> In a perfect world, we'd all have enough personal
> responsibility that we
> would all live up to our responsibilities and would never
> have to have that
> enforced by anyone else.
Forget Perfect world. We don't need it. I ask myself - Why do we need
conscription? To defend our homeland. Against Who? Voluntary armies of our
enemies? No. Against conscripted armies.
Is there an example in the last three centuries, where a major war
occurred, that conscripted armies were not the primary invading force.
Conscription is used to either wrongly encroach upon lawful property rights
of others, or is used in defending against another conscripted army.
Now, the Roman Empire conquered it mostly through volunteers. However, it
was successful because of technology, which tended to preserve these
volunteers in warfare. They also were fighting against other volunteer
armies, who were not as well equipped, funded, organized or trained as well
as the Romans.
But this was a long time ago.
So lets redefine conscription; There is offensive conscription and defensive
conscription. One is clearly wrong, and the other a necessary evil. In this
thread, the defenders of conscription are supporting defensive conscription,
and the opponents to conscription are using offensive conscription as the
model for conscription.
If Conscription was declared illegal throughout the world, there would be
little chance for a major invasion of a significant country, because only
volunteers would be used. I tend to believe that volunteer armies do not
invade for imperialistic profit- they defend their country.
But don't members of a society have a
> responsibility to protect that society? Or at it's most basic level,
> doesn't it make evolutionary sense to protect your genes (in
> the form of
> your extended family) and your memes (in terms of your
> society at large) by
> any means necessary, even if it means that you will have to
> sacrifice your
> own life to ensure theirs? Once you've had kids,
> self-preservation is as
> much (or more) about protecting your family (physical family
> and social
> family) as (or than) about protecting yourself.
>
> Could "enforced responsibility" like conscription be viewed
> as forcing us to
> act on our own self-preservation instincts?
Enforced responsibility serves only the enforcer. I can believe and support
defending American soil, and I would extend beyond defending my home, to say
defending Alaska. I do this based upon the understanding that collectively,
the others that I fight with are defending my children, and I defend theirs.
The is the only social contract required for defense, and I would imaging
most fathers would agree and support this contract.
But conscription does not recruit fathers, it recruits single 18 year olds.
Now the contract changes. 18 year olds are now required (forced)to defend
their future children now, even if they choose not to have any. This social
contract is now less bound to basic biological desires, and falls more into
the realm of socialism or altruism.
So Europe was devastated in WWI because of conscription. Its brightest and
best were cut down in their prime for vague reasons. It took out a whole
generation in Europe. I have read that WWI largely ended because of the
extensive toll it took on the young male populous. Essentially, there was no
one left to fight to war. In WWII, this occurred in Germany, and to Japan as
well. Only conscription made this possible.
As others have pointed out, volunteer armies are expensive. Conscription
bypasses normal economic forces. Without conscription, Hitler could of never
afforded the war he brought to the world. The North Vietnamese army could
have not been as successful as it was without conscription. We would of not
been in that war if is was not for conscription.
I believe that in today's world, conscription is no longer needed. The
Romans and Desert Storm showed us that volunteer armies, well equipped, can
easily win over any poorly equipped army. Human nature does not support
aggressive wars without conscription. The economics of war do not work to
foster aggressive volunteer or conscripted armies. Therefore, we should
never have to deal with a well-funded, well trained, conscripted army that
has aggressive or offensive motives.
Nerd From Hell
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Reggie Bautista
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
