• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandatory military service?

Would you support a mandatory service when a person turns 21 or 18?


  • Total voters
    88
dude...the recruiter that signed up my daughter was missing 2 fingers on his left hand and they had still let him in. these days you have to be almost legally blind to be disqualified and I have never heard of anyone being denied a commission due to color blindness. They didn't even ask me about it when I applied for commission and it hasn't been a part of the eye test for the last 5-6 years. there are a few jobs they won't let you do if you are colorblind.

Things have changed since I enlisted, in fact, they aren't pushing out the pudgies anymore....:2razz:
But how about someone in a wheelchair? Will they take that person, even if he/she can fly a desk as well as anyone else?
 
That could be argued. However, generals work for the overall population. If anyone's kid can get drafted, there's going to be a huge public backlash against undue troop losses (i.e., the 1970s).

modern military requirements favor long term soldiers due to the complex nature of the task. conscripts don't fit that role well and if you waste too many volunteers, people will stop volunteering. when the volunteer army was discussed the arguments went like this

1) in favor of a volunteer army

a) more motivated soldiers
b) better trained soldiers
c) no public issues with a draft
d) leaders are more careful of using soldiers in risky operations

2) in favor of a draft

a) social engineering (ie making rich and poor serve together is good for society)
b) don't have to worry about sufficient numbers
c) "fairness"

I sure don't recall claims that a conscript army causes generals or leaders to be more careful
 
Not everyone is suited for military service; so my answer is I don't support mandatory service.

Unsure what you mean by "not suited"... but if someone can't [legitimately] make it thru basic training, they are discharged. Anyway, thats how it used to be... Also the physical/mental exam is fairly thorough.
 
Things have changed since I enlisted, in fact, they aren't pushing out the pudgies anymore....:2razz:
But how about someone in a wheelchair? Will they take that person, even if he/she can fly a desk as well as anyone else?

yeah things have changed. they don't even have to pass a PT test in order to graduate basic anymore.
 
IIRC, from my history books and classes, he had misgivings about it. But in those days, it was the norm, and pretty much required if you had a large farm.
Machinery did away with the need for slaves.
Today, technology can do away with a lot of our need for warriors. If we change our ways of fighting, we can downsize our ground troop requirements a lot.

It's why I said white slavery, because he obviously was okay with it for blacks.
 
modern military requirements favor long term soldiers due to the complex nature of the task. conscripts don't fit that role well and if you waste too many volunteers, people will stop volunteering. when the volunteer army was discussed the arguments went like this

1) in favor of a volunteer army

a) more motivated soldiers
b) better trained soldiers
c) no public issues with a draft
d) leaders are more careful of using soldiers in risky operations

There were no moral issues raised against the draft?
 
There were no moral issues raised against the draft?

sure there are-I was listing the ones raised by the talking heads who are often interviewed on such matters such as generals and politicians Public issues with a draft incorporates t hose who oppose a draft for moral reasons or liberty issues
 
It's why I said white slavery, because he obviously was okay with it for blacks.
Can a person voluntarily enter into a state of slavery? If so, is your argument that ALL members of the military are slaves? In order to fit the legal definition of a "slave", one must be "bound in servitude as the property of a person" (The Legal Dictionary).

Next question.......do draftees receive all of the same benefits and opportunities through their military service that volunteers do? (YES) (Please keep in mind before you answer, that my own father was drafted in 1969 and continued to reenlist for 23 more years - he chose to make a career of it - willingly). In order for your argument to be valid you must indeed show evidence that ALL military service fulfills the definition of "slavery". Are you willing or able to do that? :shrug: BTW, I also voluntarily joined and during my 10 years of service, even the one year I was ordered to Active Duty, I never lost my freedom of will or choice. I simply CHOSE to take the oath and follow orders - I could have chosen not to......it probably would have simply resulted in a dishonorable discharge.....with my freedom still intact.
 
Last edited:
Can a person voluntarily enter into a state of slavery? If so, is your argument that ALL members of the military are slaves? In order to fit the legal definition of a "slave", one must be "bound in servitude as the property of a person" (The Legal Dictionary).


Next question.......do draftees receive all of the same benefits and opportunities through their military service that volunteers do? (YES) (Please keep in mind before you answer, that my own father was drafted in 1969 and continued to reenlist for 23 more years - he chose to make a career of it - willingly). In order for your argument to be valid you must indeed show evidence that ALL military service fulfills the definition of "slavery". Are you willing or able to do that? :shrug: BTW, I also voluntarily joined and during my 10 years of service, even the one year I was ordered to Active Duty, I never lost my freedom of will or choice. I simply CHOSE to take the oath and follow orders - I could have chosen not to......it probably would have simply resulted in a dishonorable discharge.....with my freedom still intact.

