Agree or Disagree: National Service Should Be Mandatory

by **Turtleneck** 2014-06-03, 12:20

The argument...

"Today, the need for a shared experience of citizenship is more poignant than ever. We are drifting apart. Traditional forms of civic participation have atrophied. Our politics lurch from one bitter breakdown to the next while massive issues that affect our national prosperity and security languish unaddressed. We are losing our concept of citizenship. The sense of responsibility and contribution that President John F. Kennedy trumpeted and the willingness to sacrifice for an idea that Abraham Lincoln immortalized in 272 words at Gettysburg feel like faint echoes from earlier, nobler times."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/securing-the-american-character-107318.html#.U43zYZRdXyA

Overall, it seems like mandatory service could reverse some of the apathy that people have for their community, and could bring about greater representation as more people take part in the political process. On the flip side, one could argue this is designed to ramp up ideas about American exceptionalism and reinforce an existing system of government that serves the interests of a narrow minority.

by **xsanguine** 2014-06-03, 13:00

Oh hell no....

by **Turtleneck** 2014-06-03, 13:13

xsanguine wrote:Oh hell no....

Choice #2 was almost the "I side with xsanguine" choice. I knew how you would weigh in on this topic.

I am torn. I completely get the idea that national service does nothing but indoctrinate (if you will allow such a strong word). The language of the article does bother me. National service - in the case of this article - is about American exceptionalism and builds from a distinct view of American history. It is about conformity of thought and does not encourage diversity of thought from my perspective.

However, there is something to be said for how national service would plug Americans into the their communities and increase the extent to which people care about their communities. So many problems stem from lack of care and lack of trust between community members. National service could change that, and what could flow from that is not conformity but a willingness to challenge and hold accountable those people we elect to represent our interests. Furthermore, those communities that we talked about - the ones governed by social norms and not coercion - this might be the starting place for those norms.

by **Rocinante** 2014-06-03, 13:20

I don't think it should be mandatory, but I think everybody should do it. It expands your perspective like nothing else. So.... I abstain.

by Narwhal 2014-06-03, 14:24

Women too? Like Israel?

by **Cym Jim** 2014-06-03, 14:46

I'm all for it, just not military service. If the goal is strengthening communities and building character, service within our communities would make more sense than spending a year playing army. Not a fan of it being a long solid block of time - more of an ongoing commitment of a few weeks a year from age 16 to 21 would be preferable. Anything from environmental work, helping the elderly, or volunteering at an abortion clinic would qualify.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2014-06-03, 15:00

Cym Jim wrote:I'm all for it, just not military service. If the goal is strengthening communities and building character, service within our communities would make more sense than spending a year playing army. Not a fan of it being a long solid block of time - more of an ongoing commitment of a few weeks a year from age 16 to 21 would be preferable. Anything from environmental work, helping the elderly, or volunteering at an abortion clinic would qualify.

this..

you can serve America without having to kill someone that never did anything to you.. Peace Corps, Teach for America, etc - all very noble services that would foster a sense of moral responsibility and sense of belonging in America and the world..

by **Turtleneck** 2014-06-03, 15:36

Cym Jim wrote:I'm all for it, just not military service. If the goal is strengthening communities and building character, service within our communities would make more sense than spending a year playing army. Not a fan of it being a long solid block of time - more of an ongoing commitment of a few weeks a year from age 16 to 21 would be preferable. Anything from environmental work, helping the elderly, or volunteering at an abortion clinic would qualify.

Focus of the article is not military service, and suggests we have the infrastructure in place with AmeriCorps and other service organizations.

I would disagree with your suggestion of a few weeks a year for five years. That adds up to less than six months, and what is gained in those few weeks is easily lost over the course of a year. I think for it to have any lasting impact it needs to be a continuous commitment and probably for a minimum of 12 months.

by b0b 2014-06-03, 16:28

Hell no, "National Service" is just a nice way of saying "slavery".

by **Turtleneck** 2014-06-03, 17:19

b0b wrote:Hell no, "National Service" is just a nice way of saying "slavery".

