RE: A National Service Obligation? (Full Version)

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



Message


Rogue886 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 7:56:24 AM)


The UK had this we called it " National Service" and was for 3 years. we dropped it in 1960 because it was unpopular.
A lot of Europe still does practice conscription/National Service.
Personally, i`m not a fan..




Zonie63 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 9:04:10 AM)


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 couldn't read the article. It said that it's only available to subscribers.

It seems like a nice idea in theory, although it might likely get bogged down by those who aren't too keen on the idea of compulsory national service. I don't know if it would produce any cultural shift, as that would require a much greater effort. There would have to be active encouragement towards it, with the type of role models and media imagery necessary to foster and embrace the ideals of civic duty and service to one's country. Those who lead and influence in this country would have to set the example and tone for this cultural shift, but I don't see that happening any time soon.






thompsonx -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 11:06:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

And what the heck is the "rite" of citizenship?

Having been born here in the United States, I and those who have been Naturalized do have a "Right" to citizen ship but in a true and free Republics, one should not have to go through a "rite" to secure or establish it!


I think that term was meant kind of along the lines of "rite of passage". I don't think it was meant as "a hoop to be jumped through in order to be a citizen".

It looks like a hoop to me.




mnottertail -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 11:08:48 AM)

Apparently, Huntie, you and I are some of the only citizens of this nation....the rest, illegal aliens, like we were before this momentous and venerable blog post.




fucktoyprincess -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 11:16:28 AM)

I struggled with this one, because I see both positives and negatives to such a thing. But my final vote is a "no". Top line is that it sounds good on the surface but has troubling consequences.

I think people should be encouraged to do volunteer/charitable/service activity as part of their regular lives. Service is not something that should be compressed into a year of one's young life, but an ongoing commitment to incorporate helping others. It is not clear to me how mandatory service would do that. If anything, I think people would feel like they've "served their time" so to speak, and then no longer have to worry about that type of thing because other young people will be doing the same every year. Don't mean to sound cynical, but that is the way I see it.

And whether we are talking military or other type of service, in my mind, society works best when you enable people to do what they really want to do. There are young people who are very service oriented. I think more time, money, energy should be spent enabling those particular young people to do the things they want (then trying to waste everyone's time, money, energy trying to force large numbers of young people to do something they have zero interest in doing). Make it easier/better for young people to pursue either military careers or service careers. Society will get the most out of truly enabling those who are already predisposed to these things.

(And no, we do not support such things sufficiently at present.) [sm=2cents.gif]




BitaTruble -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 11:29:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

will this mean amending the constitution?

Unless folks don't mind the 13th being violated, yes, it would have to mean a change to the Constitution. You can't have this idea of involuntary service being made into some sort of law and retain the 13th in its wholeness. They are diametrically opposed.




thompsonx -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 11:32:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I've read about this from McCrystal before. His idea of compulsory service is not restricted to the military. It also includes social and infrastructure programs. Sort of a "You will serve. Do you want to serve with a gun, a broom, or a hammer? Will you be a soldier? Will you cook meals and clean gutters for the elderly? Will you build homes for the homeless? Will you sit behind a computer and help people find jobs?" kind of a thing.



Kinda like that slavery thing?

quote:

The rite of passage comment is not as ominous as some people seem to believe. His reference to it is along the lines of buying your first car, renting your first apartment, or graduating from college, which are rites of adulthood. His rite of citizenship refers to something common to most people that just about everyone can relate to. If everyone serves then it becomes easier to find common ground with people who come from vastly different backgrounds.


I served with officers who went to harvard...What fucking common ground did I have with them?


quote:

He's a General. His model is military because that's his background. He imagines that having everyone serving in some way that America will be less fractured because, like the military, everyone would serve next to people from different racial, economic, religious, political, and educational backgrounds.



No the social class is preserved...clearly you have never been in the military.

quote:

It makes people more relateable to be able to connect through a shared experience. .

It's an interesting idea actually. Imagine yourself as a young person graduating from high school or college. You have a basic education but no experience. Spending a compulsory couple of years working in the right field could give a lot of people practical experience that would make them more likely to get jobs they trained for. It also levels inequalities in the job market considerably because everyone would have the opportunity to gain some kind of useful skills and gain experience a variety of fields regardless of any social or economic factors.


We can clearly see how well this has worked in the past by checking the unemployment rate of vetrans returning the job market.
Oh waite when we do that we see that this model does not work as imagined. One would have thought that someone would have thought to check this before.


quote:

And really, the programs don't even need to be run by the federal government or require full time participation to be beneficial. There are thousands of existing private non-profit programs that would also benefit from having a ready work force. There are also thousands of state, county, and local programs that would benefit from intern programs that give people a chance to gain experience. For example; a program as simple as reading to children in the hospital for 5 hours a week would be valuable and practical experience for young people wanting to work in social services, become teachers, run daycare centers, pediatric medicine... or maybe just become better parents later in life. In the process, the common good is served.


