Mandatory Service: For it, or Against it?

[Sparkly]

This is NOT about mandatory military service; it's not about Rangel's proposal.

The question is: Could you support the IDEA of mandatory service -- no exceptions allowed -- for the benefit of the country?

(This involves too many variables to list here, but for example:
- it might of might not involve "grandfathering" or excusing those who weren't of age for the last draft but are now over a certain age;
- it might or might not involve scholarships or financial benefits for military service vs. other service;
- it might or might not include various federal jobs, locally-funded jobs like teaching, or work such as nursing;
- it might or might not include work for non-profit groups like Habitat for Humanity, local community organizations serving the poor, homeless, women's shelters, etc.;
- it might or might not include volunteering without the auspices of an organization (or might prompt new ones supported this way), such as eldercare, childcare, veteran's care, environmental care, etc...)

Whatever your variables might be, could you see some formula that you'd support as a requirement for all American citizens to give service to the country?

[Mythsaje]

1. I believe in offering enticements

to serve. Not requiring it by law.

Of course, I'm generally against FORCING anyone to do anything. Better the carrot than the stick. Always.

[Sparkly]

4. The issue with that is that some people need those "enticements" more than others.

(The military is "enticing" like crazy right now!)

A compromise -- to some extent -- might be a tiered system that provided financial "enticements" for higher-risk service? Then again, the military does that, too...

As for "forcing" people to do things -- we're "forced" to do many things already as citizens. We're forced to pay taxes, register our cars, etc...

[Mythsaje]

8. Yeah...forced to do too many things, in my opinion...

Next thing you know they'll make you undergo a hair test to get a driver's license.

Won't THAT be lovely.

I'm not interested in adding to that list of things we're forced to do, thank you.

[Patchuli]

10. No they won't

unless they make the hair test cheaper to do. heheeee ;-)

[Mythsaje]

14. Give the wrong people a chance

and it will be.

[Patchuli]

33. But my dear,

the adults are BACK!!! LOLOLOL!!! I am giddy with delight! And I say to you:

It's not too late! Let's RESTORE GORE IN 2008!

[Warpy]

2. Lincoln freed us all

No thanks unless it's a true national emergency. Having a war of corporate convenience blow up in the piggy faces of the greedy bastards who started it does not constitute a national emergency.

[Sparkly]

5. How about non-military service to the country?

Edit, on second thought: Lincoln?!? We had military consignment um, quite a long time after Lincoln. :shrug:

[Warpy]

23. "Consignment???"

The problem with that "national service" is that either it throws people out of paying jobs or it ends up being a few feel good jobs and a lot of open military slots.

Why do you want to do this to kids?

[Sparkly]

84. Not necessarily.

I'm open to any ideas about it.

I think it gets tricky because some might be unpaid and others paid (and others, like combat duty, paid more); and that, again, involves a tier structure that relates to socio-economic position.

BUT...

Given the idea of volunteer work (unpaid), nobody's "thrown out of a paying job." (Btw, I commented on this below someplace; the same used to be said about women working, it's been said about teenagers working, etc...) The value of that work is immeasurable; even paid work in social areas pays for itself, and then some.

I'm discussing the concept, which is why I left it open but suggested various "may or may not's"...

[MonkeyFunk]

3. I like the IDEA of it

but I'm not sure we could ever make it work. What jobs would give these 10-20 million inexperienced kids? And we have to house them and feed them the whole time? And we have to train them and supervise them. That's millions more full-time government jobs just to oversee the system.

And what stops the system from being politicized?

No, I think it's a fine idea in small nations, but I just don't see us having the will or the means to make it work here.

[Sparkly]

12. I think it'd start with what IS.

As it is, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities, and plenty of need.

"House them and feed them" -- that's another question. Hmm...

"Fine idea in small nations" but not here, you say -- yet we basically did this before the draft ended. Whatever it took to administrate a program of supervised, certified volunteering would be far less than what we spend on our defense budget right now.

How about spending money making sure rich kids pay service of SOME kind, too; spending money on poorer kids without requiring them to serve in the military; finding ways to blend them together as the military has; finding ways to cut other spending based on the value of their labor?

[MonkeyFunk]

15. well

if we cut funding in other areas based on the value of these kids' labor, it means we're taking jobs from elsewhere.

Yeah, stuff needs to be done, but forcing kids to do it at the expense of experienced, paid laborers will have some pretty bad consequences. And do we WANT 18 year olds building our roads, repairing our bridges, etc. etc.?

[Sparkly]

17. "taking jobs from elsewhere"

That was said when women started working in greater numbers, too.

These are largely *volunteer* positions I'm talking about. The benefits are what I believe are the benefits of all social investments: fewer needs and strains in other areas. (The consequences of need are always greater than the price of directly MEETing those needs, I believe; and this could meet many needs at once.)

I don't think I listed skilled labor (building roads, repairing bridges) among the possibilities I was thinking of...?

[MonkeyFunk]

19. OK

so tell me where we find 10-20 million unskilled jobs for these kids to do that don't take away from existing jobs.

You said we'd save money in other areas - if that's true, then it's because people are currently being paid to do those jobs.

[Sparkly]

21. OK

You think we only "save money" by not paying others to do the same jobs.

That's where the idea of "investment" comes in. President Clinton was very good at making this clear. There are many, many cases where, as he would say, "For every dollar we invest here, we save TEN dollars there."

For every dollar invested in childcare, eldercare, foodbanks, urban renewal, veteran's care, job training, drug rehab, clinics, "midnight basketball," on and on -- we save much more. We save it by NOT spending it on the ill effects of the LACK of such efforts.

There is NOT enough money or energy going to these things. Instead of spending for prevention, we spend on the end results of lack of prevention. You can take any one of the things I mentioned and spin it out from there; I don't think I need to do that for you (but ask, and I will).

In addition... I believe the social value of such a program is immeasurable. It has palliative value for apathy, ignorance, classicism, racism, and more. I think it can promote unity, progress, and make the word "patriotism" mean something more than shallow nationalism, once more.

I don't advocate a military draft, BUT... I think some important things have been lost since it ended.

[KennedyGuy]

6. While I do support the idea of military service..

I don't think it should be mandatory unless there is a major crisis. I believe anyone could benifit from military service, but people rarely do well when forced to do something.

[Sparkly]

13. Read my post -- I didn't say forced military service... nt

[KennedyGuy]

18. I read your post..

didn't see an option to check that would fit my view..so added my reason why.

[Sparkly]

22. How about required service, in general?

With choice of whether or not it's military (understanding your view that if it's necessary, military draft is accepted)?

[No Exit]

7. Against. How can I, who would be exempt, presume to make others "serve"?

I would be exempt because I'm, shall we say, way past my 20's.

So I have no right to go around touting how great it would be... for OTHER people to perform MANDATORY "service".

How about a volunteer service corps? (Oh, wait... don't we already have those?)

I would support mandatory, unpaid service of 2 years each for ONE class of people: all government officials. Especially those who are politicians. I think, IOW, that all congresspeople should serve two years of their terms for FREE. Ditto for senators. Etc.

