Mandatory National Service

[BL611]

Alright, just thought I would throw this out there, and sketch out a very basic plan. All Americans at the age of 18 will have do do either two years in the military, 3 in the Peace Corps, or 6 in Americorps (which could be part time as it is not quite as involving as the other 2 options). In return free college education and lifetime health care for all those who finish their service. Personally I would also like to throw in a couple of other benefits for those who choose military service- as it is the most demanding, but I'll leave that off the table for now. Thoughts?

[anitar1]

1. Hell, No. n/t

[Book Lover]

2. Yeesh - not this again

OK, let's begin:

A) What about people who have responsibilities (e.g., jobs, children) when they are 18?

B) What compensation during their service do you propose paying these people?

C) What course of action do you propose for those who refuse?

[BL611]

7. I'm sorry to bring "this" up

and disturb you with a thread on what I think is an interesting policy idea, rather than thread 6 billion on why Bush is a douche bag, but since you were nice enough to humor me...


A & B)Obviously their service would be their job, if they have children they can elect to do Americorps which would not present any issue to their being able to take care of them. I would imagine a pay scale similar to that of enlisted soldiers.

C)It would depend on the reason,of course it someone faced extenuating circumstances it could be deferred, but why and who would refuse at the very least a few years of Americorps for anything but selfish reasons?

[Book Lover]

17. My apologies for the snarky remark

but I have seen a million threads on this topic as well as the douchebag ones. Anyway, here are my replies;

A & B) But what if they already have a job, like working in their family's business, or perhaps a business/enterprise of their own making? Also, would you adjust earning based on location? Rent is higher in some places than others - would those who live in cities be paid more than rural counterparts?

C) Because people don't like being told what to do. Is it selfish to resent being ordered around? And what, exactly, would you define as extenuating circumstances?

[BL611]

25. I accept your apology

AB)To be frank; too bad if they or their family has a successful business than they owe this country for the bounty they have received from it, I'm sure they can find a way to take a couple of years to serve their nation. Yes we could give people subsides for rent and higher cost of living.

C)Again to be frank too bad, people have so much in our society it wouldn't kill young people to provide SOME type of service to their society. Between the military, peace corps, and Americorps there are many diverse opportunities,people should be able to find some service to the world that they find agreeable enough to do for a few years. Why would you be ordered around in Americorps more than any other job? In school are you not ordered around? As far as extenuating circumstances I would imagine some medical problem of either theirs or a family member, besides that I don't know, what do you have in mind?

[JVS]

126. You're not answering the questions!

How much jail time are you going to give those who refuse to play your stupid game?

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. I'll go down the Heilllein route

you don't play, you don't vote, nor do you run for office.

He had a point, and for god sakes he WAS a libertarian

So it is your prerogative NOT to play, but you don't get a voice in this society either.

[k_jerome]

166. good suggestion. jail time is unnecessary. nt.

[JVS]

171. Wow, taking away the right to vote! How progressive!

Why not just introduce a poll tax to encourage people to work? :sarcasm:

Also, way to take cues from the Starship Troopers fascist society! :thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. A felony conviction in many states does that anyway

and you asked about prison term

I am easy.

you don't want to participate in your society, fine... don't FULLY.. you don't get to vote, but you don't get to run for office either, not even for dog catcher, and all public jobs are closed to you too.

And if you were familiar with the Heinlein Star Ship Troopers background you'd even understand why...

[Mend]

3. I think that no one, at any age, should be forced to do anything.

I think of kids who want careers in sports, musicians, artists. I think of future mathematicians, young people on track to go into medicine or teaching. I think two to six years of forced labor in ways that might not fit a person's interests is awful and has no place in a democracy. Helping people and or being in the military should be well-paid jobs for those who want to do that kind of work. Young people are not our raw material to use anyway we want.

[BL611]

12. Forced labor?

People in this society have privileges and opportunities unimaginable to most of humanity (both now and historically), I don't see how it is some great injustice to expect them to give back a little for a few years of their life, doing the service of their choice.Obviously they can follow any career path that they like once their done.

[Mythsaje]

21. So, based on your view of what's right and wrong

you're willing to force other people to do something they're not willing to do voluntarily? And you don't see anything wrong with that?

We went round and round about this a few weeks back. About forty percent of DUers seem to think it's okay to use the threat of law to force people to participate in this kind of thing. About sixty percent of DUers disagree.

At least as far as I could tell.

I'm glad the authoritarians are in the minority here. It gives me hope for the future of liberalism.

[BL611]

26. If "forcing" people in the richest

nation in the world where they have democratic rights as a citizen, to spend a couple years of their life giving back either in their community or abroad in the way of their choice, makes me an authoritarian, I guess I'm an authoritarian:eyes:

[Mythsaje]

35. You DO realize that no one ever intended

that people would have to PAY for the right to participate in Democracy? That this isn't a "tit for tat' arrangement?

Part of me says, yeah, this isn't a bad idea. Of course, that part of me is quickly beaten down by the part of myself that REALLY doesn't like the idea of forcing other people to do things, that doesn't feel as though I, or anyone else, has the right to take choice away from other people.

A lot of people can justify forcing women to carry unwanted children to term. Doesn't make it right.

[BL611]

38. Their not paying

Their contributing a small part of their life to a society they have a stake in and benefit from. If you're going to use the extreme libertarian slippery slope, why should people be "forced" to pay taxes they don't want to? Why should corporations be "forced" to conform to government regulation? Why should children be "forced" to go to school? etc.

[Mythsaje]

39. Same old song and dance...

Because it's something YOU support, you can justify using the law to dominate other people. I oppose this in the same general way that I oppose forcing women to carry babies to term. Because I believe in CHOICE.

[BL611]

40. Thats not an answer to my question

Do you believe people have the right to "choose" if they should pay their taxes? Or comply with government regulation on their business? Or not educate their children? If you accept government coercion in some situations, then you can't just simply say EVERY form of government coercion YOU don't like is unjustifiable. If you are some sort of ultra libertarian who does not accept these things, well then that's another conversation....

[Mythsaje]

46. Businesses aren't people, despite the fact that they're treated like it.

People fought to even provide universal education for children...there was a time when people would do just about anything to make sure their kids got to go to school. I'm not sure anything was ever gained by making it mandatory, other than to force certain systems to provide opportunities for those people who were being deliberately disenfranchised in the first place.

You show me a parent who doesn't want their kids educated and I'll be looking at someone who shouldn't breed in the first place.

As far as taxes go--I think we should have a LOT more say in what uses our tax monies are put to...if I want to pay for universal healthcare and education rather than, say, more missiles and bombs, I should have the right to say so rather than simply having the option of electing someone who represents corporate interests more than they actually represent ME. Let the people who LIKE missiles and bombs pay for THEM.

[BL611]

49. You've contradicted yourself

That the idea of universal education is popular was never in dispute. Obviously (as I believe another poster already brought up) such a large idea as mandatory national service would need popular support to be enacted into law. What was gained by making education mandatory? MUch actually. There were many people who wanted their children working rather than attending school, that was the whole point of making it mandatory.

Whether they should or shouldn't be breeding is not the point, do they have the right to breed? If they don't you obviously have a huge contradiction with your libertarian views.If they do, than either they do or don't have the right to keep their children out of school, you can't just equivocate because you don't like the question.

The point is not where the tax money goes, its does a government have the right to levy a tax on someone that does not believe they should have to pay it? If they do (as I believe, and apparently you do also), it is without a doubt a form of coercion- "forcing" somebody to do something(pay a portion of their income to the government) they don't want to do. So if you believe coercion is right is some instances, you can't just say mandatory national service is wrong because it is a form of coercion.

[Mythsaje]

56. They shouldn't doesn't mean the same as we should stop them from it...

And, yes, I have a few issues with being forced to pay for things I don't support through mandatory taxation.

There are a LOT of things that aren't easily answered with a "yes" or "no." Things are multi-leveled and more complex than that. If you're hoping for a straight answer from me, you're asking the wrong person. I'm the master of the "yeah, but..." answer. I see beyond the black and white to the shades of color in between.

There has to be limits on what we will and will not allow the government to coerce us into doing. Paying taxes is a necessary evil, though the uses to which that money is spent is far too far beyond our control, as far as I'm concerned. Mandatory education is, in my view, no longer as necessary as it once was...and may have gone too far with the institution of NCLB and fining parents for things that are, at least to some extent, beyond their control.

Maybe you should consider mandating that kids that can't be kept in school because of behavioral issues or deliberate avoidance of school (chronic truancy) be put in these kinds of programs...maybe you should look to using them to rehabilitate certain categories of juvenile offender who would otherwise be placed in detention and COST society rather than providing some sort of repayment for society's need to take care of them.

There's really no indication that we NEED this sort of national service plan, other than in the minds of a few people who want to establish THEIR dominance over other people they look down on for whatever reason. We don't need to interject ourselves into the lives of those who HAVE a plan and are already working toward becoming contributing members of society by going to school and/or holding down a job.

From your posts I get the feeling that you just want to come up with a way to force the children of the wealthy to become more socially conscious, ignoring the fact that there's no evidence that this mandatory service would do that.

All of us who oppose it have very good reasons for doing so, the least of which is NOT the fact that we distrust those who'd impress their values upon other people at the point of a gun...be their values that of the left OR of the right.

[BL611]

60. Seeing beyond black and white is great

but not what you have done thus far in your posts. Your argument has been as far as I can surmise-Mandatory national service is wrong because it is a form of coercion, and all coercion is wrong (with the possible exception of taxation for the types of services you yourself happen to support).

No I don't think we don't NEED this plan, I think however, it could possibly be helpful to our society. We didn't NEED (or at least many thought we didn't) mandatory education, many people used the same arguments you are using saying the children already have farm or factory work lined up for them, and the government had no right to mandate children to get a certain level of schooling. Again if only a very few support it then it will never become law, and you won have to worry about it, but you've given no evidence of that being the case.

As far as taxation, many CEO's would agree with you (if for different reasons).

No my point is not just to force children of the wealthy to do it, I apologize if thats how its come across, I think it would be quite beneficial to everyone regardless of class.


I don't doubt that there are good reasons to oppose this (or anything else for that matter). However saying that we simply do not have the right to impress values on other people is not one of them. Every law, including many that you probably support impress values of the whole society on to those that would otherwise not conform to them- from taxes to support social services to laws against murder or other types of violence. You have to say why SPECIFICALLY it would be harmful to impose a very broad opportunity for a fairly short amount of service is so harmful.

[Mythsaje]

63. Because it would work just as well to make it voluntary

with greater rewards at the end.

I see you ignore my point about offering it as an option to take care of habitual juvenile offenders. THAT I could support, rather than placing them in detention facilities surrounded by OTHER criminal types so they could learn NEW kinds of crime.

The fact is that if you offered greater enticements, you'd bring in a lot of middle class kids who could use that sort of direction in their lives. But you'd rather be able to FORCE it on everyone, which strikes me as suspicious in itself. The only reason that would be necessary is to make a point and flex your muscles, politically speaking. I have serious issues with that.

I don't give a fuck what CEOs would agree with me on...as far as I'm concerned corporations should be stripped of their "rights" as artificial persons and taxed to the point they would be lucky to boast a 10% profit margin after everything. Tax them for polluting, for outsourcing, for using our banking system. Tax them for advertising, for all I care. They are NOT people.

Yeah, I'm left libertarian. I want to do my job, pay my taxes, take care of my family, and be left the FUCK alone. Authoritarians from the left and the right need to just step off.

[BL611]

66. It was not my intention to ignore it

It just wasn't the main point of the debate. It may very well be good idea in its own right (and maybe more achievable), but since I still believe in universal service it has no relevance to my argument. Again what is the IT I am trying to force on people? A couple of years of the the civil service of their choosing. Is that really so oppressive? Why?


