Traveler

Military Obligation

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Colirio said:

There are certain things that government does very poorly.   Education is one of those things. 

Several on these forums won't even send their kids to a government education center. (school) Would you really desire that the broken government educational centers instruct everyone on how to conduct warfare? Do you really believe this will fix the woes of a broken society? 

Not sure what you're saying.  There are certain things the government does well, and wage war against other nations is one of those things.  

We homeschooled our kids, and yes, we desire that the government be the one that fields the nations armies and navies.  Problem?

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Several on these forums won't even send their kids to a government education center. (school) Would you really desire that the broken government educational centers instruct everyone on how to conduct warfare? Do you really believe this will fix the woes of a broken society? 

Jr. ROTC is done at the Public Schools but they are not run by the Public School.  They are run by a branch of the military (my son's school is run by the Army) with complete autonomy.  They are not funded by the Public Schools either, they are funded by the military.  And I have to say, my son's Jr. ROTC program is pretty good.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Not sure what you're saying. 

I'm responding to the post before mine. Government education has never been the most effective education. 

 

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

There are certain things the government does well, and wage war against other nations is one of those things.  

Is it? 

 

Just curious, which recent war would you consider to be well waged? Of those recently waged, how many of the conflicts were settled by PMC's? 

 

I won't even bother to ask about the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc. as those are not military conflicts, but do show the ineffective nature of government to solve societal issues. 

 

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

We homeschooled our kids, and yes, we desire that the government be the one that fields the nations armies and navies.  Problem?

I don't disagree that one of the few legitimate functions of government is to provide for a national defense. 

 

Where I take issue is the suggestion that every citizen should be forced into military training/service before having the right to vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Jr. ROTC is done at the Public Schools but they are not run by the Public School.  They are run by a branch of the military (my son's school is run by the Army) with complete autonomy.  They are not funded by the Public Schools either, they are funded by the military. 

Great! 

 

Again, I love our military! I support our military! I support those who want to volunteer for military service and think that we should give them better treatment, better pay, better healthcare, and so many other things. 

 

I simply do not support forced military service/training. 

 

If you (others reading this post, not you particularly, Anatess) believe that military service is important for society then you should support causes that make military service more desirable and forget about what we can do to force them into it. (I.e. You can't be a full citizen with voting rights without it.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colirio said:

I'm responding to the post before mine. Government education has never been the most effective education. 

I think government plays a very important role in education.  What I personally see as a (but not "the" or the only) problem are those that intend to remove the responsibility for education away from the community and the community families to make education an appendage of either the state or federal government.  When private education becomes better than government education then both the government and it citizens have failed.  Not just in their responsibility for an educated citizenship but a failure of morals and values that keep governments from tyranny. 

Quote

Just curious, which recent war would you consider to be well waged? Of those recently waged, how many of the conflicts were settled by PMC's? 

I won't even bother to ask about the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc. as those are not military conflicts, but do show the ineffective nature of government to solve societal issues. 

I don't disagree that one of the few legitimate functions of government is to provide for a national defense. 

Where I take issue is the suggestion that every citizen should be forced into military training/service before having the right to vote. 

I am going to take a guess - I am going to guess that you have not been in the military nor do you have any military experience that you can draw upon to have concluded your opinion.

I am 100% convinced you would have a very different opinion if you had military experience.  Or even if you had a greater respect for citizens that have military experience over those have none what-so-ever.

And as a note - I do not believe citizens should be forced into the military or to vote - I am suggesting that those that have military experience will vote differently because of the military experience and that their vote and military experience is a benefit to society and their understanding of governments superior to those that lack such experience in a free society.  But I have also observed that nothing happens without incentive.  That very few will feel obligation to be in the military without some incentive - therefore I believe governments should both as obligation and because it is intelligent to do so - to create some incentive for military obligation - especially a incentive other than money.  Rather society and governments create incentives centered in honor, respect and being a good (better) citizen. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Colirio said:

Great! 

 

Again, I love our military! I support our military! I support those who want to volunteer for military service and think that we should give them better treatment, better pay, better healthcare, and so many other things. 

 

I simply do not support forced military service/training. 

