Post by: Guest on December 03, 2005, 12:30:12 AM
Post by: Preacherman on December 03, 2005, 12:52:31 AM
However, to make it a military-only draft often defeats these objectives, and causes huge resentment. I'd prefer to see a draft for all teenagers, of both sexes, where they would have to serve for a couple of years in the service of the nation. This could include:
- Military service;
- Peace Corps;
- Assistance with national projects such as wildlife conservation, forestry, erosion control, etc.;
- Medical assistance (e.g. nursing assistance, hospital orderlies, etc.);
- Disaster relief;
- Education (particularly in more deprived areas such as Native American reservations, or projects in poorer countries);
- Public works.
This could also be combined with one's career planning. Those who wanted to study medicine, for example, could work in a related field, and perhaps do some coursework for credit towards their future education. Those who wanted to teach could work in the field of education, and also earn credits. A "completion bonus" could be provided for those who successfully complete their service, to be applied to their ongoing education, or just as a cash payment to provide an incentive for them to co-operate (of course, the "completion bonus" would not be paid to those who'd given unsatisfactory service).
Those are my thoughts, anyway.
Post by: Norton on December 03, 2005, 01:04:50 AM
My understanding is that the military doesn't want the draft since it dilutes the quality of the talent as they really don't want to be there.
Post by: MaterDei on December 03, 2005, 02:30:53 AM
**Disclaimer - I served in the Army for 10 years and would benefit from this plan.
Post by: Leatherneck on December 03, 2005, 05:14:14 AM
But a more positive incentive in terms of pay and benefits could be done with less investment and with greater payoff, IMO.
TC
Post by: Moondoggie on December 03, 2005, 05:17:01 AM
Let those who prefer military service pursue that avenue, but there are soooo many positive things that young folks could participate in. The benefit would be a two way street.
In addition to the ideas for service already posted I think such service could be used to:
Staff homeless shelters, especially for those interested in a career in mental health fields,
Provide assistance at fire/police stations,
Provide tutoring/assistant teacher services in public schools
In other words....What Preacherman said!
Post by: Ben on December 03, 2005, 05:28:06 AM
I think something like that, the Peace Corps as Preacherman mentioned, or military service should be "mandatory" choices that kids should have to make, based on whichever one best fits their personal philosophy at the time (or if they don't have one, throw them into the "wood chopping" category to give them perspective). Looking back, I would have appreciated having done something like that -- I think I would have matured a bit faster. If I were King, I might even go so far as to say no one could be classified as an "adult" and vote until they did one of those things.
Post by: Guest on December 03, 2005, 05:58:30 AM
It certainly isnt a violation of the concept of a free society. Clearly its OK that the people are the property of the government, and OBVIOUSLY the government can be fully trusted with such a task.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on December 03, 2005, 06:27:34 AM
I'm sure Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and Israel will be pleased to hear this.
Post by: brimic on December 03, 2005, 06:28:33 AM
C_Yeager's post above is pretty much in line with my thinking.
Everyone is already doing 'voluntary' service 4 months out of the year from the time they enter the work force until the day they die by paying taxes. Who do you think really contributes more tot heis country? A 18 year old who is shipped over seas at taxpary expense to do something he/she does want to do, or an 18 year old who becomes an apprentice mason because he wants to and later opens up his own masonry business where he not only employs others, but pays in large amounts of money to the government as taxes?
A socialists wet dream- delay the entrance of youthful workers into the work force while giving them meaningless work to do for low wages while rasing taxes on the rest of productive society to not only pay for these feel good programs but to make up the loss of tax revenue created by having these young workers in the workforce.
Any politician who promotes mandatory service during peaceful times should immediately be beaten to death with a shovel.
Post by: brimic on December 03, 2005, 06:36:21 AM
Quote
However, to make it a military-only draft often defeats these objectives, and causes huge resentment. I'd prefer to see a draft for all teenagers, of both sexes, where they would have to serve for a couple of years in the service of the nation. This could include:
- Military service;
- Peace Corps;
- Assistance with national projects such as wildlife conservation, forestry, erosion control, etc.;
- Medical assistance (e.g. nursing assistance, hospital orderlies, etc.);
- Disaster relief;
- Education (particularly in more deprived areas such as Native American reservations, or projects in poorer countries);
- Public works.
