RE: A National Service Obligation?

RE: A National Service Obligation? (Full Version)

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

Message

kdsub -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 8:45:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn What 'scares' me is that so many people seem to be scared of the prospect of our young being dragged away from 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. All that is required to make a system work is a benefit that outweighs the drawbacks. The benefit does not have to deny anyone who does not avail themselves to service any freedoms at all. For instance those that serve could just be allowed to move to the front of the line to apply for any comparable services provided by the government. They would not have exclusive rights to services just have the first opportunity to take advantage of them. This could be a real benefit in times of tight budgets. I believe the service benefits could also be transferred to private business with government urging. Otherwise tax benefits could be given to business that also provide preferential treatment to those of equal worth. There is no need to make things complicated. As a second thought most here I believe have been thinking of the service time as 2 years minimum... I see no reason not to make the obligation less... say one year or even 6 months...at least outside of military service. A shorted time would not interfere with lives as much but still provide a life experience that helps others.

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 8:46:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad 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. Well, I am sorry to hear you feel that way, Aswad, but I'm disgusted too. I'm disgusted enough that I'll come out and advocate for something like this plan. Too many people in my country (and I find myself dealing with a sampling on a daily basis) know all about their rights to this or that, but have no conception that there might be responsibilities that come along with them. There needs to be a belief that being a member of a free society is a two-way street. President Lincoln called it government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that ideal is dying. I'm prepared to step on some toes to try and save it. As for leaving the country, that goes back to my favorite ancestors - four brothers in a little city in Austria. When the messengers came to tell all the young Jews to report for conscription into the army, they raided their mother's and sister's clothes, and fled the country in drag. If you think there need to be other options for people to meet such an obligation, I'm certainly open to hearing them. The goal is get people engaged, not to disenfranchise them.

Edwynn -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 9:31:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub As a second thought most here I believe have been thinking of the service time as 2 years minimum... I see no reason not to make the obligation less... say one year or even 6 months...at least outside of military service. A shorted time would not interfere with lives as much but still provide a life experience that helps others. Agreed, completely. Most Euro countries require less than 2 years, civilian or military. In another discussion, it was pointed out that 6-12 months is insufficient preparation for actual military service, in the field. No argument with that, but then again when that is required of the whole (usually smaller) country, that leaves them 6-12 months ahead of the countries that suddenly have a call-up when some immediate need arises. We shouldn't expect that 12 months 'training' would bring young folks up to full speed on everything that goes on in the world, militarily, politically, or otherwise. But a year's experience is a year's experience. Better to have that valuable addition in the way of experience, rather than to leave the poor sod to the education system alone. Three years of education at the uni still can't explain even one year's r/l experience. They trip over themselves repeatedly in the attempt.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 10:02:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Who is to say a government will not one day make one earn their citizenship? Interesting thought in light of the fact that at the present many consider it discrimination to deny illegals the full benefits of citizenship. Is it not more in fitting with the trend that someday there will be no standards for citizenship? I think the key word there is "illegals".

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 10:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub As a second thought most here I believe have been thinking of the service time as 2 years minimum... I see no reason not to make the obligation less... say one year or even 6 months...at least outside of military service. A shorted time would not interfere with lives as much but still provide a life experience that helps others. As I'm thinking of it, Butch, the actual time in an active status could be a lot lower than that. Someone who wanted to meet the obligation with the most minimal interference in getting on with their own life could sign up for a civilian emergency response option, go on a 5 week basic training deployment, do the advanced training through online resources and a short series of local weekend sessions, then revert to an inactive reserve status for as long as needed to accumulate the points for completion. Obviously, if they were activated for a natural disaster, they'd be pulling the lowest skill details (think in terms of the guys in a line, passing sandbags from the pile to the riverbank), but it's a far lower level of committment than some might be thinking is required.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 10:23:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Who is to say a government will not one day make one earn their citizenship? Interesting thought in light of the fact that at the present many consider it discrimination to deny illegals the full benefits of citizenship. Is it not more in fitting with the trend that someday there will be no standards for citizenship? I think the key word there is "illegals". This is an interesting angle. While we don't require it, for many years (at least 50 of 'em that I know about), we have awarded citizenship to any foreigner that serves in our armed forces. It's a "way toward citizenship", already. This is something I'll need to ponder, a bit but it has provoked thought. Peace and comfort, Michael

kdsub -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 10:24:03 AM)
quote: but it's a far lower level of committment than some might be thinking is required. I don't know...around my area they would be called out every few months... We have been hit hard with floods and storms the last few years. I think this type of contribution would be great and a character builder for young folks. Butch

Edwynn -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 10:29:22 AM)
When cannon fodder is needed, immigrants or 'minorities' are quite convenient to the purpose. Promise them anything. We did that in WWII and Korea. Now, it's an ongoing thing. In Korea, especially, they were the ones on point.

