National Service

So here in my country, and in many others it is requiered that all men from the age of 18, serve in the armed forces. The time varies from place to place (here it's about 8 months of training, and you're free to go) and what duties are expected of you.

What do you guys think? Is compulsory millitary service a good thing, or not?

Personally I don't see anything wrong with it, at least in my country's example, some basic training, and a little practice every 5 years.

I'm personally against it despite the advantages for the simple fact I enjoy my freedom, and in my view it should only be used in times of war.

Also whilst on the subject.

I don't mind a national service in principle, when it's fairly applied. But it isn't, usually.
Here in Germany, the enforcement of the service was ceased indefinitely because of that very fact: People got doctor's notices to get out of it, others simply never got the letter telling them to get their service check-up and so on.
And that's not even mentioning the fact that 50 % of the populace, women, were never even asked to spend 3/4 of a year before the chance to go into a job or go to university or whatever.
Heck, some people (especially craftsmen, who usually leave school earlier to get an apprenticeship) already had full-time jobs that they had to put on ice when the letter came... very, very bad, career-wise.
Nah. A lot of socially useful jobs and services don't require you to be particularly fit or have a perfectly straight spine or whatever, even if it's just some office-job at a public institution or something. But if you were deemed unfit for the military, you didn't have to do any other service, either. Unreasonable in my view, because (almost) everybody can contribute something.
Let me emphasize that the vast majority of the people who didn't have to do their service were not sick. They had allergies or a crooked spine or something. Nothing that would disqualify them from civil services. We're not talking about obviously reasonable exemptions for people with significant handicaps or mental developmental issues or whatever.
So, I'll say it like this: Either apply it to everybody or don't apply it at all.

I think national service in Europe became obsolete in Europe the moment the Cold War ended. The chances of a major war breaking out is zilch, and so really I think keeping up national service is not only wasting the time of young people who are either educated or have a trade to practice but also a waste of time and resources of the countries military. Which has to feed, accommodate and train all these people who'll only temporarily be in the armed forces and who will never need to go into combat anyway.

The only value national service has is to young people who are not in education or training. In which case, time in the armed forces could give them the vocational training they need to launch a career after the army. I may support a form of national service targeted at 16-21 year old "NEETS", but it shouldn't be restricted to the armed forces and should include civil and public services as well.

National service as in armed forces? No. I'd prefer those that serve in the military do so voluntarily.

National service as in social projects? That I could get behind. Send inner city kids to maintain national parks, send rural/suburb kids to do social services in urban cities. Just get kids out of their normal environment (both cultural and geographic) and get them some new experiences, while preforming a service to their country.

jacksonsspoi:
snip

Every so often, some older person in the UK comes out with an argument in support of National Service as a way of "instilling discipline in the young" or something like that.

But the fact is, those people generally hated national service when it was forced on them, and the only reason they went through with it was because that was the era when you didn't question your government, and when serving in the army was basically considered the duty of all right-thinking male citizens.

People today would not tolerate national service. They would not learn from it even to the limited extent that any of the people who did it in the past learned from it. It was a horrible, abusive institution which basically amounted to bullying young boys at great cost and for negligible military benefit. It didn't make people join the army, this was the era when people joined the army out of a sense of obligation or family commitments, it made most people run like hell from the army.

One thing we're slowly learning now is that the army is one of the worst environments to put young men in if you want them to come out emotionally healthy or able to function in the world. Increasing professionalization and inclusion of women may change this, but for now it remains sadly true.

Hell no, I much prefer freedom as opposed to this tyrannical ordering around of the lives of citizens. Don't care if it's 'for their benefit' or any nonsense like that, at this point they're adults and should be allowed to do with their lives what they will within reason.

I'm against it because I couldn't go to war if we didn't have the right reasons (thankfully being disabled I'm immune from the draft). I'd end up declining a deployment and I'd be in jail.

Compulsory service in the armed forces, or any other government run organization is immoral.

evilthecat:

jacksonsspoi:
snip

Every so often, some older person in the UK comes out with an argument in support of National Service as a way of "instilling discipline in the young" or something like that.

But the fact is, those people generally hated national service when it was forced on them, and the only reason they went through with it was because that was the era when you didn't question your government, and when serving in the army was basically considered the duty of all right-thinking male citizens.