I went right from high school to college and worked my way through college to earn degrees in chemistry and biology. I currently work for a company that produces drugs that CURE cancers. I don't see anything on your list with the possible exception of disaster relief that could come anywhere near as fullfilling of a path that I took, and I certainly am not going to deny others younger than me from the right to make their own decisions on how to live their lives.- Military service;
- Peace Corps;
- Assistance with national projects such as wildlife conservation, forestry, erosion control, etc.;
- Medical assistance (e.g. nursing assistance, hospital orderlies, etc.);
- Disaster relief;
- Education (particularly in more deprived areas such as Native American reservations, or projects in poorer countries);
- Public works.
edit: sorry to single out your post Preacherman, but this is a topic that always gets my hackles up.
Post by: Guest on December 03, 2005, 07:07:56 AM
Quote from: Sylvilagus Aquaticus
"It isnt an accident that virtually every fundamentally evil nation in history has had compulsory government service."
I'm sure Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and Israel will be pleased to hear this.
I want you to read the actual statement that you quoted, read it carefully and slowly so that you can actually understand what it says.I'm sure Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and Israel will be pleased to hear this.
Does it say that every government with compulsory service is evil? How about you actually refute what was stated; that virtually every fundamentally evil nation has had compulsory service.
Post by: Winston Smith on December 03, 2005, 07:17:10 AM
Post by: matis on December 03, 2005, 08:51:00 AM
________________________________________
I'm against this idea.
The countries named above have the draft for military reasons, primarily.
I don't know much about the draft in Norway and Sweden.
But Switzerland's draft has kept her out of wars for what, 400-500 years?
Even Hitler, pondering those MB rifles in the closets in each home, decided to forgo attack and made them his bankers, instead.
As for Israel, their draft is a matter of survival, plain and simple.
It is well-known (except among the looney-left) that military service is a positive and maturing experience. But this works best in times of war and even then with volunteers. And not all are suited for military service.
Even with the world-wide Islamo-fascist threat we face, mandatory service is not the answer.
I agree that most youth in America does suffer from self-absorption and a distortion in their understanding of life. I tie this to the decline, indeed the vicious attack on religion that has been growing for decades, here.
This country is unique because of it's values -- which are bound up in its Judeo-Christian heritage.
So those who think themselves too enlightened for this "superstition" throw out the baby with the bathwater.
This is a very serious problem that unless reversed will lead us to utter collapse.
However, it is NOT a socialist, bureaucracy-driven and politicized, mandatory program that will save us.
When you consider the state of the public-school system it's easy to see that such programs are part of the problem and cannot be the solution.
I don't pretend to know what the answer is. But whatever is needed will come from the private sector, from religious organizations and, if they can be pulled away from in front of their HDTV's -- the parents.
Someone on APS or TFL or THR has a sig line that aptly relates to this discussion:
There is no social problem that cannot be made worse by giving it its own government program (paraphrasing).
matis
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on December 03, 2005, 09:04:08 AM
I was a spoiled, delinquent, somewhat wealthy kid. Headed down a very wrong path; fighting, vandalism, lots of drugs & alcohol.
3 semesters into college, I had a reversal of fortune and the only way to finish school for me was to join the National Guard.
I went through Army Basic Training, AIT and a tour of duty in Active service.
It was, bar none, the BEST thing that could have happened to me. Grew me up, helped me learn what was important in life, taught me to get along with people from all walks of society.
...and prior to the experience, I would have protested just as vocally as c_yeager, brimic, and Winston!
Not compulsory MILITARY service, but just as Preacherman described, would go a long way to silence the snot-nosed, whiney, self-absorbed girlie-men (and EMO kids!) our society has produced over the last generation.
Post by: brimic on December 03, 2005, 10:00:10 AM
Post by: Oleg Volk on December 03, 2005, 10:15:11 AM
Post by: Winston Smith on December 03, 2005, 12:21:30 PM
Post by: atek3 on December 03, 2005, 12:59:46 PM
I'm all in favor.
atek3
Post by: Firethorn on December 03, 2005, 01:23:04 PM
When I think about the liberal/conservative mix, if you did tie this service to the vote, who would tend not to be able to vote more? I can think of a number of plusses and minuses.