My point is not to start a discussion of what legal status corporations should have, I'll leave that to another thread. I am saying that you since you believe in some forms of government coercion, you cannot simply discard an idea because it is a form of government coercion. As you say YOU want to pay your taxes, but what about the person that doesn't


BTW, I try to restrain from using hyperbole, calling me an authoritarian does nothing to bolster your case.

[Mythsaje]

72. I didn't direct it specifically at you...

as much as I offered a general commment to authoritarians of either side. I suppose you need to figure out if it applies to you or not.

I think government coercion should be, by necessity, limited to what is absolutely necessary--not increased simply because it's within the power of some people to do it. I see this as an unwarranted and unnecessary extension of government authority over the private lives of individuals--not much different than forced abortions, or forced pregnancies, or sodomy laws, for that matter.

I'm arguing that this is MORE government coercion than is necessary, for questionable purposes, and with questionable results.

[BL611]

75. Who decides whats necessary?

OK but if thats the case then education is not (certainly was not when enacted)necessary, nor are social services, I'm not trying to get into a logic exercise with you, but you're positions are still not consistent. You obviously have very libertarian views toward certain things (sexuality, reproductive rights), but less so toward others (economic issues, education). Mandatory national service however cannot be compared to reproductive rights any more than economic issues.

[Mythsaje]

79. Why not?

You're still talking about exercising MORE government control over the private lives of individual citizens.

Education IS necessary, and so are social services. They are also NOT authoritarian (despite what some RW Libertarians might have to say about it).

[BL611]

81. Compulsory education and taxation

are coercive. That does not by in itself make it authoritarian. Mandatory national service is also coercive. However that does not by in itself make it authoritarian. Some things that are coercive are authoritarian, not all (you seem to agree on that). You still have not said why this specific form of coercion is authoritarian.


Also I have to be getting off the computer in a few. If you post again quickly I'll try to respond, if not I'll be more than happy to get to it tomorrow.

[Mythsaje]

83. I think it edges a little closer to authoritarianism than I find palatable...

It's one thing to demand that all kids get an education (this would be one fucked up place if they didn't), or taxing people to pay for the upkeep of our country, and doing what you're suggesting. Maybe it's a fine line, but it's a line I'm quite willing to draw.

[BL611]

95. Why is this where you draw the fine line?

It seems quite arbitrary to me. You seem quite adamant that education should be mandatory, but I'm quite sure that many in the pre mandatory education days would be making the same argument you are. Run me through the hypothetical scenario where asking kids on the completion of HS to do a couple years in the civil service of their choosing leads to an authoritarian state?

[Mythsaje]

116. You gotta draw a line somewhere...

This is where I happen to draw that line.

The irony is that I'm sure I would've benefited from it...but I would have benefited from a large-scale VOLUNTARY program as well.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Here's the answer to your question

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

We have to pay taxes because there's no way to sustain a society without paying them, despite what the libertarian nutjobs believe. Society has sustained itself perfectly fine without a mandatory national service.

[BL611]

51. Well thats a better argument than the other poster

But society has sustained itself fine without universal health care, and higher education also. The argument that a certain reform should not enacted simply because society has survived without it is one that many non libertarian conservative nut jobs believe...

[Hippo_Tron]

55. No, but universal healthcare and higher education...

Do not demand additional requirements for citizenship in this country.

[BL611]

62. Thats because they don't exist

in this country.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. You missed my point entirely

Making a lengthy of requirements for citizenship in this country is a bad idea in my view and in the views of many others. Should paying taxes a necessary requirement for citizenship? Yes it is. But the reason is because it is essential to our society's survival.

You were comparing those of us who don't favor national service to libertarians who don't think we need to pay taxes. Libertarians are misguided idiots because they think we don't need to pay taxes to survive as a society. We do. However, we don't need a national service to survive as a society, thus those of us who are against it are not the same as libertarians.

[BL611]

68. No I was comparing your specific earlier point

saying that we should not enact a reform simply because it is not essential to our survival to Burkean conservatives who feel the same way.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. I'm saying that we should not enact a requirement for citizenship reform

Unless it is essential to our survival.

[BL611]

76. But why is that different than

reform in any other area?

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Because it gives the government too much power over our lives

If government starts attaching conditions to our citizenship (besides the bare minimum ones needed for society's survival) then they have absolute control over us.

[BL611]

82. Then you are getting into the libertarian argument

which I have been addressing above.

[Mythsaje]

84. Certain elements of their arguments (mostly the non-economic ones)

have some merit with people who are not themselves Libertarians.

Like opposing the Drug War, for example.

Or playing World Policeman.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. Sure, okay it's a libertarian argument

But if you think it's anywhere near what the nutcases in the Libertarian Party advocate then you are dead wrong.

[BL611]

96. Well on this issue

You are making the EXACT argument the nut cases in the libertarian party would make. Their argument is very simple: every form of coercion leads a slippery slope in authoritarianism. This is the same argument people have been making in this thread. Nobody has yet given a reason more specific than this general libertarian argument, which as I have mentioned above applies just as easy to things like taxes and mandatory schooling that I assume most of you support.

[Mythsaje]

117. There has to be a point where a person says

"this is going too far."

For many of us, it appears, THIS is that point.

You may disagree, but so what? Where you may draw that line might be somewhere else, maybe where they're implanting chips in people to track their movements. We don't know.

But I, for one, would argue that that is WAY beyond the line.

[Hippo_Tron]

129. We'll have to agree to disagree then

I think that this particular measure is frighteningly authoritarian whereas I don't see the same thing with taxation and mandatory school, which isn't even all that mandatory considering you can homeschool your kids.

Not only that but this will create more criminals because people will try to avoid the national service and the last thing we need to do with the drug war already going on is lock more people up.

[BL611]

130. In education there is flexibility

there can be here too, for example being an in home caretaker. Who said we would lock people up? They don't (necessarily) lock people up for dishonorable discharges in the military. Again what the penalty would be for not complying is up to debate. Again why would it be so horrible to ask people to do something of their choosing to help society for a couple of years?

[Hippo_Tron]

135. I have no problem with asking, your plan proposes forcing...

I agree 100% with the other proposals on this thread that have said that we should give benefits in the form of college tuition and other things in exchange for this type of service. You aren't satisfied with that because you are insistent on seeing Barbara and Jenna Bush being forced to do something they don't want to. I have no problem with Barabara and Jenna Bush never having to do anything they don't want to. They are have made absolutely nothing of themselves because of it and that is their choice. It's not my place or the government's place to try and change that.

[BL611]

136. But its the governments place to tax them?

What if Barbara and Jenna don't want to pay taxes? I think there's nothing wrong with asking people to give a little something for than their money for the common good of the nation. And yes, it would probably make the twins better people...

[Hippo_Tron]

138. Yes because the government NEEDS the money so that we don't fall into anarchy

It is not the government's place to try and make them better people or to FORCE them to give back to society. Service should be encouraged, like John Kennedy did, but it should not be forced. I honestly don't see the point in further discussing this because we're just repeating arguments we've already made.

[BL611]

139. That seems to be the case

But let me reiterate then one last time that the idea that government should only tax exactly enough to keep us fromm falling into anarchy, is the exact argument that the Milton Friedman "libertarian nut jobs" would make. Progressive taxation to provide services to those that are less fortunate can not be seen as anything but FORCING people to give back (or to look at it another way, simply do their fair share) for society.

[Hippo_Tron]

143. Services to the less fortunate are necessary for the nation's survival...

As are many other services that the government provides that libertarians bitch about. Libertarians bitch about how we should only have the "bare minimum" of services. What they don't realize is that if we eliminated the EPA there would be no clean air to breathe and clean water to drink if we eliminated the USDA their food wouldn't be safe to eat, etc.

I'd challenge any libertarian to go ahead and try living in a country that merely builds roads and has a national defense. They wouldn't last for 5 minutes.

The difference between my argument and the libertarian argument is that I have an understanding that the government services we have now are necessary for our nation's survival including our social welfare services. If a libertarian lost his job and had no money he'd realize how important welfare is pretty damn quickly.

If we overturned the New Deal completely I wouldn't be surprised if the country didn't have a violent uprising and fall into a state of complete anarchy. Libertarians are misguided and some are just plain stupid and don't understand this.

[Mythsaje]

161. Right...

Their whole economic concept is so rickety it would fall over within minutes of being implemented. Privatizing everything would result in a whole bunch of businesses cutting costs to maintain profit margins, lying about it, and then acting with even MORE duplicity to cover up their malfeasance. Without SOMEONE looking over their shoulders, they'd poison the hell out of our air and water, build our infrastructure out of styrofoam, and then hire armies of lawyers to protect them from any lawsuits that came of it. That's even assuming anyone else could actually spend the money to INITIATE a lawsuit in the first place, considering everything would be done for a profit motive.

I HATE being compared to a Libertarian in threads like this because I believe people have a right to maintain some level of personal freedom without some do-gooder deciding that they'd be better of doing THIS instead of THAT. We're not talking about their economic models, and these arguments about their economic models are straw men to distract from the real meat of the issue. We have ENOUGH people telling us how to run our private lives--from the Christian Right who want to tell us what to do in our bedrooms (sex toys are illegal in Texas?) to the helpful "left" who want to MAKE us wear seatbelts in our cars (which saves lives and is a damn good idea, but do we need a LAW to make people do it--particularly considering that it's the insurance companies who pushed for it in the first place?)

Now we have people who want mandatory national service when there's no evidence we even NEED it. It's all so the rich will have to serve mankind...it's not about the poor or middle class doing the same thing. If they offered free college tuition and/or healthcare for life as a reward, the poor and middle class kids would RUSH to do it, or be cajoled into it by their parents, if nothing else. The ONLY reason I can see to make it mandatory is to sweep up the kids of the wealthy, which strikes me as a pretty damn shitty reason to do it, even assuming they wouldn't get the best end of the deal anyway.

Sure, they'd have to go help teach in some inner city school, or help build housing for the homeless, or clean up beside the highways (or whatever) but when it's all said and done, they'd go back to some nice clean apartment or condo provided by their parents at night while their "fellows" got to stay in some dorm somewhere.

They will NEVER have to live the life that the rest of us live and I seriously doubt we'd be able to force them to unless their PARENTS saw value in it as well.

On the other hand, if we expanded the voluntary services and offered tuition/healthcare, plus brought in at-risk kids and juvenile offenders as part of the whole package, we'd be HELPING a bunch of people find direction in their lives who might actually APPRECIATE it.

Thinking that the children of the wealthy would EVER learn to appreciate it rather than resent it strikes me as remarkably naive...something along the lines of expecting the Iraqis to throw flowers at the invaders.

But rather than acknowledging that we may have a point, we're called "selfish" and insulted for disagreeing with the notion of making it mandatory.

How nice.

[JVS]

127. If you start sending everyone to college and the hospital on the government's bill

watch how bad college and hospitals become so the government can save money. College will be just another underfunded high-school.

[Hippo_Tron]

137. Ask the students at UGA if things were better or worse before the HOPE scholarship

[JVS]

170. What is the HOPE scholarship?

Edit: Oh wait it's voluntary! Big difference from mandatory.

Excuse me for not giving a shit about what happens in the cesspool known as Georgia. Part of the larger cesspool known as the South. Nevertheless, if the hope scholarship is designed to enable poor people to afford college, that's good. But if you make a madatory service with automatic college for everyone (It's not a matter of poor and rich being there, it's a matter of pure numbers) you place a strain of even more numbers on a public university system that is already being stressed by decreased state contributions to funding. You also will have more students who are disinterested in academics showing up at school because it has become pretty much mandatory. I predict this will lead to less money per student and worse education

[Hippo_Tron]

200. I'm not in favor of mandatory service, I'm in favor of everyone being able to go to college...

Assuming that they meet the academic standards deemed neI'm not in favor of mandatory service, I'm in favor of everyone being able to go to college...cessary to attend a university. You were arguing that the government providing free education for people who can't afford it would decrease the quality of education. I was pointing out that the HOPE scholarship is a good example of how free tuition is given to nearly every Georgia resident who meets the academic standards. Since the HOPE scholarship was implemented the quality of education at the University of Georgia and other colleges in Georgia.

