replies

A friend of mine commented that NS defaults occur because punishments are not tough enough. In other words, the disincentive against choosing not to serve are not significant enough for some people.

With regard to the the opinions of people who would default national service, we must understand that it is a pain to them. Given a choice in the matter, they would not serve. As such, a matrix of incentives and disincentives must be put in place to alter the opportunity cost of serving NS.

If NS were a purely voluntary concept, to them, it would be better for them not to serve.
This can also be illustrated in terms of the net gains of their alternatives to NS being greater than the net gains they can accrue from NS. In fact, we will return to this illustration time and again.

By introducing a system of incentives, we can increase the net gains from NS. A system of disincentives would reduce the net gains from the alternatives to NS. In order to persuade these individuals to serve NS, a matrix of incentives and disincentives must be adopted.

So far, there are far more disincentives than incentives. Liability under military law security bonds, fine and potential jail terms are all disincentives. That they can be largely avoided by not being in the country does not encourage people to stay either.
So far, there are next to no incentives to serve NS aside from some nebulous feelings of pride and camaraderie, if one would deign not to see these ideas as propoganda. There is also the fact that pride, achievement and camaraderie are not only exlcusive to military service. In more concrete terms, the incentives offered by NS are dismal compared to any alternative. In a nutshell, McDonalds feeds you, gives you a uniform, and pays you much better. The top payscale possible , after promotions, for the average NSF is actually 2.82 an hour, excluding regimental duties and overtime. Or the disincentive to serving NS of having to stay in camp. McDonalds pays nearly twice that, and no company pays less.

So far, policy regarding compulsion to serve NS has largely been skewed toward making disincentives harsher rather than raising the incentives to serve. There have been attempts at improving the incentives available. But as long as the conditions within the NS structure are inferior to the below-average conditions available as alternatives, such as selling burgers at McDonalds, the incentives are insufficient to persuade anyone to serve. As such, the present incentive policy available in net terms actually serves also as a disincentive.

In conclusion, the current NS policy has no real incentive terms to serve. And disincentive policies one after the next too suffer from diminishing returns. Hence, the trend of introducing harsher and perhaps more draconian measures against defaulters is unlikely to achieve the desired result. It is time to start treating our NSmen like the valued commodities that they are.