PDA

View Full Version : tPF Would America be better off instituting mandatory military service?



Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 07:32 PM
There have been numerous stories of late demonstrating the lack of discipline and respect shown by some of today's youth. What if all teens upon graduation were required to serve two years in the military. Furthermore, what if all teens aged 16 and above, not being enrolled in or having completed high school (i.e. drop-outs), were required to enter the military and until the age of 18 receive military training and educational instruction, with the mandatory two-year service term to follow. Would this have a positive effect not only on the maturity of students entering college and university but also serve to remove underachieving teens from violence-prone neighborhoods and provide needed structure in their lives. I would also add that no such conscripted teen should be sent away to war-torn situations, but their services employed in domestic or non-combat roles.

Mister D
11-07-2015, 07:41 PM
I think it's a great idea but there is an anti-military current in the American psyche that is as old as the country. Now I know the patriots will chime in...I don't mean you don't support the troops. lol I mean Americans have always detested conscription and the militarization of society and the regimentation that entails. Anyway, Who, that is to say I don't see it happening.

The Xl
11-07-2015, 07:44 PM
It's an absolutely horrendous idea and is, at it's core, completely against the concept of freedom and in tune with slavery.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 07:48 PM
The day that this country forces my kids to serve in pointless wars designed solely to benefit the establishment and wealthy is the day I move to Canada.

Mister D
11-07-2015, 07:50 PM
:smiley:

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 07:51 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3b6SGoN6dA

The Xl
11-07-2015, 07:53 PM
The day that this country forces my kids to serve in pointless wars designed solely to benefit the establishment and wealthy is the day I move to Canada.

Boom. The concept itself is bad enough, but it's even worse when you consider how our military is employed.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 07:54 PM
I think it's a great idea but there is an anti-military current in the American psyche that is as old as the country. Now I know the patriots will chime in...I don't mean you don't support the troops. lol I mean Americans have always detested conscription and the militarization of society and the regimentation that entails. Anyway, Who, that is to say I don't see it happening.
I only mention it, because many countries traditionally have had and still have mandatory military service and have justified it based on turning out more disciplined citizens and instilling a greater appreciation of the concept of freedom and what it truly means, along with concepts like duty and loyalty.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 07:55 PM
Boom. The concept itself is bad enough, but it's even worse when you consider how our military is employed.

It's like saying "we should just trust our government to possess all of our guns for us".

Not just no, but fuck no.

If mandatory service isn't fascism then I'm not sure what is.

The Xl
11-07-2015, 07:56 PM
I only mention it, because many countries traditionally have had and still have mandatory military service and have justified it based on turning out more disciplined citizens and instilling a greater appreciation of the concept of freedom and what it truly means, along with concepts like duty and loyalty.

Using slavery as a means to make people appreciate freedom? Not only does that barely make any sense it means the freedom you appreciate doesn't even exist, any country that has a policy like that isn't free.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 07:56 PM
The day that this country forces my kids to serve in pointless wars designed solely to benefit the establishment and wealthy is the day I move to Canada.
I did stipulate that no conscripted kids would be sent into war situations, but serve in non-combat roles.

Mister D
11-07-2015, 07:56 PM
I only mention it, because many countries traditionally have had and still have mandatory military service and have justified it based on turning out more disciplined citizens and instilling a greater appreciation of the concept of freedom and what it truly means, along with concepts like duty and loyalty.

As you can see, what I referred to runs deep. That said, I agree with you.

The Xl
11-07-2015, 07:57 PM
It's like saying "we should just trust our government to possess all of our guns for us".

Not just no, but fuck no.

If mandatory service isn't fascism then I'm not sure what is.

You're on fire tonight. Tell 'em.

valley ranch
11-07-2015, 07:58 PM
I think it's a good idea, every male do two years or so, many countries have that. Other wise, the military becomes a Samurai class. While it's good to have twenty year men, we should all participate.

Matty
11-07-2015, 07:58 PM
I don't like the idea either. If the kid misbehaves in school and is disruptive revoke his right to an education.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 08:00 PM
As you can see, what I referred to runs deep. That said, I agree with you.
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with my own OP, but I threw it out there to see what others think. There are certainly pros and cons.

Common
11-07-2015, 08:01 PM
Wouldnt work, there would be a whole new category of legal creating a whole new specialty, like Malpractice Attorneys, there would be get out of military service attorneys.

If you talk to any of the old retired career military people they will tell you, they do not want to go back to being americas babysitters.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 08:03 PM
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with my own OP, but I threw it out there to see what others think. There are certainly pros and cons.

I'm not throwing darts at you too, btw, don't assume that. You brought up the point, I'm attacking the message.

As I sit here and watch my freedoms regularly erode I only appreciate freedom that much more. So no, this would be an issue if it were to come that I would join in on burning the governors mansion down.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 08:05 PM
Wouldnt work, there would be a whole new category of legal creating a whole new specialty, like Malpractice Attorneys, there would be get out of military service attorneys.

If you talk to any of the old retired career military people they will tell you, they do not want to go back to being americas babysitters.
Well, one obvious question would be whether it could be considered constitutional?

Mister D
11-07-2015, 08:05 PM
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with my own OP, but I threw it out there to see what others think. There are certainly pros and cons.

Then I agree with what you said whether you do or not. :smiley:

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 08:08 PM
I'm not throwing darts at you too, btw, don't assume that. You brought up the point, I'm attacking the message.

As I sit here and watch my freedoms regularly erode I only appreciate freedom that much more. So no, this would be an issue if it were to come that I would join in on burning the governors mansion down.
How is it really fundamentally different from the constitutional concept of the militia?

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 08:09 PM
How is it really fundamentally different from the constitutional concept of the militia?

In part the militia is designed to defend us from oppression, not promote it.

zelmo1234
11-07-2015, 08:15 PM
I think it's a great idea but there is an anti-military current in the American psyche that is as old as the country. Now I know the patriots will chime in...I don't mean you don't support the troops. lol I mean Americans have always detested conscription and the militarization of society and the regimentation that entails. Anyway, Who, that is to say I don't see it happening.

So what if there was an alternative, Peace corp? Some type of community service but all would have the same physical attributes, and rigid discipline? So the military would be the preferred, and I would expand on DR Who's Comment and say that if the kids choose to drop out, they would still need to serve until age 21. And I think that is the plan. most kids are nearing 19 upon graduation, so asking for service until the 21st birthday would be great.

southwest88
11-07-2015, 08:19 PM
This is an old idea - it was typically addressed as two (or fill in the blank) years of national service, by everyone (sometimes to include women), typically young people just out of high school. Military is possible - people could opt in - but not necessary. Certainly there is plenty to do - plant trees, tend to land, equipment, buildings in National Parks, National Forests, other sites. Clean up the trash along freeways, clean up/maintain drainage canals, clean up wildcat dumping grounds, etc. Depending upon skills of the participants, of course.

This was a big discussion item in the 1960s, after VISTA & Peace Corps & similar got under way. I don't remember if VISTA is still running, or morphed into something else. Peace Corps is still running, but typically either teaching class or hands-on - farming, agronomy, water management, crop improvement, irrigation systems, etc. Again, there's lots to be done out in the World, too. I'd rather start with the US, internal improvements first.

