I'll bet your definition of this term varies with your position on the issue

[Stinky The Clown]

"Compulsory national service"

I'm curious about my theory.

There sits the term, but without definition. Since it isn't a policy, it seems it has no commonly accepted definition. And that ambiguity is why I chose this term to explore my theory. If you choose to answer the question below, please state your definition of the term.

Are *you* for or against "Compulsory national service"?

[Warpy]

1. Against.

Sorry, but Lincoln freed everybody.

[Ron Green]

2. I'm for it, as defined thus:

"Two years of service to the nation, from the 18th to the 20th birthday, to include civil, foreign service and military duties, to be determined both by national needs and individual suitability."

[tkmorris]

4. I define it exactly as you do, but

I am against it. I would much rather see strong incentives given for young men and women to participate in a voluntary program.

[Ron Green]

7. You mean a market-based approach?

I must disagree; "strong incentives" is how we've developed our "all-volunteer" (read: "mercenary") military, thereby engaging almost NONE of the middle classes in the reckless adventurism of the corporate military. If we're going to have equal opportunity (not that we do, yet) we must have equal responsibility. Young people from 18 to 20 can and should serve their country where they're most needed. If every family is committed, I have no doubt our national policies will reflect a basic goodness rather than a basic imperialism.

[Toasterlad]

18. I Totally Agree With Your Philosophy, But I Worry That We're Both Naive?

There was an article in Time or Newsweek a few months back that raised this issue as well: the premise being that mandatory national service would invest EVERYONE in America, and all but force people to pay attention to their government out of self-interest. I'm a big fan of that idea, but I wonder how it would work in reality. Would the nation's rich still find ways out of and around such service, as they did during the draft in Vietnam? How would it be structured to ensure that it was fair to everyone? Because if it's not, there is no point to such a program.

I'm absolutely in favor of a mandatory two years of national service, but I'd like to see it instituted like some European countries have, with civil service an option for conscientious objectors against military service. And I would like to be assured that the program was implemented fairly across all economic levels of society.

[Ron Green]

21. No system is perfect, and some kids of privilege would still slip through the cracks,

but I have no doubt MOST of the middle- and upper-middle class young people would be in play for whatever kind of selection process would be devised. The main point is that everybody would do SOMETHING for his or her nation. As TN pointed out in this thread, rights without responsibilities doesn't indicate a democracy.

[Jed Dilligan]

41. Many middle-class kids choose to serve. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. I define it the same way. How about a LIFETIME tax break for those who step up voluntarily? n/t

[ThomWV]

10. With that definition I am for it as well

[TahitiNut]

11. Yup. With "A minimum of ..." that's my preference as well.

In a nation that aspires to be a democracy, it's a 'social contract' that assures a minimal level of equity in participation. A nation that desires only privilege and no equity can't expect to be called a democracy.

[Katherine Brengle]

52. Good definition --

I think there should be a multitude of ways in which a young person can serve - it doesn't have to be military. I think the idea, broadly defined, could create a citizenry that is much more civic-minded.

[tularetom]

3. In this time of crumbling infrastructure it could be a good thing

a million or so young people pitching in to repair the roads and bridges of our country. On the other hand in the hands of the worng people (like the gang of asswipes in the WH now) it could be a license to carry out a perpetual war with an unending supply of cannon fodder.

I guess its like anything else - it depends on who gets to define it.

And maybe that's your point.

[TygrBright]

5. It depends...

...I am cautiously in favor of exploring the concept if it embraces service along the lines of the CCC and the Peace Corps, and allows a certain level of choice among the participants as regards the general type of service. And if it includes wages at rates comparable to private-sector employees engaged in the same or similar activities at an entry level. And if there are no involuntary transfers to a different type of service or involuntary renewals or extensions.

