3 ms·
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 homo
by 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.
- PostOnce 8y agoHaving people trained in practical and outdoor skills is indeed a benefit to society at large, I agree there -- but I think you can learn this in school, getting kids out of the classroom more often would probably be a huge benefit to everyone involved. I mean, we do already have kids captive to be taught for over a decade, and a lot of that is repetitive.