BitaTruble -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 12:12:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I know that my time in the Navy made me a better person. Thank you for your service. I have a great appreciation for our service personal and most of my heroes wear combat boots. One thing that I have noticed over the years.. it doesn't matter whether you have a D, R, I or nothing or something else after your name.. the vast majority of Americans are already very loyal to the country (they may despise and hate leadership etc., but they love their country) and as the aim and purpose of the General seems to be to instill loyalty and nationalism, I don't see that it's an issue that's broken and this 'fix' appears to be fairly costly for no reward. As a means to an end result of a free labor pool.. it seems we did try that experiment already .. and it didn't work out that well. I guess it depends on whether or not one believes that ends justify means. As a general rule of thumb, I'm not pro-Machiavellian.

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 2:11:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble As a means to an end result of a free labor pool.. This is something else I wanted to address. If we call the inactive community responders to come help clean up behind a natural disaster, or staff the emergency shelter for a day, yes, they won't be getting much more than lunch. Those who take an active service option though, will be earning a paycheck. Let's say that 18 year old Jane Smith down the street decides to actively enlist in the service corps that provides low level government workers. She takes her screening tests, passes the physical, and fills out her options forms on what she'd like to do and where. Based on her preferences, and the needs of the service, she winds up working in a state call center, about an hour away from home. She may live in dormitory housing with a chow hall, or get a housing allowance and use it to cover the commute costs so she can live at home. She has a regular, 40 hr a week work schedule, and receives a salary. Her time off is her own. She'd even have a process available so she could quit, and complete the obligation in another way if needed. She works for the state, and the state pays her. I mentioned points to completion earlier. That same points system would also determine access to service related benefits later in life. Someone who opts to do the bare minimum in an inactive reserve role not only won't be getting paid much, they won't be getting tuition assistance and VA type mortgage deals down the road. By contrast, a military enlistee who completes his term of service is not only going to have long passed the obligatory minimum points when he gets out, there will be a nice package of benefits waiting for him.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 2:31:32 PM)
Maybe it's changed recently, but last I checked the US military, it was a sliding scale to meet the total obligated service... 1 year active duty with a 6 year reserve obligation on one end, up to 6 years active duty with a 2 year inactive reserve obligation. That works on the premise that the infrastructure needed for war will be in place even when the reservists aren't using it. One of the issues with assuming a military model for a national service requirement, is that the military reserves are a career for those who want it... pay raises, promotions, retirement etc. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub As a second thought most here I believe have been thinking of the service time as 2 years minimum... I see no reason not to make the obligation less... say one year or even 6 months...at least outside of military service. A shorted time would not interfere with lives as much but still provide a life experience that helps others. Agreed, completely. Most Euro countries require less than 2 years, civilian or military. In another discussion, it was pointed out that 6-12 months is insufficient preparation for actual military service, in the field. No argument with that, but then again when that is required of the whole (usually smaller) country, that leaves them 6-12 months ahead of the countries that suddenly have a call-up when some immediate need arises. We shouldn't expect that 12 months 'training' would bring young folks up to full speed on everything that goes on in the world, militarily, politically, or otherwise. But a year's experience is a year's experience. Better to have that valuable addition in the way of experience, rather than to leave the poor sod to the education system alone. Three years of education at the uni still can't explain even one year's r/l experience. They trip over themselves repeatedly in the attempt.

Edwynn -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 2:43:38 PM)
Sorry, I was wrong. It's 7-8 years total service, not 4 years. I got carried away in my trying to minimize the situation, even in effort to explain that a lot more people might sign up if the terms were more reasonable.

eulero83 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 3:22:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble As a means to an end result of a free labor pool.. This is something else I wanted to address. If we call the inactive community responders to come help clean up behind a natural disaster, or staff the emergency shelter for a day, yes, they won't be getting much more than lunch. Those who take an active service option though, will be earning a paycheck. Let's say that 18 year old Jane Smith down the street decides to actively enlist in the service corps that provides low level government workers. She takes her screening tests, passes the physical, and fills out her options forms on what she'd like to do and where. Based on her preferences, and the needs of the service, she winds up working in a state call center, about an hour away from home. She may live in dormitory housing with a chow hall, or get a housing allowance and use it to cover the commute costs so she can live at home. She has a regular, 40 hr a week work schedule, and receives a salary. Her time off is her own. She'd even have a process available so she could quit, and complete the obligation in another way if needed. She works for the state, and the state pays her. I mentioned points to completion earlier. That same points system would also determine access to service related benefits later in life. Someone who opts to do the bare minimum in an inactive reserve role not only won't be getting paid much, they won't be getting tuition assistance and VA type mortgage deals down the road. By contrast, a military enlistee who completes his term of service is not only going to have long passed the obligatory minimum points when he gets out, there will be a nice package of benefits waiting for him. but is this point system something actually proposed or is it something you came out with? Anyway i don't know how works in the usa but when a governament impose a duty usually is not to spend more money thet they probably don't have, so I don't know if you see it as a 2nd "new deal" to solve the economical problems giving work to young persons, but for what I know national service is just legalized cheep forced labour. I can give you an example: in Italy the paycheck for a conscripted soldier or civil servant in 2002 was about 1.60€ a day at the time the price of a beer in a pub. Than I was wondering if you would be personally ready to stop your working activity for one or two years serving at a pay decided by the governament, if not it seems quite unfair that you agree with something like this when you would not be ready to go through it in first person.