How so?

by b0b 2014-06-03, 19:14

Turtleneck wrote:
How so?

Is the "national service" voluntary or involuntary? what happens if you don't "participate" ?

by Pervis Muldoon 2014-06-03, 20:23

Turtleneck wrote:

Choice #2 was almost the "I side with xsanguine" choice. I knew how you would weigh in on this topic.

I am torn. I completely get the idea that national service does nothing but indoctrinate (if you will allow such a strong word). The language of the article does bother me. National service - in the case of this article - is about American exceptionalism and builds from a distinct view of American history. It is about conformity of thought and does not encourage diversity of thought from my perspective.

However, there is something to be said for how national service would plug Americans into the their communities and increase the extent to which people care about their communities. So many problems stem from lack of care and lack of trust between community members. National service could change that, and what could flow from that is not conformity but a willingness to challenge and hold accountable those people we elect to represent our interests. Furthermore, those communities that we talked about - the ones governed by social norms and not coercion - this might be the starting place for those norms.

I don't get the concern about a conformity of thought or a lack of diversity. Service would seem to be more mind-opening than brainwashing; young adults would meet people they wouldn't normally associate with. I like the idea, especially if the service earns them help with college tuition.

by Pervis Muldoon 2014-06-03, 20:24

b0b wrote:Hell no, "National Service" is just a nice way of saying "slavery".

Agree or Disagree: National Service Should Be Mandatory 502811600

by **Turtleneck** 2014-06-03, 20:37

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

I don't get the concern about a conformity of thought or a lack of diversity. Service would seem to be more mind-opening than brainwashing; young adults would meet people they wouldn't normally associate with. I like the idea, especially if the service earns them help with college tuition.

I agree. However, the case could be made that service can also promote a specific value system at the expense of other values. At times the article reads like service should be an exercise in reinforcing American exceptionalism. However, that is ultimately avoided by making service opportunities available through a multitude of sources, some governmental and some not.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2014-06-04, 08:08

b0b wrote:

Is the "national service" voluntary or involuntary? what happens if you don't "participate" ?

you get sent before one of Obama's death panels or "summer camp" at Benghazi.. in short, I would be praying for you.

by Three_Putt_Par 2014-06-04, 13:59

No. Mandatory service goes too far in the direction of the government "owning" you and your purpose in life is to serve them. I realize the government already owns you in certain ways by forcing you to pay taxes, go to jury duty, court subpoenas, abide by laws, ext... but those things are necessary to run a functioning government. This goes too far IMO and is not necessary to run a functioning government. Taking a year or two to serve and help people is great, but should be voluntary in a free society. How about Congress gets their shit together and becomes accountable to us first before demanding something like this?

by **Cym Jim** 2014-06-04, 14:08

Turtleneck wrote:

Focus of the article is not military service, and suggests we have the infrastructure in place with AmeriCorps and other service organizations.

I would disagree with your suggestion of a few weeks a year for five years. That adds up to less than six months, and what is gained in those few weeks is easily lost over the course of a year. I think for it to have any lasting impact it needs to be a continuous commitment and probably for a minimum of 12 months.

Fair enough, didn't read it! The 12 month thing is daft though - no way I want the whole country f-ing up their career trajectories so they can plant trees or make dinner for old ladies for a year. Doing it over the course of a few years would make less like a demand and more a part of people's normal lives - you know, so it continues beyond the requirement. I'd also want the whole thing closely monitored by somebody smart, like me. Don't want any jesusy shit to qualify, nor any of that crap students do just to get into med school.

by b0b 2014-06-04, 16:12

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you get sent before one of Obama's death panels or "summer camp" at Benghazi.. in short, I would be praying for you.

That settles it, total slavery. Rolling Eyes

by **xsanguine** 2014-06-04, 20:11

Three_Putt_Par wrote:No. Mandatory service goes too far in the direction of the government "owning" you and your purpose in life is to serve them. I realize the government already owns you in certain ways by forcing you to pay taxes, go to jury duty, court subpoenas, abide by laws, ext... but those things are necessary to run a functioning government. This goes too far IMO and is not necessary to run a functioning government. Taking a year or two to serve and help people is great, but should be voluntary in a free society. How about Congress gets their shit together and becomes accountable to us first before demanding something like this?

