DoomYoshi wrote:Dukasaur wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Don't be so willing to give up another's freedom.
All of civilization consists of freedoms that can only be preserved by curtailing others.
We are only free to walk the streets in peace to that same degree that we succeed in curtailing the freedom of muggers and cutpurses to carry out their trade.
We are only free to drive the highway in relative safety to the same degree that we succeed in curtailing the freedom of reckless drivers to run us off the road.
We are only free to live in houses to the same degree that we succeed in curtailing the freedom of arsonists to set fire to whatever strikes their fancy.
All freedoms by civilized folk to enjoy safety and security of any kind require curtailing the freedom of the wild and reckless elements in society.
I actually agree with you. I just consider the wild and reckless elements of society to be the police and military, the two groups I least trust with guns. Disarmament should start with them.
What we are discussing here is a variation of the angry young man problem. Basically, society needs a certain amount of angry young men to serve in the military, but it doesn't need as many as it has, so you end up with extra angry young men that have no place in the military/police force. These people end up being classed "wild and reckless". There are a few solutions, conscription is one of them. The ideal solution is to stop fighting nature and go back to citystates as the proper organization. We need guns for militias, and militias need someone to fight.
To rephrase your assertion: All freedoms by the wild and reckless to enjoy life of any kind requires curtailing the oppressive onslaught of the civilized and society.
We already have rugby for those young men to work off their aggression. Letting them have lethal weapons is just stupid.
I almost shot someone three times when I was growing up. Luckily the voice of reason was loud enough in my head to stop me on all three occasions, but I was oh so close to spending my life behind bars. I got lucky, that's all. My parents were total fucking idiots to leave loaded weapons laying around when they were raising an angry young man.
Conscription wouldn't help much. Young men are volatile from their early teens to their late twenties. You'd have to keep them in the army for pretty much a decade and a half, which would be a catastrophic waste of resources, besides interrupting their education at the most crucial time. Conscription into sports and other physical activities, on the other hand, works wonders for most of society. Really, it's not that difficult to manage angry young men, as long as they don't have easy access to lethal weapons.