Jump to content

Mandatory Military / Civil Service


Lotharr
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've always thought that America needed something (besides TV) to bring it's people together in a meaningful way. I feel that serving in the Army has allowed me to meet people and hear stories that I might not have otherwise.

I think getting people together in way that makes them unhappy or in the same boat can have a unifying effect. While forcing all (regardless of wealth) to give something back to the country. I wonder if anyone else has thoughts on this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Grayfox

oh ya. but it has to be combat arms. no REMF stuff. nothing like sitting (or laying) on cold, wet, ground in some country you cant even pronounce let alone spell, that brings people together.

it may sound like im being sarcastic, but im not. Macedonia, Bosnia/Herzegovina was a prime example... especially doing DC detail in boz... god i dont think there was ever a day where it didnt either snow or rain. But hey at least we were all miserable together

Theres just something about those types of conditions that bring people closer to one another (and im not talkin about sharing a fart sack to keep warm). I still keep in touch with the friends i made whilst in service, and i wouldnt trade the experiences (good, bad, painful) for anything in the world.

And i dont look at it as being "forced" to give something back to my country. I volunteered, just like everyone else did. You choose whether or not you give to your country. I chose, so did everyone else... although i think the recruiter didnt show me the right video for 12B... cause i didnt do one thing as a 12B that was on the video

[ 05-03-2002, 10:47: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my country every high school student has to do 2 week mandatory civil service before they can graduate. In most cases we just went to schools of low-income areas and taught basic math or sciences. Then of course we have the almost-mandatory 1 year military service.

In the US it would be a good idea to have a 6 month or a year-long college-credit "internship" mandatory. This internship would be served in civil service, paramedic assistant, rescue, military, etc, etc. Not only would the student get paid for the time, have a valuable experience, but also get college credits for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that any type of "mandatory" service is WRONG. This is a free country, if you wish to contribute, then do so, if you do not, pay your taxes and get on with life.

I do not wish anyone to be somewhere that they did not volunteer to be. Especially when it comes to the armed services, as a volunteer, I DO NOT want a draftee next to me in the foxhole, PERIOD!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest $iLk

I like Robert Heinlein's idea. No mandatory civil service, but have it be mandatory as a requirement for Citizenship. Anyone who doesn't want to be a citizen doesn't have to do it, they live life just as they do now, they just won't be allowed to vote.

"You would find it much easier than to instill moral virtue-social responsibility-into a person who doesn't have it, doesn't want it, and resents having the burden thrust on him. This is why we make it so hard to enroll, so easy to resign. Social responsibility above the level of family, or at most of tribe, requires imagination - devotion, loyalty, all the higher virtues-which a man must develop himself; if he has them forced down him, he will vomit them out." - Robert Heinlein Starship Troopers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I like Robert Heinlein's idea. No mandatory civil service, but have it be mandatory as a requirement for Citizenship. Anyone who doesn't want to be a citizen doesn't have to do it, they live life just as they do now, they just won't be allowed to vote.

Err...$iLk, in that situation, not being a citizen also means that they won't have any of the civil rights granted to citizens by the Constitution. No free speech, no right to due process, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not true menchise. Im not a US citizen, im a resident. And you bet I can sue anyone's butt if MY rights are broken.

The only thing denied to non-citizens today is what would be denied to those in Heinlein's ideas. Cant vote, cant hold gov. jobs, etc. Pay higher taxes too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too thought of having citizenship as a reward for military service when I first read LotharrÔÇÖs post, and Like $iLk I got the idea from starship troopers. In many ways itÔÇÖs a very good idea, and it would certainly have an interesting effect on politics, but there is (at least) one rather large problem.

