RE: A National Service Obligation?

RE: A National Service Obligation? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/4/2013 7:55:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I'm not sure if it's that Americans lack the stomach for any kind of political activism, but I also think that Americans have a short attention span and a short memory. People nowadays are fickle and easily bored by anything serious or meaningful. They want to be entertained. Of course, if the corruption and political deadlock continue unabated, then the system will eventually collapse on itself. The ensuing chaos will be anything but boring, so at least we have that to look forward to in our twilight years. [;)] just like some people predicted the mortgage & housing crash & made money from that debacle, some will make money from the future chaos/crash that I think is also inevitable.. I guess it depends on which side of that a person prefers to be on.. Oh sure, there will undoubtedly be profiteers and those who would take advantage of the situation. I'm not sure what the final result will look like. I don't think the crash and chaos are necessarily inevitable. While I have little faith in the voting public anymore, there's still a chance we may wise up before it's too late. But given the current situation, it's only a small chance. There might be ways we could minimize the damage, but our government is going to have to lead from the top, a "revolution from above," as it were. The sacred cows of outsourcing and globalism are going to have to come crashing down (among other things), if we're ever going to get out of this malaise and funk we're in. We need to turn inward, focus on fixing our own house before presuming to go around and "fix" the rest of the world. But since the politicians won't do that, and since the voters can't be convinced to vote for someone who would, then I say that Americans are the authors of their own demise.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/4/2013 9:52:45 AM)
That's like saying we should go back to the mental hospitals of the 1800s because health care today isn't perfect. Today's incompetence and corruption in government work was magnified to full blown atrocities under the old system. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Until the Pendleton reforms, people could legally and openly walk in with a pile of money, and buy a job as a federal agent, or a commissioner, or an officer in the Army, so yeah, there's a great deal of difference. That may be so, but in practice, I don't see a heck of a lot of difference nowadays. There's still corruption in the system, as anyone can be bribed. Besides, I recall that the Pendleton reforms were supposed to ensure that hiring and promotion to civil service jobs were based on merit, yet that hardly seems to be the case nowadays. Even setting aside the corruption, there are also seems a great deal of incompetence and waste in government, making me wonder about how much "merit" our Federal employees actually have. I'm judging them by the results of their work, not what they think they are on paper. Maybe it's time for some new reforms. I don't think it would mean that we'd be going back to the bad old days, not from The Heretic's suggestion anyway. I don't see how limiting their service to 4-5 year contracts would entail people coming in with bags of money to buy a civil service job. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. People who have worked in government all their lives and have no conception of what it means to work in the private sector are out of touch with the society and people they're supposed to be serving. I can't see how an insular, out-of-touch bureaucracy is any better than before. At least under the spoils system, people got what they elected. That is, if the civil service appointees have the same political views as the elected politicians, then the people are still getting the politics they voted for. If they do an unsatisfactory job, then the politicians get voted out, and all their appointees go, too. It may have been an imperfect system, but what system is perfect? Without that, then guys like J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles were able to gain a great deal of power, rivaling that of any President they served under. The entrenched bureaucrats-for-life and the military-industrial complex became such a powerful behemoth that even Presidents could hardly keep it under control (JFK tried, but look what happened to him). Those were the real "bad old days," and it hasn't really changed that much.

Zonie63 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/4/2013 7:02:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 That's like saying we should go back to the mental hospitals of the 1800s because health care today isn't perfect. That's an odd comparison. Obviously, science has improved immensely since the 1800s, but I don't think we can say the same about government. quote: Today's incompetence and corruption in government work was magnified to full blown atrocities under the old system. Yeah, but how much damage could they have done, considering that government was smaller and much less powerful than it is now? We had no CIA, no NSA, no IRS, no FBI, no military-industrial complex, no foreign entanglements.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/4/2013 7:17:07 PM)
It isn't a contest. The genocidal treatment of Native Americans by Indian agents, the dumping of diseased carcasses into the food supply, etc. were not harmless, and the current civil service system is still a product of reforms. Those were not the good old days. If you are going somewhere besides derailment with this, be sure and say so any time now. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 That's like saying we should go back to the mental hospitals of the 1800s because health care today isn't perfect. That's an odd comparison. Obviously, science has improved immensely since the 1800s, but I don't think we can say the same about government. quote: Today's incompetence and corruption in government work was magnified to full blown atrocities under the old system. Yeah, but how much damage could they have done, considering that government was smaller and much less powerful than it is now? We had no CIA, no NSA, no IRS, no FBI, no military-industrial complex, no foreign entanglements.

