Draft service

[Military Guy]

Option A: Of course! Every adult has to serve his country, in case of need also by offering his life.

Option B: Yes, but after their basic training the conscripts should be allowed to do alternative service during the rest of the term of service.

Option C: In case of conscientious objection to military service, the conscripts should decide themselves if they want to join the army or an alternative service. The latter, however, should endure twice as long to avoid shirking.

Option D: Egoism rules, and I'm a wuss anyway.


I voted option A. I believe for once in his life a man should give proof of his masculinity by going over the limits of his own capacity.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm not going to answer in relation to those options... although needing to prove your masculinity says a lot about a person.

I believe that a person should have to perform some kind of service to their community, the military should obviously be an option, but not the only one.

[Donerail]

D; or, the 13th.

[Antonio the Sixth]

D is the right answer.

[Napoleon]

The draft is evil and you are a wuss.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Draft is slavery. Simple as that.

[Napoleon]

The Draft is slavery. Simple as that.

You probably believe the same thing about the federal income tax.

One could simply not work.

[Redalgo]

In my humble, respectful opinion, options A-C are unambiguously authoritarian choices and D is presented in too much of a biased, nastier-than-necessary manner. That having been said, I value individual rights more so than collective duties and value the defense of the People more so than the defense of the state. I believe that option D is the best available in this list. If a war is truly just and worthwhile the masses will rally to arms and enlist. Any government that is prepared to use its citizens as expendable tools in its quarrels against their will is a grave, albeit latent threat to its own people - a looming and potent enemy from within, so to speak.

There are conditions under which I'd probably enlist - putting my life on the line for something greater than myself - and yet there are also conditions under which I would be alright with a foreign power seizing control of my community, would seek to emigrate abroad, or even take up arms against the state. You see, I am not government property and bow unquestioningly to no authority. That is to say, I'm a free man. Call me a wuss if you like. I will not be ashamed. I also frown upon glorification of gender roles. They are social constructs, and I am not made at all insecure by the fact that my personality and habits are both "masculine" and "feminine."

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I've long believed that if every citizen went thru some form of basic training- we'd all be better off. However that isn't practical and we thrive by having an all-volunteer military. Having said that, the option to conscript is vital for our national security and it must be on the table

I voted B but none of these convey my view, you wuss

[Napoleon]

The Draft is slavery. Simple as that.

You probably believe the same thing about the federal income tax.

One could simply not work.

Not working is not a legitimate option for most adults.

Sure but the government won't come after you for not having a job like they would for refusing to be drafted. For many young men the draft is a death sentence.

[Mechaman]

Option D, easily.

This idea that I should, in sometime in my life, feel an indebtedness to serve the state is beyond me.  I mean, I've already paid my taxes.  If the State wants me to serve them, they are going to have to pay me just like any other organization does (which, if we do have some sort of service program I would expect).  And more than they would in Harrisburg.  In regards to the draft, where people are paid, meh I don't think forcing people into the military is good policy due to the possibility of death.

Want to meet people from different backgrounds?  Go outside and talk to your neighbors.  Go downtown and help with a foodbank.  Organize a food drive.  Join a book club.  Go to the library.  It shouldn't be the State's duty to make sure you know people.

And some people wonder why libertarianism is popular.  This is why (though I'm more center left on philosophy).

I do agree with Polnut though, a person SHOULD contribute to society in a meaningful way beyond mere commerce.  I for one have contributed scores of community service hours and unrecorded volunteer hours for the betterment of less off communities throughout the American West.  What should be done is to encourage kids in school to have a certain civic duty to their fellow citizens.  I don't think a Universal National Service (or whatever you want to call it) is necessary.

[Mechaman]

In my humble, respectful opinion, options A-C are unambiguously authoritarian choices and D is presented in too much of a biased, nastier-than-necessary manner. That having been said, I value individual rights more so than collective duties and value the defense of the People more so than the defense of the state. I believe that option D is the best available in this list. If a war is truly just and worthwhile the masses will rally to arms and enlist. Any government that is prepared to use its citizens as expendable tools in its quarrels against their will is a grave, albeit latent threat to its own people - a looming and potent enemy from within, so to speak.

There are conditions under which I'd probably enlist - putting my life on the line for something greater than myself - and yet there are also conditions under which I would be alright with a foreign power seizing control of my community, would seek to emigrate abroad, or even take up arms against the state. You see, I am not government property and bow unquestioningly to no authority. That is to say, I'm a free man. Call me a wuss if you like. I will not be ashamed. I also frown upon glorification of gender roles. They are social constructs, and I am not made at all insecure by the fact that my personality and habits are both "masculine" and "feminine."

This.  Times 1,000.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

If the State wants me to serve them, they are going to have to pay me just like any other organization does. 

Conscripted service members are paid equal to volunteers...

[minionofmidas]

If the State wants me to serve them, they are going to have to pay me just like any other organization does. 

Conscripted service members are paid equal to volunteers...

They never were in Germany til the draft's abolution. (Paid something, yes.)

[Mechaman]

If the State wants me to serve them, they are going to have to pay me just like any other organization does.  

Conscripted service members are paid equal to volunteers...

