Comments on: Nannyism: It’s for the Military, too http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/ Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time. Fri, 17 May 2013 18:49:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Adam Selene http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11104 Adam Selene Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:36:24 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11104 Adam, as a former NCO myself, I know exactly how you feel. The military is a very paternalistic organization. It used to be one that winked at the boy’s escapades, but no longer.

]]> By: Adam http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11101 Adam Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:19:06 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11101 In my experience as an NCO, yes, the military is partially a nanny type institution. We are young men and women, some of us with families of our own. But many times, we’re treated like children and only children who’s job it is to follow orders. Instead of trying to instill fear by consequence as many superiors in my life have done, I wish the military would promote personal responsibility instead. Sorry a little bullheaded, but I’m ready to leave the service.

]]> By: VRB http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11056 VRB Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:14:57 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11056 Adam,
I was speaking of the right of the military to limit off duty activities of soldiers. The way the military administers justice may not always be as constitutional as one would like to think. My experience. 40 years ago, before PC, they did try to control the libido of soldiers.

When I volunteered, I had no idea what the military was like. The men (Korean Vets)I knew alway spoke of the glory, not the mundane.

]]> By: mike http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11049 mike Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:00:36 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11049 Ah, alright then. Like I said in my first comment, the military definitely has the right to do so, and might not even be inherently wrong in doing so. But I think that the bottom line is that policies like this one are a mistake.

]]> By: Nick http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11048 Nick Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:52:11 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11048 Mike,

I’ll grant you that 2ID probably has better things to worry about. I may have been arguing a different point than you.

Adam,

I will also grant you your point. I was arguing this from a contracts POV. I agree whole-heartedly with you that military personnel need to be tough and maybe a bit nuts. I would hate to be labeled PC. I think my head might explode.

Nick

]]> By: Adam Selene http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11046 Adam Selene Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:15:57 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11046 Nick,

Sorry, but the military used to be very cognizant of the fact that soldiers were more apt to fight, fuck and get drunk, and not necessarily in that order, when they were off duty. There was a time when it was understood that the sort of rough men that were needed to go into harm’s way in combat were a bit more likely than the norm to do those things. These days the military is as overtaken by the PC bug as all the rest of our society.

The generals are busily kowtowing to Mrs. Grundy. And, not coincidentally, losing a war.

]]> By: mike http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11045 mike Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:03:45 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11045 It just seems to me that the 2ID leadership should have bigger things to worry about than if their soldiers, of age, are drinking a little too much when they are off duty.

]]> By: Nick http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11042 Nick Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:07:04 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11042 Mike,

Are our troops not supposed to be at a constant state of readiness? Is being drunk a state of readiness? Maybe this isn’t on-call, but the fact remains that soldiers sign up for their term of service and enter into a contract with the military. This is a part of that contract. Just because the contract isn’t just for a “job” but for a way of life, doesn’t make it any less valid. Would you also feel that it is nannyism for a Board of Directors to write it into his contract that a CEO could not participate in the sport of skydiving as long as he was CEO? He is perfectly able to walk away from the job, just as soldiers are able to walk away before signing time. They are also perfectly able to not re-up when their tour is up.

Nick

]]> By: mike http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11037 mike Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:38:49 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11037 So the military is always on call? That doesn’t seem very realistic to me.

]]> By: Adam Selene http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11029 Adam Selene Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:15:11 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11029 None of your constitutionally protected rights were denied you. Since women have never been drafted, you voluntarily chose to limit those things when you entered military service. Aside from that, when I served in the military they did many of the same things, but that doesn’t mean that a soldier is not subject to the rule of law, the bill of rights or individual rights in general.

]]> By: VRB http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11024 VRB Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:48 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11024 You know when I was in the military, they could tell you what and when to do any thing they wanted. Restrict your movements off post, and I as female at the time before the volunteer army; they could tell me that the civilian jeans I wore had to have the fly open on a certain side. I do not quite think my daily life was as free as anyones not in the military. I may have had rights, but they were under certain circumstances. Telling a soldier that they can’t drink more than a certain amount, would have been par for the course. They put certain establishments off limits, including certain supermarkets. Of course this was for the soldiers own good.

]]> By: Nick M. http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11022 Nick M. Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:38:53 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11022 I still don’t see it being inherently wrong of them to do this. Think of it this way, in my home county in Indiana, the first responders are volunteer. My aunt and uncle are first responders, the on-call shift rotates. When they are on-call, they don’t to be in a specific location, but they have to be available the whole time they are on-call. Being available includes not being drunk. Is it inherently wrong for this to be required of them? The military is much the same way. You may be off duty, but you are still on-call, at all times. Especially on our foreign bases. I agree that what I do on my own time is no business of my employer’s unless it affects my work. But, we sometimes have to be on-call during the night and on weekends. I don’t have to be at the job-site, but I have to be available if a subcontractor needs me. Isn’t it fair of my employer to ask me to not be drunk when I show up? And isn’t it fair that the military asks the same of it’s employees?

Nick

]]> By: mike http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11020 mike Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:08:03 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11020 Adam’s absolutely correct about soldiers having the same rights. The only difference is that personnel in the military fall under the UCMJ, meaning that their actions are somewhat more restricted than the average citizen (example: soldiers aren’t allowed to hold down a second job that would bring discredit onto the armed forces, as a stripper for example; soldiers do have slightly more restricted first amendment rights.)

However, I should clarify what I meant by this being a nanny action. While Nick’s points about being a representative of the military are somewhat valid, there is really no reason for the military to be concerned what I do in my off duty hours as long as I don’t break the law, and as long as I show up for work on time, sober, and ready to go. Adam is correct in that Korea is a unique situation, but as I showed with the USAF’s CoRC, this paternalistic approach to managing personnel isn’t restricted to personnel in Korea.

It’s not that I’m saying the military doesn’t have the power to do this to its personnel (it does) but that it shouldn’t because it’s inherently wrong.

]]> By: Adam Selene http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11019 Adam Selene Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:31:38 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11019 First, answering VRB. Soldiers have the same rights as any other person and the same constitutional protections.

Second, more generally, Korea is fairly unique and such a regulation doesn’t seem to be too out of the realm of reasonable.

]]> By: VRB http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11009 VRB Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:50:12 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/12/nannyism-its-for-the-military-too/#comment-11009 When did soldiers get rights?

]]>