Item — HN Reader

Other countries have compulsory military service, for example Finland. Generally speaking I am a fan of the idea that everyone should be required to do some kind of community service for 2 years once they turn 18. Military service would just be one option, could be other kinds of civic engagement. This can really help people feel connected to their society and understand that there is something to show up for.

BUT - this really only works if there's a social contract in place. In the United States it's hard to see how compulsory service works if people don't feel like the country is showing up for them.

These days, what are American soldiers dying for? A society with great health care? Fantastic education? Wealth and social stability? Absolutely not! Until that changes I don't see any good reason why we should send our young people off to die. (EDIT: if you want a sobering experience, visit a military graveyard and pay special attention to the ages of the soldiers. We might as well call a military graveyard a children's graveyard).

And to agree with others on this thread, the folks who push for war should 100% be required to participate in them and lead from the front. Don't sell the rest of our lives while you hide in a nice air conditioned bunker.

21 comments

> Generally speaking I am a fan of the idea that everyone should be required to do some kind of community service for 2 years once they turn 18.

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

It takes away two years of your life, possibly delaying your education, entry into the workforce, or having children. So again, what's the rigorous justification for this? The government already calls dibs on a good chunk of your economic output, on a percentage of every penny you spend, and on certain types of property you own; so why should they also be able to draft you for some free labor if there's no war or other emergency going on?

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 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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 like the idea of civic engagement / service in theory too, but I feel like the Vietnam war was a demonstration of possible failure modes when draft is in place: a lot of poor kids died, some rich kids allegedly used parental influence to dodge the draft. No incentive for leaders to avoid war while loop holes remain for their own interests.

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.

Finland doesn't have compulsory military service to help people feel connected to their society. Feeling connected to one's society is not an end in itself, people should be free to choose how connected they want to feel. Finland has compulsory military service because it's a small country that borders Russia. The US is a big country that borders Canada and Mexico.

> 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.

Only works if everyone has to do it. Once you slice it into only a certain part of the population, it becomes an unfair class system. Example, rich and well connected people would never do it. If you say only men should do it, that's unfair as well.

Edit: I'm for this BTW, I think everyone should have to do some form of service, but I'd also like to see anyone in the gov with the power to send people to war be required to have served in the armed forces.

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

> These days, what are American soldiers dying for?

Israel

more likely big tech and the oligarchs.

(The name of my next punk band.)

Austria has this figured out...

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

https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/en/themen/gesetze_und_recht/we...

That model is very much what I have in mind.

> These days, what are American soldiers dying for? A society with great health care? Fantastic education? Wealth and social stability?

Yes, except it's not their own one.

Why not make the people so proud and happy to live in the country that they choose to serve without you having to force them to do it with the barrel of a gun?

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

I think that's a lovely idea.

> These days, what are American soldiers dying for?

Why, they're dying for people like Alex Karp and Peter Thiel of course.

The Finnish compulsory service is 6-13 months depending on what field you pick (or are assigned in).

There's also "civilian service" available which is always 12 months in a governmental location somewhere. Schools, hospitals etc.

True, I was really thinking of Denmark where my understanding is they mandate 2 years of service.

I would do it as a civic corps like the military in structure and pay but for civil projects and work experience. Enable our youth to learn on the job and actually value that experieence.

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

When's the last time Finland or Switzerland attacked or invaded another country? People are willing to engage in compulsory military service if they feel that it's truly meant to help the country defend itself from actual attack, not potentially being shipped off somewhere to serve some political or economic goal.

> 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.

I dont know if its worth 2 years of our lives. 2 years! A lot can be achieved in just two years

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

> what are American soldiers dying for?

The American way of life, which is still the most preferred way of life, as evidenced by (a) people wanting to emigrate here more than any other country in the world and (b) more people immigrating here than any other country.

One of the many issues with this supposedly being for everyone is that rich folks like Donald Trump's dad will get a doctor to get them out of it. Rules for thee and not for me is basically their motto.

> And to agree with others on this thread, the folks who push for war should 100% be required to participate in them and lead from the front

I agree but I don't think it goes far enough. Leading from the front of the best equipped military in the world doesn't balance your incentives against the misery you are inflicting on the innocent denizens of the poor country you're pointlessly destroying.

There's also the economic destruction back home to balance against. So, those who call for war should be forbidden to privately fund their healthcare and children's education.

> And to agree with others on this thread, the folks who push for war should 100% be required to participate in them and lead from the front. Don't sell the rest of our lives while you hide in a nice air conditioned bunker.

It never happens because those in power use their power to avoid it, even if they bind the rest of us with rules they enforce. 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.

The US hasn't cared about the social contract for decades and it hasn't taken justifiable military action for a longer stretch of time. Healthcare is byzantine and terrible, education is being gutted on ideological grounds, social stability is eroding, wealth inequality is an ever widening chasm, the climate is being degraded, AI is a threat looming over much (if not all) of this. Why volunteer? The arrogance to think a draft or mandatory service is anywhere in the realm of acceptable is galling.

The issue is, in America, we gave those less fortunate the path of military service as we value the greedy, the corrupt, nepotistic, capitalist notion that if you have enough money, laws do not apply to you.

Utterly precise.

I absolutely love the idea of me or my children going through a challenging few years as a tool of our society, whether that be military training or something else.

...with the enormous caveat that our society must be cohesive, which it is no longer (culturally, politically - you name it).

Spoiler alert: military "service" is an oxymoron. No American has served me by joining the military and killing black, brown, and asian women and children