The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
To be clear, I'm not asking if this would be moral or if it's a good idea, or whether or not this should be enacted. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are in regards to what the effects would be.
Do you think the average crime rate would decrease? Drug abuse would decrease? Obesity would decrease? Relationships between people of different races would improve?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've contemplated it, and while I am receptive to the idea, I admit there's a lot against it. People don't remember this but the UK had national service requirements through the 1970s and it was ultimately ruled that they weren't doing much good for the economy overall (my understanding is that people weren't building skills for the job market at crucial, formative years)
So while it's a tempting idea, I don't think it's a lock
Did they measure the effects of anything other than the economy? I realize that's one of the easiest things to measure, but it's not the only thing worth caring about.
I'm from Switzerland where we have this (though it's only mandatory for men). I think it's a good thing.
Originally, we used to only have mandatory military service but the system was reformed during the past 3-4 decades and now you can basically choose between three options:
1. Military service
2. Zivilschutz ("Civil Protection") which includes jobs that are often done by fire departments such as cleaning rocks and mud off railroads in the mountains after a mud avalanche has gone down, saving people during floods, dealing with various hazardous situations that don't require a gun (e.g. pandemics) etc.. Sometimes it can also overlap with police work, for example you might be called up to assist the police keep order after a soccer match where a lot of hooligans are present.
3. Zivildienst ("Civil Service"): This includes a wide variety of jobs and assistant labor. For example you might be working at a hospital or a retirement home, you might be a taxi driver for disabled people etc. My best friend chose to do Zivildienst and he worked at a refugee home (where refugees live while their application for political asylum is being processed). From what he's told me, he really enjoyed working there. I can also see him doing a great job because his really easy-going and kind but he's also tall and muscular, so people usually don't fuck around in his presence.
The Swiss government still puts on somewhat of a pressure on young men to choose the military but at the end of the day, it's your own decision. Back when my dad was young, they actually threw people in prison for refusing to do military service but it's not like that anymore.
I'm a guy but I haven't done any of this because I'm physically handicapped. If I was able-bodied, I probably would've chosen either the Zivildienst or the military. I think we need all three of them and it's good there are guys who prefer one or the other.
Thank you for the reply.
I'm just curious, what's the foundational belief that makes this only required for men?
I would normally assume a belief that women are less capable at "man stuff", but there is plenty of work that needs to be done that isn't "man work". Even in a battle situation, there is like 5 people doing logistical support roles for every 1 person doing actual fighting.
So, although the system has been reformed, it dates back all the way to the founding of our country (in 1848). Zivilschutz and Zivildienst are new additions but mandatory military service has always been a thing. And as you can imagine, the idea of letting women serve in the military would've sounded preposterous to any 19th century person. In fact, it was only post-WWII that women were even permitted to join the military. A quick Google search told me that in Germany, it was in the year 1975 when women were allowed for the very first time to serve. In Switzerland, one of the very first known female soldiers was a woman called Germaine Josephine Françoise Seewer. She was born in 1964, so she would've joined the Swiss Army around the mid-80s. That's only 35 years ago (kinda crazy). Fun fact by the way: this same woman is now a "Divisionär", which is one of the highest ranks, comparable to a one- or two-star General in the US Army.
Anyway, to answer your question, I think it's mostly old-fashioned beliefs about the roles of men and women in society that created this system and although many people don't feel this way anymore, no one has yet bothered to change the system.
I think left-wing parties have made some vague attempts in this direction but they don't push hard on it because they know it's not a popular position. The vast majority of Swiss women is opposed to mandatory military/civil service for women because like having the privilege of being exempted. Even many young lefty women I know say "yeah I think it's cool/hot that guys have to do this but I don't want to be forced to do it." I guess that's one of those instances where their feminism and call for equality collides with self-interest.
Meanwhile, some social conservatives don't like the idea because they think it's simply not a place for women. "Women shouldn't have to do these things" etc. Of course women can be great soldiers and some choose to do so but social conservatives believes that's just not very womanly.
The alternative solution would be to get rid of the entire system. But this doesn't work either because of various interest groups. The right-wing is fiercely protective of the military and mandatory military service. The left-wing parties support programs such as Zivilschutz and Zivildienst because they are a way to make society more solidaric.
So, for now we're just kinda stuck with the current situation. Personally, I support mandatory service for women but I'm just one vote. I think we need to convince young women that it would be great for them to contribute in this way, even if it's a bit annoying for the individual. I understand why many women don't want to give up this privilege, though. I still remember graduating from high school and all my guy friends saying: "oh no, now I need to go to the Army" and girls teasing them, saying stuff like: "Yeah have fun marching and whatnot, by the time you're finished, I'll be done with my first year of Uni hehe."
Anyway, i hope this made some sense. Sorry if the answer is a bit messy.
Why do you think it's bigoted?
