3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription The majority of the developed world has no mandatory service, and "look a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription The majority of the developed world has no mandatory service, and "look at the society" in all of those places, many of which border Switzerland that you mentioned as an exemplar. Are Iceland, the Netherlands, or Canada violent hellholes of tribal insularity? No, and they didn't need conscription. Meanwhile there are plenty of horrible places with mandatory conscription, per the maps on Wikipedia. You can't magically make people love each other by putting them in proximity or the middle east would not currently be on fire. Particularly in America, mandatory conscription would be a fantastic way to get people to resent the government more than they already do, which is probably currently at an all-time high. Finally, you go serve if you want to, but it's tyranny to tell other people what they have to do, esp. when you're talking about many months or years of their life. What's next, mandatory church? Wouldn't that also be great for society, according to some opinions. Church attendance, also, is extremely high in South Korea, are you sure it's the conscription and not the Church responsible for the society you admire?

lstroud 8y ago
Well, they would be unified in their hate of government. Maybe that’s better than unified in their hate if each other.
- pandaman 8y ago
  One does not exclude another. Quite the opposite. E.g. in the USSR conscripts formed "gangs" based on ethnicity to fight with other ethnicities (not unlike prison gangs in the US) and hated government mostly because they perceived their own ethnicity being oppressed in favor of others (and not just in the service).
  - dingaling 8y ago
    And the Soviet Internal Security army was adept at using ethnically-homogenous units to suppress populations for whom they had disdain or antipathy. Siberian units would be used in Georgia for example. But many things about the Soviet forces were utterly broken so I don't know if they serve as useful case studies. Incidentally it'd be good if we could eliminate 'not unlike' as a phrase in favour of 'similar'.
    - pandaman 8y ago
      I did not know of any ethnically homogeneous units (at least after the war, there were local units in the early USSR), got any sources for that? Sending recruits near their home generally was not allowed though was possible through connections but most people went far away from home and the unit's location had nothing to do with the unit's composition. The US is much more diverse so I don't see how you are going to dodge the issue there. Even sending everyone near home will cause the same issues since the local population is already diverse.
flukus 8y ago
> The majority of the developed world has no mandatory service, and "look at the society" in all of those places, many of which border Switzerland that you mentioned as an exemplar. Are Iceland, the Netherlands, or Canada violent hellholes of tribal insularity? It seems like many of those countries did have compulsory conscription until very recently. Couldn't find any info on Iceland, but the Netherlands phased it out from 91-96, France from 96-01, etc. Crucially they had it during the period where the most important social reforms were made, so it may back up OP's point.
- PostOnce 8y ago
  New Zealand hasn't had conscription in 50 years and it's also a model society, as is Canada. Australia is less of a model society, and Japan is culturally homogenous (so maybe you could argue its the homogeneity that begets unity), but neither are bad places to live and neither have conscription. Europe survived two of the largest, deadliest wars in history within living memory, so of course they recently had conscription and were rightly worried about letting it go. However, the argument that conscription begets unity is weak and deeply flawed, as is proved by these diverse island societies and Canada, and those are off the top of my head, there are many more proofs. America, the most powerful hyperpower in the history of mankind... doesn't need mandatory peacetime conscription for any remotely conceivable military reason. So, if we've shown that we don't need it for either reason, just "some guy's opinion", then I think this argument is resolved.
  - flukus 8y ago
    > New Zealand hasn't had conscription in 50 years and it's also a model society, as is Canada. New Zealand had compulsory military service from 1909-1972, a period which saw a lot of social reform including the creation of social healthcare. Au, NZ, Canada, US and UK all had conscription during the great wars, so maybe a better framing might be why did Aus lag and US avoid the social reforms? They seem to be the biggest outliers and I know for Australia at least it was more about the domestic political situation (a divided left wing), maybe for the US it was because they were undergoing other big social reforms, like racial equality. Of course a lot of that could just be timing and competition, but have there been countries performing a lot of social reform (healthcare, welfare, equality) in periods well outside periods of mandatory service? > So, if we've shown that we don't need it for either reason, just "some guy's opinion", then I think this argument is resolved. You're assuming there aren't more reasons. Having people trained with a lot of practical skills along with some discipline and fitness are some other positives.
manigandham 8y ago
Your comparisons are all off. Iceland, the Netherlands, and Canada are much smaller and more homogenous than the US which greatly reduces tribalism. And proximity alone isn't the point, it's about working together and sharing a higher purpose while learning discipline, teamwork, leadership and other valuable social skills. There's also a massive difference between church vs state. Serving your nation isn't exactly a high price for the privilege of being born in the US.
- PostOnce 8y ago
  There aren't any diverse, developed nations of 330 million to compare to so I used the nearest proxy. Ah yes, the great privilege of no healthcare, stagnant wages, the worlds highest incarceration rate, and largely nonexistent public transportation... and I'm to pay for this privilege with mandatory military service and perhaps cast carelessly to my death with no say in the matter. Strong sales pitch. If I don't like it, it'll cost me over two months of minimum wage to file the paper to renounce my citizenship. That's tyranny. If it were such a privilege, conscription would not be necessary, since people would join up for their great nation that they love and that loves them back. That's not where we are, though, is it? Lastly, I mentioned the church because it's yet another thing some people think ought to be mandatory for the good of society. Everybody has an opinion about what everybody else ought to be doing.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    They don't work as proxies when they're so different. Healthcare is available. Incarceration rate won't affect you if you're not a criminal. Wages are the only serious issue and more related to global trade and changing industries than any country-specific policy. There are far worse conditions in other countries but my experience has shown people who list these complaints usually do not have any understanding of the plight of billions of poor around the world. Nobody likes to pay taxes either and won't willing do so if we didn't have laws and enforcement, but it's obvious that it's needed and positive. Yes, everybody has opinions. That's irrelevant to this discussion. If you really don't like staying in this country though, please do leave. Why would you stay? There are plenty of ways to raise the funds to move and renounce your citizenship, ironically many of which are way harder in other countries.
badrabbit 8y ago
First not sure why you picked on Church but I believe attendance in S. Korea is much lower than in US. No,I don't think people should be forced to Church but you're making a terrible strawman argument with that. The military is part of the Government. If the country is invaded you will be required to serve and even kill people. Mandatory service is no more mandatory than taxes or jury duty with respect your rights and the governments authority. I didn't say lack of mandatory service was the cause for tribalistic divide in america,I merely stated it as a solution. Forcing people to seve together will not automagically make them like each other but it fosters opportunity to know each other better. It makes citizens be sevrvants of their country so that everyone takes politics,war,elections and the government as a whole something they took part in building as opposed to a corporation they pay bills in tax form to and complain about like politicians as if they received bad customer service.

