Quality of performance isn't really the issue. The issue, as I see it, is coercion. If I have to put a gun to your head in order to force you to do your civic duty, that's wrong. If you're not willing to serve voluntarily, you're unfit for duty or the country is unfit to serve. Period.

But, there is a difference between the varying circumstances of conscription. When it is basically a system for managing the uptake of manpower, from amongst a population that has generally agreed to serve in a conflict, I don't have a major problem with that. WWI and WWII were both examples of this sort of thing, and I find that unobjectionable. Most of those who were truly unwilling to serve were allowed to find an out, or were found to be "unsuitable for service".

The place where conscription becomes truly unconscionable is in a case like the stuff that caused the New York Draft Riots of the 1860s, when we were grabbing up young men of military age and forcing them into involuntary service, while allowing wealthy people to buy their way out by purchasing a "substitute". That sort of thing was bullshit then, and it was bullshit when the kids who'd voted for Kennedy and Johnson got out of service on college deferments during Vietnam. They or their parents voted for the politicians who put the policies into place, and then took advantage of a system whose set-up they'd influenced in order to avoid paying the price, while quite literally forcing other men into doing their dirty work. Then, when those men returned after having done a thankless task, they turned on them like jackals, blaming them for the war they or their parents voted for. That's the kind of crap I find to be morally corrupt, when it comes to conscription.

I think there ought to be a policy that puts skin in the game for anyone who makes the decisions to go to war. Either your ass was up for grabs when the time was right for your generation, or your kids go, one or the other. I really don't like this crap where people in power aren't actually out doing the dirty work. You think it's a good idea for us to go to war? Fine--The recruiting office is that way. If you already did your time, and there wasn't a conflict, I'm OK with that. You laid your ass on the line then, and I think that provides sufficient perspective that we can trust your judgment. But, if you didn't go when it was your time? Buddy, I want to see some of your flesh and blood on the line next to me, one way or the other. Even if it is only your daughters as in-country recreation specialists...

Please tell me how the two differ, then. And, when you do, please refrain from statements like "Because...".

You're attitude is quite... European. Never been a free man, have you?

you must never went to school, either

Don't forget chemtrails and vaccines.

Involuntary servitude is involuntary servitude. There is no difference between someone coming into your Central African village and dragging you off to raise tobacco in the Carolinas and having the local military commission chose you to serve the Tzar for twenty-odd years. Because you associate the term with the relatively benign manner in which it was administered here in the US does not make a difference in what it actually is. There's a reason the Russian peasants held a funeral service for the young men they watched dragged off into the Tzar's service: They weren't much more likely to come home than that African villager ever was.

You can stomp your feet and hold your breath until you're blue in the face, but the raw facts are the raw facts: You conscript, you're forcing the unwilling into servitude that's not unlikely to result in their death. Qualitatively, it's not that much different than using your revolver to force your fellow castaways to row themselves to death so that you can make shore after your ship sinks. To even try to defend conscription as it has been used most often throughout history is to demonstrate that you possess the attitude and scruples of a slavemaster.

Oh, by the way... Forgot to commend you on that wonderfully literate sentence fragment. Outstanding--Were you at the head of your class? Makes a man proud, knowing that such literate arguments stem from our fine, socialist-enhanced school systems. Which, come to think of it, is probably where you got the idea that conscription isn't involuntary servitude. It's hardly something they'd teach men they meant to be free citizens.

Military service is historically a duty of the citizenry or gentry - an obligation expected of those who shape society and for whom the societal structure is... structured. The obligation, duty - the privilege - of bearing arms on behalf and among of your compatriots was part and parcel to the American experience from the very first colonies.

Slavery is the completely opposite, a status of absolute disregard, a non-entity politically, socially... a legal piece of property. Slaves would not be expected to serve military functions 0 they would not be trusted with arms.

To conflate the two is so profoundly derptastic as to make me question your sanity.

For what purpose? We invading Canada?

Its always the same 5-10 blowhard thin green line members spouting that shit too.

There are two types of people in this thread, those who view Americans as free people who created the government to ensure their liberty, and those who view Americans as pawns to serve the federal government.

Individuals are not born with a debt to the collective, and our lives are not indebted to the government. A government our ancestors created to preserve our rights from forceful governments.

No free man can involuntary owe his life to the state.

America would be better off. The military would be pretty sorry.

You could make them be soldiers. You can't make them be good soldiers.

Nope but a declaration of war by the federal government should only be legal after the draft has been activated and wars should only be fought when another nation poses a direct threat to mainland america or for overt conquest.