As to purely military, I don't think you could absorb everyone there, if you made the critter truly universal. & besides, there are minimums - people have to be trainable - literate enough, good attitude, willing to learn. WWI & WWII conscription showed that there were a lot of young men in the US who simply couldn't be reliably trained in any reasonable amount of time, or had serious health or attitude problems.

I don't know if this would work - it's worth investigating. With the option of national service, it might be palatable to young people who want work experience outside of college away from home.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 08:26 PM
This is an old idea - it was typically addressed as two (or fill in the blank) years of national service, by everyone (sometimes to include women), typically young people just out of high school. Military is possible - people could opt in - but not necessary. Certainly there is plenty to do - plant trees, tend to land, equipment, buildings in National Parks, National Forests, other sites. Clean up the trash along freeways, clean up/maintain drainage canals, clean up wildcat dumping grounds, etc. Depending upon skills of the participants, of course.

This was a big discussion item in the 1960s, after VISTA & Peace Corps & similar got under way. I don't remember if VISTA is still running, or morphed into something else. Peace Corps is still running, but typically either teaching class or hands-on - farming, agronomy, water management, crop improvement, irrigation systems, etc. Again, there's lots to be done out in the World, too. I'd rather start with the US, internal improvements first.

As to purely military, I don't think you could absorb everyone there, if you made the critter truly universal. & besides, there are minimums - people have to be trainable - literate enough, good attitude, willing to learn. WWI & WWII conscription showed that there were a lot of young men in the US who simply couldn't be reliably trained in any reasonable amount of time, or had serious health or attitude problems.

I don't know if this would work - it's worth investigating. With the option of national service, it might be palatable to young people who want work experience outside of college away from home.
I did consider the notion that this would give kids real-world experience that might make them more valuable to employers.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 08:34 PM
When government mandates any service I'm sorry, that smacks of fascism.

The concept of democracy and freedom are myths. WWII wasn't all that long ago and I really don't think that mindset - strong establishment governments changed much, the illusion of democracy and personal freedoms are just that, illusions.

This concept should scare the shit out of anyone who has a mind. The reason Nazis were able to attain the strength they were able to attain is because the common citizen bought into what they were selling.

Peter1469
11-07-2015, 08:43 PM
Absolutely not. Modern war-fighting doctrine requires both intelligence and voluntarism. We can't force people to fight to standard.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 08:45 PM
When government mandates any service I'm sorry, that smacks of fascism.

The concept of democracy and freedom are myths. WWII wasn't all that long ago and I really don't think that mindset - strong establishment governments changed much, the illusion of democracy and personal freedoms are just that, illusions.

This concept should scare the shit out of anyone who has a mind. The reason Nazis were able to attain the strength they were able to attain is because the common citizen bought into what they were selling.
If it were proven that this would create a more peaceful society (not saying it would) - one where people were less criminal, more responsible and more considerate of the rights of others, would you still have the same opinion?

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 08:48 PM
If it were proven that this would create a more peaceful society (not saying it would) - one where people were less criminal, more responsible and more considerate of the rights of others, would you still have the same opinion?

I think we as a society need to stop coddling and enabling our dysfunctional and let them fend for themselves.

In any society you're going to have an element of dysfunction. It's become very PC to not demand that they be accountable for themselves. This is where liberalism fails and yeah, I wholly blame this phenomenon on liberalism.

Mandating service is really a non issue because liberals, progressives would never allow it. I oppose it for entirely different reasons.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 08:48 PM
Absolutely not. Modern war-fighting doctrine requires both intelligence and voluntarism. We can't force people to fight to standard.
There are many military roles that are non-combat. Additionally as was mentioned by Southwest, the Selective Service could be broader than just pure military roles.

Peter1469
11-07-2015, 08:53 PM
There are many military roles that are non-combat. Additionally as was mentioned by Southwest, the Selective Service could be broader than just pure military roles.

We know that everyone supports the infantry. I don't want some slacker in a support role that affects me.

Bob
11-07-2015, 08:59 PM
I only mention it, because many countries traditionally have had and still have mandatory military service and have justified it based on turning out more disciplined citizens and instilling a greater appreciation of the concept of freedom and what it truly means, along with concepts like duty and loyalty.

I was drafted. If you want a nation of automatons, good way to do it. If you want complete loyalty to Democrats, might help.

Personally I believe it is the wrong way to produce a small but very effective Army.

Bear in mind that the USA drafted into the Army only past the Korean War.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 08:59 PM
There are many military roles that are non-combat. Additionally as was mentioned by Southwest, the Selective Service could be broader than just pure military roles.

http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors33/adolf-eichmann-criminal-i-was-one-of-the-many-horses-pulling-the.jpg

Bob
11-07-2015, 09:04 PM
We know that everyone supports the infantry. I don't want some slacker in a support role that affects me.

I resented being drafted. The Army appointed me as a leader in Basic and later AIT. I saw slackers but just would not act as they acted. I gave plenty of thought to being booted out, but something would never allow my parents to have a son like that. A brother joined the marines so he played the role of being booted out. Dumb jerk. RIP brother Mike.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 09:06 PM
I think we as a society need to stop coddling and enabling our dysfunctional and let them fend for themselves.

In any society you're going to have an element of dysfunction. It's become very PC to not demand that they be accountable for themselves. This is where liberalism fails and yeah, I wholly blame this phenomenon on liberalism.

Mandating service is really a non issue because liberals, progressives would never allow it. I oppose it for entirely different reasons. I think that all ideologies have their day and then there comes a tipping point when people feel that society has either become too laissez faire or too constrained. I believe that we are hitting that tipping point now. I understand your objections to coddling, it is counter-productive, however, the idea of cutting off the gravy train abruptly will also have dire social consequences, that will be paid for primarily by children who have no culpability in the problem and by a significant increase in police presence in society that will effectively limit freedoms across the board.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 09:14 PM
I think that all ideologies have their day and then there comes a tipping point when people feel that society has either become too laissez faire or too constrained. I believe that we are hitting that tipping point now. I understand your objections to coddling, it is counter-productive, however, the idea of cutting off the gravy train abruptly will also have dire social consequences, that will be paid for primarily by children who have no culpability in the problem and by a significant increase in police presence in society that will effectively limit freedoms across the board.

Keep in mind too, Who, that we live in a materialistic society.

In my (ahem...) advancing years I'm becoming more and more of an anti-capitalist. Democracy, I'm on the fence, I don't think mankind is capable of effectively governing itself but I'm pretty sure a materialistic society is problematic, especially when there is wealth and now we see wealth rationing.

I'm stepping back and looking at our society and thinking "this couldn't be more fundamentally screwed up" and I'm really thinking passive societies like Canada and The Netherlands have gotten so much more right than we are able of accomplishing.

We live for things, possessions. The newer, the trendier, the better. We don't live for families anymore, or for principles. We work ourselves to death so we can have that new car, huge TV, dream house because we've been duped into thinking possessions are happiness, but we're probably one of the most miserable societies on the globe.

And everything is crap. Junk, lies, deceits. Politically, socially, materially.

I'm progressively withdrawing from that mindset and nothing is off the table at this point as to how I live out my life. If I suddenly stop posting then I've began my voyage to Rivendell.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 09:43 PM
Keep in mind too, Who, that we live in a materialistic society.

In my (ahem...) advancing years I'm becoming more and more of an anti-capitalist. Democracy, I'm on the fence, I don't think mankind is capable of effectively governing itself but I'm pretty sure a materialistic society is problematic, especially when there is wealth and now we see wealth rationing.