I think, though, that it would have to be accomplished via a Constitutional Amendment, very carefully worded, in order to prevent evil-intended meddling by Congressional corporate tools or misAdministrations like, oh... you know...

trepidatiously,
Bright

[roody]

38. It is not service if you are getting paid for it.

[Posteritatis]

43. Conscript soldiers didn't serve, then? (nt)

[Buzz Clik]

6. definition: "fascist bastards forcing young citizens into the job of legally killing humans"

[hfojvt]

8. well we already have

"compulsory mis-education" up to the age of 16, although home-schooling is allowed

all citizens are expected to vote, and to inform their choices

registering for the draft is compulsory for all males over 18, as well as up-dating them when you move (something I did not do)

things like driver's licenses, social security cards are almost compulsory, as is drug testing for most jobs.

paying taxes is compulsory

So I would say we already have a fair amount of 'compulsory national service'. Should we add to it? For what purposes? It could be useful training for young people unable, or unwilling, to find summer jobs. I would not want to see our society even more militarized though, although some feel that a draft would discourage war-mongering. I don't like the idea that some labor is considered 'national service' and other labor isn't.

[EFerrari]

9. Not if "military service" is the subtext. Hell no.

A year or two doing something like the PeaceCorp at home -- America Corp? -- yes, I'd be for that.

[TahitiNut]

13. What if it were a choice between 2 years in the military or 3 years in the Peace Corps ...

... or 4 years in VISTA (Volunteers In Service To America), Public Health Service or other domestic role??

[EFerrari]

14. I couldn't sign off on anything that involves military service even

as an alternative.

But you know me, I'm a hard head.

[Bluebear]

12. For.

My plan would call for 2 years of national service after high school, after which college education or comprehensive skilled trade education would be free.

Service could entail medical aide, national park tour guide, camp counselor for needy children, etc., or yes, military if that is what floats your boat, but not combat for these children.

[TahitiNut]

16. What if non-military service entailed a longer-term obligation?

What if the terms of obligations were identical (2 years) but the assignations were based on qualifications and/or a lottery?

[Bluebear]

17. I don't think so, because then you would be enticing military service due to a shorter obligation

[Posteritatis]

32. I'd pick "not get shot at for three years" over "get shot at for two" ;)

(Seriously, though, I'd prefer any terms be of equal length on principle.)

[porphyrian]

15. I'm definitely forgainst it. - n/t

[The Vinyl Ripper]

19. The problem I have with such a service is this..

All those already over the compulsory age will skate out of service.

Universal service means just that, universal.

And I'm definitely one of those who would skate.

[lonestarnot]

20. Slave labor. My taxes do enough to make the rich richer. Thank you.

Indentured slavery is not my idea of fun. No thanks

[lastliberalintexas]

22. Thank you

The types of things mentioned in this thread, repair of the infrastructure and AmeriCorp jobs, in the past were those things that our government used to put people back to work, a la the alphabet soup programs of the New Deal. We certainly don't need anything to drive wages down even further.


Plus, I agree with the poster who noted that the people enacting such service legislation would be exempt. Perhaps if it was *truly* universal, did not include military service and fell under David Bacon so as to require the payment of prevailing wages, I could possibly maybe perhaps support it weakly. :)

[pitohui]

24. agreed we need a new deal not a draft

instead of smugly noting that we are older than age 20 and "volunteering" those who are not to work in compulsory jobs, let's have a real "new deal" with real jobs, fairly paid, that can support an adult who would willingly do the job for the money

forced labor, even if there is a token payment as with the army, is not the direction we need to go

well paid labor, turned to the important tasks of rebuilding our infrastructure, is the way

as it is, what remains of our "middle class" exists only by playing the credit game and hoping to die (which is likely because of our poor health care policy) before they have to pay it off

and our poor have almost no way out financially other than selling drugs or joining the military

there is a lot of important work a "new deal" could be doing, but it needs to be well paid and supportive of the economy, not another way to snatch opportunity away from adults who need to support themselves and families -- when draftees are pressed into rebuilding our roads and bridges, what about the workers who were once very well paid to do these jobs?