The entire point of his argument is that conscription is slavery, because conscripts are forced to work involuntarily. I don't see how this applies to volunteers, because of conditions. How well you're treated has nothing to do with slavery. In the Antebellum South many slaves had living conditions surpassing that of many Whites, but they were still slaves.
 
The entire point of his argument is that conscription is slavery, because conscripts are forced to work involuntarily. I don't see how this applies to volunteers, because of conditions. How well you're treated has nothing to do with slavery. In the Antebellum South many slaves had living conditions surpassing that of many Whites, but they were still slaves.

The question is not "were you drafted or did you volunteer", it's simply "Does serving in the US Military, in and of itself, fit the definition of slavery?" Does it involve being "owned" or "becoming the property" of another person? Does it involve being stripped of you legal rights as a citizen and being reduced to nothing more than "property"? My answer is no........those serving in the military whether conscripted or voluntarily, have full citizenship rights and even the right of legal recourse within the institution. The office of Adjutant General was created for a reason.

Also, taking your view into consideration, are sequestered jury members being subjected to slavery as well? What about jury members who aren't sequestered? Jury members are forced to "work involuntarily" as well, are they not? If you choose to argue that this is simply "civic duty", wouldn't military service qualify as well? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Conscription is slavery because one cannot pay for another's life, therefore reasonable comphensation is not possible - that's called being forced to work without pay. It's not a punative action; there is no judgement against the person justifying forced labor. They are simply being forced to work (and to perhaps pay the ultimate price, personally) without fair comphensation (as that is impossible to establish).

It's different than jury duty, where comphensation for a few hours of work can be calculated to 'whatever'. Let us also note how easy it is to get out of or avoid jury duty; jury duty is hardly an obligation. Jury duty is a token gesture that is avoidable with a few simple words, not a (binding) call to life-threatening sacrifice. Comparing jury duty to military service is not robust.
 
Last edited:
Conscription is slavery because one cannot pay for another's life, therefore reasonable comphensation is not possible - that's called being forced to work without pay.
What are you saying? That all conscripted soldiers will die? Conscription = death? :confused:
 
Conscription is slavery because one cannot pay for another's life, therefore reasonable comphensation is not possible - that's called being forced to work without pay. It's not a punative action; there is no judgement against the person justifying forced labor. They are simply being forced to work (and to perhaps pay the ultimate price personally) without fair comphensation (as that is impossible to establish).

Nice job with the quick edit :lol:

What about jury duty, anyone gonna answer that one?
 
Last edited:
It's not a "quick edit", I edit alot to make myself more clear and I can assure you that it was not a reaction to any post of yours. Check the final edit times and your post times, they should verify this.

Anyway, for those who are conscripted and die... how is fair comphensation arrived at? In private industry, one could sue the company for millions if a family member dies as a result of company action. Are all the dead soldiers gonna get paid millions? No? Then they were slaves (or volunteers). There's no two ways about it - they were not paid market price for employer enduced death.

During my edits, I addressed the shallowness of the jury duty comparison. It's kinda hard to believe that someone who served would compare that service to jury duty; that's pretty disrespectful of military service (especially during wartime).
 
Last edited:
It's not a "quick edit", I edit alot to make myself more clear and I can assure you that it was not a reaction to any post of yours. Check the final edit times and your post times, they should verify this.

Anyway, for those who are conscripted and die... how is fair comphensation arrived at? In private industry, one could sue the company for millions if a family member dies as a result of company action. Are all the dead soldiers gonna get paid millions? No? Then they were slaves (or volunteers).
I fail to see what would be served by paying millions to someone who has died? :thinking: However; their surviving beneficiaries will receive benefits. :shrug:
 
The point is, you cannot value someone's life and that is what you are pretending to buy with conscription. If you can't pay for the labor, it's slavery (or volunteer).
 
Last edited:
It's different than jury duty, where comphensation for a few hours of work can be calculated to 'whatever'. Let us also note how easy it is to get out of or avoid jury duty; jury duty is hardly an obligation. Jury duty is a token gesture that is avoidable with a few simple words, not a (binding) call to life-threatening sacrifice. Comparing jury duty to military service is not robust.

I'm not comparing the "potential sacrifice" of the two, but rather, am simply appying YOUR definition. You said (before you conveniently edited) that conscripted soldiers were being forced to "work involuntarily". I simply pointed out that sequestered jurors also fit that definition and asked if "slavery" should apply to this situation as well? Now you're changing the "rules of engagement" to fit your own point of view. :shrug:
 
I'm not changing anything.