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 3:36:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 but is this point system something actually proposed or is it something you came out with? Just something I'm tossing out for purposes of discussion. When I was serving, back in the late 80's, the lowest military pay grade's base salary worked out to just slightly above what you'd make on a full-time minimum wage job. Add in free housing and meals, it was certainly enough to get drunk on.

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 3:44:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 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. Still not catching it? The dodge for the wealthy and powerful isn't through deferments or exemptions, it is the alternative service through qualifying agencies. The country club ( or Beverly Hills homeowners association, or whatever) can just set up their own little non-profit, and their precious offspring can tick off the box in whatever cushy manner they please, without ever getting dirty, or sharing the air with hoi polloi.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 6:05:55 PM)
And what alternative do you propose for the disabled, that the wealthy won't pay off their doctors to diagnose, exactly as they did in the last draft? Do you propose to help society by taking 18 year olds geniuses who are already working on a cure for cancer, and handing them a shovel, or will there be deferments for school/jobs that the wealthy can buy into just like they did in last draft? What determining body will issue these waivers, that won't be persuaded by the wealthy and powerful, as they were in the last draft. Or have the laws of the universe about history repeating itself been suspended because the proposal is somehow super special? quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 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. Still not catching it? The dodge for the wealthy and powerful isn't through deferments or exemptions, it is the alternative service through qualifying agencies. The country club ( or Beverly Hills homeowners association, or whatever) can just set up their own little non-profit, and their precious offspring can tick off the box in whatever cushy manner they please, without ever getting dirty, or sharing the air with hoi polloi.

TheHeretic -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 7:02:41 PM)
Still throwing rocks, without having taken the effort to read what was posted in the first place, huh? I remember seeing replies very similar to this, in style and tone, from someone who stopped posting here a while back. It was a waste of fucking time, trying to engage with that one. People who want to go right on into college are going to do so. Unlike the draft, no letter is going to arrive, telling them when and where to report for induction. The whiz kid is going to collect his points from the American Cancer Society or some such, doing exactly the research he is gifted to do, or from the university itself. For college students who are smart (a far smaller number than college students overall), this is going to be a benefit, in that their summer job is already lined up. Live in the barracks, eat in the chow hall, bank every nickel of pay.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 8:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 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. Still not catching it? The dodge for the wealthy and powerful isn't through deferments or exemptions, it is the alternative service through qualifying agencies. The country club ( or Beverly Hills homeowners association, or whatever) can just set up their own little non-profit, and their precious offspring can tick off the box in whatever cushy manner they please, without ever getting dirty, or sharing the air with hoi polloi. Then, what would the point be? You'll end up hitting those who can't afford to play the shell game on the hook for more than those who can afford to play the shell game. Wouldn't that be diametrically opposed to what you would want to happen?

BamaD -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 8:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Who is to say a government will not one day make one earn their citizenship? Interesting thought in light of the fact that at the present many consider it discrimination to deny illegals the full benefits of citizenship. Is it not more in fitting with the trend that someday there will be no standards for citizenship? I think the key word there is "illegals". This is an interesting angle. While we don't require it, for many years (at least 50 of 'em that I know about), we have awarded citizenship to any foreigner that serves in our armed forces. It's a "way toward citizenship", already. This is something I'll need to ponder, a bit but it has provoked thought. Peace and comfort, Michael Illegals should be given a choice of that or deportation first time. Second time that or prison.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A National Service Obligation? (6/1/2013 8:30:11 PM)
In other words, you can't answer inconvenient questions about the holes big enough to drive a truck through, so you fall back on insinuations about the poster. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Still throwing rocks, without having taken the effort to read what was posted in the first place, huh? I remember seeing replies very similar to this, in style and tone, from someone who stopped posting here a while back. It was a waste of fucking time, trying to engage with that one. People who want to go right on into college are going to do so. Unlike the draft, no letter is going to arrive, telling them when and where to report for induction. The whiz kid is going to collect his points from the American Cancer Society or some such, doing exactly the research he is gifted to do, or from the university itself. For college students who are smart (a far smaller number than college students overall), this is going to be a benefit, in that their summer job is already lined up. Live in the barracks, eat in the chow hall, bank every nickel of pay.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625