There are/have been plenty of societies in which everyone (for a given definition of "everyone") is required to perform military service. (I'm thinking particularly of Switzerland, but there are lots of other examples out there.) I have two questions I'd like people's opinions on, regarding this practice.
1) What message do you think this sends the people about military service? That it's intrinsically meritorious? That it's intrinsically unpleasant/unpalatable/objectionable? That everyone deserves to be on equal footing in regards to violence and self-defense? That everyone is morally culpable in the deeds of the nation and its military?
2) What sort of societies can you imagine in which other trades are compulsory? A society, perhaps, in which everyone at the age of 18 is compelled to work for a year in a minimum wage manual labour or service position, for example, regardless of how rich their parents are? A society in which, upon graduating from school, people are required to then work in that school? A society in which citizens have to care for the elderly or mentally ill? A society in which, upon reaching 18, you spend a year working as a servant for random adults, chosen by lottery?
Compulsory occupations
Re: Compulsory occupations
I'll awnser question 2) first, if you don't mind.
It's easy to find societies where trades other than military service are obligatory, because they have existed already - Fascist dictatorships.
40 years ago, my country was under such a regime, and you can still get stories from people around the age of 50-60 ( the parents to my generation) about how they would participate in the mandatory children's society, which was geared for creating the military frame of mind in children as they developed into adults. And of course, everyone thought this was pretty much okay and perhaps even ideal - how could they not, dissidents were censured in the papers and eveyone was always afraid that their neighbours would denounce them to the secret police if they spoke against the regime. It's why everyone from this generation talks about how rowdy and misbehaved youngsters today are, I mean, sure, they could be better and some have appaling behaviour, but if you look at the standards of the people judging them, it's no surprise, young people now grow free unlike them.
This isn't to say that compulsory occupations are inherently bad, heck, I think that generalized solutions for unemployment that don't consider this option are a bit lacking, but if you ask me from my experiences, compulsory equal obligations for everyone, outside of things like going to school and having your kids vaccinated, are very much associated historically with dictatorship. Heck, think of the last few works of fiction you read/ saw where there's a compulsory generalised obligation, and think of how many of those are set in dystopias.
As for question 1) generally the message given in these situations is that service is a duty towards the country, and countries where military service is mandatory tend to have a rethoric in education that focuses more on civic duties, much more so than on rights. It's usually complimented on the basis that service teaches obedience, teamwork, discipline and how to adjust to your other members in society. What I've seen from my interaction with people who are or were members of the military ( I collect knives, and as such this allows me to talk to a lot of people with military background, as it's not an uncommon hobby for that group), they tend to look to their time spent serving as harsh but rewarding, which is what it's designed to make them feel.
So in direct awnser to the question, people who have been thorugh it are instilled with the sense that it's intrinsically meritous, however much this corresponds to their actual feelings I cannot say for sure, but I believe it resonates with what many think. It also eliminates the sense of entitlment that sometimes arises from people who volunteered to be in the military, as you can't say "I was fighting for your rights" because eveyone's been there too.
It's easy to find societies where trades other than military service are obligatory, because they have existed already - Fascist dictatorships.
40 years ago, my country was under such a regime, and you can still get stories from people around the age of 50-60 ( the parents to my generation) about how they would participate in the mandatory children's society, which was geared for creating the military frame of mind in children as they developed into adults. And of course, everyone thought this was pretty much okay and perhaps even ideal - how could they not, dissidents were censured in the papers and eveyone was always afraid that their neighbours would denounce them to the secret police if they spoke against the regime. It's why everyone from this generation talks about how rowdy and misbehaved youngsters today are, I mean, sure, they could be better and some have appaling behaviour, but if you look at the standards of the people judging them, it's no surprise, young people now grow free unlike them.
This isn't to say that compulsory occupations are inherently bad, heck, I think that generalized solutions for unemployment that don't consider this option are a bit lacking, but if you ask me from my experiences, compulsory equal obligations for everyone, outside of things like going to school and having your kids vaccinated, are very much associated historically with dictatorship. Heck, think of the last few works of fiction you read/ saw where there's a compulsory generalised obligation, and think of how many of those are set in dystopias.