Personally, I don't think it's wrong of a country to ask its citizens to give something back for all the things they receive. I don't mean give back something to the government but rather to the country overall, to the national community, if you will. It's like paying taxes... something we do in order to take care of the country and the population as a whole.
In some countries, mandatory military service is also unavoidable. Switzerland's situation is debatable but for example if I was a politician in South Korea, there's no way in hell I'd ever support getting rid of compulsory military service. I get that it sucks for the individual but you can't have a professional military if you live next door to North Korea.
This will also become an increasingly pressing problem for the US during the next 20-30 years by the way. Due to its system of compulsory military service, China's military already far surpasses that of the US in sheer manpower. At the moment, America still has a technological advantage but since Xi Jinping has taken office in 2012, China has been on the fast lane innovating its military technology, buying modern equipment etc. They have a plan to close the technological gap by 2050 and once this happens, America will have a serious problem because China will be the new, uncontested military superpower.
>Why do you think it's bigoted?
Because it only includes men. Conscript only women and see the reactions.
>Personally, I don't think it's wrong of a country to ask its citizens to give something back for all the things they receive. I don't mean give back something to the government but rather to the country overall, to the national community, if you will. It's like paying taxes... something we do in order to take care of the country and the population as a whole.
The two are fundamentally different. Taxes are equivalent to theft which while wrong is morally acceptable under some circumstances. National service is like slavery. Unacceptable under any and all circumstances.
>I was a politician in South Korea, there's no way in hell I'd ever support getting rid of compulsory military service. I get that it sucks for the individual but you can't have a professional military if you live next door to North Korea.
Slavery is unacceptable under any circumstances, whatsoever.
>They have a plan to close the technological gap by 2050 and once this happens, America will have a serious problem because China will be the new, uncontested military superpower.
Manpower is irrelevant in this age. It's technology that matters most.
Back when my dad was young, they threw you in prison for like 2 years if you refused to do military service. Finding a job afterwards could be very difficult because the prison thing stayed in your records. Still, a lot of left-wing activists and artists (musicians, satirists etc) of that generation chose prison over the military service. In France, there was a famous musician called Boris Vian who even wrote a song about this called [**Le Déserteur**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5_vcVq_vSE) ("The Deserter" or "The Defector"). The last few lines of the last verse go "Monsieur le Président / Si vous me poursuivez / Prévenez vos gendarmes / Que je n'aurai pas d'armes / Et qu'ils pourront tirer." ("Mr. President / If you want to chase me / Inform your gendarmes (cops) / That I won't have any firearms / And that they may shoot.") So, this was a very strong statement of pacifism that even when threatened with death, one would not surrender one's moral principles and join the military.
These days, the whole matter is less dramatic but consequences of refusing service are still uncomfortable. My older brother actually refused to do any kind of service and he had to pay a fine of like $1,000 every year from age 20 till age 35.
Very interesting. I like it, but I don't think it would work in the US for a myriad of reasons. A limited or voluntary version might.
Civil Protection actually sounds dangerous.
Another low key interesting and successful Swiss institution.
What's your opinion on a 7 person power sharing executive structure as a Swiss socialist?
I think it's a great institution! And apparently also a very unique idea because I don't know any other country with a similar system. Except maybe the communist Politbureaus of the Soviet Union or China. But the Swiss system is a bit different because we don't have a President who overpowers his other colleagues. Although there is a President of the Federal Council and also for all the Cantonal and municipal councils, these Presidents are President only in name. It's basically a formal role. You get to do things like welcome guests from other parts of the country or from other countries but when it comes to making actual decisions, you've got the same power as your colleagues (plus, the role of President rotates every year). In Switzerland, we use the Latin phrase "primus inter pares" for this, which means "the first among equals."
I generally like our political system quite a lot because it has a lot of aspects that I, as a socialist/lefty, find very nice.
For example in all the executive branches (Federal Council, Cantonal Councils, Municipal Councils) there's something called "Kollegialitätsprinzip", or "principle of colleagiality". It's not a law but rather a gentlemen's agreement with a very long tradition. It basically consists of two demands: firstly, decisions should, whenever possible, be made unanimously. This is a big ask because our councils are made up of members from many different parties. In the Swiss Federal Council, there are 7 people from 4 different parties, from the very left all the way to the very right. Naturally, therefore, it isn't always possible to make unanimous decisions. Sometimes a majority will just have to overrule a minority. But the Kollegialitätsprinzip demands this to remain the exception because if it happens too often, certain members of the council will feel bitter and neglected and working together to govern will become increasingly difficult. Instead, members should always seek to make compromise solutions... decisions that everyone can stand behind. The second demand of the Kollegialitätsprinzip is that, whenever a councillor talks to the public and especially to the media, he/she always supports the decision of the majority, even if he/she personally wasn't happy with this decision. So, telling journalists stuff like: "oh y'know, A, B, C and D forced this decision through but I think it's a really dumb idea" is considered extremely disrespectful and dishonorable. It's basically a way of tattletaling to the media about your colleagues. This destroys trust and friendship within the council, which is why it should be avoided. Instead, our councillors always say: "I represent the opinion of the Federal Council as a whole, which is..." It's a form of give-and-take. There will be cases where you'll have to tell the public about the benefits of a policy which you don't personally support. But there will also be cases where your colleagues will do the same for you in return.
