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.
I notice that, instead of countering my arguments, you're lumping me in with other "people" and attacking the group. I'm here by myself. I do not "need" coercion to make my arguments "work"; I only need logic and the ability to think clearly.
I suppose you're one of those "I built this by myself and don't owe anything to anybody" types. It must be nice to believe that philosophy (ignorance really is bliss), but I live in the real world. To start, I grew up in a lower-middle-class family that went through quite a few tough times. But I studied in high school as opposed to getting drunk on cheap beer, paid for a master's degree by working multiple jobs while studying enough to maintain a partial scholarship, and have worked continuously ever since in a professional field. I recognize that, to get ahead, you have to work at it, and I did so. Life may throw speed bumps and even roadblocks in your path, but it is your job to find your way over or around them.
Conclusion: the Libertarian part of me fully believes that I am in control of my own destiny.
Unlike some of the most-doctrinal among the libertarian fringe, I haven't advocated that all the imbalances in the economic system can be solved by setting a price determined exclusively by supply and demand; nor have I refused to acknowledge that some of the conventions and "ground rules" by which our daily lives are organized have to be formulated and arbitrated by mutual consent. My objections begin, and multiply by a large factor when an element of arbitirary state power is introduced to the equation.
I submitted the original post with civilian concerns, rather than the military, because the past twenty years clearly demonstrate that the external threats to any advanced nation are changing. But the waste of "human capital", admittedly aggravated and thereby more tragic, can be most readily demonstrated by militaristic blundering over the past century-plus. The worst such example was the wholesale slaughter of troops in massed charges during the First World War, but the attempt to suppress an insurgency via conventional methods, as in the Vietnam debacle, is another example.
And the principle caries over into any situation where a non-accountable bureaucracy is granted the power to confiscate and control the time of its citizens -- that is precisely why my opponent is pursuing that argument. And I "called him out" in order to demonstrate the irrationality, and lack of respect for the rights of the smallest minority -- the individual -- in his position.
Scratch a "progressive", and to some degree, you'll always find an authoritarian, and since I'm in strong agreement with Acton's famous observation that power tends to corrupt, I'm going to use every opportunity to demonstrate that authoritarianism naturally tends to gravitate toward Fascism. If the process allows the opposition to hang itself, I'll offer no apologies for supplying the rope.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-12-2016 at 04:30 PM..
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.
I'd be for this. Military service, even non-combat is stupid just numbers-wise as another poster stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
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.
This would be a problem but at least it would end stop-loss type situations where people are re-upped without asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth
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?
Yeah the math don't add up. They'd need to join AmeriCorps, PeaceCorps, Teach for America or something like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
This is a tactic the OP has used more than once -- posting what seems to be a fairly good and interesting question, and then attacking posters who oppose the philosophy he slowly iterates as the thread develops. If he really wants an open discussion, I would suggest that the OP should reconsider how he responds to posters who respond to his posts.
That is the op's mo as it can be mine at times but I only reply that if I truly disagree with the logic.
And the principle caries over into any situation where a non-accountable bureaucracy is granted the power to confiscate and control the time of its citizens -- that is precisely why my opponent is pursuing that argument. And I "called him out" in order to demonstrate the irrationality, and lack of respect for the rights of the smallest minority -- the individual -- in his position.
Scratch a "progressive", and to some degree, you'll always find an authoritarian, and since I'm in strong agreement with Acton's famous observation that power tends to corrupt, I'm going to use every opportunity to demonstrate that authoritarianism naturally tends to gravitate toward Fascism. If the process allows the opposition to hang itself, I'll offer no apologies for supplying the rope.
Nothing in your post addressed anything I said. Again, you aren't arguing against my points... you're trying to categorize me and then arguing against the category. Incidentally, you're failing even at that. By "progressive", I assume you are calling me some sort of a "liberal". I am not, and I am a very long, long way from a fascist or authoritarian. I categorize myself as a conservative, although in reality I'm more of a moderate. I'm a very strong believer in personal responsibility and accountability. Incidentally, I voted for the Libertarian party in the last presidential election.
I look at both sides of an issue and made informed decisions instead of regurgitating what I read in a book, heard on a talk show, or what some professor told me.
So let's try again...
Quote:
Any human born within the "territorial confines" of the United States of America is immediately granted citizenship along with all rights and privileges that status conveys. The freedom of movement within our borders, freedoms of speech, religion, and freedom against unjustified governmental search and seizure among many, many others. Those rights and privileges are not free; do you believe that the US government owes these rights and benefits to its citizens? If you believe Society owes something to you but you don't owe anything to Society, then we're back to a very special view of reality. Likewise, if you believe that you could be as successful as you are without those benefits and protections, that's another very special view of reality.
As stated above, every citizen born in the USA is immediately gifted with rights and freedoms that have real, tangible value. I.e., it costs real money to protect those freedoms. How much money would it cost you as an individual to have an equivalent to our freedom of speech and court protection were you born in, say, Saudi Arabia? How much does it cost to protect your individual rights?