And I'm not going to respond to the south bashing because it's off topic.

[TahitiNut]

22. Nor do I.

It seems some folks just can't stop playing the mental mantra over and over and over again. To have such a program of national service, it'd take a clear majority of the people to support it. When the People CHOOSE to do such a thing, that's the very definition of "self-governance" ... service to one's self as part of a nation of people. Clearly, emigration is always an option. :shrug:

[rocktivity]

29. DING DING DING! Mend, you're our grand prize winner!

Helping people and/or being in the military should be well-paid jobs for those who want to do that kind of work. Young people are not our raw material to use any way we want.

But but but how can military or volunteer service "build the character" of our young people if it revolves around something as selfish and crass as earning a good living? How can they possibly gain maturity and learn about honor by doing work they want to do and which pays them enough to avoid debt, contribute tax revenues, pursue happiness, and save for their futures? How could you even think of depriving them of the dignity of being nearly as destitute as those they help? What are you, some kind of radical?

:eyes:
rocknation

[BL611]

30. Actually your boys

Clark & Obama have both responded very warmly to the idea...

[Mend]

31. they are both too old to conscript....let the people under the

age of 25 years vote for your servitude idea and see the outcome.

[BL611]

33. Ok I'm all for

letting them vote for my idea of servitude. I suppose it is worth noting that despite them both being too old to conscript Clark did spend the better part of his life in the military, and Obama spent many years as a community organizer, so I think they would have been fine with it when they were under 25 (for the record I myself have also served in the military, so its not a problem with me).

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. I did serve starting at 18 as well

why are some folks so alergic to this? Boggles the mimd, doesn't it

What is more, comparing it to slavery is even more amazing... it shows to me that

1.- Kids are selfish

2.- We have failed to teach history

[rocktivity]

32. Replace the indentured servitude with full-time salaries and benefits

and it won't HAVE to be mandatory. Of course, having a sane commander-in-chief helps, too.

:headbang:
rocknation

[BL611]

34. Nope to the rich it will have to be mandatory

Indentured servants were people who did forced backbreaking labor for the profits of the few. Having a policy that says to people find some way of your choosing to be of service to those who have less for couple of years is not the same thing.The fact that you would look at such a program as indentured servitude is really one of the best reasons why we need such a program.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Correct, see above

[Mythsaje]

132. And, see, this is where I think the moral purpose falls flat...

Your primary reason for making it mandatory is to make sure a SPECIFIC class of people has to participate, as if their status won't give them in-roads to the BEST possible jobs and continue to leave talented people from the lower classes out scrubbing streets with pushbrooms.

We don't NEED to try to force these people into public service, most particularly under the dubious notion that it'll make them more socially conscious.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. No exceptions

this means Paris hilton gets to go to the homeless shelter to scrub toilets

Either that, or she can move to another country

This means the bush twins get to go to the army and serve

What part of no exceptions, yuo are 18 you serve before you move on with your life are you missing?

Oh yes, we are trying to create a slave class... and make you an indentured servant, we've read your libertarian arguments

Guess what same claptrap was used to fight public education.

[Mythsaje]

157. self-delete

[Mythsaje]

4. If you're offering free college education and lifetime health care

why even make it mandatory? I would think these things would make it damn hard to resist.

In addition, I would say that millions of people in civil service is a bit more than we even need. What jobs would they do, and how many paying jobs would they make unnecessary? Would room and board be included? What about a stipend for clothing and other necessities?

There are a lot of very important questions about this whole idea.

[BL611]

14. To the affluent

they would be very easy to resist, the privileged should not be able to exclude themselves because the safety net is unnecessary to them.

Is it a bit more than we need? There's plenty that has to be done in our nation from building up our infrastructure to after school programs to aide in foreign nations, I have no doubt we can find PLENTY for them to do. They would be given incomes adequate to have a modest but comfortable existence, as I said above similar to that of enlisted soldiers.

[Mythsaje]

18. No, I don't think we have MILLIONS of jobs just laying around...

that we can impress people into doing that won't impact actual trades and/or industries in very negative ways.

That's the first problem.

We're also talking about housing, feeding, and clothing all these millions of would-be workers. Where would we put them? And we'd also have to pay people to monitor them. And we'd have to provide transportation for them to work sites.

You are literally talking about forced service for millions of people. The logistic problems alone are mind-boggling.

I have no problem with making voluntary service like this more enticing. But if your whole purpose is to find a way to force the children of the affluent to participate? I can think of a dozen reasons it's a terrible idea.

It may look good on paper, idealistically-speaking, but how it would work in reality? Totally different matter.

[BL611]

28. I addressed most of these concerns in another

post. Again I'm not tying to write the bill, just float it as an idea. If you have some specific logistics problem you foresee I'd be happy to consider it.

[TahitiNut]

36. The same was claimed in the Great Depression. They were wrong.

CCC Camps proved it and created a wealth for a nation's future - INCLUDING the very young people who did the work - that was key to 75 years of middle class expansion.

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. I have always thought some sort of national service..........

would be a good thing for a lot of kids. Whether it's the peace corp, military, or some other form.
What you get for doing it is another matter as I think there should already be national health care and educational assistance for those that can't afford to go.
It seems to me so many kids I run into today are clueless as to how to get ahead, what they want to do, and lack all pretense of self discipline.
Of course, how to make it fair and work for everyone......that's the rub. And what if you refuse to cooperate.....consequences? The idea is easy, making it work, that's another matter.
I think it's a good thing but get ready to be flamed.

[BL611]

9. I wouldn't be able to post on DU

if I wasn't ready to be flammed:eyes:

I think as far as fairness, the rules should be the same for everyone, period. As far as consequences for refusing, I don't know probably the same as a dishonorable discharge from the military, again depends on the circumstances...

[Wildewolfe]

6. I'm sure it won't be a popular viewpoint....

...but I always liked the book version of Heinlein's starship troopers (forget the crap that was the movie).

To be enfranchised (able to vote or hold public office) you had to do 2 years (as I recall) of service. The right to serve was a significant portion of it as well. Everyone had the right to serve and everyone had the ability to become enfranchised.

Think about just how many neocons (like 95%) would have never seen a public office...

[sarge43]

24. It was two years for non-military service and, I think, four military.

The interesting thing about Heinlein's proposal was there were only two restrictions: The person had to be 18 years old and able to understand the nature of the contract. So, if 95 year old blind and deaf individual wanted to be enfranchised, she could sign up and put in two years doing something - rocking babies in a maternity ward perhaps. Further, you weren't franchised until you completed the service.

People who didn't serve were denied no other civil or human right nor did those who serve receive any other benefit.

[itsmesgd]

8. Screw the service, support the service members

If the rich like the chimp's girls could continue to get out of it, I'm against it. The government has enough money and (normally) enough volunteers for the armed services. It is when they waste the talents of the volunteer forces and send the money to their crony's companies instead of using it to support the troops.

[aquart]

10. It's what I always wanted.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. NOT NO, BUT HELL NO. N/T

[Nutmegger]

13. I'm open minded about about some sort of service

but heath care and tuition should be available to all citizens. Maybe some sort of cash incentive, which is what I think they do now.

[BL611]

15. Should be does not make it so

I believe this is a good way to make a more robust form of social insurance palatable to more Americans, as well as build up our common bonds as a society.

[sarge43]

16. For discussion sake

For starters I'm estimating o/a 1.5M Americans are age 18 right now. So every year a million and a half people will be processed one way or another through this system.

1. Where are you getting the money to pay, feed and house them and the support system that will be needed? And the coins for the college and medical care for at least 50 to 60 years for each?

2. Who decides which of these options a person gets?

3. What exemptions are you going to grant, if any? Medical are obvious, but how are you reasonably going to ensure the system isn't gamed ala Rush Lumbaugh and his butt pimple? Will you grant exemption for medical school, divinity students, etc. What about single parents or married parents?

4. Finally, hypothetically, I'm a person with a physical condition (no fault of my own) which prevents me from doing any of these mandatory services. So, I'm out a free college education and free medical care for the rest of my life while the person who sat a desk for the Army for two years will get these rather lavish benefits?

[BL611]

20. OK

1) Obviously it would be an ambitious program and demanding economically, but during WW2 we were able to sustain a huge number of soldiers and were able to pay for their benefits on their return. I'm sure I do not have to go in to how much the GI bill benefited our economy.

2) The person, if it happens that one choice is more/less popular than the others incentives can be adjusted appropriately.

3) we would have to establish what medical conditions would exempt you, I'm not going to get into what they should be now, obviously there should be serious precautions to make sure nobody takes advantage of the system. I would imagine those going to medical school can finish their schooling first and then work in poor neighborhoods, or non developed countries, Castro(who I am no fan of) has gotten great PR in the third world for the medical assistance he has given to poor countries, imagine how much it would help people's perception of us if we do the same. I can't imagine why a divinity student would object to a few years of service helping poor people.

4)Again obviously exception could be made, but even with a physical condition I would imagine their is some sort of public service most people could do (even helping others with similar conditions) obviously we would still provide disability benefits for those with impediments too great to serve.

[rocktivity]

19. What if you don't NEED money for college or health care?

And you can bet that the more privileged kids will magically end up with the non-military slots.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Ron Green]

23. About the pay:

I suggest bare subsistence (just room and board) for a two-year initial hitch, and attractive pay for re-enlistment. Some people are well-suited to a career in service, but everyone can benefit from a short stint.

(Edit for clarity)

[Greeby]

27. Mandatory? No way!

Any nation that cannot inspire it's people to serve willingly, is not worth serving at all

[dysfunctional press]

37. I've always favoured something along very similar lines...

so count me in.

[dkofos]

41. I like the idea, but

two years is not enough time to properly train and get any useful
work from someone in the military. Four years would be better for all three.
And I love the idea of a free college (or trade school) and free health
care for all who participate.

[BL611]

42. Not quite true

Their are actually some current military MOS' (military occupational specialty) that have 2 year contracts. Obviously if their MOS requires substantial training they would have to sign longer contracts, as they do now.

Of course though the length of service I just threw out there as is very open to negotiation-)

[Orangepeel]

43. the country should reward national service rather than mandate it

For example, Georgia and Florida offer scholarships ("Hope Scholarships" in Georgia, "Bright Futures" in Florida). Students get all or most of their tuition at state schools paid for if they have a B average in college and perform x hours of community service.

I'm not to where I think national service should be mandatory, but I do think that those who volunteer to serve should be rewarded with free college and free health care.

I do realize that this won't solve the problem of the rich opting out of national service. But, it would spread it out to the middle class, if the college scholarships are an example.

[baby_mouse]

44. No.

Forcd National Service fosters blind obedience to authority.

There's too much of that already.

[BL611]

45. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

With all due respect, simply making a very strong statement and providing no further evidence to back it up is rather pointless...

[baby_mouse]

92. Only my grandfather's experience, as he told it to me.

However, he's dead, I have no links to any videos of him saying anything and he never wrote it down.

Sorry.

[neverforget]

52. Forced national service fosters blind obedience to authority?

Hardly. I know many people who were in the military, including myself, that don't have blind obedience to society. Such a sweeping statement is really uncalled for. For some, sure it's true but hardly for the majority of people.

[Firespirit]

53. Agreed -- to a point

I'm not going to agree that this happens all of the time, but -- to my complete disgust -- the school system in many areas has been pushing authoritarianism on kids almost as soon as they enter the classroom. Those strip searches, random drug checks, school uniforms, etc., are all indoctrination for authoritarianism. At least college does grant you some personal liberty over your PERSON. Not over your time, of course, but you DO have the full rights over your own body, which schoolkids have been denied.

If you immediately plunk them into a military-type setting as soon as they graduate, it will have precisely the effect that you describe.

[Firespirit]

48. I dropped out of high school and went to college at age 16.

I turned 18 shortly into my junior year of college. As did my mother.

