Take the money from welfare, food stamps, section 8...
Instead of public assistance you get shipped to a military base where you get 3 hots & a cot.
If you fuck up bad enough to be kicked out then you're on your own.

You're going to make me pull out the quotes, aren't you?

Thomas Jefferson, writing to John Adams on the proposed drafting of militia members into the Continental Army:

"Our battalions for the continental service were some time ago so far filled as rendered the recommendation of a draught from the militia hardly requisite, and the more so as in this country it ever was the most unpopular and impracticable thing that could be attempted. Our people, even under the monarchical government, had learnt to consider it as the last of all oppressions."

Wow. I see what you mean, there: A founding father who owned slaves found the idea of a draft to be both unpopular and impracticable. Golly. I guess that means he... Wait, just what the hell does that mean? Within the context of what you're saying, that is?

Daniel Webster, from the War of 1812:

"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government."
(unknown date or speech)

Webster, again when Monroe and Madison were advocating for conscription:

"The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion...Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not...Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?"
(December 9, 1814 House of Representatives Address)

Yes, he repeats himself, but I think his eloquence still rings true.

Webster wasn't a founder, per se, but he damn sure encapsulates the attitudes I discovered reading through all the various original sources. It is to be noted that the first real occasion where the national government started conscription was in 1863. And, it wasn't too damn popular then, either.

I haven't got time to go digging through everything, but there are tons of examples. It is to be noted that absolutely no national conscription was conducted up until 1863, not for the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or the Mexican War. I wonder why, if the Founders were so much in favor of it? Most of them still being around to ask, notably.

 
Uh oh everyone,  we got a bad ass over here.

 
I don't give a shit about what founding fathers wrote to each other.  Where is it unconstitutional to start a draft? Show me the line. And if you can do that,  then show me where a draft us unconstitutional,  but the founding fathers did not think it necessary to make actual slavery unconstitutional.


And Jefferson is one of the worst guys to take him at his word with his wien letters, as he was a different person when he was elected President.


The founding fathers were men lime you and me and they argued about everything. They were flawed just like any human being.

Conscription is morally wrong, and impractical as well.

13th Amendment makes involuntary servitude unconstitutional except as punishment for a crime. SCOTUS decided this didn't apply to the draft, but SCOTUS decides primarily based upon political expediency and not strict constitutionality, so fuck them.

The founders did not make slavery unconstitutional at the start because to do so would have killed the republic in it's crib, too many states would have refused to join the union if that was a requirement.

You want slaves fighting to defend freedom?

What's wrong with this picture?

America would benefit from two years of mandatory public service.  I don't care if you are too fat/dumb/blind to be of any use in the .mil, go cut trails in national forests instead.  

One of the best things the military does for people is force them to interact daily with people from other backgrounds. You have to get out of your familiar surroundings and work with/for people of different races, nationalities, from different regions of the country, etc.  

We'd have a lot less trouble getting along with each other if some forced interaction outside everyone's comfort zone happened from age 18-20 or 22-24, whatever.

 
LOL. Make excuses for slavery and defend it, but badmouth conscription. Nice consistency all you guys display.


The Supreme Court is body setup to interpret the constitution. If they say it is not in conflict with the Constitution, then that is what it is,  in the eyes of the law.


You can't say a draft is unconstitutional when there is nothing in it that says so, and you can't espouse the freedom of the 18th Century when you had millions of slaves in a "free" country.

Who defended slavery?

SCOTUS is a bunch of political hacks, they get it wrong all the damn time, what the USC says matters not one bit to them.

Read the 13th Amendment for yourself, it's in simple English. Any semi-literate American should be able to understand what it means, the SCOTUS saying that the draft isn't involuntary servitude is a truly "2+2=5" situation. If you just swallow that, nothing can help you, lost cause.

This. If you're on benefits then you should be working. One of the options for that work could be national service.

o

Regardless, that entire discussion was over whether members of the militia could be involuntarily made into Continental troops. That militia service in question was compiulsory in much of the country. Even while arguing against calls to federal service,many of those opposed to such - like Webster - would never even have dreamt of opposing compulsory militia service, so natural and expected was such as an obligation of FREE men.

Aren't you special? I'm talking about the Western tradition of citizenship obligating military service, and I am doing so in the face of people suggesting such is akin to SLAVERY! There are still countries whose conscription system is limited to a militia-rooted role, and thus cannot be used for foreign deployments, etc.

