Hacker News Reader

Comment by rjf72 | Hacker News Reader

Seems this is one thing that nations with compulsory enlistment really have an edge with. It helps offer perspective on top of providing useful life skills, instilling more self confidence, physical training, and so on. Big problem is that, unlike most of these other nations, we tend to actively deploy our armed forces and in ways that are of dubious value which really makes compulsory enlistment a non-starter.

Big reason I mention this is that even if the indulgence you're describing might be the most effective means of getting your tasks done, it makes one wonder about the consequences of this change in society on a macro level.

View on HN

>> compulsory enlistment

I don't think most of the today's nations with compulsory enlistment would give you an edge at anything. Just the skill of sucking up to doing fuck all for the term you are enlisted for.

I prefer it framed as compulsory or highly rewarded, civil or military service. It’s a pity the US no longer has anything like the WPA [1], for example.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

I can see that being useful. Integrate that with a trade school and you get free workers for a few years who come out of service actually capable of supporting themselves.

Compulsory enlistment is awful for the economy because you're not only deploying "average Jr Google Dev" but also "Tenured MIT Professor" or even Stephen Hawking.

You're thinking conscription. E.g. - we go to war and need new people so we just start grabbing any able bodied man, and even woman in some countries, to train up and deploy. Compulsory enlistment is different. What generally happens is that when you reach the age of legal adulthood you are required to enlist for a certain period of time. This is generally 1-2 years. You do your training, serve your time, and are discharged.

During your enlistment you not only trained but also of course compensated and generally very well prepared to lead a productive life. I think there's a lot to admire about this. But yeah - the issue is when these ideals mix with the reality of enlistment turning into deployment in wars of dubious merit, which is why this whole idea is a nonstarter for the US.

But one example of a nation where it does work well is Switzerland. The reason I mention them in particular is because in 2013 there was a referendum aimed at abolishing this enlistment. It failed with more than 73% voting against it. [1] I think it indicates how well it can work and the value it can provide, but of course again the big difference is that Switzerland is also incredibly conservative in the deployment of their military.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Switzerland

At the same time, every nation with military service also has better working conditions for their workforce so...

its also pointless as the US is bordered by 2 seas and 2 allies (generally speaking). and your not ever going to see a need for them locally (unless your talking about trumps recent border deploys, which half the country is against)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com