Personal anecdote to scale down and make a point:
I camped out to get my kids into a magnet public school (like a normal taxpayer-funded public school but with specialized curriculum). It's consistently ranked in the top 5% in the entire state. One of the conditions of enrollment in this school is that I must commit to a mandatory 18-hours of volunteer time at the school every year. This can be accomplished by helping teachers grade, chaperoning field trips, working the concession stand at games, managing traffic during drop-off or dismissal, etc.
Using my logic, I am receiving something with a real, tangible and fiscal value: an education for my kids on par with one obtained at an expensive private school. One of the costs I must pay to keep receiving this thing of value is I must donate my time, and I gladly do so. Using your attempt at logic, you would say that the school is infringing on my rights as an individual by stealing my time. That the school is being authoritarian by forcing me to donate my individual time to help them.
Where your "authoritarian" argument ultimately fails is with the reality of choice. I choose to send my kids to this school, and therefore choose to accept responsibility for the volunteer hours. It's exactly the same with the argument for national service!
You tried to categorize me and discredit my arguments by lumping me in with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. The problem there is that citizens forced to work under those dictators had no choice... they worked or died, and anyone attempting to leave was killed. That's not the case in the United States. Under a mandatory national service program you would still have a choice: you could choose to participate by aiding the society that has protected you at great cost since birth, or you could choose to leave. You could freely choose to immigrate to any number of nations around the world to escape helping to pay for the services you've been enjoying for free. Travel to Canada, European Union, Australia, United Kingdom, even Germany or Russia, and just stay there.
Last edited by An Einnseanair; 02-16-2016 at 09:28 AM..
I volunteered when I joined the US Navy in 1963. I volunteered when I went to Vietnam. I volunteered when I spent time on the patrol boats. I worked hard and learned I had a real talent for an occupation that does not have a legal civilian equivalent. So I used the GI Bill to aid my college education as well as working as a skilled machinist during the summers. I studied Environmental Science and worked for both the private and the public sectors. I vastly preferred the public sector as I was not under any pressure to create a profit for some investor but only to do the public some good. The pay was not all that good but has resulted in a decent pension and really good health insurance. After 45 years I have to say, "Mission Accomplished".
I believe that decent paying government jobs should be available for anyone that wants to work. We need to stop using labor contractors (effectively slavers) to provide workers for our parks and western lands. We need to employ citizens for this work. We just need to pay them well enough that they want to take the job.
We do not need to use coercion to force people to work. We do not need a draft to force people to be part of a Civilian Conservation Corps any more then we need to force people to become soldiers, sailors or marines. (For personal reasons the Air Force does not count as a military service but as a welfare system run by delusional egomaniacs with nuclear weapons). We do need to have a CCC to provide jobs for the unemployed doing useful, but not necessarily profitable, things. The result would be a pool of skilled workers and a much more accessible country.
All of this could be paid for by a revised income tax based on all income from all sources. In other words taxes on the top 10%.
Nothing in your post addressed anything I said. Again, you aren't arguing against my points... you're trying to categorize me and then arguing against the category. Incidentally, you're failing even at that. By "progressive", I assume you are calling me some sort of a "liberal". I am not, and I am a very long, long way from a fascist or authoritarian. I categorize myself as a conservative, although in reality I'm more of a moderate. I'm a very strong believer in personal responsibility and accountability. Incidentally, I voted for the Libertarian party in the last presidential election.
I look at both sides of an issue and made informed decisions instead of regurgitating what I read in a book, heard on a talk show, or what some professor told me.
So let's try again... As stated above, every citizen born in the USA is immediately gifted with rights and freedoms that have real, tangible value. I.e., it costs real money to protect those freedoms. How much money would it cost you as an individual to have an equivalent to our freedom of speech and court protection were you born in, say, Saudi Arabia? How much does it cost to protect your individual rights?
Personal anecdote to scale down and make a point:
I camped out to get my kids into a magnet public school (like a normal taxpayer-funded public school but with specialized curriculum). It's consistently ranked in the top 5% in the entire state. One of the conditions of enrollment in this school is that I must commit to a mandatory 18-hours of volunteer time at the school every year. This can be accomplished by helping teachers grade, chaperoning field trips, working the concession stand at games, managing traffic during drop-off or dismissal, etc.
Using my logic, I am receiving something with a real, tangible and fiscal value: an education for my kids on par with one obtained at an expensive private school. One of the costs I must pay to keep receiving this thing of value is I must donate my time, and I gladly do so. Using your attempt at logic, you would say that the school is infringing on my rights as an individual by stealing my time. That the school is being authoritarian by forcing me to donate my individual time to help them.
Where your "authoritarian" argument ultimately fails is with the reality of choice. I choose to send my kids to this school, and therefore choose to accept responsibility for the volunteer hours. It's exactly the same with the argument for national service!
You tried to categorize me and discredit my arguments by lumping me in with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. The problem there is that citizens forced to work under those dictators had no choice... they worked or died, and anyone attempting to leave was killed. That's not the case in the United States. Under a mandatory national service program you would still have a choice: you could choose to participate by aiding the society that has protected you at great cost since birth, or you could choose to leave. You could freely choose to immigrate to any number of nations around the world to escape helping to pay for the services you've been enjoying for free. Travel to Canada, European Union, Australia, United Kingdom, even Germany or Russia, and just stay there.
