Should military service (or related service) be required?

[Mike the Progressive]

Couldn't they arrest you for that?

I'm sure they could try, but they'd have to cross a continent to reach me.

Extradite him!

Also, I think it would be hilarious to see Divair in the military.

[Post-Keynesian Economics]

No, it definitely doesn't. Not like the military or the Peace Corps.

But it can be. Schools in Asia teaches discipline. There's no need to have discipline instilled outside of schools.

There's no reason that couldn't be changed, especially if the Peace Corps created a wing specifically for people just out of high school.

...You...do realize what the Peace Corps does? They can't just take in random people like that. They help coordinate businesses, plan out infrastructures, being teachers, etc. If you do that you'll lower the quality the services the Peace Corps offers.

No, because the volunteers with higher skills will still be there. The younger wing of the Peace Corps could be used for very generic "do this, do that" labor that doesn't require any sort of higher skills. Plus, some kinds of training can happen on site.

[Divair]

I'm sure they could try, but they'd have to cross a continent to reach me.

Extradite him!

Also, I think it would be hilarious to see Divair in the military.

I didn't know suicide was hilarious.

[Geilinor]

Dehumanizing people and turning them into weapons is not beneficial for humanity.

But what if you don't have to be a weapon? What if you can do something like the Peace Corps as an alternative?

Surely many people who want to help their communities are already doing so? The carrot (the feeling of helping someone), is better than the stick (prison).

[Post-Keynesian Economics]

Why not?

Because no successful and free state should ever need to draft servicepeople in peacetimes, unless and only unless they were under constant threat of invasion.

Forced military service into non-defensive or retaliatory conflicts also brings with it civil destability and conflict. See: US involvement in Vietnam (Plagued with mass protests, flights to Canada, and suicides) vs US involvement in WWII (Near-uniform support and had so many people enlisting that they had to turn people away).

Yes, but both Vietnam and WWII both involved "get your butt over there shooting some people" and no other options unless you were an engineer or a doctor. In a scenario in which you have a lot more freedom and options within required service, where is the civil instability?

[The Sotoan Union]

While the idea of compulsory military service, especially for teenagers right out of school, could have several benefits I think it's a huge invasion of someone's personal rights. You could argue that it teaches discipline, helps teach people about structure and planning, makes the populace more involved with the military, ensures a able sized security force, provides economic benefits, and would make citizens more aware of politics and foreign policy considering that their kids are soldiers who are directly affected by the actions of politicians. It also forces these kids into a potential life of violence and death.

[Occupied Deutschland]

No. Volunteer forces are better motivated, and a better investment (reenlistment more common) to boot. Not to mention the whole bonus of not being a moral black-mark because volunteers are, by the nature of volunteering, much more ethical standard-bearers for any country which proclaims itself ethical or its citizens free.

[Geilinor]

But it can be. Schools in Asia teaches discipline. There's no need to have discipline instilled outside of schools.


...You...do realize what the Peace Corps does? They can't just take in random people like that. They help coordinate businesses, plan out infrastructures, being teachers, etc. If you do that you'll lower the quality the services the Peace Corps offers.

No, because the volunteers with higher skills will still be there. The younger wing of the Peace Corps could be used for very generic "do this, do that" labor that doesn't require any sort of higher skills. Plus, some kinds of training can happen on site.

Why should people be required to perform manual labor without compensation?

[Silent Majority]

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it's probably more valuable to society to have people get an education rather than to delay it for mandatory public or military service that ultimately doesn't accomplish all that much.

[Post-Keynesian Economics]

But what if you don't have to be a weapon? What if you can do something like the Peace Corps as an alternative?

Surely many people who want to help their communities are already doing so? The carrot (the feeling of helping someone), is better than the stick (prison).

Yes, but there's a lot of people who aren't. These people would now be required to work in some kind of military or public service for a couple years.

[Pope Joan]

It could accomplish a lot for the public good. Doesn't something like this work well in Switzerland now? And Israel, at least at one point, had something similar.

Get out of the party school, go build water purification systems or teach ESL.

[Mike the Progressive]

Extradite him!

Also, I think it would be hilarious to see Divair in the military.

