Comment by ThinkBeat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThinkBeat | Hacker News Reader

The endless (and pointless) wars that our soldier are being spent on has a relatively easy solution

Reinstate the draft.

That might seem counterintuitive since that would give us a lot more soldiers to use, but it would give a lot of families, a lot of Americans real skin in the game.

Wasting soldiers is easy as long as most people dont care and dont notice. But when it is your daughter/cousin/ uncle/parent someone you know for a majority of the population it becomes a very serious matter.

I say this as an ex-army soldier. I will be honest and say that I didnt enjoy my time in the military very much, and forcing thousands and thousands of youth to go through it means a lot of pain and uncomfortable situation, I think the benefits would outweigh the sacrifices made to make this happen.

An alternate plan would it to be mandatory that family members of elected officials to serve in the military and in wars, personally. (Not just sit at a desk in DC pushing buttons) But there is so much corruption in those systems that the children would probably be protected one way or another.

What an unbelievably bad idea. Mandatory drafting is involuntary servitude, slavery. How about taking a non interventionist policy?

Citizenship has historically been defined by military service, in that you are not merely subject to the security apparatus of the state, but a part of it. Because you are a part of it, you have a say in it. It was the removal of the draft which necessarily removed the role of service from citizenship.

What do people who are not a part of the military care about non-intervention? There is a reason we viliify the draft-dodger who becomes a politician and sends others sons off to war.

Historically most ancient or medieval wars were fought by professional soldiers.

Here is a Wikipedia quote

"The persistent old belief that peasants and small farmers gathered to form a national army or fyrd is a strange delusion dreamt up by antiquarians in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries to justify universal military conscription"

I support Rothbard's view on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3TY5OhUJhw

Not what I'm referring to. I'm referring specifically to those who owned land and bore arms and were referred to as Citizens in Rome.

I find both the notions that conscription=slavery and that taxation=theft can only be held by someone who does not believe in any sort of duty or obligation to one's community, country, nation, or God, and that self-interest must necessarily be one's sole (or at least primary) motivating factor.

No, community and state are two different things. Surely I do not accept social contract theory. But I do not think we will reach a common ground arguing this issue.

>>Citizenship has historically been defined by military service, in that you are not merely subject to the security apparatus of the state, but a part of it.

I don't know where you got this idea. Most of the largest empires in history - Romans, Sassanids, Ottomans, British, you name it - had a professional warrior class. It wasn't all voluntary, but ideas like draft only applied to non-citizens.

Was referring to the Romans. Perhaps I'm exaggerating.

My point is that military service is a responsibility, not a chore foisted upon us. If it were, we would be subjects. But we are not subjects, we are citizens.

>>My point is that military service is a responsibility

Maybe when the country is being invaded. For offensive wars however I don’t know how you can argue this.

Is your country not sharing in the spoils? I'm not saying that offensive wars are moral, but it is in keeping with your duties to the group.

And certain offensive wars are for the common defense, usually against neighboring countries over scarce resources, or against other imperial powers.

What spoils? I think it would be rather difficult to claim that the general US population has come out on top as a result of Middle East adventurism over the past two decades.

> How about taking a non interventionist policy?

Well yea, that is what the parent comment explicitly advocates.

The problem is that US voters are insulated from the horrifying effects of war and thus are not inclined to avoid it.

Thus, the parent advocates achieving non-interventionist policy by giving Americans voters consequences through the draft.

So kind of roundabout, but such is often the only viable way in politics.

Rep. Chuck Rangel of NY even made this point in 2003 when he tried to push to get the draft reinstated as a protest of Iraq (Rangel was a Korean War vet; won a Bronze Star there).

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com