Yes, waking up at zero dark thirty, completing tasks by yourself and with a unit, learning discipline, pride in oneself, pride in a unit, personal appearance, respect for our flag, patriotism, following orders, giving orders, showing compassion for those needing assistance, yes. It is what is missing from our young people today

I have to question yours. You're missing one key word in your first sentence, which would be "voluntary".

You seem to believe you have a right to other men's lives, to do with as you will, regardless of the merits of your cause. That's the mentality of a slavemaster, the unthinking arrogation of power over others. You can pretty it up how you wish, but the fact is you're forcing others to do your will by force, whether you have them picking cotton or marching in lines to die in battle.

Conscription is a term that covers a tremendous amount of ground, from the relatively benign sort of thing we associate with our own national experience during WWI and WWII. The other end of the spectrum is what my German ancestors fled from when they left Russia and the developing Prussian mentalities in Germany--Forced conscription at gunpoint, virtual press-ganging on dry land. And, if you consider conscription both moral and desirable, what then is your opinion of what the British were doing to our seamen during the run-up to the War of 1812? "Voluntary subservitude", perhaps?

Color it however you want to: Conscription, at its root, relies on raw force to ensure that the unwilling are dragged off to war at the behest of someone else who likely imagines themselves their "betters". If you think  you have the right to do that to your fellow citizen, congratulations: You've learned well the lessons your masters taught you, and will make a fine overseer of your fellow slaves. I think they had a term for that: Trustee. Is that the role you're going for?

Free citizens have to be convinced of the merits of a war, and then led to it. Slaves are driven there, and their slavemasters trail them, motivating them with threats and gunfire. Which do you believe to be the moral course? You can't believe in the first and also support the concept of conscription.

Working and serving with different races, different ethnicities and former nationalities is what made our country different from other countries. There is no respect anymore for police or any gov institution. The soldiers who came home from WW2, Korea and Vietnam became the most productive society in history

Gotta show respect to get respect.

Talk to a recruiter. Very few of Americas youth are even eligible/capable anyways.

How much are we paying contractors to drive trucks, serve food and clean tables? Work that can be done by draftees. Instituting the draft will increase the quality of enlistments

I routinely do not comply with policeman's orders, first chance I get I bolt from the cops, I don't show up to court when I have to, correct

Apparently, Montana is considering it.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1740390_Interesting_concept_I_heard_discussed_this_Weekend_______State_Conscription___Draft_.html

I personally do not think a draft is practical. However the system that Russia and some of the eastern European counties have would be a positive, where everyone (males and females) would learn how to shoot and do physical exercise as civilians.

Basically an Appleseed type program combined with gym class with some camping and first aid thrown in. It could start in middle school with air rifles or .22cals and move up to AR-15s in high school. The physical exercise part would not be Rambo type stuff but what PE class was before it was pulled out of most schools. And awards would go to the best, not just for showing up, but to actually push people to compete. If someone decided to join the armed forces and they performed at a certain level in the program they would enter at a higher rank, like Eagle Scouts do now. The reward for sticking to this through high school would be the ability to vote and drink between 18 and 21.

If the person was going to college this could continue, either during the school year or over the summer, the reward for this credit would be credit towards tuition or student loans. At this point additional options could be added in the form of classes or “internships” that would have applications in both the military and civilian worlds as well as being life skills.

This would ensure that most adults would be in better shape, be familiar with firearms (de-mystify them) and also understand responsibility.

I forgot that, we would be cultivating gun safety and generations of firearm enhusiasts

Nicely done, thekirk.

All the senior NCO's were Vietnam era vets when I enlisted. Many, including my first 1SG were drafted.

The draftee pool obviously provided many great soldiers for this country, but not a single NCO I spoke to about the draft thought it was a good idea. The following  info came from these discussions so not speaking firsthand, just passing along what they told me.

Along with the good they also got the dregs of society. Morale sucked because most didn't want to be there and didn't care. Safety wasn't a priority because if somebody got hurt there were a dozen bodies to replace them. Crime was rampant, gang members continued fighting other gangs, and drug abuse and racism were huge issues.

From my own experience working with the conscript German Army I wasn't impressed. They all seemed a good bunch of guys but didn't want to be there. They served 18 months, didn't get paid jack shit (equivalent of about $400/month in late 1980's), the food was horrible (spent two months on a German base), and they didn't take anything very seriously. Doing their time. That was it. W. Germany couldn't even maintain a 400,000 man Army because so many opted out for public service. All they had to do was volunteer for an extra six months in the Army and their pay was almost tripled but few were willing to work an extra 6 months of 4 1/2 day work weeks.

