BF2S Forums Mandatory military service in the US

Cybargs wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

big up Yes from me ................. now keep infantry ( as it is right now ) a volunteer career but 2 years in service should be mandatory


theres so many different jobs in the military, alot of those jobs you're never have to pick up a rifle except in basic



for me the pros totally out-weigh the cons ......... education money _{you have to put in $100 a month for the first year} job experience, possible going on float or stationed out of country while getting paid, reality check for some ppl that take things for granted, MONEY

cons ... being away from family at times, could get be put in a combat situation, you fuck up and you got a papertrail that will follow you for life and/or prevent you from getting jobs once out of the military

You'll get a huge civil right bullshit later on. But for a nation, civil service is a major boost to workforce and shit.

Yeah infantry should be completely voluntary.

JohnG@lt wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

oh yeah ........ ACLU and half the nation would be raising hell over this but honestly, for me, the cons are so minmal ( except the combat thing but keep your ass out of those particular jobs then ) that service time and the benefits are incredible

Really? The complete loss of personal freedom and the ability to control your own destiny in life is trivial?

Yes, the discipline that the military is useful. No denying that. It makes you tougher, stronger and more able to think on your feet but the personal cost incurred by military service is hardly inconsequential. Not only is your life turned upside down for a number of years, you are told when to eat, when to sleep, when to shit and when to kill. All this does is make people dependent on those above them in the chain of command and helpless when faced with real freedom. Is it any wonder that there are so many homeless vets now? It's not because they are terrible people or because they have PTSD, it's because they became dependent on the system that cared for their every need and didn't know how to cope when they got out.

If you want a populace entirely dependent on the government telling it what to do and how to live it's life then sure, universal military conscription is fantastic. I'll take freedom any day of the week because I've already experienced the helplessness and utter dependence that the military instills in it's victims soldiers. You call it discipline, I call it dependence.

Turquoise wrote:

There are times when I prefer Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers...

Don't have a mandatory draft, but require military or civil service for voting rights.

JohnG@lt wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

Personal Freedom -- military is no different then most civilan jobs .... you want to go vaction then save up your leave days in the military, you want to go on vaction in civlian use that 2 weeks worth of vaction time then thats all you get for the year

but if you're meaning just overall personal freedom then you get that in the military, you're not chained to your barracks room

but if you're meaning a broader personal freedom to come and go as you please ..... then you need some responsibilty instilled in your life

control ... control is false blanket drapped over eyes ................. theres always someone else in control



and the whole " told when to eat, when to sleep, when to shit and when to kill " in basic yeah, once out in the fleet ... you're your own person .

No, it's vastly different than civilian jobs. You can quit a civilian job.

Not chained to a barracks room? Guess you've never experienced and Article 15 or an alert before.

Needing responsibility instilled in ones life to prevent them from coming and going as they please? Hardly.

Control? Are you one of those 'man behind the curtain' types? I could very well pack up all my things and move to California or Europe today if I so desired. No one is going to stop me.

And no, that stuff continues well into the term of service, it's just less blatant.


You want some historic examples of 'disciplined' populations? Prussia, China, Japan, the USSR and ancient Rome before it's decline. What do/did these all have in common? Autocratic rulers and a population severely limited in it's personal freedom. But hey, far be it from me to try to explain to a lifer how important personal freedom really is. It's like trying to describe what salt tastes like to someone who has never experienced it.

jord wrote:

If an idea that was anti democratic was voted in would that be democratic?

Dilbert_X wrote:

jord wrote:

If an idea that was anti democratic was voted in would that be democratic?

It would still be anti-democratic.