[Sparkly]

16. Read my post again.

I didn't say you'd necessarily be exempt because you're "way past your 20s." Among the variables, I said it might or might not include "grandfathering" those of a certain age. (So that leaves open that ALL could be required to do SOMEthing to pitch in; or that those who were subject to the military draft would be excluded; or that those those over any other age would be excluded; I mean, name your terms.)

[No Exit]

28. Good God! Look, I was trying to do the right thing by not voting to

inflict on others what I thought I wouldn't have to endure myself.

I love others. You know, in a "love of mankind" sort of way. I wouldn't want to inflict mandatory service--which I see as a species of slavery--on them.

Now, I SURE as hell wouldn't want to inflict it on myself, either!

I am against it. We don't need to make slaves of people. There are better ways to get people to do good. The majority of people will do good on their own, in some way.

[Sparkly]

41. So, how would you propose gaining or maintaining what we have now?

It was all gained through "inflicting mandatory service," you know.

But God Forbid we should make any sacrifices of the kind our parents and grandparents did...

[No Exit]

56. What DO we have now?

We have an administration which has stripped habeas corpus from a nebulously-defined group of "enemy combatants", a group which MIGHT at some time be construed to include you or me. We have a government which is spying illegally on people. We have thousands of our young people being killed, and thousands more maimed, for NOTHING, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have banks which can LEGALLY dun us to death with every kind of "fee", "penalty", usurious interest rate, etc., etc., that has ever been invented. We have less and less manufacturing going on in our country, leading to less and less jobs for Americans. We have all the supposed drawbacks of the dreaded "socialized medicine"--WITHOUT having ANY of the obvious benefits of it.

We have industries which dedicate themselves to making sure every American must pop a pill of some kind--preferably 10 various pills of some kind--every single day. We have multinational corporations running rampant, financially raping the country and everyone in it, and leaving us absolutely nothing in return. We have the possibility that we will have absolutely no income to live on when we get old. We have the privatization of EVERYTHING, with the result that whatever it is, we the consumers are at the mercy of some multinational corporation, with no redress whatsoever.

We have the president of a university, just the other day at a banquet I attended, telling us that one issue of the near future will be the availability/non-availability of DRINKING WATER to ordinary people. We have a forecast that in about a decade, there will be no seafood left in the oceans. We can't even listen to the radio or watch TV anymore without paying through the nose, by the month, in perpetuity. We have gas prices through the roof--but we can't necessarily find other means of transportation, because the powers-that-be constantly kill all attempts at mass transit, and besides, in many places one takes a walk by the side of the roaring highway at one's own peril. We have foreign governments hijacking our own government, and in some places it's a crime to even offer constructive criticism about these foreign governments.

We have insurance companies which write the very laws that supposedly regulate them. We have people financially raped by the insurance companies--just ask the people on the gulf coast (Alabama, Mississippi, Florida) and in New Orleans and in the rest of Louisiana.

If you're talking about "the greatest generation", a great many of those people ENLISTED. My uncles, including the one that died in Europe, enlisted--they weren't drafted. And btw, it is at least debatable whether we had needed to get into that conflict--or why else would they have had to "let Pearl Harbor happen" in order to make the public support our going to war? It is now an accepted part of history that our government knew in advance about Pearl Harbor.

Check out the reaction to the draft during WWI. There were draft riots. And I don't blame them.

What we DO have was NOT gained by "inflicting mandatory service". It just so happens that people have been impelled to do certain things voluntarily sometimes. Only an authoritarian state would MAKE people do things which would put their lives in peril.

If the U.S. were attacked--and if the attack were not some sort of set-up as were Pearl Harbor and 9/11--then all of us would at least TRY to defend our home. It's a natural human tendency. It needn't be forced. Just look at the Iraqis.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. Easy: taxation, used to pay for volunteer labour.

Some form of mandatory universal sacrifice towards common goals is clearly necessary for society to function.

But forced labour is a very bad way of doing that. Compared with taxation used to pay for volunteer labour, it's extremely onerous, and not terribly inefficient.

The way to "maintain what you have now" is to get people to pay taxes on the work they're doing voluntarily, and use that to pay other volunteers to do the work that you're advocating conscripts doing.

People almost always a) enjoy more and b)can do faster and more efficiently, jobs they've chosen to do than ones they're forced to do. Under conscription, nobody gains and everybody loses.

[Sparkly]

87. I answered you below, but see you've made this point over and over here.

Your view allows rich folks to pay for others to "voluntarily" do the work. (As the Gershwins wrote, "Nice work if you can get it.")

[Donald Ian Rankin]

101. Yes, it does; that's an advantage of it.

Although the inverted commas on "voluntarily" are silly - there's nothing involuntary about accepting a job. That it allows two people to enter into an agreement that both of them believe they are better of as a result of is an advantage of my proposal over yours, not the other way round.

[Sparkly]

104. "there's nothing involuntary about accepting a job"

Some people have more options than others. Would you agree with that?

Some people are born to circumstances that limit their options to unpleasant, painful, and/or dangerous ones; others are born to circumstances that provide an array of options that are relatively pleasant, painless, and safe. Would you agree with that?

If the latter interacted with the former in service to country, would that be a good thing?

Is it a better thing to allow the latter the American freedom to expend only the energy it takes to write a check?

And if that IS a better thing, for whom is it better?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

107. In order:

"Some people have more options than others. Would you agree with that?"

Yes, I would.


"Some people are born to circumstances that limit their options to unpleasant, painful, and/or dangerous ones; others are born to circumstances that provide an array of options that are relatively
pleasant, painless, and safe. Would you agree with that?"

Technically yes, in practice no. There *are* people who don't have any opportunities for a good life whatsoever - those born with crippling ailments, for example - but they are very few indeed. There are *lots* of people who have few, hard-to-take such opportunities, though.

"If the latter interacted with the former in service to country, would that be a good thing?"

Depends on the circumstances. If it benefits the former a lot and harms the latter only a little, then yes, but it (like anything else) needs to have a pretty damn high cost/benefit ration to justify making it mandatory. If, on the other hand, it harms both rich and poor - as mandatory public service would - then it's an unambiguously bad thing.

"Is it a better thing to allow the latter the American freedom to expend only the energy it takes to write a check?"

Yes, it is. You're - probably unintentionally - letting slip here that a large part of the reason you support mandatory service is not that it's good for the poor, but that it's unpleasant for the rich. That's not a position I have any sympathy whatsoever with - if a person can achieve the same good by two methods, then forcing them to take one over the other is vindictive, illiberal, immoral and foolish.

"And if that IS a better thing, for whom is it better?"

All concerned - the people being denied the opportunity to give up money that is worse less to them than not doing the work is, and the person being denied the opportunity to earn money that is worth more to them than doing the work is, are both losing out. Trade only takes place when both people are benefitting.

Making something mandatory almost always harms people, because if they wouldn't do it voluntarily then it's probably not in their interest. Mandatory public service would put a lot of poor people out of work, and force down wages for the rest, making things even worse for them than they already are. Paying them to do work out of public taxation makes things better for them.

[Sparkly]

108. In order again (this is getting interesting!)

Obviously, you and I have completely different views on some large issues.