As for question 1) generally the message given in these situations is that service is a duty towards the country, and countries where military service is mandatory tend to have a rethoric in education that focuses more on civic duties, much more so than on rights. It's usually complimented on the basis that service teaches obedience, teamwork, discipline and how to adjust to your other members in society. What I've seen from my interaction with people who are or were members of the military ( I collect knives, and as such this allows me to talk to a lot of people with military background, as it's not an uncommon hobby for that group), they tend to look to their time spent serving as harsh but rewarding, which is what it's designed to make them feel.
So in direct awnser to the question, people who have been thorugh it are instilled with the sense that it's intrinsically meritous, however much this corresponds to their actual feelings I cannot say for sure, but I believe it resonates with what many think. It also eliminates the sense of entitlment that sometimes arises from people who volunteered to be in the military, as you can't say "I was fighting for your rights" because eveyone's been there too.
Re: Compulsory occupations
Military service tends to be mandatory for countries that are worried about being invaded or want to invade other countries. It more says what the country wants to do than its values,since any government type can use a strong military. It also sends the message that military service is a useful skill, like maths, English, or science, that everyone should know.
Probably one that doesn't value women much in the work force. It's already tricky for a lot of women having a career and a family, this would further pressure that, especially for high value careers like law, medicine, dentistry, engineering, PHD courses which can take over three years. It would speak to a strong distaste and dislike of high skill jobs and a strong valuing of the ability to do manual labour and service positions. Maybe a farming society, where the local dictator required everyone to give them a year of their labour before they went off to do anything else.A society, perhaps, in which everyone at the age of 18 is compelled to work for a year in a minimum wage manual labour or service position, for example, regardless of how rich their parents are?
Probably a society with a high proportion of voting elderly and mentally ill. Limited tax reserves so citizens are press ganged into serving the elderly.A society in which citizens have to care for the elderly or mentally ill?
All of the above, except teenagers free time isn't valued much. If you have to move to a new city often enough, a really cruel one.A society in which, upon reaching 18, you spend a year working as a servant for random adults, chosen by lottery?
Re: Compulsory occupations
From an email that was sent to me:
-----------------------------------------------
Leading with a caveat: I'm an officer in the US Army; everything I say here is flavored by my experience as a member of a military which has been all-volunteer since before I was born. That said, I've worked pretty closely with Koreans, who still have compulsory service, and Germans and Swedes for whom the end of conscription happened less than five years ago.
(Not replying on the forum because I'm not going to create yet another login for one message. Feel free to repost.)
Most often, national service / conscription programs are instated because there's a war on and there's a dire need for soldiers. Perhaps unintuitively, the reason for the legislature's passing doesn't really matter; what matters is the culture which grows up in the military.
On a purely functional level, you can't make much argument one way or the other. The Koreans treat their conscripts terribly, so morale is terrible and there isn't much motivation; outside an existential threat, I can't see them ever fighting very hard. Israel apparently treats its conscripts pretty well, to judge by their results. Looking at the other side, Iraq's army caved to ISIS not because they were defeated but because they had no esprit d'corps; they were there for a relatively easy paycheck. On a personal level, I'm pretty glad to be part of a volunteer force; not only does it help with morale, it means that the pay is much higher than it would be under a conscriptive regime!
So what does it all mean? I do like the notion of shared national moral culpability, though it's rather at odds with my sense that my personal role as a MEDEVAC pilot is less ethically troublesome than if I had the kind of job where I ever pointed a gun at a person. A shared contribution to the defense of the nation is generally the stated goal of conscription programs in the first place, so I'd call that the biggest message.
As far as other mandatory service obligations, unless there's a very strong national spirit for it, I don't see it going over well. Korea is the best example of this I know: an individual may choose to perform national service instead of military service, though the overall time commitment is longer. The first-order consequence is that all highway patrol officers are conscriptees, because that job kind of sucks. The second-order consequence is that traffic laws in Korea are enforced almost exclusively by fixed location speed camera, because the cops can't be bothered to chase people down; they're just serving out their time. The third-order consequence is that, as long as you have a GPS which warns you when a speed camera is coming up and traffic's not in the way, there is no effective speed limit on Korean highways.
