I disagree. If you compel people to do a thing, that thing will get done poorly, if it gets done at all.
I think we should do the opposite: ban the draft and immediately end the Selective Service. If we get attacked, people will sign up to defend their homes. If it pays well, people won’t wait until we’re attacked to sign up.
Here’s my counter offer: if you volunteer for your local National Guard, you get:
education assistance consistent with a well-paying job (say, $15-20/hr)
in-state tuition (if you’re coming from out of state)
health insurance, depending on the hours donated
housing (on-base, deducted from the education “pay” if needed)
You’d be assigned tasks consistent with your ability, such as cleaning national and state parks, wildfire fighting assistance (not front-line, but supply lines), etc. But everything is on a volunteer basis, and you can quit at any time.
I also think all high school students should be trained on basic firearm safety and use. If they need to fight, they should at least know how guns work on a basic level. But conscription should never be tolerated.
I mean, I still prefer my pitch to yours, but I wouldn’t be sad with your idea either.
I don’t think your pitch really combats the “people won’t actually want to do the work” issue. I think in either example you’ll have a lot of people who are “just here so I don’t get fined,” as it were.
But I think you’re overstating that issue in either case. Will it have that issue, sure. But so does the military writ large. Does it impact efficiency, sure. But making an efficient, well oiled machine isn’t exactly the point.
But other than that, reading your proposal again, I kinda think that the only thing that makes your proposal different from mine is the mandatory nature of the service.
The benefits you outlined are commensurate with the lower enlisted ranks in the military, so like, yeah, that’s what I’m proposing I guess.
I think the benefits of forcing people to leave their bubbles justifies the forced nature of mandatory service. It a means of helping young people escape cycles of abuse, and exposing them to other cultures. It’s also a great equalizer, in that it effects poor and rich alike, where your system ends up just admitting poor people who are desperate (not unlike the military as it stands.)
I’d also be open to having a program option where you can defer up to 5yrs to pursue a college degree if it’s in a relevant field (civil engineering, etc) and do your mandatory service afterwards utilizing those skills. The program still pays for that college time but gets relevant use out of you at the end. This prevents people who know what they want to do from having to delay and gives them relevant job experience right out of the gate as a resume builder.
I kinda think that the only thing that makes your proposal different from mine is the mandatory nature of the service.
Exactly, and that’s critical for me.
My SO is from a country with forced military service, and it’s the only reason why my children don’t have citizenship in that country. I will not force them to serve in the military, I think that’s unethical and I refused to do it. If the US called a draft that would impact my kids, I’d help them leave the country if they didn’t want to serve. I will not stand for conscription in any form, even if it’s for a “noble” purpose.
That said, I like the general idea of serving in a structured environment like the National Guard, and I considered joining some years back, but didn’t because I thought it would impact my time with my family. As long as it’s voluntary, I’m 100% on board with expanding that program.
Is it the “military” part of it? Cause I think that neither of us are proposing this as a “fight and die” thing.
If it’s just the mandate in general, would you say taxes are unethical? It’s the government taking a portion of the fruits of your labor for civic gain.
Is mandatory schooling unethical? It’s the government mandating what you do with your life in large part between the ages of 6 and 17.
I just fail to see what makes this meaningfully different from any number of things that we already happily accept.
I disagree. If you compel people to do a thing, that thing will get done poorly, if it gets done at all.
I think we should do the opposite: ban the draft and immediately end the Selective Service. If we get attacked, people will sign up to defend their homes. If it pays well, people won’t wait until we’re attacked to sign up.
Here’s my counter offer: if you volunteer for your local National Guard, you get:
You’d be assigned tasks consistent with your ability, such as cleaning national and state parks, wildfire fighting assistance (not front-line, but supply lines), etc. But everything is on a volunteer basis, and you can quit at any time.
I also think all high school students should be trained on basic firearm safety and use. If they need to fight, they should at least know how guns work on a basic level. But conscription should never be tolerated.
I mean, I still prefer my pitch to yours, but I wouldn’t be sad with your idea either.
I don’t think your pitch really combats the “people won’t actually want to do the work” issue. I think in either example you’ll have a lot of people who are “just here so I don’t get fined,” as it were.
But I think you’re overstating that issue in either case. Will it have that issue, sure. But so does the military writ large. Does it impact efficiency, sure. But making an efficient, well oiled machine isn’t exactly the point.
But other than that, reading your proposal again, I kinda think that the only thing that makes your proposal different from mine is the mandatory nature of the service.
The benefits you outlined are commensurate with the lower enlisted ranks in the military, so like, yeah, that’s what I’m proposing I guess.
I think the benefits of forcing people to leave their bubbles justifies the forced nature of mandatory service. It a means of helping young people escape cycles of abuse, and exposing them to other cultures. It’s also a great equalizer, in that it effects poor and rich alike, where your system ends up just admitting poor people who are desperate (not unlike the military as it stands.)
I’d also be open to having a program option where you can defer up to 5yrs to pursue a college degree if it’s in a relevant field (civil engineering, etc) and do your mandatory service afterwards utilizing those skills. The program still pays for that college time but gets relevant use out of you at the end. This prevents people who know what they want to do from having to delay and gives them relevant job experience right out of the gate as a resume builder.
Exactly, and that’s critical for me.
My SO is from a country with forced military service, and it’s the only reason why my children don’t have citizenship in that country. I will not force them to serve in the military, I think that’s unethical and I refused to do it. If the US called a draft that would impact my kids, I’d help them leave the country if they didn’t want to serve. I will not stand for conscription in any form, even if it’s for a “noble” purpose.
That said, I like the general idea of serving in a structured environment like the National Guard, and I considered joining some years back, but didn’t because I thought it would impact my time with my family. As long as it’s voluntary, I’m 100% on board with expanding that program.
What about it being mandated makes it unethical?
Is it the “military” part of it? Cause I think that neither of us are proposing this as a “fight and die” thing.
If it’s just the mandate in general, would you say taxes are unethical? It’s the government taking a portion of the fruits of your labor for civic gain.
Is mandatory schooling unethical? It’s the government mandating what you do with your life in large part between the ages of 6 and 17.
I just fail to see what makes this meaningfully different from any number of things that we already happily accept.