Would we encourage a more responsible society if we re-introduce National Service?

Question

I have often thought that by requiring people to work in the public sector (not neccessarily the Armed Forces) for a small period of time that the country would benefit greatly. For example, people would respect the fact that public money is not limitless and they may develop a greater respect for benefit handouts. It would also teach people self respect and may lead to future employment. Would this make the country more productive?

It'g great to see that plenty of you have similar ideas. I think the point that we are too far gone to achieve National Service is probably right. Perhaps we could trickle feed our way towards it over several years? I also think that if we manage to start some sort of system, it would take a good 15 years before we start to see the benefit. Great point about Imigrant British Passport holders - the question of citizenship could be answered by requiring National Service.

It's great to see that plenty of you have similar ideas. I think the point that we are too far gone to achieve National Service is probably right. Perhaps we could trickle feed our way towards it over several years? I also think that if we manage to start some sort of system, it would take a good 15 years before we start to see the benefit. Great point about Imigrant British Passport holders - the question of citizenship could be answered by requiring National Service.

Answer 1

The really interesting thing to emerge would be the extent to which Muslims with British passports were able to swear fealty to the Crown. But if they were to insist that this was against their religious beliefs, what, then, would one do about it?

Answer 2

This is a really bad idea. The problems in Australia in terms of what you describe, so far as one can say as a non-Australian, are properly traced to the defeat of the government of Sir William McMahon by Mr. E. Gough Whitlam. It was Mr. Whitlam's government that introduced the unmarried mothers' benefit, that increased the minimum wage to the point that teenagers became unemployable, that commenced the federal regulation of business activity that has becoming stifling in recent years, that introduced no fault divorce, etc., etc. If Mr. McMahon had abolished conscription (the draft), it is almost certain that his government would have been returned. If 4 seats in a house of 125 had gone the other way, the result would have been different. President Nixon had already moved to phase out the draft when McMahon went to the polls. Conscription creates a class of people who are extremely disaffected and upset. It is an extremely bad idea. People should pay taxes for a volunteer army. Why the New Left has never forgiven Richard M. Nixon (Republican moderate) is that with the one decision for an all volunteer army, he held the line on the seemingly irresistible advance of the Eugene McCarthys, etc. This is not an apology for Nixon and his wrongdoing, but it explains much of the bitterness.

Answer 3

National Service would be the best thing to happen to the undisciplined yobs of today. They may join up with a tough guy attitude but would soon find out just how tough they are. They would most likely come out of National Service a better person that went in. So a very good way to teach self-respect and respect for others. Plus extra recruits for the hard pressed services. Also for civil work could be done cleaning the sewers ,fixing leaking water pipes, cleaning areas of run down estates, all under strict supervision, and rewarded a points system for release of there crime.

Answer 4

Yes. Requiring individuals that "come of age" to participate in public service programs would help mold a civic attitude, restore as sense of pride in the community, may even reduce graffiti, littering, vandalism, and crime.
However, some technological inventions tend to draw youth away from civic duty and community involvement as they are unsupervised in their use of such products. Higher education schools in the U S look at an applicants involvement in community service when determining entrance and eligibility to the school.

Answer 5

Switzerland have compulsory national service at the age of 18, if you don't want to do it, you pay a tax subtitue.

They have anything from fire service, traffic control to armed forces.

It is a well run and patriotic country. England I'm afraid is too far gone, to introduce such a system.

Answer 6

In one way I feel that re-introducing National Service would be good in encouraging more responsible society but then in another way it would be the worst thing that they could do i mean that not every ones going to wants to join up for example what about those who have a vocation in life a job they really wanna to do or do we really wanna reprocess the progression made by women I mean if we were re-introduction national Service would women be made to join if yes what about the women who did want to or if they didn't what about those who want to join and if we were to re-introduction national Service then would we resort back to the "bread winner" and "home maker" roles were the male earn and the women stays at home wait of news of her beloved husband and father as she rise her children and look after the home. so in turn we here in the UK and the EU are to far in are set ways and ideas to try and better us of our own good or the good of our country and society.

Answer 7

Maybe not national service, but my prof thought of a different idea. How about requiring college students to study in a foreign country for one year in order to graduate? It would definetely make ppl less ethnocentric, less racist, and more appreciative of American freedoms. It would also show the worth of money, like u said, and make them more knowledgeable and tolerant of the diverse cultures.

Answer 8

This is a narrow minded view.

The one way a society can become more responsible is by re-establishing equal rights for all in a moral surrounding.

When the human being will learn that i have the same right as you and another and another, and live under a moral lifestyle, will society be more responsible.

Right now everyone and anyone is taking actions on an individual and collective basis and there is no accountability and no equal rights.

When there is no rights for others opposed to your own, you are a criminal and should be punished. But it seems we live in a world that is devoid of accountability and equal rights.

I have the same right to be free, to live in my home without fear and to practice whatever religion I want without you coming to tell me that your GOD is better than mine. You are welcome to your own beliefs but in your own home. You cannot come and tell me that your GOD told you to kill me because I dont believe in your GOD.

You cannot take my property or my home and assume it to be yours. You cannot expect to eat a burger in a home that practices non killing of animals and most of all you cannot walk into my home and force me to accept or "Tolerate" you.

Once all this is achieved, people will naturally live a moral life and therefore there will be a more responsible society.

Answer 9

I think that is a great idea! We'd probably get a few less immigrants too if we did. If we only made people do it part time then we'd also get less people making excuses not to do it... that really is a very good idea, you should set up a petition for the government!

Answer 10

Definitely. Get rid of all these youngsters hanging round on the streets as well causing trouble and terrorising people, send them all into Brat Camp or something. The police are far too lenient with them and they get away with murder, lock up the lot of them. I know that technically isn't part of your question but they just get me angry and wanted to express that