Poll: Manditory Service in the US

[Rankao]

[a]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daaPCwsevu0[/a] - Please ignore the very one way view on the video for the sake of discussion. I just wanted the clip for supporting the purpose of the argument.

Obama calls for the increase service; However, he doesn't directly say "You will" serve the army, but I see a very clear undertone that there might not be much of a choice. I happen to not agree with Obama on a lot of the issues ,and I do not believe I will be voting for him, but this is something that I to agree with him. There are many benefits for leaving the country and seeing the rest of the world (I have lived outside of the United States for a small portion of my life).

Some of my beliefs include requirement for service(general service not military) for citizenship for every person(yes, I am a little bit fascist), and minimum of Active Duty service for President. There would be some very weak arguments for the citizenship requirements of service. Congress declares war( U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8 ) , but the President is one who is responsible for the army and navy ( U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2). If you are to send young Americans to their possible death you would have a much greater understanding if you were part of the Armed Forces and even greater understanding if you were part of a conflict.

Whats your opinion on Mandatory Service? Would it OK with you? Are you already part of this Service? Do you live in a Country that requires these Service? (Germany, South Korea are ones I know about) Do you feel there should be exceptions? I just want to know peoples beliefs on this issue.

 

[John Galt]

I think we should have a National Service of some sort, not necessarily the draft, but some form of mandatory volunteer period. I feel it's in the best interest of every government to require some sort of service from the people, if only to continue instilling patriotism and a sense of civic duty. Hell, do you know what we could do with a workforce that large and proper management? We'd have the best damn infrastructure around! Combine that with the fact that everyone gets 2 years or so experience in some field of industry or social work, and you've got a potential cure to our education gap.

 

[TheBluesader]

I'm all in favor of forcing people to be less self-absorbed for as long as possible, but only theoretically. There's something very unnerving about letting the government mandate what people are going to do with their lives for a set period of time, outside of them volunteering for it or committing a crime. I don't know how it works in other countries, but as an American it sounds like a perfect excuse for an Administration to play fast and lose with any "Expanding the Empire" projects. I mean, you'll always have a steady stream of resources, right?

The idea of keeping it community-based is nice, but how do you figure out which organizations qualify for admission? Sounds like an easy program for fraudulent LLCs to play to get government money and volunteer labor. In a perfect world, it would be a nice setup. As things go in the real world, I can't see how it wouldn't get bloated and dirty very, very quick.

 

[Rankao]

Well with the Military right now you get full Medical and Full School while doing active duty, also you get most of your housing and cheap food, and you will always get paid on the 1st and the 15th. Now this isn't enough to splurge but it defiantly is enough to keep you comfortable. An example of the advantage of being part of the Military is my dad. He went to college because of the military and because he was deployed previously he was able to pay his mortgage in 7 years.

Of course if you were part of a Mandatory volunteer force most likely you wouldn't be taken care as well. You will get Medical, Some Education, Housing, and Training (Local, Peace Corp or Military there will be some sort of training and experience.) There could be some corruption but let me tell you this, if every most Americans has the knowledge that they might be asked to die for their country, they will definitely be VERY picky of their politicians.

Edit: I'm actually surprised at the number of some form of yes.

 

[mr mcshiznit]

Yes but you should be able to get out of it if say you take care of your family and thus you need that well paying job or you need the time to work two/three jobs. My GF and i just had this conversation about a week ago to. Kinda cool i guess.
Edit: for those of you saying "no" on the poll at least have a spine and explain why you think that way.

 

[Rankao]

Yes but you should be able to get out of it if say you take care of your family and thus you need that well paying job or you need the time to work two/three jobs.

It wouldn't be completely volunteer they couldn't expect Duke from the Ghetto to tap his big bank account to be part of service. You still get paid its just not a lot, but a lot of cost you don't think about are covered. There are tons of Enlisted who support well to do size families.

If you are to send young Americans to their possible death you would have a much greater understanding if you were part of the Armed Forces and even greater understanding if you were part of a conflict.

Don't know about that, our three greatest wars--Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWII--we had for Presidents a merchant/smuggler, a log cabin lawyer, a trust fund lawyer, and a former artillery officer: John Handcock (as President of the Second Continental Congress), Lincon, FDR, and Harry Truman.

The interesting thing is, the only one of those with military experience I know of--Truman--was hated by the military for relieving MacArthur of command in Korea.

So no--I believe compulsory service for citizens is a form of slavery. All the things you mentioned are perfectly possible by establishing volunteer government programs. When compelling something of your citizens, the key is to do it in the least intrusive manner possible, and taking their Property (in the form of taxes to support such programs) is a less intrusive step than taking their Liberty, which is what any compulsory service does.

