<p>“Yeah, it’s so much better to have your kids protected by someone else’s kids.”</p>
<p>As a parent, it will be my OBLIGATION to do whatever I can to make sure my kids are safe, independent, educated, and prepared to take on the world. And if that means telling some strangers that they’re no longer welcome to call my home (which I have a right to do), or deny entry to my home to some military recruiters (which is also my right-my house is private property, I can, by law, tell strangers to leave.), or sending them to boarding school in Europe, then so be it.</p>
<p>If they’re interested in the military, they can go to the recruiter, but there’s no way I will tolerate a sales pitch to them by the military.</p>
<p>My son had one call from the military his senior year. The man identified himself to me, and asked very politely if my son was available. He asked my son if he had considered the military after graduation. My son told him he had already been accepted in the ED round for college. The man congratulated my son, complimented his choice in schools and wished him luck. All in all a very nice and very respectful call.</p>
<p>“At what point do you say that certain morals, in a certain sense, need to be trumped in order for lives to be saved. Is it one life? 100? 1,000? 10 million?”</p>
<p>It always surprises me that this argument comes from the conservative end of the political spectrum–the same folks who supposedly believe in moral absolutes. The answer, in my mind, is that lives can’t be “saved,” but only prolonged–but souls can be lost forever. Encouraging any American to become a torturer endangers his immortal soul. That’s enough reason not to do it.</p>
<p>“If they’re interested in the military, they can go to the recruiter, but there’s no way I will tolerate a sales pitch to them by the military.”</p>
<p>Would you allow a college recruiter to make a sales pitch to your child? Or is it soley the military, and if so why?</p>
<p>“Would you allow a college recruiter to make a sales pitch to your child? Or is it soley the military, and if so why?”</p>
<p>Only the latter. If the former makes a sales pitch to my child and they fall for it, and go to the wrong college, they can transfer out the next year, no problem. If my child falls for a sales pitch by the latter, they’ve just signed their entire lives away to the Department of Defense. The former commitment is a binding commitment for the next 4 months, the latter is a binding commitment FOR LIFE. Plus, I will be a lawyer at that time, and will NEVER allow them to sign a military service contract. I can NEVER trust someone, who has NO legal training, i.e. who DOES NOT have a law degree, to be able to explain the terms of a vaguely written, hopelessly biased contract in a clear, concise, and relevant manner.</p>
<p>Or maybe I just won’t have kids. Or send them away to boarding school in Europe, where people who want them to sign their lives away to the government can’t reach them.</p>
<p>Be very careful…many times in my life I have said never ever and the next thing I know it is happening to me. If your child graduates at 18 you have no vote, doesn’t matter if you are a lawyer, your child would be an ADULT.</p>
<p>As far as the contract, recruiters go through months of education on just the contract. Are they lawyers? No. Do they understand what they are allowed to say and how to recruit? Yes. Do they understand the contract? Yes</p>
<p>BTW it is not for their life…it is a limited time. If I were you I would be thankful that other people do not have such a disdain for the military</p>
<p>Remember there are countries in this world that mandate you will serve in the military…Israel and Greece come to my mind right off the bat</p>
<p>Yeah, like they’ll have any interest. I’ll be able to pay cash for their college tuitions, they’ll probably have other interests, there’s no reason for me to be worried about it. </p>
<p>And it IS for life. I heard about something called involuntary recall, which is where the US military can call someone up for service at any time until 65 years of age, even if they’ve left.</p>
<p>They’re adults, but that’s not the point. As a (future) parent who is a lawyer, I will be teaching my kids to THOROUGHLY read and understand everything they sign, and if they don’t understand it fully, THEN TO ASK SOMEONE. If I don’t teach them that, I will be a failure of a parent. As adults, they will be forced to be responsible to everything they sign, so they must be trained to READ and UNDERSTAND what they’re signing, or ASK A THIRD PARTY. The recruiters are in two different functions: quasilegal counsel and marketing for the military. That’s a conflict of interest. I will also teach my kids to understand that. Things like this, they don’t teach at school, and thus it becomes MY job.</p>
<p>Another point, I think recruiting and explaining the contract should be two separate people. Outside counsel should be explaining the contract, not the same person who will get fired if they don’t meet some quota of people who enlist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s wrong, and whoever put that in the books should be taken out and caned until dead. The government has no right.</p>
<p>I am, very much so, but that doesn’t mean that joining the military is for everyone. I would never denigrate another person’s decision to serve, however I equally refuse to criticize anyone who is equally determined not to join the military if that is their choice</p>
<p>While I generally agree, there is a very strong argument that as part of the social contract one “signs” with society, mandatory military service is nothing abhorrent.</p>
<p>I am not criticizing anyone who decides that is the life they want to be in or not to be in. The decision should be made with much thought and consideration.</p>
<p>I am very happy that we have an all volunteer force, because we need people who want to be there and not those who are paying their time.</p>
<p>NYU you are not in the military…enlisted people sign up for x amt of time. As an officer when you retire you are put on inactive reserves for 5 yrs…I know no one called up…Officers who decide to spend 20+ yrs and are collecting retirement pay, medical benefits, and a variety of other benefits don’t mind being INACTIVE RESERVES for 5 years.</p>
<p>OFFICERS generally become commissioned through an Academy, College ROTC, and OCS.</p>
<p>Enlisted typically join through the recruiters.</p>
<p>When that military service is mandatory and not voluntary, THAT IS SLAVERY. That’s MORE abhorrent than slavery. Slaves weren’t explicitly ordered to get shot at. By the way, there is no social contract. There is no contract between me and any government, nothing in writing, nothing printed on paper, no signature from me, nor is there any indication I agreed to all of that at birth. Even if I did, at birth, you are considered to not have the intelligence to agree to anything. It’s not explicit. Just because some old farts in an office building decided I signed a “contract” doesn’t mean I actually did. There’s no meeting of the minds, nor was there any informed decision. Lots of politicians went to law school. You should know better.</p>
