Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 9th, 2012, 05:59 AM   #31
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
Then I guess your country should vanish from the face of the earth?
I'd like to live in a country where security and liberty is at the highest priority and always will be.

Such a country unfortunatly has yet to exist on Planet Earth, where human beings flourish.

EDIT: It wasn't meant as harsh as it sounds...

Last edited by philosopher; November 9th, 2012 at 06:36 AM.
philosopher is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 9th, 2012, 06:03 AM   #32

Zeno's Avatar
l'esprit de l'escalier
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: ♪♬ ♫♪♩
Posts: 13,417

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Lucan View Post
If a year of service in armed forces during peacetime makes one bitter and angry it means something is wrong with said army.
When Belgium was still maintaining a military presence in then West Germany, many conscripts who were sent there returned alcoholics. Beer was cheap, nothing to do, all-men environment...
Zeno is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 06:35 AM   #33

antocya's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Iraq
Posts: 4,175

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Lucan View Post
If a year of service in armed forces during peacetime makes one bitter and angry it means something is wrong with said army.
People's experiences vary and they also react differently. A lot of people would feel they've had their liberty taken from them and forces to work for little or no pay and treated like crap.
antocya is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 06:49 AM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,530

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
conscription is a dumb and inhumane policy. we are not small tribes like we were 10.000 years ago. wars are the extension of politics. on top of that, killing is a business that has to be done by professionals not some 18 or 20 year old that forcefully trained for 3 months.
some countries realized this but most didn't. but denmark's insistence on conscription still baffles me.
Well... The ones that tend to take it seriously seldom go below a year, 9 months for less crucial roles sometime. The hard-core ones can go as high as 2 or even 3 years. And really, it depends on what the situation in the world is like.

I experienced the Swedish late Cold War armed forces in the 1980's. Can't say there was anything abusive about it. The citizen-soldiery ideas was pretty strong. It was kind of a given growing up that dad needed to go away for repetition training once in a while. Willingness to go through military training among Swedish 18 years olds polled well about 80% at the time, which was unusually high by international comparison. (Iirc only the Norwegians had us beat.) The only real criticism circulating I can recall was from military planners who were pointing out that with a fully mobilised army of approx. 900 000 was likely larger than the country would be able to effectively use.
Larrey is online now  
Old November 9th, 2012, 07:14 AM   #35
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 223

Consciption in world war when your county is threatened is neccessary.

Consciption in peace time in a democratic, civilised country did no one any harm. What's two years to give up in a life time?

The funny thing about it is that those who protested the loudest about being called up, -- you know, "I could be at home now with my girlfriend" types, were the ones years later, who talked most proudly about the time they were in the service.

I've seen them wearing their regimental ties, stood at the bar, swapping stories with each other about their time in the forces.
Boy Blue is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 07:36 AM   #36
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 223

I hope there is never any reason to re-introduce consciption in Britain. When it was introduced before the country was a white Northern European country made up of culturally the same people who mainly obeyed authority.

Now in Britain you have all the nations under the sun living here, all with different religions and cultures. They just would not be conscipted, it would be a nightmare trying to get then to go.
Boy Blue is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 10:11 AM   #37
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
Even though I was disqualified for the conscription 8 years ago, I still see it as a complete and utter disgrace made by human beings.

Conscription is slavery, maybe not in its literal sense, but it is forced labor to such a degree that it should be placed in the same cathegory as slavery:

First and foremost, conscription demands a certain amount of labor done for the the government for a certain amount of time. If you refuse, you get punished. It has NOTHING in comparison to taxation, as many people say "we pay taxes too" - taxation is money, if you don't earn money, you don't pay taxes! Thats one thing, the other thing about taxation is that you don't have to do certain specific labor for the government or other people to pay your taxes. There are lots of ways of getting money, and as long as you don't get money in the illegal way (theft, fraud etc.) it is very easy for you to pay the tax duties.

Conscription on the other hand demands a certain amount of labor (military service or civil service in some countries if you refuse military service).

It makes no difference that there is a compulsory civil service for those who are deemed fit but refuse (conscientious objectors) as it is still forced labor.

I have never in my entire life, since my early childhood, understood the ethical concept of saying no to taxation but yes to compulsory, forced military or civil service.

I have come across the argument that without compulsory military service, the poor will pay the price by having to serve in the military. I say: No, you don't make a wrong a good thing by extending the wrong to include even more people!

In the western world, most people agree that compulsory military service is a part of "your duties to the country". That it is for the sake of the society.

Well, limiting child births the same way they do in China is for the sake of society too, but that's a "disgraceful intervention in human liberty" - but why on earth isn't compulsory military or civil service not a Disgraceful Intervention in Human Liberty too?!?!?

