RE: A National Service Obligation? (Full Version)

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



Message


Aswad -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 10:08:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I would agree with: No ability for you or your children to get college loans.


How exactly does refusing to educate a kid for something their parents didn't do improve any aspect of the nation?

IWYW,
— Aswad.




Aswad -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 10:11:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Personally I think it is an excellent idea, and in some instances should be ongoing. I see people's points about it being compulsory, however, as a start, it could be voluntary, but high school and college students could earn credit for it. That's incentive for them. They get credit, but then they also need to write some papers regarding the experience and what it teaches them (at the high school level).


Welcome to the International Baccalaureate's CAS (Creativity-Action-Service) programme at the high school level.

900 hours, if memory serves. Among other things, we helped out an East European orphanage.

IWYW,
— Aswad.




TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 10:21:57 PM)

So what might a system of universal national service look like?

It would be an obligation that every American, before reaching an age to be determined (24 maybe? 26?), needs to either join one of the service corps for a specified period, participate in a qualifying form of alternative service (the IRS will NOT be creating those criteria), or receive a waiver due to physical, mental, or moral deficiency. As mentioned in my reply to Aswad, nobody is going to jail for refusing to do it, but they'll be dealing with unpleasant civil and social penalties that will follow them around for life, unless they get it squared.

The key to all of it, maybe most critically the key to making such a thing palatable to a free people, is personal choice in how the obligation is met. The obligation is also met in terms of points, rather than a specific time frame.

At the center of the whole thing are the service corps - nationally established organizations of sworn servicemembers, trained, equipped, and assigned, according to the needs of the service, and by extension, the nation. They enlist. They take an oath. They go through a basic training deployment, and appropriate secondary training. They are subject to an appropriate version of the UCMJ and military discipline. If they are in an active duty role, they get pay and allowances, and less for less.

Beyond the armed forces (where we keep all the benefits of a volunteer military, and put better forces in the field by having a far larger pool to select from, and acquire a massively deep bench of reserve and inactive reserve forces) we could also create a non-military disaster relief corps that could provide anything from dedicated humanitarian emergency first responders, to local reservists to fill and stack sandbags when the river starts rising.

There could be a community service corps, doing all those things the toughy-feely liberals are so naive about.

Bigger than all of those though, could be the public worker corps, where every low skill job done by any level of government could be staffed by an enlistee, rather than a public employee. Landscapers, pothole fillers, DMV photographers, jailers, dogcatchers, free clinic receptionists, welfare clerks, 911 dispatchers, right on up through professional positions for those who have deferred enlistment until after after finishing school.

Just not gonna raise your right hand for anybody? Ok. Get accepted into a program through an NGO or private charity that will let you tick off the box.

What we get, 20 - 40 - 60 years on, is a country where everyone has served somehow, where everyone has skin in the game of our society, where we have all contributed to what our country becomes. I think that would be a better place.

Oh. There is also the leave the country option. No worries. Nobody is going to hunt you down. Just don't come back.




Powergamz1 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 10:29:44 PM)


And of course, no deferments or exemptions this time around, right? [8|]




TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 10:31:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

No ability for you or your children to get college loans.




That smells a little like the taint of blood thing to me, Michael. Sorry, but I can't go along with that.

Yeah. Not being able to drive legally is really going to suck. They do it to parents who don't pay the child support here in California. They'll also suspend your business licenses and professional certifications over that.

You've got me thinking, though. Maybe failure to serve could also put people on the no-fly list.




TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 10:35:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1


And of course, no deferments or exemptions this time around, right? [8|]



Pretty much, no. Reading the post would have saved the need for the question.




Edwynn -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 10:42:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


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.

The draft didn't violate the 13th. This would simply be a universal draft of young people. Totally legal.


I was going to say ...

By that estimation above, the 13th has been 'violated' with every draft.

Selective amateur interpretation (or in any case, non-SC interpretation) ain't helping in the discussion.





Edwynn -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (5/31/2013 11:11:26 PM)

Most European countries have required service of some sort. As usual, we ignore what goes on elsewhere. Even Europeans ignore what goes on in their own country, from responses I see here.

Last I looked, the minimum requirement for voluntary military in the US is 2 yrs. active, 4 years total. The "two year" option, we should anticipate, involves the lowest and least desirable 'active' component.

Most European countries that require military obligation have it at 18 months or 12 months, and you're less likely to be consigned to strictly latrine duty in the process. Who the heck would want to sign up for the mandates of the US military, especially given the wacko politician's antics these last 10 years, with that obligation?

Back to the Euro countries ...

Most of them now have a civilian option. I forget now which one or two still don't have that yet.