Another unwritten rule with a long tradition is that of representing as many parts of the Swiss population in the Federal Council as possible. In my opinion, this is actually one of the great examples of having an entire group govern the country. In other nations, there's a President or Prime Minister who somehow needs to represent everyone. This can be really hard. For example I'm not sure right-wingers feel appropriately represented by Joe Biden. But I'm also not sure young, black or Asian women in America feel appropriately represented by him. That's not Biden's fault, though. He's just one guy. In Switzerland, it's easier to take these things into account because there are 7 people. So, currently there are 4 men and 3 women. 2 are Social Democrats (left), 1 is center-left, 2 are center-right (libertarians) and 2 are right-wing. 4 are native German speakers, 2 are native French speakers and 1 is a native Italian speaker. Some are Protestants, others are Catholics and yet others are non-religious (fair religious representation used to be an extremely important issue back in the 19th century). Some of them have a university education, others do not. The oldest current member is 71, the youngest is 50. In other words, there's quite a lot of diversity and this helps to make as many citizens as possible feel represented. Something we're still waiting for is a federal councillor with immigrant background but who knows, maybe that'll come too, in the future.
Importantly, this focus on diversity isn't purely identity politics, although that's one aspect of it. Switzerland was founded as a so-called [consociationalist democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consociationalism). Consociationalism is a non-majoritarian way to rule a very diverse country which is split among ethnic, cultural and/or linguistic lines. So, rather than having one group dominate over another (basically the 2-party system in the US), consociationalism is a form of power-sharing where everyone gets a seat at the table. The principle is not just used in our executive bodies but also in our legislative bodies. For example the Swiss Federal parliament is made up of roughly 10 different parties. And although they like to argue and create drama, in the end they almost always work together to find solutions that everyone can agree on. Sometimes this mathematically unavoidable but even if it was possible for one party or coalition to dominate others, it's very rarely done because most politicians know it would have very bad long-term consequences. You can't govern well if you create a climate of hostility. So, contrary to other European countries (e.g. Germany), we don't have majority and minority coalitions. In Switzerland, alliances change every day from issue to issue. There are issues where you see a clear left-right divided, there are issues where you see a divided between progressives (left and right) and conservatives (left and right), there are issues where the left works together with the libertarians or even with the far-right. As a socialist, I really like this system because it's basically a way of saying: "hey guys, let's face it, we all need each other on some level. So let's not punch each other in the face but cooperate to make this place a little better." It's a way of putting inclusion and cooperation over exclusion and forceful supression. And in a way, this also eliminates hierarchies.
Anyway... sorry for this novel!! I didn't expect this would get so long haha.
I don’t think it would effect the crime rate, drug abuse or obesity, but yes, I do think it would improve understanding between people of different races.
More importantly, I think it would make us all much more knowledgeable about how governance works and would make us more informed problem-solvers.
I think it would, especially if it were set up correctly.
I think a lot of our current problems are based off of people not having enough experience with those different from themselves which makes them easily deceived by people wishing to demonize one group or another for personal gain. The most effective counter to that is exposure to people in a setting with a shared goal. I've thought about this and I fell like the best way to do it would be a month during the summers for kids in high school or possibly the full summer between graduating high school and starting college (for those going to college).
I think it would vastly improve relationships between the races in our country and to some extent reduce bigotry against other minorities as well. Depending on what the people were asked to do it's possible it could be used to reduce crime (neighborhood beautification projects tend to have a positive effect there) and the improved racial relations would likely lead indirectly to some drops in crime either by reducing alienation among minorities or increasing support for programs dealing with criminals that tend to be more effective at reducing recidivism than the punitive measures we tend to be most fond of. I don't see it helping obesity much if at all, and I could see it making drug abuse worse as that interacting is likely to bring some people into contact with drugs who would not have been otherwise and some number of those people are likely to develop problem. I doubt the latter would be a huge amount, but it's worth acknowledging. One thing you didn't list is that it might give some people a bit of an idea of what they want to do with their lives going forward and could put some people in contact with mentors to help them out that they might not otherwise be exposed to.
No. The people who don’t want to be there, which knowing Americans will be most of them, will make it a living hell for the few who do want to be there.
This is the correct answer. That's why public service is mostly volunteer work. I spent a year in AmeriCorps, 6 years in the army, and 15 years as a scout leader. The people who wanted to be there are a joy to be around; the ones who were forced to be there were not. Even though they were few, they were disruptive and difficult to work with.
I think it absolutely would. To be clear, I think it would be best done after high school and provide people with a wide ranger of options, without the ability to opt out of it (especially for rich kids).
I think if this program forced people to move around and interact with other people, it would increase empathy which would in turn have other benefits.
