Mandatory Public Service Vs. Male-only Military Conscription

[Revoltingest]

Every cop I've ever known wished he/she could have someone to handle the paperwork, making routine phone contacts with potential witnesses, following up on earlier cases, etc. I think you're intentionally not thinking creatively about how the many legitimate services of government could be made better by having support staff.

Cops not doing their own paperwork? How on Earth
would some untrained or barely trained conscript
know what the cop saw & did with enuf detail to be
accurate?
As things stand, we've a problem with cops providing
bad paperwork, including lying for their own benefit,
& to the detriment of a civilian. Putting in another
layer of bureaucracy (unskilled too) creates room
for even more mischief & injustice.

I can think of many current spendings by the government that could be curtailed significantly and the proceeds go to paying a public service staff better, and even ways creative ways of restructuring ways that governments operate to make them more businesslike and less like the bureaucratic nightmare that you assume from the start.

Why not restructure government to make it better without
conscription? I doubt that forced labor of young'ns will
improve government at all.
What would you cut to pay for the cost of conscripts &
to make up for the lost income tax revenue?
Health care, civil servant pay, defense, Social Security,
national parks, foreign aid, etc, etc? Without a good
answer, it just sounds like you're expecting free money.

By the way, I'm not presenting a 'plan,' I'm suggesting a way of fulfilling public goods of the society.

You are proposing plans...just not ones
fully sketched out. As for the public good,
you're not addressing the costs, ie, public
harm of forced labor.

You think compulsory anything won't work; I think your hands-off libertarianism won't work.

Allowing people to choose their own education
& job as they enter adulthood works just fine already.
This isn't just a libertarian view. Many other people,
even normal ones oppose conscription / compulsory
public service, especially for low pay.

But I think we can agree that the current system does not work very well.

The liberty to choose one's job works very well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Mandatory conscription shouldn't happen. Lots of people, for one reason or another, are unfit for service. Why should they be burdened with proving this to the military? Why should the unwilling be dragged along? It's often not good for morale. And it's involuntary servitude. The military is best fit and served by those who want to enlist.
As for community service that too would be involuntary servitude. And I must ask why? In my case it would have been serving and benefitting a community that **** on me for the entire 30 years I lived there and it couldn't even afford me gainful enough employment to step out of poverty. Why should I have been made to serve those who often did not respect me?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I oppose conscription because it's authoritarian.
It's also a waste of resources to put people into
involuntary make-work jobs.

Let's include jury duty In that assessment as well.

 

[We Never Know]

Let's include jury duty In that assessment as well.

Just tell them you want to bring back public hangings. They wont bother you again

 

[Audie]

I oppose conscription because it's authoritarian.
It's also a waste of resources to put people into
involuntary make-work jobs.

It worked out terrif when Mao instituted
it.
You guys should do a 10 yr plan like
that.

We will come over to help out with it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's include jury duty In that assessment as well.

I agree. Jurors are paid next to zilch,
& the most unqualified inappropriate
people are selected to be on them.

 

[Revoltingest]

It worked out terrif when Mao instituted
it.
You guys should do a 10 yr plan like
that.

We will come over to help out with it.

I thought of him too.
Of course, we're dealing with a bunch'o
socialists & sympathizers here.

 

[We Never Know]

I agree. Jurors are paid next to zilch,
& the most unqualified inappropriate
people are selected to be on them.

What?? They are your peers

 

[Revoltingest]

What?? They are your peers

"Peers" isn't actually in the 6th Amendment or
anywhere else in the Constitution. We're only
entitled to an impartial jury, not a rational or
informed one.
Sixth Amendment

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Earlier today, @Revoltingest and I took a sharp unwinning detour in a thread known for winning...I promised that I would later start a thread devoted to discussing the above proposals. So here goes!

The question at hand, at it's root in my estimation, is whether or not people should have mandatory service to their country/government as part of their responsibilities as good citizens. That is, along with such duties/responsibilities as obeying the law, challenging bad laws, being involved in the political process, including voting, asserting your own rights and recognizing and protecting the rights of others, serving on juries, paying taxes, etc., and so on.

I find myself agreeing with the Revolting One that Military Conscription is bad, made worse when it targets only the young males in the population.