I remember them telling us how awful it was that our country sent us so far away from home. They refused to accept we were an all volunteer Army and you should have seen their jaws drop when we told them the Army shaved our heads. We had to pull out our military ID's to show them our pictures to get them to believe it and you would have thought their mothers just died from their reactions. It made us realize what a professional Army we were.

My first 1SG was somewhat pathetic. He'd hold formation from his third floor office window, too damn lazy to climb down the stairs. He was a backwoods country boy, I'll never forget him lecturing us about none of us would ever live a better life than we do in the Army because for him, he never owned a suit or a pair of shoes until he was drafted and was convinced we were all in the same boat. "Uh uh, fella, go get me some memenems and a Diet Coke, uh, uh..."

I concur.

Nobody is compelled to live in American society.  We have no walls holding people in.

That's the voluntary. That's how it's always been.

When we start building Iron Curtains and Berlin Walls, you might have a point.  Until then, you continue to sound like a man who has no comprehension of the history of Western Civilization and the obligation of armed service.


Earlier you mentioned Irish immigrants in NYC rioting - did somebody stick them on a boat involuntarily to come to New York? This country was willing to welcome them, but with acceptance comes duty.

We started making citizenship an automatic thing out of a sense of passion for a democratic ideal, and the result has been a rejection of the most basic of duties inherent in the concept by people like yourself.

Wow, who do you think you are?
You are completely out of control.
No way in hell you will force me or my children into a service that I wouldn't volunteer for. If we had another Vietnam I would join before the draft anyway. For you to believe that being a part of this country requires service that is mandatory....you know what I'll just say it.
I would spill every ounce of my blood to fight your socialist ideals until dead.
Its not freedom. This country is about the individual not the whole.
Leave me and mine the fuck alone.

You wouldn't spill an ounce of anyone's blood. You'd spew bile on the internet and pat yourself on the back, and claim that raising an army in accordance with the Constitution is "socialism."

You can't force an american into service. That is not constitutional. And by god you go ahead and try it. See how many pmags fucking pop and see how fast you start another civil war. I promise you if this happened, war would be on your doorstep.

Are you entertaining us all with a dry run of your bile? Hopefully, any conscription would involve a mental screening, as I wouldn't trust you with weapons.  Fortunately, better men than you saw fit to entrust all of us with weapons back in the era when universal militia service was as widely accepted and expected as derp in the internet is today. You could always take off to Canada, many great Americans like yourself have done so in the past. Let me know if they let you take your guns in.

Conscripts are shitty fighters. It would lower the quality of our military. Send em to a warzone and they might get those who actually want to serve killed with their halfassnes. I don't think it would stop racism either as I saw racists while I was in both of the black and white variety. It also wouldn't stop obesity, I know plenty of the guys I served with who got out and are fat now and I only got out in nov 2011.

Being born into your Nation of origin is circumstance, not voluntary.  I think we agree there?

The Founders had a comprehension of history, and devised a government that sought to eliminate the track record of abuses known throughout mankind's recollection, to the best of their abilities.

Actually, yes, somebody did send boat loads of Irish immigrants to the US involuntarily after the Great Famine. There were over 600,000 Irish immigrants who came to the US before and during the Civil War, due to the Great Famine.  Many of them were what we would call today children, who were sold into indentured servitude and had to work off their ship voyage ticket debt that was arranged outside of their decision-making abilities.

Civic and military duty should come from within, not coercion.

1.Militia service was and has always been voluntary.
2. I could pass any mental screening you want as I am healthy.
3. That's right, you only trust people who force others into conscription with firearms.
4. A man who is willing to die for his freedom (like myself)
Is the most pure type of sane. Good luck getting me or anyone else in this country to run to Canada when you start your little dictatorship.
Wouldn't last a damn day. Seriously calm down, Mr Stalin.

Yes, it should.

It's a shame when it doesn't.

No man of intelligence or valor or a sense of free will should stand for even the thought of this blatent lunacy.
Further more, those men, those who I speak of will stand with a strong right hand against those who would impose their will upon them or the constitution of the United States of America. And in that case I would fully hope they volunteer to fight until victory or death.
Period.
This is our country.
It exists the way it does because free men stood of their own accord and fought and bled to ensure freedom for all.
FREEDOM.

op·pres·sion
?'preSH?n/Submit
noun
noun: oppression; plural noun: oppressions
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
"a region shattered by oppression and killing"
synonyms:persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More
cruelty, brutality, injustice, hardship, suffering, misery
"the young people in this country have known nothing but oppression"
antonyms:freedom, democracy
the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
synonyms:persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More
cruelty, brutality, injustice, hardship, suffering, misery
"the young people in this country have known nothing but oppression"
antonyms:freedom, democracy

I served voluntarily for 25 years in the combat arms. That said, I wholeheartedly believe that no man should be forced to serve next to me, and if he were, I would die to free him from that servitude. Conscription is wrong, wrong, wrong, and on so many different levels that I can't even begin to comprehend how my fellow citizens could possibly think otherwise. To me, the enthusiasm for this statist bullshit is a sign and symptom of the decline of our society. People want to use military service as some kind of panacea solution for the piss-poor job society in general is doing of inculcating the duties and responsibilities of the citizen. It's not going to work, folks--You're about 18 years too late by the point you could conscript your slaves, and if you think to get started earlier by setting up state-run creches to raise the kids from birth, you're ten times more wrong than the people espousing just conscription.

