U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2016, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,391 posts, read 6,803,935 times
Reputation: 14458

Advertisements

Conscription (a/k/a "the draft") has been diminishing in use since the end of the two World Wars and the fall of the last of the authoritarian states which made heavy use of it. Of the 27 major European nations, only six still have it, but two (Denmark and Norway) have a strong tradition of the concept of "national service" and a third with a similar orientation (the Netherlands) abandoned it only as recently as 1997.

And as we all should recognize, the advancement of industrialization tends to identify a category of "jobs nobody wants" and the present surplus of refugees and displaced persons notwithstanding, the pool of "bottom off the barrel" labor will continue to shrink.

So I want to pose a question (to people of any political orientation) here? in return for personal access to a more generous set of social benefits (health care, insurance, pension, etc,) would you be willing to surrender 2-4 years of your future to the government in a militaristic (but not combative) environment dedicated to filling undesirable roles? Comments as to why, or why not, are welcome.

Last edited by Jeo123; 02-11-2016 at 09:04 AM.. Reason: Polls are not permitted here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2016, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,412 posts, read 9,567,758 times
Reputation: 8577
At 50+, I would say no. At another time in my life, maybe I would, if the work was something I thought was valuable and tolerable, like trail work in a national park. But it is a hypothetical I find hard to visualize. I think an interesting companion question would be to see how many people would support such a program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 06:28 AM
 
17,322 posts, read 14,850,963 times
Reputation: 32927
I am wondering how fair it is to people who have kids and can't do this...do they and their kids get less benefits than some single man (who may have even fathered kids himself but isn't around for them) , because he is able to go away for 3 years and she is not due to the fact that she has to raise them on her own?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Cape Cod
9,834 posts, read 7,128,875 times
Reputation: 17973
We haven't had a draft since Vietnam because we haven't needed it. We have plenty of volunteers to police and fight the wars that others should be.

Bernie Sanders wants everyone to get a college education but I think many more kids graduating high school would do much better if they headed to the military. There are so many kids today that are shielded by their parents that when they head to college it is party time and they end up with a worthless major and once they graduate college they move back in with Mom and Dad because they can't find a job.

For many kids military service would do them good and it might actually instill a pride in America that some seem to be missing.

I think it is Israel where all the youth go in to the service.

Increasing access to benefits of people who served in the military and baring them from people that didn't does not seem like the way to go besides the veterans already have lots of extras that the regular public does not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
2,271 posts, read 1,407,333 times
Reputation: 700
I think this would become problematic in the long run. This would increase the defense budget and would become rather expensive. Maybe domestic programs such as AmeriCorps would be more beneficial to which we are improving conditions at home in many categories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 09:13 AM
 
1,891 posts, read 1,135,271 times
Reputation: 4918
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice View Post
I think this would become problematic in the long run. This would increase the defense budget and would become rather expensive. Maybe domestic programs such as AmeriCorps would be more beneficial to which we are improving conditions at home in many categories.

I think that's what he was talking about. That's what I interpreted "militaristic but not combative" to mean. As in joining a national organization that sort of behaves like the military, but it doesn't fight wars, it does things like clean up waste that everyone would benefit from but no one wants to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 09:14 AM
 
8,141 posts, read 5,709,159 times
Reputation: 11554
Yes, I think this would be a fair trade-off. There should also be some sort of work component for all kinds of public assistance, barring the elderly and legitimately disabled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 10:07 AM
 
Location: The Carolinas
1,987 posts, read 1,905,597 times
Reputation: 6010
I think it's time to resurrect the CCC--Civilian Conservation Corps, and use them to rebuild our infrastructure. Working to rebuild our roads, bridges, sewer, water, etc. gets you "three hots and a cot" and a small stipend. If you're able-bodied and on welfare, guess what: you're now rebuilding our infrastructure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 10:42 AM
 
17,322 posts, read 14,850,963 times
Reputation: 32927
Quote:
Originally Posted by adams_aj View Post
I think it's time to resurrect the CCC--Civilian Conservation Corps, and use them to rebuild our infrastructure. Working to rebuild our roads, bridges, sewer, water, etc. gets you "three hots and a cot" and a small stipend. If you're able-bodied and on welfare, guess what: you're now rebuilding our infrastructure.
And what happens to all those men and women who currently are employed doing just that..give the decision makers a chance to use a bunch of people for free, or pay their own men a living wage including overtime and benefits...guess what ALL the paid employees will be gone. These type jobs are NOT the jobs no one wants. What happens to them when you give all their jobs away? Good luck getting an okay from Unions to go along with this, also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Florida
4,103 posts, read 4,016,987 times
Reputation: 9985
There were 31 million Americans in the US between the ages of 18-24 in 2014. There are currently 1.3 million active members of the armed forces. Youre proposing to increase the size of the U.S. military nearly 30 fold?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top