I'm stepping back and looking at our society and thinking "this couldn't be more fundamentally screwed up" and I'm really thinking passive societies like Canada and The Netherlands have gotten so much more right than we are able of accomplishing.

We live for things, possessions. The newer, the trendier, the better. We don't live for families anymore, or for principles. We work ourselves to death so we can have that new car, huge TV, dream house because we've been duped into thinking possessions are happiness, but we're probably one of the most miserable societies on the globe.

And everything is crap. Junk, lies, deceits. Politically, socially, materially.

I'm progressively withdrawing from that mindset and nothing is off the table at this point as to how I live out my life. If I suddenly stop posting then I've began my voyage to Rivendell.
How very true. I really do think that if society was not so obsessed with materialism, we would be enjoying a very different world, but it is true that crass materialism even drives crime in poor neighborhoods. It's not that welfare doesn't provide an adequate stipend to eat and have a roof over your head, but it doesn't provide enough money to fulfill our roles as super-consumers which is drilled into the heads of every child, teen and adult who watches television. You cannot be happy without the latest I-phone, video game, brand of sneakers, designer good (with the brand name on the outside), top of the line kitchen, bathroom, car - the list goes on and on. Kids are not even free to play anymore - they are house bound unless parents enroll them into scheduled "activities". No small wonder that many are incapable of anticipating work that needs to be done, once they are employed, or that they feel that just showing up for work should be rewarded with a raise.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 10:17 PM
How very true. I really do think that if society was not so obsessed with materialism, we would be enjoying a very different world, but it is true that crass materialism even drives crime in poor neighborhoods. It's not that welfare doesn't provide an adequate stipend to eat and have a roof over your head, but it doesn't provide enough money to fulfill our roles as super-consumers which is drilled into the heads of every child, teen and adult who watches television. You cannot be happy without the latest I-phone, video game, brand of sneakers, designer good (with the brand name on the outside), top of the line kitchen, bathroom, car - the list goes on and on. Kids are not even free to play anymore - they are house bound unless parents enroll them into scheduled "activities". No small wonder that many are incapable of anticipating work that needs to be done, once they are employed, or that they feel that just showing up for work should be rewarded with a raise.

I get that, I totally do.

So we have this influx of varying social philosophies and we're supposed to do something with it? Then add mandatory service as a potential solution?

I dunno, smells like FUBAR.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 10:28 PM
I get that, I totally do.

So we have this influx of varying social philosophies and we're supposed to do something with it? Then add mandatory service as a potential solution?

I dunno, smells like FUBAR.
There was a time in my life when I would have been radically opposed. Now I am questioning, in the context of this world, not that which existed when I was a teen, how to address what appears to be an increasingly dysfunctional society.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 10:38 PM
There was a time in my life when I would have been radically opposed. Now I am questioning, in the context of this world, not that which existed when I was a teen, how to address what appears to be an increasingly dysfunctional society.

I firmly believe that necessity drives production and when necessity is removed from the equation then complacency is produced.

Take music, when was Elvis the best? When he was fat and happy or when he was young, unnoticed and raw?

Take WWII, could we now produce the kind of national support under a real threat? Are we at this point ever threatened? Like many European countries facing Nazi aggression? No, we're not and it shows.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 10:42 PM
I firmly believe that necessity drives production and when necessity is removed from the equation then complacency is produced.

Take music, when was Elvis the best? When he was fat and happy or when he was young, unnoticed and raw?

Take WWII, could we now produce the kind of national support under a real threat? Are we at this point ever threatened? Like many European countries facing Nazi aggression? No, we're not and it shows.
Are we so primitive that necessity is our only proper motivation?

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 10:46 PM
Are we so primitive that necessity is our only proper motivation?

Yes.

I mean that.

Green Arrow
11-07-2015, 10:52 PM
I would support it only if the conscripted were given a choice to serve in non-combat roles. We need to respect the conscientious objector.

southwest88
11-07-2015, 10:57 PM
...

In any society you're going to have an element of dysfunction. It's become very PC to not demand that they be accountable for themselves. This is where liberalism fails and yeah, I wholly blame this phenomenon on liberalism.

...


That's not what PC means, @ all.

The point of the OP was about improving the individual youth of the nation, presumably through physical work, discipline, achievement, teamwork, & so on. In the expectation that better input to higher education or work would produce better results @ the end. That's a worthy goal, & one that we should look into, to see how feasible it is.

& BTW, this kind of scheme has been implemented in various countries - some Socialistic, some Communist, some Capitalistic - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_service for a list. In the US in recent times, it was proposed in line with the Peace Corps, VISTA, & so on - & by much the same political & social groupings that developed the first two organizations.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Public_Service for a civilian alternative to military service. Much the same areas could still use attention & more staffing.

southwest88
11-07-2015, 11:06 PM
Are we so primitive that necessity is our only proper motivation?

@ the point that you're waist-deep in 'gators, it's hard to remember that the original goal was to drain the swamp.

In other words, we've tried a lot of different things to improve the range of outcomes for our adolescents - this set of alternatives has already been worked out once - CCC, Peace Corps, VISTA, & so on. The paperwork, manuals, training, curricula are probably still in archives. Shoot, come to that, we probably still have people who passed through these programs that we could interview & get any details we need.

A lot of the grunt work has already been done & exists somewhere in collective memory. I think we should investigate the possibilities - certainly there's a lot of work to be done in the US & the World. Why not do it, & learn something along the way?

Newpublius
11-07-2015, 11:06 PM
Conscription is slavery and it's morally wrong.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 11:14 PM
I think as a society we are often forgetting to teach our children about responsibility, duty to the next generation, the importance of family. Without being taught, the wealthier kids will continue to promote a cold, materialistic society and the least wealthy will become increasingly jaded predators. They are just flip sides of the same coin.

southwest88
11-07-2015, 11:14 PM
Conscription is slavery and it's morally wrong.

Legislation would be required to reestablish any such scheme. By definition, that would mean approval by the public in terms of representation, & a majority is required in both House & Senate. Slavery as such was outlawed by force of arms & formally by Constitutional amendment after the Civil War.

For moral import, if the legislation is duly debated, reviewed & passed by Congress, & signed into law, it becomes part of the law. Unless the judiciary objects to the legislation on Constitutional or other grounds, that's as legitimate as any legislation can be.

Mister D
11-07-2015, 11:17 PM
I think as a society we are often forgetting to teach our children about responsibility, duty to the next generation, the importance of family. Without being taught, the wealthier kids will continue to promote a cold, materialistic society and the least wealthy will become increasingly jaded predators. They are just flip sides of the same coin.

That's only natural when individual liberty is perceived as an end.

Captain Obvious
11-07-2015, 11:22 PM
I think as a society we are often forgetting to teach our children about responsibility, duty to the next generation, the importance of family. Without being taught, the wealthier kids will continue to promote a cold, materialistic society and the least wealthy will become increasingly jaded predators. They are just flip sides of the same coin.

Like what teh O'bama is doing with our debt?

Newpublius
11-07-2015, 11:23 PM
I think as a society we are often forgetting to teach our children about responsibility, duty to the next generation, the importance of family. Without being taught, the wealthier kids will continue to promote a cold, materialistic society and the least wealthy will become increasingly jaded predators. They are just flip sides of the same coin.