I suppose you would have yanked us out of college halfway through our degrees, and "too bad" for us, that's what we get.

Sorry. No. If the objective is to "make" young people become "patriotic," forcing them to do something other than what they chose to do won't cut it. How long was it since you were in your 20s or teens? People that age, as a rule, do not develop gratitude towards people who make them do things that they do NOT want to do. We develop resentment. All that this would accomplish would be to turn off an entire generation from becoming responsible citizens in the country that stole the first two, three, or six years of their adulthood for its own purposes.

[BL611]

54. Umm I'm 25

for whatever that's worth. I spent 19-22 in the military, for whatever thats worth. There were many things I was made to do that I did not want to do, I actually learned and grew quite a bit from it, and have much gratitude for it, that being said I realize military service is not for everybody, there are many different types of civil service as I outlined above. It's not about making them feel "patriotic" per se. It's about making them contribute SOMETHING to our society in SOME way. If you went to college at 16, you must have received a very good education (as evidently did your mother), thats something not a lot of people can say, would it really kill you to do something to give back for what opportunities you have been given?

[Mythsaje]

57. So you don't think holding a job and paying taxes

and buying goods and services to keep the economy moving are "contributing?"

Funny, most people do.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Nope and you're an evil rightwing capitalist for thinking so

Some people here will disregard anything when you bring up economics.

[Mythsaje]

80. Apparently so...n/t

[Firespirit]

58. No -- I received a crappy education

I went to a school that had been taken over by fundies, most of whom were related to each other by blood or marriage. It was definitely not a good education. My mother and I were just intelligent, if I may say so -- intelligent enough, and having learned enough on our own, to get test scores that granted us admission to college early. Hence my decision to drop out of school and go someplace where I might actually learn something. My school fought it tooth and nail, I might add, and only let me out after I threw a sh*t fit and gave them second thoughts about keeping me around. My mother didn't have the same problem, but it was a different era and different people in charge. She left for different reasons.

However, I would not push this decision upon others just because it was good for ME. Since you were in the military, I think you're doing just that.

There are many different ways to contribute to one's country. Going into an academic field and contributing to the body of knowledge is one, and America needs bright minds to build back its science and technology credentials in the world. The world of politics is another, and it's what I've chosen. I'm currently employed by a campaign. That is a form of service as well. If you remove the element of choice, you're pushing people into fields that they are not necessarily best suited for.

I'd like to see more people contributing to democracy by voting, but I wouldn't force them by law to vote.

[BL611]

61. I'm not pushing anyone into the military

As I've made clear people can choose ANY form of civil service.People want to teach for a few years? Fine. Work for a municipality? Great. I am talking about a program with very broad options and opportunities. I am NOT saying you have to work in a specific field of MY (or anyone else's) choosing. Find something to help. I work in politics too, and it is a wonderful calling, but not quite the same as working in the civil service sector of your choosing for a couple of years.

[youthere]

50. I'm for it...

COunt me in.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. I thought it was a shitty idea last week, too.

No thanks.

[wuushew]

65. You are allowing the rest of society to suck the life energy out of the young

This is in no way egalitarian. All citizens must face equal hardship. Women over 18 must do labor equivalent to ditch digging that these slaves do to compensate for not being eligible for military draft.

The disabled and elderly must sacrifice as well. How about 2-4 hours of liter clean up in their neighborhoods?

To be even remotely fair all citizens of any given country must sacrifice equally. Please address this point. I still think it is a terrible idea and should never be implemented.

[BL611]

67. I'm not quite sure

what the point is your trying to make. Can you elaborate further?

[wuushew]

69. If your compulsory service started tomorrow...

there would be millions of free loaders that never endured the same fate. The "benefits" of your mandatory service would availble to all yet only paid so by the few. It is not a system of universal contribution. This is not egalitarian!

Assuming no one lived beyond 100 years of age you would not eliminate the last free loader until 2088 A.D.

[BL611]

70. I didn't say it was a perfectly

egalitarian or just system (nothing is). The same was true with social security, do you support that?

[wuushew]

71. The best ideas of progressives are those which "level" the playing field

higher rates of taxation on the wealthy, social safety nets to compensate people for the hardships of poverty or disease. Equal access to education etc. These are all done in the name of fairness.

The aged majority would be enjoying fruits of the young disproportionately. Don't you strive for a fair government?

[BL611]

73. Sure, but again nothings perfect

A similar scenario took place with social security. Besides that older people would not be able to take advantage of many of the programs perks i.e. free higher education, also I don't think this is some sort of punishment, I believe most will find it quite beneficial and fulfilling.

[BlackVelvet04]

145. and who died and made your and your beliefs God?

Seriously. We have government breathing down our necks every which way we turn....we don't need more.

How old are you? I bet you are over the age of your proposed service. And if not, feel free to go out and volunteer wherever you want.

I give to charitable organizations, I pay taxes, I obey the law, my family takes care of it's own and that's all you get from me.

[bobbolink]

86. I'm with ya, BL611, my generation made a BIG mistake in fighting

the draft, rather than improving it, as you are suggesting.

There are many benefits to national service, few downsides, and it's just the right thing to do.

However, I just can't fight this. I see some of these ridiculous arguments, including "It's sssslllllaaaavvvveeeerrrrryyy" and I just give up.

How far we've fallen from a nation that used to have a collective sense of responsibility.

sigh... I guess that's partly the fault of my generation, also.

Mea Culpa.... :(

[Mythsaje]

88. Easy to say now that it no longer affects you directly...

I personally think it's pretty screwed up to be suggesting something for OTHER people that doesn't apply to you.

[bobbolink]

89. I'm so very sick of the attacks here on DU.

I owned my generations' mistake, and didn't put it on anyone else.

If you can't treat me as a human, then just leave me alone.

Really, this is part of why I think there needs to be a national service.

How dare you assign crap to me that doesn't belong to me.

You have NO idea what I'm dealing with, who I am, or what I think.

You want to make me into an enemy? Great, have at it.

Just don't expect me to turn around and kiss your ass when you want it.

Goodbye!

[Mythsaje]

90. Oh, the fact that I think you're wrong

and a statement of WHY I think you're wrong is an attack?

I repeat, it's easy to say "Yeah, let's do this," when it's not going to affect you. The people it WOULD affect might well have a lot more problems with it than you do.

[TahitiNut]

93. Yes, it's a personal attack. To deny it is either stupidity or intellectual dishonesty, imho.

Formally, it's called a "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" ... a form of attack upon the person and not the argument.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

This line of "thinking" is at the very heart of bigotry. "You're only against illegal immigration because you're a racist!" Such handy-dandy personal attacks totally and completely avoid the validity of arguments for or against any proposal.

It should be noticed that this kind of attack effectively denies others the very right to an opinion - since anyone not directly affected by the proposal cannot be in favor of it, according to your "logic". I can think of almost nothing more antithetical to a democracy.

The arrogance in your post is appalling. Even the phrase "the fact that I think" is arrogant. The very statement that a claim must be accepted by others as a 'fact' is a self-serving corruption of language.

:puke:

[JVS]

98. Poor baby

:nopity:

[BL611]

99. I wouldn't be too down

Remember DU is not an accurate cross section of the entire nation (or even Democrats), and even here if you really take a look at the responses its about even, its just that those opposing have stuck around to argue, while those whose supported it wrote only one post.


It is sad that so many in our nation feel that they don't owe our society anything. It's just as prevalent on the left as it is on the right, it just manifests itself in a different form. I would have to agree you that the New Left movements of the 60's & 70's are probably what brought this hyper individualism to the left (amusing enough with vague and incoherent but ostensibly ultra collectivist views on economics), but I think its more of a consequence of a nation just getting to affluent and spoiled than the faults of any particular generation.

[bobbolink]

153. a big reason those of us in support don't stick around is the snark

and the silly attacks.

So, the biggest bullies win.

again.

:shrug:

Good luck to ya!!

[Homer Wells]

193. I have to agree with you , BL611

I am from the older generation, and did in fact serve in the military also, though, to be frank, I thought that enlisting would keep me OUT of Viet Nam (Boy, did I ever get my eyes opened) lol

The People of this country ARE Society, and IMHO, there is a certain reciprocity required from the people that benefit from the rewards of said society.

This is not about mandatory service, or even voluntary service , nor is it about affluent vs. the financially disadvantaged, this is about doing what is Right.

Again, I am not trying to shove my beliefs down anybody's throat, just stating my own heart-felt conviction.

Government requiring one to serve is not right either, but I have no problem with voluntary service, and full enfranchisement and free eduction and health care as rewards for that service make perfect sense to me.

[Critters2]

87. I don't have a huge problem with it, but

why should those in the Peace Corps and Americorps serve longer than those in the military? I have two Peace Corps alum friends. They like to point out that the PC is NOT the picnic people make it out to be. They are often in more remote places than those in the military, and are frequently sent to sites alone--lacking the company and camaraderie that is an important part of military life. And then they're paid less and afforded none of the respect the military receives. The work they do is important in building a strong rapport with other nations, and respect for the US--all the while building wells and schools and teaching people to feed themselves.

And you think killing people and breaking things is more demanding? Nope. All forms of service should be treated equally. Some of us believe the taking of human life is wrong, and shouldn't be punished for it.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

91. BL611 -- very well thought out. It will take a

concerted, joint effort of the people to chart our path out of the monopolistic oligarchy currently in place. Those that are so adamantly opposed, do so in fear of our government to make good decisions. This fear results in paralysis. The resultant decay of the paralysis is evident in our failing schools, a Pravda-like news corp, and in a deteriorating infrastructure. Leaving the government to proceed following the status quo is not working. If we are too selfish to participate in charting our future -- involvement by all -- we continue to relegate our rule to the elected elite.

[Orsino]

94. Not until there's democratic oversight of war.

A Congress willing to let a preznit run wild has no business forcing citizens to die for its laziness.

[JVS]

97. fuck that bullshit

[BL611]

101. Thanks

You've really made an indispensable contribution to the thread that I'm sure will be provoking thought for months if not years to come.

[tomp]

105. we've been over this a hundred times.

there appears to be no reconciling the two points of view. yet, you drag it up. you deserve what you get, and that ain't much. you seem to think that YOU are making some sort of contribution with your post. but that's because you're blind. oh, well.

[BL611]

109. Excuse me

You know not everyone sits on DU all day every day going through every topic. I have never seen or posted anything on this before, and I'm sure there are others who haven't as well. If the thread is redundant to you you have every opportunity to simply not read it or post on it. If it is redundant to everyone else nobody will respond and it will go away, clearly that not the case. One of the reasons that I only sporadically (and I know its not just me) visit DU is the arrogance of some of the people who post here, it's a shame because you ruin it for everyone.

[JVS]

122. Your words are an insult to blind people everywhere

;-)

[JVS]

121. I don't want to contribute to your shitty thread or idea, I'm here to poo-pooh your plan

Because it sucks

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. Why it may ask you to do something for others

Don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, inaugural address

I guess he was selfish too

[JVS]

168. I find it suspicious that a man at the top of the socioeconomic ladder...

would tell us that we should be serving the country. Plutocrats never change.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. You do know he

served in WW II, honorably as a PT boat commander, in the line of fire, don't you?

you also know he almost got killed in WW II

I suspect you also know his older brother GOT killed in WW II

So anybody asking you to do anything for others is wrong, and selfish.

I see.

By the way, his men would follow him to the gates of hell, you know why? He did not ask any of them to do anything he was not willing to do. This would be alien to you

[JVS]

266. Ich bin ein overpriviledged, Harvard Educated, playboy...

but remember all you peons: Ask not what your country can do for you...

:eyes:

[tomp]

100. gee, how to tell you what i think about your post...

...without insulting you.

sorry, can't do it. go back to the drawing board and this time, think.

[BL611]

102. Lets see...

You would have to make a reasoned critique, based on some sort of factual analysis. Don't worry I won't get my hopes up.

[tomp]

106. see above reply to your reply to JVS...