Zonie63 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/4/2013 7:26:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 It isn't a contest. The genocidal treatment of Native Americans by Indian agents, the dumping of diseased carcasses into the food supply, etc. were not harmless, and the current civil service system is still a product of reforms. Those were not the good old days. These are some rather outrageous examples which have more to do with the political and military leadership of the country at the time. It wouldn't have mattered who they appointed or how it was done, since we had been involved in it even before the United States government was even established. quote: If you are going somewhere besides derailment with this, be sure and say so any time now. No derailment on my part. You're the one who suggested that The Heretic's suggestion would have meant a return to the "bad old days." Surely you're not suggesting that limiting civil service occupations to 4-5 year contracts would lead to genocide?

DaddySatyr -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/1/2013 12:41:23 AM)
I remember "challenging" Rich to start this thread and he and I disagreed, essentially, on the word: "compulsory". Well, I was tooling around ... just kind of ambling along and I discovered something; *some* US citizens can be forced into national service. Sounds crazy, huh? quote: ORIGINAL Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." Ain't that a bitch? Maybe these illegal aliens ain't so dumb. Regards, James Earl Carter

Powergamz1 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/1/2013 5:26:33 AM)
You think only naturalized citizens can be compelled to bear arms or perform non-combatant or other alternate service? quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I remember "challenging" Rich to start this thread and he and I disagreed, essentially, on the word: "compulsory". Well, I was tooling around ... just kind of ambling along and I discovered something; *some* US citizens can be forced into national service. Sounds crazy, huh? quote: ORIGINAL Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." Ain't that a bitch? Maybe these illegal aliens ain't so dumb. Regards, James Earl Carter

Termyn8or -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/1/2013 11:11:43 AM)
quote: to instill in all Americans a sense of civic duty, Fine, start with the government. T^T

Phydeaux -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/1/2013 12:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic At the link is an article from General Stanley McCrystal, calling for a system of universal national service. I like the idea. It's something that goes far beyond the bounds of drafting people into the Army. In the vision I have, our military would still be composed of people who choose to enter the armed forces, instead of serving in another capacity. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324809804578511220613299186.html He wraps up with this (my bold) quote: Universal national service would surely face obstacles. But America is too big, and our challenges too expansive, for small ideas. To help stem the high-school dropout crisis, to conserve rivers and parks, to prepare for and respond to disasters, to fight poverty and, perhaps most important, to instill in all Americans a sense of civic duty, the nation needs all its young people to serve. Whatever the details of a specific plan, the objective must be a cultural shift that makes service an expected rite of citizenship. Thoughts? I shudder at the very idea. This is the worst idea to enter the mainstream of political thought in a long time. Why do I hate it - let me count the ways. 1. Because the truest form of service is making a career for yourself and offering goods and services in the economy. 2. Because any workman is worth his pay. That getting the labor for free devalues the contribution of the workman. 3. It expands goverment. Compulsory service is a tax. It encourages dependency on the government. And it makes increases the ever expanding pressure for bigger and bigger government. 4. It encourages the cronyism and nepotism. 5. It invites no accountability, since no 'money' is being spent. Who cares if the program accomplished its goals or not. The important thing is we spent the time! Government spending is already about 24% of our economy. Compulsory service is just an end run - increasing the size of government without increasing the apparent cost. The equivalent thing could just be accomplished by hiring people and increasing taxes to hire people to do the same thing. Some will argue that this doesn't encourage people to get involved in community. I agree completely that people should be involved in community - and in helping other people. However, not all things need to be OR SHOULD be run through the government. This is not something that the federal government needs to 'fix' (ie., break).

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/1/2013 9:53:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux This is the worst idea to enter the mainstream of political thought in a long time. Long day in a long week, Phydeaux, and while I'm happy to re-engage on the discussion, it ain't happening tonight. I will point out sort of a general rule of thumb now though, that if I'm the one pushing for some kind of radical reform, it's hardly going to be a mainstream idea. [;)]

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/2/2013 6:57:09 PM)
Okay, Phydeaux. I was getting ready to go point by point through your objections, but as I read over them, it is obvious that you are objecting without a clue to what I'm suggesting. Let me refer you to post #63, towards the top of page 4 of this thread. If you want to do this, show me that you've read that, say by losing the stupid accusation that people wouldn't be getting paid for what they do, and I'll give you the opportunity for a conversation. Stick to the nonsense of your point 1, and you can just trade useless posts with XXXXXX (user name redacted), down in the kiddie league of shameless liars and douchebags.

