Why I am not a Libertarian.

[Eupher]

The mandatory thing isn't a good option.

But there are plenty of incentives that can sweeten any national community service activity.

To be clear, I absolutely advocate the idea of service. You can't have served in a uniform for an extended period and not believe that.

But in the interest of less government intrusion into my life, I can't see mandating such service.

Incentives are the answer. Such that any kid who isn't already strung out on meth or coke or isn't already in jail couldn't possibly pass up a deal like 50% paid tuition for 4 years for 2 years of national service of some type.

Or something along those lines.

[Chump]

Where did I say that?  

Point too complicated to grasp?  

You don't want to serve your country.  We all totally get it.  Stop trying to validate it by wrapping the Constitution around your argument as the Consitution is just a piece of paper if there is no force behind it to enforce it.   Perhaps Obama should throw the keys to Germany and Japan with many apologies... so sorry, the war was an illegal one as we drafted soldiers to fight it.  Here take our country as we retained it with misbegotten means.

Lol, Germany?  Japan?  Illegal wars?  This has precisely nothing to do with the idea that the government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for any period of time.  Your position is indefensible in a free society.  So, instead, you go on about me not wanting to serve my country, yet more nonsense.

Do you guys like the idea of a Civilian National Security Corps, as "well-funded as the military?"  Do you relish the idea of the government mandating that you buy health insurance?  I seem to remember quite a bit of outrage expressed at this site over those very ideas, yet you're arguing for the same intellectual foundation responsible for producing those ideas.  Apparently, with you, "it's OK when we do it."

No, it's not.

[Chump]

The mandatory thing isn't a good option.

But there are plenty of incentives that can sweeten any national community service activity.

To be clear, I absolutely advocate the idea of service. You can't have served in a uniform for an extended period and not believe that.

But in the interest of less government intrusion into my life, I can't see mandating such service.

Incentives are the answer. Such that any kid who isn't already strung out on meth or coke or isn't already in jail couldn't possibly pass up a deal like 50% paid tuition for 4 years for 2 years of national service of some type.

Or something along those lines.

Sure, I can get behind that.  I hate the idea of yet more government funds being redirected to helping people do what they already should be doing, but whatever.  I'll take that over government compulsion any day of the week.

[Chris_]

Lol, Germany?  Japan?  Illegal wars?  This has precisely nothing to do with the idea that the government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for any period of time.  Your position is indefensible in a free society.  So, instead, you go on about me not wanting to serve my country, yet more nonsense.

Do you guys like the idea of a Civilian National Security Corps, as "well-funded as the military?"  Do you relish the idea of the government mandating that you buy health insurance?  I seem to remember quite a bit of outrage expressed at this site over those very ideas, yet you're arguing for the same intellectual foundation responsible for producing those ideas.  Apparently, with you, "it's OK when we do it."

No, it's not.

I believe formerlurker is on record as being "nay" on the mandatory service issue.

[Chump]

I believe formerlurker is on record as being "nay" on the mandatory service issue.

I read it as mandatory military service: no.  Mandatory national service of some other sort: yes.

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

[TheSarge]

It works for me too.  As long as it's voluntary. 

Then it doesn't work for you because making it voluntary defeats the purpose.

But then you already knew that didn't you bully.

What mandatory service would do is give some of these young punks coming out of H.S. and college these days...a much better appreciation for what this country is...has to offer and stands for.

Not to mention it would show them in some very realistic terms just how full of sh8t their professors and teachers are that have been shoveling them a load of crap known as the Socialist utopia.

[TheSarge]

I read it as mandatory military service: no.  Mandatory national service of some other sort: yes.

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

dutch said...and I agree...that it doesn't have to be military.

[Chump]

dutch said...and I agree...that it doesn't have to be military.

I know, I was referencing formerlurker's position on whether or not it be mandatory, regardless of the actual service performed.

[Chris_]

Then it doesn't work for you because making it voluntary defeats the purpose.

But then you already knew that didn't you bully.

What mandatory service would do is give some of these young punks coming out of H.S. and college these days...a much better appreciation for what this country is...has to offer and stands for.

Not to mention it would show them in some very realistic terms just how full of sh8t their professors and teachers are that have been shoveling them a load of crap known as the Socialist utopia.

Not sure if there's a personal jab in there somewhere, but whatever.  You are much more valid than I because your service is active and mine civilian.   
I just can't get over the fact that you and dutch are appalled by the idea of a "socialist utopia" yet you want to force people into service.   WTF?

[NHSparky]

For the record, public school honor societies mandate community service.... oh the horror. 

And while you're at it, don't forget the requirements to become an Eagle Scout.

[TheSarge]

I know, I was referencing formerlurker's position on whether or not it be mandatory, regardless of the actual service performed.

If at some point it's not mandatory...all we're doing is creating more generations of X-Box playing lazy people who think everything should just be given to them.

It would be a Liberal wet dream.

[NHSparky]

formerlurker, dutch, et al: The government should compel its citizens to involuntary servitude for a period of time, because we think it's a good idea.  

Sounds bat-shit crazy fascist to me.

"You take the king's gold, you do the king's bidding."

Seems to me that if we did in fact have more people in public service (and it doesn't have to be military), there would be a great deal more appreciation for the function of the government, even more for the people, and even an incentive for the goverment to do LESS, not more.

[TheSarge]

Not sure if there's a personal jab in there somewhere, but whatever.  You are much more valid than I because your service is active and mine civilian.   
I just can't get over the fact that you and dutch are appalled by the idea of a "socialist utopia" yet you want to force people into service.   WTF?

That's because we actually want people to work for what they have versus living and dying under the belief that the Government is there to provide for them from cradle to grave.