...and also, when you present reason, i'll respond with reason. there is no way in hell you can convince me that mandatory service is a "reasonsed" position. no way in hell. you insist on posting shit, i'll give you shit back.

[BL611]

110. See my reply above

to yours...

[XemaSab]

103. Sounds good to me

Other countries have national service, why not us? Also, many people get out of high school not knowing what they want to study or with any real direction, and this would help.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Fully agree wiht you

we need some form of national service. Just as public education the benefits will be graeter than the "perceived suffereing" and "forced labor" bu some who equate this with slavery

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Some observations after going through the thread

1.- This breaks into two camps: those with a high libertarian bent who believe this is some form of slavery... and lord we have failed to educate you in what slavery truly is... and it's horrors.

2.- Those of us who KNOW it will be good for the country in the long run

Well, it also breaks into age

It seems to me that the most opposed to this are the poor babies that have never faced any of this sort. News to you spoiled kids... every American generation has faced some form of service since the American Revolution and every generation had had to decide what form of service was adequate. Some, in fact more than we'd like to see, faced military drafts, starting with the Civil War. In fact starting with WW I, every generation of the 20th century, except you, faced a military draft.

All of these generations had a sense of community and we are in this together. But over the last thirty years we have had a period of incredible selfishness on both the left and the right and what is in it for me? The nation, as in the whole, deserves more than what is in it for me? The danger in this attitude, where we feel no obligation to others is that the nation will slowly disappear, in effect it will die on the vine. I will make the argument that it already is dying, if not outright dead.

I could even make the argument that the only obligation of a citizen today is jury service, and even that people look for a way to get out. We really do not care about our neighbors

So what would national service do? And I have argued this before.

It will increase the sense of we are Americans, NOT the I, but the WE. Oh and for those who hate nationalism... guess what until you can breed the sense of tribalism out of the human equation forget it. It just may happen, through globalization... but until then, what better proof do you need but the lack of attention to the Gulf Coast by most Americans?

You all like to rant and rave about equality and how you'd like to stick it to the rich... guess what the ME attitude of the last thirty years has helped the rich justify the crap they pull and has made it every easy for the Bush Twins and Paris Hilton to basically go around the world with that sense of entitlement

This may sound as an insult, but look at Bush's record in the National Guard. he didn't finish because of that blue blood sense of entitlement, of I deserve all with no work. Well, look in the mirror... many of you exhibit the same selfish attitude.

As they say, to the propaganda masters... mission accomplished.

[Mythsaje]

119. Yeah, except that our accomplishments as creatures

has been through both our sense of community AND our sense of ourselves as individuals. There is nothing stating we need to sublimate ourselves to the collective other than the ARROGANCE of some people who might be considered just as bad as their opposites on the right. "We have the right to control you because we don't think you're doing a good enough job at controlling yourselves."

Well, fuck that.

And as far as comparing it to slavery? I've never done that. It's similar in a way to indentured servitude, which isn't the same thing...you have to "pay your debt" to gain freedom. I don't like the way that sounds and you'll have to forgive me if I say that I consider it a fool's bargain.

I see a bunch of people who want to exercise CONTROL of other people, using a fucking guilt trip in an attempt to make us go along with it. I, for one, am naturally suspicious of anyone who tries to extend the control the government already possesses with regard to our private lives. Where we go, who we love, what we say, and where we live. I do not naturally trust government any more than I trust Big Business.

The way things are NOW, all this would end up being is yet ANOTHER giveaway to Big Business, at the expense of millions of young adults who may or may have other goals in mind. It is not YOUR right, or the right of anyone LIKE you, to dictate what they should or should not be doing at any given time.

You know what young people hear when people start talking about this? They hear "You owe US! Look what we've given you!" Their response? "Yeah, you geezer. You've given us a broken government, skyrocketing debt, and a national slipping into 3rd world status. Where have you BEEN?"

There is NOTHING wrong with expanding the voluntary services to serve this country, and making it damn worth our while to become involved. That way, all sides get something out of it. But that's not what you want because it doesn't FORCE the people you want to force to go along with it.

And you're so blind you can't see the difference. That's the saddest part.

[BL611]

128. Once again

you have not stated how making people do SOMETHING (anything of THEIR choice) in the civil sector for a couple years "sublimates" them to the collective. Again every law on the the book says "We have the right to control you because we don't think you're doing a good enough job at controlling yourselves." You have stated that you believe some laws are good so you cannot just make this argument. Obviously there is a line, you still have not explained WHY does this step over that line.


Indentured Servitude and slavery were very similar things, they certainly have far far far more in common with each other than this. To my recollection indentured servitude did not constitute as taking the job of your choice in the civil sector for a couple of years.

How would a bunch of civil service jobs be a giveaway to big business? Please explain.


Forcing the people you want to force? Again same fallacy you've been using all along, we do this every day in many different respects, you're not explaining why this is too much, and calling people "blind" and "authoritarians" when they disagree with, you when you have been far from convincing thus far is not helping you.

[Mythsaje]

131. Because where the line sits

is very individualized. I don't need to explain why this is beyond that line for me, or for others, but simply state that it is.

Much of your argument ends up being a guilt trip, and I'm not only naturally distrustful of that technique, I'm reluctant to take seriously any person who resorts to it.

And as corrupt as our system actually IS, I can easily see how forcibly conscripted youth, ostensibly intended to serve the public interest, could end up performing tasks for large corporations able to "convince" public servants that it's of direct benefit to the community. And the COUNTRY will pick up the tab for it.

Have you spent even ONE second thinking of how this sort of thing can be misused, or don't you want to consider THAT side of it at all? I, at least, have spent a little time considering the benefits. I just don't think they outweigh the negatives.

And that's my perogative.

[BL611]

134. Your right to your opinion is your prerogative

However that does not make your rationale justifiable.

You see it as being a guilt trip. I see it as a way of people honoring the obligations they have to our society. It's a difference of perspective.

This is is not conscription; conscription by definition is compulsory enrollment into a SPECIFIC program, this is saying just find something, anything to do, there are many options available. If you can see many ways an influx of people into Americorps and the Peace corps can be taken advantage of by corporations please elaborate as to what they are.

As I have said I'm sure their are serious arguments against this and I have invited you to make them, and will be more than happy to listen to them if you do. But so far far you have stuck to one argument that I have gone through pains to show you is not in of itself a real argument against it. Saying that there is a line, and that this crosses the line without giving any reasons why it crosses the line- except for vague warnings of corporate malfeasance and the fallacy of a slippery slope in authoritarianism are not sufficient.

[Mythsaje]

156. People honor their obligations to our society

by working, paying taxes, volunteering, performing jury duty, and contributing to the economic machine. Who are you or anyone else to say "that's not enough?"

Obviously some of us disagree. We don't have to justify our disagreement to you...only to say, "no."

And that's what we're saying. How many young people do you think you'll be able to get to support this? Not many.

I've already said that we should expand the programs that already exist and offer more enticement for people to join. THAT would work. Yours will not EVER happen, not without dragging the kids kicking and screaming off to participate.

Good luck with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. Funny kids of previous

generations did not joyfully go, but they went.

Even some famous kids.

Why is this generation SO SPECIAL?

[Mythsaje]

167. When was the last generation that "went?"

The one before MINE. My father's generation.

You want a revolution, you try dragging these kids away from their lives and see what happens.

Of course, you could just ASK them to go and offer real rewards and a direction in life, but hey, that wouldn't be nearly as satisfying, would it?

[JVS]

173. No. The carrot is old hat, we need the stick

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. Given my father lived through the horrors of a true

fascist state, and that I have studied economics, and am a historian by training, I can tell you right now, you are misusing the term... badly

If you choose to call me authoritarian... you would be a tad closer, but not quite

But if you chose to call me a collectivist, you'd be closer.

If you also called me an admirer of the American People who USED to come together as a community when the rubber hit the road, you'd even be closer. After all what I am asking of you is not more than has been asked of previous generations. You are asking me to ask less of you, in fact far less.

Again, answer the question, why are you kids so special that you should not be forced to do anything for the public good?

So at least stop misusing terms.

By the way we old fucks scrubbed toilets, and trust me, where and how I grew up I really didn't have to.

I still have both my hands. They did not fall off.

Oh and I did far more than just scrub toilets. The kind of public service I did, I would not ask you, after all you may break a nail... oh the horror!

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mythsaje]

234. And yet it doesn't affect me and I oppose it...

Because I think uptight, self-righteous people shouldn't be able to dictate the life path of other people.

If it doesn't affect ME, it's definitely not about ME or I...it's about THEM. The kids I don't even know who have the right to live their own lives without some busybody butting into it with the force of law behind him.

Sorry you don't get it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

238. I'm sorry you don't get it either

nor do I expect you to ever get it

[Mythsaje]

241. Probably not...

I'll never quite get the need to push other people around.

I know, it's a flaw, but I'll just have to live with it.

[Mythsaje]

233. Actually a collectivist authoritarian could as easily be

referred to as a communist. You know, like the Soviets or the Communist Chinese.

There are left-wing authoritarians as well, after all.

[BL611]

201. "We don't have to justify our disagreement to you

...only to say, "no."

Umm yes actually you do if you want to make a compelling argument.

How do YOU know many young people won't support this, because you don't? I have actually seen polling data showing a majority of the American people do support a program of this sort.

Again the point of laws are to get things that the society as a whole has deemed are conducive to the public good to be complied with be those who would not without coercion. If there are some spoiled brats who don't think that they have enough of an obligation toward our society to spend a couple of years doing something to benefit something greater than themselves, and have to be "dragged off kicking and screaming" I have no problem with that.

[wuushew]

207. If being wealthy causes people to be wasteful jerks why not just address that?

The government already owns and regulates the money supply and has the explicit right to tax.

Is it not better to take an inanimate thing(money) from a person than to take their freedom of action and association?

[nadinbrzezinski]

212. What part of mandatory are you having a problem

understanding?

One reason we need this is to get away from our ECONOMIC DRAFT SYSTEM

By the by, the damage to the country is so extensive that we will need everybody to lend a hand, from those who live in the Hampton's to those who live down at Compton.

[Mythsaje]

214. Of course you don't...

because you get a kick out of the idea of being able to FORCE people to do what you want them to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. I have news for you that you may not like

you know humans ARE a herd animal. We ARE a social animal. We sublimate ourselves all the time for the well being of the collective

What you do not like is the Alpha males, or the silver backs that have been chosen by the whole to tell you that it might be a good idea if you sublimate yourself, (your words mind you) for the well being of the collective.

We ARE herd animals... WE ARE social animals.

Once you remove that, and we become lone wolves (some are), then we may change

For the moment, ALL societies historically have asked for a rite of passage to adulthood. We are one of the few who are NOT asking anything from you.

That is what is so amazing, the sense of self and entitlement that I see

As I said in the thread I started, and here, the lack of attention to the Gulf Coast by most Americans is fully explained by WHO ME attitude that is becoming so wide spread among BOTH the right and the left.

As to control.. far from it... but some time SERVING could do you some good.

I am more convinced than ever that this country is dead. You read right, DEAD... because it is no longer about the coutry, but what can I get for Myself and all about the I, not the we

[Mythsaje]

158. Quite the assumptions you make here...

As for how I've served...I've been a little league umpire, spent several years in animal rescue, and served on the board of a local non-profit.

I don't really appreciate the "it would do you good" remarks.

You have no idea what I have and have not done.

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. Good for you

it still would do you some good

As I said, we are a social animal

OTHER countries, as in ADVANCED countries, have national service of one sort of another.

They have replaced rights of passage to adulthoood with it.

You are not that special, and neither am I...

Nor is Jenna Bush.

And that is the point.

[Mythsaje]

165. I'm a semi-social animal

who hates "alphas" with a passion. I don't like authority, don't trust authority, and resent the hell out of someone trying to push me into things. I don't give a SHIT if they think it's for my own good. I've out-stubborned better men than you, Gunga Din.