[dysfunctional press]

23. completely FOR it.

nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. I'm for national service

it can take many forms, but it creates a community and a sense of we, instead of I

It will cut down on anomie

And yes, this is the short version

[welshTerrier2]

26. i'm against "compulsory" service

this includes both a military draft as well as other forms of "compulsory" service.

if we, as a society, chose to provide incentives to get people to volunteer or if we were somehow able to instill the value of national service in America's youth, I think that would be great. and I think volunteering can be richly rewarding not just to the society but to the volunteers themselves.

but, having said that, as the question is worded, the phrase "compulsory" is a sticking point. so, as worded, I'm against "compulsory national service." while it might be a good deal for all involved, I prefer a system that does not empower the government to force citizens to "serve time."

[bbgrunt]

27. well, thank the deities that we don't have compulsory national voting.

I think living in this country has, until now, been a privilege. We have reaped the blessings of a liberal philosophical foundation--and yet we as a nation have squandered our legacy by being ignorant, uneducated, selfish, provincial and supremely fearful. Too many eschew the public commons and scream that they are being forced into slavery if asked to serve their country in some capacity.

That is the ultimate conclusion of free market thinking rum amok. As long as you expect to pay someone else to protect, serve and provide for the national welfare, then you are engendering a class of mercenaries accountable to no one.

Until we are ready to all agree to certain basic values we are all willing to defend, then we have no commons--just a bunch of hired mercenaries--and a dead would-be empire.

[Sanctified]

28. Against, if the Government wants my kids to work for them then

pay a wage that would not require slavery.

[Hekate]

29. Not if put forward by this regime.In the best case,I'd like to see service to the country...

...that would take many forms. Well-run, well-funded, well-thought-out. We've seen several different programs like VISTA come and go, and I think they mostly fade away because Congress loses interest and stops sending them money.

In theory I am in favor of a universal service to the country. Some kids actually want to go into the military, and that could be part of it -- but not the only part, and by no means the biggest part.

I think of the best things the military offers young people, like leaving home and seeing strange places, working under supervision, learning new skills, feeling a part of something bigger than themselves, and acting on their idealism.

Intelligently thought out, universal service in the civilian setting could offer all these things without the automatic risk of being killed or maimed. One of the key things should be leaving your own community to get acquainted with other parts of the country. Another would be close supervision and housing -- we are talking about mostly youngsters here.

I could go on, as I've thought about it over the past several decades and believe the idea has merit.

It's just at the moment I trust nothing that comes from Bush or the Publicans.

Hekate

[autorank]

30. For it 100%

- job corps (longer commitment - current job corp program)
- elections workers (periodic commitment, brief - count hand counted paper ballots;) and other voting functions)
- conservation corp (longer commitment - work on urban, suburban and rural conservation projects)
- peace corp (longer commitment
- legal corp (periodic commitment - provide legal advice to those without means, lawyers must do this a percent of their time in order to make a living off of our laws)
- computer corp (longer term - provide computer and network training for those without; build network resources and provide training on applications for those without.

Just a few of the things we can do. There would be a rule - the national service program will not be used to put working Americans out of business.

You could have a scholarship benefit of 25% to 100% for duration/difficulty of service.

It would be great.

[pitohui]

36. everything you describe would put a worker out of work!

why can't we have a "new deal" and pay adult living wages instead of forcing kids who should be in school to do the work for peanuts?

if the work is worth doing, why don't we pay people like it's worth doing and get the $$$ back into the economy

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Because we had these programs during the new deal

the CCC is a product of the new deal

The WPA was a product of the new deal

Having computer experts help in inner cities, to people who cannot afford it, is an extension of the WPA and the CCC

And by the way, eletion workers, at your precinct, are volunteers anyway

[spindoctor]

45. Dey turk errr jerrrbs!!! n/t

[Posteritatis]

31. The broader the definition, the less I dislike the idea

If it's two years in the military, nothing else I'd definitely be against it. (Never mind the fact that I'd only be acceptable to the military if we were already being occupied!)

If that was expanded to things like, say, the peace corps or its national equivalents, or military service with guaranteed restrictions (i.e., "I'll join the military but will only go abroad as a UN peacekeeper), or other such things, I'd be more comfortable with it.

If it was expanded very broadly indeed - say, factoring in everything language tutoring to immigrants or camp counseling through to the Marine Corps, the whole big continuum of Things Which Serve Part Or All Of The Nation and you get to pick where you serve, then I actually don't think I'd be bothered by it at all.