That's a fine anecdote because most people are kind of contemptuous of the speed limit anyway, but it gets a lot more serious if you apply the example to, say, geriatric care. I would hate dealing with some smelly old senile senior for years just because it was part of mandatory national service, and so I'd try to skimp out and do the minimum until my time was up. At the very same time, I'd be horrified to consign my grandparents to caretakers like that.
In short, I think it's a very bad idea. Mandatory national service in some ways is like a perfect socialism: it's a beautiful idea for a number of reasons, but in the face of human nature and simple venality, it kind of falls apart.
Heinlein had an interesting idea in Starship Troopers to restrict the franchise to those who had served (after they got out and became civilians again, of course); I'd be fascinated to see how something like that might actually play out. I'm not in a hurry to see it implemented, as the Army at least leans pretty far right and I'm not a huge fan of that side of the policy spectrum, but it could be very interesting to run the notion through some kind of rigorous simulation.
-----------------------------------------------
Leading with a caveat: I'm an officer in the US Army; everything I say here is flavored by my experience as a member of a military which has been all-volunteer since before I was born. That said, I've worked pretty closely with Koreans, who still have compulsory service, and Germans and Swedes for whom the end of conscription happened less than five years ago.
(Not replying on the forum because I'm not going to create yet another login for one message. Feel free to repost.)
Most often, national service / conscription programs are instated because there's a war on and there's a dire need for soldiers. Perhaps unintuitively, the reason for the legislature's passing doesn't really matter; what matters is the culture which grows up in the military.
On a purely functional level, you can't make much argument one way or the other. The Koreans treat their conscripts terribly, so morale is terrible and there isn't much motivation; outside an existential threat, I can't see them ever fighting very hard. Israel apparently treats its conscripts pretty well, to judge by their results. Looking at the other side, Iraq's army caved to ISIS not because they were defeated but because they had no esprit d'corps; they were there for a relatively easy paycheck. On a personal level, I'm pretty glad to be part of a volunteer force; not only does it help with morale, it means that the pay is much higher than it would be under a conscriptive regime!
So what does it all mean? I do like the notion of shared national moral culpability, though it's rather at odds with my sense that my personal role as a MEDEVAC pilot is less ethically troublesome than if I had the kind of job where I ever pointed a gun at a person. A shared contribution to the defense of the nation is generally the stated goal of conscription programs in the first place, so I'd call that the biggest message.
As far as other mandatory service obligations, unless there's a very strong national spirit for it, I don't see it going over well. Korea is the best example of this I know: an individual may choose to perform national service instead of military service, though the overall time commitment is longer. The first-order consequence is that all highway patrol officers are conscriptees, because that job kind of sucks. The second-order consequence is that traffic laws in Korea are enforced almost exclusively by fixed location speed camera, because the cops can't be bothered to chase people down; they're just serving out their time. The third-order consequence is that, as long as you have a GPS which warns you when a speed camera is coming up and traffic's not in the way, there is no effective speed limit on Korean highways.
That's a fine anecdote because most people are kind of contemptuous of the speed limit anyway, but it gets a lot more serious if you apply the example to, say, geriatric care. I would hate dealing with some smelly old senile senior for years just because it was part of mandatory national service, and so I'd try to skimp out and do the minimum until my time was up. At the very same time, I'd be horrified to consign my grandparents to caretakers like that.
In short, I think it's a very bad idea. Mandatory national service in some ways is like a perfect socialism: it's a beautiful idea for a number of reasons, but in the face of human nature and simple venality, it kind of falls apart.
Heinlein had an interesting idea in Starship Troopers to restrict the franchise to those who had served (after they got out and became civilians again, of course); I'd be fascinated to see how something like that might actually play out. I'm not in a hurry to see it implemented, as the Army at least leans pretty far right and I'm not a huge fan of that side of the policy spectrum, but it could be very interesting to run the notion through some kind of rigorous simulation.