<p>I am thankful of the troops, I am suspicious of the military as an organization. It’s suspicion. Suspicion’s reasonable, disdain is sometimes not.</p>
<p>You lose a great deal of credibility when you respond like that, since you are explicitly avoiding the crux of the issue (social contract vs. basic liberty) in favor of fun little sound bite-type pronouncements.</p>
<p>This issue is far more complex than you show any appreciation for, and while I don’t like mandatory military service any more than you do, for many countries it is an integral part of the social contract, and your criticisms show no appreciation of that fact.</p>
<p>It’s wrong. Period. What’s so complex about it? It’s no different than Citibank going out and rounding up a bunch of people and forcing them to work for them as tellers. It’s involuntary and it’s demanding a service. There’s no such thing as a need trumping basic liberties. Liberty is king. NOTHING trumps basic civil liberties. If I remember correctly, under Locke’s theory, government that encroaches upon someone’s right to property can be overthrown by the people. Government exists BECAUSE of the people, not in spite of them. When you sacrifice liberty for security, you get neither. Just ask Ben Franklin. </p>
<p>You have been raised in a different society. I went to college with many children from countries that require this. These students had no problem and actually looked foward to it…yes, they looked foward to serving their country. It is their societal belief to support their country. They saw it as honor and duty. What is so disgusting to you to give to your country? I do not mean this in an antagonistic way, I would like to understand why you are so vehement about this issue?</p>
<p>I’m a libertarian too. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have read some of the contemporary political philosophy that surrounds issues like this, particularly that of the Republican (no, not the political party - I’m talking about philosophers like Sandel) and Social Contract schools.</p>
<p>If you haven’t, I can see where your highly simplistic argumentation springs from. But if you have, then either you didn’t understand what you were reading, or you’re too stubborn to grasp that such alternative political philosophies are logically consistent just like libertarianism is.</p>
<p>So, I’m going to explain this, very simply:</p>
<p>In many societies, national defense is viewed as the collective responsibility of the entire society. Thus, as part of the social contract that people implicitly sign by living in that society, they are required to contribute some of their services to the national defense of the country.</p>
<p>In America, that is not the case; liberty is valued over collective responsibility. But that is not the case in all societies, and it would behoove you to understand that, as otherwise you risk coming across as just a bit ignorant.</p>
<p>On a side note, your argument in your post is more than a bit stupid. A democratically-elected government requiring certain services from its citizens as part of the social contract of society is not at all the same as a private entity that is not answerable to the public (yes, though you ignore this, if mandatory military service is not thought necessary by a majority of the population, it can be removed) requiring labor to benefit that private entity. Though you skip over this issue, the whole mandatory military service thing isn’t about benefiting any particular private entity, but rather society as a whole. We can argue as to whether that’s what ends up happening, but it is very, very important that you get your head around these fundamental (and very simple) issues.</p>
<p>As a final note, as popular as it is in America to quote something said by one of the founding fathers and then say “Ha! My argument is conclusively proved!”, that argument is not at all persuasive when you’re criticizing another country’s political ideas. While you may like America’s political system, it is arrogant and stupid to assume that anyone outside of America cares at all about what Franklin said about liberty. And since this argument is about FOREIGN NATIONS, you would be well-served to argue in a less specious way.</p>
<p>As someone who subscribes to libertarian values, I find it disgusting because I view it as a direct, blatant, wrongful, and malicious encroachment on MY right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Those who live in a society where the collective is emphasized over the individual may see it differently, but we live in a highly individualistic society. As far as national defense goes, I’m paying taxes that partially goes to support the defense infrastructure. There is no reason why I should be forced, against my will, and against my philosophical and political beliefs, to go out and get shot at. </p>
<p>It’s two different perspectives: I see it as blatant and outright theft, they don’t. The cost to the individual of conscription is so great, I, as a member of society, would NEVER ask anyone to incur it. Frankly, in a globalized world as it is now, I find patriotism overrated and archaic. Why should I be loyal to any government entity? What have they done for me, that makes them worthy of my loyalty? What my passport says is irrelevant; I will go live and swear my allegiance wherever the hell I want. I choose to swear allegiance to NO ONE. My allegiances or my loyalty lies in ME, and maybe my immediate family or friends, NOT a national entity within whose jurisdiction I was born.</p>
<p>It DOES NOT benefit society. Many cases proved that a conscripted military, ESPECIALLY in a highly individualistic society, is less effective than a voluntary force. There’s no incentive, there’s no vested interest of those who are there, because THEY ARE THERE AGAINST THEIR WILL. They spend their time looking forward to the day their misery ends, which is when they get released from their involuntary imprisonment, rather than working hard. So not only is the military less effective now, young people rot in the military, in the prime time of their lives, for whatever amount of time instead of working or going to school or generally pursuing their goals and being more productive. Most industrialized countries do not have conscription or have recently abolished it. There’s a reason for that. </p>
<p>Countries that require this are not fully democratic and any country that forces people to serve them cannot call themselves democracies. And conscription smells of authoritarianism, something else I vehemently oppose and despise.</p>