Socialist Utopias are cradle to grave propositions that is what dutch and I are against.

If you apply some gray matter to what we're saying...it's really not that hard to understand.

[TheSarge]

"You take the king's gold, you do the king's bidding."

Seems to me that if we did in fact have more people in public service (and it doesn't have to be military), there would be a great deal more appreciation for the function of the government, even more for the people, and even an incentive for the goverment to do LESS, not more.

Especially when they realized just how much the Government was taking from their paychecks and how little they were getting in return for it.

[IassaFTots]

"You take the king's gold, you do the king's bidding."

Seems to me that if we did in fact have more people in public service (and it doesn't have to be military), there would be a great deal more appreciation for the function of the government, even more for the people, and even an incentive for the goverment to do LESS, not more.

You took the words right out of my hands.  

[Chump]

If at some point it's not mandatory...all we're doing is creating more generations of X-Box playing lazy people who think everything should just be given to them.

It would be a Liberal wet dream.

So how about this: instead of creating yet more government bureaucracy, spending more, compelling citizens to involuntary servitude, we just stop giving stuff to lazy people.  You're bemoaning the effects of a welfare state, and instead of dissolving entitlement bullshit, you'd rather expand government and force people to "serve" in any capacity you approve of.  Seriously, wtf is up with that?

[NHSparky]

So how about this: instead of creating yet more government bureaucracy, spending more, compelling citizens to involuntary servitude, we just stop giving stuff to lazy people.  You're bemoaning the effects of a welfare state, and instead of dissolving entitlement bullshit, you'd rather expand government and force people to "serve" in any capacity you approve of.  Seriously, wtf is up with that?

Consider, Chump--by putting younger folks to work doing "grunt" stuff, we get rid of the permanent GS-4's, -5's, etc., who are little more than human cholesterol, pulling down a welfare check in the guise of being a "civil servant".  Seems to me that by paring down the permanent government employment rolls, that goes a long way to what we both seem to be seeking--smaller, less intrusive, more responsive government.

[Chump]

Consider, Chump--by putting younger folks to work doing "grunt" stuff, we get rid of the permanent GS-4's, -5's, etc., who are little more than human cholesterol, pulling down a welfare check in the guise of being a "civil servant".  Seems to me that by paring down the permanent government employment rolls, that goes a long way to what we both seem to be seeking--smaller, less intrusive, more responsive government.

Sparky I would be behind you except for two points:

1.  A government intrusion into your life, compelling you to national service involuntarily, is not a smaller government by any means.  By even putting the idea forth, it allows that the government has the capacity to do that in the first place.  It makes a bloated behemoth even larger.

2.  Government is inefficient in nearly every instance.  Those worthless public servants you mentioned would still be on the payroll, even if they were redundant.  Hell, they're redundant now by and large and they're still around, right?

This idea places far too much faith in government management that there simply is no basis for in reality.  This site has loads and loads of examples of well-intentioned government bullshit that ends up being just that: bullshit.

[Chris_]

"You take the king's gold, you do the king's bidding."

Seems to me that if we did in fact have more people in public service (and it doesn't have to be military), there would be a great deal more appreciation for the function of the government, even more for the people, and even an incentive for the goverment to do LESS, not more.

Appreciation?  Maybe.  Resentment?  Most definitely.

Seems to me that by paring down the permanent government employment rolls, that goes a long way to what we both seem to be seeking--smaller, less intrusive, more responsive government.

I also agree that the civilian payroll is bloated and inefficient.  Too many people doing too little for too long.  Proven when they tried to implement a pay-for-performance system and people were practically jumping off buildings in terror...that they may be held accountable to earn what they were paid.  I for one was all for it!  (And this is coming from a civilian payrollee.)

[dutch508]

I read it as mandatory military service: no.  Mandatory national service of some other sort: yes.

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

If you read my damned post you would have seen that's exactly what I said. BUT- you didn't read it and went off on a tangent.

dumbass.

[Chump]

If you read my damned post you would have seen that's exactly what I said. BUT- you didn't read it and went off on a tangent.

dumbass.

I know that's your position, because I read your post.  But, if you read my post, you'd know I was asking in reference to formerlurker's position.

So, you can have this back, dumbass.

[dutch508]

I know that's your position, because I read your post.  But, if you read my post, you'd know I was asking in reference to formerlurker's position.

So, you can have this back, dumbass.

Oh.  well, then....carry on.



dumbass.

[Chump]

Oh.  well, then....carry on.



dumbass.

 

[rich_t]

As a defense?  no.   Simply pointing out that mandatory service is infused into our very public society on some levels.   

Like jury duty as one example.

[dutch508]

Not sure if there's a personal jab in there somewhere, but whatever.  You are much more valid than I because your service is active and mine civilian.   
I just can't get over the fact that you and dutch are appalled by the idea of a "socialist utopia" yet you want to force people into service.   WTF?

Socialist utopia is now equil to national service?

Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.

However, I did not say that all property should be held in common. I said that all should complete two years of national service, in a field of their own choosing, afterwhich they would be rewarded with compensation for continued education. That is the socialist utopia which you think I meant?

The United Federation of Planets in the popular television series Star Trek is depicted as a socialist utopia where there is no money, no want, no poverty, no crime, no disease or ignorance in human society; a large corruption-free state/military apparatus that serves society's best interests, and virtually everyone works for the advancement of all humanity as well as the rest of the Federation.

where as Star Trek may well be a ronulan wet dream, I don't think you believe I call for: no money, no want, no poverty, no crime, no disease or ignorance in human society; a large corruption-free state/military apparatus that serves society's best interests, and virtually everyone works for the advancement of all humanity.

6 of 9 was smoking, though...