I found myself mulling over a discussion in our class in History and
Moral Philosophy. Mr. Dubois was talking about the disorders that preceded
the breakup of the North American republic, back in the XXth century.
According to him, there was a time just before they went down the drain when
such crimes as Dillinger's were as common as dogfights. The Terror had not
been just in North America -- Russia and the British Isles had it, too, as
well as other places. But it reached its peak in North America shortly
before things went to pieces.
"Law-abiding people," Dubois had told us, "hardly dared go into a
public park at night. To do so was to risk attack by wolf packs of children,
armed with chains, knives, homemade guns, bludgeons . . . to be hurt at
least, robbed most certainly, injured for life probably -- or even killed.
This went on for years, right up to the war between the Russo-Anglo-American
Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. Murder, drug addiction, larceny, assault,
and vandalism were commonplace. Nor were parks the only places -- these
things happened also on the streets in daylight, on school grounds, even
inside school buildings. But parks were so notoriously unsafe that honest
people stayed clear of them after dark."
I had tried to imagine such things happening in our schools. I simply
couldn't. Nor in our parks. A park was a place for fun, not for getting
hurt. As for getting killed in one -- "Mr. Dubois, didn't they have police?
Or courts?"
"They had many more police than we have. And more courts. All
overworked."
"I guess I don't get it." If a boy in our city had done anything half
that bad . . . well, he and his father would have been flogged side by side.
But such things just didn't happen.
Mr. Dubois then demanded of me, "Define a `juvenile delinquent.' "
"Uh, one of those kids -- the ones who used to beat up people."
"Wrong."
"Huh? But the book said -- "
"My apologies. Your textbook does so state. But calling a tail a leg
does not make the name fit `Juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in
terms, one which gives a clue to their problem and their failure to solve
it. Have you ever raised a puppy?"
"Yes, sir."
"Did you housebreak him?"
"Err . . . yes, sir. Eventually." It was my slowness in this that
caused my mother to rule that dogs must stay out of the house.
"Ah, yes. When your puppy made mistakes, were you angry?"
"What? Why, he didn't know any better; he was just a puppy.
"What did you do?"
"Why, I scolded him and rubbed his nose in it and paddled him."
"Surely he could not understand your words?"
"No, but he could tell I was sore at him!"
"But you just said that you were not angry."
Mr. Dubois had an infuriating way of getting a person mixed up. "No,
but I had to make him think I was. He had to learn, didn't he?"
"Conceded. But, having made it clear to him that you disapproved, how
could you be so cruel as to spank him as well? You said the poor beastie
didn't know that he was doing wrong. Yet you indicted pain. Justify
yourself! Or are you a sadist?"
I didn't then know what a sadist was -- but I knew pups. "Mr. Dubois,
you have to! You scold him so that he knows he's in trouble, you rub his
nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so
that he darn well won't do it again -- and you have to do it right away! It
doesn't do a bit of good to punish him later; you'll just confuse him. Even
so, he won't learn from one lesson, so you watch and catch him again and
paddle him still harder. Pretty soon he learns. But it's a waste of breath
just to scold him." Then I added, "I guess you've never raised pups."
"Many. I'm raising a dachshund now -- by your methods. Let's get back
to those juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than
you here in this class . . . and they often started their lawless careers
much younger. Let us never forget that puppy. These children were often
caught; police arrested batches each day. Were they scolded? Yes, often
scathingly. Were their noses rubbed in it? Rarely. News organs and officials
usually kept their names secret -- in many places the law so required for
criminals under eighteen. Were they spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been
spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking,
or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent psychic damage."
(I had reflected that my father must never have heard of that theory.)
"Corporal punishment in schools was forbidden by law," he had gone on.
"Flogging was lawful as sentence of court only in one small province,
Delaware, and there only for a few crimes and was rarely invoked; it was
regarded as `cruel and unusual punishment.' " Dubois had mused aloud, "I do
not understand objections to `cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge
should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to
suffer, else there is no punishment -- and pain is the basic mechanism built
into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning
when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such
a highly perfected survival mechanism? However, that period was loaded with
pre-scientific pseudo-psychological nonsense.
"As for `unusual,' punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose."
He then pointed his stump at another boy. "What would happen if a puppy were
spanked every hour?"
"Uh . . . probably drive him crazy!"
"Probably. It certainly will not teach him anything. How long has it
been since the principal of this school last had to switch a pupil?"
"Uh, I'm not sure. About two years. The kid that swiped -- "
"Never mind. Long enough. It means that such punishment is so unusual
as to be significant, to deter, to instruct. Back to these young criminals
-- They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged
for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning --
a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of
confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on
probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times
before he was punished -- and then it would be merely confinement, with
others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept
out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even
that mild punishment, be given probation -- `paroled' in the jargon of the
times.
"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes
increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save
rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his
eighteenth birthday, this so-called `juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult
criminal -- and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell
awaiting execution for murder. You -- "
He had singled me out again. "Suppose you merely scolded your puppy,
never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house . . . and
occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the
house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is
now a grown dog and still not housebroken -- whereupon you whip out a gun
and shoot him dead. Comment, please?"
"Why . . . that's the craziest way to raise a dog I ever heard of!"
"I agree. Or a child. Whose fault would it be?"
"Uh . . . why, mine, I guess."
"Again I agree. But I'm not guessing."
"Mr. Dubois," a girl blurted out, "but why? Why didn't they spank
little kids when they needed it and use a good dose of the strap on any
older ones who deserved it -- the sort of lesson they wouldn't forget! I
mean ones who did things really bad. Why not?"
"I don't know," he had answered grimly, "except that the time-tested
method of instilling social virtue and respect for law in the minds of the
young did not appeal to a pre-scientific pseudo-professional class who
called themselves `social workers' or sometimes `child psychologists.' It
was too simple for them, apparently, since anybody could do it, using only
the patience and firmness needed in training a puppy. I have sometimes
wondered if they cherished a vested interest in disorder -- but that is
unlikely; adults almost always act from conscious `highest motives' no
matter what their behavior."
"But -- good heavens!" the girl answered. "I didn't like being spanked
any more than any kid does, but when I needed it, my mama delivered. The
only time I ever got a switching in school I got another one when I got home
and that was years and years ago. I don't ever expect to be hauled up in
front of a judge and sentenced to a flogging; you behave yourself and such
things don't happen. I don't see anything wrong with our system; it's a lot
better than not being able to walk outdoors for fear of your life -- why,
that's horrible!"
"I agree. Young lady, the tragic wrongness of what those well-meaning
people did, contrasted with what they thought they were doing, goes very
deep. They had no scientific theory of morals. They did have a theory of
morals and they tried to live by it (I should not have sneered at their
motives) but their theory was wrong -- half of it fuzzy-headed wishful
thinking, half of it rationalized charlatanry. The more earnest they were,
the farther it led them astray. You see, they assumed that Man has a moral
instinct."
"Sir? But I thought -- But he does! I have."
"No, my dear, you have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully
trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You
were not born with it, I was not -- and a puppy has none. We acquire moral
sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.
These unfortunate juvenile criminals were born with none, even as you and I,
and they had no chance to acquire any; their experiences did not permit it.
What is `moral sense'? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The
instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our
personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival
instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails
to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable,
everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling
everything we do."
"But the instinct to survive," he had gone on, "can be cultivated into
motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of
the individual to stay alive. Young lady, what you miscalled your `moral
instinct' was the instilling in you by your elders of the truth that
survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal
survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you
have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale. And so on
up. A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the
individual's instinct to survive -- and nowhere else! -- and must correctly
describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and
resolve all conflicts."
"We have such a theory now; we can solve any moral problem, on any
level. Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility toward
the human race -- we are even developing an exact ethic for extra-human
relations. But all moral problems can be illustrated by one misquotation:
`Greater love hath no man than a mother cat dying to defend her kittens.'
Once you understand the problem facing that cat and how she solved it, you
will then be ready to examine yourself and learn how high up the moral
ladder you are capable of climbing.
"These juvenile criminals hit a low level. Born with only the instinct
for survival, the highest morality they achieved was a shaky loyalty to a
peer group, a street gang. But the do-gooders attempted to `appeal to their
better natures,' to `reach them,' to `spark their moral sense.' Tosh! They
had no `better natures'; experience taught them that what they were doing
was the way to survive. The puppy never got his spanking; therefore what he
did with pleasure and success must be `moral.'
"The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to
group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these
kids in a way they could understand -- that is, with a spanking. But the
society they were in told them endlessly about their `rights.' "
"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no
natural rights of any nature."

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

How so? The way it was presented in the book, no one could be denied acceptance into the service.

Why should anyone have to go into the service to be entitled to vote?

JohnG@lt wrote:

How so? The way it was presented in the book, no one could be denied acceptance into the service. Didn't matter if they were missing limbs or were mentally unstable, the service was required to take them in and find a spot for them to finish their two years of service.

The book never stated that veterans were necessarily better voters but they've proven to be the only worthy decision makers in a democracy because they are the only ones who were willing to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice for their society. Those who are unwilling to do so can not be trusted in a Democracy.

I highly recommend picking up the book. It's a short read, but powerful. Won't cost you more than $6 and a lazy weekend afternoon.

Last edited by Commie Killer (2010-02-06 19:50:39)