lstroud 8y ago

Well, they would be unified in their hate of government. Maybe that’s better than unified in their hate if each other.

pandaman 8y ago
One does not exclude another. Quite the opposite. E.g. in the USSR conscripts formed "gangs" based on ethnicity to fight with other ethnicities (not unlike prison gangs in the US) and hated government mostly because they perceived their own ethnicity being oppressed in favor of others (and not just in the service).
- dingaling 8y ago
  And the Soviet Internal Security army was adept at using ethnically-homogenous units to suppress populations for whom they had disdain or antipathy. Siberian units would be used in Georgia for example. But many things about the Soviet forces were utterly broken so I don't know if they serve as useful case studies. Incidentally it'd be good if we could eliminate 'not unlike' as a phrase in favour of 'similar'.
  - pandaman 8y ago
    I did not know of any ethnically homogeneous units (at least after the war, there were local units in the early USSR), got any sources for that? Sending recruits near their home generally was not allowed though was possible through connections but most people went far away from home and the unit's location had nothing to do with the unit's composition. The US is much more diverse so I don't see how you are going to dodge the issue there. Even sending everyone near home will cause the same issues since the local population is already diverse.

flukus 8y ago

> The majority of the developed world has no mandatory service, and "look at the society" in all of those places, many of which border Switzerland that you mentioned as an exemplar. Are Iceland, the Netherlands, or Canada violent hellholes of tribal insularity? It seems like many of those countries did have compulsory conscription until very recently. Couldn't find any info on Iceland, but the Netherlands phased it out from 91-96, France from 96-01, etc. Crucially they had it during the period where the most important social reforms were made, so it may back up OP's point.