Phydeaux -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/2/2013 7:26:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Okay, Phydeaux. I was getting ready to go point by point through your objections, but as I read over them, it is obvious that you are objecting without a clue to what I'm suggesting. Let me refer you to post #63, towards the top of page 4 of this thread. If you want to do this, show me that you've read that, say by losing the stupid accusation that people wouldn't be getting paid for what they do, and I'll give you the opportunity for a conversation. Stick to the nonsense of your point 1, and you can just trade useless posts with XXXXXX (user name redacted), down in the kiddie league of shameless liars and douchebags. Heretic, I'm sorry you took it that way. There are a variety of people in this thread and I was responding to the general concept, not specifically to post 63. In rereading post 63, I don't see anything that fundamentally changes my objections. But let me give you an example. A person graduates high school. Goes to college. Goes to Med school. Completes his internship. He is now - at the earliest late 20s and probably early 30's. This person - acting as a doctor - is providing a social value. Taking that doctor and having him act as a dog catcher, 911 dispatcher etc., or teacher's assistant is a misuse of his time on earth, and his skills. Remember, we have a constitutional right to "pursuit of happiness". And the government does not have a right to take your time or your property absent a compelling cause. Even more, taken in an aggregate, taking 1-2 years out of a doctors active career would increase health care costs - just like adding more doctors decreases it. While I support the idea of community service - I think government directed activity is the antithesis of community service. Is it service if the government directs you what to do? (Or for that matter if they pay you for it). I would object a great deal less if churches, or charities would be in a position to dictate the work to be done, rather than the government. But even that is subject to abuse. Currently, money is the medium that we use to say what the value of everything is. It obviously isn't a perfect measurement, but its about the best we've got. Half of the country currently pays huge amounts of money in taxes. These taxes are supposed to provide us services. So I am opposed to what would be an additional tax by the imposition of service hours. If there were a corresponding reduction in taxes, I would probably have less objection. My third point is that this is very similiar to prison industries. The use of prison industries to cut the grass, make license plates etc directly competes with private enterprise doing the same job - and hence distorts the job market. I see no compelling reason to do that. I flirted with the idea of saying that everyone in the US had to either pay taxes or pay hours. And it has a certain appeal. But it still runs into the problems of distorting the labor markets, enlarging the government and leading to problems (IMO) on cronyism / nepotism. In my opinion- and in the opinion of the founding fathers - a small government is the best option - and only because government was a necessary evil. Despite all our good intentions - and I share yours here - the evils of a large government outweigh any possible good. Best to you.