I'd like to put the last post into boxes, just to clarify. I appreciate this honest debate, and without using actual words it's easy (intentionally or not) to read things in, or make assumptions, etc...

(me)"Some people have more options than others. Would you agree with that?"

(you)Yes, I would.

(me)"Some people are born to circumstances that limit their options to unpleasant, painful, and/or dangerous ones; others are born to circumstances that provide an array of options that are relatively pleasant, painless, and safe. Would you agree with that?"

(you)Technically yes, in practice no. There *are* people who don't have any opportunities for a good life whatsoever - those born with crippling ailments, for example - but they are very few indeed. There are *lots* of people who have few, hard-to-take such opportunities, though.

On this we agree: "There are *lots* of people who have few, hard-to-take such opportunities..." I think we also agreed earlier that limited options are often linked with socio-economic status. People born into impoverished, crime-ridden, and otherwise difficult circumstances have fewer opportunities for a "good life."

On the level of implementation, I would disagree that those born with "crippling ailments" "don't have any opportunities for a good life whatsoever," but I guess it depends upon how we define "crippling ailment." Many people in wheelchairs live full, happy, satisfying, productive lives. (I intentionally didn't include physical disability in my list of "variables" in the OP, because I wouldn't automatically exclude them, or presume they haven't skills, insights, abilities, etc. to provide *great* service.)

Certainly, no one should be required to do things they are truly unable to do. (And we could argue at length about where the line is drawn, and thereby lose track of the general concept.)

Overall, we seem to agree that *lots* of people have difficult, limited options, while others have a wider array of options that enable them to avoid the "unpleasant, painful, and/or dangerous." Do we agree that those differences may be (or often are, or usually are, or always are) the result of environment? Do we agree that those differences aren't solely about individual "choice?"

If so, it's clear some can choose between military service, extreme poverty, or crime. Others can choose between one college or another, and the military. All their choices are voluntary, but that doesn't mean they have equal opportunities. It doesn't mean their choices are equal. And it certainly doesn't mean "voluntary" (yes, in quotes!) service to the nation, when there are no better options, is equal to writing a check -- not in how it impacts their lives, and not in its ultimate value to the country.

(me)"If the latter interacted with the former in service to country, would that be a good thing?"

(you)Depends on the circumstances. If it benefits the former a lot and harms the latter only a little, then yes, but it (like anything else) needs to have a pretty damn high cost/benefit ration to justify making it mandatory. If, on the other hand, it harms both rich and poor - as mandatory public service would - then it's an unambiguously bad thing.

Again, this thread is about the CONCEPT, and whether DUers could see ANY formula for mandatory national service they'd support. Now you say it "depends on the circumstances." That could be worked out later; but in CONCEPT, you gave a conditional "yes." There we agree.

You then said mandatory public service would harm "both rich and poor" -- there I disagree. I've already dispelled the strawman that it'd have to take away jobs and wages from those currently in the labor force. So where's the great "harm?"

(me)"Is it a better thing to allow the latter the American freedom to expend only the energy it takes to write a check?"

(you)Yes, it is. You're - probably unintentionally - letting slip here that a large part of the reason you support mandatory service is not that it's good for the poor, but that it's unpleasant for the rich. That's not a position I have any sympathy whatsoever with - if a person can achieve the same good by two methods, then forcing them to take one over the other is vindictive, illiberal, immoral and foolish.

I was looking for an answer to the question, not a supposition about what *I* am thinking and saying. I'll reply to what you said: You're wrong about a motivation of making things "unpleasant for the rich." (That's a familiar smear from the right -- that we just "hate the rich," "resent the rich," "want to punish the rich," etc... Maybe *I'm* among "the rich." If so, do you think I'm self-flagellating?)

And now I'll ask again: Which is better -- allowing the 'freedom' for the privileged (rich) to write a check, or requiring people of all socio-economic to roll up their sleeves and pitch in, and potentially interact, in shared service to the country?

(me)"And if that IS a better thing, for whom is it better?"

(you)All concerned - the people being denied the opportunity to give up money that is worse less to them than not doing the work is, and the person being denied the opportunity to earn money that is worth more to them than doing the work is, are both losing out. Trade only takes place when both people are benefitting.

Making something mandatory almost always harms people, because if they wouldn't do it voluntarily then it's probably not in their interest. Mandatory public service would put a lot of poor people out of work, and force down wages for the rest, making things even worse for them than they already are. Paying them to do work out of public taxation makes things better for them.

Once again, you're setting up the strawman/false dichotomy of "either/or" -- either we reject the very possibility of national service, or poor people will lose their jobs.

Remove that from the equation, and let's continue the debate from there.

[Gman]

9. Service guarantees citizenship!

and the right to fight bugs or something.

[tuvor]

11. A version of mandatory service is required in Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Sweden

[Sparkly]

20. Yup. It's actually a rather Socialist idea.

And if I may get really out there with this, the kneejerk hysteria at the very word "draft," and the whining cries of "you can't make me!" strike my ears as inversions of the same GOP chord: "It's MY money! Not the government's!"

To the GOP I say, "It's YOUR roads! It's YOUR national defense! It's YOUR schools, libraries, and Social Security!" If they claim, "I don't have a kid in school," or "I don't want to pay for welfare and other social programs," I say, then you'll pay far, FAR more for prisons and healthcare and police and national guard and God knows what else.

They want ALL the benefits, services, privileges, freedoms, and luxuries, without paying a cent. ("It's my money!")

I think there's a similar spoiled selfishness in America today beyond the GOP (and I suspect, although I don't know, that it's primarily among those who never felt that long, long draft). It says, "It's MY FREEDOM! Not the government's! You can't make me!"

Freedom DOES come at a price. The American "experiment" in democratic freedom has evolved through sacrifice. The American Revolution. The Civil War. WWI and WWII. (Does anybody still understand the difference in this country before and after WWII?? What made "The Greatest Generation" what it was? What their legacy to US was?)

The same people who claim they need their guns in order to take up arms against stupid FREEPERS think we don't need a strong military to maintain our freedoms as a nation. It's just so myopic, I sometimes can't believe it.

The same people who claim they're "left" and "Socialist" can't perceive the notion of self-sacrifice for the good of the nation.

The same people who claim we should embrace diplomacy screech against those who advocate maintaining the tools, the sanity, and the basic leverage to do just that.

Sorry for the tangent.

[tuvor]

24. Don't apologize.

I got my money's worth. Good to hear your perspective.

[Sparkly]

25. :)

Just venting. :)

[Mythsaje]

26. This is why I'm not a socialist...

If it means claiming some kind of ownership of other people and the right to determine THEIR fate, I want no part of it.

[Sparkly]

29. To me, it means you "give back," you "give to others," you give for the "greater good."

"Socialism" is not any ONE idea; it's a term applied to many philosophies. (And all too easily applied, in my view.)

It's amazing to me that Americans are now SO spoiled that our citizens would say what you just did. Service to others, to the nation, is "ownership?" It's "determining their fate?" How about considering the idea that their fate would be determined in a whole different way if people hadn't HAD to fight for what we take for granted?

Or do you think this democracy was all a happy accident or something?

How do you think we got here?