Nope, don't make it mandatory.
Post by: roo_ster on December 03, 2005, 02:07:29 PM
Mandatory service in the armed forces would be good for those who were yanked into service, but bad for the military.
My case of service was not one of needeing to grow up. I had a serious degree, prospects, and my head on my shoulders when I went into indentured servitude to Uncle Sam. I wanted to serve, have some adventure, and make a career. Well, I served, at least.
I think abolishing the gov't school monopoly and giving the cash to parents would go a long way to turning out better, more mature adults...in a way that would not cost any more money and that would not force people into indentured sevitude.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 03, 2005, 02:14:29 PM
That said, I am totally opposed to a draft. It is economically unsound, taking people who can provide a high level of goods and service and putting them in the same category as those who can't, depriving society of skills. Muhammed Ali and Elvis Presley were both drafted (Ali of course resisted and went to jail) and the US lost years of their skills and services. Imagine if Bill Gates had been drafted instead of tinkering in his garage.
Training soldiers, especially in todays Army, is very expensive. We would do better to send them all to camp instead.
Post by: Guest on December 03, 2005, 02:33:00 PM
Post by: ...has left the building. on December 03, 2005, 02:53:09 PM
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on December 03, 2005, 03:36:52 PM
I'd be interested to hear Marko Kloos' thoughts on this, since IIRC he served under the 2yr mandatory service in W. Germany.
I don't think a DRAFT is a good thing. Perhaps not even MANDATORY service.
But I really like the idea of having some kind of service opportunities between H.S. and college as the norm, thought of as perhaps career exploration, internship, or just an opportunity to make some money. Conservation Corps, Military, Public Works projects, whatever.
Post by: jefnvk on December 03, 2005, 03:58:45 PM
Mandatory military service, yes, for anyone able bodied 18-25, or some other similiar age group. However, this would strictly be a National Guard type deal, except you would never leave your home area. More like a militia system. Couldn't be deployed anywhere outside the US, could only be moved outside your area of residence in time of attack or for training.
Needs some work, but sounds good in my head.
Post by: Pb on December 03, 2005, 06:04:09 PM
Post by: Oleg Volk on December 03, 2005, 06:05:58 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on December 03, 2005, 06:23:46 PM
Quote from: Oleg Volk
Conscription is what made WW1 and WW2 possible, among other factors.
That's a positive then.
Post by: Oleg Volk on December 03, 2005, 07:05:13 PM
Post by: Sindawe on December 03, 2005, 07:06:42 PM
Quote
That's a positive then.
Well, if one considers wars of aggression for Lebensraum and having the manpower to staff camps to deal with dissidents, gypsies, juden and other "untermenchen" a positive, then yes I suppose it is.
Post by: Winston Smith on December 03, 2005, 07:16:59 PM
AS one of the only ones here who would be enslaved according to the plan supposed, (natedog and combatwombat have yet to chime in) I feel exactly as I do when classmates of mine who don't pay taxes say what the government should do.
You're not paying the price, thus you don't get to make the decisions. Don't pay taxes, no input.
You cannot concievably think that it's all right to volunteer me to give up my liberty for a probably what is 1/40th of my life, under the misapprehension that it will be good for me.
Ah well.
Felionius Fig said:
Quote
Not compulsory MILITARY service, but just as Preacherman described, would go a long way to silence the snot-nosed, whiney, self-absorbed girlie-men (and EMO kids!) our society has produced over the last generation.
For the children, right?EDIT:
Matis said:
Quote
I agree that most youth in America does suffer from self-absorption and a distortion in their understanding of life. I tie this to the decline, indeed the vicious attack on religion that has been growing for decades, here.
Replace "religion" with "freedom" and you'll have something.
Post by: Waitone on December 03, 2005, 09:13:27 PM
That said, would service to the country be of value for a lot of reasons? You betcha. Build character, correct upbringing errors. Build independence. All good thangs but it not up to the government to do it by requirement. In the wrong society the young can be taught socially unacceptable skills like unquestioned obedience to immoral orders. Far too many societies learned that if you want really bad things done, get the young and twist them.
I am not saying the US is in that mode. I am saying human nature being what it is makes such things possible. The likelihood of it happening increases with the demise of religious training.
Service to the country should be voluntary.
