National service should be re-introduced

National service is something which should only be considered at times of national emergency, and no such state exists. Soldiers already suffer enough when they return from war, as those are people who’ve volunteered. The psychological damage from people forced into action could be immense.

The army is already very multi-racial and yet black and Asian recruits often suffer very serious racism. Putting lots more teenagers from different cultures together is hardly going to make that situation any better. Also, there is a danger that national service could be used to celebrate white Britishness and anyone outside that could be made to feel most unwelcome. This was proved during the original National Service period when the Ministry of Defence had the unofficial policy of removing the names of those who sounded “foreign” from the lists of conscription: National Service photographs very, very rarely showed anyone black or Asian.

Young people are in no way as bad as they are depicted in the media. The vast majority are good, decent, law-abiding members of society and punishing the many for the actions of the few is something no advanced society can be seen to do.

Any minute benefits which might be gained from getting young people to clean up graffiti will be undermined by the deep and abiding resentment they’ll feel while doing the job, especially if the innocent are being punished for the crimes of the guilty – what message does that send to them? The message that the legal system doesn’t work. This would undermine any confidence in the legal system that we have.

Young people might feel cornered into signing up for financial reasons when they otherwise wouldn’t. There should be no financial incentive for risking one’s life.

Conscripted soldiers undermine the professionalism of today’s army. Conscripted soldiers care less about their job than volunteers and so will be worse soldiers, as proved in the Korea conflict. Instructors will waste valuable time trying to train people who are simply counting time until their conscription ends. Furthermore, national service created a firm animosity between professional soldiers and enlisted soldiers, and any such division is detrimental to the fighting strength of any combat unit.

The bureaucracy needed to implement national service is immense. We’d need banks and banks of people set-up just to ensure candidates cannot evade conscription – those who do will most likely come from middle-class backgrounds so again the poor will suffer. The costs for this will fall on the taxpayer and they are already overburdened.

National Service denies rights to those who object to war for political or personal reasons, and these people would be unfairly targeted for not supporting their country or for not ‘pulling their weight’.

Mandatory national service in any form is philosophically unjust because it is necessarily a violation of the most essential liberty of liberal societies: free action. Only in times of compelling state interest might a government even begin to make a claim that the social contract allows conscription or other coercive acts. It is for each citizen to decide whether they wish to join the army, spend a year teaching in an at-risk school, or undertake any other service project, or whether they prefer to pursue a career, education, or a form of service to a church or Non-governmental organisation.

Respect can be taught in many other ways than military service. The sort of respect for authority that is taught in the military is of a very, for lack of a better word, “militant” nature. It is to respect authority without questioning authority. A healthy respect for authority would consist of questioning authority, being able to disagree with authority, but to still do something despite one’s disagreement if it is for the greater good or the moral thing to do. This is what respect should be like.

Respecting authority is not synonymous with obedience. In fact, in many cases, it is the opposite.

Also, the idea that military service is needed now because of “emergencies” is absurd. What emergency? What country has the capability (realistically) to attack us? What country has the nerve and what would be the point? Be realistic.

The cost of compulsory military service would be gross, and bordering on the line of hilarity. During a recession, or even in times of economic “safety” (relative as it is), young people should be getting an education, not joining the military. Whatever my views of war is irrelevant. Pragmatically speaking, young people should be still developing as themselves, should be getting a good and decent education, and should be having a good time also. People don’t develop properly if you shove them into the military for a year or however long.

With National Service the Government is far more prone to engaging militarily. When the forces are strong and plentiful, you are far more likely to go to war. What you end up with is a country like Israel who spends blood like its water (they too have a National Service regime).

Only the impetuous and morally perverse could advocate such a thing.

National Service has no decent argument supporting it.

it goes against the 13th amendment. (Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.) Hence the involuntary servitude.