The 'European' notion that we do all to the extent that it benefits society would explain their requirement of either military or civilian service. They try their best likewise with regard to both the public and private sector, not considering the two to be anathema to each other (or at least, noticeably less so), as the British and Americans have been trained to think.

If there were any country more in need of being enlightened, in so many regards, as to what it means to be a society, and what is out there in the rest of the world, I'm not sure which of the MDCs would be a better example.

Given that the situation in higher education has become such a crap shoot nowadays, as indicated by the loan sharks and shysters becoming ever more involved in the process, it wouldn't be the worst thing if paid-for university education were made available by way of civilian service, instead of that option being limited to ROTC, military service, etc., as has been the case since WW II.











BitaTruble -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 1:59:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

how do you think that section authorizes a draft but not other forms of universal service?



It is the difference between necessary contribution and involuntary servitude.

What is the necessary contribution that would call for national service requirements to be met in order to become a citizen when the 14th already gives citizenship for free?

In other words, it's like asking people who were born here to pay to be citizens which just doesn't sit well in my Land of the Free, Home of the Brave heart.

I question not only the method but also the motive behind the whole idea.

You can buy mercenaries, but you can't buy loyalty and the idea that we should instill nationalism into our youth in an ever shrinking world is congress, not progress. In my opinion, this does them a disservice as this stage of the game.






Edwynn -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 2:33:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
In other words, it's like asking people who were born here to pay to be citizens which just doesn't sit well in my Land of the Free, Home of the Brave heart.


Euro countries do that all the time. It cracked me up when I saw a young person at the Uni I went to wearing a T-shirt saying "The Swiss are well armed, and enjoy great freedom," most assuredly not knowing who said it (Machiavelli), or that universal conscription exists there.

quote:

I question not only the method but also the motive behind the whole idea.


That's because we're talking about the US. Were it to be most other countries, whatever ulterior motives would be somewhat less a concern.


... but you can't buy loyalty and the idea that we should instill nationalism into our youth in an ever shrinking world is congress, not progress.




Who's "buying loyalty," here?

If done the right way, it's an instigation to indulge in society, an introduction to the very notion of it, which notion this country seems to lack, in a major way.. The civilian, or even the military part of it, should, if they are doing anything useful at all, so service to society in catching them up to speed.

It's not at all about nationalism, it's about society, and, as apparently needed here, conveying of such distinction and difference as seems to be currently lacking.




DesideriScuri -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 4:08:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
So what might a system of universal national service look like?
It would be an obligation that every American, before reaching an age to be determined (24 maybe? 26?), needs to either join one of the service corps for a specified period, participate in a qualifying form of alternative service (the IRS will NOT be creating those criteria), or receive a waiver due to physical, mental, or moral deficiency. As mentioned in my reply to Aswad, nobody is going to jail for refusing to do it, but they'll be dealing with unpleasant civil and social penalties that will follow them around for life, unless they get it squared.


Might not be jail, per se, but, is the punishment really fitting the crime?

quote:

The key to all of it, maybe most critically the key to making such a thing palatable to a free people, is personal choice in how the obligation is met. The obligation is also met in terms of points, rather than a specific time frame.
At the center of the whole thing are the service corps - nationally established organizations of sworn servicemembers, trained, equipped, and assigned, according to the needs of the service, and by extension, the nation. They enlist. They take an oath. They go through a basic training deployment, and appropriate secondary training. They are subject to an appropriate version of the UCMJ and military discipline. If they are in an active duty role, they get pay and allowances, and less for less.
Beyond the armed forces (where we keep all the benefits of a volunteer military, and put better forces in the field by having a far larger pool to select from, and acquire a massively deep bench of reserve and inactive reserve forces) we could also create a non-military disaster relief corps that could provide anything from dedicated humanitarian emergency first responders, to local reservists to fill and stack sandbags when the river starts rising.
There could be a community service corps, doing all those things the toughy-feely liberals are so naive about.


What's interesting is that there was a requirement by the Catholic church I was attending at the time, for those who were going through the Confirmation process, to do some sort of volunteer work of their choosing. I don't know what anyone else did. I didn't particularly care. I chose to help an elderly lady in the neighborhood with her lawn care needs. After my service requirement was satisfied, I finished out that summer. And the next. Would have gone on to the next summer too, had she not had a grandson take over. I do admit to accepting some "payment" some of those days, though. She made some of the best lemonade...

quote:

Bigger than all of those though, could be the public worker corps, where every low skill job done by any level of government could be staffed by an enlistee, rather than a public employee. Landscapers, pothole fillers, DMV photographers, jailers, dogcatchers, free clinic receptionists, welfare clerks, 911 dispatchers, right on up through professional positions for those who have deferred enlistment until after after finishing school.