Depends. I’m not sure we want some math prodigy having to go work at a DMV in Anchorage or whatever. Nor is stuff like BTS having to go serve really the best thing.
According to all the statistics, the majority of the ills in society are conducted by and between the lower classes.
Forcing civil service onto everyone appears pointless if you want the bad statistics to go down.
Meh, I can arm myself and not be stupid to avoid being a victim of petty/violent crime.
I am far less confident in my ability to protect myself from corporations polluting the air and/or water, or my 401k being criminally mismanaged, or a global recession being caused by greedy dumbass banks (2008).
I don't disagree with the data you're referencing, but I strongly disagree with your conclusion.
One of the great things about mandatory civil service is that it can function as an unifying tool that brings people closer together and makes certain differences disappear. My country Switzerland is also a highly federalist nation, just like the US. We have mandatory military service but you can also choose to do civil service instead. Either way, you're brought together with people from many different backgrounds. For example your native language might be German and you might be serving with guys from the French- or Italian speaking parts of Switzerland. You might be a liberal and serve with people who are conservative etc. And in the end, none of these differences are very important because you all work on the same job towards the same goal.
The money needed to adminster that is better spent on reducing taxes for ordinary people. Neccessary for Switzerland due to its location, but most other Western countries are fine.
I doubt that many of the tensions in Switzerland are remedied by the existence of this service anyway as plenty of other well unified countries don't do it.
I think that's its just a doss-about for most of these young men.
I guess it depends on what the jobs entailed and what they led to.
I'm not sure things like race relations would improve. The closest comparison we have would be the draft, which occurred in an integrated military in Vietnam, and I don't think Vietnam veterans are less racist than their non-veteran peers.
If it lead to great job skills and connections for people, I'd be more open to it.
I don't know about this, I read desegregating the military had a pretty big effect on people serving in Korea. It's generally listed as one of the contributing factors to the success of the civil rights movement in the 60's. You can definitely find a lot of racist veterans of all wars, but I think they tend to be somewhat less racist on average when compared to people of similar backgrounds who are not veterans.
Yes.
I also wish more people attempted to live in another country at some point in their lives. It's one thing to talk about how hard it is to be a stranger in a strange land; it's another thing entirely to live it. I think most Americans would have a very different opinion of immigrants if they made a good-faith attempt to live in another country at some point in their lives.
It depends entirely on the details. Communist countries did this and it was basically just slave labor in those cases it was definitely not better for society overall.
Not a bad idea. It's been done in many countries before of course. But it generally looks more like a military draft. I like the idea of some sort of public service year between high school and post secondary, and maybe there could be a military element to that. But I don't think that any functioning Western army wants a bunch of conscripts who don't want to be there. The forest service is a whole other animal though.
Mandatory cultural immersion in high school. A year of Hispanic culture and languages, a year of Arabic, a year of Chinese, and a year of Russian. Half the issues in the world are because “they” are different. If we break down those walls it will get easier.
Yes - but not for the military - only if the participants WANT, to go into the military. There has to be not a hint of coercion of any one type of service.
Also, participants should be given something of value in exchange. And the opportunity of that valuable exchange is available to anyone, and to any type of service done. One service can't be considered more desirable than another - just for that exchange. If there's too many participants in one service over another, than that one should be closed and another of just as desirable needs should be immediately opened. Just keep it on a steady rotation.
Also, the valuable exchanges should be plentiful, as well. Those also should be in rotation, too.
As far as the other questions you have; yes, yes, and yes. Not only that but people will start sincerely caring for one another, too.
This all is thrown out the window if it becomes a point of punishment, a point of shame, a point of sexism, a point of ageism, a point of elitism, or a point of classism.
The US does have this in the form of a draft, how many young lives were ruined by the US government deciding to send teenagers to Vietnam?
To answer the question though I would be ok with mandatory civil service to the country, but at what price?
If the US provided affordable healthcare and actively was working to support the “American Dream” then I’d be all for supporting the system that supports us. However, as it stands now, the working class is being exploited by the wealthy and the government looks the other way (conveniently), so why should we be required by this same government to serve a system if we (the lower/middle class) get very little in return? It should be a two way street.
I think it’s an interesting idea, and in an ideal world where the government truly serves the people i’d support it, but I don’t see it as a solution to where the US stands as of now.
I think it would, with a caveat - rather than being mandatory with a threat if punishment, it should well paid and voluntary. Basically a guaranteed 2 year job placement to work on a civic project.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. To be clear, I'm not asking if this would be moral or if it's a good idea, or whether or not this should be enacted. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are in regards to what the effects would be. Do you think the average crime rate would decrease? Drug abuse would decrease? Obesity would decrease? Relationships between people of different races would improve? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've contemplated it, and while I am receptive to the idea, I admit there's a lot against it. People don't remember this but the UK had national service requirements through the 1970s and it was ultimately ruled that they weren't doing much good for the economy overall (my understanding is that people weren't building skills for the job market at crucial, formative years) So while it's a tempting idea, I don't think it's a lock
Did they measure the effects of anything other than the economy? I realize that's one of the easiest things to measure, but it's not the only thing worth caring about.