All of those necessary to run a functioning government but not necessary to run a functioning, voluntary community. It's an interesting scenario for a middle man, that's for sure.

And also, an entity that owns and claims the types of weapons that can kill tens of thousands of people in one quick fell will never be accountable to you, or me, or anyone not involved in funding their (meaning Congressman/woman) careers.

by **GRR Spartan** 2014-06-05, 00:06

3 years mandatory military active duty and if they are filled then you do Americorp type work at a location within the US.

Does anyone think Iraq and Afghanistan invasions/occupation would have gone on even half as long if it wasn't a "volunteer" military whose members have often seen multiple tours?

by **xsanguine** 2014-06-05, 00:11

GRR Spartan wrote:3 years mandatory military active duty and if bill it's are filled then you do Americorp type work at a location within the US.

Does anyone think Iraq and Afghanistan invasions/occupation would have gone on even half as long if it wasn't a "volunteer" military whose members have often seen multiple tours?

Instead of forcing kids to go over seas to kill poor people for the profit of the world's largest corporations... how about our citizens refuse to go to these wars? That seems counter productive....."So, Johnny... you are now property of an entity that uses violence to achieve it's objectives and will be forced to obey whatever orders they give so that our citizens will refuse to allow us to use violence to achieve objectives around the world".

The problem isn't the citizens, they didn't have anything to do with either wars and they will go on as long as the businessmen in office need them to go on... as we've seen, regardless of public opinion.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-01, 14:47

Bump for a quality nonpartisan discussion. The kind we started out having.

I think the premise is more relevant now than it was at the time of publication. That people can be brought together and find common ground through service.

by Guest 2016-12-01, 17:39

I'm all for it. Men, women, boys and girls. 2 years seems about right to me.

by **DWags** 2016-12-01, 19:02

Cym Jim is correct, if it's ever mandated, and its the military, this country would suck. If we mandate community service we could still keep the kids in line and semi brain washed.

I'm against mandating anything however. From Seat Belts to helmets.

by AnomanderRake 2016-12-01, 22:46

Absolutely not. The concept of National Service goes completely against the very Freedom this country was founded upon and would inevitably lead to the further exploitation of the poor and middle class.

I find it hilarious that small government Goose for some reason trusts the government to run the largest conscription operation the world has ever seen.

by **xsanguine** 2016-12-01, 22:54

Oh hell no...

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-01, 23:21

AnomanderRake wrote:Absolutely not. The concept of National Service goes completely against the very Freedom this country was founded upon and would inevitably lead to the further exploitation of the poor and middle class.

As I stated above, I have concerns about how mandatory national service would infringe upon individual freedoms and force conformity of thought. Madison is quite clear in Federalist #10 that diversity of thought is essential to a free society. However, to some extent, I find myself at odds with your statement that "National Service goes completely against the very Freedom this country was founded upon."

It is true that national service would violate an individual's natural right to be free from the interference of the state. Yet in another sense, I could argue that because the founders intended for a strong civic culture where citizens discover and exercise a publically oriented civic virtue, national service serves a greater end. In short, national service teaches the value of community, allows individuals to connect their well being to the well-being of their community, and helps facilitate more participatory forms of politics where deliberation is the norm. This points us in the direction of that civic culture, which is something sorely missing from our politics today.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-12-01, 23:39

Yeah but TN do you really think national service is the answer to that? Someone smarter has to have a better way.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-01, 23:51

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Yeah but TN do you really think national service is the answer to that? Someone smarter has to have a better way.

Remember this is not just military service. This is service in local communities facilitated by a national agency. We actually already have such an agency with Corporation for National and Community Service.