I didn't know suicide was hilarious.

Nah, I'm just giving you a hard time. I had a friend from South Korea, who came to the US and stayed here for the exact same reason.

[Post-Keynesian Economics]

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it's probably more valuable to society to have people get an education rather than to delay it for mandatory public or military service that ultimately doesn't accomplish all that much.

Why? What is the actual cost of the delay? We already have too few jobs, and people are retiring later and living longer. We can spare a couple years of each person to do this. If anything, it increases efficiency of a life from a utilitarian perspective.

[Divair]

I didn't know suicide was hilarious.

Nah, I'm just giving you a hard time. I had a friend from South Korea, who came to the US and stayed here for the exact same reason.

Good man.

[Geilinor]

Surely many people who want to help their communities are already doing so? The carrot (the feeling of helping someone), is better than the stick (prison).

Yes, but there's a lot of people who aren't. These people would now be required to work in some kind of military or public service for a couple years.

Would they be paid for such work?

[Regnum Dominae]

Yes, but there's a lot of people who aren't. These people would now be required to work in some kind of military or public service for a couple years.

Would they be paid for such work?

Even if they are paid it is completely unjustified as a fetus assault on personal freedoms.

[Xirtam]

On one hand I think the idea of forcing people to support such a violent and unmerciful institution is a disgrace.

But I would also argue in the case of places like America if they started sending ordinary joes to god knows where to kill black people americans might be a lot less convinced of the merits of these wars.

[Post-Keynesian Economics]

No, because the volunteers with higher skills will still be there. The younger wing of the Peace Corps could be used for very generic "do this, do that" labor that doesn't require any sort of higher skills. Plus, some kinds of training can happen on site.

Why should people be required to perform manual labor without compensation?

It builds discipline and perseverance, adds a sense of being part of a nation and the civil duties that go along with it, it improves diplomacy and saves the lives of people living in poverty. The benefits would seem to outweigh the costs.

[Geilinor]

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it's probably more valuable to society to have people get an education rather than to delay it for mandatory public or military service that ultimately doesn't accomplish all that much.

Why? What is the actual cost of the delay? We already have too few jobs, and people are retiring later and living longer. We can spare a couple years of each person to do this. If anything, it increases efficiency of a life from a utilitarian perspective.

Those couple years would be better used at a job or a university. Otherwise, you're just delaying their personal goals and sapping motivation.

[Alcase]

Yes

[Ragnarum]

Yes. Teach them useful things like self defence and first aid.

Shooting at things is also useful though.

[Post-Keynesian Economics]

Yes, but there's a lot of people who aren't. These people would now be required to work in some kind of military or public service for a couple years.

Would they be paid for such work?

I don't see why not.

[Death Metal]

Because no successful and free state should ever need to draft servicepeople in peacetimes, unless and only unless they were under constant threat of invasion.

Forced military service into non-defensive or retaliatory conflicts also brings with it civil destability and conflict. See: US involvement in Vietnam (Plagued with mass protests, flights to Canada, and suicides) vs US involvement in WWII (Near-uniform support and had so many people enlisting that they had to turn people away).

Yes, but both Vietnam and WWII both involved "get your butt over there shooting some people" and no other options unless you were an engineer or a doctor. In a scenario in which you have a lot more freedom and options within required service, where is the civil instability?

Public opinion and mass protests against Vietnam can be traced back as early as 1963, after the Peace Corps was established. So, again: US involvement in Vietnam.

[Post-Keynesian Economics]

Why? What is the actual cost of the delay? We already have too few jobs, and people are retiring later and living longer. We can spare a couple years of each person to do this. If anything, it increases efficiency of a life from a utilitarian perspective.

Those couple years would be better used at a job or a university. Otherwise, you're just delaying their personal goals and sapping motivation.

But those couple years are not two years less of their career-building life. Realistically, it is two years less of their retirement life, which will already likely be long.

[Vetalia]

It builds discipline and perseverance, adds a sense of being part of a nation and the civil duties that go along with it, it improves diplomacy and saves the lives of people living in poverty. The benefits would seem to outweigh the costs.

Only if they want to do it, otherwise it'll have the opposite effect.