At first, the definition of the military job can be understood in different ways, but what it means in this essay is that young people should have a right to choose whether or not they want to be a participant of their country's military service. The attitudes in countries towards the military job is different, for example it is voluntary in Australia, Belgium, Canada etc. but it is compulsory in Belarus, Brazil, China and so on.
As Albert Camius says "life is a sum of all your choices'',1 but the kind of choices he means is the freedom, freedom to choose how people want to live without any obligations and duties for the military job in this case. People's choices are limited by their looks, attitudes, wealth, intelligence, they are depended on them naturally when they make a decision , but to limit the right of choice artificially by government should not be acceptable. First of all, according to the democratic values which is a main basement as a political system for most countries in the world it is a thing of human rights, it should not be compulsory.
In case of Georgia, researches which was held by CRRS show that among 2493 participants 88% agree that people choose the military job for stable income, 77% think that people do not have other alternatives, 63% suppose that they want to protect their country.2
If 88% of these people think that men (in the case of Georgia) choose the military job for stable income and the main reason for them is money, it is not a good idea when a person makes something on a material bases and not with a real desire for the job he or she makes. Steve Jobs stood in front of the 2005 Stanford graduating class and said, "the only way to do great work is to love what you do.''3 If his or her work for a person is not enjoyable, he/she makes it just for money, for satisfying everyday needs, no one can say that this work will be useful for other people or made on a professional level. In the case of military if soldiers do not like their job in reality and they are doing it because of obligation, it should not be a guarantee for the country's security.
The world is developing every day with a high speed in different spheres, such as: technology, culture, economics and so on. People are also developing with the world, to be isolated just a single day it means to be back with one step then the others who were aware of this living developing process. Discussing about inequality in the military as a compulsory service is one of the biggest problematic issues in this case. One of the features of the military is that only physically healthy people can participate in and a person who has even a simple problem which is connected for example to the eyes can not participate in military.
Analyze the situation when there are two people with the same age, one of them has some healthy problems and can not go to the military service, but the other does not have such kind of problems and he/she can go without any obstacles. For example, in this case they graduated the university, military job is one year term, the "unhealthy'' one can find a job with his/her profession, has a possibility to start his/her career, but the "healthy'' one does not have this kind of opportunity because of compulsory military service and he/she is forced to go to the military and after one year can start the career. There is no place for equality, both sides have different condition for life just because of military job. This is another reason why young people should have the right to decide their futures by their own without enforcement.
Opposite side of this idea thinks that military should be compulsory for young people, the main argument they have is the security of the country. If in the country military service is voluntary and not compulsory, opposers think that fewer people will have a desire of being a part of military and it will affect the country's preservation. One thing is that sacrifice human's rights to defend the country is not a good idea, limitations of free choice should not be acceptable in any case, no matter what is the aim of this obligation. Second thing is that quantity does not define quality, these are two different concepts, if one state has for example 1000 soldiers and the other one has 10 000, this does not mean that second state's security is better than first one's. Quality is something else, depended on preparation, desire, willingness, motivation, purpose and not only on the quantity.
To summarize, this essay is about free choice what young people should have when it comes to military. Nothing can be beneficial or positive which is based on the force. No one has a right to limit people's right to choose the way heshe wants to live. Desire and enjoy with a job a person does is the main factor of professionalism, quantity is not quality, to sacrifice human rights for the security is not a liberal action. From the arguments which were discussed above, finally it is obvious that people are free in the process of making choices and decisions by their own and it is their own right to live in a way they want..