Sweden restarts the draft. Includes women

I always figured in some kind of "national service draft" for the United States you would be given a range of choices like

two years in the active duty military
or
six years in the reserves or national guard
or
one to three years (depending on the danger or difficulty level) in civilian projects

Fighting wildfires, basic infrastructure work, working in poor rural (or urban) areas, probably half a hundred areas where manpower could be used.

And if you get drafted do you get to choose where you end up?[/quote]

I would assume to a degree. Note just because you aren't a "trigger puller" doesn't mean you won't necessarily be in harms way. My dad was drafted and he was sent to South Korea including 11 months of intense combat.

My uncle was drafted and sent to Tennessee.

The Peace Corps was created as an alternative to the draft. You could do your national service in the military, or in the Peace Corps. Not a bad idea, actually. I know lots of people who've never left the state they were born in, having a system where people can get out and see a larger part of the world strikes me as a good idea.

We created the state to serve the people, not to enlist people as servants of the state.

This is not a father asking for chores, since a father that supports and provides has a right for certain demands. Only the failed states and economies regard the state as paramount or 'parent' in such a context - perhaps a morning exercise with Mao?

And good christ our self-selected elected "public servants" can scarcely ever be found behaving as true public servants (self-serving almost always trumps the public interest) and I certainly am not willing to subordinate myself to whims or pen of a piece of shit politician or bureaucrat.

Still, in a fantasy world (such as a libtopia) I rather fancy it on paper, hard work is good for the soul, and being a part of something almost always has rewards beyond the object itself (I've played on many sport teams, etc.). But in the real world when dealing with real people, nothing beats voluntary decisions.

That's for me to have an opinion about.

The Wikipedia article on conscription seems to indicate that it is an open question whether conscription outside of declared war is Constitutional.

If the government can command 2 years of your life away to work at some politically determined task, could they demand 10 years? 20 years? Absent some constraint, your definition of "civic responsibilities" could turn everyone into serfs.

My "civic responsibilities" don't include being an indentured servant.

I've never said people should pay no taxes, only that there should be no income tax.

Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."?

When I was a kid one of my bosses said he served in the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) many years ago - they helped build dams and roads and fought fires and things like that.

Yeah, that's some Starship Troopers shit right there - "service guarantees citizenship!"

But in the case of Starship Troopers, "service" was designed as holding down any government job, not simply serving in the military (though that is what the book focused on, so it gives the impression that only those were are ex-military are citizens).

In any event, it blurs the line between state and society.

Starship Troopers was also a satire showing how fascism could look appealing under the right conditions... but still be fascism.

Actually, though, I think it is. Government makes the rules. And if a freely and democratically elected government decides that, say, two years' compulsory community service will create a more cohesive society and get much needed work done, then setting that obligation is really no different in principle than saying that people earning more than X must pay Y in income tax or that children must go to school between ages 5 to 16 or whatever.

Yes, it's a restriction on your freedom, just as so many other rules (speed limits, whatever) are restrictions on your freedom.

Unfortunately, in the US no it isn't. But I think it should be. It certainly was in the US for several decades following WWII. I'm a 40-to-1 fan, myself (no-one should earn more than 40 times more than anyone else).

Today, of course, the US is nothing but a glorified banana republic. And that yawning wealth gap hurts you in so many ways.

No, it's first and foremost about service by people young, energetic and obligation-free enough to provide it fairly easily. But --- like the military draft --- it forges a shared experience that can only help bring people together in a more cohesive society. (Unlike military service, it's not about destruction but about construction.)

Apparently the US constitution (an' 'member, we ain't all Americans here) is apparently the most elastic text (besides the Bible and the Koran) ever devised. I'm sure some provision could be found to serve as a basis.

And I did say freely and democratically elected.

I believe @Señor Hoint (who is American) has a thing or two to say on subjects like this.

What is the state if not a tangible construct of society?

Also IIRC in Starship Troopers, anyone in federal service could quit at any time. Even a soldier in the middle of a battle.

For many of the wars we've engaged in, "national defense" and "some politician's pet project" have been more or less indistinguishable from each other.

Oh please. The U.S. didn't force the North Koreans to invade South Korea. We didn't force Ho Chi Minh to spend years trying to take over South Vietnam. We didn't force Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait.

Anyway, the US used to have a War Department, back when people called a spade a spade. Then, when war became The American Way of Life, it changed the name to "Defense Department".

Canada had the draft in WWII (which, for Canada, started in September 1939). Then it was abolished.

Neither of these countries has anything much to fear that a massive military could do much about (Canada's is dinky anyway).

Europe is different.

Canada is directly defended by the United States anyway.

The movie, not the novel. In his Expanded Universe, Heinlein makes it quite clear that he was describing a society which he thought might avoid the evils he saw in our current society. He admitted that he didn't know if it would work, or if it was the best solution, but it was one that seemed to offer the possibility of a society that wouldn't destroy itself in the manner in which Rome did. His idea was that by making the right to vote something which had to be earned, rather than something you got once you hit a certain age, you'd value it more than people in our society do. So, you'd vote smarter and as often as there were elections. Heinlein was very much a Libertarian at the time he wrote the book (even if the party hadn't been formed at that point), and he was laying out how a Libertarian society might work.

The film is really only tangentially related to the novel. The screenwriters pitched the idea of doing "bugs in space" to the studio, who was interested, but thought the idea wasn't fully developed. Once the writers found out that the studio had bought the rights to Starship Troopers ages ago, they said they'd adapt that, then Verhoven got involved and turned the work into satire.

A Libertarian as preferred by Heinlein (and others) only has a chance of working when you have something that the United States has never had. That is an amazingly high level of civic involvement by the population and an overall level of seriousness and interest by that population.

It won't work in a society obsessed with sports stars, reality tv, social media and music as ours appears to be.

Perhaps, but with an all volunteer force, people can opt out of participating in the military.

If it ever gets to the point here, in the United States, where we need to draft people like me to fend off invaders, we are beyond fucked, because I *am* this guy in both temperament and fighting ability:

Fortunately, a scenario involving foreign troops landing on our shores does not seem terribly plausible. They'd have a tough time, what with their ships and landing craft being attacked by the Navy and Air Force, and the Army, Marines, and National Guard waiting to greet them at the shore. And their generals would have a tough time calling the shots from the radioactive rubble of the enemy capitol.

Yeah, sure.





Maybe you meant John Candy, think he made the cover of Teen Beat?

Maybe you meant Harold Ramis?

Also, they'll encounter Girl Scouts of the USA headquarters before they get here, so I think I'll be alright.

And a rifle behind every blade of grass. Including some held by Girls Scouts.

I'm getting a cravin' for some cookies...

Conscription is best left on the table in case of emergencies, and yes, women should be included.

As for public service, the government can expand programs that it runs without making them mandatory. The Peace Corps, for example, today is far more selective than one might imagine. But then you still have conservatives crying about "big government" and so forth.

Service should damn well streamline citizenship! Example is the army we have members who are obviously eligible to serve but not citizens yet.
I'm not sure if they still do it, but being in the army put them at the head of the line and was pretty much automatic. One thing the government got right - if they are willing to fight for the defense of their country they have proved themselves deserve to be a fully fledged welcome qualified member of said country! Wow I'm really surprised that people I normally disagree with politically are on the same page as myself on this issue, and vice-versa for those that normally lean conservative. This is a real eye-opener!