PostOnce 8y ago
New Zealand hasn't had conscription in 50 years and it's also a model society, as is Canada. Australia is less of a model society, and Japan is culturally homogenous (so maybe you could argue its the homogeneity that begets unity), but neither are bad places to live and neither have conscription. Europe survived two of the largest, deadliest wars in history within living memory, so of course they recently had conscription and were rightly worried about letting it go. However, the argument that conscription begets unity is weak and deeply flawed, as is proved by these diverse island societies and Canada, and those are off the top of my head, there are many more proofs. America, the most powerful hyperpower in the history of mankind... doesn't need mandatory peacetime conscription for any remotely conceivable military reason. So, if we've shown that we don't need it for either reason, just "some guy's opinion", then I think this argument is resolved.
- flukus 8y ago
  > New Zealand hasn't had conscription in 50 years and it's also a model society, as is Canada. New Zealand had compulsory military service from 1909-1972, a period which saw a lot of social reform including the creation of social healthcare. Au, NZ, Canada, US and UK all had conscription during the great wars, so maybe a better framing might be why did Aus lag and US avoid the social reforms? They seem to be the biggest outliers and I know for Australia at least it was more about the domestic political situation (a divided left wing), maybe for the US it was because they were undergoing other big social reforms, like racial equality. Of course a lot of that could just be timing and competition, but have there been countries performing a lot of social reform (healthcare, welfare, equality) in periods well outside periods of mandatory service? > So, if we've shown that we don't need it for either reason, just "some guy's opinion", then I think this argument is resolved. You're assuming there aren't more reasons. Having people trained with a lot of practical skills along with some discipline and fitness are some other positives.

manigandham 8y ago

Your comparisons are all off. Iceland, the Netherlands, and Canada are much smaller and more homogenous than the US which greatly reduces tribalism. And proximity alone isn't the point, it's about working together and sharing a higher purpose while learning discipline, teamwork, leadership and other valuable social skills. There's also a massive difference between church vs state. Serving your nation isn't exactly a high price for the privilege of being born in the US.

PostOnce 8y ago
There aren't any diverse, developed nations of 330 million to compare to so I used the nearest proxy. Ah yes, the great privilege of no healthcare, stagnant wages, the worlds highest incarceration rate, and largely nonexistent public transportation... and I'm to pay for this privilege with mandatory military service and perhaps cast carelessly to my death with no say in the matter. Strong sales pitch. If I don't like it, it'll cost me over two months of minimum wage to file the paper to renounce my citizenship. That's tyranny. If it were such a privilege, conscription would not be necessary, since people would join up for their great nation that they love and that loves them back. That's not where we are, though, is it? Lastly, I mentioned the church because it's yet another thing some people think ought to be mandatory for the good of society. Everybody has an opinion about what everybody else ought to be doing.
- manigandham 8y ago
  They don't work as proxies when they're so different. Healthcare is available. Incarceration rate won't affect you if you're not a criminal. Wages are the only serious issue and more related to global trade and changing industries than any country-specific policy. There are far worse conditions in other countries but my experience has shown people who list these complaints usually do not have any understanding of the plight of billions of poor around the world. Nobody likes to pay taxes either and won't willing do so if we didn't have laws and enforcement, but it's obvious that it's needed and positive. Yes, everybody has opinions. That's irrelevant to this discussion. If you really don't like staying in this country though, please do leave. Why would you stay? There are plenty of ways to raise the funds to move and renounce your citizenship, ironically many of which are way harder in other countries.

badrabbit 8y ago

First not sure why you picked on Church but I believe attendance in S. Korea is much lower than in US. No,I don't think people should be forced to Church but you're making a terrible strawman argument with that. The military is part of the Government. If the country is invaded you will be required to serve and even kill people. Mandatory service is no more mandatory than taxes or jury duty with respect your rights and the governments authority. I didn't say lack of mandatory service was the cause for tribalistic divide in america,I merely stated it as a solution. Forcing people to seve together will not automagically make them like each other but it fosters opportunity to know each other better. It makes citizens be sevrvants of their country so that everyone takes politics,war,elections and the government as a whole something they took part in building as opposed to a corporation they pay bills in tax form to and complain about like politicians as if they received bad customer service.