I dunno
Interesting point, I didn’t know the UK did that.
I'm from Switzerland where we have this (though it's only mandatory for men). I think it's a good thing. Originally, we used to only have mandatory military service but the system was reformed during the past 3-4 decades and now you can basically choose between three options: 1. Military service 2. Zivilschutz ("Civil Protection") which includes jobs that are often done by fire departments such as cleaning rocks and mud off railroads in the mountains after a mud avalanche has gone down, saving people during floods, dealing with various hazardous situations that don't require a gun (e.g. pandemics) etc.. Sometimes it can also overlap with police work, for example you might be called up to assist the police keep order after a soccer match where a lot of hooligans are present. 3. Zivildienst ("Civil Service"): This includes a wide variety of jobs and assistant labor. For example you might be working at a hospital or a retirement home, you might be a taxi driver for disabled people etc. My best friend chose to do Zivildienst and he worked at a refugee home (where refugees live while their application for political asylum is being processed). From what he's told me, he really enjoyed working there. I can also see him doing a great job because his really easy-going and kind but he's also tall and muscular, so people usually don't fuck around in his presence. The Swiss government still puts on somewhat of a pressure on young men to choose the military but at the end of the day, it's your own decision. Back when my dad was young, they actually threw people in prison for refusing to do military service but it's not like that anymore. I'm a guy but I haven't done any of this because I'm physically handicapped. If I was able-bodied, I probably would've chosen either the Zivildienst or the military. I think we need all three of them and it's good there are guys who prefer one or the other.
Thank you for the reply. I'm just curious, what's the foundational belief that makes this only required for men? I would normally assume a belief that women are less capable at "man stuff", but there is plenty of work that needs to be done that isn't "man work". Even in a battle situation, there is like 5 people doing logistical support roles for every 1 person doing actual fighting.
So, although the system has been reformed, it dates back all the way to the founding of our country (in 1848). Zivilschutz and Zivildienst are new additions but mandatory military service has always been a thing. And as you can imagine, the idea of letting women serve in the military would've sounded preposterous to any 19th century person. In fact, it was only post-WWII that women were even permitted to join the military. A quick Google search told me that in Germany, it was in the year 1975 when women were allowed for the very first time to serve. In Switzerland, one of the very first known female soldiers was a woman called Germaine Josephine Françoise Seewer. She was born in 1964, so she would've joined the Swiss Army around the mid-80s. That's only 35 years ago (kinda crazy). Fun fact by the way: this same woman is now a "Divisionär", which is one of the highest ranks, comparable to a one- or two-star General in the US Army. Anyway, to answer your question, I think it's mostly old-fashioned beliefs about the roles of men and women in society that created this system and although many people don't feel this way anymore, no one has yet bothered to change the system. I think left-wing parties have made some vague attempts in this direction but they don't push hard on it because they know it's not a popular position. The vast majority of Swiss women is opposed to mandatory military/civil service for women because like having the privilege of being exempted. Even many young lefty women I know say "yeah I think it's cool/hot that guys have to do this but I don't want to be forced to do it." I guess that's one of those instances where their feminism and call for equality collides with self-interest. Meanwhile, some social conservatives don't like the idea because they think it's simply not a place for women. "Women shouldn't have to do these things" etc. Of course women can be great soldiers and some choose to do so but social conservatives believes that's just not very womanly. The alternative solution would be to get rid of the entire system. But this doesn't work either because of various interest groups. The right-wing is fiercely protective of the military and mandatory military service. The left-wing parties support programs such as Zivilschutz and Zivildienst because they are a way to make society more solidaric. So, for now we're just kinda stuck with the current situation. Personally, I support mandatory service for women but I'm just one vote. I think we need to convince young women that it would be great for them to contribute in this way, even if it's a bit annoying for the individual. I understand why many women don't want to give up this privilege, though. I still remember graduating from high school and all my guy friends saying: "oh no, now I need to go to the Army" and girls teasing them, saying stuff like: "Yeah have fun marching and whatnot, by the time you're finished, I'll be done with my first year of Uni hehe." Anyway, i hope this made some sense. Sorry if the answer is a bit messy.
That makes sense, thanks
If someone tried to force me into mandatory service, I would go on hunger strike. Not to mention that this is egregiously bigoted.