People today would not tolerate national service. They would not learn from it even to the limited extent that any of the people who did it in the past learned from it. It was a horrible, abusive institution which basically amounted to bullying young boys at great cost and for negligible military benefit. It didn't make people join the army, this was the era when people joined the army out of a sense of obligation or family commitments, it made most people run like hell from the army.

One thing we're slowly learning now is that the army is one of the worst environments to put young men in if you want them to come out emotionally healthy or able to function in the world. Increasing professionalization and inclusion of women may change this, but for now it remains sadly true.

I agree that the old abusive system has no place in the modern world, however I think for small countries such as my own, national service is neccecary, being situated next to a very large and historaically antagonistic country doesn't help.
From what I've heard from other people that have been in the armed forces, they say that they quite enjoyed their time. Having enjoyed it for the sense of camradarie and friendship. In many countries however people are pressured by their communities, "every real man needs to go through basic training", "It teaches discipline" etc.

jacksonsspoi:

From what I've heard from other people that have been in the armed forces, they say that they quite enjoyed their time. Having enjoyed it for the sense of camradarie and friendship. In many countries however people are pressured by their communities, "every real man needs to go through basic training", "It teaches discipline" etc.

What, so I get to force people to do things just because I enjoyed them? With that one you're really stretching. It's not very relevant at all.

I'm very much for compulsory service, but tying it to the military is just pointless. We need our soldiers to be willing volunteers. America's military is already a ginormous advertisement for all the things that can go wrong when you throw a bunch of undisciplined teens into a structure that doesn't always watch them like it should. Best not to add to that.

Hmmm...the OP refers to "my country", but doesn't specify which one that is.

...

Anyhoo...conscription might still be legal if Australia itself is invaded, otherwise we've not had that since the Vietnam war.

Generally speaking, the idea is terrible. Conscript soldiers are less effective than volunteers, most conscripts never served overseas anyway...what's the point? Unless training young men to kill, but not sending them outside your own borders has some merit I can't see.

OTOH, if a severe threat to the nation was looming, might be an idea to bring it back, but as an extension to the Army Reserve until things got really bad.

thaluikhain:
snip

I live in Estonia, for us the point of conscription here is for defense, you pass your basic training and you're put in the reserve force, it's just to make sure that, in case of an outside threat everyone knows how to fight at the very least.
But I agree when it comes to other larger countries, forced conscription isn't really needed in this day in age.

This thread has given me a lot of interesting data, goes to show how much things vary from place to place, huh? Here in Estonia most people who don't go to the millitary are viewed as wimps, or incompetent, or lazy and so forth.

Master of the Skies:

jacksonsspoi:

From what I've heard from other people that have been in the armed forces, they say that they quite enjoyed their time. Having enjoyed it for the sense of camradarie and friendship. In many countries however people are pressured by their communities, "every real man needs to go through basic training", "It teaches discipline" etc.

What, so I get to force people to do things just because I enjoyed them? With that one you're really stretching. It's not very relevant at all.

Yeah, I don't really know what I was thinking with that part...

thaluikhain:

Generally speaking, the idea is terrible. Conscript soldiers are less effective than volunteers, most conscripts never served overseas anyway...what's the point? Unless training young men to kill, but not sending them outside your own borders has some merit I can't see.

Considering our history; you should find that statement incredibly wrong.

In any case I'm not against the concept of national service. Most people owe a debt to their government (as opposed to the other way round, which is often presumed) and national service is a good way to fill that debt. However if I were ever to institute such a policy it would be based around community service as opposed to exclusively military service. Think working in old age homes, lifeguards, training as entry level paramedics and firefighters, things that grant people life skills that could come in handy for both themselves and the greater community later. There is more to serving the state than just guns. Oh and people would get paid (poorly), and be able to do some occupations part time.

Its also worth noting that many nations have national service in order to provide a political deterrent to would be invaders both in the present and the unforeseeable future (Switzerland, Israel, Finland, Greece) as well as to provide social 'glue' for young people. Both are viable reasons for such policy.

Fraser Greenfield:

thaluikhain:

Generally speaking, the idea is terrible. Conscript soldiers are less effective than volunteers, most conscripts never served overseas anyway...what's the point? Unless training young men to kill, but not sending them outside your own borders has some merit I can't see.

Considering our history; you should find that statement incredibly wrong.