Post by: HForrest on December 03, 2005, 10:44:31 PM
Post by: Preacherman on December 04, 2005, 03:29:39 AM
I don't buy the argument about "extending State control" or "major financial burden". If the national service is actually doing good things for the country, including major projects like forestry, assisting in urban redevelopment, agriculture, etc., then the cost/benefit ratio is going to be at worst a wash, and at best rather a gain for the country. As for those who opt for military service, they'll be getting a couple of years "grunt" experience, and learning a whole lot about themselves, which many of us have been through (either voluntarily or through conscription) in this and other countries. I think all those who've been through it will confirm that while they may not have enjoyed it much, they certainly changed from children into adults.
I still maintain that the positive side of a national service system is far more significant than the negative.
Post by: Firethorn on December 04, 2005, 03:56:31 AM
You don't get to vote until you do your federal(and/or state) service.
While indeed, quite a bit of good can come, you have to wonder about the bad stuff. Delaying college, stifling young businessmen. Shortage of 18-20 year olds on the open market. Seperation of people from the 'real' commercial jobs for a couple years.
There's only so much call for basically unskilled labor, especially if you only have two years to train and use them. Even the military called for four for the longest time. Even now, the 18 month or whatever the shortest enlistment time is is an experiment and sign of desperation. Heck, the job market can't be that bad if the army can't recruit.
Post by: Moondoggie on December 04, 2005, 05:42:41 AM
Conscription is also what facilitated the "War of Northern Aggression", except in those days you could officially buy your way out of service.
Post by: Ben on December 04, 2005, 05:47:15 AM
Quote
If you advocated this when our founding fathers were still around, they would be at your door step waiting for you to open the door so they can kick you in the balls.
I'm not sure why they would kick me. I'm a white male landowner -- the only type of US citizen they would allow the ability to vote.
Post by: Seymour Skinner on December 04, 2005, 07:10:30 AM
I have long noticed that "gun owner" does NOT necessarily mean a person is pro liberty, which many assume it does.
Particularly frightening are the rationalizations (they expose what is REALLY in people's hearts) for mis named governmental parentalism like "national service":
Quote
You don't get to vote until you do your federal(and/or state) service.
*shudders* HOW did we go as a nation, from "only land owners may vote" to the above abomination?Quote
Folks, I was young, once, and I remember how shallow and self-centered I was. I find exactly the same traits among modern youth. Oh, I know, they can't help it, it's the way and the society in which they've been raised: but it needs correction, and I think national service of some kind is a very good way to do it.
*sighs* Let me translate the above: "I'm going to use government force to do what I couldn't otherwise force you to do, under the guise of making YOU less selfish." Holy smoke, I honestly can't believe I'm reading this among gun owners. I expect to hear preacherman's posts on the campus of my local government university. Preacherman, how do you NOT realize that such a program would only make them young wipper snappers "less selfish" when it comes to GOVERNMENT? They will be turned into the kind of livelong government loyalists that we've seen and continue to see in Europe (which is not far from the American public today, no wonder it's taking hold among people who used to know better).By the way, those of you who have this idealized fantasy about so called "national service" can take heart in the future. The powers that be have made no bones about the fact that this is a long term goal of theirs. Every administration (including this one) has floated their own version of the same animal. UN connected organizations salivate at the very thought of compulsory government "service."
I believe we already have something GOOD in the "military service" department for 18 yr olds that is systematically ignored, even among gun owners. We suffer from a lack of real courage within men in this country, otherwise you would see functional and unique *gasp* local militias all over the land. They would be meeting, training, teaching, discussing, preparing, and many other good things that narrow minded militia bigots could never conceive of. Whenever someone like me dares to point this out, there is an inevitable chorus of the comfortable gutless among us who ask, "Well what are YOU doing to accomplish this?" These guys aren't reconstituting their local militia, they simply A. want someone to do it for them, and B. feel real big by focusing on the one pointing it out instead of the subject itself.
If you are too whatever, to join/reconstitute your local militia, you have no moral right in the universe to use government as your mercenary to compel your fellow citizen to do what YOU think is "best" for him, or will make him "less selfish"
. No one will come along to forcibly compel you to reconstitute your local militia (despite the fact that it IS the state's responsibility), so doing the right thing will take personal initiative and backbone of a different sort than hanging Christmas lights, and WON'T involve backwards government programs.