Right now most of the armed forces are male, only men have to register for the draft (a type of sexism I like, might I add), and so if we were to implement this retroactively and withdraw citizenship from all persons who havenÔÇÖt served in the military then we might as well revoke womenÔÇÖs suffrage at the same time. In the long term this would not be so pronounced, but it would represent a major step backward in equality of the sexes. I feel little doubt in saying that even with citizenship as the reward for military serves less women then men would join, and so either women would be exempt from this requirement and granted automatic citizenship (something I wouldnÔÇÖt mind, but a lot of guyÔÇÖs would) or else there would be less female voters which sets the scene for dismantling of womenÔÇÖs rights.

On the other side, it would get rid of a lot of the pacifist element (I do NOT have a strong sense of compassion for others suffering and am mildly disgusted by people who do, particularly other women) and generally give our government a lot more backbone and unity. The fact that lazy ass bums and other social leaches would loose the right to vote is a good thing. If someone has an idea how to solve the problem I pointed out I would be all for it, but as it is I would have to say that such a system would lead to a dangerous imbalance of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I dont think that it would affect women in any way.Only a small percentage of the enlisted military engages in combat. The support and logistics units are far more than capable, a woman has the same capabilities and chances of doing such a job (as well as combat too).

Plus imo, it wouldnt be limited to military service, civil service would also be acceptable.

Heinlein had an excellent idea. Nowadays people take citizenship for granted.. heck, if you are born in the US you are a citizen. No wonder many foreign citizens come to the US to give birth, get the US citizenship for the baby, then return to their countries. You can even buy citizenship... you win the lotto or you have a lot of money when you immigrate.. citizenship is offered to you instantly. Want to be a citizen? Live here a few years, pay to take an exam, voila! you're a citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

quote:

Originally posted by Tac:

Well, I dont think that it would affect women in any way.Only a small percentage of the enlisted military engages in combat

well when i left service in 96, they were just starting to implement women into combat arms. i dont know about the infantry, but we had 3 females in our combat engineer company, and 7 more in the HHC company. i havent kept up with it since i got out, so i dont even know if theyre still allowing females into combat units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have to be military service Tac, the whole point is that a person would have to invest a part of there lives in protecting the country if they want to have any say in how it is run.

As far as what you said about it not affecting women in any way, that is an extremely optimistic view. While I'm not saying that women are incapable of serving in the military, I do believe that a vast majority wouldnÔÇÖt inlist solely to be able to vote. I know I wouldnÔÇÖt, I donÔÇÖt value voting that much (but then, if people like me didnÔÇÖt have a say in the government it would probably be for the best).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It would have to be military service Tac, the whole point is that a person would have to invest a part of there lives in protecting the country if they want to have any say in how it is run."

Not exactly. Civil service or in any support arm of the military also qualifies. Even teaching would qualify imo. Just for the simple fact that you cant have 10+ million people enlisting each year in the armed forces to get their citizenship, you have to have other alternatives. The way I see it, SERVING your country is what would earn you the citizenship. You can serve in many way other than lugging a weapon on your back. What about the disabled? They may not be able to "protect" the country, but they can contribute in many other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an easy answer, the military MUST accept ANYONE that wishes to serve, but the person, just as in Starship troopers is NOT allowed to pick thier own job. If a person is handicapped in some way, he can still serve in the military, but he will be an equipment repairer in the backlines, if a person is blind there are still military jobs that he can do.

The major fact of the matter is that it HAS to be military, you must be willing to place your life between your country and the enemy. Civil service does NOT do this, no matter HOW you look at it.

And also, Dragonlady, I said this in another post and I will say it here as well. If a person is on welfare, SSI, medicaid, medicaire, or ANY government program besides a military pension, they should NOT be allowed to vote. If you take ANY type of government aid, you should not have a say in how the government is run. It is an obvious conflict of interest. PERIOD!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so being a firefighter, rescue , teaching or health related jobs dont qualify as something you do to serve your country? Or working in a gov. position or program abroad (in war torn nations or zones of conflict)?

Being in the military is the highest way of showing your commitment, but you must understand there is no way whatsoever you can have millions and millions of people enlisting to get their citizenship each year, no matter how well-meaning they are. Its not cost effective.