 

If you (others reading this post, not you particularly, Anatess) believe that military service is important for society then you should support causes that make military service more desirable and forget about what we can do to force them into it. (I.e. You can't be a full citizen with voting rights without it.) 

Yeah, I'm open to the idea.  I mean, America already forces kids to go to school.  I am ok with it as we require literacy to have a functioning government.  In the same token, I'm ok with compulsory military training because I also believe we require national defense to protect liberty.  So, if you're ok with a parent put in jail for not sending a kid to school, I'm ok with people put in jail for not taking ROTC.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I've already said this. Oh, well.

EDIT: Yeah, okay, never mind. I already said it.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Traveler said:

When private education becomes better than government education then both the government and it citizens have failed.  Not just in their responsibility for an educated citizenship but a failure of morals and values that keep governments from tyranny. 

I'm not sure where to begin... 

 

The primary responsibility for the teaching of morals and values comes from the fundamental unit of society, which is the family. 

 

Since we are comparing education and military service, I can say with absolute fact that government schools have been highly ineffective in teaching morals and values that keep us from tyranny. Do you agree? If so, then clearly the government is not the vehicle best suited for this task. 

 

Just like forced government education has not produced a society of brilliant scholars, neither will forced military service produce a society of patriotic, freedom loving individuals. 

 

 

57 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am going to take a guess - I am going to guess that you have not been in the military nor do you have any military experience that you can draw upon to have concluded your opinion.

I am 100% convinced you would have a very different opinion if you had military experience.  Or even if you had a greater respect for citizens that have military experience over those have none what-so-ever.

 

I was a private contractor for the DoD and Homeland Security. I have also worked with military operations in various capacities over the years. For you to say that I have a low opinion of our military men and women shows that you haven't understood a single thing I have typed. I have stated over and over about my love and support of our military. 

 

I also come from a strong military family with siblings who are vets. Uncles, brothers-in-law, cousins, nephews, and several of my best friends are all veterans. You don't know anything about me, my family, friends, or history, so for you to be 100% convinced about anything concerning my opinions shows a clear lack of judgment on your part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

 In the same token, I'm ok with compulsory military training because I also believe we require national defense to protect liberty.  

 

The US has the greatest military force in the world right now and it's been achieved through non-compulsory means. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Colirio said:

 

The US has the greatest military force in the world right now and it's been achieved through non-compulsory means. 

With 71% of youth 19-24 years of age unqualified to serve even if they want to plus trillions of dollars in government debt..... it won’t stay that way for long. 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

With 71% of youth 19-24 years of age unqualified to serve even if they want to plus trillions of dollars in government debt..... it won’t stay that way for long. 

Sad but likely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

With 71% of youth 19-24 years of age unqualified to serve even if they want to plus trillions of dollars in government debt..... it won’t stay that way for long. 

I'm not sure.  The number of youth that would qualify for military service I think has hovored right around 25% for almost 30 years now.  It may be going up or down slowly, but the numbers are around the same. 

It doesn't detract from the training for those who go in and become military members, and it does not change the technology advantage that we have.

I think the greater threat is if we take a lackadaisical approach to our defense that could change it or weaken it far too much with policies that do nothing to strengthen it and everything to decrease the type and quality of training our soldiers/airmen/sailors/marines take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Colirio said:

I'm not sure where to begin... 

The primary responsibility for the teaching of morals and values comes from the fundamental unit of society, which is the family. 

Since we are comparing education and military service, I can say with absolute fact that government schools have been highly ineffective in teaching morals and values that keep us from tyranny. Do you agree? If so, then clearly the government is not the vehicle best suited for this task. 

It would seem that we have engaged in meaningful conversation.   I am glad that you think family is the primary institution for teaching morals and values.  I would agree with that thought - at least in part.  To help clarify I would ask - do you think it moral for a family to concern themselves only with the education of their own children?  Or do you think families have a moral obligation to assist (including financial assistance) of the education of children (even children that have been taught improperly in their homes) in their society outside of their direct family?