I know you weren't addressing me, but it's one thing if the school has you volunteer for something that doesn't effect anyone's job, quite another if they made parents take turns to volunteer to serve lunch and ended up eliminating lunch worker positions in favor of volunteers. That is the very slippery slope you are getting into with mandatory service fixing our roads and infrastructure, that we lose one of the last areas of well-paying blue collar jobs. Anything you have these folks do in this regard, someone is currently making a living from doing.
I know you weren't addressing me, but it's one thing if the school has you volunteer for something that doesn't effect anyone's job, quite another if they made parents take turns to volunteer to serve lunch and ended up eliminating lunch worker positions in favor of volunteers. That is the very slippery slope you are getting into with mandatory service fixing our roads and infrastructure, that we lose one of the last areas of well-paying blue collar jobs. Anything you have these folks do in this regard, someone is currently making a living from doing.
The volunteer time eliminates precisely zero full-time jobs, although I'll admit that it is possible for a parent volunteer to do work that could go to an outside contractor. As an example, the school purchases a massive load of mulch for the playground every year; instead of hiring someone to spread it (at taxpayer expense), parents do it. That said, such functions are accomplished by parent volunteers at all schools all over the country. The difference here is that a minimal hours are required. Positions like building maintenance, cafeteria work, etc. are paid positions just like at every other school. The main benefit is to remove some of the load from teachers who are paid a salary. Instead of having a teacher walk down the car line collecting pick-up numbers, a parent can to it so that teacher can be in his/her room doing paperwork. Same for things as simple as cutting pictures of teddy-bears out of construction paper for the Kindergarten teachers to collecting and organizing "Box Tops".
One huge difference between my personal school example and a national service program would be pay. I never hinted or implied that people would work for free. It would be a regular, paid job, just like military service except without the guns and fighting. Also, I'm not talking about skilled labor that requires months of training; that would defeat the whole purpose of the program. I'm talking low-level service jobs that any high-school-graduate could do. Instead of the government paying a contractor to recruit and provide manual labor for a project (passing on a tiny fraction of the amount paid per man-hour to the actual laborer), the government would pay the laborers directly.
The old depression-era CCC keeps getting mentioned; it would be similar to that.
One of the things I find interesting about this general topic when it is discussed, is that often it is the people who most hated FDR and his programs that often push for national service programs. Again, I'm talking generally here, not necessarily about people in the current thread.
In terms of posts 25 and 26, I agree with ocnjgirl to an extent. As a former school principal, our school system occasionally encouraged principals to encourage parent volunteerism to cover things such as security at entrance doors, help for secretaries, help in the clinic, landscaping and upkeep, etc. To some extent, these things wouldn't have been done without volunteers, but the steady stream of volunteers provided far less incentive for the system to hire people to do the work.
Don't get me wrong, jwkilgore, there are aspects of what you suggest that have definite merit. However, there are also consequences.
I don't know if there should be mandatory programs but when you have more people consuming the food and water in a lifeboat than you have those who are working the paddles and bale buckets, get ready to swim with the fishes.
Generally everyone in the lifeboat is consuming food and water and taking turns at the limited number of paddles and bailing pumps. Even the lifeboat captain takes his turn at the pump. This is in contrast to our system whereby the owner of the lifeboat does nothing but consume the choice supplies.
The volunteer time eliminates precisely zero full-time jobs, although I'll admit that it is possible for a parent volunteer to do work that could go to an outside contractor. As an example, the school purchases a massive load of mulch for the playground every year; instead of hiring someone to spread it (at taxpayer expense), parents do it. That said, such functions are accomplished by parent volunteers at all schools all over the country. The difference here is that a minimal hours are required. Positions like building maintenance, cafeteria work, etc. are paid positions just like at every other school. The main benefit is to remove some of the load from teachers who are paid a salary. Instead of having a teacher walk down the car line collecting pick-up numbers, a parent can to it so that teacher can be in his/her room doing paperwork. Same for things as simple as cutting pictures of teddy-bears out of construction paper for the Kindergarten teachers to collecting and organizing "Box Tops".
One huge difference between my personal school example and a national service program would be pay. I never hinted or implied that people would work for free. It would be a regular, paid job, just like military service except without the guns and fighting. Also, I'm not talking about skilled labor that requires months of training; that would defeat the whole purpose of the program. I'm talking low-level service jobs that any high-school-graduate could do. Instead of the government paying a contractor to recruit and provide manual labor for a project (passing on a tiny fraction of the amount paid per man-hour to the actual laborer), the government would pay the laborers directly.
The old depression-era CCC keeps getting mentioned; it would be similar to that.
IMO it would not be long at all until the powers that be started using these laborers instead of employees, unless the pay was similar. If it was similar, you're really just talking about giving people on welfare JOBS, which is a great idea. That isn't the topic though. the topic is service in exchange for benefits, not for salary.
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.
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.
