Should we have a compulsory national service requirement?

[The Soup Nazi]

I also want to re-emphasize the public/social works option. The suggestion isn't that if you don't choose the military you get some punitive type of other duty. Quite the contrary, the idea would be to generate a number of diverse public service options that would be meaningful and help society. Obviously nobody wants a solider who is so against being there that he becomes a miscreant or liability. There could also be Great Depression style public works endeavors. Perhaps some could serve as auxillary support for border security. Some good work with the homeless, at battered womens shelters, and doing outreach. People could also serve overseas in non-military roles like food services and other such things we contract out now.

I really haven't given this much thought, so a lot of it is just off the top of my head. Another possibility is that some could work in their communities and live at home...treating the requirement as a 40 hour a week job. These people might serve 3 years instead of the 2 people who live away do. Who knows.

Point is it's not all about the military. I was thinking of many possible options.

The solution is to then not force people to do things. Rather, we all make our contribution to society. The key is to cut off stupid social and bureaucratic institutions which allow physically able people sustain themselves without lifting a finger.

[SemiAutoSam]

Your forgetting one very important point here the Thirteenth Amendment forbids this whether you call it Involuntary Servitude or Conscription or anything else.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/

[chickenfried]

Yes and no. If the U.S. would stop acting like the captain save a ho for the world, yes.

[TonyNorCal]

Do you guys who vote no feel that conscription during the Second World War was wrong?

[xenophobe]

As much as I would want to say, and truly believe no is the correct answer, I cannot think how much immeasurable good it would be for the nation. Americans need to re-learn discipline, solidarity and camaraderie between ourselves as a country... we've become far too splintered and segregated as a collective and we need some re-integration. Idealistic and unlikely yes...

[461]

Supreme court nullified the 13th amendment in regards to the draft.



In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) ([6]). The Court detailed its conclusion that the limited powers of the federal government included conscription.

It's easy to see this is a hot topic, I'm glad to see that it's being held to a civil tone. Hope it stays that way.

[xenophobe]

Supreme court nullified the 13th amendment in regards to the draft.



In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) ([6]). The Court detailed its conclusion that the limited powers of the federal government included conscription.

It's easy to see this is a hot topic, I'm glad to see that it's being held to a civil tone. Hope it stays that way.

Well, yes, any proper reading of the constitution would lead you to knowing that if you are a male between 17 and 45 and are not part of the organized US Armed Forces, you are part of the unorganized militia. Being in a militia requires that you may have to serve, and if you are called up, then you must.

The first three definitions for Militia .n from Dictionary.com:
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that you are not protected from serving the very government you are a citizen of.

[SemiAutoSam]

Well though they (USSC) may well have done this but its still in my eyes and alot of others as well and its considered Involuntary servitude and or Conscription

Supreme court nullified the 13th amendment in regards to the draft.



In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) ([6]). The Court detailed its conclusion that the limited powers of the federal government included conscription.

It's easy to see this is a hot topic, I'm glad to see that it's being held to a civil tone. Hope it stays that way.

[Scarecrow Repair]

I disagree. You can't force anyone to do anything. If you force them onto responsibility, more often than not, they'll probably half *** it and be more detrimental than helpful.

I was in the navy 72-76. The draft was defunct, the military was downsizing and getting rid of the deadwood (and I figure that's how Shrub got away with just limping away on his own initiative).

They were INCREDIBLY eager to get rid of the deadwood. I don't know if any draftees went into the navy directly, but there were quite a few "volunteers" who only went in the navy to avoid being drafted into the army. And they were slackers, had a pretty bad attitude. I suppose I at least understand why the involunteers didn't give the proverbial rat's posterior, and I am glad the navy got rid of them, but the lesson I learned was that forced labor is sorry labor. You will spend more time and money cleaning up from forced labor than if you had paid for volunteer labor to start with.

Slavery doesn't work well even when it's called national service.

If I had been drafted, I probably would have been a slacker myself. Did I mention I don't like slavery?

If a war is so unpopular that you have to threaten people with jail to fight in it, then you shouldn't be in the war in the first place.

I doubt the draft was necessary in WW II. I bet they would have had volunteers to turn away if there had been no draft.

[461]

We're not talking about a draft, we're talking about a national service initiative. Nothing to do with war, I'd even go so far as to say a conscript shouldn't be called on to fight, plenty of other jobs to do right here.

[m1371]

I voted yes, based on TonyNorCal's explanation that it would entail jobs other than military service. But I do agree with everyone's points about forcing people to do something they don't want to.

My thoughts are that having something like this available would be good for the country as a whole, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it should be mandatory. There are a lot of kids out there now days who get out of high school and don't have a clue what they want to do with their lives.

Offer a voluntary "national service initiative" similar to what Tony is describing and look at filling jobs that are short-handed in today's workforce.

Various contract jobs aboard military bases across the US could be filled with volunteers, such as working in the mess halls preparing and serving food.

Put them to work in the national parks across the country assisting the park rangers.

Plenty of other places a fresh high-school graduate could positively contribute to society, learn job skills and figure out what they want to do with their lives.

In return, they get a paycheck + basic medical/dental insurance and say some sort of tuition assistance preference program for college later on. As an incentive to stay out of trouble, add in a penalty clause of some sort where they forfeit their college assistance if they're breaking the law.

[anotherted]

I say yes.Maybe if we instituted some sort of compulsory service(doesn't have to be military) then we would get a lot of the loser entitlement crowd to to actually give a damn about something other than themselves. Maybe more people would actually care about this country and what direction it is going in and maybe VOTE with an informed opinion.Most of what is wrong with our society is the people that believe they are entitled to something from the government and see any kind of service work as something only suckers would do.

I agree 100%.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Offer a voluntary "national service initiative" similar to what Tony is describing and look at filling jobs that are short-handed in today's workforce....Plenty of other places a fresh high-school graduate could positively contribute to society, learn job skills and figure out what they want to do with their lives.

In return, they get a paycheck + basic medical/dental insurance and say some sort of tuition assistance preference program for college later on. As an incentive to stay out of trouble, add in a penalty clause of some sort where they forfeit their college assistance if they're breaking the law.

Now that I could get behind. Something to ease the transition from child in high school to adult on their own, more or less. As long as it's voluntary, it's fine with me. It'd have to have some teeth, so if the kid screws up too much, out they go. No coddling, no right to attend, voluntary ... like any job.

[Satex]

I say yes for the following reasons:
1) Serve your country.
2) Take you away from the nest and turn you into an adult
3) Teach you how to deal with people
4) Prepare you for life

[gose]

I say yes because I did do my mandatory service back home, just like everyone else. I do believe it's a good thing both for the individual and the country.
Another positive thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that it does foster a healthy gun culture. Most of the countries in Europe with mandatory military service do not have as liberal gun laws as the US, but there is virtually no anti-gun crowd. Everyone has shot full-automatic weapons, they know what they are, how they work and they know that everyone else does too, so they can't spread their "with a pistolgrip you can spray from the hip without reloading" crap, because everyone would know that it does not work that way. Also, people are taught responsible gun handling, which quite a few people that I have seen at various ranges could benefit from