That is a wholly separate discussion from one of whether compulsory service is SLAVERY. But even that one was had by our founders, and they ultimately agreed to it in cases of invasion of the need to suppress an insurrection (and 1812 was an invasion, and the formation of the CSA 50 years later - the context of the aforementioned NYC riots - was indeed an insurrection).

lol....let me know when they install the electric riding cart lane at MEPS.

This. It'd be an immense boon to the country.

There are pros and cons to both sides of the argument. Most have been addressed already multiple times.

Jefferson's war record speaks for itself.

I wonder how many of the draft=slavery didn't sign up for selective service.

Yeah.

Thats what I thought.

The bubba militia is gonna crawl out of the wood work to fight the bad guys?  yeah.  right.  


i pay my taxes.
i go and get my drivers license
i send my kids to school and went to school as well.

draft!  Holy fuck!  SLAVERY!!!!  I serve no master!!!!!!  

what I am really getting out of this is that they will grovel to .gov as long as it doesn't become scary.

Ted Kazinski at least lived it.

no. the gov serves us. not the other way around.

...of the people

I've learned a lot, reading this thread.

I used to be vehemently opposed to it, but I've softened up on it.

You're a real student of history aren't you?

I have news: War did not begin when the U.S. ended the draft.

Like most libertarian subjects I started on one side, researched a lot on it (had a paper on it published), and changed my position.  there is a lot of nuance to the subject.

no society exists without inherent obligation on the members of that society.  the debate now is how far that entails.

there is something ugly about a society where people can be obligated to pay money for it partially so you can rent others to fight for it.

a man is measured by what he will die for.  a culture is measured by whether they will do so.

this abhorrence of the draft is a symptom of a larger problem of a population feeling separated from its government.

Of course, it was the communists in the 60s who created this astro-turf opposition to the draft as one part of their mechanism to destroy "american exceptionalism"

"I am not fighting for the corporations (or government, capitalists, 1%ers, Halliburton, oil companies, etc)"  No difference here.

I like Heinlein.  I have several of his books.  For my children.  He is not the definitive philosopher of our age, however.

If you're 30-40 years old and thumping your chest about not being a slave I don't give a shit because we don't need you anyway.  But I hope you're teaching your kids that America is an exceptional country, worth fighting for.  At a minimum, don't poison the next generation.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

So... you volunteered for service on 9/12, right?

You, sir, are wrong.

From Finland: we have been and still are located next to Russia. Ie face that constant existential threat.

I agree - one man, one vote, one rifle.

Also - I was a concript. Everyone (80%+) of males do 6-12 months. I learned respect of authority, land navigation, survival, shooting, basics of safe gun handling, my mental and physical breaking points and basics of taking care of your physical fitness. In addition I learned good tolerance of uncomfortable situations, patience and in general when things not go to my way - stfu and try harder.

I also got tremendous boost in self confidence, felt that I had passed our national rite of passage and taken my place among men like my father and his father before me.

Now, imagine that 4 out 5 males do this - it does have impact on society. We dont mobility scooters in our malls or fat people on disability for example...

Mandatory I can't get behind.

Required for voting, I wouldn't have a huge problem with, except that it would involve a huge expansion of the federal government, and I don't see how the whole deal wouldn't turn into a make-work social engineering boondoggle within 2 years.

I'd post more, but I am at my quarterly sharp briefing.

It would really have to be mandatory.  Just like selective service or the draft, "rich" kids should be required to render national service just like poor kids.  I do agree that if you wanted to incentivize it, you could make service a prereq for voting, or receiving government backed student loans, or government backed home loans, etc.

Well said ! +1

No on all counts

Funny thing, that. Every one of the professional Finnish soldiers I've met and talked to over the years has made a point of mentioning how jealous they were of our full-time professional force, and indicated that they'd go that direction in a hot minute, if only the politicians would let them. Strange attitude for them to have, isn't it? I mean, if it is so successful, and all, right?

Could it possibly be that they're concerned about the state of training, and the fact that we're no longer in a military situation where you can give the conscripts a couple of weeks of training, a bolt action rifle, and Finnish cockade for their hat before sending them off to war? Is it possibly that their professional opinion is that they need full-time,  professional forces, in order to maintain proficiency on the complex modern equipment that is becoming mandatory for survival and victory? Why are you paying these men what you are, if you're not going to listen to them?