Well, what does the draft 'teach'? I suppose something different from voluntarily attending college, to be 'disciplined' -- ie if you don't follow the potentially arbitrary and capricious orders the government imposes on you through its jar head buzzcut agents? I'm not interested in being 'disciplined' by the government. A sea of green married to confornism. Fuck that.

southwest88
11-07-2015, 11:24 PM
I think as a society we are often forgetting to teach our children about responsibility, duty to the next generation, the importance of family. Without being taught, the wealthier kids will continue to promote a cold, materialistic society and the least wealthy will become increasingly jaded predators. They are just flip sides of the same coin.

No, I disagree, the conclusion is far too neat. What I recall of revolutionary theory - Communist, for instance - is that the leaders come from either the top of the society - Che Guevara, say - or the bottom - Mexican peasant leader Emiliano Zapata in the Mexican Revolution. It's the middle that seems to self-exclude - for whatever reasons they may have.

& it seems to me that hungry undereducated peasants or urban proletariat don't have the opportunity to become jaded @ all. They would likely be thrilled to have the chance. If we provide challenges & an environment & opportunity to rise, I think most of our youth, in whatever socio-economic strata they happen to find themselves, would avail themselves of the opportunity.

Mister D
11-07-2015, 11:26 PM
Well, what does the draft 'teach'? I suppose something different from voluntarily attending college, to be 'disciplined' -- ie if you don't follow the potentially arbitrary and capricious orders the government imposes on you through its jar head buzzcut agents? I'm not interested in being 'disciplined' by the government. A sea of green married to confornism. $#@! that.

For one thing, it could hopefully (I'm skeptical) teach a white kid from the NJ suburbs and a Mexican from an LA barrio that they have something in common beyond the need to eat and shit.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 11:27 PM
@ the point that you're waist-deep in 'gators, it's hard to remember that the original goal was to drain the swamp.

In other words, we've tried a lot of different things to improve the range of outcomes for our adolescents - this set of alternatives has already been worked out once - CCC, Peace Corps, VISTA, & so on. The paperwork, manuals, training, curricula are probably still in archives. Shoot, come to that, we probably still have people who passed through these programs that we could interview & get any details we need.

A lot of the grunt work has already been done & exists somewhere in collective memory. I think we should investigate the possibilities - certainly there's a lot of work to be done in the US & the World. Why not do it, & learn something along the way?
I always thought that the Peace Corps was a valuable teaching opportunity and certainly broadened the horizons of participants in immeasurable ways. There was a time when people placed a value in service to their fellow man. I think we have been losing that concept exponentially. Kids, yet without responsibilities are best placed to take on these roles in society and thereby learn from the experience.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 11:36 PM
No, I disagree, the conclusion is far too neat. What I recall of revolutionary theory - Communist, for instance - is that the leaders come from either the top of the society - Che Guevara, say - or the bottom - Mexican peasant leader Emiliano Zapata in the Mexican Revolution. It's the middle that seems to self-exclude - for whatever reasons they may have.

& it seems to me that hungry undereducated peasants or urban proletariat don't have the opportunity to become jaded @ all. They would likely be thrilled to have the chance. If we provide challenges & an environment & opportunity to rise, I think most of our youth, in whatever socio-economic strata they happen to find themselves, would avail themselves of the opportunity.
However it is the middle where we expect to find the anchor of society. If you are at the bottom, jaded is just a natural evolution based on a lack of hope for anything better and a lack of belief that one can better one's life through sheer determination. I'm not suggesting that many might not be happy to for a chance to escape the dull grey reality of their lives.

Newpublius
11-07-2015, 11:41 PM
For one thing, it could hopefully (I'm skeptical) teach a white kid from the NJ suburbs and a Mexican from an LA barrio that they have something in common beyond the need to eat and $#@!.

I'm white-Hispanic (Argentine), I was born in Washington Heights and my native language is Spanish. The only common experience you'd be providing would be the involuntary duty to pledge our life for the perpetuation of the state. It's the epitome of fascism and its wrong

Newpublius
11-07-2015, 11:44 PM
I always thought that the Peace Corps was a valuable teaching opportunity and certainly broadened the horizons of participants in immeasurable ways. There was a time when people placed a value in service to their fellow man. I think we have been losing that concept exponentially. Kids, yet without responsibilities are best placed to take on these roles in society and thereby learn from the experience.

Peace Corps can be rewarding, but it must be voluntary. If you want to do that .... Or join the military, by all means do that, but enabling the government to command the time/labor of our youth is wrong

Cthulhu
11-07-2015, 11:44 PM
There have been numerous stories of late demonstrating the lack of discipline and respect shown by some of today's youth. What if all teens upon graduation were required to serve two years in the military. Furthermore, what if all teens aged 16 and above, not being enrolled in or having completed high school (i.e. drop-outs), were required to enter the military and until the age of 18 receive military training and educational instruction, with the mandatory two-year service term to follow. Would this have a positive effect not only on the maturity of students entering college and university but also serve to remove underachieving teens from violence-prone neighborhoods and provide needed structure in their lives. I would also add that no such conscripted teen should be sent away to war-torn situations, but their services employed in domestic or non-combat roles.
If it were tied to voting rights I would consider it depending on the contents of the program.

Think Starship Troopers.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

Newpublius
11-07-2015, 11:45 PM
However it is the middle where we expect to find the anchor of society. If you are at the bottom, jaded is just a natural evolution based on a lack of hope for anything better and a lack of belief that one can better one's life through sheer determination. I'm not suggesting that many might not be happy to for a chance to escape the dull grey reality of their lives.

Some poor people can find opportunity in the military. There are others where compelled military service would be a hardship.

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 11:54 PM
That's only natural when individual liberty is perceived as an end.
Individual liberty is a goal, but not one without inherent responsibilities. Separating responsibility from liberty is a faulty premise and one that will result in the annihilation of society.

southwest88
11-07-2015, 11:54 PM
However it is the middle where we expect to find the anchor of society. If you are at the bottom, jaded is just a natural evolution based on a lack of hope for anything better and a lack of belief that one can better one's life through sheer determination. I'm not suggesting that many might not be happy to for a chance to escape the dull grey reality of their lives.

Hm. Jaded is usually understood as overindulged appetites, or worn out by overwork or overuse. As the people @ the bottom of the social pyramid are unlikely to have indulged their material appetites, let alone overindulged, I don't think that word fits the case. The same for overwork or overuse - I think most people would welcome the chance to work or be of use, & the problem in the urban centers (& also in the very rural, thinly populated hinterlands) is that there's very little work available for people with low skills, little education & self-destructive behaviors.

Perhaps you meant suffering from anomie, or something similar?

Dr. Who
11-07-2015, 11:57 PM
Like what teh O'bama is doing with our debt?
He's just continuing the fine tradition that preceded his Presidency and acting at the behest of his masters in industry.

Dr. Who
11-08-2015, 12:08 AM
Hm. Jaded is usually understood as overindulged appetites, or worn out by overwork or overuse. As the people @ the bottom of the social pyramid are unlikely to have indulged their material appetites, let alone overindulged, I don't think that word fits the case. The same for overwork or overuse - I think most people would welcome the chance to work or be of use, & the problem in the urban centers (& also in the very rural, thinly populated hinterlands) is that there's very little work available for people with low skills, little education & self-destructive behaviors.

Perhaps you meant suffering from anomie, or something similar?
Yes, anomie is applicable, but I say dull grey because it is without hope - a long grey road of sameness, much like people who are prisoners, except that these are prisoners of their own beliefs. I say jaded because they expect bad outcomes, but they are accustomed to same. It is an embedded cynicism.

jimmyz
11-08-2015, 12:13 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3b6SGoN6dA

Jebus friggin Chrips! Thank you for that!

Dr. Who
11-08-2015, 12:13 AM
Well, what does the draft 'teach'? I suppose something different from voluntarily attending college, to be 'disciplined' -- ie if you don't follow the potentially arbitrary and capricious orders the government imposes on you through its jar head buzzcut agents? I'm not interested in being 'disciplined' by the government. A sea of green married to confornism. Fuck that.
I'm not a huge fan of the military, but for kids who have little or no guidance in life, and little or no discipline in life, there can be valuable learning skills imparted and a sense of loyalty, duty and responsibility imparted. Things that families used to teach, but increasingly don't.

Dr. Who
11-08-2015, 12:20 AM
Some poor people can find opportunity in the military. There are others where compelled military service would be a hardship.
Such a system would necessarily consider the psychological, intellectual or physical ability to participate.

gamewell45
11-08-2015, 12:57 AM
I'd say no to the concept because most 16 year old's are not psychologically mature enough to be in that type of environment. Perhaps mandatory Jr.ROTC program for both boys and girls starting at the age of 14 might be in order. That would teach them discipline, citizenship and general knowledge of the military.

Peter1469
11-08-2015, 03:39 AM
If it were tied to voting rights I would consider it depending on the contents of the program.

Think Starship Troopers.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

Fun movie. But great book.

Peter1469
11-08-2015, 03:41 AM
Individual liberty is a goal, but not one without inherent responsibilities. Separating responsibility from liberty is a faulty premise and one that will result in the annihilation of society.

Bring back the militia system as opposed to using the draft for the professional military. Our military isn't a tool for forging society. It is a tool for defense.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 09:56 AM
There have been numerous stories of late demonstrating the lack of discipline and respect shown by some of today's youth. What if all teens upon graduation were required to serve two years in the military. Furthermore, what if all teens aged 16 and above, not being enrolled in or having completed high school (i.e. drop-outs), were required to enter the military and until the age of 18 receive military training and educational instruction, with the mandatory two-year service term to follow. Would this have a positive effect not only on the maturity of students entering college and university but also serve to remove underachieving teens from violence-prone neighborhoods and provide needed structure in their lives. I would also add that no such conscripted teen should be sent away to war-torn situations, but their services employed in domestic or non-combat roles.

Absolutely. Except I would make it four years. And the draft should include allowing service in non-violent groups, such as Peace Corp. A truly universal draft would teach collective responsibility.

A few of caveats:

(1) NO "I don't want to" exemptions. For anything. Religious objections? Tough. Either leave the country or join something like the Peace Corp, or a similar group that would work inside the US to improve the lots of people in need. In other words: consider military/government service as a form of tax.

(2) NO medical exemptions. Even if you are a blind, deaf and dumb quadriplegic. The military or a government civilian counterpart WILL find a use for you.

(3) NO one goes directly to officer. Populate all of the government military academies ONLY from the enlisted ranks. You wanna tell people what to do in life-or-death situations? Fine; you have to pay your dues do those same things.

(4) Children of the politically-connected and the wealthy start out in boot camp like anyone else; if they want to become officers, they earn it from the enlisted ranks and go to OCS or the military academies.

(5) Successful completion of military service would be a requirement for being able to vote. But if you can't vote... you don't have to pay taxes.

Why yes, Heinlein was spot-on in Starship Troopers.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:00 AM
I only mention it, because many countries traditionally have had and still have mandatory military service and have justified it based on turning out more disciplined citizens and instilling a greater appreciation of the concept of freedom and what it truly means, along with concepts like duty and loyalty.

Exactly. Most of human existence is defined by contradiction. One has to experience the "yin" to fully appreciate the "yang." Ideologues don't realize this.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:03 AM
I'd say no to the concept because most 16 year old's are not psychologically mature enough to be in that type of environment. Perhaps mandatory Jr.ROTC program for both boys and girls starting at the age of 14 might be in order. That would teach them discipline, citizenship and general knowledge of the military.

Excuse me? Most of world history has been defined by sixteen year olds swinging swords and fighting other sixteen year olds.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:08 AM
I think it's a good idea, every male do two years or so, many countries have that. Other wise, the military becomes a Samurai class. While it's good to have twenty year men, we should all participate.

Correct. Our all-volunteer military is, superficially, a good thing. Freedom, right? And yet it inexorably creates a deep psychological divide between the (justifiably) proud "warrior" and the sluggard civilian.

We may be seeing some of the fallout from this in the current state of our militarized police forces. Warrior contempt of the civilian class seems to be an element of it.

Human living is inherently contradictory.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:10 AM
I don't like the idea either. If the kid misbehaves in school and is disruptive revoke his right to an education.

And then what do you DO with him? Put him on welfare for a lifetime? Put him in prison for a lifetime? Just kill him? THINK, goddamit!

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:11 AM
Wouldnt work, there would be a whole new category of legal creating a whole new specialty, like Malpractice Attorneys, there would be get out of military service attorneys.

If you talk to any of the old retired career military people they will tell you, they do not want to go back to being americas babysitters.

Old retired career military people are not part of the normal American mainstream. They are elitists.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:14 AM
In part the militia is designed to defend us from oppression, not promote it.

Would a truly universal draft be oppressive? Do you support the concept of taxes? A monetary tax is a claim on the earnings of your life. A universal (NO EXEMPTIONS) draft is a claim on your life, directly. How is it that much different?

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:15 AM
So what if there was an alternative, Peace corp? Some type of community service but all would have the same physical attributes, and rigid discipline? So the military would be the preferred, and I would expand on DR Who's Comment and say that if the kids choose to drop out, they would still need to serve until age 21. And I think that is the plan. most kids are nearing 19 upon graduation, so asking for service until the 21st birthday would be great.

Exactly.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:17 AM
This is an old idea - it was typically addressed as two (or fill in the blank) years of national service, by everyone (sometimes to include women), typically young people just out of high school. Military is possible - people could opt in - but not necessary. Certainly there is plenty to do - plant trees, tend to land, equipment, buildings in National Parks, National Forests, other sites. Clean up the trash along freeways, clean up/maintain drainage canals, clean up wildcat dumping grounds, etc. Depending upon skills of the participants, of course.

This was a big discussion item in the 1960s, after VISTA & Peace Corps & similar got under way. I don't remember if VISTA is still running, or morphed into something else. Peace Corps is still running, but typically either teaching class or hands-on - farming, agronomy, water management, crop improvement, irrigation systems, etc. Again, there's lots to be done out in the World, too. I'd rather start with the US, internal improvements first.

As to purely military, I don't think you could absorb everyone there, if you made the critter truly universal. & besides, there are minimums - people have to be trainable - literate enough, good attitude, willing to learn. WWI & WWII conscription showed that there were a lot of young men in the US who simply couldn't be reliably trained in any reasonable amount of time, or had serious health or attitude problems.

I don't know if this would work - it's worth investigating. With the option of national service, it might be palatable to young people who want work experience outside of college away from home.

The problem with including medical/sociological exemptions is that the rich and powerful, and other groups, will find ways to game the system.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 10:18 AM
When government mandates any service I'm sorry, that smacks of fascism.

The concept of democracy and freedom are myths. WWII wasn't all that long ago and I really don't think that mindset - strong establishment governments changed much, the illusion of democracy and personal freedoms are just that, illusions.

This concept should scare the $#@! out of anyone who has a mind. The reason Nazis were able to attain the strength they were able to attain is because the common citizen bought into what they were selling.

Please define "fascism."

Chris
11-08-2015, 10:40 AM
Please define "fascism."

Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/53139-Benito-Mussolini-What-is-Fascism-1932)

Standing Wolf
11-08-2015, 10:41 AM
Wouldnt work, there would be a whole new category of legal creating a whole new specialty, like Malpractice Attorneys, there would be get out of military service attorneys.

If you talk to any of the old retired career military people they will tell you, they do not want to go back to being americas babysitters.

I'd intended to read this entire thread before responding, but I'm going to jump in here because the poster is exactly right. As an "old retired career military" person, I can attest that whenever I was in a billet (job) that required the supervision of a number of service personnel, roughly 85% of my time was usually spent dealing with the 5-10% who did not want to be there, and/or who had absolutely no business, temperamentally or otherwise, being there - and this was at a time when there was no draft. The time, energy and tax dollars spent on - yes, "babysitting" is a very apt word to use, in this context - every lazy, spoiled, defiant, unbalanced, overemotional or sociopathic young person - not to mention the ones whose personalities, though perfectly normal, might simply not be well suited for military service - would be vast, and a huge distraction to the mission of the military generally.

To put it simply - and mildly - not every person belongs in a military organization. Trying to force millions of square pegs into round holes makes no sense. For every young person such a scheme would serve well, salvage or "turn around", a hundred would be made worse by the experience.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 11:40 AM
I'd intended to read this entire thread before responding, but I'm going to jump in here because the poster is exactly right. As an "old retired career military" person, I can attest that whenever I was in a billet (job) that required the supervision of a number of service personnel, roughly 85% of my time was usually spent dealing with the 5-10% who did not want to be there, and/or who had absolutely no business, temperamentally or otherwise, being there - and this was at a time when there was no draft. The time, energy and tax dollars spent on - yes, "babysitting" is a very apt word to use, in this context - every lazy, spoiled, defiant, unbalanced, overemotional or sociopathic young person - not to mention the ones whose personalities, though perfectly normal, might simply not be well suited for military service - would be vast, and a huge distraction to the mission of the military generally.

To put it simply - and mildly - not every person belongs in a military organization. Trying to force millions of square pegs into round holes makes no sense. For every young person such a scheme would serve well, salvage or "turn around", a hundred would be made worse by the experience.

Almost everything you say above is CORRECT! That being said, there is one all-important and totally over-riding counterpoint: an all-volunteer military eventually becomes the boot of an active dictatorship.

There are several points here. Please consider them (and their implications or "sidebars") carefully.

An all-volunteer military has several obvious characteristics:
1) almost everyone is there because they want to be there;
2) almost everyone enjoys the work, and is psychologically adjusted to hierarchy;
3) a large percentage are career-driven and will still be around 40 or 50 years from now;
4) BECAUSE they are volunteer, an esprit de corps develops;
5) the more specialist or elite the unit, the more the esprit de corps that develops.

All this helps inculcate and reinforce the concepts that discipline and a certain amount of regimentation are the preferred mode of existence. What develops is a psychological divide: a distant, uncomprehending contempt for the undisciplined "mob" of non-military (non-Club, non-Tribe) civilians.

I agree that a universal draft would entail a great deal of babysitting and socialization. Hell, the babysitting and socialization were there back in 1971, when I volunteered for the U. S. Navy. Boot camp consisted not only of teaching everyone a new language (bulkhead not wall; porthole not window!) but in teaching at least half the recruits some semblance of General American English. Just in my barracks, for example, we had a white kid from the Appalachias, a black kid from rural Georgia, a black kid from the Bronyx, and a surfer dude from Santa Barbara. NONE of them could understand each other. And, yes, there was a lot of socialization. I saw it in boot camp, and saw it throughout my service. A big point of the military is that it is a LEVELER. It has to be that way because in a violent military scene you have to understand not only the language of course, but more importantly the way the people around you THINK and react.

TANSTAAFL. All the socialization and babysitting is a necessary cost of avoiding the much greater evil of an elitist military. Remember, everything looks like a nail to a hammer. And elites are never really satisfied unless they are, you know, really The Elite.

"In political (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_theory) and sociological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology) theory, an elite is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality) or political power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power). In general, elite means the more powerful group of people. The selected part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities or has more privilege (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29) than the rest." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite

Mister D
11-08-2015, 11:45 AM
Excellent theory! This helps explain why the military came to dominate countries that had all volunteer armies, such as Britain, the USA...oh wait lol

southwest88
11-08-2015, 01:09 PM
Bring back the militia system as opposed to using the draft for the professional military. Our military isn't a tool for forging society. It is a tool for defense.

That's not the intent, sure. But if you look @ the history of civil rights legislation in the US, the inclusion of Blacks in the military (beyond manual labor, cooking, etc.) in bearing arms, Black regiments in the Civil War, the Tuskegee Airmen, the formation of the GI Forum in the Hispanic community - defending the country opens people's eyes. If practice doesn't match the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution, then returning veterans have worked to make daily life & the founding ideas match up.

That's partially what the national service proposal we're discussing is meant to do - in this case, by design. We're trying to inculcate values that used to rise organically in society.

southwest88
11-08-2015, 01:22 PM
The problem with including medical/sociological exemptions is that the rich and powerful, and other groups, will find ways to game the system.

Sure, it's likely. So we do what we've done before - let people buy their way out, or hire a substitute - see the Union draft in the Civil War, for instance. The money can go to fund the program(s).

In the beta test, we'd likely run lean & cheap - so probably without developmentally disabled - blind, quadriplegic, neurological issues, etc. Once we get the organization, curricula, etc. up & running, then we can look @ fitting in people with more demanding requirements. & in beta, you probably wouldn't want to have to deal with people who don't want to be there. Even in beta, though, I'd say we allow anyone to apply if they want to participate. We can always evaluate profit/loss to admitting any particular individual, depending on skillsets & potential.

As a program, we may never hit 100% participation. That's a given, for human institutions. However, if this experience makes for better citizens down the road, I expect that participation rates would go up sharply over time - say, a generation. If the idea proves worthwhile, we would probably want to institutionalize it.

Peter1469
11-08-2015, 01:24 PM
That's not the intent, sure. But if you look @ the history of civil rights legislation in the US, the inclusion of Blacks in the military (beyond manual labor, cooking, etc.) in bearing arms, Black regiments in the Civil War, the Tuskegee Airmen, the formation of the GI Forum in the Hispanic community - defending the country opens people's eyes. If practice doesn't match the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution, then returning veterans have worked to make daily life & the founding ideas match up.

That's partially what the national service proposal we're discussing is meant to do - in this case, by design. We're trying to inculcate values that used to rise organically in society.

The militia system could accomplish that.

Meanwhile we need a professional military.

We also could not afford conscription.

Captain Obvious
11-08-2015, 01:28 PM
Please define "fascism."

Define it yourself.

Captain Obvious
11-08-2015, 01:30 PM
He's just continuing the fine tradition that preceded his Presidency and acting at the behest of his masters in industry.

Raisins

Captain Obvious
11-08-2015, 01:32 PM
Individual liberty is a goal, but not one without inherent responsibilities. Separating responsibility from liberty is a faulty premise and one that will result in the annihilation of society.

I'm a believer that many if not most people in our society do not deserve liberties and freedoms because they're not responsible enough.

And those who do deserve them are gradually losing them, to the establishment.

Captain Obvious
11-08-2015, 01:34 PM
Would a truly universal draft be oppressive? Do you support the concept of taxes? A monetary tax is a claim on the earnings of your life. A universal (NO EXEMPTIONS) draft is a claim on your life, directly. How is it that much different?

What a complete crock of shit.

Captain Obvious
11-08-2015, 01:34 PM
Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/53139-Benito-Mussolini-What-is-Fascism-1932)

Yeah, but now he has to feed himself.

HoneyBadger
11-08-2015, 01:37 PM
There was a time in my life when I would have been radically opposed. Now I am questioning, in the context of this world, not that which existed when I was a teen, how to address what appears to be an increasingly dysfunctional society.

I don't think there's any way to "fix" our lazy, entitled society. It's going to collapse and it's going to be ugly. If we look to the government to "fix" it, the end result will come sooner, rather than later.

southwest88
11-08-2015, 01:41 PM
The militia system could accomplish that.

Meanwhile we need a professional military.

We also could not afford conscription.

Does militia system mean the various state National Guards? If so, I'm not sure those units form up & train together often enough for the socialization the OP seemed to be calling for. NG is more supplemental, as I understand it - a cadre of command & technical officers & NCOs, with infill of some veterans & mostly interested civilians. Yah, as we downsize standing military, we can issue gear & intake & process lots of people - but that's a one-time surge, so to speak. Long term, I think we need a civilian component, for people who don't want combat arms nor support slots.

Yes, of course we need a professional military. I don't doubt that, there are problems in the World that we need to keep an eye on.

Universal conscription @ some point is a possibility. I would think we'd start smaller, just males from high school to early 20s, in good health, etc. Maybe even start with volunteers & work out the processes - intake, screening, training, deployment, review. I don't think we can afford to drift forever as a nation - we need to ID some priorities - whether national or World - & put effort to implementation. There's certainly plenty of work that needs doing.

Standing Wolf
11-08-2015, 02:54 PM
An all-volunteer military has several obvious characteristics:
1) almost everyone is there because they want to be there;

Correction: They all thought they wanted to be there when they enlisted or applied for a commission. The point is, whether in a week, a year, or ten years, that can change, and in many cases it does. I saw "wash-outs" in boot camp, as I'm sure you did; I also saw many, many get out after a single enlistment, or two. I saw men get out, voluntarily, just a few years before they could have transferred to the Fleet Reserve with a lifetime pension. Some people know almost immediately, once they've experienced it in real life, that the military is not for them; for others, it takes longer.


2) almost everyone enjoys the work, and is psychologically adjusted to hierarchy;

No disrespect intended, but I have to ask: whose Navy, exactly, did you serve in?


3) a large percentage are career-driven and will still be around 40 or 50 years from now;

Not entirely sure what you mean by "around", but I'm assuming that you don't mean still on active duty. As for being "career-driven", the best figure I can find for how many service personnel end up serving at least twenty years is about 17%. Not what I would call a particularly large percentage.


4) BECAUSE they are volunteer, an esprit de corps develops;

It has been my experience that esprit de corps tends to develop most strongly in those units that have strong, intelligent leadership, and which are engaged in the most hazardous duties. Not having experienced first-hand what it's like to serve with conscripts, I can't know for sure, but I suspect that those factors would prevail regardless of how many were there voluntarily and how many were not.


5) the more specialist or elite the unit, the more the esprit de corps that develops.

That I can agree with. The problem is that most military duties, even in time of armed conflict, are dull and routine.

I can't help thinking - as I read the post I've just quoted - that it sounds like the result of some highly theoretical, academic postulation, written by someone without a whole lot if any real life military experience or knowledge - especially in terms of it being the basis for believing that an all-volunteer force in some way is destined to become "the boot of an active dictatorship". I just don't see that at all - perhaps mainly because I see at least three of those five points as being not true at all, and one as being questionable at best.

Peter1469
11-08-2015, 04:44 PM
Does militia system mean the various state National Guards? If so, I'm not sure those units form up & train together often enough for the socialization the OP seemed to be calling for. NG is more supplemental, as I understand it - a cadre of command & technical officers & NCOs, with infill of some veterans & mostly interested civilians. Yah, as we downsize standing military, we can issue gear & intake & process lots of people - but that's a one-time surge, so to speak. Long term, I think we need a civilian component, for people who don't want combat arms nor support slots.

Yes, of course we need a professional military. I don't doubt that, there are problems in the World that we need to keep an eye on.

Universal conscription @ some point is a possibility. I would think we'd start smaller, just males from high school to early 20s, in good health, etc. Maybe even start with volunteers & work out the processes - intake, screening, training, deployment, review. I don't think we can afford to drift forever as a nation - we need to ID some priorities - whether national or World - & put effort to implementation. There's certainly plenty of work that needs doing.

No. The national guard is not the militia.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 05:28 PM
That's not the intent, sure. But if you look @ the history of civil rights legislation in the US, the inclusion of Blacks in the military (beyond manual labor, cooking, etc.) in bearing arms, Black regiments in the Civil War, the Tuskegee Airmen, the formation of the GI Forum in the Hispanic community - defending the country opens people's eyes. If practice doesn't match the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution, then returning veterans have worked to make daily life & the founding ideas match up.

That's partially what the national service proposal we're discussing is meant to do - in this case, by design. We're trying to inculcate values that used to rise organically in society.

Very well said. The primary goal must be social cohesion. Without that there will be nothing worth defending. And if the traditional heritage-instructors are not working up to snuff then perhaps our military training and environment should be structured to help with that little problem.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 06:05 PM
Sure, it's likely. So we do what we've done before - let people buy their way out, or hire a substitute - see the Union draft in the Civil War, for instance. The money can go to fund the program(s).

In the beta test, we'd likely run lean & cheap - so probably without developmentally disabled - blind, quadriplegic, neurological issues, etc. Once we get the organization, curricula, etc. up & running, then we can look @ fitting in people with more demanding requirements. & in beta, you probably wouldn't want to have to deal with people who don't want to be there. Even in beta, though, I'd say we allow anyone to apply if they want to participate. We can always evaluate profit/loss to admitting any particular individual, depending on skillsets & potential.

As a program, we may never hit 100% participation. That's a given, for human institutions. However, if this experience makes for better citizens down the road, I expect that participation rates would go up sharply over time - say, a generation. If the idea proves worthwhile, we would probably want to institutionalize it.

As I pointed out, even a deaf and blind quadriplegic could be of service, helping test new technology. DARPA has a huge medical component, and much of the advance in bionics has been with DARPA encouragement and funding.