How do you think this "experiment in democracy" will survive, if your view became the policy of our future?

[Mythsaje]

30. Ah, but see, you're looking out and expecting

people to conform to what YOU think is right.

I'm looking out and saying "I don't have the right to make that determination." It's not about me, or what I would be willing to do. It's about what I think I have the right to force OTHERS to do.

For the most part, the people you cite, the ones that fought for what we have now, did so OUT OF CHOICE, not because someone else looked at them and said "you MUST do this." The founding fathers specifically rebelled against someone doing that. That was the POINT of this grand experiment.

While you have the right to rail against others for not participating, you don't have the right to use the rule of law to force them to conform to your standards. By assuming that you do, you are only different from the neocons in ideology--not in practice.

[Agony]

34. so what you are saying here is...

"For the most part, the people you cite, the ones that fought for what we have now, did so OUT OF CHOICE, not because someone else looked at them and said "you MUST do this." The founding fathers specifically rebelled against someone doing that. That was the POINT of this grand experiment."

that there was no draft in the Revolutionary War, CIvil War or WWI/WWII? or was that enslavement was wrong too? I mean just because there is a draft doesn't mean you have to actually go. You could just refuse to go?

Or maybe we should not have any military at all.

[Mythsaje]

35. There was no draft in the revolutionary war.

It was SPECIFICALLY a war of choice. I don't think there was one during the civil war either, but I could be wrong.

And, if there WAS, I would imagine you would say it was okay for the North to conscript soldiers, but it would have been wrong for the South to do the same thing.

[Agony]

37. I do not know if there was a draft

in the revolutionary war, that was a mistake on my part. The civil war draft?, yes, south first then the north... The discussion point was however about whether or not people who fought for your freedoms and mine did so freely or were forced to do so with a draft. Right?

Cheers! Agony (too late for me)

[Mythsaje]

43. Some did, some didn't...

Some chose, some were forced. Some were guilted, some were enticed.

[Sparkly]

45. Ho-hum, la-dee-dah...

And here we are...

Some chose, some were forced, some were guilted, some were enticed....

Not like WE should be concerned with THAT, right?

Satin or taffeta, darling?

[Mythsaje]

48. .

You speak from an attitude of absolute certainty of your righteousness.

Ah, such monumental arrogance.

You are a man like any other, subject to the same mistaken assumptions and misguided follies as any man.

You bruise your arguments with your hubris. They are black and blue with the force of your expectations and assumptions, and bloody crimson with the viciousness of your temper.

You do not know where I came from, or where I'm going. Or what I've done. Or what I may yet do. Truly, you do not care. I disagree, and that is enough for you to assault me with your venom.

But because I say to you that you are wrong, you poke at me with a razor tongue, somehow assuming that your disdain will cause me to quail in terror at your vehemence.

You spew hatred, yet do not even know what it is you hate, or the shape of the man you assail.

You wear your enemy's colors on your sleeve; a tyrant hides behind your eyes.

[Sparkly]

49. LOL

I'm sorry, this is a serious subject and I was writing seriously, but your post cracked me up!

"You are a man like any other..."

Oh geez... I'm going to bed. :rofl:

[Sparkly]

39. LOL!!! Oh yeah, they could have just stayed home, right?!?

"Hey, it's a war of choice. I don't feel like fighting, and I have a right not to. So I think I'll stay home."

I can't believe the sense of "freedom" to sit back and enjoy centuries of sacrifices, pretending they were just a matter of "choice," without any historical or international perspective.

Nice bed of laurels the blood of millions have provided for you. Preach away.

[Sparkly]

36. What do you think gave you that much freedom?!?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You're still talking about your freedoms to parse such things. "Well, only if you WANT to." "I can't MAKE you, that wouldn't be right." etc. etc...

You say the people who fought for did so "out of choice." Not necessarily.

(And let's get beyond the idea that it was just about men "fighting and dying" -- these battles affected women and children all down the line; this is our national lineage on every level.)

Our country is like the progressive development from theory into practice. The theory was good from the start; the practice was, in many ways, crap.

Yet our founders fought against tyranny from the King -- sacrificed for it. They volunteered to die for the sake of this country.

We fought against each other for the sake of unity as a nation, and abolition of slavery. Think of the African American men who volunteered to sacrifice their lives. They "chose it" because they had a choice of living as they had been, or giving their lives for a greater ideal, a hope for their progeny.

We sacrificed heavily in WWI; there was a draft then -- no "choice."

Women sacrificed for generations for the right to vote -- not a military fight, but many sacrificed all else in their lives for it.

WWII didn't involve your "choice" -- most of us have fathers and grandfathers who were drafted to fight. And the sacrifices went further -- this country came together and gathered the strength that's sustained us since (although it's now teetering on the edge of disaster economically and militarily). Women were no small part of that.

Yes, I suppose they did all that from "choice." How easy it is to dismiss that. "They never meant for US to feel required to do anything, since it's all about freedom," right?

Their choices were to create and sustain a free democracy, NOT for us to take it for granted and sit on our asses like spoiled children!

What they fought for will NOT sustain itself on some magic, self-entitled high echelon.

"Well, it's not fair to require that" and "Morally, nobody should HAVE to," and "It's just a matter of choice" is utopian fantasy!! First, it's not "just a matter of choice" when economic disparities are involved as they are today. More importantly, these are EASY to claim from the point of view of a castle with a big moat outside. God, how many people in the world don't even have clean water, and we're indulging in "Well, I wouldn't require..."

How the hell do you think it is that we HAVE clean water?!?

By preaching pacifism and purity and utopian ideals?

I have my utopia and my ideals. MY utopia is anarchy -- people are so perfect, there'd be no need for laws! My ideal is a form of socialism -- everybody pitches in and sacrifices for the sake of others, and all flourish!

But I'm a pragmatic realist. NONE of these can exist without an army, the same way we lock our doors, and guard our checkbooks, and make sure nobody messes with our children. It comes down to human nature. Global policy is just a macrocosm of that.

Look to your own ancestry. No doubt, there were fighters there. Think about what they were really fighting for. What were their "choices?" Did they just feel like fighting, because they liked it or something?? Why did they "choose" it?

Don't you have family who were drafted, too? What were their choices?

On 9/11, I recall someone mentioning the notion of our willingness to "die IN our freedom." FOR our freedom. FOR the sake, and the hope, of freedom for future generations. I realized that was the one and only thing I could ever imagine sacrificing my own child's life for -- the hope of freedom for thousands and millions more.

That's the hope that got us where we are -- that got us to the point where some can blithely say, "Well, I don't think we should actually HAVE to sacrifice anything."

The graves and tears and tragedies of SO many have, apparently, spoiled many. The perspective has been lost about global realities, historical sacrifices, and the future for a weak, apathetic, spoiled, entitled, indebted nation.

[Mythsaje]

42. Are you telling me that all these people sacrificed their lives

so YOU could decide what it means for their descendents?

I don't think so.

Those people did that so their descendents could choose for themselves. Or else what would have been the point, really?

You're on your soapbox, orating away, basing your whole argument on the premise that the people today owe these people something for their sacrifices.

So what if they do?