Post by: SpookyPistolero on December 04, 2005, 07:24:19 AM
It can only be imagined to put forth mandatory service in the form of a draft, when absolute self-preservation is the question at hand, not self-improvement. Even that is a stretch to my mind.
Post by: Guest on December 04, 2005, 07:33:39 AM
- Its an age group that has built the world in which wars are still necessary, so why shouldnt they be the ones to clean up the mess?
- They already have valuable skills that would save us having to train new recruits.
- It would take a HUGE drain off the healthcare and social service systems. And if *anyone* owes a "debt" to society, it should be the people who are sucking so forcefully at the collective teet.
- If the unthinkable were to happen and every single one of them were to get wiped out, our nation could proceed quite hapilly without them.
- There are more people over the age of 55 than between the ages of 18 and 20, so its a bigger pool of available labor.
- These are the people who have had over 30 voting years to make this country a better place, and they failed miserably, time to make up for it.
- We could make an amusing reality show and take bets to see which ones died in Basic Training.
- We could even use a Heinlenesque system and, rather than drafting people, make service a prerequisite for recieving social security and medicaid.
This makes a lot more sense, but it will never happen. Why? Well, because this is a group of people that EXPECTS the rest of us to clean up after them, and really thinks its a great idea for young people to carry them upon their shoulders, because somehow they owe them for making such a mess of the world that they have to live in now.
Sorry folks, but the people who are coming out of schools right now have already looked around, and they have seen what you have done to this country. Thanks for all the gun control, a near-totalitarian government, more unnecessary wars than could ever have been imagined, an entitlement system has created an underclass of serfs, and an economy that requires a person to owe a lifetime of debt just to have a place to live. People dont feel that they owe this society anything anymore, simply because its isnt a society than one feels is worth it. If you want today's kids to spend their blood on this nation, then maybe you should have given them something worth fighting for.
Post by: Winston Smith on December 04, 2005, 07:42:19 AM
I already have a father. I don't need you, or the government in that role.
Preacherman, what you have demonstrated is the worst kind of political arrogance, the assuming that you know what other people need. That kind of political arrogance gave us welfare, war, and quite the bloated government.
You are part of the problem.
I was taught that we should at least AIM for the principles of live and let live, but apparently Preacherman and some of my other elders find other courses wiser. Which is fine, of course, except that they want to force their choices on me.
Which is, you know, what's that word....?
Ah yeah, fascism.
Sieg heil.
Post by: Nightfall on December 04, 2005, 08:29:28 AM
Post by: jefnvk on December 04, 2005, 09:02:02 AM
Now that the idea comes up, though, it seems that many don't much care for the idea.
Post by: natedog on December 04, 2005, 09:06:17 AM
Hint: It isn't a daycare center or dicipline school.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on December 04, 2005, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: Firethorn
While indeed, quite a bit of good can come, you have to wonder about the bad stuff. Delaying college, stifling young businessmen. Shortage of 18-20 year olds on the open market.
Firethorn-- and the "bad stuff" you mention is...?Delaying college while children become adults...
stifling young businessmen long enough that they can solidify their ideas from age 18 (still a child) until age 20...
(almost a man)...
Shortage of 18-20 year olds on the open market. Yep, our economy would REALLY be hurting without them.
Where's the downside?
The most vocal against this concept of youth internships, CRYING waaaah "slavery" and "you're not the boss of me",
are the children.
"mandatory and freedom are mutually exclusive"?
Not if you're not a total libertarian anarchist.
Freedom = 50% rights, 50% responsibility.
Kids SCREAM for their rights, but quickly leave the room when responsibility comes due.
Grow up, boys & girls. SO self-centered to think you are "owed" all these freedoms.
Interesting conversation!
Post by: Guest on December 04, 2005, 09:43:54 AM
Quote
The most vocal against this, CRYING waaaah "slavery" and "you're not the boss of me",
are the children.
Yeah, because they are the only ones with someone to lose in this proposition. But of course that's not why they're opposed to it, it's because they're whiny little brats who don't want to be forced into government service for two years.are the children.
Quote
Freedom = 50% rights, 50% responsibility.
Kids SCREAM for their rights, but quickly leave the room when responsibility comes due.