To be more direct - I personally do not consider someone to have high morals that believes in privately educating their own children in segregated classrooms from the children of neighbors with lessor resources.  The term for ensuring all children in a society have access (freedom) to education is "public" education.  If there are children of privileged that are granted privileged education over other children of similar ability - I do not believe that to be moral, just or even Christian.  Thus - I see the touting of segregated private education as a red flag of someone of limited or low values and morals.  And I do agree with you that such failures of values and morals is initiated with failures in the home and family.

Quote

Just like forced government education has not produced a society of brilliant scholars, neither will forced military service produce a society of patriotic, freedom loving individuals. 

 

I believe the proper term for indicating governmental force is "The Law" or what is "lawful".  I believe it is lawful for a free people to enact laws requiring its citizens to fulfill responsibilities necessary to defend that society.  I do not believe that the responsibility for defense lies any more with one segment of the population than any other segment.  My point is simple - if there is an obligation to defend a country - that obligation must be shared by all the citizens and all citizens have the same obligation.  Just because some are willing to defend the country without the force of law - I do not believe that it is a display of value or morals to pretend that only those willing are obligated.  I do not understand that kind of thinking.

Quote

I was a private contractor for the DoD and Homeland Security. I have also worked with military operations in various capacities over the years. For you to say that I have a low opinion of our military men and women shows that you haven't understood a single thing I have typed. I have stated over and over about my love and support of our military. 

I also come from a strong military family with siblings who are vets. Uncles, brothers-in-law, cousins, nephews, and several of my best friends are all veterans. You don't know anything about me, my family, friends, or history, so for you to be 100% convinced about anything concerning my opinions shows a clear lack of judgment on your part. 

I also was a private contractor for the DoD and can speak with authority that it is very different that being in the military.  And for the record - apparently I do know something about you (even though you do not seem to understand why) - you have never been in the military.  

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe the proper term for indicating governmental force is "The Law" or what is "lawful".  I believe it is lawful for a free people to enact laws requiring its citizens to fulfill responsibilities necessary to defend that society.  I do not believe that the responsibility for defense lies any more with one segment of the population than any other segment.  My point is simple - if there is an obligation to defend a country - that obligation must be shared by all the citizens and all citizens have the same obligation.  Just because some are willing to defend the country without the force of law - I do not believe that it is a display of value or morals to pretend that only those willing are obligated.  I do not understand that kind of thinking.

 

 

The Traveler

I don't understand that kind of thinking, either - to claim liberty by virtue of citizenship by birth and not feel obliged to defend that liberty is a weird thing to me.  I'm fine with people who see their citizenship as just happenstance and not choice but if you claim the liberties afforded that citizenship then defense of that which allows liberty is, in my opinion, required to make that claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It would seem that we have engaged in meaningful conversation.   I am glad that you think family is the primary institution for teaching morals and values. 

 

I don't think so, I know so. I have a strong testimony of the Family Proclamation and it specifically states it. 

 

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 To help clarify I would ask - do you think it moral for a family to concern themselves only with the education of their own children?  Or do you think families have a moral obligation to assist (including financial assistance) of the education of children (even children that have been taught improperly in their homes) in their society outside of their direct family?

 

A moral obligation is not the same as a legal obligation. 

 

We should love, serve, and help our neighbor. So yes, we have a moral obligation to help according to our talents and abilities. 

 

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

To be more direct - I personally do not consider someone to have high morals that believes in privately educating their own children in segregated classrooms from the children of neighbors with lessor resources.  The term for ensuring all children in a society have access (freedom) to education is "public" education.  If there are children of privileged that are granted privileged education over other children of similar ability - I do not believe that to be moral, just or even Christian.  Thus - I see the touting of segregated private education as a red flag of someone of limited or low values and morals.  And I do agree with you that such failures of values and morals is initiated with failures in the home and family.

 

Ok. 

 

So, I should stop teaching my children in my home unless I am going to teach all other children in my neighborhood, town, city, state, etc.? After all, you said it's immoral for some children to be privately educated. 

 

That is, of course, ridiculous and contrary to what the Family Proclamation states. 