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/3/2013 2:46:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux In my opinion- and in the opinion of the founding fathers - a small government is the best option - and only because government was a necessary evil. Despite all our good intentions - and I share yours here - the evils of a large government outweigh any possible good. Thanks for your reply, Phydeaux. I appreciate the thought out response, and raising of matters with some meat on the bones for discussion. We are very much in concurrence on what I've quoted from your post. I don't think that government drawing manpower from a much larger pool automatically equates to a big government nightmare of ever more concentrated power. First, let's see to the concerns about students on rigorous academic programs being required to waste valuable time in a full-time role. Why would they sign up for such an option to begin with? The key to my vision is the broadest range of choice possible. As this became an accepted social norm, why wouldn't colleges and universities simply build an active or inactive reserve regimen right into the degree program? Plenty of public high scools already require a service component for a diploma. Remember, the requirement could be met through approved non-profits and NGO's as well. That brings us nicely to the subject of nepotim and cronyism. Yep. The wealthy and/or well connected are going to find a way to cruise through their service obligation in comfort and style, exactly as they do in so many other things, today and throughout history. It is what it is. This isn't a plan to create a perfect world of social justice, just do what we already have to do in a better and more efficient way, and with benefits to overall society that we certainly don't get from our present system. I also need to note that there seems to be a disconnect between what I'm percieving as a big streak of economic libertarianism in your thought, and a worry that individuals who know how succeed in the world and have done so are going to pass the benefits of that to their kids. But here is the part you'll like, Phydeaux. Yes. Your taxes will wind up going down, AND the legitimate functions we expect government to handle are going to be done better (or at least a lot more broadly). Our system of government isn't just the feds back in DC, with their enumerated powers. It's the States, which all those other powers are left to. It is the counties, and the cities, the school districts and the water districts, and every single little agency that has a board which shows up at the bottom of your ballot on election day. That bit of my mortgage check which goes into the property tax account every month is just as big as what the feds pluck right off the top of my pay for the income tax. Then we have the sales tax, and the extra 18.5 cents a gallon CA tacks on to the price of gas - ymmv, but you get the idea. I'm certain you are familiar with pension bombs, but you might find the article at the link well worth navigating through the ad for. I first raised this idea here in the forums, with that article as the foundation, a couple years ago. http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/12/class-war/singlepage A bit of radical reform in how we do the whole public employee thing strikes me as a good idea. Staffing the bottom with enlistees, and putting the top into a structure of employment contracts which must be renewed at regular intervals would take care of the problem. Things under local control would remain there. The hiring process changes. Is it a tax? If a tax is any obligation we have as a member of society, then yes. I think that is something we can occupy ourselves with, without creating the sort of conversation arc that leads me to great cynicism about where and when I engage in the forums these days.

JeffBC -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/3/2013 3:12:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Now, on an aside, I do think a national service requirement would be an excellent tool in the box Slavery is often an excellent tool in the box of for keeping the unruly masses under control. Why would it be any different here?

dcnovice -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/3/2013 3:25:42 PM)
quote: Slavery is often an excellent tool in the box of for keeping the unruly masses under control. Why would it be any different here? In the U.S. context, a number of differences arise: -- Slavery was almost always lifelong. -- Slaves were legally considered the property of their owners, who could beat and sell them at will. -- Slaves' marriages and families could be broken up by an owner's decision to sell someone. -- Slaves could not vote. -- Slaves generally had no choice in the form their service would take. -- Advocates of slavery attempted to justify it on the grounds of racial inferiority. ETA: I forgot a key one (thank you, chemo brain!): -- Slaves generally received no compensation for their work.

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/3/2013 3:49:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC Slavery is often an excellent tool in the box of for keeping the unruly masses under control. Why would it be any different here? Works about as well here as it does for jury duty, Jeff.

JeffBC -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/3/2013 8:01:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Works about as well here as it does for jury duty, Jeff. I actually thought about that one. But honestly I had a hard time comparing "come spend a few days to help out the court system" with "I own your ass for a few years". Also honestly, I have little interest in serving jury duty anymore. That's fair enough though. They don't want me either. Critical thinkers are not welcome on juries. Really, in the end, my opinion about anything like this cannot help but be colored by my opinion of the US Govt. Given the shit they do I really don't want to help them in any way at all.

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/3/2013 9:22:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC Given the shit they do I really don't want to help them in any way at all. Works out well that you left then, doesn't it? That's one of the advantages to what I'm suggesting. Since we would have all been participants in the process and procedures at one point, it helps remove the us/them outlook towards government, as well as creating a better informed and experienced electorate.

JeffBC -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/4/2013 7:35:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Works out well that you left then, doesn't it? Sort of. Fleeing US policy and control is not exactly easy. Ask Snowden. But I'm the first to admit this is a strange world I've been living in these last few years where the US government looks and behaves more like my enemy than anything even remotely approaching "my friend". What makes it wierder is that it's not a red/blue thing. I see both the teams as pretty much the same. quote: That's one of the advantages to what I'm suggesting. Since we would have all been participants in the process and procedures at one point, it helps remove the us/them outlook towards government, as well as creating a better informed and experienced electorate. If we wanted to do that, I might suggest something which actaully educated people about how the government works. But how are you going to do that exactly? Who is going to say, "Well then the bankers come and pay the regulators to...."? If you just want to indoctrinate people in state propoganda then fine. If you want to educate them on how the system works then you're going to need to find a way to expose them to how the system actually works.

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (8/4/2013 8:35:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC If you want to educate them on how the system works then you're going to need to find a way to expose them to how the system actually works. Say by having them actually be a part of the system for a little while?

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625