I was referring to the argument for Universal National Service, of which I haven't heard people mention monetary compensation.  Maybe there is compensation, but I haven't heard of it.

I apologize for the confusion, should've clarified more.

[Free Palestine]

Option F

As in go f#ck yourself.

[Free Palestine]

Seriously though...

Conscription, I believe, is forced labor, and a moral evil.  I don't give a crap about your arguments about "civic duty" or social contract theory philosophical bs, conscription = forced labor = wrong.  Even if the nation is at alleged risk, people should not be forced into labor.

And yes, I oppose jury duty as well.

[Supersonic]

I'm the only one for Option C.

I guess that was the Hipster choice.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Option D, but rephrased as so:

No. Freedom is cool.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Option D. If the "community" has done so little to earn the support of its members that it feels the need to coerce them into defending it rather than seeing them stand up to do of their own free will, then perhaps it is better that said community disappear from this Earth.

[courts]

get an avatar then we'll talk.

[Free Palestine]

What I find especially annoying is progressives who support this kind of thing.  What the hell happened to "my body, my choice" or "keep the government out of people's private lives"?  But I digress...

[Dereich]

In my humble, respectful opinion, options A-C are unambiguously authoritarian choices and D is presented in too much of a biased, nastier-than-necessary manner. That having been said, I value individual rights more so than collective duties and value the defense of the People more so than the defense of the state. I believe that option D is the best available in this list. If a war is truly just and worthwhile the masses will rally to arms and enlist. Any government that is prepared to use its citizens as expendable tools in its quarrels against their will is a grave, albeit latent threat to its own people - a looming and potent enemy from within, so to speak.

There are conditions under which I'd probably enlist - putting my life on the line for something greater than myself - and yet there are also conditions under which I would be alright with a foreign power seizing control of my community, would seek to emigrate abroad, or even take up arms against the state. You see, I am not government property and bow unquestioningly to no authority. That is to say, I'm a free man. Call me a wuss if you like. I will not be ashamed. I also frown upon glorification of gender roles. They are social constructs, and I am not made at all insecure by the fact that my personality and habits are both "masculine" and "feminine."

Of course then you run into the tragedy of the commons/free rider problem. I see this as the same sort of issue as https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156526.0

 I'm not arguing that peacetime conscription is a good thing, but in a time of emergency when the country itself is threatened requiring able bodied persons to defend their homeland shouldn't be viewed as a negative. States have the responsibility to defend the liberties of its citizens and in return the citizens must protect the state. Of course, this assumes the state does defend liberties and the war is just.

[Redalgo]

It is a legitimate concern, yes, but in such instances I would say the country "deserves" to lose. The People are sovereign - not the state itself (which merely has their consent to borrow power and legitimacy from them) and if folks decide not to uphold their duties to society, they may well need to pay the price for their negligence awhile later. In a country of hundreds of millions, if we cannot marshal at least a handful of millions for the defense it would not be unreasonable for us to presume that most citizens are passive enough to accept the victory of a foreign power. This is a biased position of course, as I have no sense of loyalty whatsoever to the government, but still!

You are right to compare this with the tax issue, yet I see it as a matter of extremes. I am willing to coerce other people to pay money for social programs but am not willing to make other people pay with a severe loss of their individual rights for a prolonged time, and quite possibly with their lives as well, for the ends of the state. A foreign power is probably never going to attack us with the intent of eradicating our people. It is possible for us to retain a large number of our rights and liberties (or later reclaim them via revolution) despite the potential loss of our current government. That is to say, I am willing to demand folks sacrifice some of what they have... but not everything.

Aside from that, volunteers make much better soldiers than conscripts, and no war with a foreign power on U.S. soil threatening to defeat the federal government would end conventionally, yeah?

[Free Palestine]

In my humble, respectful opinion, options A-C are unambiguously authoritarian choices and D is presented in too much of a biased, nastier-than-necessary manner. That having been said, I value individual rights more so than collective duties and value the defense of the People more so than the defense of the state. I believe that option D is the best available in this list. If a war is truly just and worthwhile the masses will rally to arms and enlist. Any government that is prepared to use its citizens as expendable tools in its quarrels against their will is a grave, albeit latent threat to its own people - a looming and potent enemy from within, so to speak.

There are conditions under which I'd probably enlist - putting my life on the line for something greater than myself - and yet there are also conditions under which I would be alright with a foreign power seizing control of my community, would seek to emigrate abroad, or even take up arms against the state. You see, I am not government property and bow unquestioningly to no authority. That is to say, I'm a free man. Call me a wuss if you like. I will not be ashamed. I also frown upon glorification of gender roles. They are social constructs, and I am not made at all insecure by the fact that my personality and habits are both "masculine" and "feminine."

Of course then you run into the tragedy of the commons/free rider problem. I see this as the same sort of issue as https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156526.0

 I'm not arguing that peacetime conscription is a good thing, but in a time of emergency when the country itself is threatened requiring able bodied persons to defend their homeland shouldn't be viewed as a negative. States have the responsibility to defend the liberties of its citizens and in return the citizens must protect the state. Of course, this assumes the state does defend liberties and the war is just.

Forcing individuals to defend the state they may or may not care for should be viewed as negative.