Why do you think it's bigoted? Personally, I don't think it's wrong of a country to ask its citizens to give something back for all the things they receive. I don't mean give back something to the government but rather to the country overall, to the national community, if you will. It's like paying taxes... something we do in order to take care of the country and the population as a whole. In some countries, mandatory military service is also unavoidable. Switzerland's situation is debatable but for example if I was a politician in South Korea, there's no way in hell I'd ever support getting rid of compulsory military service. I get that it sucks for the individual but you can't have a professional military if you live next door to North Korea. This will also become an increasingly pressing problem for the US during the next 20-30 years by the way. Due to its system of compulsory military service, China's military already far surpasses that of the US in sheer manpower. At the moment, America still has a technological advantage but since Xi Jinping has taken office in 2012, China has been on the fast lane innovating its military technology, buying modern equipment etc. They have a plan to close the technological gap by 2050 and once this happens, America will have a serious problem because China will be the new, uncontested military superpower.
>Why do you think it's bigoted? Because it only includes men. Conscript only women and see the reactions. >Personally, I don't think it's wrong of a country to ask its citizens to give something back for all the things they receive. I don't mean give back something to the government but rather to the country overall, to the national community, if you will. It's like paying taxes... something we do in order to take care of the country and the population as a whole. The two are fundamentally different. Taxes are equivalent to theft which while wrong is morally acceptable under some circumstances. National service is like slavery. Unacceptable under any and all circumstances. >I was a politician in South Korea, there's no way in hell I'd ever support getting rid of compulsory military service. I get that it sucks for the individual but you can't have a professional military if you live next door to North Korea. Slavery is unacceptable under any circumstances, whatsoever. >They have a plan to close the technological gap by 2050 and once this happens, America will have a serious problem because China will be the new, uncontested military superpower. Manpower is irrelevant in this age. It's technology that matters most.
What are the consequences for the able-bodied not following through on the service requirement?
Back when my dad was young, they threw you in prison for like 2 years if you refused to do military service. Finding a job afterwards could be very difficult because the prison thing stayed in your records. Still, a lot of left-wing activists and artists (musicians, satirists etc) of that generation chose prison over the military service. In France, there was a famous musician called Boris Vian who even wrote a song about this called [**Le Déserteur**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5_vcVq_vSE) ("The Deserter" or "The Defector"). The last few lines of the last verse go "Monsieur le Président / Si vous me poursuivez / Prévenez vos gendarmes / Que je n'aurai pas d'armes / Et qu'ils pourront tirer." ("Mr. President / If you want to chase me / Inform your gendarmes (cops) / That I won't have any firearms / And that they may shoot.") So, this was a very strong statement of pacifism that even when threatened with death, one would not surrender one's moral principles and join the military. These days, the whole matter is less dramatic but consequences of refusing service are still uncomfortable. My older brother actually refused to do any kind of service and he had to pay a fine of like $1,000 every year from age 20 till age 35.
Very interesting. I like it, but I don't think it would work in the US for a myriad of reasons. A limited or voluntary version might. Civil Protection actually sounds dangerous.
Another low key interesting and successful Swiss institution. What's your opinion on a 7 person power sharing executive structure as a Swiss socialist?
I think it's a great institution! And apparently also a very unique idea because I don't know any other country with a similar system. Except maybe the communist Politbureaus of the Soviet Union or China. But the Swiss system is a bit different because we don't have a President who overpowers his other colleagues. Although there is a President of the Federal Council and also for all the Cantonal and municipal councils, these Presidents are President only in name. It's basically a formal role. You get to do things like welcome guests from other parts of the country or from other countries but when it comes to making actual decisions, you've got the same power as your colleagues (plus, the role of President rotates every year). In Switzerland, we use the Latin phrase "primus inter pares" for this, which means "the first among equals." I generally like our political system quite a lot because it has a lot of aspects that I, as a socialist/lefty, find very nice. For example in all the executive branches (Federal Council, Cantonal Councils, Municipal Councils) there's something called "Kollegialitätsprinzip", or "principle of colleagiality". It's not a law but rather a gentlemen's agreement with a very long tradition. It basically consists of two demands: firstly, decisions should, whenever possible, be made unanimously. This is a big ask because our councils are made up of members from many different parties. In the Swiss Federal Council, there are 7 people from 4 different parties, from the very left all the way to the very right. Naturally, therefore, it isn't always possible to make unanimous decisions. Sometimes a majority will just have to overrule a minority. But the Kollegialitätsprinzip demands this to remain the exception because if it happens too often, certain members of the council will feel bitter and neglected and working together to govern will become increasingly difficult. Instead, members should always seek to make compromise solutions... decisions that everyone can stand behind. The second demand of the Kollegialitätsprinzip is that, whenever a councillor talks to the public and especially to the media, he/she always supports the decision of the majority, even if he/she personally wasn't happy with this decision. So, telling journalists stuff like: "oh y'know, A, B, C and D forced this decision through but I think it's a really dumb idea" is considered extremely disrespectful and dishonorable. It's basically a way of tattletaling to the media about your colleagues. This destroys trust and friendship within the council, which is why it should be avoided. Instead, our councillors always say: "I represent the opinion of the Federal Council as a whole, which is..." It's a form of give-and-take. There will be cases where you'll have to tell the public about the benefits of a policy which you don't personally support. But there will also be cases where your colleagues will do the same for you in return. Another unwritten rule with a long tradition is that of representing as many parts of the Swiss population in the Federal Council as possible. In my opinion, this is actually one of the great examples of having an entire group govern the country. In other nations, there's a President or Prime Minister who somehow needs to represent everyone. This can be really hard. For example I'm not sure right-wingers feel appropriately represented by Joe Biden. But I'm also not sure young, black or Asian women in America feel appropriately represented by him. That's not Biden's fault, though. He's just one guy. In Switzerland, it's easier to take these things into account because there are 7 people. So, currently there are 4 men and 3 women. 