In any case I'm not against the concept of national service. Most people owe a debt to their government

Sorry you lost me there. People owe a debt to the their government? Please explain. You can't just throw that out and expect everyone to understand. What is it? Some pseudo-fuedalism like owed form of allegiance, where the theory is the king requires soldiers and obedience from his subjects and in return he'll protect them?
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Outside of paying my taxes, I owe zilch to the government. So please explain.

Compulsory National Service is a concept I've struggled to decide where I rest on. I'm fully against compulsory military service during peacetime; but I might be able to get behind compulsory civil service with military service being an acceptable alternative.

I agree that you shouldn't 'owe' the gov't simply for the privilege of being born in your state; but I could accept arguments that one has a duty to service and improve the place he calls home. Is that a philosophical distinction without a practical difference? Maybe. Probably. But, while I'm no socialist, I do believe that social cooperation ultimately benfits society more than any individual contribution and that it is correct and even necessary in the long term to engender (or attempt to engender) a sense of social obligation within society at large.

Then again, if such a theory had merit, why make it compulsory at all?

Again, something I wrestle with.

Going the fascist route, compulsory military service guarentees the protection of the state and its interests, the unity of the people, their loyalty, a unified cultural identity for all servicemen, so on and so forth. It's a good idea, no?

RikuoAmero:

Fraser Greenfield:

thaluikhain:

Generally speaking, the idea is terrible. Conscript soldiers are less effective than volunteers, most conscripts never served overseas anyway...what's the point? Unless training young men to kill, but not sending them outside your own borders has some merit I can't see.

Considering our history; you should find that statement incredibly wrong.

In any case I'm not against the concept of national service. Most people owe a debt to their government

Sorry you lost me there. People owe a debt to the their government? Please explain. You can't just throw that out and expect everyone to understand. What is it? Some pseudo-fuedalism like owed form of allegiance, where the theory is the king requires soldiers and obedience from his subjects and in return he'll protect them?
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Outside of paying my taxes, I owe zilch to the government. So please explain.

It's a pretty basic concept; based upon the 'theory of citizenship' going back to the days of Rome. The state (ideally); has protected you and your ancestors legally and via violent use of force(and provided the equipment and means to for people to participate in such protection), payed for your education, provided 'free' healthcare, provided you the privilege of voting for public office, provided you the privileged of running of public office, protected your right to own property, protected your property from others, granted you the right to have a lawful marriage (by this I mean the means to pass your property to your descendants),provided the right to sue in the courts and the right to be sued.
Provided the right to have a legal trial, constructed and provided an social-economic environment where you may live and work to provide yourself means and promises to provide welfare if you require it. All of these if you live in a decent state come free of charge.
This is not some bullshit set of 'human rights' that people seem to think they're entitled too because they burst forth from somebody's womb. Previous citizens worked, died and murdered people so that you could have the life you now live.

So yes, all things considered regardless of how shit your goverment is, you still owe them something other than taxes because your ulitimatly standing upon someone elses shoulders. Taxes are used to maintain the current system and build the next one, but that doesn't change the fact that someone else has paid for the life you now live. So yes you damn well 'owe a debt to the their government'.

Fraser Greenfield:

RikuoAmero:

Fraser Greenfield:

Considering our history; you should find that statement incredibly wrong.

In any case I'm not against the concept of national service. Most people owe a debt to their government

Sorry you lost me there. People owe a debt to the their government? Please explain. You can't just throw that out and expect everyone to understand. What is it? Some pseudo-fuedalism like owed form of allegiance, where the theory is the king requires soldiers and obedience from his subjects and in return he'll protect them?
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Outside of paying my taxes, I owe zilch to the government. So please explain.

It's a pretty basic concept; based upon the 'theory of citizenship' going back to the days of Rome. The state (ideally); has protected you and your ancestors legally and via violent use of force(and provided the equipment and means to for people to participate in such protection), payed for your education, provided 'free' healthcare, provided you the privilege of voting for public office, provided you the privileged of running of public office, protected your right to own property, protected your property from others, granted you the right to have a lawful marriage (by this I mean the means to pass your property to your descendants),provided the right to sue in the courts and the right to be sued.
Provided the right to have a legal trial, constructed and provided an social-economic environment where you may live and work to provide yourself means and promises to provide welfare if you require it. All of these if you live in a decent state come free of charge.
This is not some bullshit set of 'human rights' that people seem to think they're entitled too because they burst forth from somebody's womb. Previous citizens worked, died and murdered people so that you could have the life you now live.

