4 ms·
Other countries have compulsory military service, for example Finland. Generally speaking I am a fan of the idea that everyone should be required to do some kin
by _doctor_love 6mo ago
Other countries have compulsory military service, for example Finland. Generally speaking I am a fan of the idea that everyone should be required to do some kind of community service for 2 years once they turn 18. Military service would just be one option, could be other kinds of civic engagement. This can really help people feel connected to their society and understand that there is something to show up for.
BUT - this really only works if there's a social contract in place. In the United States it's hard to see how compulsory service works if people don't feel like the country is showing up for them.
These days, what are American soldiers dying for? A society with great health care? Fantastic education? Wealth and social stability? Absolutely not! Until that changes I don't see any good reason why we should send our young people off to die. (EDIT: if you want a sobering experience, visit a military graveyard and pay special attention to the ages of the soldiers. We might as well call a military graveyard a children's graveyard).
And to agree with others on this thread, the folks who push for war should 100% be required to participate in them and lead from the front. Don't sell the rest of our lives while you hide in a nice air conditioned bunker.
- wahnfrieden 6mo ago> And to agree with others on this thread, the folks who push for war should 100% be required to participate in them and lead from the front. Don't sell the rest of our lives while you hide in a nice air conditioned bunker. It never happens because those in power use their power to avoid it, even if they bind the rest of us with rules they enforce. By saying they "should be required", you are promoting the idea that their desire for war is acceptable as long as they codify certain standards, which they are able to use their powers to personally circumvent.
- _doctor_love 6mo ago> By saying they "should be required", you are promoting the idea that their desire for war is acceptable as long as they codify certain standards, which they are able to use their powers to personally circumvent. I am not.
- mrbnatural 6mo agoI absolutely read it as promoting war.
- _doctor_love 6mo agoWell you are absolutely wrong.
- mrbnatural 6mo ago[flagged]
- causal 6mo agoI like the idea of civic engagement / service in theory too, but I feel like the Vietnam war was a demonstration of possible failure modes when draft is in place: a lot of poor kids died, some rich kids allegedly used parental influence to dodge the draft. No incentive for leaders to avoid war while loop holes remain for their own interests.
- rhcom2 6mo agoI think you could argue the draft forced the war to be real for more families (and the expansion of TV), intensifying the resistance to it. Quick googling says almost 10% of the population served in Vietnam in some capacity. Less than 1% served in the War on Terror. This was part of Charles Rangel's (D) reasoning to propose bringing back the draft. [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act
- nobodyandproud 6mo agoThat argument falls flat, when considering regions like the Ukraine that are fighting for survival today. And when contrasting with earlier times like the Civil War, where a draft was unpopular: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrollment_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrollment_Act
- rhcom2 6mo agoI don't think I follow why your examples contradict the argument. A draft will always be unpopular.
- nobodyandproud 6mo agoI misread. I saw the television portion and thought you meant the televised war was what made it all too real.
- nkrisc 6mo agoDrafts, and by extension wars, should be unpopular. War should be the last resort that no one wants to take. No one should be cheering for a war they won't have to participate in. War has become too remote and comfortable for most Americans.
- an0malous 6mo ago> These days, what are American soldiers dying for? Israel
- rickydroll 6mo agomore likely big tech and the oligarchs. (The name of my next punk band.)
- nmbrskeptix 6mo agoYou restated his point less succinctly. Good name for a punk band though.
- kingleopold 6mo agomore likely, investment bankers class and war profiteers with their friends!
- happytoexplain 6mo agoWhy not all three?
- naim08 6mo agoI dont know if its worth 2 years of our lives. 2 years! A lot can be achieved in just two years
- dylan604 6mo agoImagine how the recipients of the work done by those spending just two years of their life doing civic projects would feel.
- reactordev 6mo agoThe issue is, in America, we gave those less fortunate the path of military service as we value the greedy, the corrupt, nepotistic, capitalist notion that if you have enough money, laws do not apply to you.
- cdrnsf 6mo agoThe US hasn't cared about the social contract for decades and it hasn't taken justifiable military action for a longer stretch of time. Healthcare is byzantine and terrible, education is being gutted on ideological grounds, social stability is eroding, wealth inequality is an ever widening chasm, the climate is being degraded, AI is a threat looming over much (if not all) of this. Why volunteer? The arrogance to think a draft or mandatory service is anywhere in the realm of acceptable is galling.
- _doctor_love 6mo ago> Why volunteer? The arrogance to think a draft or mandatory service is anywhere in the realm of acceptable is galling. Agree. That's what we saw during Vietnam. The public finally got involved because it couldn't be ignored that the children of "normies" were being sent overseas to die in a meaningless and stupid war.