However, I don't have a problem with mandatory service for citizens. I do, however, have a problem with military service being the only option for citizen mandatory service. Within that service to the public, people should have some choice about which form service they will enter, depending on their own preferences and desires. That currently conscription is done poorly most everywhere in the world is beyond doubt, and I do not defend 'male-only' for combat and other potentially hazardous roles in military service whether compulsory or volunteer.

Why don't I have a problem with mandatory public service? Because I see government and society as an agreement between the members, a social contract if you will, that obligates certain responsibilities on the members, as well as places certain limits on what government/the nation can ask of its members.

There is far more to society than the military, and the military receives way too much emphasis in my way of thinking. Therefore, public service should include options for individuals to choose between military service, and service toward other societal needs...public health, environmental maintenance and protection, social safety nets, and etc.

After high school, I seriously considered joining the Navy (it's a family thing), but realized I would be a very bad fit. Had there been an option for Park Service or Environmental Service, I probably would have been a much better fit for that, and much more likely to have enrolled.

okay, that's a start...

I am against any kind of forced military service, I think it is an immoral idea. Not everyone is a good fit for the military either ,even if they wanted to serve. I am also against forced service to a country, that unnecessarily infringes on a persons freedom. I would encourage service of some kind though.

Taking care of a family and raising them to respect others and to be a good citizen is serving your country very well.

 

[We Never Know]

"Peers" isn't actually in the 6th Amendment or
anywhere else in the Constitution. We're only
entitled to an impartial jury, not a rational or
informed one.
Sixth Amendment

Regardless, its a jury of our peers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Regardless, its a jury of our peers.

The slobbering masses....yes, I've seen them on a jury.
Woe unto any innocent person caught in the gears of
the gears of the Justice Industrial Complex.

 

[We Never Know]

"Peers" isn't actually in the 6th Amendment or
anywhere else in the Constitution. We're only
entitled to an impartial jury, not a rational or
informed one.
Sixth Amendment

The phrase "a jury of peers" dates back to the signing of the Magna Carta in England. At that point, the provision ensured that members of the nobility were tried by a jury comprised of fellow nobles, rather than being judged by the king. Now, however, this phrase more accurately means "a jury of fellow citizens."

What Is a Jury of Peers? - FindLaw

 

[Revoltingest]

The phrase "a jury of peers" dates back to the signing of the Magna Carta in England. At that point, the provision ensured that members of the nobility were tried by a jury comprised of fellow nobles, rather than being judged by the king. Now, however, this phrase more accurately means "a jury of fellow citizens."

What Is a Jury of Peers? - FindLaw

Yes, I knew of that origin.
But it has no relevance in Ameristan.
Were I on trial, I wouldn't want my peers.
Instead I'd want educated rational intelligent
jurors who are free of bigotry.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, I knew of that origin.
But it has no relevance in Ameristan.
Were I on trial, I wouldn't want my peers.
Instead I'd want educated rational intelligent
jurors who are free of bigotry.

Yep its that bloody ole England crap

And I agree

 

[Sedim Haba]

Earlier today, @Revoltingest and I took a sharp unwinning detour in a thread known for winning...I promised that I would later start a thread devoted to discussing the above proposals. So here goes!

The question at hand, at it's root in my estimation, is whether or not people should have mandatory service to their country/government as part of their responsibilities as good citizens. That is, along with such duties/responsibilities as obeying the law, challenging bad laws, being involved in the political process, including voting, asserting your own rights and recognizing and protecting the rights of others, serving on juries, paying taxes, etc., and so on.

I find myself agreeing with the Revolting One that Military Conscription is bad, made worse when it targets only the young males in the population.

However, I don't have a problem with mandatory service for citizens. I do, however, have a problem with military service being the only option for citizen mandatory service. Within that service to the public, people should have some choice about which form service they will enter, depending on their own preferences and desires. That currently conscription is done poorly most everywhere in the world is beyond doubt, and I do not defend 'male-only' for combat and other potentially hazardous roles in military service whether compulsory or volunteer.

Why don't I have a problem with mandatory public service? Because I see government and society as an agreement between the members, a social contract if you will, that obligates certain responsibilities on the members, as well as places certain limits on what government/the nation can ask of its members.