So yes, all things considered regardless of how shit your goverment is, you still owe them something other than taxes because your ulitimatly standing upon someone elses shoulders. Taxes are used to maintain the current system and build the next one, but that doesn't change the fact that someone else has paid for the life you now live. So yes you damn well 'owe a debt to the their government'.

Sorry, but I have to disagree completely. Let's see
1) Paid for my education? That is paid for via taxes from people like you and me. As a child, my education is funded using the taxes my parents/guardians pay (assuming I go to a public school. If I go to a private school...well then, there's no state involvement)
2) Free healthcare? Yes, you put free in quotes, but again, that's paid for via taxes from the citizenry.
3) Voting is not a privilege but a hard won right. To say its a privilege is to go down a road where the government can on a whim strip the ability to vote from me.
Yes, all of these things were hard won over centuries, I am a student of history and I fully understand it.
Lastly I have a question for you.
Your stance is that I owe a debt to the government. If true, how exactly is one meant to discharge such a debt? Who exactly is it supposed to be discharged to? As per the title of this thread, signing up to serve in the armed forces would be in one way serving the entire country. Or do I sign up to serve as a private soldier for whichever political party is in power?
No, I refuse to acknowledge that such a debt exists, because then, it could be used to enslave me. Merely by virtue of growing up, I am now told by you I owe something nebulous to some people who are nebulous. How far does the debt extend? When is it paid off? Is there a way of avoiding the debt entirely? No, I was never told about this, and I would resist to the death any attempts by someone like you who came along and said "You have to do this labour, you owe a debt to your country".

Fraser Greenfield:

RikuoAmero:

Fraser Greenfield:

Considering our history; you should find that statement incredibly wrong.

In any case I'm not against the concept of national service. Most people owe a debt to their government

Sorry you lost me there. People owe a debt to the their government? Please explain. You can't just throw that out and expect everyone to understand. What is it? Some pseudo-fuedalism like owed form of allegiance, where the theory is the king requires soldiers and obedience from his subjects and in return he'll protect them?
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Outside of paying my taxes, I owe zilch to the government. So please explain.

It's a pretty basic concept; based upon the 'theory of citizenship' going back to the days of Rome. The state (ideally); has protected you and your ancestors legally and via violent use of force(and provided the equipment and means to for people to participate in such protection), payed for your education, provided 'free' healthcare, provided you the privilege of voting for public office, provided you the privileged of running of public office, protected your right to own property, protected your property from others, granted you the right to have a lawful marriage (by this I mean the means to pass your property to your descendants),provided the right to sue in the courts and the right to be sued.
Provided the right to have a legal trial, constructed and provided an social-economic environment where you may live and work to provide yourself means and promises to provide welfare if you require it. All of these if you live in a decent state come free of charge.
This is not some bullshit set of 'human rights' that people seem to think they're entitled too because they burst forth from somebody's womb. Previous citizens worked, died and murdered people so that you could have the life you now live.

So yes, all things considered regardless of how shit your goverment is, you still owe them something other than taxes because your ulitimatly standing upon someone elses shoulders. Taxes are used to maintain the current system and build the next one, but that doesn't change the fact that someone else has paid for the life you now live. So yes you damn well 'owe a debt to the their government'.

One way to look at it, with nothing to back it but some sort of consistency, perhaps.

But a few things, the ability to be in the political process is not something we owe them for, it is something they owe us. If I am to accept the rules they make then I am owed a say in the process or they are nothing but tyrants. If they say I owe them, then they are tyrants because they are saying the natural state is they rule me without my say.

As for the right to sue, that comes from the political process. Or we could look at it as I give up my right for bloody vengeance if the government gives an alternative means to resolve things.

And taxes pay the debt for all things of monetary value.

Oh and I never made a deal with those previous citizens. They can say they did a lot that helped me, but I never asked them to. Seems like bullshit to tell me I owe my lives to the government because of something some other people did that I never asked for. Why would I owe people for something I did not have a choice in? The answer is I do not.

And lastly, if those people in the past did it with the understanding I'd owe my life, well screw them. You don't get to make a bargain with someone without asking for their life. No respect for my choice to enter a bargain, they get no respect for what they did. Not that I think they, in actuality, thought they deserve my life for it. Rather your hypothetical speaker for them gets no respect. And I'll note, you're saying I owe them, when maybe they never wanted me to owe them. So I can't say you show much more respect for them than I hypothetically do. Less in fact to try to use them like that without caring what they would actually have wanted.