The whole reason they fought was so that their inheritors would have freedom of choice. And you have every right to do everything in your power to REMIND them of this fact.

What you don't have the right to do is to use the threat of force to make them comply with what you believe they should do.

That, my friend, is tyranny.

[Sparkly]

44. You sound like a trust-fund baby.

No, I'm not saying "I decide"... that's the point.

Here's what I hear:

"Sure, they sacrificed their lives, but they did it for ME!! They did it so that I could live in luxury -- without a care in the world about little things like national interests and wars and stuff. I just think we all have a choice now, and I'm not going to worry MY beautiful mind about it. Everyone can choose for themselves! Anything else is just tyranny!"

If that's the future of our nation, it's all over.

[Mythsaje]

46. Yeah, that's why I'm here...

Cause I don't give a shit.

I haven't written reams of political essays detailing all of the things we've seen over the past few years.

Give me a break.

You may ASK of another anything you like. You can even ASK that another give up his life for YOU, though I have to wonder what you've done to deserve that boon, but you don't get to FORCE him to do so.

If you think you do, you have become your enemy.

[Sparkly]

47. Theory is easy.

"Writing."

I'm sure we'd have the freedoms we enjoy today if the national zeitgeist were, "let's write reams of political essays," and "let's not FORCE any sacrifices for this." :sarcasm:

I'm sure that will always be the case! Let's all just live on borrowed money -- don't worry, be happy!

That'll work! Why MAKE anybody sacrifice, right? (It's not like what we're doing right now will cause ANY sacrifices to future generations... Let's just live for today!)

[Mythsaje]

50. Why should I justify

my life, my talents, or my beliefs to YOU?

Whatever.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. Forced labour is not the right way to make people sacrifice, though.

The alternative to forced labour is *not* selfishness or absence of sacrifice; it's sacrifice in the form of paying taxes on voluntary labour, and using that to pay other people to voluntarily do the things that would otherwise have to be done by conscripts.

This is a much better system than forced labour, because it means that people are doing jobs that they have chosen to do, which they will usually find less onerous and be able to do more efficiently, and because it involves far less violation of individual liberties, which as a liberal I am greatly in favour of protecting.

The objection to forced labour isn't that it's mandated sacrifice, it's that it's inefficient, uneccesary, illiberal mandated sacrifice.

[Sparkly]

77. Sounds like a sermon preached from an ivory tower.

We shouldn't have to DO anything -- we can just PAY for others to do things, "voluntarily."

Do you not think socio-economic status has anything to do with who "volunteers?" Do you really believe this is work "they will usually find less onerous and be able to do more efficiently?"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. Yes to both, of course.

Obviously, the jobs that you want to see done by forced labour are ones that will generally currently be being done by poor & less skilled (two separate categories, but with considerable overlap) people; that's another argument *against* it - it is *not* the case that they are being forced to do this work by some mysterious social pressure and that if they didn't have to do it they'd be doing something better; in general the reason people do unskilled jobs is because those are the only ones they're capable of getting, and if they don't have them to do they'll be made unemployed; by putting them out of business in this way you'd be making things massively worse for them.

And I'm absolutely certain that it's work "they will usually find less onerous and be able to do more efficiently" - someone who has chosen a not-terribly-good but not-as-bad-as-it-might-be job from among many other such and been doing it for many years will be far better at it, and generally mind it less and enjoy it more, than someone forced to do it by law for two.

"Sermon preached from an ivory tower", by the way, is about as fine an example of a purely ad hominem attack as I've seen.

[Sparkly]

106. Let's take that further.

First, I've addressed the issues of this service taking away paid jobs; it needn't do that. There's much work to be done at the level of social services alone, and the benefit from that investment could be enormous, in my view (economically as well as socially).

So "either people keep these low-paying jobs" OR "we require some form of service to country" is a false dichotomy.

You wrote:
And I'm absolutely certain that it's work "they will usually find less onerous and be able to do more efficiently" - someone who has chosen a not-terribly-good but not-as-bad-as-it-might-be job from among many other such and been doing it for many years will be far better at it, and generally mind it less and enjoy it more, than someone forced to do it by law for two.

The same was said of slaves and serfs.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. You haven't made the case *for* mandatory service.

You've said a great deal about the evils you feel are afflicting contemporary American society, and how it was built by people who had the draft (although you haven't made the case that it would not have been built *without* the draft, and indeed except in the case of WWII, I don't think that that's the case).

What you haven't done, though, is explained why compulsory national service would improve matters.

I can see two possible classes of argument: "we should force people to do national service for the good of the country" and "we should force people to do national service for their own good". I don't think either cuts much ice: the former because it's clearly a far less efficient way of making people benefit the country than taxing their voluntary labour to pay for volunteers, and the latter because while I may believe you would be a better person as a result of spending two years working in a soup kitchen rather than learning skills or starting a career of your choice, I have no right whatsoever to force that decision on you for your own good.

[Agony]

27. I don't think that your comments are tangential

Edited to take the "R" word out of the title since that wasn't really germane to this thread...
I really appreciate your post, i am quite perplexed by the degree of entitlement without commitment to service (not necessarily military) expressed by some here and within my own (somewhat liberal) community. If one thinks that ones country should have a military, any military, purely defensive or otherwise, how can you justify it being only voluntary? (Everybody else should volunteer to fight and die?) Anyway, I posted the following in one of the March '06 Rangel threads which i mostly still agree with myself on and reading your comments made me think about it again. Regarding my "rant" at the end I was thinking you could have a "it might mean or might not mean" clause in your poll regarding volunteer fire and ambulance service. Cheers! Agony

*********************
Rangel's legislation is a good start, even if all it does is strike the debate. I have kids who would be drafted if this legislation were to pass, so I am not uninvested in this. If my kids are drafted I will volunteer. I come from a family with a history of pacifism so I am familiar with the debate surrounding this.

This proposal needs to be modified into a National Service Program with absolutely no exemptions from service. Upon passage of NSP legislation every american citizen would be required to participate in 2 years of service regardless of age. If not Able Bodied there are innumerable jobs in the military that do not require AB status if not on the battlefield then in support positions. Beyond that there are unlimited opportunities for service to the country/community for those who will only accept CO status (you can always go to jail). Civilian Public Service is a historical example of this, in other words we have already done this!

With every american directly invested in military service either personally or through relatives i can't think of a better way to assure an informed debate about what war as an absolute last resort means. Instead of the pathetic non-debate about the decision to start the Iraq war. You got a better idea?

(rant on) As a voluteer firefighter i have a pet peeve about the (non) involvement/investment of americans in their community. Approx. 85% of this country is protected with volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel. The people that save your sorry ass by dragging you out of your burning house or wrecked car are often volunteers! did you know that? Do you even know if your local Emergency Services is volunteer? Go find out, go join them, do it now, because volunteer emergency services organizations across the country are running out of people participating, everybody is too busy. (rant off)
**************************

[Sparkly]

31. Thank you, Agony!! Right there with you...

How the hell do people think we got the (limited) freedoms we have? Do they have any idea how we fare compared to people around the world, and WHY?!?

