There is nothing social about manditory military service, just because one is born in a country does not obligate one to fight for the particular government that presently rules. Only the brain dead or heavily indoctrinated would view it as social duty. You need to question authorty, not blindly follow leaders. If everyone just blindly goes along with what ever a government dictates I see no hope for humanity.
Defence of one country not manditory. Funny, I thought it sort of was kind of like a police officer commdeering a car only he isn't comadeering a car it's you he wants you.
Only the brain dead or heavily indoctrinated would view it as social duty.
funny what did the founding fathers say on it.
G. Washington 1783 (Written at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War)
"But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings."
T. Jefferson 1813 (Written in a letter to James Monroe)
“We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
One of the biggest political issues following the constitutional convention in 1787 was whether or not the new republic would have a professional military. The anti-federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, promoted the example of Citizen- Soldiership put forth by the ancient Greeks and Romans. They feared that a professional military would inevitably become a tool used against the peoples’ interest, not for it. The way to prevent this was to comprise the military of every physically capable male citizen. This would not only make the American people careful not to start wars, in the event that war was inevitable, it would guarantee the full support and participation of the people. The original 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was intended to include a clause banning a professional army, and mandating that every citizen perform military service. On the other side of the issue was Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. Hamilton sought to mount a professional military as soon as possible. In Federalist Paper #24 Hamilton stated, “If we mean to be a commercial people, or even to be secure on our Atlantic side, we must endeavor, as soon as possible, to have a navy. To this purpose there must be dock-yards and arsenals; and for the defense of these, fortifications, and probably garrisons.” Notice that Hamilton viewed the promotion of commercial interests as the primary duty of the military. Sound familiar? Of course, we all know what happened. Jefferson and the anti-federalists lost the argument and had to settle for the current incarnation of the 2nd Amendment, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Despite this, Thomas Jefferson didn’t give up on the issue. He continued to write to his colleagues and push for a system of national service. During his Presidency (1801-1809) he was able to choke the professional military down to a mere 3,000, though he did not stop the founding of West Point in 1802. He even offered the criticism that America wouldn’t have performed so poorly in the War of 1812 if the country had adopted a system of national service prior to the conflict. Our military, however, didn’t become the Nuvo-Redcoats that Alexander Hamilton envisioned, or the Uber-Militia that Jefferson sought. For most of our history our military has been a hybrid between the two, a blend of professionals and Citizen- Soldiers often giving us the best of both worlds. This changed after Vietnam though. The reconstitution of the military after the Vietnam War made our forces all-pro. The first reason for this was military planners wished to avoid the conscription problems experienced during the Vietnam War. Secondly, they looked at the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six-Day War and concluded that all future wars would move so quickly that there would be no time to conscript and train Citizen-Soldiers. The societal implications of the all-pro decision is profound. The average American is no longer expected to defend the state, a duty that notables from Aristotle to Machiavelli and Washington concluded was indispensable to the health of democracy. And now that we are engaged in a protracted war, we are exposing ourselves to the very problem Jefferson wished to avoid. Now people say, “Hold on, our men and women in uniform are courageous, well-intentioned, and honorable people.” To which I say, “You’re absolutely right, and that’s the problem. They are and you’re not.” We can’t keep sending our young people to places like Iraq and Afghanistan over and over again and expect them to still respect American society. They’ll correctly see our callousness and decadence in the face of their sacrifice, and it will incense them. And it’s not as though the Clintons and the Bushs haven’t given them adequate reason to despise civilian authority. You see, this is how the professional military becomes our adversary, not because they despise America, but because they love America so much that I fear they will not tolerate our infidelity forever.