There is far more to society than the military, and the military receives way too much emphasis in my way of thinking. Therefore, public service should include options for individuals to choose between military service, and service toward other societal needs...public health, environmental maintenance and protection, social safety nets, and etc.

After high school, I seriously considered joining the Navy (it's a family thing), but realized I would be a very bad fit. Had there been an option for Park Service or Environmental Service, I probably would have been a much better fit for that, and much more likely to have enrolled.

okay, that's a start...

Mandatory Public Service is really no different than Conscription. It's forced either way.
I personally would not want to be say operated on by a surgeon forced to perform or else.
There should be rewards for such service like say the right to hold public office in the government.
I don't think just yelling about 'duty' and 'obligation' is at all a motivation. Those who can
display such a sense of duty should be rewarded with the opportunity of higher duty.
If you're incapable of such, well, that's your right. But you should not then be allowed to
be in the government as any elected or appointed position and make or enforce laws and policy.

 

[Heyo]

Earlier today, @Revoltingest and I took a sharp unwinning detour in a thread known for winning...I promised that I would later start a thread devoted to discussing the above proposals. So here goes!

The question at hand, at it's root in my estimation, is whether or not people should have mandatory service to their country/government as part of their responsibilities as good citizens. That is, along with such duties/responsibilities as obeying the law, challenging bad laws, being involved in the political process, including voting, asserting your own rights and recognizing and protecting the rights of others, serving on juries, paying taxes, etc., and so on.

I find myself agreeing with the Revolting One that Military Conscription is bad, made worse when it targets only the young males in the population.

However, I don't have a problem with mandatory service for citizens. I do, however, have a problem with military service being the only option for citizen mandatory service. Within that service to the public, people should have some choice about which form service they will enter, depending on their own preferences and desires. That currently conscription is done poorly most everywhere in the world is beyond doubt, and I do not defend 'male-only' for combat and other potentially hazardous roles in military service whether compulsory or volunteer.

Why don't I have a problem with mandatory public service? Because I see government and society as an agreement between the members, a social contract if you will, that obligates certain responsibilities on the members, as well as places certain limits on what government/the nation can ask of its members.

There is far more to society than the military, and the military receives way too much emphasis in my way of thinking. Therefore, public service should include options for individuals to choose between military service, and service toward other societal needs...public health, environmental maintenance and protection, social safety nets, and etc.

After high school, I seriously considered joining the Navy (it's a family thing), but realized I would be a very bad fit. Had there been an option for Park Service or Environmental Service, I probably would have been a much better fit for that, and much more likely to have enrolled.

okay, that's a start...

I'm all for mandatory service.

And, to not talk past each other as many here do, I mean a choice of the service (from the available ones) one likes to do. No mandatory military service.
We had "Zivildienst" for those who could convince a judge that they had a conscience that prevented them from doing military work (I failed). There are a lot of hospitals and other organisations like voluntary fire fighters who wish that we had mandatory service. So, it wouldn't be just "make-work jobs".
And I don't see it as "state slavery". When the mandatory service is introduced at the same time as UBI most people would see the reciprocity the service is. I guess 99+% people would be willing to sacrifice 2 years of their youth for a lifelong freedom of the threat of poverty or necessity to work a job they don't like. It's at least more freedom many have now.

 

[Audie]

I thought of him too.
Of course, we're dealing with a bunch'o
socialists & sympathizers here.

Rats.
You wont need any help w self destruction

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I don't see it as "state slavery".

Why not?

 

[Audie]

I'm all for mandatory service.

And, to not talk past each other as many here do, I mean a choice of the service (from the available ones) one likes to do. No mandatory military service.
We had "Zivildienst" for those who could convince a judge that they had a conscience that prevented them from doing military work (I failed). There are a lot of hospitals and other organisations like voluntary fire fighters who wish that we had mandatory service. So, it wouldn't be just "make-work jobs".
And I don't see it as "state slavery". When the mandatory service is introduced at the same time as UBI most people would see the reciprocity the service is. I guess 99+% people would be willing to sacrifice 2 years of their youth for a lifelong freedom of the threat of poverty or necessity to work a job they don't like. It's at least more freedom many have now.

Thats not " more freedom". Its a miracle.