I've got social anxiety. MY cross to bear. And, you know, there are thousands, if not millions, of people with similar problems out there, in our country alone. They don't need to be dragged into some strange place, forced to conform to someone else's rules, and be exposed to who knows what kind of social pressure just to make people like you feel like they're doing society some good.

You seriously give the creeps.

You have no idea what would do me "some good."

I'm forty fucking years old. I've pushed myself beyond my comfort zones on a regular basis for most of my life, done some pretty interesting shit, and written some pretty damn good novels. I've contributed time, energy, and money to several different causes and I contribute my fair share of exceptional essays to THIS website.

People that come across the way you do to me are the REASON I have issues with authority. People who like to throw their weight around because they can. People that don't listen to opposing points of view because they "don't wanna." Because it doesn't fit their world-view.

I've already said I've considered this...hell, I've debated it several times with both my wife AND my best friend. And they haven't been able to convince me it's a good idea--what makes you think your spooky ass can?

I see this sort of thing as a way for pushy people to use the power of the United States government to bully people into doing things they might not necessarily want to do to get a sense of personal satisfaction out of MAKING them do "the right thing."

"The right thing" for some people isn't necessarily the "right thing" for everyone. And I resent the hell out of being told it IS.

I see NOTHING wrong with my counter-proposal...expanding the services that already exist, like Americorps and the Peace Corps, funding them to deal with an expansion of volunteers, offering education, real-world training, and healthcare to those volunteers, and using it as a secondary option for at-risk kids and juvenile offenders who NEED a chance to do something better with their lives.

But that's not enough for you. You want to MAKE people do what you think they should. And you wonder why I've got a problem with it? This isn't about convincing people to do more to serve our society--it's about getting satisfaction out of MAKING them.

And that's just sick.

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. Ok so you explain this to me

why is it that previous generations cared about what happened in this country?

What we have seen is the atomization of the individual, it did not start yesterday, nor six years ago. It started with Reagan

And if you have problems with authority, most people do. I do.

That said, I realize what national service programs do to societies. They make them identify with the other within their societies far better

It is not respect for authority, if you ever cared to study these programs... candy canes at hospitals (a valid form of service) help in many ways.

If I give you the creeps, good, take you out of that comfort zone

By the way, I do believe the kids today, not talking you.. you obviously are not a kid... are selfish, not driven enough to do anything and want everything on a silver plate. This is a societal problem. You care to tell me how to take them out of that ME attitude which is toxic and into the we that does not include things like this, I'm all ears.

[Mythsaje]

192. Seriously?

I don't think forcing them to do anything is a good bet...it will probably breed as much resentment as it does garner any goodwill towards humanity and society in general. Forcing people doesn't tend to make them all that cooperative.

We can't TAKE this society back to the way it was--say around WWII--and, what's more, we don't WANT to. People were much more comfortable volunteering to serve society because they, in general, respected institutions of authority and believed that these institutions had their best interests at heart. WE, if anyone, know how much bullshit that is. So do the younger generations. They've been being lied to by the government for all of their lives, from the misinterpretation of history they learned in school, to the lack of serious commitment to teaching them about the Constitution and WHY we're a republic in the first place, to the government telling them that THESE drugs are bad, but THESE drugs are good--often lying about it from BOTH sides...

All they've been groomed for is to become another nameless cog in the machine. They don't TRUST society, not really. It's certainly never given them many reasons to trust it.

It's a great disconnect. They do not, personally, feel a part of society...it's actually not uncommon for teens to feel this way, but I think the present generation may feel it worse than those before it. This is why gangs are so popular in some areas, and why a lot of people are actually comfortable in the military. It gives them a sense of belonging to something beyond themselves. As you've already said, humans ARE pack animals (not herd, so much, but pack...there's a difference). There are economic factors involved as well, but I think this is a big part of it.

I DO think we should offer opportunities for youth to connect. Not things they have to pay for, or their parents have to pay for, but something they can pursue because it offers THEM something. Direction, for one thing. Our schools aren't really in the business of preparing kids for real world challenges. If they were, kids would know how to read, how to balance a checkbook, how to calculate interest, how to budget, and how to do any number of everyday, real-world activities by the time they leave high school and enter the "work" world. They should also know how to troubleshoot and solve real-world problems, as well as to critically examine information, but that stuff isn't really taught in our schools. Instead they're asked to absorb and regurgitate dry and often misleading "facts" in order to pass specific testing requirements.

They're certainly not prepared to choose a career. Some are, sure, but most of them have done so because they've been motivated toward something and by something OUTSIDE of school.

Face it, the rich are a problem, but they're not a problem because they've never served the community. They're a problem because they've grown up insulated from the realities of life for the vast majority of the population. They've got accountants to balance their checkbooks and any number of "professionals" to deal with real world problems on a daily basis. It wouldn't HURT them to do public service, but they're probably not going to ever do it willingly, and I don't think they'd gain as much from it as you might hope. And, in fact, I'll bet that a lot of them would screw things up just because they could. The last thing I'd want to do is put some arrogant ass in charge of something that might harm others if they screwed it up. See our President for illustration of that point.

The poor and middle class, on the other hand, would most likely JUMP at the chance to pick up new skills, gain an education without risking getting killed for some oligarch's war, and possibly get healthcare out of the bargain. It's stuff they'd have to go into debt to gain any other way, and may offer them direction they may not already have. Not only that, but their parents would push them to do it, especially if they couldn't afford to contribute to the kid's education. It would offer an outstanding alternative to military service.

I also think certain professions should come with a "work-down" option, where rather than suffering through years of crippling debt, they can serve the community as professionals AFTER they've gotten their education. Doctors and nurses could be asked to serve a specific time in certain communities, lawyers could be asked to serve as public defenders, and teachers could be asked to teach in depressed areas for a specific amount of time before going on to "bigger and better" things. This would free people in these professions from the mountain of student loan debt they often acrue.

I'm a big one for offering people options and choices, and I think we can accomplish a lot by opening up new opportunities for people IN the service sector. I don't think it needs to be mandatory, and, in fact, I think less is to be gained by making them do it as opposed to giving them specific reasons TO do it. It might be more fruitful, in the long run, to encourage people to participate in such programs of their own volition, and make it specifically worthwhile to them, than to force them to do it by making it mandatory. It's like the difference between doing good because it's the right thing and doing good because you're afraid you'll be punished by some omnipotent judge if you don't.

I also don't see any problem requiring certain people convicted of certain crimes the option of joining one of these services rather than facing jail time. It used to be that people were offered the chance to go into the military rather than going to jail--that's how my Dad ended up in Vietnam in 1962-63. And the best thing is that even RICH kids get popped for the sort of things I'm talking about. DUI, drug offenses, flagrant multiple violations of traffic laws--you name it. We don't levy FINES on these people rather than giving them jail time, we give them a choice between doing jail time OR joining one of the services. They'd still have to pay restitution when necessary, but they wouldn't be able to get out of trouble by throwing money at it. Sort of like an expanded "community service" requirement.

I see all of these things as more productive and meaningful than an arbitrary "draft them all" proposal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

208. You obviously have been talking

to a different set of MIDDLE CLASS kids than I have...

The ones I have spoken to will NOT do anything they can shirk their way out off, just as their rich counterparts...so if you make it a voluntary affair a few of them will volunteer, just as a few of the rich, smaller percentage but still, who also will volunteer.

As to teen ager alienation, thanks for making my point... it has gotten THIS BAD in the US since the 1980s... it used not to be THAT bad. It is also part of the rite of passage of being a teenager and there are plenty of brain function studies that explain this ad nauseaum.

It nations where a form of MANDATORY national service, including Sweden and the UK, kids feel more a part of the society they live in. Ours simply don't, they don't care and they don't give a shit.

Oh and as to the rich... yep they are always insulated. The proof is in the pudding, the generation that came out of WW II, was able to see itself as part of the whole than we do today. Why? They all shared the pain, they all shared the risks, and they all shared in the war. No I don't think they are the greatest generation, I'll leave that pap to the reporters, but the fact is they went though something that fundamentally changed them for the better in many ways. That is why the GI Bill was able to pass, That is why the VA was funded. They knew it was necessary for the collective good.

If you tried to have a descent GI Bill, forget it, most people don't benefit, so they don't care if the program is mostly a joke today.

Oh and the VA... lets defend it, I don't benefit, and it is all about the ME.

Again, give me a good way that will not require a swift kick in the collective pants to take people out of the ME and I thinking patterns... and I am all ears.



To add, you have no problem with the economic draft we have right now, do you?

[Mythsaje]

213. The economic draft is another issue

and would become something of a moot point if you opened up the volunteer options for other services, which is one of the reasons I support it.

Middle class kids without scholarships or parental funding for college are going to be thrown as deep in debt as anyone else if they have to get college loans...they can be sold on volunteering just on that alone. The same way that many of them are now sold on the military. Not ALL the volunteer military is garnered from the lower class. The problem is that no one is actually TRYING to sell such an idea to them.

"Want to be a lawyer? Want to be a doctor? Don't have the money for college? Let's make a deal."

And, yes, obviously the "everybody's included" clause during WWII has had a wonderful effect in the long run. These are the people who ran the country for nearly forty years, handing it off to THEIR scions, who proceeded to continue screwing the rest of us. Sorry if I don't see the net results of this theory actually panning out.

You do realize that a big part of the problem with the way people see such programs as the VA and the GI bill is because the corporate media has been shirking its responsiblity to keep the public informed and aware of how important they are, right?

America is a LOT larger entity than the places you name, with a completely different culture and a different history entirely. If nothing else, they've existed a lot longer than America has. I don't think they're a good comparison at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

220. So what do you want to do

another question altogether, take to the barricades?

go for it.

And yes, yuo have NO PROBLEM with an economic draft... after all they volunteered

[Mythsaje]

222. You want to translate your first line? It looks like gibberish...

And didn't you bother to read my post? The economic military draft becomes a moot point if they have other, better, options. You're not making a lot of sense.

And why should WE pay for the children of the rich to go to school when they can damn well pay for it themselves?

[nadinbrzezinski]

225. I did

and I do not consider Kennedy to be part of the problem

In fact he didn't ask you or anybody else to do less than he did himself.

the problem is that you are also looking at things from the perspective of YOUR life, and your memories

You are forty, too young for Watergate, and your first political memories start truly with Ronnie Reagan... quite the hero to the RIGHT and the ME generation.

By the way, you do know Ronnie never served in the front lines.

You also know that most republicans in the modern generation have not served either... but they have benefited and convinced people like you that service is evil. THat is the underpinning of what you are saying. Truly

Now your translation, what do you want? A Revolution, go to the barricades

[Mythsaje]

228. Are you fucking kidding me?

My first political memories are of Ford then Carter...I grew up in a staunch Democratic household, the son of a blue collar construction worker. I remember the disgust at Ford's pardoning of Nixon, and of the way Carter was treated. I remember the Iranian hostage crisis, and how Reagan turned it into political capital to use against Carter. And I remember the suggestion that the length of their captivity was negotiated by Reagan's campaign strategists, which is why they were released right AFTER Reagan became president.

You are a found of unwarranted assumptions, aren't you? Maybe I was politically aware earlier than most. I loathed Reagan, I thought he was full of shit, and that he slid out from under the Iran/Contra affair all too easily--as did Bush Senior. I remember the congressional inquiries and statements of Ollie North and Poindexter, as well as Reagan and Bush, for what they were worth. I was listening to NPR when all of that was going on and swearing at the radio.

Give me a break.

I don't believe service is evil. I believe that mandating it is evil. Whether the REPUGS do it, or whether people like YOU do it.

There's a big difference between Kennedy saying "Ask not..." and people saying "We will MAKE you..." We want to promote volunteerism because volunteering itself is a good thing. Service should be encouraged, and rewarded. What it shouldn't be is mandated.