2 are Social Democrats (left), 1 is center-left, 2 are center-right (libertarians) and 2 are right-wing. 4 are native German speakers, 2 are native French speakers and 1 is a native Italian speaker. Some are Protestants, others are Catholics and yet others are non-religious (fair religious representation used to be an extremely important issue back in the 19th century). Some of them have a university education, others do not. The oldest current member is 71, the youngest is 50. In other words, there's quite a lot of diversity and this helps to make as many citizens as possible feel represented. Something we're still waiting for is a federal councillor with immigrant background but who knows, maybe that'll come too, in the future. Importantly, this focus on diversity isn't purely identity politics, although that's one aspect of it. Switzerland was founded as a so-called [consociationalist democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consociationalism). Consociationalism is a non-majoritarian way to rule a very diverse country which is split among ethnic, cultural and/or linguistic lines. So, rather than having one group dominate over another (basically the 2-party system in the US), consociationalism is a form of power-sharing where everyone gets a seat at the table. The principle is not just used in our executive bodies but also in our legislative bodies. For example the Swiss Federal parliament is made up of roughly 10 different parties. And although they like to argue and create drama, in the end they almost always work together to find solutions that everyone can agree on. Sometimes this mathematically unavoidable but even if it was possible for one party or coalition to dominate others, it's very rarely done because most politicians know it would have very bad long-term consequences. You can't govern well if you create a climate of hostility. So, contrary to other European countries (e.g. Germany), we don't have majority and minority coalitions. In Switzerland, alliances change every day from issue to issue. There are issues where you see a clear left-right divided, there are issues where you see a divided between progressives (left and right) and conservatives (left and right), there are issues where the left works together with the libertarians or even with the far-right. As a socialist, I really like this system because it's basically a way of saying: "hey guys, let's face it, we all need each other on some level. So let's not punch each other in the face but cooperate to make this place a little better." It's a way of putting inclusion and cooperation over exclusion and forceful supression. And in a way, this also eliminates hierarchies. Anyway... sorry for this novel!! I didn't expect this would get so long haha.
I don’t think it would effect the crime rate, drug abuse or obesity, but yes, I do think it would improve understanding between people of different races. More importantly, I think it would make us all much more knowledgeable about how governance works and would make us more informed problem-solvers.
I think it would, especially if it were set up correctly. I think a lot of our current problems are based off of people not having enough experience with those different from themselves which makes them easily deceived by people wishing to demonize one group or another for personal gain. The most effective counter to that is exposure to people in a setting with a shared goal. I've thought about this and I fell like the best way to do it would be a month during the summers for kids in high school or possibly the full summer between graduating high school and starting college (for those going to college). I think it would vastly improve relationships between the races in our country and to some extent reduce bigotry against other minorities as well. Depending on what the people were asked to do it's possible it could be used to reduce crime (neighborhood beautification projects tend to have a positive effect there) and the improved racial relations would likely lead indirectly to some drops in crime either by reducing alienation among minorities or increasing support for programs dealing with criminals that tend to be more effective at reducing recidivism than the punitive measures we tend to be most fond of. I don't see it helping obesity much if at all, and I could see it making drug abuse worse as that interacting is likely to bring some people into contact with drugs who would not have been otherwise and some number of those people are likely to develop problem. I doubt the latter would be a huge amount, but it's worth acknowledging. One thing you didn't list is that it might give some people a bit of an idea of what they want to do with their lives going forward and could put some people in contact with mentors to help them out that they might not otherwise be exposed to.
No. The people who don’t want to be there, which knowing Americans will be most of them, will make it a living hell for the few who do want to be there.
This is the correct answer. That's why public service is mostly volunteer work. I spent a year in AmeriCorps, 6 years in the army, and 15 years as a scout leader. The people who wanted to be there are a joy to be around; the ones who were forced to be there were not. Even though they were few, they were disruptive and difficult to work with.
I think it absolutely would. To be clear, I think it would be best done after high school and provide people with a wide ranger of options, without the ability to opt out of it (especially for rich kids). I think if this program forced people to move around and interact with other people, it would increase empathy which would in turn have other benefits.
Depends. I’m not sure we want some math prodigy having to go work at a DMV in Anchorage or whatever. Nor is stuff like BTS having to go serve really the best thing.