The public Unions won't allow that.

quote:

Just not gonna raise your right hand for anybody? Ok. Get accepted into a program through an NGO or private charity that will let you tick off the box.
What we get, 20 - 40 - 60 years on, is a country where everyone has served somehow, where everyone has skin in the game of our society, where we have all contributed to what our country becomes. I think that would be a better place.
Oh. There is also the leave the country option. No worries. Nobody is going to hunt you down. Just don't come back.


As good as the idea is that we all take part in some form of service to the country, even if it be limited to a local offering, you are still making it a de facto requirement. Now, if it were something where college gets paid for by your putting in X years of work for the gub'mint in a position that is in your field of study, with the number of years proportional to the amount of loan forgiveness (ie. a 4-year Harvard education wouldn't be forgiven in the same time frame as a 4 year education from Po Dunk Univeristy), that would be something entirely different.

People could still choose to not provide service, but they wouldn't get the benefit of loan forgiveness. I am a bit hesitant though, depending on what unintended consequences this program could bring (ie. college costs soar because people don't care since it's going to get forgiven by a few years of service).




SadistDave -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 4:31:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I would agree with: No ability for you or your children to get college loans.


How exactly does refusing to educate a kid for something their parents didn't do improve any aspect of the nation?

IWYW,
— Aswad.



I actually agree with Aswad on this point. Dumbing down society is counterproductive for any reason. Look at the trouble we've been in since the libs took over education and started dumbing down kids. What purpose would it serve to make more kids dumber than they already are?

BUT!

Obamacare has shown us the way on this issue. SCOTUS ruled that the penalties for the uninsured (once Obamacare is implemented) are only Constitutional if they are a tax. Since we can now tax people for non-participation in government programs, then a monetary tax for people who are of a certain age can be imposed for not volunteering. It would simply be a voluntary tax by virtue of the fact that someone would choose the tax over compliance. Like the Obamacare non-compliance tax, those who pay the tax choose to pay the tax rather than enroll in the program.

Example: Say the age is 18 and the requirement is 900 hours of mandatory service. If, upon reaching the age of 18 a person refuses to volunteer then a monetary penalty can be imposed until they enroll in a program within 6 months of their 18th birthday. I like $1,000 per month taxed via payroll and/or welfare check, with any unpaid balance having a 5% interest rate per month until the balance is paid in full. If after a reasonable time of non-participation, say 5 years, then non-participants must complete all 900 hours to fulfill the requirements and no longer acrue the monthly penalties. They would still be accountable for the unpaid balance, of course...

The only people who would willingly opt out could either afford to simply pay the penalies or they would eventually find themselves in an untenable economic reality known as "homelessness". My guess is that the overwhelming majority of people who could not afford the non-compliance tax would willingly comply after their first week or so of living in a cardboard box.

-SD-




Aswad -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 5:35:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

As mentioned in my reply to Aswad, nobody is going to jail for refusing to do it, but they'll be dealing with unpleasant civil and social penalties that will follow them around for life, unless they get it squared.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Oh. There is also the leave the country option. No worries. Nobody is going to hunt you down. Just don't come back.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

You've got me thinking, though. Maybe failure to serve could also put people on the no-fly list.


These three pieces are problematic. I'm quite disgusted, really. I thought this might be an area we'd have common ground. We don't.

That said, perhaps make up your mind on no-fly vs. exile when you're reviewing your punishment options for unamericanism.

IWYW,
— Aswad.




Aswad -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 5:36:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

In other words, it's like asking people who were born here to pay to be citizens which just doesn't sit well in my Land of the Free, Home of the Brave heart. [...] You can buy mercenaries, but you can't buy loyalty and the idea that we should instill nationalism into our youth in an ever shrinking world is congress, not progress. In my opinion, this does them a disservice as this stage of the game.


Arbeit macht... American?

IWYW,
— Aswad.




DaddySatyr -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 5:57:12 AM)

Well, I wasn't saying: DENY them education. I was saying to deny them the ability to get college loans. It may be a fine split of a hair but, that's a pretty wide hair.

Unless you feel everyone is entitled to a college education that's a gift from the government (I don't. I feel that such a thing could be a "reward for service"), what's wrong with saying: "Okay. No free education for you and no low-interest student loan but, we wish you well"? Isn't that what non-servers are saying to the country by not serving?

Let me be even more clear; I don't mean loans from a bank or any other private institutions. I mean low-cost student loans from the government.