I've explained my position half a dozen times and you continue to twist it to mean things I have never said, cast aspersions on my motivations, and assume things based on nothing more than your own preconceptions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

246. No I don't twist it

you do

That said, there are PLENTY of studies around that do show that the rise of the ME generation started truly in the 80s, not my fault you missed all of that

Also it is NOT my fault OUR generation has never been asked to give back to this country in ANY meaningful way.

That is a little stuborn fact you miss

By the way... you can call me all the names you want

Proof is in the pudding... ME and I are now central, as well as COMSUMING.

It is the last 30 years...

You give me a way to change this that does not involve taking people OUT of their confort zones and I am all ears, your way is an economic draft PERIOD

[Mythsaje]

248. Even if it is, it's offering choices to people the system doesn't

currently allow many choices at all.

We need to rebuild the education system from the ground up, we need to TEACH public service as a viable and valuable lifestyle choice for everyone...we need to teach empathy as a foundation of civil society. And we need to do it early.

No, OUR generation has never truly even been ASKED. Many have anyway, interestingly enough. And doing so voluntarily rather than by force is worth a hell of a lot more, morally and ethically speaking.

You want to do something by force of law that could just as easily be done by social pressure, by some popular public figure, LIKE Kennedy, calling for it publicly. Or, better yet, more than one of them.

My primary objection is, and has always been, the idea that you or anyone else has the right to force the issue. You don't, and never will, even IF you get lawmakers to go along with it. In so doing you become just as bad as the Right-Wingers we've been fighting against for the past several years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

250. I have

amazing... whole generations of Americans who were asked, and some forced to serve would argue with you

Now we need to rebuild schools. (and this is one of many examples)

Fine, I pay for your college, you give me two years of public school teaching at the inner city for each year of college I pay for. Not different than the way JAG recruits many of its lawyers

And if you cannot see that as a form of a draft I am sorry

And yes, programs like that are part of what I envision

but poor babies, forced to work and pay back to society will break their backs.

Oh poor babies

By the way if you want to think that I am as bad as the fascists on the other side, if it makes you feel better, so WHAT?

I just have human history behind me as evidence.

[Mythsaje]

252. So what?

Because I dedicate my life to fighting against authoritarians and bullies. I don't give a rat's ass what their ideology is. That's so what.

What you're saying is you really have no respect for the right of people to determine their own destiny without YOUR interference. And, yeah, I have issues with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

253. So you hsve issues with society

ok.

We got it the first time.

you are an antisocial type

We got it.

Problem is well functioning societies need everybody to give back in one way or another.

Oh and if you think I am authoritarian, so what, makes you happy, sure, go for it.

By the by, FDR was also an authoritarina prick.

So was Kennedy,

I guess so was every other Presient who has ever asked the people to give back.

Especially when they had no choice but to require it.

[Mythsaje]

254. What part of ASKING do you not understand?

ASKING is not FORCING.

As I've said countless times throughout this thread.

[nadinbrzezinski]

255. What part of economic draft are you missing?

that is waht you ARE advocating

[Mythsaje]

256. Any way you slice it,

it's one hell of a lot better than the economic draft CURRENTLY in place. It offers opportunities and some level of choice they don't currently have and doesn't require they learn to kill people.

It may be unfair to some extent, but I think it has its positive side as well. People at the lower end of the economic spectrum might well NEED this kind of advantage far more than the children of the upper class could ever comprehend.

I don't see any problem with those who could make the most of it be able to trade service for education. It's an honorable choice. And it WOULD be a choice. Right now a lot of the poor have only a few options for escaping poverty--sports and music, primarily, and only a very few manage to make it in either of those venues.

If we make it fair and equitable, offering it universally to everyone who wants to use it, EVEN the children of people who could otherwise pay for it (particularly the middle class parents who could use the money they would otherwise be spending for education to invest in other things), and have a number of respected celebrities touting its benefits, we might well see a groundswell of volunteerism that crosses all economic lines.

[nadinbrzezinski]

257. And a NATIONAL SERVICE that is mandatory can

and should be equitable as well

I'd rather FORCE kids in the upper echelons of society to serve than have them do what they continue to do

Any way you slice it, I want the democratizing effect of national service

You want an economic draft

rangel got it right, and you still miss why HE GOT IT RIGHT

[Mythsaje]

259. I think we're at the point we need to agree to disagree...

I want to offer a voluntary service program that gives people with fewer options MORE options.

You want to force people into an obligatory service program that allegedly equalizes everyone, though, judging by the way things actually work in real life, I think is unlikely to operate the way you hope it would. I think it's more likely to be abused in many different ways by those with the power to manipulate it.

I think we see things differently and all the arguing in the world isn't going to change that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

260. No it is not gong to change it

In that we agree

Mostly I am less cynical of governemnt, and I know we can manage a program as long as we choose to take charge of government

You don't

So agree to disagree

[Mythsaje]

261. Right now the wealthy and the corporations

are in charge of government. And that's who'd be in charge of this little program of yours. Who do you think would end up getting the shaft?

[nadinbrzezinski]

262. I believe the reason they are in charge

is we have let them to be in charge ok

We are the people, we are the government

And yes, you said it yourself, it may very well be high time for those timeless words

In the cousre of human affairs

But if you don't believe we are the government, then there is truly no use in arguing. Why do you even vote?

And by the way, I am quite cynical as well, but also believe IN THE POTENCIAL of humanity

[Mythsaje]

264. Unfortunately we live in a representative republic

and the corporations (including the media) have far more say in the governance of this country than we, the people seem to have. And, unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter regardless of the party seemingly in control. It's a LITTLE better with the Democrats running things, but we know there's a pretty strong faction within the party itself that is as tied to corporate power as the Republicans are.

I understand we're the government...in theory. In practice it sure as hell doesn't seem to work that way.

As we're seeing with the whole Iraq War situation.

I'm wondering if we'll actually see them fighting for the things that matter this time around...an end to the war, net neutrality, universal healthcare, a living wage, etc... or if they're going to be sidelined by the corporate faction yet again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

265. Jefferson put it best

so that is my answer to taht one, and it may come down to that ONCE people are hungry eniough and desperate enough

News comming from MI point in that direction

[JVS]

174. We're also an individual kind of animal that likes to tell people who want to take...

years of our lives from our control to fuck off!

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. You still have to answer

what would be the great diservice to your country if you spent two years out of your life HELPING others?

Fuck off indeed, Heinlein was right.

[JVS]

271. 2 years of killing people. Helping people obviously takes longer to break even

And the harm to the country would be the fact that every 18 year old would have years ripped from his or her life, which he or she could have used to live better.

[JVS]

124. Your categories are wrong. The real ones are

1. Those who care about not forcing people to do things that are very disruptive (possibly terminal) to their lives for extended periods of time.

2. Those who are arrogant shitheels and think that they can determine how everyone else should spend between 2 and 6 years of their lives.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. Yep you are right

:sarcasm:

it is between the I only care about myself and those who care for the whole of the country

Yep you are right

By the way... how exactly can two to six years of service followed by college education going to destroy your life?

I mean life expectancy today is 76 years old... for god sakes, serving until you are 22 and then going to college FOR FREE, if this proposal was passed, is gonig to kill your future prospects exactly how?

Or going to college for free at 18 and then owing two years per year of college teaching kids in the inner city is going to ruin your life exactly how again?

Oh yes, I forgot, it is all about me...

[JVS]

172. Six years is a big disruption in someones life. If you join the army and get killed it's also a...

big disruption. If you can't see that, there is no point in talking to you. If you were told that you are going to be imprisoned for 6 years, I doubt you'd be happy about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

191. The army would be an option

but you are telling me you would be unwilling to help build bridges?

You are also telling me you would be unwilling to help clean up neighborhoods,

How about help at a hospital?

We keep telling you folks national service does not only imply the military.

You keep thinking it does

By the way when you are 18 it does look like a disruption, when you are some more years under your belt, it does not.

Oh and the benefits to the society and the individual cannot be meassured

But you can still not answer the questions in any valid form

It is truly about YOU. the ME generation, fully for all to view

[Mythsaje]

195. I think that's part of the problem here too...

At eighteen it IS a disruption. It may not look like it later, when we realize that a few years is only a few years, but to an eighteen year old, for example, six years is a third of the total lifespan so far. It's a particularly long time if you're getting shot at in the bargain.

Something we really have to be wary of as adults is of forgetting what it's like when we're eighteen and trying to get a handle on the world as it really is rather than how everyone SAID it is.

A bit like when an adult tells a teenager, "oh, you think life sucks now, wait until you're an adult." Well, being an adult doesn't suck more, it just sucks differently. Being a teenager, or even a kid, can suck quite a lot, thank you. Many times we adults forget these things.

I'm a bit odd because I STILL remember how much it sucked being a teenager. Because it DID suck. Being an adult sucks in different ways, but it's still not worse in my book.

[nadinbrzezinski]

204. I know exactly what 18 years are

they are rather immature, believe they will lvie forever, and need some guidance in what they need to do for the rest of their lives

They will benefit

You say they won't, but they will

I have seen it personally, kids grow up FAST, when confronted with real life

We used NOT to need to do this... but in an agrarian society the age of majority was also 13 in the Jewish Faith... but there were no ipods, and life expectancy was the mid-30s.

I am so tired of this shit about how the poor babies will think it will disrupt their life. Why is it that OTHER countries just do it? Are they better, more mature, or more concious that they are part of a whole? I'd bet the latter

[Mythsaje]

215. Nice attitude.

"I think they suck, so I want to bend them to my will. It'll be good for them."

Lovely.

[nadinbrzezinski]

217. Well you'd rather continue in platitudes

[Mythsaje]

219. Your contempt for the young shines pretty bright...

It doesn't help you make your case.

[nadinbrzezinski]

221. You're wrong

I've worked wtih WONDERFUL kids, who grew up in a jiffy when involveed in something greater than themselves

I do have contempt for the ME and I attitude though that has become the national pride

[Mythsaje]

223. And you assume that any kid you don't know is the kind of kid

you have contempt for. As you've shown plenty in this thread alone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

226. I have contempt for those who hate service

in that you are correct.

I also have utter contempt for those who think all is owed to them, and they owe absolutely nothing to their society.

Yep, if the jacket fits, wear it

[Homer Wells]

194. OMG Nadin

I wish I had said that. You put what I have been thinking as I have read through these posts Perfectly!!!!

Thank you for helping state my case. Excellent post!!



:toast: :thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

210. You welcome

been doing soem research for a policy paper to send to our congress critters... I'll try to make the case to THEM

[Lilith Velkor]

199. This is one of the most disgusting posts I've ever read here.

It's almost as if it actually hadn't occurred to you that the rich would come out even more ahead of the rest of us as a result of a giant pool of free laborers at their beck and call, thanks to the government they now own.

Here's an idea: STOP SUBSIDIZING THE RICH! Make them pay higher taxes, and cut off welfare payments to corporations. Is it that fucking complicated?

[Mythsaje]

216. They dismiss that argument out of hand...

Of COURSE it won't work that way because they say it won't.

And we'll win in Iraq because the President says so.

Uh-huh.

[Lilith Velkor]

239. And we're childish and immoral for objecting

Just like we were when we told them not to invade in the first fucking place.

Mmm-hmm.

[Mythsaje]

245. I see you've played this game before...n/t

[nini]

112. Also, retired people should be called back into service somehow

Why in the world should they be allowed free time to do what they want to with their lives?

:sarcasm:


The problem here is the forced crap. If the opportunities provided were an investment in the 'person' then they should have the opportunity if they CHOOSE to do so.

Making anything mandatory just stinks like 1940s Germany.


Sorry.. our freedoms to make our own choices in this country is what we're all about. Unless we get invaded by some military force we absolutely must fight to survive, I'm not buying any mandatory anything.


let it go already.

[yewberry]

113. I doubt it'd be constitutional.

Isn't there a two-year cap on appropriations for non-voluntary service?

Also, Americorps is not really a part-time option. 1700 hours over the 10-month term of service isn't part-time.

