I shriek at the thought of "Nation building"
Yuyutsu,
You'd shriek even more at the alternative under your proposal !

Yuyutsu,
Come to think of it, at least here in Australia since 1972, the bulk of legislation has been & is at this moment, Leftist. So, are you happy with the situation ? If so then you should have no reason to dispute much of what is happening. If you're not satisfied should you not at the least make an effort to improve things ?
Are you happy with an increasing number of young people becoming drug abusers because of very poor direction from our authorities, taking into account that 90% of bureaucrats & legislators are Labor ?
I can not get myself to believe that without a National Service or whatever you think it should be called, our society will become more cohesive. thus far, under Leftist influence, it has been sliding into the negative or are you denying that fact !

Dear Individual,

«the bulk of legislation has been & is at this moment, Leftist. So, are you happy with the situation ?»

There are many many things in legislation that I am not happy with, but I do not think in these primitive terms of "Left" vs. "Right" - I look at each issue as it comes.

«If you're not satisfied should you not at the least make an effort to improve things ?»

Indeed, we are obliged to make an effort on things that matter, even when there is nothing that the ants that we are, can actually change.

«Are you happy with an increasing number of young people becoming drug abusers because of very poor direction from our authorities»

I am not happy whenever people take drugs, but I am unaware of any so-called "authority" that directs young people to take drugs. Are you?

«I can not get myself to believe that without a National Service or whatever you think it should be called, our society will become more cohesive.»

While it would be a nice step to take, making a number of young people happier and kept away from drugs, this would not produce cohesiveness.
The question is, why in the first place would you want such a huge society of people to be cohesive?
If cohesiveness is important to you, then you should be looking at having smaller societies where everyone knows each other.

«thus far, under Leftist influence, it has been sliding into the negative or are you denying that fact !»

99% or respondents, I believe, including myself, would tell you that things are getting worse in Australia. But what is "negative" for you is not necessarily what is negative for me, and vice versa.

[continued...]

[...continued]

Let me give you an example:
Politicians are currently attempting to abolish cash. Does this initiative come more from the Leftist bureaucrats of from the LNP government? I really don't know.

Such a move could make happy many of the younger generations who would willingly replace their brains with electronic gadgets, but us the older generations who experienced a better life before the proliferation of computers and digital devices, will thus become miserable.

Why then would you want cohesiveness where some win but others bitterly lose? Must we all live as clones of each other and in this particular example use the same means of payments just so we can sing that "we are one but we are many [of the same]"?

Why then would you want cohesiveness where some win but others bitterly lose?
Yuyutsu,
How & who would lose in a more cohesive society ? Working for the common good does not create a "them & us" as you infer. General discipline & respect does not divide good, decent people. Only those who have no desire to pull their weight will argue against !
Would you really expect the situation that has taken 50 years to degrade to suddenly be rectified overnight by a National Service ? Even if a national service were to be introduced it'd still take 3-5 years to start showing improvement. The real issue here is do we want to change or don't we !

Dear Individual,

«Working for the common good...»

I thought that you identify with the "Right" whereas the concept of "common good" comes form the "Left"... Anyway, there is no such thing - there is good and there is evil, but they have little to do with personal interests or human aspirations. One ought, first and foremost to do no harm, then [only] if possible, to also do good to others.

«General discipline & respect does not divide good, decent people.»

Certainly, but disciplined and respectful people do not impose themselves on others, telling them how they must or must-not do things.

«Would you really expect the situation that has taken 50 years to degrade to suddenly be rectified overnight by a National Service ?»

But it was your expectation, not mine, that all things will be solved by this small measure. While the outcome of what you call "national service" should be positive, it can only improve certain things in a modest way, even over time. If you expect it to overturn human/animal nature, then you will end up disappointed.