- ux266478 6mo agoIt's almost suicidal. It's so stupidly hubristic that one has to wonder if the end goal is a total institutional collapse, with the belief that the technocracy will end up holding the cards?
- amadeuspagel 6mo agoFinland doesn't have compulsory military service to help people feel connected to their society. Feeling connected to one's society is not an end in itself, people should be free to choose how connected they want to feel. Finland has compulsory military service because it's a small country that borders Russia. The US is a big country that borders Canada and Mexico.
- _doctor_love 6mo ago> people should be free to choose how connected they want to feel Yes and no. Of course people should be free, at the same time you live in a society and not a state of nature. If someone never has to put back into society, that's dangerous. It could lead to people feeling that society has no value, that there's no sense in investing in it, that since nobody else cares why should I. That's not a world I want to live in.
- cjbgkagh 6mo agoMany people I’ve met in the US feel like they already live in that world.
- nothinkjustai 6mo agoInstead of complaining about the average person not contributing enough to society why don’t we focus on the people (I.e. politicians) who directly leech off of society and make it worse? I’d rather they simply had no impact either way.
- ux266478 6mo agoDo bureaucratic mandates instill a humanistic sense of value and commitment, particularly in societies which are at peak levels of institutional skepticism?
- cindyllm 6mo ago[dead]
- antisthenes 6mo ago
- chromacity 6mo ago> Generally speaking I am a fan of the idea that everyone should be required to do some kind of community service for 2 years once they turn 18. Why? I get the warm-and-fuzzy angle of "instilling civic responsibility", but you're effectively instilling that at gunpoint: the government forces you to do this, else you go to prison. Is that really such an enlightened thing to do? It takes away two years of your life, possibly delaying your education, entry into the workforce, or having children. So again, what's the rigorous justification for this? The government already calls dibs on a good chunk of your economic output, on a percentage of every penny you spend, and on certain types of property you own; so why should they also be able to draft you for some free labor if there's no war or other emergency going on?
- _doctor_love 6mo ago> why should they also be able to draft you for some free labor if there's no war or other emergency going on? You can only prepare for a fire before it starts.
- whatshisface 6mo agoIn the conventional view, the earliest preparations for war involve building a strong industrial base, reducing corruption, and securing alliances through cooperative foreign policy. The near-term preparations for war include diverting a fraction of total resources away from compounding growth and towards non-compounding defense manufacturing. A draft is something you do after the war starts. The strategic idea is to remain in a pose of compounding growth as long as possible by avoiding war and war preparations until they're known to be absolutely necessary. Peacetime investments like scientific research build on themselves, while military spending sits in a depot until it's obsolete and then costs even more to safely dispose. The same goes for replacing the first two years of professional school with standing around in a big shed.
- anigbrowl 6mo agoThere are other bases besides war for national service, eg disaster prep, taking care of the poor and so on. In any case, being somewhat prepared for war at the human level and understanding what that entails is more productive that not being prepared and having to educate people in an unwelcome emergency. The same goes for replacing the first two years of professional school with standing around in a big shed. Exaggerated tropes like this don't make for useful discussion.
- nmbrskeptix 6mo ago[dead]
- mrbnatural 6mo agoSpoiler alert: military "service" is an oxymoron. No American has served me by joining the military and killing black, brown, and asian women and children
- _doctor_love 6mo ago> No American has served me by joining the military and killing black, brown, and asian women and children Oh? I would argue that most of us in the United States live in complete blissful ignore that our entire way of life is propped up by this.
- dawnerd 6mo agoOnly works if everyone has to do it. Once you slice it into only a certain part of the population, it becomes an unfair class system. Example, rich and well connected people would never do it. If you say only men should do it, that's unfair as well. Edit: I'm for this BTW, I think everyone should have to do some form of service, but I'd also like to see anyone in the gov with the power to send people to war be required to have served in the armed forces.
- _doctor_love 6mo agoAgree. I also think both men and women should serve.
- Kit-Triv 6mo agoI would do it as a civic corps like the military in structure and pay but for civil projects and work experience. Enable our youth to learn on the job and actually value that experieence.
- _doctor_love 6mo agoThat's what the ideal would look like in my opinion too. Like the Peace Corps.
- bjackman 6mo ago> And to agree with others on this thread, the folks who push for war should 100% be required to participate in them and lead from the front I agree but I don't think it goes far enough. Leading from the front of the best equipped military in the world doesn't balance your incentives against the misery you are inflicting on the innocent denizens of the poor country you're pointlessly destroying. There's also the economic destruction back home to balance against. So, those who call for war should be forbidden to privately fund their healthcare and children's education.