It wouldn't be a great option for parents, either. Americorps does provide vouchers for child care, but they're notorious for sending them months too late and for not providing child care at all for required conferences. It is incredibly difficult to live on the stipend that is provided (about nine grand before taxes per term) and it would be even harder to feed a family on the stipend.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. The draft has been challenged in courts

and it has yet to be found unconsititutional.

There were two guys who didn't go though becuase they challenged it on the grounds that it did not include women in the 1960s

Include women, walla, problem solved

[yewberry]

115. True that.

But doesn't the two-year maximum (appropriation cap) apply here? I could be wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. I just adressed the consitutionality issue

as I said, the draft has been challenged on contitutional grounds every time it is ennacted, starting in 1863... every time the challengers have failed to prove how it violates the Contitution.

[yewberry]

120. I think we're talking past each other a little here.

Yes, you're right that the draft has never been found to be unconstitutional.

I was referring specifically to the notion of three- and six-year term requirements for non-military service proposed in the OP. Those term requirements and whether they would violate Section 8 are what I'm questioning.

Thanks for your replies.

[BL611]

133. Section 8 of the Constitution

only refers to the 2 years cap for the raising of an Army. As far as the government making service mandatory, my guess is that a convincing constitutional argument can be made from whatever cases there are on mandatory schooling, it would probably be a interesting thing to look into though, and I'm sure if something like this did pass someone would take it to court.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. The CCC and other depresion era

programs can be seen as a precedent as well. Some of them were challenged in court and found to be legal

[wuushew]

160. Precedents as voluntary programs

which paid wages to willing men eager to feed their families.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. They were STILL taken to the coursts

and given how this nation's legal system works, or used to work (habeas corpus anyone?) they are A PRECEDENT, together with all the challegnes over two centuries to the draft

[JVS]

175. I can't believe that you can at one time argue for giving the government huge control...

over people's personal lives, and at the same time complain about our legal system being broken " legal system works, or used to work (habeas corpus anyone?)" without seeing that you are advocating handing control over to the same people who you know have been abusing it. How can you not see how wrong the idea is?

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. You did not get the joke over habeas corpus

that goes back to the Magna Carta and is part of US Precedent

Yes I am advocating national service.

It will do your generation some good.

It will do the country some good as well

Funny, it may even help to close the divide among many citizens that exists right now.

Why do you think the Corporatists have fought any idea of NATIONAL SERVICE for many years? Why do you truly think they have fought the idea of a military draft? Granted, those of us who advocate national service see it in far wider terms than just the military, not that you would even understand that or grasp why.

You know why?

You really want to know the answer?

It may surprise you, but a nation where there are bonds among its citizens created in doing something for the whole, it is far harder to atomize the individual.

You are a perfect example of why we need it... after all, its all about you, not we, but you.

By the way, funny you refused to answer the question, how two to four years of national service in your late teens or early twenties, going to ruin your life? Life expectancy today is 74 for males and 76 for females iirc. So exactly how are four years out of YOUR life going to ruin the rest of your life?

When you are in the midst of it, well it may look that way... but from the perspective of years after, it does not.

[JVS]

180. It's not all about me so quit assuming that it is. I'm too old for...

the fucking program, so stop your assumptions. It's about not compelling people to do what they don't want for up to 6 years.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. That is the way you have shown yourelf

you didn't want to present yourself as a selfish prick, then choose other words

Again why is your generation so special?

I am asking a valid question and I have yet to get a valid anwer

Personal attacks do not qualify as such

[JVS]

184. It's not my generation.

I don't believe any generation should be forced to sacrifice years of their lives at your whim

If you want people to serve, offer them something. Sitting around calling people selfish because they don't want to be forced to sacrifice their youth to your pathetic vision is a bullshit guilt trip. I will give you no further answer because you deserve no answer, only scorn.

[nadinbrzezinski]

190. Fair enough

you are the who cannot answer any of the valid questions posed

You have shown yourself to be thinking about you and how things affect you.

[JVS]

196. Accuations of being selfish are not valid questions.

If you think that such a program will do anything more than waste the time of people who need to get on with their lives, you are wrong. Meanwhile the rich can and will avoid such inconvenience. Hell even if they played along and did service, they have trustfunds anyway which can help them when they are 24 and need to decide if they should go to college or not. Meanwhile anyone who wants to get a PhD will end up being a minimum of 35 years old by the time they get one, and probably a good number will be over 40. Thanks for wasting peoples lives!

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mythsaje]

218. You might try not calling people selfish children...

It's rude and doesn't help your argument.

[nadinbrzezinski]

227. Met plenty of selfish children

I just call it as I see it...

Some of them are physically children

Some of them are supposedly older adults.

But if people BEHAVE like kids, they will be treated as such

Oh and here is another added benefit to service, one you have alluded to yourself but somehow you see it as a negative... it would get the young involved in politics

Funny, but every political rally I go to, it is us old foggies, and I can count the youth with the fingers of one hand... two on a good day

[Mythsaje]

229. Oh, there's plenty of people my age

who are disillusioned by politics. They think ALL politicians serve the oligarchs and corporations and see little point in being involved at all.

Maybe the problem is as much SOCIETY'S fault as it is the fault of the kids. Ever think of THAT?

[nadinbrzezinski]

240. I'm your age

and trust me I have seen probably worst horrors than you have when it comes to broken systems and the consequnces of not paying attention

Perhaps it is time you STOP paying attention... then don't complaint

[Mythsaje]

249. What?

<<and trust me I have seen probably worst horrors than you have when it comes to broken systems and the consequnces of not paying attention

Perhaps it is time you STOP paying attention... then don't complaint>>

Your posts are growing increasingly difficult to understand. What are you trying to say?

[nadinbrzezinski]

251. You are missing it

that's ok

[JVS]

268. But it's less fun

[JVS]

267. What part of the rich and powerful can always find a way out are you missing?

[JVS]

123. A great idea

for me to poop on!

[Vidar]

125. This only works in countries which are not as hopelessly corrupt as the US.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. Countries are as corrupt as its citizens

tolerate it...

La solution somos todos

We are all the solution

[Lasthorseman]

140. There was a book about this

The Army or the Reeks and Wrecks I think were the words.

[TahitiNut]

141. 'Player Piano' by Kurt Vonnegut

The theme was the advance of technology leading to a dystopia of too much leisure time.

[Lasthorseman]

142. Kind of like

what's going on now?

[JVS]

169. Yes our culture certainly has too much leisure

Just ask all the people who are working two jobs. The government must step in to put them to work.

[nam78_two]

144. The problem with the libertarian argument is

If you are a relatively affluent young American, you are shitting over a lot of people all over the world, if you are not actively taking a stand against the wars this country wages or volunteering for the poor in this country/elsewhere or volunteering to better our environment etc.

I don't know about national service of this sort, but I can agree that a lot of young Americans are self-centred, spoilt brats with no interest in the pain this country inflicts on people all over the world. Even being liberal comes down to vaguely saying "Yeah dude, Bush sucks" every once in a while.
Volunteering for anything is just not part of our culture.


Its hard to see large parts of my generation as "slaves". I think freedom is a great thing, but freedom to be a self-absorbed asshole? Less so.
When you are in the richest and most powerful nation in the world and you are better off than most people on this planet, thinking about something outside of yourself would be a good thing. Again, I am not sure about this national service thing, but if we could get some of these people to volunteer in homeless shelters and for NGOs either here or abroad I wouldn't have a problem with it.
This "me me me" culture is America is TOXIC.

[treestar]

273. The self centered are in every generation

I've met plenty of self-centered geezers in my time.

Attacking the younger generation as such is silly. First off, young people are young, and the demand they risk their lives to "protect" the middle-aged and the geezers is outrageous.

Can't wait until technology makes it possible for the older people to fight the wars they deem necessary.

[ComerPerro]

154. hell no, this is bullshit and its begging to be abused

[ComerPerro]

155. so how old are you anyway?

[TahitiNut]

159. Irrelevant. How old are YOU? (Just as irrelevant.)

:shrug: Attacking the messenger instead of the message.

[BL611]

202. As I have mentioned earlier

in the thread I am 25, and have more than complied with the level of service I am advocating.

[Zorra]

198. Make it voluntary w/ the bennies and I think it's a great idea. n/t

[Reterr]

206. Not a good idea in my humble opinion

Does anyone want America to have such a large militaristic force. This country is scary enough with the all-volunteer army.

It might teach a few spoiled Americans a thing or two about responsibility but will it be better for the world?

[nadinbrzezinski]

209. If you cared to read

you'd find that this includes things like Americorp and OTHER civil services as well... did not know Americorps was military

[ComerPerro]

231. I bet you anything, especially now, that if this were implimented

there would be no way to not be put into the military service, unless you have some sort of connection.

The non military spots will be very hard to get.

[Mythsaje]

235. Oh, c'mon...we should just trust them.

Really. That won't happen. Because they SAY it won't happen.

:sarcasm:

[nadinbrzezinski]

242. It depends how it is written

and how it is implemented.

After all the WW II draft was a whole different animal than the 1960s... but I am possitive you knew this

[Zhade]

211. No. Period.

Conscription is slavery. Fuck that!

[momophile]

224. as a returned Peace Corps volunteer

I'll jump in.

First, you usually need a bachelor's degree or years of experience to qualify for the Peace Corps.

Second (and really it goes hand-in-hand with my first point), part of the greatness of the Peace Corps is that dedicated, interested, qualified people volunteer themselves with no strings attached.

[question everything]

230. You are going to find out that most DUers are against

any "what you can do for your country."

Just want to go through life enjoying the benefits of living in this country and when such a service or a draft are proposed - will react with indignation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2775776

[Mythsaje]

232. Most DUers are against more authoritarian nonsense

and can see through it whether it's couched in the language of the right OR the left.

I damn sure question everything, and I question those who try to IMPOSE their particular biases and value judgments on other people.

[Lilith Velkor]

237. How selfish of us to enjoy the benefits of a police state with no safety net...

...and have no desire to go kill people so the wealthy can make more money! Why, the nerve of these whippersnappers!!

:eyes:

[JVS]

269. Unpatriotic douchebags, these "I want to decide my life for myself" punks!

;-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

243. Kennedy was a product of a generation that got it

I beleive it is truly a generational problem

Between those who got what Kennedy meant and the rest... who are quite selfish, you're correct

[JVS]

270. Kennedy and his brother got sent to war to help the PR of their family...

because their father was too Nazi-friendly.

[SeaBob]

236. national service

I think national service should be a mandatory part of being a citizen. Like wise I feel that if you dont vote you should lose you citizenship. :evilgrin:

[nadinbrzezinski]

244. Another fan of Heimlein

:-)

[Mythsaje]

247. Dude, I'M a fan of Heinlein

and Herbert too.

Certainly doesn't mean Heinlein was right.

Herbert's cynical viewpoint of the power of politics and manipulation was probably more on target.

[antiimperialist]

258. Only draft war supporters

Let a list be made public of all persons in the nation, with an "yes or no" answer listed next to their name.
Those who dare say they favor any given war will have to be drafted and serve in that war.
Anti-war types can go on with their lives.

[hughee99]

263. For people over 55 perhaps...

We should have free college education and lifetime health care anyway, why should they be conditional upon service? Make it voluntary at 18 or required at 55. If you choose to do it younger in life, you get exempt from it later. If you wait until you're 55, you are forced to retire so you can perform your 3 years in the Peace Corps or 6 years in Americorps. They'll send you where they need you, and if your house is vacant in the meantime, they can even use that for temporary public housing to help the homeless. Besides, I'm sure there are a lot of jobs that those with more experience and skills would be much better suited to do, so your service will be even more beneficial to the country. The best part is that you'll be getting these skills cheap since you'll be paying them the same amount as the 18 year olds.

[treestar]

272. No, because a free country just can't have that sort of thing

It sounds nice, but it creates a situation where you have to serve the government. The idea of the US is that the government leaves you alone except where absolutely necessary.

Too much regimentation for that. Also too tempting to enter into wars - we ought to make it so that entry into wars is something we are only motivated to do when necessary.