Cheap labor pool benifits whom?

quote:

I actually like the idea,


Big surprise.







BamaD -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 11:37:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

And what the heck is the "rite" of citizenship?

Having been born here in the United States, I and those who have been Naturalized do have a "Right" to citizen ship but in a true and free Republics, one should not have to go through a "rite" to secure or establish it!


I think that term was meant kind of along the lines of "rite of passage". I don't think it was meant as "a hoop to be jumped through in order to be a citizen".



Peace and comfort,



Michael


I read it as a responsibility of citizenship like jury duty.




BamaD -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 11:44:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



Whatever the details of a specific plan, the objective must be a cultural shift that makes service an expected rite of citizenship.


Thoughts?


Well, the devil is in the details though, isn't it.

We bring a kid into the world, raise him, educate her, blah, blah, blah.. then force them into service in order to become a citizen of a place they never asked to be. If they refuse?

When push comes to shove.. how's this going to be enforced?

Yep. The devil is in the details.

You can put me down in the 'I don't fucking think so' category. [:D]


Do you object to said child getting the benefits of citizenship till they apply for citizenship?
If you take the advantages you have made an implied consent to the responsibilities.
Linking this with another thread on who should vote you have an argument (unintended I am sure) that people should be free of service jury duty and such until they turn 18 and apply for citizenship. Until they do so they are also ineligible for things like welfare and voting.




BamaD -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 11:50:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

will this mean amending the constitution?

Unless folks don't mind the 13th being violated, yes, it would have to mean a change to the Constitution. You can't have this idea of involuntary service being made into some sort of law and retain the 13th in its wholeness. They are diametrically opposed.

Of course there would be no need to amend the constitution any more than there ever was for the draft.




BitaTruble -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 12:46:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Of course there would be no need to amend the constitution any more than there ever was for the draft.

It didn't need amending for the draft as it already had Article 1, section 8. Apples and oranges.






FatDomDaddy -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 1:06:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

FR

It's nice to see that there is some interest in the topic, besides just Michael and I picking up from where we left it on another thread.

Just quickly for FDD, when I bolded the bit about a "rite of citizenship," I was interpreting it as Michael and SadistDave have. Serving would be seen in our culture as a normal part of growing into adulthood, as a member of society.

Lots of good red meat here already.





I am sure you did... but...

Who is to say a government will not one day make one earn their citizenship?




Hillwilliam -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 1:47:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

FR

It's nice to see that there is some interest in the topic, besides just Michael and I picking up from where we left it on another thread.

Just quickly for FDD, when I bolded the bit about a "rite of citizenship," I was interpreting it as Michael and SadistDave have. Serving would be seen in our culture as a normal part of growing into adulthood, as a member of society.

Lots of good red meat here already.





I am sure you did... but...

Who is to say a government will not one day make one earn their citizenship?

I don't totally disagree with you on that but I think it would be a constitutional nightmare.




Lucylastic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 1:55:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

will this mean amending the constitution?

Unless folks don't mind the 13th being violated, yes, it would have to mean a change to the Constitution. You can't have this idea of involuntary service being made into some sort of law and retain the 13th in its wholeness. They are diametrically opposed.


Thank you Bita:)




slvemike4u -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 2:12:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



Whatever the details of a specific plan, the objective must be a cultural shift that makes service an expected rite of citizenship.


Thoughts?


Well, the devil is in the details though, isn't it.

We bring a kid into the world, raise him, educate her, blah, blah, blah.. then force them into service in order to become a citizen of a place they never asked to be. If they refuse?

When push comes to shove.. how's this going to be enforced?

Yep. The devil is in the details.

You can put me down in the 'I don't fucking think so' category. [:D]






slvemike4u -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 2:21:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



Whatever the details of a specific plan, the objective must be a cultural shift that makes service an expected rite of citizenship.


Thoughts?


Well, the devil is in the details though, isn't it.

We bring a kid into the world, raise him, educate her, blah, blah, blah.. then force them into service in order to become a citizen of a place they never asked to be. If they refuse?

When push comes to shove.. how's this going to be enforced?

Yep. The devil is in the details.

You can put me down in the 'I don't fucking think so' category. [:D]




The above post is a quote from Bita,I butchered the quote box first time around to where it looked like that wonderful response was mine...all Bita,I was just piggybacking
I hope I cleared up any confusion I might have inadvertently caused [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]




BitaTruble -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 2:33:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy



Who is to say a government will not one day make one earn their citizenship?

That would be "We, the People" (and the 14th amendment which, to get amended would also take 'we, the people'.)




BitaTruble -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 2:35:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I hope I cleared up any confusion I might have inadvertently caused [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

No worries, Mike. Nice to see you posting again. :D




slvemike4u -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 2:40:07 PM)

[:)]




FatDomDaddy -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 4:37:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy



Who is to say a government will not one day make one earn their citizenship?

That would be "We, the People" (and the 14th amendment which, to get amended would also take 'we, the people'.)


And if that should change???




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875