Though compulsory military enlistment is not ubiquitous in the current society, it used to be a prevalent practice in the past ( Hendley, 2015 ). The younger generation had a mandatory obligation to be enrolled in military service, an act considered to be a service of honor to the nation. Currently, societies are repealing this practice even though there are some still practicing it. Despite the perceived importance of forced military deployment, the exercise has received massive criticism. Borrowing from the suggestions of Rumsey & Arabian (2014) , one would want to interrogate further whether the mandatory military services for young adults is indeed a practice that ought to be promoted, or a tradition that is well past, past its timeline. Should young people have the right to select whether they would serve in the military, or should it remain a compulsory requirement? The younger generation has a right to choose whether they need to be engaged in military service or not. Fotherwise forced military enlistment of the young people should be discouraged as they have the liberty to make informed decisions on what they would want to pursue in life.
Bill of Rights
The most persuasive argument against the mandatory enlistment has been founded on the question of constitutionalism. Dilloff (2018) suggests that despite the constitution formulating is predicated aon a clarion call that it is the responsibility of the citizens to remain patriotic in the society. Incidentally, , it is also imperative that the citizens are offered an opportunity to enjoy their rights granted by the Bill of Rights in theas well as the constitution. The Bill of Rights affirms that certain rights are inalienable ( Hendley, 2015 ). It has grantsed the citizens certain rights that are to be enjoyed in society if the advancement of society is to be assured.. Looking at the framework of the constitution, one would think that the forceful enlisting of the young people in the army is in itself an infringement on its own provisionconstitutional provisions. Particulalry, the provision on the bill of rights of the that the citizens is offended when the mandatory military enlisting is enforced. have the right to select that which they would want to pursue with their lives. If the very foundation of the constitution is to grant the citizens the freedoms and the liberty to pursue their interests of choices in life . life. In consideration of the assertions of XXX, it means that forced enlistment in the military, to a large extent, at which they would want to practice in life according to their preference, then it is evident that the very mandatory enlisting contravenes the provisions on the bill of rights in the constitution. in itself.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
While arguing for mandatory military, Rumsey & Arabian (2014) noted that the act of engaging in the military in itself is an honor. in itself ; the constitution calls for the citizens to remain very patriotic and defend the country at all costs. There is a sense in which forceful military admission has been justified. However, the irony in this argument is that the constitution affirms requiresthat the government must to ensure thate the citizens enjoy their rights without coercion being coaxed or coerced. In essence therefore, Given this , the young people forceful inclusion of the young people in the army in itself becomesthus becomes an act that contradicts the constitution of the land.
Skill Development and Personal Commitment
But other than the question of constitution, the arguments of Rumsey & Arabian (2014) in terms of mandatory military enlisting have been quite vocal in denouncing forced military recruitment. Forceful admission substantially limits the ability of the country to tap into the diverse skills of the younger people. Dilloff (2018) noted that younger people could willingly render their services in other spheres of the country's economy where they are best gifted. Hendley (2015) indicated that mandatory military listing could be a factor that limits the contribution of the younger people in other facets of the economy where they are more endowed in terms of skills and knowledge. While Rumsey & Arabian (2014) have suggested that the military enlistment of the younger people can be limited in terms of duration of service to enable them to retreat to their careers of choices, the proposals of Piper (2012) negated this reasoning. Notably, young people who have elected to pursue a specific career path ought to be left alone to pursue their careers of choice without necessarily being forced to join these services. Considerably, forceful engagement in these services robs them of their precious time and energy to serve the country in an area where they are better placed. From a human and a developmental viewpoint, these proposals of Galston (2013) make a more nuanced argument against mandatory military service for younger people. It follows that the younger people, in their prime age, have more to offer in various loci of the country's development. At their age, they are very ambitious in providing their services based on their ability. This means that wWhen they are listed as military officers, the younger people are robbed of the chance to serve where they can perform better ( Hendley, 2015) . Essentially, this means that the service in the military ought to be out of choice and not a forced initiative.