The way I see it, you dont choose your branch of service... you just apply for citizenship, they decide if you go into the military or the civil service or what ever it is they need people in. You could easily end up in the infantry or as a trained paramedic.. a fighter pilot..or a teacher... or posted in the XXcountry's embassy as an interpreter just because you can speak their language fluently. The whole point is you're willing to serve anywhere anyplace anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Tac, the point is that you are willing to die for your country. THAT IS THE POINT. If you are unwilling to put your life on the line, then you are not capable of putting others needs before yours. Therefore you should not be allowed to vote, or work in any government position.

You should not have power over others, until you have had someone have ABSOLUTE power over you. Until you know what the feels like, you should not be trusted with ANY type of power.

The only way to prove yourself, and for someone to have ABSOLUTE power over you, is to be in the military. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never ever ever ever go in the military, I would do anything to be exluded from the military. guns are fun, but that doesn't mean I want to take a chance at getting shot. Anyway I'm too weak and I have that fear of suffering. And I can't stand stings, which get you get alot in the military (medical tests, protection against other countries' sicknesses...)

I'd rather not being able to vote ever than going in the military for a year. I wouldn't even be able to go throught the training.

[ 05-04-2002, 16:19: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

The only way to prove yourself, and for someone to have ABSOLUTE power over you, is to be in the military. End of story.


ahhh but to some people there seems to be 2 different types of military service. one of my friends from highschool joined the army the same time i did. He was a REMF, i was a line dog. He never, in his 3 years of service, seen any combat. I have in my 4 years, haiti being the most prominent.

people and friends here look at him differently than they do me. i think its because he was in a non combat MOS. they treat me totally different ever since we got out. i get respect, he gets crap. and i think its wrong. BOTH of us defended our country. I did it by picking up a weapon, He did it in a support role (he was s-1).

I agree with jag. Military service is the way. with civil service you represent your area, with military service you represent your entire country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar, forcing the military to accept anyone who applied would be foolish, there would still have to be entry requirements. It wouldnÔÇÖt do to have criminals in the military, never mind the government. I also agree totally about welfare and such. Not so much as it presents a conflict of interests (the government exists to serve the people after all) but that persons who canÔÇÖt manage there own life well enough to support themselves should not have any part, however ephemeral, in government decisions.

Epsilon 5, I wouldnÔÇÖt inlist either, voting is not all that important to me and I'm not in the least bit patriotic (but then, like I said before, people like me probably shouldnÔÇÖt be running the government anyway). You have to wonder, though, whether a person who canÔÇÖt stand the sting from an injection (which, by the way, is something that doesnÔÇÖt take much getting used to) could support a decision that, while good for the country as a whole, was harmful to that individual.

I would like to point out that in my envisioning of this system the only difference between someone who has been in the military (and thus is a citizen) and someone who hasnÔÇÖt is voting privileges and the ability to hold public office. Neither should be a punishment for persons who donÔÇÖt want to be in the military as this would be grossly unjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

(which, by the way, is something that doesnÔÇÖt take much getting used to)

I got to hate stings because i got alot in a small time. In a year and a half I got 12 stings, 8 alone for an operation on my feets, and it HURTS! Just thikning about it gives me the shakes and cold sweat.

I didn't got used to. I started to fear it.

And if I can vote, I'd rather vote for something I believe is the best than waste my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heinlein's idea may seem logical at first glance or skim, but in the political context, it is very unwise.

In the military you do not defend the country or the nation, you defend the State, because it's run by the holders of state power (the national or federal government). If the military was in the hands of the people (i.e. independent popular militias), THEN it could be defending the nation at least theoretically.

In the big picture, the application of Heinlein's idea will only divide the nation between first class people (the statists) and second class people (the non-statists).

What happens if the US loses a war? The government blames the non-statists.

What happens when there is a recession? The government blames the non-statists.

Who does all the dirty work? The non-statists.

And since the government is not accountable to the non-statists, and it is within the interests of the statists to support the government, the stage would be set for a bitter internal conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...