Re: Compulsory occupations
All of this. That is why women demanded to be allowed to become actual soldiers in Germany - everyone deserves equal footing in regards to violence and self-defense. The fact that it is also unpleasant and risky caused men to demand to not have to serve. MRAs in Germany tended to whine about the compulsory military service and claimed they were discriminated against, while, actually, the whole system works out to benefit men. (I think Switzerland has a problem with men murdering their wives and girlfriends with the rifles they were given for military service. For all I know, civilians cannot legally buy weapons in Switzerland, same as in Germany)Tailsteak wrote:There are/have been plenty of societies in which everyone (for a given definition of "everyone") is required to perform military service. (I'm thinking particularly of Switzerland, but there are lots of other examples out there.) I have two questions I'd like people's opinions on, regarding this practice.
1) What message do you think this sends the people about military service? That it's intrinsically meritorious? That it's intrinsically unpleasant/unpalatable/objectionable? That everyone deserves to be on equal footing in regards to violence and self-defense? That everyone is morally culpable in the deeds of the nation and its military?
The compulsory military service is considered to be a safeguard against military putsch, or, in general, the use of the military against citizens, the logic behind it being that soldiers wouldn't kill their own friends and relatives. While I think it's a good thing that Germany's young people aren't sent away to get killed in a foreign country, I am a bit worried about what kind of people the new, paid professional military will attract.
They try to market it as a nice career, for women, too, and we can only hope that the German army will, in the future, consist of people who are good at sports and couldn't find a better paid job. The alternative about which I am worried is an army consisting almost exclusively of murderous nuts. Due to the social structure of Germany, this is much more likely to happen, as the government does more to avoid poverty than the US government, and it is quite hard for a civilian to get his hands on a gun, so the military is all the more attractive to a certain type of person.
It exists, it is called patriarchy. It is never spelled out, but women are expected to marry, become their husband's unpaid domestic servant, care for the elderly of his family, and bear and raise his children. How strictly this is enforced depends on the country, but no country I know is completely free of at least some societal pressure on women.Tailsteak wrote:2) What sort of societies can you imagine in which other trades are compulsory? A society, perhaps, in which everyone at the age of 18 is compelled to work for a year in a minimum wage manual labour or service position, for example, regardless of how rich their parents are? A society in which, upon graduating from school, people are required to then work in that school? A society in which citizens have to care for the elderly or mentally ill? A society in which, upon reaching 18, you spend a year working as a servant for random adults, chosen by lottery?
(This was openly acknowledged in religions where men went to heaven for dying in battle while women went to heaven for dying in childbed)
I also read that British Boarding Schools had a system where younger boys automatically had to become the older boys' servants.
Nazi Germany has already been mentioned.
This kind of system is not at all unusual. What varies is the justification thereof. Military service can be justified as being the duty of every good citizen. (Especially in a country like Switzerland, that, to my knowledge, is mostly interested in self-defense due to being so small.) It benefits all citizens to not be conquered by an enemy army, and it also benefits all citizens to be able to defend themselves. The same argument could probably used for a lot of other things that benefit everyone.
I don't think it would be a good idea to force everyone to care for the elderly or mentally ill, or disabled, or whatever. While it can be assumed that some people enter such professions for the purpose of abusing their power over people who cannot defend themselves, I think such incidents would become even more widespread if caring for the elderly was made compulsory.
Actually, I think the German system we had before military service was made non-compulsory was okay - those who were deemed fit enough for the military but didn't want to serve (it wasn't even necessary to claim to be pacifist in the last years, I think) were given the option to instead do something for the environment, care for the elderly, or, I don't know, all kinds of other stuff that benefits the whole country and doesn't involve violence. So, no one was required to care for the elderly if he absolutely hated the thought.
I think we don't need compulsory occupations - paying for some occupations with tax money, while raising the payment, will solve the problem just as well. That way, everone pays for the care of the elderly and so on, and no one has to do something they hate.
