the issue I have with people not endorsing anything compulsory is that as soon as you go down that path, you then question the validity of taxes, police force, public health, and any kind of structure that gives us a functioning society with government control/redistribution at any level. That path is basically anarchy. Which really doesn’t work so great.
We already force kids into a one-size-fits-all, state controlled system for 12 entire years. If humanitarian service is useful (is there data on that?) then space could be found for it within the existing 15,000 hours of compulsory schooling.
Saying kids should have to wait for 13 or 14 years before they can be a square peg and make their own choices just seems bit … crushing. I think we could do with more square pegs in society TBH.
1 Like
there’s a big difference, psychologically, between studying and doing - contributing. A lot of people tout the benefits of taking a gap year - which is nearly always before further study of 3+ years anyway, and I’d argue a year of doing any of a range of jobs or sitting and meditating instead of working in a pub in London would be much better use of a year, for most individuals.
In a world in which automation will increasingly and inevitably reduce jobs, adding one or two years to this formative process of youth, during which one might discover new talents or unsuspected latent skills that might not be explored otherwise - doesn’t seem a bad policy to me.
I like Mark’s idea to include this type of service in schooling. It could start with a one subject credit for 160 hours of civic volunteering, counted toward the HSC. Or asking universities to consider humanitarian/community ‘doing’ efforts in student applications. Or creating a “civic bachelorette diploma” for 17-18yo square pegs who would rather learn by doing than studying.
I don’t at all like the idea of a compulsory gap year. It sounds to me like an LNP policy aimed at delaying eligibility for Newstart and artificially reducing the unemployment rate by redefining school leavers as non-job seekers.
Speaking of Newstart, would people be paid for their service? At award wages and conditions? Is it a job guarantee for school leavers? Or slave labour? Are their conditions for exemption? Are there enough positions for everyone, or will it be used to vilify “dole bludging layabouts” for not volunteering for national service positions that don’t actually exist?
1 Like
Anarchy is not a lack of order/structure. That’s a common misconception. It’s a lack of top-down imposed order/structure. Some form of direct democracy, generally. There is enough scattered evidence in history to show that it works fine at scales of up to tens of thousands of people. This is of course a problem when we’re discussing a country of many millions, but it would work at the local level well enough.
(I am well out of my depth in discussing military matters, but reading this discussion is interesting.)
3 Likes
Yeah, on a small scale no issues, but that’s really not what we’re talking about with govt administration of large scale military / humanitarian / civil service programs
afaik compulsory service in other countries is generally paid, at something of an equivalent to award wage. happy to be shown otherwise, but that’s what I’d say is reasonable.
Would take the wealthy trust fund kiddies down a peg (though I’m sure many would find a way out of it) and on the flip side be good for those from lower socio economic backgrounds.
Again, to me, more about equality, civil responsibility, and trying to spread available work amongst more individual work-age-years by taking everyone out of the standard-career-track pool for a short stint. part of transition phase to full automation.
Literally “No ruler”, from the Latin I think.
OMG they make it all about buying a fucking house!!
I am so bloody sick of that being the immediate objection to fucking everything.
And seriously - compulsory military (I see they don’t give any other options, gah) is going to slow down saving for a house HOW??
no effing smashed avocado in the trenches MATE.
btw amused to see the motion to lobby Fed govt passed, so we’ll see more of this issue now at a higher level…
definitely going to be worth having an opinion on it, at the very least.
I don’t know if these terms “compulsory service”, “conscription”, “draft” actually have any differences in meaning but when I think of “compulsory service” I think of Israel requiring a couple years of military service which ranges a whole spectrum of things from the typical dangerous activities we think of in relation to military to engineering and white collar work and foreign aid work and cyber security, etc.
Whereas when I think “conscription” or “draft” I think of… there’s a war going on and we need more bodies.
I think there’s a difference there, where one idea is service as a social responsibility to the country that doesn’t necessarily have to overlap with the other one being an idea of demanding service during wartime. Ideally, I would want military service and fighting service to be distinctly separated… where it’s compulsory to serve the military in a support capacity and/or train for fighting service but for fighting service itself to be purely voluntary.
2 Likes
We need to reframe the public perspective of the draft to something more similar to Starship Troopers. Putting aside Heinlein’s (arguable) cryptofascism, there is something to be said for a compulsory system that provides everyone a solid orientation in civics whether theoretical (year long high school subject) or practical (a range of public and community service options). I like the practical option personally…
2 Likes
It’s fantastic that such a contentious issue is being discussed so rationally, with opinions identified as just that.
I honestly don’t have a conclusive opinion on the issue, but it sounds like there’s enough meat in there to discuss in more detail for next year’s policy development committee, or at the upcoming congress; it certainly seems like all the right pros and cons are being discussed.
It would definitely be interesting if a civil liberties party could come up with a respectful model of civil service that cuts off at the knees the arguments of the authoritarian wing of the political landscape without alienating the libertarian wing.
3 Likes