Obligation to be Governed

Last night a wise person of my acquaintance said that with the advent of the all-volunteer military, we have a generation lacking an appreciation or recognition of any duty or obligation to be governed. Granted, being conscripted, put through boot camp, given a rifle and ordered under threat of court-martial and death to go kill enemies on sometimes known suicide missions is extreme, but countering extreme threats to the existence of a people and a country can and has depended on just this action by a state.

So we in many countries have eliminated involuntary military service and do not inculcate (indoctrinate?) it in young citizens as a patriotic obligation that can be expected of them.. Has this resulted in greater expression of resistance to being governed? Is willingness to be governed, symbolized by the extreme example of the involuntary draft, fallen by the wayside of political life? What takes its place? Allegiance to...what? Have civil disruptions become the new (or renewed, if you look to the 60’s) paradigm of political action?

I'm not sure it is 100% related to military service. But I definitely believe where we live in a society where people expect more from the government... whether it is more benefits like "free health care" (which of course someone pays for) or it is the structure of taxes (it's fair to make others pay).

@quackquack said
"free health care" (which of course someone pays for)

Yes. The same way "somebody" pays for the police, roads, bridges, the military, fire departments, etc.

I guess you think only people who can afford the police should be allowed their services.

@quackquack said
I'm not sure it is 100% related to military service. But I definitely believe where we live in a society where people expect more from the government... whether it is more benefits like "free health care" (which of course someone pays for) or it is the structure of taxes (it's fair to make others pay).

It seems like events are shaping us toward a “taking” society where people in many of our political strata are going by the adage “take while the taking’s good, because it’s going to get worse.” This isn’t just limited to the obvious have-nots, and there are fine examples of generosity at all levels, but the number of people who have shuffled into positions where personal enrichment is available; who then seek to take to the point of public embarrassment, (who are only caught at it, not embarrassed) is remarkable. Others find the way open to act out revenge fantasies against people having attributes they’re encouraged to hate.

@vivify said
Yes. The same way "somebody" pays for the police, roads, bridges, the military, fire departments, etc.

I guess you think only people who can afford the police should be allowed their services.

I'm not sure what you are driving at. But everyone should pay for common services. I was only commenting on an increasing trend to put costs like personal medical expenses into an entitlement that others share its cost.

@js357 said
It seems like events are shaping us toward a “taking” society where people in many of our political strata are going by the adage “take while the taking’s good, because it’s going to get worse.” This isn’t just limited to the obvious have-nots, and there are fine examples of generosity at all levels, but the number of people who have shuffled into positions where personal enric ...[text shortened]... e way open to act out revenge fantasies against people having attributes they’re encouraged to hate.

Perhaps the lack of forced military services gives us the freedom to be pursue individual goals and that forced military service because it is forced doesn't really make us less selfish it just prevents us from affording opportunities which help the individual.