Compulsory national service.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Good idea?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No. It will get all sorts of undesirables into the service, and a good many of them will remain undesirable.

[Mari]

This may sound stupid, but what exactly do you mean by compulsory national service? Conscription into the army? Or also other services?
And what country are you talking about specifically?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't think it needs to be that particular; the armed forces of some country. Objectively speaking, good or bad idea?

[me9996]

Not realy a good idea, you see these days (As opposed to midevil europe, maybe anchent middle east) people pay taxes and the taxes are used to hire people to do government things.

As for a draft, not unless absolutly nessesary (In todays battlefield draftees wouldn't be much help anyway)

And forced labor is just a bad idea when such services could be bought with taxes from profesanals(And again, just random people on the street building things? Bad idea)

And for the rest at least in the U.S. enough people volenteer for other things.

Anyway, in conclution: Compulsory national service (If it means what it sounds like) is a bad idea for resons of removal of freedom and lack of quality of service.

But for jury duty there is no good reson why not, a profesanaly jury would be a bad idea.


That is if Compulsory national service means what I think it means

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

service. You could do a couple of years in the Peace or Americorps.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No. It will get all sorts of undesirables into the service, and a good many of them will remain undesirable.

No it won't. There is generally a selection process in order to keep those who have nothing to do in the military out (just like in countries with a voluntary military).

While I don't think compulsory national service is a bad idea per se, I'm all for voluntary service without conscriptions. More professionalism and perhaps a little less cannon fodder

[The Gaffer]

Making people do things against their will sounds like a bad idea in general terms to me.

I agree with the comment about keeping the services professional.

And also, if you want to find things for your indolent youth to do, here's an idea: decent, properly funded training!

[brownjenkins]

It works for Israel, who have arguably the second best military in the world.

[Mari]

I've been told that men in North-Korea have to be in the military for 10 (!) years. There goes your life...

In general, I don't think compulsory is a good idea anyhow. When people do what they like to do, they are much more motivated to do it well. Besides, what's the point of making someone who is, say, good at dancing sing? Isn't it better to just find someone who can sing?
Also, I don't know what services you all have in mind, but what would the role of women be? Most people think you shouldn't send women to the army, so they would have to do something else I presume.
Besides: if we don't make a mess of it, we don't need an army or something of the sorts Or is that very wishfull thinking?

I can't really think of the national services we have in the Netherlands... I guess we have a red cross organization and such. O yeah, we also have a peacecorps, but I don't really think they have much active members, only donators. (Sorry bit off topic I guess)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

someone has to do it, right?

and compulsory national service might help even out things like this.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...d/16885555.htm

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Mari

Also, I don't know what services you all have in mind, but what would the role of women be? Most people think you shouldn't send women to the army, so they would have to do something else I presume.

Right now, about one in seven of active duty soldiers in the war zones the US is filling are women. And a lot of them mothers.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...n_in_military/

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Making people do things against their will sounds like a bad idea in general terms to me.

That's why some wars are started.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's why some wars are started.

Yep.

I didn't want to go to war in Iraq.

On the general question, if it's a service that benefits everyone in the country, then it should be compulsory. Not to say that each and every person has to fill any given role (i.e. a combat soldier or a peace corp member), but everyone should put in some time in one way or another.

And the "I pay taxes" argument doesn't fly, because one's time and life can't be reduced to monetary terms in and real sense.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

What kind of benefits?

[Mari]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Right now, about one in seven of active duty soldiers in the war zones the US is filling are women. And a lot of them mothers.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...n_in_military/

But what is the point? For what I know of military law in certain countries, women are not allowed to enter areas designated as warzone. I was told that was the reason women are not allowed to work in a submarine.
By the way, I am fine with women in the army, I just wondered.

About your other link: I think it's kind of sad that because of money problems these kids have no choice but to join the military. But that's a different subject.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

National service has the potential to shift the burden from exclusively the poor to more privileged portions of the population. And it's hard to believe that soldiers would be subject to the kind of substandard health care that's been such a scandal recently, if any portion of them attended Harvard and Yale.

Women are serving in the warzones. It's all warzone.