Compulsory Military Service Bill

[Lostlover]

I hope this bill passes. Many people don't think through what a war will bring on the nation being attacked, so it is really easy for them to support war efforts with a vote.

If they or a loved one had to potentially serve in the war, they'd think twice. A lot of people think they're too old, too educated or too this or that to enter the war. But if they're old enough to vote, they're old enough to go to Iraq.

I support this 150%. No more pansies and chickenhawks fighting wars on their sofas during the evening news.

 

[BostonPirate]

Were you able to get into Yale and Harvard?

harvard actually... You?

 

[KTheLibra]

and Bush is a genius

....only when he's high.

 

[MoltenRock III]

A compulsory military service bill of 2 to 4 years would end these stupid wars immediately, and all future ones. Right now every Chickenhawk (aka Republican) would have their own sons and daughters on the line, as would most Americans. You'd never get popular support for a unnecessary war again, only those that truly, truly, threaten the future of this country.

 

[BostonPirate]

A compulsory military service bill of 2 to 4 years would end these stupid wars immediately, and all future ones. Right now every Chickenhawk (aka Republican) would have their own sons and daughters on the line, as would most Americans. You'd never get popular support for a unnecessary war again, only those that truly, truly, threaten the future of this country.

if every american had to pay for the war bills as they were passed with an equal raise of taxes across the board, it would all be over tomorrow.

You would see the republicans litteraly fall apart at the seems if they actually had to pay for the wars they get us into.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Republicans run on the idea that government is inept, incompetent, and unable to do anything. And if you elect them, they'll prove that to you. And they do. Over, and over, and over again. That's just how dumb the American electorate is.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is exactly why I'm not a Republican. They start to talk a little sense here and there and then they lose their fucking minds and say something like this.

Tell me, then:

if someone isn't willing to put in four years of service to the country, why should he/she be allowed to vote?

 

[Kulindahr]

Republicans run on the idea that government is inept, incompetent, and unable to do anything. And if you elect them, they'll prove that to you. And they do. Over, and over, and over again. That's just how dumb the American electorate is.

And they keep getting re-elected, because when they aren't in charge, the Democrats keep on proving that government is inept and incompetent, and unable to do anything without at least three unexpected consequences, the majority of them bad.

 

[BostonPirate]

Tell me, then:

if someone isn't willing to put in four years of service to the country, why should he/she be allowed to vote?

qualified by saying that there are MANY ways to serve your country, not just through the military, and some of them may actually have nothing to do with the government of "the country".

Service to the society, and your local community take many forms, and people need to do them and be proud of them.

I have a friend who belongs to the ladies gardening society of a small township. They do all the gardening for their townships official building, saving the small community thousands annualy that goes to education instead. They use the money to buy books.

 

[bankside]

Tell me, then:

if someone isn't willing to put in four years of service to the country, why should he/she be allowed to vote?

Everybody, every day, who wakes up and does something conscientiously for himself, with consideration for others, is doing service for the country. And you, O Great Libertarian Enigma, are the last person I would have thought would argue that government knows best how someone ought to serve his country. If the government doesn't know best whether I should be a shoemaker or a poet or an electrician, why would they know any better that I should be under the supervision of some kind of government proctor, military or otherwise.

You would do better just to say that for the first four years of employment, the income tax rate is 100%. At least then I would have the freedom to choose which kind of slave labour I had to do, instead of having to pick from the government menu of military service (or "alternative service" for lighter appetites.)

 

[Kulindahr]

qualified by saying that there are MANY ways to serve your country, not just through the military, and some of them may actually have nothing to do with the government of "the country".

Service to the society, and your local community take many forms, and people need to do them and be proud of them.

Such things should be specified as counting as national service.

I have a friend who belongs to the ladies gardening society of a small township. They do all the gardening for their townships official building, saving the small community thousands annualy that goes to education instead. They use the money to buy books.

Such things should count, if it's full-time for a term of four years.

Tragically, around here, government is systematically shutting out all volunteer groups which have been taking care of things, and making more government jobs in those places -- generally, at a cost five to twenty times what the volunteers were doing it for, and frequently with significant harm to the environment.

 

[Kulindahr]

Everybody, every day, who wakes up and does something conscientiously for himself, with consideration for others, is doing service for the country. And you, O Great Libertarian Enigma, are the last person I would have thought would argue that government knows best how someone ought to serve his country. If the government doesn't know best whether I should be a shoemaker or a poet or an electrician, why would they know any better that I should be under the supervision of some kind of government proctor, military or otherwise.

You would do better just to say that for the first four years of employment, the income tax rate is 100%. At least then I would have the freedom to choose which kind of slave labour I had to do, instead of having to pick from the government menu of military service (or "alternative service" for lighter appetites.)

The question is why someone who isn't willing to invest should have a say in the running of the organization. I don't own any shares of stock in GM, so I don't get to vote on how things are run; if I'm not willing to lay out a piece of my life for the U.S., why should I be allowed to vote for how it's run? I don't see where merely being able to mark an X inside a box is sufficient to qualify a person for helping decide how an organization is to be run.

That said, anything that 1% of those already qualified as voters think should count as a form of national service ought to go on the list. If someone wants to do national service and what he/she wants isn't on the list, let him post a petition on the internet seeking support for the job he wants -- and if 1% of qualified voters sign his petition, then the government would have to provide that as an option, whether it be monitoring the number of starfish on a certain stretch of coast to killing invasive plants in a local watershed.

Of course, to prevent silly items, if a fifth of qualified voters managed to stir themselves to say the new idea should be rejected, then it's a no-go.

And if there's nothing a person is suited for, and that person can't think of anything in particular he/she wants, the government would be required to come up with something new that would fit the person's abilities, no matter how minimal.