The point is not merely "work involuntarily". Grasp the main point, please: "work without fair comphensation". Fair comphensation for jury duty is a certificate of participation and you can opt out with a few words. Jury duty is not really an obligation and comphensation is fair enough. Conscription is an obligation that cannot be avoided (without penalty) with a few words. Conscription also cannot be comphensated for, in the free market, because we cannot put a value on a life.

I cannot make it any more clear. Continue to post about how I deftly ninja your wonderful arguments when I do no such thing, whatever.



If you cannot pay someone for doing something you require, as an employer, then they are your slave or a volunteer. There's no way around that.
 
Last edited:
The point is not merely "work involuntarily". Grasp the main point, please: "work without fair comphensation". Fair comphensation for jury duty is a certificate of participation and you can opt out with a few words. Jury duty is not really an obligation and comphensation is fair enough.
Have you tried to get out of jury duty in a US Court lately? In my state you get locked up for skipping out and a "few words" just don't seem to cut it :lol:

On the topic of fair compensation......members of the US military get equitable pay, health/dental care, free housing or housing allowance, hazardous duty pay, paid leave, free legal service, family benefits, life insurance, skill training, etc. Sure, it's not like a top-notch corporate executive's package, but we're hardly left destitute. :lol:

Finally, I really don't want to come across as insensitve here and I have served in a combat zone, so I feel that I can speak with a degree of openness here, but....statistically speaking, you have a greater chance of being injured or killed by simply getting in a car and driving on a public highway, than you do serving on Active Duty in the military. Take the avg number of drivers on our highways each day and look at the percentage injured or killed in auto related accidents, then take the number of active duty military and look at the percentage of these injured or killed in combat daily and you'll see. Don't get me wrong, I grieve deeply for the loss of every single one of our men/women in uniform, but your talking point is based on the fallacy that military service automatically equals the "ultimate sacrifice". Sure, there is that potential, it's the "nature of the business", but then, like I said, there are many things we do on a daily basis (ie. driving a car) that gives us the same or even greater potential for death or injury. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know people who have skipped out of jury duty with a couple words at the courthouse recently.

Don't talk down to me about the reality of military service. I was a paratrooper during wartime. It was not like jury duty, and your comparison is disrespectful.



If someone buys what they cannot pay for, they have slaves or volunteers. End of story.


ps. No-one forces you to drive a car. Stay home if you want, or buy a jetpack. Stop trying to compare jury duty or driving a car to being required to charge a machinegun nest, it's unbecomming intellectually. You're trying to argue that it is ok to force military service by belittling that service. Yuck.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know people who have skipped out of jury duty with a couple words at the courthouse recently.

Don't talk down to me about the reality of military service. I was a paratrooper during wartime. It was not like jury duty, and your comparison is disrespectful.



If someone buys what they cannot pay for, they have slaves or volunteers. End of story.
Well I respect your military service and your friend's ability to weasel out of jury duty. I must also respectfully disagree with you.....I never really saw my ten years of service including a year in lovely Saudi/Iraq as a form of "slavery." I saw it more as a duty to my country and not some service that required "sufficient compensation." I'd like to think that most of our military men and women choose to see it the same way. As I posted earlier, my father was a draftee during the Vietnam Conflict and he never saw it as "slavery" either. But then, I suppose opinions are indeed like anuses................. :shrug:
 
Of course our service was not slavery; we're volunteers. That's quite the point. Some conscripts would volunteer anyway, and so they don't see it as slavery either - so? They don't speak for everyone.

I, personally, would not serve next to a conscript. I have more respect for myself than that.
 
Last edited:
I, personally, would not serve next to a conscript. I have more respect for myself than that.
I have a different view. I would proudly serve next to my father if it were possible, as his 25 years of service were impeccable. I also know, for a fact, that there were other conscripts of the Vietnam era who became career miltary and were fine soldiers, sailors, and airmen. It seems that now you are the one who is being disrespectful.
 
@ Obamanator
I wasn’t agitated so why must I calm down? I’m safe from service anyway but, shall I turn a blind eye to a concept that we belong to the state? I don’t think so.
I have to disagree. A free society is not dependent on foreign wars. A free society is not dependent on continuous wars. A free society is not dependent on an imperialist type military. These types of themes bring a dictatorship.

@ earthworm
So, who owns you?
 
I wonder, of the 86 who voted yes, how many are over 22?
 
Back
Top Bottom