- _doctor_love 6mo agoAgree. I believe during WW2 the government put rules in place to prevent companies from making too much profit from the war. From what I recall in history class taxes were raised significantly as well. War is a mighty economic engine, this cannot be denied. But if we take an entire country to war, then it stands to reason that the entire country should benefit from the spoils (to the extent that there are any).
- ourmandave 6mo agoWar is a mighty economic engine, this cannot be denied. Isn't that the broken window fallacy writ large?
- JuniperMesos 6mo agoYes; WWII was an economic disaster for huge swaths of the world. The US is pretty much the only industrialized country at the time where it wasn't a complete economic disaster, because it was separated by oceans from nearly all the fighting and destruction. If there's a shootout in a town that ends up with most peoples' windows getting shot out, the one town glazier will make money off of this, even though it's a net-negative for the town as a whole.
- _doctor_love 6mo agoI may be misunderstanding but I don't think so. War forces people's hand in terms having to make progress. This is because during progress can be measured in number of body bags returning from the front and the reduction thereof. Our modern world was born out of scientific advancements made during WW2. Could these same achievements have occurred in peace time? Obviously the answer is yes. However during war, everything becomes accelerated and things that normally would take a long time can happen very quickly. I agree that paying for scientific progress with human lives is a bad thing.
- steve1977 6mo ago> These days, what are American soldiers dying for? Why, they're dying for people like Alex Karp and Peter Thiel of course.
- nothinkjustai 6mo agoWhy not make the people so proud and happy to live in the country that they choose to serve without you having to force them to do it with the barrel of a gun?
- _doctor_love 6mo agoI think that's a lovely idea.
- happytoexplain 6mo agoThat's two steps. Government and business only cares about instant results.
- JohnTHaller 6mo agoOne of the many issues with this supposedly being for everyone is that rich folks like Donald Trump's dad will get a doctor to get them out of it. Rules for thee and not for me is basically their motto.
- plorkyeran 6mo agoOne of the benefits of it being some form of civil service and not specifically military service is that it eliminates large categories of medical exemptions from being relevant.
- pseudalopex 6mo agoCivil servants are not sent to front lines commonly.
- mon_ 6mo ago> These days, what are American soldiers dying for? A society with great health care? Fantastic education? Wealth and social stability? Yes, except it's not their own one.
- happytoexplain 6mo agoUtterly precise. I absolutely love the idea of me or my children going through a challenging few years as a tool of our society, whether that be military training or something else. ...with the enormous caveat that our society must be cohesive, which it is no longer (culturally, politically - you name it).
- stronglikedan 6mo ago> what are American soldiers dying for? The American way of life, which is still the most preferred way of life, as evidenced by (a) people wanting to emigrate here more than any other country in the world and (b) more people immigrating here than any other country.
- _doctor_love 6mo ago> The American way of life It's your argument that our current and recent engagements in Venezuela, Iran, and soon Cuba, are to defend the American way of life?
- HDThoreaun 6mo agoYes? Iran threatens a nuclear attack on the US constantly. Not saying the war is some great idea but it definitely is about defending the american way of life
- insane_dreamer 6mo agoyou actually believe this? that American soldiers dying in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc., were actually preserving the "American way of life" (whatever that means)?? And if it were true (which it isn't), if enjoying the "American way of life" requires killing people in other countries, then it's probably not a very good way of life.
- danny_codes 6mo agoName one conflict we’ve been in since WW2 that protected the “American way of life”
- happytoexplain 6mo agoThis is naive. An American soldier hasn't died for the American way of life in decades.
- insane_dreamer 6mo agoWhen's the last time Finland or Switzerland attacked or invaded another country? People are willing to engage in compulsory military service if they feel that it's truly meant to help the country defend itself from actual attack, not potentially being shipped off somewhere to serve some political or economic goal.
- _doctor_love 6mo ago> When's the last time Finland or Switzerland attacked or invaded another country? Not recently to my knowledge, but Finland has extensive experience being invaded given they are neighbors with Russia (and Sweden in the past). When your next door neighbor keeps seeing your country as "their property," you need means to push them back.
- insane_dreamer 6mo agoYes, that's my point. They have been invaded, and therefore needed to defend themselves; they have not been the aggressor.
- ludicrousdispla 6mo agoAustria has this figured out... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zivildienst_in_Austria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zivildienst_in_Austria https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/en/themen/gesetze_und_recht/wehrpflicht-und-zivildienst https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/en/themen/gesetze_und_recht/we...
- _doctor_love 6mo agoThat model is very much what I have in mind.
- theshrike79 6mo agoThe Finnish compulsory service is 6-13 months depending on what field you pick (or are assigned in). There's also "civilian service" available which is always 12 months in a governmental location somewhere. Schools, hospitals etc.
- _doctor_love 6mo agoTrue, I was really thinking of Denmark where my understanding is they mandate 2 years of service.