The era where a short-term conscript army was even semi-effective probably ended in the 1980s. The handwriting was on the wall in the Falklands, where the professional British Army deployed halfway across the world and then mopped the floor with the Argentines. The skill disparity has only gotten exponentially worse since then, along with the complexity of the equipment and technique. Twice during my career as a long-service combat arms NCO I've had to forgo the benefit of having long-service private soldiers in my formation, and by that, I'm referring to men well past the two-year mark you lot would like to limit me too. Without those men, my unit was crippled. I had junior NCOs, good ones, working for me at the same time. No matter how hard we tried, we could not compensate for the lack of one-on-one individual pairing with experienced soldiers. Even just in training exercises, the inexperienced conscript equivalents almost got themselves (and, the NCOs like me) killed so often that it rapidly lost its humor. After the third time they find a new and better way to set the tent on fire or wreck the truck, you start to develop more than a little bit of existencial despair. You spend nine months running around like a frantic demented mother duck trying to keep her ducklings from killing themselves, you start to value those experienced private soldiers a great deal more than you did.

You want a social program to "build national cohesion", and get the young out into the fresh air? Fine, admit that your desire has no place in a rational modern military, and start something else up that provides all that without burdening the military with the inherent mediocrity of a conscript force that is constantly having to go over the same simplistic basic tasks and training events for a new rota of conscripts. When your forces start having to chose simpler, less capable equipment than they'd like because they feel they won't have the time to train the conscripts to the required levels of proficiency on the better gear, you're doing it wrong. Your Army has had to make precisely that choice, more than a few times over these last several decades, per the international defense press.

Situation may well change, and one day we'll see where mass conscript armies become more than a murder-suicide pact writ large. That day isn't here, as of yet, and it hasn't been around since at least the late 1980s. Maybe when we figure out how to write four years or so worth of training and experience on top of the average teenage mind in an afternoon of hypnosis, or something. You're going to have to do something pretty dramatic in order to make most of the knuckleheads I served with and over a little less death-prone. Even in peacetime, realistic training is not safe. We used to kill at least 2 or 3 people at the NTC per rotation, when we started that up. Took ten-plus years to get that down to where we could quit requiring player units to bring out dress uniforms with them for casualty escort duty, and I have to ascribe that to having a better-trained and more experienced force.

Y'all do understand that you're going to bring all that back, when you bring in conscription, right?

gee.  they want to get paid more to do what they do?  you...........................don't.....................................say.

did those same professional finnish soldiers you talked to over the years (impressive that you know so many.  pretty esoteric demographic to have as a bulk of your "friends") mention how much they wished to live in american society?  with all its fatties, welfare consumers and pussies.  I think I have known one finnish officer after 26 years in the military including two nato deployments and  a UN deployment.

the question wasn't, "do conscripts make a better army"

the question was, "would a conscription be good for America?"

QED

/thread

I would guess that you probably spend the majority of your time on joint exercises out on smoke break mumbling to yourself, instead of circulating and meeting people. You also probably don't spend much time on military history boards, where you'll find a lot of interesting people who are from a wide variety of backgrounds. Engaging them in conversation is pretty interesting, and educational, to boot. Where do you suppose I first learned about the Swedish military system of the 1600s, for example? That sure as hell wasn't in my BNCOC course, or something I picked up in casual reading here in the US.

Conscription would not be "good for America", as it would be a complete waste of money for a program with near-zero utility for the modern military. You want to waste money? Vote for Democrats, and join a union. It's what they do. As a (theoretically) professional soldier, your duty is to ensure victory at a minimal cost in human life. You're not going to do that with a conscript army, in this day and age. On top of that, the idea that something so divisive is going to magically heal the fractures in our society is, at the most charitable reading I can give it, delusional to the point of psychosis. You want to fix things,  you'd better start with the things that are going wrong long before the kids are reaching the age where they could even participate in such a thing, like parenting, school, and general socialization. You put the current lot of young Americans in some kind of national service program, and I can just about guarantee that you're going to wake up ten years after you start and go "Holy fuck, was that a mistake...", just like the Prohibitionists did. You're not going to fix the issues you're trying to address with some bullshit program like this, and you're going to destroy the military's effectiveness while you're at it.

I can just imagine what your life would look like, after trying to deal with this shit. You think you're going to have modern American kids conscripted and under you for training, and still have your hands free to do what is necessary? Buddy, let me introduce you to the helicopter parents my mom has been dealing with for the last 20 years--By the time they get done with your stupid ass, working through Congress, you're going to be lucky if you get to take the little darlings out to a fucking Holiday Inn for an overnight stay, as a field training exercise. High standards in training? Don't fucking make me laugh--You raise your voice to a conscript, you'll probably kiss goodbye to your career. You're delusional if you think the stupidity that's been going on in general across society is just magically going to stop if you draft everyone into your dream army. When they got done with it, you'd either leave in disgust or shoot yourself out of frustration. The speshul snowflakes will see to that, you bad, nasty man with standards...

