Poll: Would you vote for a short, mandatory, military/civil service for [most] US citizens?

How would you vote on this issue?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 30.4%
  • No

    Votes: 31 67.4%
  • I wouldn't vote, for whatever reason.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • Total voters
    46

Gandalff

2nd Team
Mar 28, 2012
321
0
35
Santa Marinella, Italy
Here in Italy we used to have mandatory military service. We got rid of it and it was for the better.
It proved to be only an enormous waste of public money and drained resources from defense budget....
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
It depends upon how it is handled. The primary force(s) of the military would likely still be only those who chose to pursue that endeavor. Those who were simply there because they had to be and were considered too inept to serve abroad could perform other functions stateside.

The general idea is simply to force most adults to have gone through Basic Training; to have spent at least some amount of time in an organized, structured, hierarchical setting; to have learned to take and, perhaps, give orders; and to have rendered some sort of quantifiable service to their country. Heck, most of the actual service of those who would be minimum-and-done servicemen would likely be non-military or at least non-combatant functions, anyway.
Some of this is doubtless true, but universal military/civil service would be very expensive. It would drain drain a lot of defense dollars teaching the unwilling/unmotivated how to do basic stuff (like get up early, keep you living space clean and orderly, etc.). If we want the military to be an engine of social development for young people, so be it, but get ready to have our military get its backside handed to it on future battlefields (at least early on, until we as a country realize yet again that warfare is a serious business with real negative consequences for getting it wrong).
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Service guarantees citizenship.
You mean in the sense of having served entitles the veteran to vote in the Heinlein sense of the term citizenship, or do you mean that simply forcing young people to serve would caused them, once discharged, to appreciate what they have as citizens?
Not flaming, just curious as to your meaning here.
 

willie52

All-American
Jan 25, 2008
2,162
154
87
Arab, AL
A thousand times NO!

Whatever marginal benefit might be gained would be far more than offset by the loss of freedom and its tangible benefits.

Geez, you make it sound like it's forever or something, really, a loss of freedom. Change my vote, I say NO. Given the way our government leaders have screwed up most programs, there would be no fair way to do it even if you agreed with it.
 
Last edited:

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
Geez, you make it sound like it's forever or something, really, a loss of freedom. Change my vote, I say NO. Given the way our government leaders have screwed up most programs, there would be no fair way to do it even if you agreed with it.
I noticed that as well.

How is that a "loss of freedom" any more than any other mandatory civil service, such as jury duty? For that matter, we laud our fallen soldiers for having fought to protect our freedom. Many of those soldiers were "forced" to serve via the draft. By that argument then we, as a country, stripped those soldiers, those citizens, of their freedoms in order to force them to protect ours. How is that not a hypocritical argument?
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
There are those of us opposed to the draft, too.

How is it NOT a loss of freedom to have to spend year or more serving your government? I'd love to hear someone explain how that's NOT what it is.

Jury duty is different as:
1- it's far shorter, and
2- it's part of what makes our system work the way it does. It's necessary.

Forced military service isn't necessary - there are plenty of volunteers.
 

CrimsonNagus

Hall of Fame
Jun 6, 2007
8,470
6,182
212
45
Montgomery, Alabama, United States
Comparing jury duty to military services is ridiculous. 1 day, maybe a few weeks of jury duty is very different then forcing everyone to serve years in the military. Also, signing up for the draft at 18 is very different then forcing everyone into the military. I have no problem with a draft if it is deemed necessary but would never agree to forced military service to earn your citizenship like some are suggesting. That idea just seems so un-American to me that I can't even wrap my head around it. To think that my 3 kids would not be American citizens until they are in there 20s after they had been forced to join the military and serve a number of years is just a ridiculous thought IMO. What a sad country that would be to live in.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
Starship Troopers, the movie, exhibits a jolly sort of fascism. The book is more satirical. Neither should be used as a model for US policy.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
There are those of us opposed to the draft, too.

How is it NOT a loss of freedom to have to spend year or more serving your government? I'd love to hear someone explain how that's NOT what it is.

Jury duty is different as:
1- it's far shorter, and
2- it's part of what makes our system work the way it does. It's necessary.

Forced military service isn't necessary - there are plenty of volunteers.
Comparing jury duty to military services is ridiculous. 1 day, maybe a few weeks of jury duty is very different then forcing everyone to serve years in the military. Also, signing up for the draft at 18 is very different then forcing everyone into the military. I have no problem with a draft if it is deemed necessary but would never agree to forced military service to earn your citizenship like some are suggesting. That idea just seems so un-American to me that I can't even wrap my head around it. To think that my 3 kids would not be American citizens until they are in there 20s after they had been forced to join the military and serve a number of years is just a ridiculous thought IMO. What a sad country that would be to live in.