 

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe the proper term for indicating governmental force is "The Law" or what is "lawful".  I believe it is lawful for a free people to enact laws requiring its citizens to fulfill responsibilities necessary to defend that society.  I do not believe that the responsibility for defense lies any more with one segment of the population than any other segment.  My point is simple - if there is an obligation to defend a country - that obligation must be shared by all the citizens and all citizens have the same obligation.  Just because some are willing to defend the country without the force of law - I do not believe that it is a display of value or morals to pretend that only those willing are obligated.  I do not understand that kind of thinking.

 

A moral responsibility is different than a legal responsibility. 

 

I agree that morally everyone has a responsibility for defending our families, freedoms, and nation. 

 

The issue is that I believe in real liberty. Therefore, it is not moral to legally require the citizens to serve in a military capacity. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I also was a private contractor for the DoD and can speak with authority that it is very different that being in the military.  And for the record - apparently I do know something about you (even though you do not seem to understand why) - you have never been in the military.  

 

The Traveler

 

Congratulations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enlisted almost 6 months ago. I'm in a college program (not ROTC) so I've been minimally exposed to the military - nevertheless, I thought I'd jump in the middle of this conversation and share my opinion here.

I agree that citizens of a nation have a duty, to some degree, to defend the nation when the threat exists. People who claim freedom have a duty, to some degree, to defend that freedom when the threat exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the (false) assumption is being made that defense = military. Military is one critical way to defend a country. I think that there are other critical ways (through politics, economics, education, technology, practicing charity, etc).

I think it is therefore a fallacy to assume that some degree of duty to defense = a specific duty to military. Correct me if I've missed another premise stated somewhere in this 4-page discussion that will fill in the apparent logical gap :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't understand that kind of thinking, either - to claim liberty by virtue of citizenship by birth and not feel obliged to defend that liberty is a weird thing to me.  I'm fine with people who see their citizenship as just happenstance and not choice but if you claim the liberties afforded that citizenship then defense of that which allows liberty is, in my opinion, required to make that claim.

 

A moral obligation is different than a legal obligation. 

 

I agree that there is a moral obligation to defend one's family, freedoms, and nation. 

 

That does NOT mean a legal obligation to governmental military service, however. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

A moral obligation is different than a legal obligation. 

 

I agree that there is a moral obligation to defend one's family, freedoms, and nation. 

 

That does NOT mean a legal obligation to governmental military service, however. 

Not unless you make it a law.

You can say you have a moral obligation to teach your children so why do you need a law for it?  1.) to exact consequences for not fulfilling the obligation, 2.) to have control over how the obligation is carried out.

In the case of national defense, how that obligation is carried out matters a whole lot for battle readiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

You can say you have a moral obligation to teach your children so why do you need a law for it?  1.) to exact consequences for not fulfilling the obligation, 2.) to have control over how the obligation is carried out.

In the case of national defense, how that obligation is carried out matters a whole lot for battle readiness.

 

And we have come full circle... 

 

You need to research the issues caused by drafted soldiers during times of war. You cannot force someone to fight. Instead, they tend to kill their own officers, brothers, and whoever else in an attempt to avoid combat. 

 

But what about a non-combative role? Do you wanted a legally obligated soldier changing your vehicle tire? What about cooking your meals? What about setting your computer firewalls? 

 

Someone legally obligated to be there who doesn't want to be is a danger to everyone around them. That completely negates the "battle readiness" proposal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colirio said:

 

A moral obligation is not the same as a legal obligation. 

A moral responsibility is different than a legal responsibility. 

 

I agree that morally everyone has a responsibility for defending our families, freedoms, and nation. 

 


Thank you for engaging.  I would like to explorer with you why you think moral obligations are different than legal obligations.   I would think that if laws are not moral the only other possibility is that they are immoral.  I see this kind of thinking of disconnecting morals and law as most problematic.   Once in a conversation, a person insisted that morals and values cannot be legislated.   I was quite surprised with the logic - because for all that I have studied in law - morals and values are the only things our human societies can legislate.  We cannot legislate the universal gravitational constant, the value of pi or any such thing - we cannot legislate that the color red is really blue or that electrons do not have charge.

In fact the only reason I can see that any moral or value be legislated is because there is some disagreement in society as to what is moral and what of human value is of worth.  Thus the whole purpose of Law and the force of government (as near as I can logically determine) is to force by law the morals and values of one segment of the population upon all other segments that object or disagree.