The state is made up of the people, so I don't think that we owe it anything. I disagree with conscription outside of actually being invaded. I think at that point it is expected that almost everyone is expected to arm themselves and defend their countries. This is in a theoretical Nazi/Muslim invasion though. Where the purpose of the war is to wipe out the nation.

I see Compulsory National Service as a waste of time and resources for the most point. I would probably make as much trouble as I could if I was conscripted.
What does get me is when they try to dress it as national service when really it's conscription.
Considering the Royal Marine scandal I can't see Conscription being introduced in the UK any time soon.

Really, what a lot of people seem to want (non-politically) from national service is a couple of years of what is basically personal training and nutrition lessons. As well as how to cook and generally manage your life.

Why not just put those in schools rather than the half-assed attempts at P.E. and Games lessons we have now.

Or have some kind of finishing school.

But it's a shame parents aren't taking that role.

Hazzard:
This is in a theoretical Nazi/Muslim invasion though. Where the purpose of the war is to wipe out the nation.

HAHAHAHAH

I'm sorry, WHAT?!

Don't be prancing about calling your prejudices about Muslims 'theories' as if they've got any weight.

There's a perspective I sometimes see being thrown around, that spending a year in military training is going to knock some discipline into people's skulls and make them less likely to go about irresponsibly and wreck up the place and/or themselves.

Not saying it's a good perspective, though. Get too much of a drilly drill sergeant and you're going to be all screwed up in the head when you're done. Misery does build character, after all, resentment and petty vengefulness are character traits...

As for whether conscription is legal or not, if things get bad enough and your country needs all available manpower that can hold a weapon and shoot in the general direction of the invader, you're going to get conscripted.

Hazzard:
The state is made up of the people, so I don't think that we owe it anything. .

Banks are made up of people, are you suggesting no one owes them anything?

Master of the Skies:

Fraser Greenfield:

RikuoAmero:

SNIP

SNIP

So yes, all things considered regardless of how shit your goverment is, you still owe them something other than taxes because your ultimately standing upon someone elses shoulders. Taxes are used to maintain the current system and build the next one, but that doesn't change the fact that someone else has paid for the life you now live. So yes you damn well 'owe a debt to the their government'.

One way to look at it, with nothing to back it but some sort of consistency, perhaps.

But a few things, the ability to be in the political process is not something we owe them for, it is something they owe us. If I am to accept the rules they make then I am owed a say in the process or they are nothing but tyrants. If they say I owe them, then they are tyrants because they are saying the natural state is they rule me without my say.

As for the right to sue, that comes from the political process. Or we could look at it as I give up my right for bloody vengeance if the government gives an alternative means to resolve things.

And taxes pay the debt for all things of monetary value.

Oh and I never made a deal with those previous citizens. They can say they did a lot that helped me, but I never asked them to. Seems like bullshit to tell me I owe my lives to the government because of something some other people did that I never asked for. Why would I owe people for something I did not have a choice in? The answer is I do not.

And lastly, if those people in the past did it with the understanding I'd owe my life, well screw them. You don't get to make a bargain with someone without asking for their life. No respect for my choice to enter a bargain, they get no respect for what they did. Not that I think they, in actuality, thought they deserve my life for it. Rather your hypothetical speaker for them gets no respect. And I'll note, you're saying I owe them, when maybe they never wanted me to owe them. So I can't say you show much more respect for them than I hypothetically do. Less in fact to try to use them like that without caring what they would actually have wanted.

The previous citizens gave you a land to call your own, a national identity and most importantly the gift of life itself. Are you the kind of person who bursts forth form their mothers womb, turns round and goes 'thanks for nothing'? You clearly have no notion of how 'citizenship' works, or any of the backing theories behind it, which considering your own nations history is most sad. Your presumption that you have no obligation towards something you never asked for is likewise both highly amusing from my view, but depressingly selfish and delusional on your part. By your logic every parent who didn't want to have their child shouldn't be responsible for them and so on.

I should also point out that your 'national debt' does not require payment via your life. These days its generally service of some form. I should also point out that the debate on this point died well over a century ago. You can guess which of us is standing on the winning side.

