What are the arguments for and against conscription and censorship?

Answer 1

the arguments for conscription are that if there was no conscription we would not have enough soldiers therefore we would all die..but with conscription there are people that have to go and help.

Answer 2

The argument against conscription is that allowing it assumes that the state has ownership over its people rather than vice versa. It is a perversion of the very foundations this country was built upon: A government, of, by and for the people. Conscription assumes the opposite. A people, of, by and for, the government.

AnswerConscription (also known as 'the draft') is the required enlistment of citizens into some sort of national service, typically (but not solely) the military of that country. Generally speaking, the justification of conscription is that it is a duty and responsible of citizenship - that is, the service of conscription is the price that a citizen pays for the benefits that society affords him or her.

Arguments in favor of conscription would be:

• It provides a ready base of trained individuals should a war occur. That is, having conscription means that a large pool of the population has already undergone basic military training, and that this pool can be drawn upon to quickly raise a large army in an emergency
• The experience of service is beneficial from a social anthropology standpoint, in that it provides a common level of understanding and shared experience across all members of society, thus providing a more . This presumes universal conscription, where all members of society are required (without meaningful exception) to perform service.
• If a country depends heavily on conscription to fill out its military, that means that all segments of society will bear the burden of any war - that is, casualties will be evenly distributed across all sections of society. This "equal burden" then will mean that wars will only be entered into when all segments of society are threatened, and wars will not be fought for just the benefit of certain minority segments. Or, at least, this is the theory.
• If conscription is used for "national service", where a significant portion of the conscripted citizens are not inducted into the military, but are instead used for public service labor, there is a large (cheap) source of labor for common infrastructure projects. For example, see the WPA and similar organizations in the USA during the 1930s Depression.

Some arguments against conscription are:

• It can be extremely expensive trying to find work for all conscript, even if they are not all inducted into the military. For instance, a typical country would have between 2-5% of the population in service, assuming that conscription is for 1 year at age 18. For the United States, a 1-year service at age 18 (both males and females) would be well over 1 million. Finding work for this large number of people (and, paying/housing/et al) at government expense would be very, very considerable.
• Permanent conscription can lead to a more militaristic society. It instills a militaristic mindset on the conscripted population - even if they are not put into a military setting, conscripts working in a national service labor pool would almost certainly be subjected to a military-style lifestyle and environment.
• Having a pool of military-trained people can lead to more militaristic behavior on the part of that society, as it presumes that it will have a large pool of military manpower to draw on in case of conflict
• Some view enforced service as an imposition on basic freedoms, and would resent any attempts at being drafted. It therefore has to potential to cause a significant ideological rift in society.
• Modern high-tech militaries are not well-suited to use conscripts effectively. Such militaries require significant training for a soldier to be useful - they have to understand a significant body of specialized knowledge (from tactics, to technology, to organizations) that cannot be effectively learned in the short period that most conscripts' have as a term of service. Thus, the relative effectiveness of the military suffers greatly.
• Similarly, modern high-tech militaries require a very high level of motivation and professionalism to reach the level of quality and effectiveness the currently have. Conscripts do not (on average) have either.
• Relying mostly on conscripts for a fighting force mean a very small standing army, one that is unlikely to be able to respond quickly to emergencies or fast-evolving situations that the current world is likely to produce. Returning conscripts to service can potentially take months.

Answer 3

If gives employment to someone who might otherwise just exist doing nothing (having no purpose). It gives direction to someone (opens their eyes!). The military exposes people to the world and different cultures and languages and traditions. It's a steady pay-check for someone who might otherwise turn out to become a burden to their family, friends, loved ones, and taxpayers.