Re: Compulsory occupations
Where Switzerland is concerned, it's not actually compulsory any more. You can do civil service instead; basically, government-sponsored volunteer work. And there's talk of abolishing even that, there's been a couple of referendums so far asking to abolish military service, and the people voted "no".
I know my friends mostly just considered it a way to fill time between the end of secondary school and the beginning of university/work. Although I lived in a very moderate and international area of Switzerland, so maybe it's different further in.
PS: Why do the US and UK hardly ever have referendums? They're such a good idea.
I know my friends mostly just considered it a way to fill time between the end of secondary school and the beginning of university/work. Although I lived in a very moderate and international area of Switzerland, so maybe it's different further in.
PS: Why do the US and UK hardly ever have referendums? They're such a good idea.
... in bed.
Re: Compulsory occupations
Snowyowl - they're less effective/ representative/ fair as the population becomes larger. Say 10 people make a referendum about wheter or not a banana split is the best dessert after pizza. 8 vote yes and 2 vote no. 2 people don't get their way, but that's a small number of peolpe, so there''s not much harm there. Now image the same percentages in the votes but with 10. 000 total people. The percentage is the same, but a disagreement from 2000 people is generally considered to be more important than a disagreement from 2, which I believe is correct, because there are that many more opinions against banana splits.
Re: Compulsory occupations
This got me thinking: what about mandatory training?As far as other mandatory service obligations, unless there's a very strong national spirit for it, I don't see it going over well. Korea is the best example of this I know: an individual may choose to perform national service instead of military service, though the overall time commitment is longer. The first-order consequence is that all highway patrol officers are conscriptees, because that job kind of sucks. The second-order consequence is that traffic laws in Korea are enforced almost exclusively by fixed location speed camera, because the cops can't be bothered to chase people down; they're just serving out their time. The third-order consequence is that, as long as you have a GPS which warns you when a speed camera is coming up and traffic's not in the way, there is no effective speed limit on Korean highways.
Taking the military as an example, what are the benefits of mandatory service? You get a large fighting force, and everyone in the country has some training in case of a crisis. The downside is no enthusiasm. So instead we train everyone, with the understanding that those merely training haven't yet taken on any significant responsibility; responsibility remains voluntary. Everyone would still be trained to fight, and we'd probably have a larger fighting force (though smaller than conscription provides), and there's no issue with enthusiasm as responsibility is still voluntary.
Take geriatric care: everyone some training on how to do it, though no one is required to take on significant responsibility. This knowledge is then widespread throughout the country, allowing citizens to apply it within their own lives, and it allows the entry level experience for geriatric care professions to be higher, allowing for better service within the industry as a whole. But you don't leave grandma in the hands of some jackass just trying to kill time, since said jackass wouldn't have signed up in the first place.*
Hell, take farming: again, everyone has some training. People can apply it in there own lives, with their own farms should they want to (this is semi-common now; likely more so if everyone had some idea of how to do it).
*That's not to say that volunteers are always good.
Sure, 2000 don't get there way, but 8000 people do. While more people disagree, proportionally more people agree, so it evens out.Snowyowl - they're less effective/ representative/ fair as the population becomes larger.
Re: Compulsory occupations
2000 people not getting their way is worse than 2 people not getting their way because it means 100 times the sadness. Happiness and sadness don't cancel out, 8000 more happy people doesn't remove the negative experience of the 2000 sad people.crayzz wrote:Sure, 2000 don't get there way, but 8000 people do. While more people disagree, proportionally more people agree, so it evens out.Snowyowl - they're less effective/ representative/ fair as the population becomes larger.
-
Nerdsamwich
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:48 pm
Re: Compulsory occupations
Snowyowl: We do have referendums in the States, just not at the national level. The problem with our state-level referendums is that the average citizen is not nearly motivated enough to bring one to ballot, so the only ones that make it tend to be written by either crazy people or corporations. For example, California's infamous Proposition 8, which was some provision against homosexuals being allowed to marry, was written--and advertised--by a religious group based in Utah, and which barely even has any members living in California.