Grow up, boys & girls. SO self-centered to think you are "owed" all these freedoms.
My responsibility for being born in a free country is to take no more than what I put in and harm no one else. Of course, that's a simplistic answer, but that's the gist of it. I shouldn't be forced into two years of government servitude.
Kids SCREAM for their rights, but quickly leave the room when responsibility comes due.
Grow up, boys & girls. SO self-centered to think you are "owed" all these freedoms.
Post by: Iain on December 04, 2005, 10:06:28 AM
Every generation thinks that their kids are wastrels and would benefit from being 'whipped into shape'. And their kids disagree and swear that they'll never think that way. And thirty years later...
If it isn't 'for the children' then it's 'those darned kids'.
Post by: Justin on December 04, 2005, 11:01:48 AM
The state already requires that I give 30% of everything I make to them, and that, in my estimation, is more than enough.
Post by: Guest on December 04, 2005, 12:32:23 PM
Quote
I find it funny that people keep bringing up that the founding fathers would have never done such a thing, when in another argument, we will immediately bring up that at one point, everyone was forced to be in the militia.
You cant possibly be equating the militia with service in a government commanded military. The militia is a body of citizens ENTIRELY INDEPENDANT from government authority, thats the entire point.
Post by: Firethorn on December 04, 2005, 01:19:40 PM
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of way to destroy the professional bureaucracy. After thinking about it, requiring federal service in order to vote is a bad idea. Bureaucrats already have too much power.
I like the social security/medicare idea though.
Felonious Fig, I guess it's the idea that many of these young adults will end up working on less economical jobs. They won't be generating wealth like many are doing now. Why interupt their training, which the majority DO complete? Why delay them in college, when, while there's still a failure rate, the majority do graduate.
By letting them choose when, if they choose to do so, to serve, you'll be receiving skilled workers, later in life, not a glut of teenagers.
Post by: Iain on December 04, 2005, 02:59:19 PM
Post by: Guest on December 04, 2005, 03:14:19 PM
I'll admit, I'd like to see it become an expectation we set for our kids to serve their country and citizens, but not as a mandate from the government.
Post by: Firethorn on December 04, 2005, 05:19:33 PM
I'm 28, opposed to mandatory service, though I think that a voluntary service with some perks might be a good idea. Born and raised in the midwest, grew up for the teenage years in Lincoln, NE.
Post by: brimic on December 04, 2005, 05:50:57 PM
Post by: Winston Smith on December 04, 2005, 07:16:37 PM
Quote
The most vocal against this concept of youth internships, CRYING waaaah "slavery" and "you're not the boss of me",
are the children.
----
Kids SCREAM for their rights, but quickly leave the room when responsibility comes due.
Grow up, boys & girls. SO self-centered to think you are "owed" all these freedoms.
This is definitely a generalization, a prejudgement, and almost an ad hominem attack.are the children.
----
Kids SCREAM for their rights, but quickly leave the room when responsibility comes due.
Grow up, boys & girls. SO self-centered to think you are "owed" all these freedoms.
Quote
To me it seems like a much better idea to let people find their own way in life than force people to choose some sort of goobermint service.
You mean some further government service, as I give over 1/3rd of the fruits of my labor to the government. And I work two jobs. Add those two to high school and you're facing 55 hour weeks.Tell me how I could benefit from military or government service.
You don't know me.
You don't know what's best for me.
I have no right to confiscate more of your money in taxes so my high school could have some goddamn ventilation, so you certainly have no right to tell me that I have to go fight your foreign wars/build your bridges/whatever else the .gov thinks is best.
I'll say it again: Presuming you know what's best for other people (especially millions of people you've never met) is the worst kind of political arrogance, and acting on those presumptions to deprive people of their liberty is fascism.
EDIT:
And I think people missed this, and should take a much closer look at it:
natedog said:
Quote
What is the purpose of the military?
Hint: It isn't a daycare center or dicipline school.
Hint: It isn't a daycare center or dicipline school.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on December 04, 2005, 08:06:57 PM
Particularly on a board supposedly dedicated to freedom this is just depressing. If we are only in favor of the freedoms we desire, and support enslavement as we see beneficial,then we are devoid of any standing, and should go find nice MILITANT communist and socialist panels to participate in, since apparently it's owning guns and not freedom that everyone cares about.