This would mean that morals and values are important in society.  I do agree that families are the best and most effective institution to teach morals and values - but at the same time that does not mean that no other institutions in a free society need be concerned with morals or values.  In fact I believe all public institutions must be moral and reflect values.  One may ask the question - "What or whose morals and values?"  That is the question of the day.  And the answer to such question is the very structure of law in any society - even the basis of all sustainable relationships of two or more individuals.

I think it is worth while to discuss and debate morals and values - but I think it is not smart to disconnect (or even try to disconnect) morals and values from law the the force of governments.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

You need to research the issues caused by drafted soldiers during times of war. You cannot force someone to fight. Instead, they tend to kill their own officers, brothers, and whoever else in an attempt to avoid combat. 

I appreciate very much what you have said here - In fact - for this very reason, I believe (very much) that those unwilling to serve in the military cannot be trusted to be citizens any more that any other criminal element of society - especially those willing to commit murder of anyone that disagree with them.  And for the record - I do not believe that convicted felons  should have the right to vote or determine government policies.   I think that rights may be restored but not without proof that there is realization and commitment to responsibilities and obligations.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you on many things. 

 

In fact, I would say that ALL laws are morally based. 

 

However, not all morals should have legal enforcement.

For instance, I believe it morally just to help my neighbor mow her yard because she is elderly and cannot always afford to have someone else do it for her. I would not want to be legally obligated to do so, however, as this takes away my freedom to choose family time this weekend instead. I want the freedom to make sacrifices at MY discretion, not because some agency will punish me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I appreciate very much what you have said here - In fact - for this very reason, I believe (very much) that those unwilling to serve in the military cannot be trusted to be citizens any more that any other criminal element of society - especially those willing to commit murder of anyone that disagree with them.  And for the record - I do not believe that convicted felons  should have the right to vote or determine government policies.   I think that rights may be restored but not without proof that there is realization and commitment to responsibilities and obligations.

 

The Traveler

 

I understand where you are coming from here. 

 

However, let's look at the Jehova's Witnesses. They have religious beliefs which teach them to not to go to war. 

Just like the people of Ammon in the scriptures, there are many who would rather sue for peace and will simply refuse to go to war. And just like the people of Ammon paid taxes in order to support their military protectors, paying taxes is a service to support a national defense. Mormon even speaks of Helaman and those performing religious service were no less serviceable to te people than was Captain Moroni.

 

Alma 48:19 Now behold, Helaman and his brethren were no less serviceable unto the people than was Moroni; for they did preach the word of God, and they did baptize unto repentance all men whosoever would hearken unto their words.

 

I also agree with you that that those who trample on the rights of others can morally and legally have their rights removed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

And we have come full circle... 

 

You need to research the issues caused by drafted soldiers during times of war. You cannot force someone to fight. Instead, they tend to kill their own officers, brothers, and whoever else in an attempt to avoid combat. 

 

But what about a non-combative role? Do you wanted a legally obligated soldier changing your vehicle tire? What about cooking your meals? What about setting your computer firewalls? 

 

Someone legally obligated to be there who doesn't want to be is a danger to everyone around them. That completely negates the "battle readiness" proposal. 

And you keep on going back to drafted soldiers when that's EXACTLY NOT what you want to do..,. DRAFTING UNTRAINED SOLDIERS especially when you're already in the middle of a war is stupid!  THAT'S EXACTLY WHY you want obligatory military training!  So that if they do have to get drafted, they already have a modicum of training and appreciation for the institution!  Have you heard of ROTC trainees killing their officers?

And yes, even the line cook and the mechanic in the military requires military training.  Chain of command, tactical mission, etc. etc. is something one has to learn even when one's job in the entire military command is to sit in the wheelchair and file paperwork all day long.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2018 at 11:29 AM, warnerfranklin said:

 

The military is a good place for young people looking for some life experience, marketable skills, and a chance to belong to something bigger than themselves.

Here in Australia, unemployment amongst those who have served in the military is several times higher than the average rate of unemployment. THis seems to hold true no matter how long your length of service or which branch of the military you served in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now