To answer your question directly, have we proven that we can do it on our own? While there are a lot of people out there working on various projects to restore the kind of participation the framers intended, so far little has changed.

by **Cameron** 2016-12-02, 02:02

No, fuck that. I think military drafts are bullshit (if you can't get enough people to volunteer to fight your fucking war, you clearly shouldn't be fighting it), and I think forcing people to do community service or whatever when they have committed no crime is horseshit. As long as a person pays their taxes and doesn't break the law, they don't owe the country shit.

by **GRR Spartan** 2016-12-02, 08:42

I love the idea of mandatory service and a military draft.

The draft was a major reason the Viet Nam miltary action quit. Too many families had sons drafted or going through all kinds of routines like getting doctors for a draft averse physical.

We wouldn't have had the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, many for multiple tours if 90% of our sons and daughters had a 2 year minimum /6 year total possibility of being sent to get shot at.

All that I support the troops bullshit would have stopped if the whole country would have been sending family members to be the troops. We may have moved into Iraq and Afghanistan but voters would have sent a message to Congress wth votes that 5-10 years was too long.

by AnomanderRake 2016-12-02, 09:58

You guys are out of your fucking minds. Can't believe any of you are actually advocating a conscription program. Look at the countries that have mandatory national service, is that the company you want the USA to be in?

There are better ways to create incentives for civic participation that don't involve a legal obligation with threat of jail time, loss of citizenship etc.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-02, 10:25

AnomanderRake wrote:You guys are out of your fucking minds. Can't believe any of you are actually advocating a conscription program. Look at the countries that have mandatory national service, is that the company you want the USA to be in?

There are better ways to create incentives for civic participation that don't involve a legal obligation with threat of jail time, loss of citizenship etc.

Such as...

It's not as if I have not acknowledged the inherit problems, and nobody is talking about conscription if you mean mandatory military service.

I would argue the absence of civic culture is allowing for an authoritarian turn in this country. So again, how to we get to a more civic culture? This is just one idea.

by **GRR Spartan** 2016-12-02, 10:41

AnomanderRake wrote:You guys are out of your fucking minds. Can't believe any of you are actually advocating a conscription program. Look at the countries that have mandatory national service, is that the company you want the USA to be in?

There are better ways to create incentives for civic participation that don't involve a legal obligation with threat of jail time, loss of citizenship etc.

We should have a draft with a objector alternative. 2-3 years where every 18-19 year old goes would make a lot of the supporters of military action think twice about who they are voting for if they had skin in the game.

As a Viet Nam era vet I can tell you this BS of sendng National Guard and other branches for multiple tours wouldn't have happened.

by AnomanderRake 2016-12-02, 10:51

My issue with your position is that you're justifying a draft as a means to an end. Which is you think a draft will sour public opinion against our excessive use of the military. We could always just skip the draft part and stop going to war all over the world.

A draft would also inevitably end up exploiting the poor and middle class as no doubt legislators would leave loopholes in the system for rich people and their children to duck through.

Edit: Screwed up my quote oh well.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-02, 12:59

You keep reducing this discussion to mandatory military service when it has clearly been articulated the discussion is about more that mandatory military service. Military service would be an option among many other options.

by **GRR Spartan** 2016-12-02, 15:02

Military service would be the first option. If f you are a CO there would be other options.

Military is reducing its ranks because of the change in warfare. My God daughter is an example. After 4 years at the Air Force Academy , flight training and active duty she was given the option to leave early because UMA's of all kinds have reduced the number of pilots needed. (Also reduces the number of flight support personnel) so we should need fewer military but I don't think military service as an option.

The world isn't a kumbaya place and it's disingenuous to expect to see the only Americans in combat be those who volunteer while others stay home "supporting the troops" as donut dollies going on with their lives. It's that disconnect to our current situation of a military underclass of enlisted troops and elected leaders not being held responsible for massive troop levels and subsequent costs.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-02, 15:09

GRR Spartan wrote:Military service would be the first option.

Why?

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-12-02, 15:22

How about no option TN? I can't believe you're actually onboard with any mandated service to the country. FUCK that. We think we are "free" now, what does that look like? Jesus.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-02, 18:32

Not onboard. Just tossing out ideas, etc.

by Sponsored content

Should One Year of National Service Be Required?