*fumes*
Post by: HForrest on December 04, 2005, 08:07:52 PM
Quote
The most vocal against this concept of youth internships, CRYING waaaah "slavery" and "you're not the boss of me", are the children.
Yes, because it is slavery, and you, in fact, are not the boss of me.
Post by: Winston Smith on December 04, 2005, 08:10:41 PM
Quote
No matter how positive your personal experiences in the military, the fact remains that part of that positive experience was your CHOICE to serve your country and the things that followed that choice..
I'm with you, but some of these people are old enough to have been drafted.That doesn't really matter though, even though wrong was done to them, it shouldn't be repeated. And if they don't believe it really harmed them, well, that's either making lemonade out of lemons or Stockholm Syndrome.
Post by: jefnvk on December 04, 2005, 08:27:27 PM
Quote
You cant possibly be equating the militia with service in a government commanded military. The militia is a body of citizens ENTIRELY INDEPENDANT from government authority, thats the entire point.
And if you look at my proposal, a militia is pretty much what I reccomend. But, there were still laws in place to ensure people were doing what they needed to.
Post by: Alex45ACP on December 04, 2005, 10:29:24 PM
Post by: Firethorn on December 04, 2005, 11:12:45 PM
Post by: Warren on December 05, 2005, 12:20:28 AM
Post by: Norton on December 05, 2005, 12:58:41 AM
>>I think APS has stayed civil enough that we can start inviting people to it from ooutside.<<
Post by: Firethorn on December 05, 2005, 03:59:06 AM
Profanity, name calling, personal attacks, flamewars, horrible spelling/grammer, etc.
Post by: richyoung on December 05, 2005, 04:51:23 AM
Quote from: jefnvk
I find it funny that people keep bringing up that the founding fathers would have never done such a thing, when in another argument, we will immediately bring up that at one point, everyone was forced to be in the militia. And we will use that as a good example of why the 2A exists.
Now that the idea comes up, though, it seems that many don't much care for the idea.
What do you mean, "at one point"? You don't realize that almost all of us are officially in the militia, according to federal law?
Now that the idea comes up, though, it seems that many don't much care for the idea.
Post by: jefnvk on December 05, 2005, 06:57:27 AM
IMHO, that is pretty much the same thing as what was proposed.
Post by: Guest on December 05, 2005, 09:37:37 AM
Quote from: c_yeager
Yes a 2-year period of brainwashing would definatly brighten the future of our nation. It isnt an accident that virtually every fundamentally evil nation in history has had compulsory government service. It sounds like we are favoring the Soviet model that would allow us to send our lower classes into the trenches and our rich kids into government offices for grooming, excellent idea.
It certainly isnt a violation of the concept of a free society. Clearly its OK that the people are the property of the government, and OBVIOUSLY the government can be fully trusted with such a task.
Haha!
It certainly isnt a violation of the concept of a free society. Clearly its OK that the people are the property of the government, and OBVIOUSLY the government can be fully trusted with such a task.
Post by: Guest on December 05, 2005, 09:39:23 AM
Quote from: Oleg Volk
Just for the record: enslaving people, even temporarily, even for a good cause, isn't ethical. In fact, trying to implement it should be a capital crime.
Thank you; I agree. MR (age, 62)
Post by: Guest on December 05, 2005, 09:51:02 AM
Quote from: Preacherman
I've noted the arguments of those against some form of national service (not necessarily military, as I said earlier), but I find them unconvincing. ...blah, blah, blah....
Sir, you are way off base. It is the same thing for a state to draft workers as it would be for you to force your neighbor to mow your lawn as part of a "neighborhood beautification plan". Please rethink your stand on this issue. I can't imagine you telling your congregation that it is O.K. to force people to do things for the common good...or for the good of a political entity. If you do, it merely means that your church and the state use the same ethical guidelines - none.
Post by: ...has left the building. on December 05, 2005, 01:08:06 PM
Help me out here...how is getting my degree, having an excellent job, paying high taxes, giving to charity, buying a high amount goods and services, establishing a solid household, et cetera NOT contributing to society?