RikuoAmero:

Fraser Greenfield:

RikuoAmero:

Sorry you lost me there. People owe a debt to the their government? Please explain. You can't just throw that out and expect everyone to understand. What is it? Some pseudo-fuedalism like owed form of allegiance, where the theory is the king requires soldiers and obedience from his subjects and in return he'll protect them?
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Outside of paying my taxes, I owe zilch to the government. So please explain.

It's a pretty basic concept; based upon the 'theory of citizenship' going back to the days of Rome. The state (ideally); has protected you and your ancestors legally and via violent use of force(and provided the equipment and means to for people to participate in such protection), payed for your education, provided 'free' healthcare, provided you the privilege of voting for public office, provided you the privileged of running of public office, protected your right to own property, protected your property from others, granted you the right to have a lawful marriage (by this I mean the means to pass your property to your descendants),provided the right to sue in the courts and the right to be sued.
Provided the right to have a legal trial, constructed and provided an social-economic environment where you may live and work to provide yourself means and promises to provide welfare if you require it. All of these if you live in a decent state come free of charge.
This is not some bullshit set of 'human rights' that people seem to think they're entitled too because they burst forth from somebody's womb. Previous citizens worked, died and murdered people so that you could have the life you now live.

So yes, all things considered regardless of how shit your goverment is, you still owe them something other than taxes because your ulitimatly standing upon someone elses shoulders. Taxes are used to maintain the current system and build the next one, but that doesn't change the fact that someone else has paid for the life you now live. So yes you damn well 'owe a debt to the their government'.

Sorry, but I have to disagree completely. Let's see
1) Paid for my education? That is paid for via taxes from people like you and me. As a child, my education is funded using the taxes my parents/guardians pay (assuming I go to a public school. If I go to a private school...well then, there's no state involvement)

A system instituted and paid for in advance by your parents, grandparents and neighbours. You seem to miss the fact that what you have stated hear backs my point.

RikuoAmero:

2) Free healthcare? Yes, you put free in quotes, but again, that's paid for via taxes from the citizenry.

And It is the citizenry who makes the government, which runs the state. You can be dirt poor and still have access to it, while the vast majority of national healthcare users in the anglo-sphere take out more resources from the system than they put in as it is paid for by 'the rich'. Hence you owe the government. I put free healthcare in quotes because as I understand it, Yanks are unanimous on the idea of state healthcare.

RikuoAmero:

3) Voting is not a privilege but a hard won right. To say its a privilege is to go down a road where the government can on a whim strip the ability to vote from me.

Believe me there are no such things as 'rights'. Legal rights are privileges men and women claim to be written into the stone of existence and while they prat on about their omniscient qualities in respect to the fundamental moral law of mankind. Believe me these are philosophical constructions, things we created and shaped over the generations because we wanted to live better. Such things are discarded the moment greater society deems them more trouble then they are worth, as history has shown time and time again. Hence I use the word 'privilege'.

RikuoAmero:
Yes, all of these things were hard won over centuries, I am a student of history and I fully understand it.
Lastly I have a question for you.
Your stance is that I owe a debt to the government. If true, how exactly is one meant to discharge such a debt? Who exactly is it supposed to be discharged to? As per the title of this thread, signing up to serve in the armed forces would be in one way serving the entire country. Or do I sign up to serve as a private soldier for whichever political party is in power?
No, I refuse to acknowledge that such a debt exists, because then, it could be used to enslave me. Merely by virtue of growing up, I am now told by you I owe something nebulous to some people who are nebulous. How far does the debt extend? When is it paid off? Is there a way of avoiding the debt entirely? No, I was never told about this, and I would resist to the death any attempts by someone like you who came along and said "You have to do this labour, you owe a debt to your country".

You can refuse to acknowledge truth as much as you want, I have no issue with that. To answer your question/s it is essentially whenever the state takes you out of service. It isn't a hard concept to get your head around, much in the same way that National Service doesn't require military service (hence the use of the word 'National Service'. I do however find it highly amusing how much of the post-Vietnam generations somehow think they owe nothing to the community or nation that spawned them.

Fraser Greenfield:

Hazzard:
The state is made up of the people, so I don't think that we owe it anything. .

Banks are made up of people, are you suggesting no one owes them anything?

Banks don't say I owe them anything before I've been born, or have people claiming I do like this thread. I'm Not trying to be aggressive here, have a feeling that will sound aggressive.

Danny Ocean:

HAHAHAHAH

I'm sorry, WHAT?!

Don't be prancing about calling your prejudices about Muslims 'theories' as if they've got any weight.