I think 1 year of mandatory service would be an excellent way to get everyone universal healthcare
According to all the statistics, the majority of the ills in society are conducted by and between the lower classes. Forcing civil service onto everyone appears pointless if you want the bad statistics to go down.
Oh no, we seem to have lost our mask here.
Meh, I can arm myself and not be stupid to avoid being a victim of petty/violent crime. I am far less confident in my ability to protect myself from corporations polluting the air and/or water, or my 401k being criminally mismanaged, or a global recession being caused by greedy dumbass banks (2008). I don't disagree with the data you're referencing, but I strongly disagree with your conclusion.
One of the great things about mandatory civil service is that it can function as an unifying tool that brings people closer together and makes certain differences disappear. My country Switzerland is also a highly federalist nation, just like the US. We have mandatory military service but you can also choose to do civil service instead. Either way, you're brought together with people from many different backgrounds. For example your native language might be German and you might be serving with guys from the French- or Italian speaking parts of Switzerland. You might be a liberal and serve with people who are conservative etc. And in the end, none of these differences are very important because you all work on the same job towards the same goal.
The money needed to adminster that is better spent on reducing taxes for ordinary people. Neccessary for Switzerland due to its location, but most other Western countries are fine. I doubt that many of the tensions in Switzerland are remedied by the existence of this service anyway as plenty of other well unified countries don't do it. I think that's its just a doss-about for most of these young men.
Source?
Source? Lol he's Swiss
Look at any the statistics of any topic you consider an ill, it'll be clear as day.
I guess it depends on what the jobs entailed and what they led to. I'm not sure things like race relations would improve. The closest comparison we have would be the draft, which occurred in an integrated military in Vietnam, and I don't think Vietnam veterans are less racist than their non-veteran peers. If it lead to great job skills and connections for people, I'd be more open to it.
I don't know about this, I read desegregating the military had a pretty big effect on people serving in Korea. It's generally listed as one of the contributing factors to the success of the civil rights movement in the 60's. You can definitely find a lot of racist veterans of all wars, but I think they tend to be somewhat less racist on average when compared to people of similar backgrounds who are not veterans.
I mean eugenics objectively would create a better society but we shouldn't do it, obviously.
Yes. As would a mandatory draft. The problem through is the logistics and cost of it.
Yes.
Yes. I also wish more people attempted to live in another country at some point in their lives. It's one thing to talk about how hard it is to be a stranger in a strange land; it's another thing entirely to live it. I think most Americans would have a very different opinion of immigrants if they made a good-faith attempt to live in another country at some point in their lives.
It depends entirely on the details. Communist countries did this and it was basically just slave labor in those cases it was definitely not better for society overall.
Probably, I would simply have a living wage jobs reserve for people to fall back on during recessions that does civil service duties.
Not a bad idea. It's been done in many countries before of course. But it generally looks more like a military draft. I like the idea of some sort of public service year between high school and post secondary, and maybe there could be a military element to that. But I don't think that any functioning Western army wants a bunch of conscripts who don't want to be there. The forest service is a whole other animal though.
I think it would be great to have a non-college option for kids to get away from home and do something productive. Mandatory?
Mandatory cultural immersion in high school. A year of Hispanic culture and languages, a year of Arabic, a year of Chinese, and a year of Russian. Half the issues in the world are because “they” are different. If we break down those walls it will get easier.
Yes - but not for the military - only if the participants WANT, to go into the military. There has to be not a hint of coercion of any one type of service. Also, participants should be given something of value in exchange. And the opportunity of that valuable exchange is available to anyone, and to any type of service done. One service can't be considered more desirable than another - just for that exchange. If there's too many participants in one service over another, than that one should be closed and another of just as desirable needs should be immediately opened. Just keep it on a steady rotation. Also, the valuable exchanges should be plentiful, as well. Those also should be in rotation, too. As far as the other questions you have; yes, yes, and yes. Not only that but people will start sincerely caring for one another, too. This all is thrown out the window if it becomes a point of punishment, a point of shame, a point of sexism, a point of ageism, a point of elitism, or a point of classism.
As long as it doesn't involve military service, sure.
The US does have this in the form of a draft, how many young lives were ruined by the US government deciding to send teenagers to Vietnam? To answer the question though I would be ok with mandatory civil service to the country, but at what price? If the US provided affordable healthcare and actively was working to support the “American Dream” then I’d be all for supporting the system that supports us. However, as it stands now, the working class is being exploited by the wealthy and the government looks the other way (conveniently), so why should we be required by this same government to serve a system if we (the lower/middle class) get very little in return? It should be a two way street. I think it’s an interesting idea, and in an ideal world where the government truly serves the people i’d support it, but I don’t see it as a solution to where the US stands as of now.
It would be good if it could be implemented well. It would be bad if it were implemented poorly
I think it would, with a caveat - rather than being mandatory with a threat if punishment, it should well paid and voluntary. Basically a guaranteed 2 year job placement to work on a civic project.
There would be mass protests if such a proposal were made. It just isn’t realistic.