Post by: jefnvk on December 05, 2005, 01:45:44 PM
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 05, 2005, 01:50:11 PM
Post by: Guest on December 05, 2005, 08:08:50 PM
Quote from: jefnvk
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this militia system we always tout as the ideal military is anything but what was proposed.
Whats being proposed is a draft into a state run standing army. That has absolutely no resemblance to the militia.In fact, a standing draft would subvert the militia because its members would be forced to serve in a state-run army, rather than in the citizen run militia. One of the purposes of the militia is to provide a check on the state, what kind of check is it when the entire body of men in the militia belong to that very same state? The militia HAS to be completely independant of government control, that is the entire point.
Post by: jefnvk on December 05, 2005, 09:29:42 PM
Even still, though, a militia system is going to have to force people to join.
Post by: MicroBalrog on December 05, 2005, 09:53:48 PM
Quote
Personally, I'm very much in favor of a draft for national service, but not the typical military-only draft. I think that the draft is a defining experience in a young person's life, and very often can make boys into men, or girls into women - it forces the individual to work with a group, meet those from different social backgrounds, function together, etc. It's a highly maturing experience.
Heh. I have been in a draftee military force (I left before completing te term of service). Basically, a draft, especially an Israel-pattern draft, where EVERYBODY has to join even if they are not needed (which includes soldiers working as teachers for schoolchildren, clerks, and so forth), is a very bad idea in a free country like America - both because it teaches militaristic discipline and because it inspires values totally alien to a free market system - you work and obey, because otherwise you'll be punished (by more labor) instead of working to get paid. This inspires people to dodge out of responsibility.I've seen it. BAD.
Post by: MicroBalrog on December 05, 2005, 09:54:54 PM
Quote
The militia HAS to be completely independant of government control, that is the entire point.
What about tactical command during war?
Post by: The Viking on December 06, 2005, 01:45:53 AM
BTW, that guy is now studying to become a doctor...
Post by: Guest on December 06, 2005, 02:22:38 AM
Can anyone name just one draftee in the last 200 years that benifited the military more than john Moses Browning? I didnt think so. Would we have been better off if he had been drafted and killed? no, we benifited from him having the freedom to pursue what he thought were his gifts and talents.
The strength of our country is in large part our economic strength, that is one reason admiral yamamoto was afraid to take us on, he knew our economic and industrial strength would prevail if the war was not short.
mandatory government employment would do nothing to stimulate a strong economy and would actually slow any potential growth.
Post by: Chris on December 07, 2005, 05:40:16 AM
At the same time, especially back when I worked in Juvenile Court, I saw so many young people walking through life, immature, with no real purpose other than to party hard, get stoned/drunk/etc., and get laid. A little compulsory service might just allow them to grow up without ruining their lives. I know many people who served, and it allowed them the opportunity to grow up. Many of the people I went to law school with stated that they would never have made it through undergrad, much less gone on to law school, had it not been for the discipline and maturity they got while serving.
Tough decision, so I'll err (if at all) on the side of saying no draft. At least until the next full scale world war.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on December 07, 2005, 08:29:24 AM
Think back to how many waste of space jerk-offs were in your class your Sr. Year. How many of them would you trust to guard your back when the metal meets the meat? For me... less than half.
Post by: Lo.Com.Denom on December 07, 2005, 12:22:41 PM
I used to beat myself up over the fact that I was not "soldier material", until I grew up and realised that the world isn't run upon militaristic, black-and-white lines. I think Winston Smith summed it up best in post #62 when he mentioned Stockholm Syndrome - people get seduced by the sense of purpose and belonging in the military. For me, that no longer holds any allure. I'm happy just being "me" and I'd strongly resist any attempt to force me to be something that I'm not.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 07, 2005, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
I can think of dozens of stories where criminals who obviously needed corrective applied discipline were given a choice between the armed forces and jail by a judge (almost all juveniles like you were saying), but that's still a choice.
Think back to how many waste of space jerk-offs were in your class your Sr. Year. How many of them would you trust to guard your back when the metal meets the meat? For me... less than half.
I was one of those C-average wast of space jerkoffs. The Marine Corps is where I got my stuff together. Its an excellent choice for a young person I would recommend highly.
Think back to how many waste of space jerk-offs were in your class your Sr. Year. How many of them would you trust to guard your back when the metal meets the meat? For me... less than half.