The more of that ilk that I see, the better I like that asshole in the white linen suit and Panama hat. All he wants is to steal my labor and freedom. You conscription enthusiasts want me to go kill people for you, and probably get killed myself. I honestly am starting to think that the slaver is probably a better human being than you are. His programs are sure as hell a lot more attractive--If I'm alive, at least I have a chance at freeing myself.

In the end, it comes from nowhere else. You can't impose virtue, or legislate morals.

Thekirk thank you so much brother. You remind me why I love my people and my home so much. Dont loose that fire brother we need you here.

I had a hard enough time dealing with the small percentage of problem soldiers who were volunteers in combat arms units that were getting paid big bucks with college money afterwards.

I can only imagine the lack of discipline in a conscript army in the American culture.

I deal with conscripts on a regular basis overseas, but they all have one thing in common:

A border with Russia.  That's a motivator in and of itself.  When you can take a walk in your local city and see craters or bomb damage still from the 1930's and 40's, one doesn't have to be prodded too much into military service.

The problem in America is communicating to the populace what our role is in the world, and it isn't defending America's borders.

The Atlantic and Pacific do that job better than any military could.  

We have inherited the policing of the trade routes, and the management of the balance of regional power throughout the world.  Since America has soured lately to large scale deployments of troops to the Middle East and Asia, we are going to use more coalition and local force solutions in the future, and any troop involvement is going to be low-density, highly skilled soldiers.  Think SF, limited aviation units, minimal logistical footprint, small number expeditionary packages that lean more on coordinating and providing key skills that the host nations don't have.

There is no reason for conscription anywhere in that picture.

 

Yep  

The biggest challenge we face in recruiting is with the volunteer Navy and Marines, who are constantly afloat with a dynamic capability to use collective violence to smack down anyone who disrupts the trade routes.

As the suitability of the targeted recruiting age pool diminishes for societal reasons that are trending in the US, all the services face serious challenges.

Recruiters in the private sector face the same problems as well.  When you combine stupidity, obesity, drug use, and criminal records as the growing norm, the recruiting pool sucks for everybody.

 
Get lost with your facts

Freedom (rights) cannot exist within a polity without an army to protect it.

In other words, the existence of an army is a supraordinate fact where rights are concerned. Thus conscription or other methods of army recruitment and organization are not a violation of the rights of anyone: they are the mechanism whereby rights exist in the first place.

And yes, mass conscription would help the country I believe.

There was actually concern in the Continental Congress that the second amendment might compel religiously conscientious objectors to serve, so ingrained in the political ideas of the time that militia service was a universal obligation.

This was also clearly enshrined in the Militia Act of 8 May 1792.



That completely flies in the face of a shitload of modern anti-federalist derp, but that's the militia system as understood - and encoded by - the founders of the US.

But, I guess these days we'd have to call them socialists, statists, or what not. Derp on, my brothers.

Dude, you mean well. I can tell that, you really do. But you're making me want to kick kittens.

The militia is not the same as a conscript army. It stands in opposition to such things, on the face of it. Militias during the colonial period were locally organized, locally run organizations. Were you to go up to any one of the Founders and suggest that such forces were the same as the conscripted forces of such nations as Hanover, they'd have stared at you as though you were insane, and when they realized you were actually serious, they'd have likely ridden you out of town on a rail after a very thorough tar-and-feathering. I mean, have you ever read the Federalist Papers or the rest of the documentation surrounding the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

Sweet Jeebus on a pogo stick... Just do a damn Google search on the terms "founding fathers on conscription", if you don't believe me.

Fuck me to tears, what our worthless fucking education system is turning out, these days. Thomas Dewey should be burnt in fucking effigy every morning, noon, and night.

 
It's ironic when people say a draft is unconstutional and equate it to slavery.


Yet,  conveniently forget many founding fathers were slave owners.


Draft != Slavery

uh..."small gov. conservatives" wanting the govt. to play mommy for everyone.

Funny how that works here.