The question of commitment has equally explored the relevance of these forced military enlistments for younger people. Dilloff (2018) noted that being forced in military service may come as an advantage to the country in the sense that the number of personnel serving in the military is high, but the question of commitment is critical. According to the deliberations by Rumsey & Arabian (2014), these military personnel exhibit lesser determination in the service. When forced in the service, it limits individuals from pursuing certain aspects of their life. The outcome of such an initiative is that young adults will not be giving their best during their service delivery. Irrefutably, this has been the focus of the suggestions of Galston (2013), who noted that the military requires a dedicated service. It means that for one to join the military, it ought to be a service where one has deliberately selected. The individual ought to have given his or her full consent to be involved in these services. In this regard, it means that the level of service delivery that one would offer shall be quite high in case the admission into the military was out of choice.
Though Rumsey & Arabian (2014 Piper (2012) has suggested that the forceful enlisting can teach the younger generation diligence and commitment that is ubiquitous in the practice of military services, the arguments of Galston (2013) contradict thiseir belief. The assumption herein is that having commitment and diligence at the workplace can only be achieved through military services. It essentially advances the wrong impression that when one is not involved in the military, there are lower chances of having the level of discipline that is witnessed in the army. The suggestion by Galston (2013) isThis is wrong in the sense that discipline acquisition is not limited to the military but rather an initiative that is deliberately adopted by an individual. The commitment of an individual in any form of service would be more robust in case one is not coerced into these engagements ( Rumsey & Arabian, 2014) . In this regard, it is crucial to consider persuasion as the most critical strategy of ensuring that the younger people are enlisted into the military.
Rebuttal Paragraph
However, individuals cannot undermine the advantages that come with joining the military. Various debates of recent times point to the diminishing levels of discipline, responsibility, and accountability among many young people of today ( Hendley, 2015 ). Most of them live in systems that do not have sufficient structures to equip them with such fundamental life skills. The military's organization offers such an ample environment for the youth to stretch themselves to their limit; thusand make makingthus, making good use of limited resources. This enhances their level of dilligencediligence , which makes them more diligent individuals ( Galston, 2013 ). The discipline that is enforced in the military reconnects the young person to the basic tenets of love, such as duty, teamwork, and time-management. It can be argued that young people who miss such a wonderful lessons could be the reason for are why there are high levels of delinquencyt youths. Therefore, the military could offer a solution to indiscipline among young people; thus, reducing crime rates the rising crime rates in many areas of the countryin neighborhoods.
Conclusion
Given the questions of constitutions and the provisions of the Bill of Rights, it is not right to enlist the young people forcefully into the army. The Bill or Rights which grants the citizens the liberty to select that which they would want to pursue in their lives, it is not right to enlist the young people forcefully into the army. Moreover, on the question of ensuring that there is a high level of commitment in their service delivery, it is vital to allow the younger generation to choose for themselves whether they are willing to join the army. ought of their own volition. At the same time, the other emerging issue is the question of skills. The opportunity cost wthat a country enjoys when the young people are allowed to select for themselves whether to join the military or not,they are being enlisted in the military or otherwise is far greater. The situation arises since the youth who do not join the army will transfer their skills to The country enjoys their skills more in other areas where they are neededmore gifted. TIn this regard, it is therefore, notable that young people should le ought to have a right to choose when it comes to the military.
References
Dilloff, N. J. (2018). The involuntary volunteer: coerced military enlistments. Am. UL, Rev. , 25 , 437.
Galston, W. A. (2013). A sketch of some arguments for conscription. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly , 23 (3), 2-7.
Hendley, M. (2015). "help us to secure a strong, healthy, prosperous, and peaceful Britain": the social arguments of the campaign for compulsory military service in Britain, 1899-1914. Canadian Journal of History , 30 (2), 261-288.
Piper, A. (2012). The evolution of a conception of citizenly duty towards military service 1854–1914: a study of London press discourse (Doctoral dissertation, Oxford University, UK).
Rumsey, M. G., & Arabian, J. M. (2014). Military enlistment selection and classification: Moving forward. Military Psychology , 26 (3), 221-251.