How did so many American citizens -- even Democrats -- get the idea that the way we live is something we're just entitled to, that it goes without saying, that we can preach about pacifism and anti-war and such, so easily....

I appreciate your post. The volunteers should NEVER be taken for granted, and too often, they are.

Every freedom we have -- EVERY freedom -- involved people risking their lives, and sacrificing everything. It's amazing how short a time it's taken for so many to imagine that isn't necessary.

Please stick it out here, Agony. :loveya:

[Mythsaje]

32. You assume a right no one passed to you...

the right to decide the fate of others, and the right to force people to do as you think they should. We're not talking about saying "you shall not pollute" or "you shall not discriminate against this class of people." You're talking about impressing people into public service based upon YOUR ideology.

It's all well and good to encourage or even entice people to volunteer for service. That's what JFK did with his "ask not what your country can do for you," speech. But you're not talking about that. You're talking about using what amounts to the threat of force (do this or we'll drag you to jail at gunpoint) to force people to "volunteer" to serve others.

If THAT is considered "liberal" or "progressive" I worry about what we might become. You have no more right to stick a gun in John Public Jr.'s back and force him to serve than the neocons do to stick a gun in your back and tell you who you can or cannot love.

These debates bring some rather scary little goblins out of the "liberal" woodwork...would-be petty tyrants just as bad as the people they claim to hate.

[Sparkly]

38. Again, "The Right, The Right, The Right...."

Like "The Right" is just something everybody has, without any effort...

How nice it must be to feel so entitled -- how few on earth, or through history, have EVER had that luxury, without even questioning how or WHY they have it....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

70. Of course only volunteers should fight and risk dying.

If you have some people who *are* willing to do a certain job for the fee offered, and other people who *aren't* then forcing the latter to do it is just perversity.

Conscription for the military is only even conceivably justifiable if you can't get enough volunteers for a war of survival.

Also, it's simply inefficient. People who have been forced to become soldiers against their will are going to be far less good at it than people who have chosen it as a career and dedicated themselves to it.

[Patchuli]

40. I agree and do think a 2 year mandatory

service to one's country is not a terrible thing. That could entail either military or service-oriented, i.e., repairing America's infrastructure or where ever help may be needed. I wouldn't have had a problem doing service for my country but I definitely would have fought against Viet Nam and Iraq!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Why do you think it's necessary?

Forced labour is, by its very nature, not an efficient way of doing things - you're getting people to do things they don't want to do and aren't good at.

You can achieve far more of the same goals for far less sacrifice by taxing people who are doing the jobs they want to be doing and can do well, and using the result to pay professionals to do the things not being done by conscripts.

[Patchuli]

63. I think it would have been a good idea

for my generation as well as now. We live in a great country. When our leaders do right by us and we hold them accountable, this experiment of democracy works well. There would be nothing wrong with giving to your country, either in civil or military service in return for an education. There are many things that need to be done in this country, infrastructure that needs to be fixed and built. Bridges, highways, forests, help with causes like Habitats for Humanity. I don't see a thing wrong with actually living your patriotism for a couple of years when young. It would seem like a good transition from high school to higher ed.

Of course in my perfect world, I would also like leaders who don't put soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. That's a class of argument I *strongly* dislike.

Saying "we should make people do compulsory national service, because the nation needs the work" is something that I disagree with, but I think that if the nation did need the work and that was the best way to provide it it would be a valid argument, so there's at least some logic to it.

But saying "we should make people do compulsory national service, because it would be good for them" is an argument I disagree with very strongly indeed. Forcing people to do things for their own good - especially an imposition as major as two years' forced labour - is deeply illiberal, and should be resorted to only in very drastic cases indeed.

You talk about "living your patriotism". I think that's a very misguided phrase, for stwo reasons. Firstly, there's nothing patriotic about doing something you're forced to do. Secondly, patriotism shouldn't be compulsory - living in a country does *not* morally oblige you to love it, and those people who aren't patriotic shouldn't be forced to pretend to be so. The extent to which patriotism is a virtue rather than a vice is massively overstated in America - loving your fellow men is a virtue, but loving those of them who come from the same country as you more than the rest is a vice.

[Patchuli]

71. You are entitled to your opinion

and I'm entitled to mine. I think my logic is very valid.

I think too many young people now do not know about sacrifice and have been spoiled to death. Having to do something for the collective good would break them of it. I also think that they benefit from living in this country and should be willing to give back. I don't like the draft but I don't like rich kids skating while the poor kids have no choice but to go in the military to try to get an education. Peace Corps, Americorps, whatever...there's nothing wrong with loving America and giving something back in exchange for the opportunity to have a good life here. Not appreciating this country while living a good life and enjoying freedom here is pretty hypocritical.

It reminds me of all the little ribbon magnets on cars supporting the troops yet the drivers probably don't do much to actually support the troops. It's just for show. I donate money for vets and wounded soldiers when I can, donate items to the vets' associations and march against the war.

For the record, I love America with all my heart and I am about as liberal as they come. If I had been asked at 18 to do service for my country, as long as I was not expected to fight or harm anyone, I would have been happy to. But then I wasn't a spoiled kid with my ipod buds dangling from my ears driving a new car paid for by mommy and daddy...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

72. If poor kids really did "have no choice" then your argument would have merit.

But as you're speaking purely figuratively when you say it, it doesn't.

There *are* other ways to escape poverty; many of them are hard, but that's not the same thing at all as them not existing.

You say "Not appreciating this country while living a good life and enjoying freedom here is pretty hypocritical." as though this were relevant to the discussion. It isn't, at all: hypocricy should *not* be a criminal offence, so this isn't an argument in favour of criminalising refusing to do national service. Also, "not appreciating this country" and "not wishing to do (manual, unskilled) national
service (that takes employment away from people who would otherwise be doing it professionally)" are two completely different things.


Your dismissal that "you're entitled to your own opinion" also rings very hollow indeed in light of the fact that you're advocating forcing me to clean ditches for two years, not because the ditches need to be cleaned but because I need to have my opinions changed (for some value of me - actually, I'm not American, so it doesn't arrise).


"But then I wasn't a spoiled kid with my ipod buds dangling from my ears driving a new car paid for by mommy and daddy..."

Your faith in your own virtue is touching, but I'm afraid I'm not willing to accept your protestations of superiority to others without more supporting evidence than you can give me over the evidence, so we'll have to let this one drop. I will say, though, that if you support mandatory national service then you're not, ipse facto, "as liberal as they come", because it's a fundamentally very illiberal position to hold.

[Patchuli]

74. Happy Thanksgiving to you too

I expressed an opinion. You can take it or leave it or drop it because I really don't give a damn. BTW, my friend's 21 year old daughter, getting into trouble and doing crank, got into the California Conservation Corp. and cleaned up her act. I have reasons for thinking some service might not be such a bad idea. I also work with extremely spoiled and lazy kids which is a study in patience for anyone.

And since you are so *in the know* of how to escape poverty, please share your superior knowledge. There are apparently 35 million people going hungry in the United States.

[Sparkly]

81. "There *are* other ways to escape poverty"

"...many of them are hard, but that's not the same thing at all as them not existing."

This is a common view: people are poor, and/or remain poor, because lifting themselves up is HARD.