Lincoln was a Captain of a Militia in Illinois.

True that John Handcock did not have any Military Service but his life was in fact on the line on the war, if they lost he would be among the first of the Political Executions.

FDR you got me there.

That's where my personal conflict goes, and in truth the line between Liberties and Service is a hard one. Yes we have drafts and had soldiers die in War of 1812, Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea War, and Vietnam who in fact was called to duty and not decide that they were going to fight. Under these situations weren't their peoples placed into slavery? Didn't they have their rights stripped away? I believe Conscription is far more brutal then having citizens fully understand that they WILL be called to war when the nation needs them instead of being given a Lottery for their possible deaths.

 

[mr mcshiznit]

If you are to send young Americans to their possible death you would have a much greater understanding if you were part of the Armed Forces and even greater understanding if you were part of a conflict.

Don't know about that, our three greatest wars--Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWII--we had for Presidents a merchant/smuggler, a log cabin lawyer, a trust fund lawyer, and a former artillery officer: John Handcock (as President of the Second Continental Congress), Lincon, FDR, and Harry Truman.

The interesting thing is, the only one of those with military experience I know of--Truman--was hated by the military for relieving MacArthur of command in Korea.

So no--I believe compulsory service for citizens is a form of slavery. All the things you mentioned are perfectly possible by establishing volunteer government programs. When compelling something of your citizens, the key is to do it in the least intrusive manner possible, and taking their Property (in the form of taxes to support such programs) is a less intrusive step than taking their Liberty, which is what any compulsory service does.

Yes but you should be able to get out of it if say you take care of your family and thus you need that well paying job or you need the time to work two/three jobs.

It wouldn't be completely volunteer they couldn't expect Duke from the Ghetto to tap his big bank account to be part of service. You still get paid its just not a lot, but a lot of cost you don't think about are covered. There are tons of Enlisted who support well to do size families.

So your saying our 1st pres. didnt have military exp.... ya no in the british army or as the leader of the rev. forces? any way to the 2nd. point all im saying is that some people that income still would not be enough to support thier familes. Med bills, few sisters/brothers, maybe grandma and gramps need you as well. They would be exempt to take care of them thats all.

 

[Rankao]

So your saying our 1st pres. didnt have military exp.... ya no in the british army or as the leader of the rev. forces?

I don't know *exactly* what you're saying here, but the closest thing we had to a President of the United States before there was a United States would be the President of the Continental Congress during the war, right? Of his seven successors who served during the way, I only know of one that had prior military experience. On the other hand, most seemed to be lawyers.

It seems like if we want a good wartime President, we should really look to elect a lawyer!

Technically he wasn't Commander and Chief of the Military , but also there was a huge change of failure and the revolution had failed he would be hanged. If we pulled out of Iraq right now, I doubt that Terrorist will over run our houses and strip away our government and kill our leaders. For the most part in modern times our leaders are safe and comfortable, there isn't a risk to share with their soldiers.

 

[PurpleRain]

In a country boasting to be the land of the free, you sure don't wish people to have free choice when it comes to these things. Manditory? Pfft.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Heck no mandatory service is IMO mild slavery not to mention a huge loss of freedom. Unless it's military then I can understand as every nation needs a standing army.

 

[Jark212]

I'll give you all some advice
1) Find out if you can be drafted. (if theres some conditions which under they cant draft you, ie if your the last male in your family carring your last name (me!))
2) if you are elagable for the draft join the Air Force, you'll be safe (safest)
3) go to Canaida...

 

[Rankao]

However, the same is true of Jury Duty: we make people serve--taking away their Liberty--only as a last resort because we don't want to hire professional jurors with taxes, i.e., taking away their Property.

I don't think professional jurors would be constitutional would it? Or maybe I'm not quite understanding what a Professional juror is.

 

[Rankao]

However, the same is true of Jury Duty: we make people serve--taking away their Liberty--only as a last resort because we don't want to hire professional jurors with taxes, i.e., taking away their Property.

I don't think professional jurors would be constitutional would it? Or maybe I'm not quite understanding what a Professional juror is.

Can't think of anything specifically in the Constitution ruling out the creation of a professional juror system. The Supreme Court might find that it violates the Constitution, but, there's nothing specifically prohibiting it. There's nothing necessarily 'partial' about a professional juror, and "impartial" is the only guarantee that would have anything to do with this.

You can't get any impartial then 12 randomly picked out people.