First, the required for citizenship thing has nothing to do with what I was asking about.

Second, as far as time time goes jury duty can last for up to a few weeks to up to a few months. How much difference is there between a few weeks to a few months and 1 to 2 years? It's not that much, really.

Third, there seems to be some sort of weird thing distinguishing "military" civil service from other types of civil service. Why? How is it really that different? In [relative] peace time those who are serving their time simply to serve their time would almost never, if ever, placed in harm's way. Those who are sent abroad to serve would still be those who have volunteered to make military service their career. In times of major war, as in the instance of a third World War, those people would then all be put in harm's way along with any others who would also be drafted. The only difference would be that, with that short, mandatory, military service time in place, we would have most of a generation's worth of citizens who would already have most of the training needed in order to be deployed as opposed to coming in off the street with no training whatsoever, as was the case in previous drafts.



It seems to me like the arguments against it, excepting the fiscal based arguments, always seem to revolve around the "military" term as if it's something terrible in and of itself.

Every time I've seen this concept being discussed in person the arguments against it almost always follow the same lines. You have most people, especially those with no service, who rail against the idea as if it is some sort of personal accosting of American citizens, as if it were some sort of torture or a violation of a person's human rights. If that were really the case then we wouldn't have many people volunteering, would we? Then you'll have that one guy, every once in a while, who may not disagree with the concept but doesn't want it because the government/military wastes enough money as it is.

The discussion on here has followed the exact same pattern, which is what I was mostly curious about.




And it is the "military" term that gets people. If, rather than hiring lifetime civil servants for most government programs, the government decided to implement a program where most citizens would be required to work for a short period of time in various programs - be it doing paperwork, handing out welfare goods and services, or whatever - in order for those programs to continue and, in return, the workers would receive compensation and benefits equal to and/or above their costs of living during that time the railing against the idea wouldn't be nearly as vehement. Why?

If the government decided that the only feasible way to continue the multitude of social services programs would be to implement such a program then most people would choose to allow that program rather than lose the social services. After all, people would just go somewhere - maybe even be able to stay at home - and work for a couple years in these programs, helping people. The government would take care of their living arrangements, their meals, and give them a little spending money. When they finished, they would receive work and/or education credit for the time the spent. Most people would look at that as a pretty good deal, and there are lots of programs and organizations that garner many volunteers under basically the same principles, e.g. working in foreign aid for a couple years in exchange for forgiveness or payment of student loans, etc. People don't have a problem with those types of programs, from a fairness or moral standpoint, and most people would accept those types of civil service programs to be mandatory if there was a demonstrated need for it to be so.

Why does that change when you add the word "military" to the front of the term "service"?
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
Again, jury is random, rare, even. A lot of people NEVER server, and most than to only do so for a few days. PLus, it's the way the system HAS to operate, not so wrt the military (or insert your choice of civil service here).

Taking time away from people is about the most oppressive thing a government can do - it's the one thing we NEVER get back and have an absolute, finite amount of.

You can argue for more powerful government all day but those who value our freedom will always rally against it.

And yes, that includes the draft.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
Again, jury is random, rare, even. A lot of people NEVER server, and most than to only do so for a few days. PLus, it's the way the system HAS to operate, not so wrt the military (or insert your choice of civil service here).

Taking time away from people is about the most oppressive thing a government can do - it's the one thing we NEVER get back and have an absolute, finite amount of.

You can argue for more powerful government all day but those who value our freedom will always rally against it.

And yes, that includes the draft.
If you're against the draft then, obviously, you'd be against this as well.

I just don't get people who are ok with the idea of the draft, especially, but also other forms of mandatory civil and/or community service but not with the idea of mandatory military service.





Personally, I fall on both sides of the issue on this one.

Given the way our government currently works there is a ton of waste and a basic encouragement of lazy and wasteful employment/work by those on government payrolls. This type of system, if implemented properly, would both help to reduce that waste as well as making many of those programs more efficient while also helping to prepare / giving a wake-up call to many men and women.

On the other hand, I'd like for the Federal Government's budget to be at most around 20% of what it is now. So, from that perspective, I think it's a horrible idea.

I have mixed feelings on the draft, as well, but that's really for another thread.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.