(Of course, if it gets into the vicinity of "you need this to vote," then I'm back to Oh Fuck No levels of opposition, but I'm assuming that's not the case.)

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Greyhound]

34. Against. Remove compulsory and I'm fine with it.

It is incumbent on the nation to inspire the desire to serve.

[Ron Green]

48. Remove "compulsory" and it won't happen.

The market wants to limit economic opportunities for poorer people so that they can hold out the carrot of military service and build a force to conduct their illegal wars. Compulsory service means everybody does it, not just the desperate. 18-year-olds aren't generally inspired by higher ideals to serve their country. A few of them want to help people, a few of them want to kill people, most of them want their "freedom" and the trappings of a consumer society. Compulsory service, in my own experience, adds perspective that's sorely needed by most young people.

[Greyhound]

50. Those damn whipper-snappers, No respect for their elders,

and that crazy music and obscene dancing, I'm tellin' ya this generation is going to hell in a hand basket...

:rofl:

[Ron Green]

51. Sure, that's part of it, but not the whole story.

Generational scorn has probably always been with us, and yes, I'm concerned about the vacuousness of the young people with whom I work. But beyond that, a corporate-driven attitude pervades every area of life in America now, and that's affected the way this country operates within its own borders and in the world at large. If the US is going to lead responsibly, we need to do so from a social and collective consciousness, not an individualistic one.

A period of national service is not only an immediate fix for lots of problems, it's a long-term commitment to anti-corporatism that we've needed since the Reagan years.

Plus, TURN THAT DOWN! You call that music? :P

[rucky]

35. Cleaning streets and roadsides, planting trees, tutoring kids

that's what comes to my mind. and if that's what it means, I'm all for it.

even overseas, we could change the mission of our military to be humanitarian... train our soldiers to build sustainable infrastructure in developing countries.

hey, as long as you left it open for interpretation, i'm taking it all the way.

[pitohui]

37. wow, all things people used to be well paid to do

and in the case of teaching, used to be well educated to do

now an 18 year can do that job and throw away the teacher who was required to get multiple loans and years of investments to get a master's degree to do that job????

just...wow

the concept stinks

we already have a shitty labor market, we don't need more people taking jobs and undercutting wages

we need 18 to 20 year olds in school, getting the kind of advanced education you need in the 21st century

sheesh!

and by the way as little as 10 years ago, clearing roads was a well paid job around here, then guess what, a local landscaper lost his six figure contract to slave labor -- PRISON labor to clean the streets -- that is money gone from his family and from our economy forever

every job done by a kid or prisoner is a job an adult who committed no crime can't hold

no wonder wages are in the toilet

[rucky]

49. all taxpayer funded. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. For. "National Service" doesn't have to mean carrying a rifle, driving a tank, or flying a bomber.

The term "National Service" should be disconnected from "Military Service".

My 16 year old daughter thinks she's entitled to her IPOD, her $100 dollar tatoos, her car, and her opinion. Is she right?

"National Service" should be construed as building roads, repairing infrastructure, picking up garbage, fighting forest fires, staffing old folks' homes, etc.

Entitlement should come AFTER responsibility, NOT before.

[spindoctor]

44. I am for and I don't think there is any ambiguity, just practical issues

National service can consist of:
- Community Service
- Military Service
- Foreign Service

It's a nice thought that kids at a young age get involved with something other than MTV, Xbox and internet. However, I can see a whole range of issues that would make it nearly impossible to be implemented successfully. Nearly...

[cgrindley]

46. For it

2 years of compulsory national service would go a long way in reducing obesity and increasing the level of self-reliance and maturity of American teens. Give them the choice of the military or peace corp or some domestic service--like a nationalized Habitat for Humanity... it's a great idea. Kids today need some structure and accountability in their lives. They need to know that they are merely cogs in a vast machine whose goal is the production of cogs.

[Selatius]

47. I define it as traveling half-way around the world to blow up brown, black, and yellow people

As a result, I'm opposed, but there's a bias in my judgment. I'm of Vietnamese blood.