I wasn't trying to make a statement there, I was referring to the sort of stereotyped Muslim who yells "ALLAH ACKBAR!" and wants to wipe out the Western World. I'm sure you know what I mean when I put that though.

Fraser Greenfield:
snip

"A system instituted and paid for in advance by your parents, grandparents and neighbours. You seem to miss the fact that what you have stated hear backs my point."

Yes...paid for via taxes. Not once have I ever heard of a (western) nation saying to someone who's been in the hospital that along with monetary compensation, they now also owe service. I can understand and agree with someone dodging payment for something and a judge imposing a fine plus maybe community service...but such a thing is considered a punishment for breaking the law, not something the person automatically owes.

"while the vast majority of national healthcare users in the anglo-sphere take out more resources from the system than they put in as it is paid for by 'the rich'. Hence you owe the government."

Really? You know how much I, as an individual, have cost my nation's health service? Here, you are generalising. For one, you don't know what country I'm in. Two...the last time I was in hospital was when I was a child, and the state agreed to pay for the costs, thanks to a medical card system. Not once since then have they come chasing me down insisting that I have to pay it back somehow. Since then, I've been ill a handful of times, thankfully I haven't needed to go to the hospital. What medication I needed I paid for out of pocket.

"Believe me there are no such things as 'rights'...." You're arguing that society will (inevitably) remove such rights. While I can as a hypothetical, agree with you there somewhat...such an action is in my view a great wrong and I would fight to defend my rights to the death. Whereas what you prattle on about makes me extremely suspicious of you. Are you going to be one of those who strips away rights? Want to tell us who you are so readers here can make sure never to vote you into office?

"You can refuse to acknowledge truth as much as you want, I have no issue with that. To answer your question/s it is essentially whenever the state takes you out of service."
So, if the state, the ruling government, were to sign conscription into law and also state that mandatory service never ends...I'm supposed to be fine with that?
"post-Vietnam generations" Great choice of words there. I'm not American, but even I know that the Vietnam War was not a glorious war for freedom that many people believe. It was a struggle for power essentially between the United States and the USSR, via proxy nations. Nothing more.

Flutterguy:

Hazzard:
This is in a theoretical Nazi/Muslim invasion though. Where the purpose of the war is to wipe out the nation.

Cute how you think Nazi's and Muslim are that similar

RikuoAmero:
"Believe me there are no such things as 'rights'...." You're arguing that society will (inevitably) remove such rights. While I can as a hypothetical, agree with you there somewhat...such an action is in my view a great wrong and I would fight to defend my rights to the death. Whereas what you prattle on about makes me extremely suspicious of you. Are you going to be one of those who strips away rights? Want to tell us who you are so readers here can make sure never to vote you into office?

Also cute. He tells you the truth that 'rights' are actually 'privileges' which come and go, and with the gusto of a 1950's American defending himself from a communist neighbor you want his name soiled, you claim he is trying to ruin your glorious freedom. He should not have the right to run for office.

Some really glorious advice, when you think something is wrong, try to figure out why it seems wrong. If you have time do some research. Your current bias and world-view seems to be holding you back.

That's cute, because I am anything but a 1950's American. For one, I was born forty years after that time, and two, wrong side of the Atlantic. Also read what I wrote. I didn't say he shouldn't have the right to run for office. I said I merely wanted to make sure I wouldn't vote for him. If other people knew this guy's real name, and still voted for him anyway, fine.
Look at it from my point of view. I'm your average man, who enjoys my rights to vote, to work where I want, the simple freedoms of life. Yes, I understand, this is a relatively new concept in human civilisation, and yes, people did kill and die in the past in order to obtain such freedoms. However, we haven't had to do so in recent memory.
So along comes this guy who says quite literally out of the blue, that my rights aren't rights, but privileges, that the state will one day not honour, and that I owe some sort of debt to the state, but doesn't define what the debt is, or who I should pay it to. Merely that I owe it.
On the contrary, I say I honour the sacrifice of those in the past who gave us these freedoms BUT I refuse to acknowledge a debt. Simply because such a thing cannot be defined, nor satisfactorily discharged. How am I to know when I've "paid it back"? Without such answers, this guy can continue to yell "DEBT DEBT DEBT!" and use it to oppress.
And lastly, no, I don't care about communism. I'm not a 1950's guy who's frothing at the mouth about the commies. Far from it.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked