[Redlom Xof]

Fairly basic question. Would it benefit a nation or community to have some kind of compulsory military service ?

Some of the positives this could bring ...

* National defense
* Help prevent a nation from getting involved in pointless wars as every citizen would have more of a personal risk. ( The draft was a major reason the U.S pulled out of Vietnam)
* Give young people a sense of responsibility and involvement within their community. Making them better citizens basically.
* Potentially could be a solution to controlling gun violence in a place like the U.S


Also, this doesn't have to be intense marine training. Just basic training combined with some work placement within the community. Doing council work, doing basic work in a hospital or school etc.

There could be exemptions made for people with disabilities or injuries etc.

If people don't want to participate, perhaps they lose aspects of being a citizen, such as voting and ability to hold positions of public office.

One last question, which political ideology/s would this fall under ? Keeping in mind this is done in a democratic society.

Thoughts ?

[Decky]

It would work in a peaceful country but what about an imperialist one? You can't compel people to do evil things.

I am not going to Afghanistan to bayonet brown babies or to the occupied north of Ireland to rape catholic women. To be frank I would rather be fighting the British army than fighting with it.

[JRS1]

I am not going to Afghanistan to bayonet brown babies or to the occupied north of Ireland to rape catholic women.

Its overrated anyway.

[Redlom Xof]

It would work in a peaceful country but what about an imperialist one? You can't compel people to do evil things.

I am not going to Afghanistan to bayonet brown babies or to the occupied north of Ireland to rape catholic women. To be frank I would rather be fighting the British army than fighting with it.

That is what I initially thought. But seeing as the whole nation could be called to serve, people would be less inclined to fall for war propaganda. The example I used in the OP was American involvement in Vietnam. This was a popular war until middle class boys who were drafted and did not volunteer were sent to die. People will think about foreign policy more if they're directly involved in it.

Throughout history, has there been a democratic country that has had compulsory military service and been extremely imperialistic ?

I can think of only one and I would put that country in its own unique category.

[Poelmo]

Fairly basic question. Would it benefit a nation or community to have some kind of compulsory military service ?

Some of the positives this could bring ...

Most of those things could be achieved by having a national service that's not limited to the military. Germany has that and it's fine ethically. Limiting the service to the military limits the usefulness of the program (most conscripts won't be doing much at all while they could be helping out in a retirement home or helping the police with paperwork) and ethically it's shaky (people have good reason not to want to join the military or to oppose aspects of foreign policy). This isn't the Viking age: people don't get equal shares to the bounties of war or an equal share in the foreing policy/military decision making process anymore, so why should people have an equal chance of dying in a war? If you want to send me to war then I want me some Haliburton and Lockheed Martin shares, plus a $1 million gift card for a superpac of my choosing.

[neopagan]

As part of an ideology, it probably comes under Nationalism. I oppose the idea until Western countries reject the recent inclusion of sneaky out-of-uniform assassins under the Geneva Conventions. If we are to train the 19s and 20s to obey orders, then also give them the true meaning of War, which is to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. At present we ask our military go into combat with a code of ethics in their back pocket. Instead, they should study Shakespeare on War.

[Eran]

A draft is a terrible idea, for many reasons.

Morally, the draft is nothing but (temporary) slavery, with all the ethical implications that go with that.

Economically, it represents a huge waste, as government (and worse, military) bureaucrats decide how young people will spend years of their lives.

These young people's entry into society as productive members is delayed, and valuable years are lost.

It would be a mistake to think that all that's lost is a year of a yet-unskilled teenager. Ultimately, people's most productive years are being sacrificed.

Here is why.

Imagine an 18 year old, and two alternative futures.

In the first future, he is drafted and spends 2 years doing military service. He emerges at 20, and then starts his career. Eventually, at age 65, he retires. Overall, he spent 45 years as a productive citizen.

In the alternative future, he starts a similar career at age 18, eventually retiring at age 65. Overall, he spend 47 years as a productive citizen.

Which two years have been gained? Clearly not years of study and training - those would last the same under either scenario. No, the two years gained are the last couple of the person's productive life - the years just before retirement, when his productivity is at its peak.

What the draft has done is throw away two highly-productive years of a man at the height of his experience and skills, in exchange for two years of an unskilled young man, wasted by being subject to the whims of bureaucrats who care nothing about efficiently using his time and talents.

[Figlio di Moros]

It may be termed authoritarian, but I agree with the premise, to an extent. National and community service are proper social functions that should be endorsed to round out the civic attitude of the population.

I do believe such a proposal is called Heinlein democracy, though.

[Eran]

Even if both the goal and the means were legitimate, what makes you think that forcing young people into national, community, military, civil or any other kind of forced-labour service would "round out the civic attitude" of the population? What does that even mean?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

No way! All national armies are the tools of the elitists. I'd hate to think every citizen should be subjected to their brainwashing techniques. I'd rather see local militias set up to defend their neighbourhoods in times of trouble. But even this seems like an extreme measure for the times we live in.

[Poelmo]

Even if both the goal and the means were legitimate, what makes you think that forcing young people into national, community, military, civil or any other kind of forced-labour service would "round out the civic attitude" of the population? What does that even mean?

I have to agree with Eran for once: the idea that national service automatically produces better citizens is based on the ancient myth that "the youth" are always lazy and corrupted so that new drastic measures are needed to turn the youth into citizens as good as their parents, whose parents thought the same thing about them, and their parents about them, all the way back to the ancient Greeks who already complained about the youth.