think that the only way to contribute to society is via government or military service.
if you think about the benifits of this society, i.e high standard of living, relatively high wages, high tech, advanced medicine, freedom to travel, ease of travel etc. Those things are generally in spite of, rather than because of government. Those things are available because of hard working people who never took a government check.

look at your by line. You want politcal activist to stay out of your wallet but you are telling people they have an obligation to work for the government that wants in your wallet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Rangel Wants Mandatory Military Service
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
5K
duncan
D
T
  • Locked
In honor of the boycott
Replies
5
Views
549
Bartholomew Roberts
B
A
  • Locked
Art's Grammaw, Revisited
2
Replies
30
Views
41K
legaleagle_45
L
M
  • Locked
Constitutional Gun Laws?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
1K
Firethorn
F
S
  • Locked
first time offender gets 55 years
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
149
Views
6K
Derby FALs
D
Back
Top