I really don't see an issue. The children of the deadbeats can still get an education; either by serving, themselves or by the original lazy bones paying the freight.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Edit. This is my third time. Let me try, again:

Serve: You're eligible for a free education (depending on your service time/need in the field) but you're absolutely eligible for low-interest, government-sponsored college loans.

Don't serve: You are ineligible for a free education. You and your children are non-eligible for low-interest, government-sponsored college loans. Your child can serve




Aswad -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 6:01:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Like the Obamacare non-compliance tax, those who pay the tax choose to pay the tax rather than enroll in the program.


So, once again, the law in its majestic equality would punish rich and poor alike for stealing bread.

The rich would pay out of it, and thus you would create an even bigger disconnect between the leaders and those they lead.

quote:

The only people who would willingly opt out could either afford to simply pay the penalies or they would eventually find themselves in an untenable economic reality known as "homelessness". My guess is that the overwhelming majority of people who could not afford the non-compliance tax would willingly comply after their first week or so of living in a cardboard box.


I realize that the relationship between socioeconomics and crime is considered tenuous in the US, but surely some alarm bells must be flashing in your head as to what the outcome of this sort of thing will be?

IWYW,
— Aswad.




Powergamz1 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 6:21:46 AM)

quote:

...or receive a waiver


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1


And of course, no deferments or exemptions this time around, right? [8|]



Pretty much, no. Reading the post would have saved the need for the question.



Well of course, because there is nothing even remotely the same about a waiver, and deferments and exemptions. Fits in perfectly with the notion of mandatory volunteerism.




DomKen -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 6:51:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

how do you think that section authorizes a draft but not other forms of universal service?



It is the difference between necessary contribution and involuntary servitude.

What is the necessary contribution that would call for national service requirements to be met in order to become a citizen when the 14th already gives citizenship for free?

In other words, it's like asking people who were born here to pay to be citizens which just doesn't sit well in my Land of the Free, Home of the Brave heart.

I question not only the method but also the motive behind the whole idea.

You can buy mercenaries, but you can't buy loyalty and the idea that we should instill nationalism into our youth in an ever shrinking world is congress, not progress. In my opinion, this does them a disservice as this stage of the game.

I'm not supporting it to install nationalism or loyalty. I know that my time in the Navy made me a better person. I know the military is not for everyone but I firmly believe that everyone would benefit from a period of service. And the nation as a whole would benefit. Consider how much good was done by the CCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps




Edwynn -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 6:54:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

In other words, it's like asking people who were born here to pay to be citizens which just doesn't sit well in my Land of the Free, Home of the Brave heart. [...] You can buy mercenaries, but you can't buy loyalty and the idea that we should instill nationalism into our youth in an ever shrinking world is congress, not progress. In my opinion, this does them a disservice as this stage of the game.


Arbeit macht... American?

IWYW,
— Aswad.


To the audience who doesn't get the connection; "Arbeit macht Frei," one of numerous Goebbels-era slogans: "Work makes free".

But, to such facile association (in several other posts, re "I question the motivation") I would bring to attention the education system as a whole to that proposal. The brainwashing has been going strong at least 10 years already (compulsory, keep in mind) before we get to any proposed required service after the first 10 years of required service (16 being the legal age to drop out, though I myself found a loophole to escape a year earlier).

But if one wants any further education than that, one cannot escape the massive effort at corporate indoctrination of some sort.

After the uni system listened to the complaints of the business crowd, they instituted a classroom process where everyone is forced to "work together," in some contrived and awkward fashion, to accommodate their desire for graduates better acclimated to 'group think,' being a 'team player' (i.e., taking the job description home and using it to start a nice fire in winter), not blinking when 'asked' to do the most absurd and meaningless thing, working 45 and more hours in a "40 hour" work week, etc.

Some of us are not cut out for this process of being forced to "work together" on a question when the professor has just now explained the concept to us, witnessed by the incoherent blather resulting among us as natural consequence of not yet knowing what we are doing, and naturally needing to (and preferring to) keep things quiet while our minds work through the process of groping our way through this new information. But "Zusamenarbeit macht Still nicht" (working together doesn't make quiet).

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing the greatest difference between Goebbels' slogan and the new tacit slogan of "Zusamenarbeit macht Frei" at today's university.

Nor am I seeing the greatest difference between compulsory service of 16-22 yr. olds and the same being required of 6-15 yr. olds, other than the former being given more options.




Edwynn -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 8:23:15 AM)


What 'scares' me is that so many people seem to be scared of the prospect of our young being dragged away from the compulsory indoctrination that is our education system, to work 12-24 months in a non-corporate environment, such as a hospice, Habitat for Humanity, cleaning the rivers, serving at a retirement home, tutoring kids, etc.

What I have issue with is your motivation here.





Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625