That implies that they aren't better off because they aren't willing to do what's HARD.

That implies that they aren't better off because they're lazy (or worse).

If you see a leap of logic in that line of thought, please point it out to me.

The military is "hard," too.

What are these "other ways" for a young man or woman to escape poverty, when for various reasons they aren't "college material," have no scholarships, have no skills, live in impoverished urban communities or isolated rural ones... What are the "other ways" that might compete with military recruitment? I'd like to know.

[MH1]

51. "Kneejerk hysteria and whining cries" - spot on characterization.

I notice that "national service" and even "the draft" seem to be doing well in polls, but most of the comments are from the "you can't make me", "it's slavery!" folks.

It's really hard to argue against the sense of entitlement so many Americans have. Where to begin?

Perhaps, to start, some folks could think about how their lives might be if they'd been born in a different country.

Two years out of a life that will probably reach almost 100,if someone is in their early 20's now. Okay, let's say 80. That's 2.5% of their life that they are asked to give to serve their community and learn a little bit more about others in that community, that they might not otherwise be exposed to.

2.5 freaking per cent. That's slavery? That's "determining someone's future"? (wtf? on that last!)

FWIW, I was in the military for 7 years (8 if you count National Guard), and it was not even close to "slavery", and I have done much more determination of my future since I got out.

Anyway, thanks for carrying the torch of this argument, Sparkly.

[Sparkly]

86. Thanks for your post, MH1.

Maybe those who most vehemently oppose it have the most to learn from it? (Just speculating!) :hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. The problem with that argument is that forced labour is unecessary.

Some form of sacrifice is needed from everyone to keep society functioning, I agree, but demanding that sacrifice in the form of taxation to pay voluntary labourers is both less onerous and more effective than forced labour, and much less of a violation of individual freedoms.

Also, forced labour isn't *self* sacrifice.

[Eurobabe]

60. 9 months required in Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Germany

[MoonRiver]

52. I tentatively chose that I could support it (born before 1960 btw).

I have a fear that this could be a slippery slope toward military draft, however. That I would definitely NEVER support, having lived through the hellish Viet Nam years.

I do think civic service would benefit many of our overly materialistic and media dumbed down youth. Might particularly help some of the selfish Republican kids understand what poverty and lack are really all about. They would have an opportunity to see first hand that the poor aren't "lazy" people who want to buy Cadillacs with our tax dollars. Maybe they would even start appreciating some of their Christian buzz words, (being a Christian I can say this :)), such as "there but for the Grace of God go I".

[Hippo_Tron]

65. So why should I serve because a bunch of Republican kids are out of touch

I posted a thread about how 75% of people over 65 oppose gay marriage. Should they be forced to attend tolerance classes?

[Sparkly]

91. I don't think MyPetRock said you should serve because of them...

Why not do it anyway, alongside of them?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. Coercing people to do things should be avoided whenever possible.

There are all sorts of jobs that society would benefit from the government doing.

I, and I suspect most other people, would far rather do a job of my choice, and pay a portion of my wages to the government to pay people to do most of those jobs, and to have the option of taking on one of those jobs and be paid for it from other people's taxes, than be coerced into doing most of them.

Mandatory service is an extremely illiberal idea. The only time it can be justified is when there is work that *no-one* is going to volunteer to do at a price society can afford, but that desperately needs to be done. In practice, the only two scenarios that is going to be the case in are wars of survival (of which the last America fought in was WWII) and massive natural disasters.

In both of those cases, I might well support conscription, but I don't think either is likely to arrise any time soon, and outside of them it's unjustifiable.

[Zodiak]

59. Mandatory service flies in the face of...

....self determination and liberty, and based on those two principles alone, I oppose mandatory service....and it doesn't matter to me whether that service is torturing a poor Iraqi boy at Abu Ghraib or feeding Grandma Moses at the local rest home.

I appreciate everyone wanting to make society better, but this smacks of left-wing authoritarianism.

We can do better than conscription, like put in a real infrastructure that would make these tasks more palatable to workers...you know..pay people enough. Conscription is a great way to get cheap labor that has no recourse in their working conditions.

[mentalsolstice]

61. Born in 1960

so I couldn't answer as I wasn't born before 1960, nor was I born after 1960. But if I could answer I would support it.

[ieoeja]

62. What's the point of fighting for freedom...

... if we're not going to be free? I voted no and was born in 1962.

When people are able to produce more in less time, then people should be working less. Instead we work more and retire later. All because we are married to the idea that everyone should HAVE to work as long as they are able to work. Makes us better people or some such crap.

Now we see the social version of our economic policy. Everyone should HAVE to serve even though we do not NEED everyone to serve. But hey, community service will, like working til we die, make us better people. Right?

Fuck that shit. I want to be a lazy asshole with an army of robots tending to my every needs.

Now THAT is what I consider progress(ive).

[gulliver]

64. If we're going to have warmongers in our midst...

... it seems like we paradoxically need a draft to prevent war. I think conventional war is basically outmoded, but warmongering in the name of counter-terrorism and for political reasons could go on indefinitely. If everyone had skin in the game, maybe everyone would sober up a little.

[ProudDad]

66. I would NEVER force anyone to join a cult

and the military is a dangerous, dangerous cult...

[Sparkly]

79. Neither this poll, nor Rangel's proposal, is "military only." nt

[Hollow Shells]

68. I voted no, after 1960

Everybody knows how everyone else should live their life.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. The results illustrate an unsurprising reality...

People are quick to volunteer someone else's freedom. It's unlikely that anyone over 46 would be obliged to "offer" involuntary servitude.

[Sparkly]

88. As I wrote below -- the pre-1960s remember the draft.

Not all were subject to it, but most born before 1960 were affected by it in some way or another, even if it was just the consciousness of knowing others who went, or knowing that people they knew were at risk.

The Vietnam-draft generation also had parents and other relatives who were affected by the draft during WWII and the Korean War.

When the draft was lifted, and we pulled out of Vietnam, it was monumental for many. Others have lived all their lives without any understanding of the difference. (Others were vaguely in-between; I used "1960" somewhat arbitrarily as a turning point.)

In my mind, it's rather like young women in America who enjoy all the sacrifices their foremothers made for them, but claim, "I'm not really a feminist," or otherwise forget/ignore all the pain and work it took for us to be where we are now.

I guess there's not much motivation to "give back" when you don't even realize what you've been given.

[rinsd]

75. Shocking...old farts still dreaming of the 60's like conscription

:sarcasm:

[Sparkly]

78. I don't read it that way -- I see "young farts" who are, frankly, spoiled.

(Although in numbers, the post-1960 birthdays are fairly evenly split.)

The "old farts" LIVED with it -- and it was mandatory MILITARY service, with "deferments" and dodges for those who could afford them. That's not even what Rangel is daring to propose.

Yet the very NOTION of being required to serve this country has people freaking out with cries of "No fair!"

[LWolf]

76. Other: I was not born before or after 1960.

I was born IN 1960.

I do not support mandatory service of any kind. I do support a Roosevelt style WPA to keep our nation fully employed and our infrastructure intact.

