It also implies that most normal work isn't in the interest of society, which if that were true, would be a major problem on its own. In what sense is 2 years of military service or "community service" strictly better for society than going to school, or working as a waiter, or starting a small business?

I'm not sure what I believe is right but one thing I can think of is there could be a bias for a certain type of people to join branches of the military and therefore our capabilities are held back by that bias. The same goes for companies that work with the military/defense which I think the parent article lays out as well.

If you allow everyone to pick and choose what they want to do, we may actually end up (or already have ended up) with all of the talented people and cutting edge businesses chasing money here and only second tier folks working with and for the government.

I think a great example of this is with NASA. They are doing a big hiring blitz (someone posted about it recently here). They have a ton of openings but I have to imagine that the talented folks that work in the field are chasing the money that is paid by private companies right now. I personally believe NASA is an important thing that needs to exist and we need to figure out a way to make it happen. Maybe we need to just pay folks more to make them incentivized to work in government? Maybe even more so if you working for the armed forces because you lose a lot of people based upon the sheer fact that your life is more at risk.

It would definitely be worth some research. I don't think free market concepts align well with working in the armed forces and there could be some arguments that we need to tip the scales to make it work better. For some things like the usual government services that aren't vital for our existence, I think we can all accept the longer wait at the DMV or the two decades to get a Real ID implemented. I don't think we can accept not defending our own country from an adversarial invasion so we need to make that importance reflected somewhere.

> Why? I get the warm-and-fuzzy angle of "instilling civic responsibility"

I have found that when older people ask young people to do this kind of "mandatory service" they never specify what exactly are they going to do while being on the government's leash.

It's always this warm fuzzy hand wavy "civic responsibility" or "build communities" thing, that they always seem to think is something someone else should do when they are fully capable of doing it themselves.

> why should they also be able to draft you for some free labor if there's no war or other emergency going on?

You can only prepare for a fire before it starts.

> but you're effectively instilling that at gunpoint: the government forces you to do this, else you go to prison. Is that really such an enlightened thing to do?

if you want rights, you need to do more than just exist.

gunpoint is optional; West Germany used to force people to go either into the Army, or else do a longer stint of service in hospitals, firefighting, old folks homes, rescue services, youth organizations, or other civil roles.

Do you believe that in American civil society there are only privileges and not responsibilities?

Government already got the tax dollars to pay for the service at gunpoint. And makes you get a passport to travel internationally or a driver's license to get yourself around at gunpoint.

> free labor

I'm not sure anywhere expects people to do their national service for free - which is to say that such a programme would also likely be very expensive.

you're effectively instilling that at gunpoint: the government forces you to do this

I'm so sick of libertarian tropes. Starting every argument with oerwrought emotionalism has made me increasingly indifferent to your 'plight' over the years, because it's just victimization politics. Perhaps if we rebalanced public/private obligations overall tax burdens owuld be lower and society would be more pleasant to live in.

What if it didn't delay your education? In some countries an undergrad degree is only three years. I'd take a person with 1 year of civil service + 3 years of a degree over someone with 4 years of a degree any day.

Somebody who is confident enough to handle a rifle and throw a hand grenade is way more useful to me than someone who was forced to another literature or geology course.

Have someone demonstrate a command of the English language by following written instructions that require coordinating activities with a small group of people.

Instead of learning how to read a topographical map for first year geology lab final actually put the map in their hand with a compass and have them do an orienteering exercise as a group.

Devil's advocate.

First, "national service" does not necessarily mean relocation like a military deployment does. Second, there is no requirement that national service be free.

This has me thinking about a way to encourage some level of public service in exchange for better access to government programs, like an extra 10% in retirement benefits or something.

Reminds me of Starship Troopers: "Service Guarantees Citizenship!" Yes, I know it's a play on fascism.

> the government forces you to do this, else you go to prison

You'll never guess what happens if you choose not to pay taxes.

I think you could argue the draft forced the war to be real for more families (and the expansion of TV), intensifying the resistance to it. Quick googling says almost 10% of the population served in Vietnam in some capacity. Less than 1% served in the War on Terror.

This was part of Charles Rangel's (D) reasoning to propose bringing back the draft. [1]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act

Also the poor kids started killing the rich kids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging

A major reason why the draft was stopped is that because when you take a disunified and unwilling populace and start giving them weapons, their target may not be the enemy.

The word allegedly should be dropped many ie.. Taco got out of it, however much better men John McCain, John Kerry, and Robert Mueller did not. Serving is okay if everyone serves no exceptions.

People greatly overestimate the number of Vietnam vets who were drafted.

A formal declaration of war by Congress is the minimum.

Otherwise I agree that the incentives are warped.

> people should be free to choose how connected they want to feel

Yes and no. Of course people should be free, at the same time you live in a society and not a state of nature.

If someone never has to put back into society, that's dangerous. It could lead to people feeling that society has no value, that there's no sense in investing in it, that since nobody else cares why should I.

That's not a world I want to live in.

Yeah, if anyone maybe needs compulsory service, it's Mexico and Canada (to protect against the threat of the US), not the US.

Agree. I also think both men and women should serve.

more likely big tech and the oligarchs.

(The name of my next punk band.)

> The American way of life

It's your argument that our current and recent engagements in Venezuela, Iran, and soon Cuba, are to defend the American way of life?

This is naive. An American soldier hasn't died for the American way of life in decades.

you actually believe this? that American soldiers dying in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc., were actually preserving the "American way of life" (whatever that means)??

And if it were true (which it isn't), if enjoying the "American way of life" requires killing people in other countries, then it's probably not a very good way of life.

Name one conflict we’ve been in since WW2 that protected the “American way of life”

Imagine how the recipients of the work done by those spending just two years of their life doing civic projects would feel.

That's what the ideal would look like in my opinion too. Like the Peace Corps.

Agree. I believe during WW2 the government put rules in place to prevent companies from making too much profit from the war. From what I recall in history class taxes were raised significantly as well.

War is a mighty economic engine, this cannot be denied. But if we take an entire country to war, then it stands to reason that the entire country should benefit from the spoils (to the extent that there are any).

That's two steps. Government and business only cares about instant results.

I think that's a lovely idea.

It's almost suicidal. It's so stupidly hubristic that one has to wonder if the end goal is a total institutional collapse, with the belief that the technocracy will end up holding the cards?

> Why volunteer? The arrogance to think a draft or mandatory service is anywhere in the realm of acceptable is galling.

Agree. That's what we saw during Vietnam. The public finally got involved because it couldn't be ignored that the children of "normies" were being sent overseas to die in a meaningless and stupid war.

> When's the last time Finland or Switzerland attacked or invaded another country?

Not recently to my knowledge, but Finland has extensive experience being invaded given they are neighbors with Russia (and Sweden in the past). When your next door neighbor keeps seeing your country as "their property," you need means to push them back.

One of the benefits of it being some form of civil service and not specifically military service is that it eliminates large categories of medical exemptions from being relevant.

> By saying they "should be required", you are promoting the idea that their desire for war is acceptable as long as they codify certain standards, which they are able to use their powers to personally circumvent.

I am not.

> No American has served me by joining the military and killing black, brown, and asian women and children

Oh? I would argue that most of us in the United States live in complete blissful ignore that our entire way of life is propped up by this.