The cultural cancer we have going here is not going to be fixed by slapping a national service bandaid on top of it. People like Charles Rangel want you to believe that, but by the time he and the rest of his Social Justice types got done with you, everything you love and respect about the military will be dead and gone, just like Carthage. Chicks in the Rangers? Buddy, you ain't seen shit, yet.

The hilarious thing about this "national service" idea is that you guys think people would just be put to work building bridges or filling sandbags. No, they would be put to work by the EPA looking for backed up drainage ditches to declare a National Wetland or helping out with audits so the IRS could squeeze more money out of the average person. Government works the way it works. If it you give it more resources, it's going to use those resources the way it's always used them, not in some noble fashion that you approve of.

our military seems to be doing a fine job without me getting in the way.  i'm inclined to let them continue as is.

It would be MUCH worse than that. It would be used to expand the power of the nanny state in 10,000 different ways. Imagine doubling the number of BATFE agents, for example.

All it would do is lower the standards of the Army.

Wait - you don't like the FSA, but you want to pay to hire half the nation for 2 years?

Also, there are plenty of jackasses in the military as is. Some of the biggest thieves and douche bags I know served. The military isn't some magical entity that sets you straight.

Find me a country full of conscripts that have it better than us.

Its like Renaldo getting lectured on Soccer by some kid with a Sega.

I'm not saying this applies to you but, many here don't understand what that word really means to begin with...

You do have a point. For US - professional army is definately way to go if one has to operate around the world.

For us, coveniently located next to Russia with 1330 km of land border to protect I would go with 900k motivated conscripts over 50k professinals any day. The knowledge that Russians will burn your house with your family still in it if they get through is better motivation than money. Thats why we won the winter war.

I can just speak from my perspective: I was bit of geek as a teen. Smart, but physically not tough. Weak self confidence. During high school I figured that if I have to spend 12 months in the army I might as well make it fun. Worked my ass off for two years, running  hiking, swimming, shooti g etc. Applied for a small motivated unit which seemed fun. You can find it listed under special forces.

To my surprise I got in. 12 months. 30% of preselected bunch dropped due to injuries, lack of will etc. I got through. Learned my physical limits and lot about my personality and how I for example react to stress. Had a great body afterwards and loads of self confidence. Back to university and thanks to those two things I got laid a lot.

I figured - if I can go through that training, I can do whatever I want. Finished masters degree in 4 years. Off to have a good career o  the private sector (software business). That can do attitude and knowing that I  an get shit done is a gift that keeps giving still today...

Military side is a hobby now. I have been staying in shape and run, hike or hit the gym 4 times a week. Today I can still do everything I did back then, it only hurts more and recovery is slower. I spent about 40 days in service last year, receiving training or donating my time to give it.

In other words, i can have the best of both worlds: good indoor job and get paid real money during the week and do all the cool shit civilians dont get to do. :) In addition nothing helps to manage work related stress like going to shoot and blow shit up during the weekend with other likeminded individuals....

edit: When it comes to bolt action rifles, I much rather use AR type rifle with magpul furniture, aimpoint micro and and geissele trigger... I dont know about the cockade either, I bought my shit from crye precision.

Except the kid playing Sega is arguing with an opponent that exists only in his mind.

Only on arfcom would people compare a professional warrior-class to conscirption.

Generally speaking a national socialist philosophy where the individual's needs are completely subordinate to the demands of the state.

It originates from the term fascine, (don't know the latin spelling) where a bundle of sticks tightly bound is unbreakable whereas the individual stick is easily broken.

Only by being tightly bound together can a state be strong.  Most liberals adhere to the philosophy of fascism not knowing its history and origin.  

Distilled to its core, iberalism is basically fascism with better marketing and PR.

A lot of stupidity in this thread.



In the end there is a simple truth, all free men should feel compelled in times of danger to defend their life, liberty and property. Any man who is unwilling to do so doesn't deserve to be a freeman nor to have a country.

Concur, except that there must be exceptions for those who are unable (but they may serve in other capacities like production, logistics, training or other posts that will free up a capable person to fill the ranks of fighting men).