1. Do you favor aggression or persuasion when it comes to military service?
Let’s agree that security is important: The military needs to be large enough to overcome the enemy AND soldiers in combat must know they can count on their comrades. How do we achieve these goals?
Recruitment is a persuasion process. And each day, employers everywhere must persuade employees to not declare, “Take this job and shove it.”
But the draft seems more efficient. Recruitment goals are ensured by force so no persuasion is needed. Threatening people with punishment if they don’t do things your way is an act of aggression.
Volunteers serve because they believe in the cause. But what if they believe they’re being used for bad purposes? Should they be able to resign?
And what of volunteerism? Should military service instead be compulsory? …perhaps as an aspect of “national service” or a rite of passage?
Also, what should be done with those who try to resign or simply quit, sometimes called deserters? Should they be imprisoned or shot?
Should the military be staffed by persuaded volunteers or is more aggression needed? Share your view using the slider.
Pick 10 or 20% if you want soldiers to be unable to quit in time of war. This means you’ll use some aggression to retain soldiers during war, but otherwise you want to use persuasion.
Pick 30 or 40% if you believe soldiers must honor their full enlistment commitment at all times.
Pick 50 or 60% if you want to draft people for military service during foreign wars.
Pick 70 or 80% if you support reinstituting the draft as part of a “national service” requirement.
Pick 90 or 100% if you want draft resisters and deserters imprisoned, or even shot.
- How many people moved toward persuasion or away from it, and by how much?
- How your Aggression Quotient (A.Q.) compares with the average A.Q for this issue?
- How many people joined the Zero Aggression Project through the Aggression Tracker for this issue?