[NMDemDist2]

80. I just watched a show about Boomers on TVLAND and we had a draft

from WWII til after VietNam

they talked about how Elvis got drafted (the Korean war was over by then) and how Ali went to jail

I think a draft is fine as long as it's not tied to a war. we should draft young people in peace time too.

too many families have no contact with anyone in the military and i don't think it's healthy for the society

also I remember when I was a teenager, lots of kids I knew who got in trouble with the law were given a choice of jail time or a stint in the military


I think war is wrong no matter what, but we'll never stop it if we draw heavy lines between the military and the regular people.

so all in all i'm conflicted, but if we must have a standing army, anyone and everyone should be liable to go in and a draft seems the only fair way to make sure our military is a cross section of our nation

[Sparkly]

82. AZ, I'm not even talking about military service here...

Just some form of service to the country.

I agree that the military draft as we knew it is a very difficult question, particularly since the fiascos of Vietnam and Iraq. Who could support citizens being forced to kill and die for such blunders?!? (And then there's the question: who is most vulnerable to "incentives" to kill and die for them?)

As I've said elsewhere, I think what Rangel is saying is: "CORRECT this insane foreign policy, or put your families where your rhetoric is."

We can't go around the world trying to use military might to fight the "global war on terror," without a draft or an increasing level of a new kind of indentured servitude or serfdom. The alternative is to STOP all the "tough talk" and "fight 'em there" nonsense.

(Otoh, I think SOME required service has social and national value.)

[NMDemDist2]

94. I don't see how we can take EVERYBODY, it would just cost too much

but even if the draft includes something other than the military it's a good idea like a "Peace Corp" for overseas and a group to work on needs here at home is good too

but i just don't see how we could do 100%. I'd rather spend that cash on Health Care or infastructure or something

[Sparkly]

95. About costs....

I posted previously (in this thread or another!), that I see this as a form of "investment" that gives back MANY multiples of its cost.

For every dollar spent on such a program, we'd reap many more dollars in saved spending.

And that financial benefit further enables the spending you're talking about (healthcare and infrastructure), while offsetting some of their costs through prevention.

[unkachuck]

83. no....

....no mandatory 'free' service under any circumstance for anything....as long as corporate America demands payment for service and can choose whether or not to provide that service, so should we....

[Sparkly]

85. I'm not sure what one has to do with the other...

But let's think of some examples... There's a woman in an inner city with 3 young children; she has no childcare, and she can't read. She's at the thin edge of social services ("welfare to work"). Her husband is a drug addict in and out of rehab and prison. Her mother is suffering from severe health problems. Her neighborhood is infested with crime, devoid of businesses and work opportunities, and no enticements are bringing in investors.

Imagine that a national service gets people from wealthy suburbs to even make CONTACT with this woman. There's value in that alone.

Imagine that people in "the service" provide child care, assist her in job training, provide transportation.

Imagine that people in "the service" teach her to read, help her kids with homework, provide care for her mother, hold all their hands.

Imagine that people in "the service" counsel her husband, provide legal services to him, take him to meetings, give him job training...

Imagine that people in "the service" organize a different form of neighborhood watch, volunteer with law enforcement, work on community clean-ups, work with organizations like Habitat for Humanity to restore communities.

Imagine that people in "the service" later identify neighborhoods prime for investment and work with goverment and private organizations to establish businesses there.

Oh, along the way, "corporate America" might benefit from sales of books, medicines, food, building materials, and yes -- gasoline.

So, maybe we shouldn't mandate "free service" because "corporate America demands payment for service." :shrug:

[unkachuck]

89. most misery problems....

....could be corrected if Oprah, Billie and corporate America would pay their fair share of taxes, support universal healthcare, provide a living wage and get politically out of the way so people like you and me through our government, could fix things....

....in the land of 'all must pay', I don't want to let corporate America and the rich off the hook with 'free' mandatory public services that our government should be providing and correct their systems' problems; problems that shouldn't be there in the first place....

....to me, mandatory 'free' service sounds like a small-scale recipe to perpetuate misery problems, not eliminate them....

[Sparkly]

90. No argument with that, but it's a separate point.

Yes, absolutely, corporations and fatcats aren't paying their share -- less and less so the more Republicans are in power.

HOWEVER...

That's a separate issue. Because the bucks aren't the only issue at hand here.

Let's say the filthy-rich paid their fair share; now the government has more revenues. What to do with it? Well, we've got a what, $7 trillion national debt? We've got needs to fill all over the place, and we've been living on the "economic stimulus" of borrowed money. It still won't fill all the holes for generations to come.

So, I'm right there with you on not letting "corporate America and the rich off the hook" -- but this is separate, beyond, and in addition to that.

It also has the value of a shot at raising social conscience, voter conscience, commitment to the country, and a general shake-up of the apathy and ignorance that's taken deep hold nationwide.

I really don't see a downside.

[unkachuck]

92. who....

....would have to mandatorily participte in this Mandatory Service?....I hope you say, everyone equally....

[Sparkly]

93. Read my OP.

I suggested several variables.

It might be that people who've already been subject to the draft would be "grandfathered in" and exempt, for example.

I could imagine people in very poor health could be exempt.

That's all I can think of at the moment... But generally, YES -- "everyone equally."

[Patchuli]

96. Well the only problem with that

is would this program make older people who have careers, jobs, businesses, whatever with kids and bills, drop everything to do the mandatory service after the fact? Or just give up a weekend a month or something?

[Sparkly]

97. I'm talking about the CONCEPT.

That could be worked out.

Who are "older people?"

Are they old enough that they were already subject to the draft?

Should there be "grandfathering in" for some (excluding people of some age or for other reasons)?

Those are all variables that could be worked out... I'm trying to ask about the general concept.

[Patchuli]

98. Over 50 but if you are a woman

over 50, you weren't subject to the draft. So does that mean we lady babyboomers would now have to do required service?

Actually, if I were a kid again sigh... :-) I would like to do the Cal Conservation thing. My friend's daughter got to live in the beautiful Sierras in a camp and do cool environmental things. If I had the energy (and a good left knee still) I would love it!

[Sparkly]

99. I'd say women fully felt the effects of the draft ...

... in one way or another. The effects of a military draft were profound for women.

That'd be another variable for debate, but in my opinion, it'd be a "no." National service that didn't require military enlistment would exclude women who did service by living through that debacle of military draft. (Just my debatable opinion.)

Conservation is a great example! Imagine hundreds of people from all walks of life serving such a cause together.

[Patchuli]

102. I was married to a vet

who still sleeps with his pillow over his head at night to "drown out the bombs." I have had so many friends over the years and still do all the years later that are dealing with PTSD. It just never ends. I don't think I would have survived a Viet Nam emotionally personally.

Conservation yes! We all need the environment and it needs HELP!

[NaturalHigh]

103. No way.

I'm a proud USAF veteran, but there is no way the government is going to get either of my kids unless they CHOOSE to enlist.

[Sparkly]

105. How about non-military service to the country? nt

[Hollow Shells]

109. The draft debate is like the abortion debate

it is telling someone else what they must do with their body. Everybody knows what is best for you. Individuals should not be allowed to think for themselves. Your true will is garbage.