The wealthy make use of at least the same number and amount of advantages that living in this country has to offer. Why should they be able to buy an exemption from having to defend it? No. If there is a draft, it will be universal.

southwest88
11-08-2015, 07:11 PM
As I pointed out, even a deaf and blind quadriplegic could be of service, helping test new technology. DARPA has a huge medical component, and much of the advance in bionics has been with DARPA encouragement and funding.

The wealthy make use of at least the same number and amount of advantages that living in this country has to offer. Why should they be able to buy an exemption from having to defend it? No. If there is a draft, it will be universal.

Yah, DARPA is funding a lot of brain trauma & limb replacement/regen, skin grafts, artificial blood/plasma & etc. because of the horrendous wounds our military are suffering in TWOT, especially IEDs. As our medical care intensifies in the field, more & more of those wounded live, but with lots of issues. DARPA focuses on military tech & related - which is OK, laudable even. But that cutting-edge radical progress is trying to meet a staggering physical need among our wounded.

We are making progress - but the monetary & physical & emotional costs are high. We'll recoup the money, eventually, in making medical prosthesis & etc. for the open market. I'm not nearly as sanguine about the emotional & mental toll on our service people & their families & loved ones. Bless them, we as a society should pursue any technological fixes we can, to alleviate their suffering & restore their lives & health as much as possible.

Yes, a universal system would cut across all segments of society. It's what I would prefer, & most people would prefer, I think. That doesn't mean, unfortunately, that we'll achieve Utopia in the here & now. Perhaps one day, when we've achieved the perfectibility of man. In the meantime, it's a worthy goal to shoot for.

Peter1469
11-08-2015, 07:22 PM
How would we pay for a universal system of military service? They certainly couldn't be paid at the current pay scale. See January 1, 2015 for the current pay scale in .pdf (http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military-pay-charts.html).

southwest88
11-08-2015, 07:39 PM
How would we pay for a universal system of military service? They certainly couldn't be paid at the current pay scale. See January 1, 2015 for the current pay scale in .pdf (http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military-pay-charts.html).

I don't think that solely military conscription would do - for one, not everyone wants to bear arms.

If we can reroute expenditures from remedial social safety net (to the extent possible) - housing, TANF, Food Stamps & away from incarceration & other drags to education, training, work placement - I think that helping people move out of self-destructive behaviors will increase legitimate economic activity. If we can increase the size of the tax base, we can either leave taxes as is & help retire the national debt, or we can fund other national priorities.

It would be a change to have palatable choices in front of us @ the national legislative level, instead of endless "robbing Peter to pay Paul" scenarios.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 07:54 PM
I don't think that solely military conscription would do - for one, not everyone wants to bear arms.

If we can reroute expenditures from remedial social safety net (to the extent possible) - housing, TANF, Food Stamps & away from incarceration & other drags to education, training, work placement - I think that helping people move out of self-destructive behaviors will increase legitimate economic activity. If we can increase the size of the tax base, we can either leave taxes as is & help retire the national debt, or we can fund other national priorities.

It would be a change to have palatable choices in front of us @ the national legislative level, instead of endless "robbing Peter to pay Paul" scenarios.

Exactly.

Look, we are entering an extended period of under-employment. The jobs are simply evaporating and re-training (which is linear) simply cannot keep up with the changing technology.

So how do you feed 20% and then 30% and then 50% or 80% of the population who is on (hopefully) some form of Guaranteed Annual Salary or (probably) a patchwork of inefficient and costly welfare schemes?

You hire them into government service. We have a national infrastructure that desperately needs updating. Let's create some WPAs, CCCs, etc. to deal with that. Let's spend the damned money to go the last mile of research needed to increase graphene tensile strength to the amount necessary to actually support a beanstalk (cost: 2.5 aircraft carriers). But it doesn't even have to be taxpayer funded: the ROI for it would be tremendous, and shares would sell. Then let's put several hundred thousand or even several million welfare recipients to work building the planetary based of the damned thing and servicing the construction crews (multiplier effect).

Peter1469
11-08-2015, 07:58 PM
What sort of warranty comes with a bridge built by otherwise unemployed Millennials?

OGIS
11-08-2015, 08:22 PM
What sort of warranty comes with a bridge built by otherwise unemployed Millennials?

Depends. Do you have adequate supervision and inspections? I'm sure you could envision ways that it could be a disaster.

When the armaments industry hired ex-housewives in droves to make the planes, tanks and ships while the men were in Europe, how many of them crashed, fell apart or sank?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/We_Can_Do_It%21.jpg

southwest88
11-08-2015, 09:19 PM
"Originally Posted by OGIS http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1320653#post1320653)
...

"When the armaments industry hired ex-housewives in droves to make the planes, tanks and ships while the men were in Europe, how many of them crashed, fell apart or sank?"

Well, tanks was a poor choice. Ours did OK against the Japanese & Italian tanks, as I recall. Against the Germans - not so good. We had to coordinate fires & swamp their tanks, often enough. Or call in arty & airstrikes, but when there wasn't time, our tank crews sacrificed themselves.

But that wasn't the fault of the women who assembled them. We simply started design work too late into WWII - & then to expedite production, we froze the design in order to mass produce them. Design work then was to simplify & speed construction, TMK. It worked, to the extent that we produced lots of tanks. But in the field against German tanks, we needed that numerical edge in order to carry the day. (& radios in every tank, ballistic calculators for field arty & tanks & naval, & bazookas & ...)

But yes, women assembled, welded, drove rivets, all the heavy, dirty & dangerous tasks, right up to flying bombers & fighters cross country, to their ports of debarkation or airfields for PTO or ETO.

OGIS
11-08-2015, 09:36 PM
"Originally Posted by OGIS http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1320653#post1320653)
...

"When the armaments industry hired ex-housewives in droves to make the planes, tanks and ships while the men were in Europe, how many of them crashed, fell apart or sank?"

Well, tanks was a poor choice. Ours did OK against the Japanese & Italian tanks, as I recall. Against the Germans - not so good. We had to coordinate fires & swamp their tanks, often enough. Or call in arty & airstrikes, but when there wasn't time, our tank crews sacrificed themselves.

But that wasn't the fault of the women who assembled them. We simply started design work too late into WWII - & then to expedite production, we froze the design in order to mass produce them. Design work then was to simplify & speed construction, TMK. It worked, to the extent that we produced lots of tanks. But in the field against German tanks, we needed that numerical edge in order to carry the day. (& radios in every tank, ballistic calculators for field arty & tanks & naval, & bazookas & ...)

But yes, women assembled, welded, drove rivets, all the heavy, dirty & dangerous tasks, right up to flying bombers & fighters cross country, to their ports of debarkation or airfields for PTO or ETO.

Our Shermans used big pipe covering the small barrels, paint shells, loud music and smartass remarks to defeat the Panthers and Tigers.

/props if you get the reference without Googling.

Seriously, so if housewives can make tanks, planes and ships, welfare recipients can dig and sink reinforcing tunnels and pour reinforced concrete into them to anchor the millions of tons of graphene cable and the counterweight 22 thousand miles up.

The alternatives to this or some other set of megaprojects are to:
(1) let them sink into oblivion as permanent welfare residents and a permanent drain on the State;
(2) kill them.

Pick one of the three. There are no other choices.

Newpublius
11-08-2015, 09:43 PM
The reference is Donald Sutherland tank crew in Kelly's Heroes. Yes, one of the crew IS Gavin McLeod, eventual captain of the Love Boat