To me I'd rather have the state to impose the death penalty for a variety of crimes, even though I am against the death penalty, than for ONE moment allow the existence of forced labor.
Well, whether conscription is forced is contingent upon the laws of the nation under which you live, labor, exist, and derive a benefit, along with the nature of the political system in which one lives. Those laws, presumably passed in a lawful manner by a legislature in a representative form of government, or existing as constitutional provisions in the charter establishing and creating the government, where the constitution was the product of the people at some time, may authorize conscription and when they do, your consent to conscription is given.

An example would be the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution drafted in 1787, ratified in 1788, vested to Congress the authority to "raise and support Armies" and this language was understood to include the power of conscription. Those adults, living under the laws of the U.S. Constitution, and of the nation, deriving a benefit of the existence of the government established by the U.S. Constitution, living and laboring under the government, a government which is a representative form of government, whose laws can be changed and influenced by the electorate, give their consent to those laws. Consequently, such an individual would also give his consent to conscription.
JamesMadison is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 10:24 AM   #38
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
A country isn't worth defending if not enough volunteers sign up for battle.
This does not appear to me to be a rational conditional. The lack of worth of a nation may not be expressed or ascertained in the number of volunteers for combat or a lack of them. Perhaps a nation is worth a lot but people quite simply just do not want to die or they value their life more than they do the government or nation.
JamesMadison is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 02:33 AM   #39

Belgarion's Avatar
Cynical Optimist
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Australia
Posts: 3,228

This is what I wrote in our last discussuon of conscritption. -

Not only is it morally wrong to compel people to perform military service, it is a waste of time and resources to attempt to inculcate the desired military ethos into someone who does not want to be there. Also, todays military is a very complex environment that even for the most junior personnel requires a level of training unknown to conscript armies in the past. Again, there is no point wasting valuable training on someone who is not fully committed.

We had a saying in the navy -'One volunteer is worth ten pressed men'

Having said that, if there is going to be conscription, then it is for everybody. No exceptions, no exemptions. If you are physically and mentally fit then you will serve your term. End of story. Even if you are not capable of military service, then you will be found some sort of public service to do. Working in a hospital or school, or digging ditches if thats all you're suited for, but you will serve in some fashion. I was in high school when the Vietnam war ended, but is can remember the drama that the unfair ballot system coupled with the numerous ways that could be used to avoid service even if selected, caused at the time.
Belgarion is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 03:01 AM   #40

Tapio, the king of forest's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 304

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarion View Post
This is what I wrote in our last discussuon of conscritption. -

Not only is it morally wrong to compel people to perform military service, it is a waste of time and resources to attempt to inculcate the desired military ethos into someone who does not want to be there. Also, todays military is a very complex environment that even for the most junior personnel requires a level of training unknown to conscript armies in the past. Again, there is no point wasting valuable training on someone who is not fully committed.

We had a saying in the navy -'One volunteer is worth ten pressed men'

Having said that, if there is going to be conscription, then it is for everybody. No exceptions, no exemptions. If you are physically and mentally fit then you will serve your term. End of story. Even if you are not capable of military service, then you will be found some sort of public service to do. Working in a hospital or school, or digging ditches if thats all you're suited for, but you will serve in some fashion. I was in high school when the Vietnam war ended, but is can remember the drama that the unfair ballot system coupled with the numerous ways that could be used to avoid service even if selected, caused at the time.
Why is it morally wrong to compel people to perform military service? In my opinion the state has the right to do that.

Motivation is a problem yes, but my country has overcome this problem. Against to what you are saying, Finland doesn't take everyone in the army. Unmotivated people choose civil service, make up medical excuses or threaten to shoot everyone on their first day in (and thus get sent home right away).

This way service can be motivational, rewarding and professional. Todays military is not so complex that 6 or 12 months of training would not be enough. It's also a question about money. Smaller countries can in no way afford to pay soldiers to sit in the barracks just for that they could be called professional. In my country 70% of men are reservists. They become soldiers if called to service or refresher training. In war they fight for their families and the destiny of the nation. This is where they draw motivation from, instead from a monthly paycheck.
Tapio, the king of forest is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
conscription, disgrace, human


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Value of Human Life and Human Rights throughout History? EpicHistory360 General History 12 March 7th, 2014 07:34 PM
The true story of Conscription philosopher Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 13 October 9th, 2012 01:08 AM
Human 2.0 ghostexorcist Speculative History 15 April 27th, 2012 07:05 AM
Ottoman conscription policy and Arab world in 19-20 centuries. Lors Middle Eastern and African History 4 July 28th, 2011 01:07 AM
A Human is completely human only when s/he plays coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 9 October 29th, 2008 12:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.