I'm fairly sure the following countries have some sort of Nat'l Service requirement: Austria, Israel, Germany,Denmark, Sweeden, Norway and Switzerland. Would you support it (with the caveat that alternative service would be available for a variety of 'disqualifying' factors)?

I kind of like the idea of citizens having to do their country some sort of service. Wouldn't have to be military (but maybe have a military training component), but it'd be some sort of concrete involvement/service in the betterment of the nation.

Since the majority of folks here hold our freedoms dear--including the right to sit around and take in gov't handouts for generations-- anything mandatory I'm thinking would be railed against, but might it not weed out those here for love, liberty and loyalty; those willing to contribute to the nation, from those here for convenience, profit and their own well being only?

Just curious.

No, I'm all for Darwinism.

Not everyone is cut out for it.

not military service. it would dilute the force with slackers and dumbfuggs. now if they want to draft some kids to clean up the roads i'm all for it.

He always wins, that's for sure!

Right. Thus, the words on 'disqualifications' above. Above and beyond mental/physical disabilities though, surely there are some jobs that even the feeblest of body and mind could do to help the nation in some way, no?

Yes. Up until the early 70's, all qualified males were required to give the country two years of individual service. I doubt it hurt many of us on this forum and I it might help young people today develop a sense of responsibility.

I didn't know that. Thanks. And yes, the sense of responsibility thing seems like it has gone the way of the dodo for so many.

Sending young adults to be serve in .gov agencies for two years should nicely reinforce what the schools have been teaching them. Personally, I'd never let my kids do it.

If you want welfare folks to start working again to get benefits, I'd be all for that.

That'd be a beautiful thing. Sadly, I think we're too far gone to see that happening.

Pie in the sky.

Dems and Publicans would pervert it with carve outs before the ink was dry.

I agree with that.

But give incentive too...

Perhaps we need to have a service prerequisite for voter eligibility.

Isn't the Selective Service law still in effect where 18y/o still have to sign up even though we haven't had a draft since the 70s?

Why should any American feel a responsibility to serve the government any more than is already obligatory?

The government already eats about half of a person's earning capacity in the way of taxes. And they want more than that?

I'm not gay. I'm not a feminist. I'm not an illegal immigrant. I don't collect welfare.

To sum up, I'm not represented by the current ruling structure. Why should I have a sense of responsibility to a government that lights the White House up like a rainbow to celebrate homosexuality and tells me that, as a southerner, I'm to be demonized for displaying a symbol of my heritage?

Nah,...I ain't feelin' it.

No, but I'm for a program in the schools like "ROTC" that would be mandatory that would combine fitness, military style lessons, learning to shoot, camping, American history, ect.

That sounds good,...but some feminist dyke would have 'em marching around the school in red high heeled shoes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ion-to-have-male-cadets-wear-high-heels/

In World War II they drafted millions of misfits and dumbfuggs. Who collectively became the Greatest Generation.

Hell, yes, I'm in favor of universal service. Either military or something equally rigorous. You have no appreciation for what you've been born to if you do not fight for it or suffer for it.

I like the idea, Leighton. But as others have already noted, I don't think it would fly anymore.
Too many perverted self interest amongst the political monkeys that would be in charge of implementing it.

First off, you're way too old. I'm talking about the under 25 demographic.

But I could see young folks doing their bids in places of their choice--local or not. Helping elderly folks, keeping parks clean, neighborhood watches, that sort of community service stuff, if they opted out of national defense type commitment, but all with a basic theme of working for the country as well as for oneself, for whatever period of time.

In HS I had a couple of Israeli friends, as well as a Swede, and they all said that after HS, if they chose to go back to their native countries, they'd have to do two years of national service. They explained that many tried to duck it, as it was not exactly a popular thing, but one way or the other they'd have to do their service, unless DQd. I know the two Israelis went back and did their service. One was female. I saw a picture of her in uniform toting a M16 a few years later that a mutual friend shared with me.

Amen to all of the above.

Good words, and food for thought Rocky. Thanks.

I believe some form of national service would help instill some sense of "pride of ownership".

It wouldn't have to be military service. Could be anything along the lines of community service. Fighting wildfire, helping the old folks, maintaining public places, cleaning up trash on the highways, etc, etc.

I wouldn't make it mandatory though.

But, I would make it mandatory to earn the right to vote.

The under 25 demographic needs to be educated about the corruption of our current form of government. Not asked to be a slave to it.

Getting paid to do a service for your country, one where folks gain some job experience and maybe a little sense of responsibility is akin to slavery?

If it's not voluntary, it's slavery.

It one of those things that sound good until you spend 10 seconds thinking how screwed up a highly politicized program that had 5 million unwilling participants payed, housed, clothed and fed on the government tit would be.

I don't believe that being born here, and having a pulse, should be the only requirements to have a voice in elected government........that isn't working.

I would like to see mandatory national service, with physical/mental health and criminal exclusions, to start between ages eighteen and nineteen or upon graduation from high school. Something like the Civilian Conservation Corps that would provide low cost labor for the Department of the Interior in areas like National Forest Service and BLM. Make it an eighteen month cycle; three months of training, two months of vacation, and thirteen months of labor. The kids would learn some valuable life lessons/skills and would, IMO, be more mature and better prepared to go forward in their lives.

This, as well as what RR and MTMarine is what I was sort of kicking about in my head. Just looking at so many of the young folks these days, it's a scary thing to think of what's in store in the next couple/few decades. I'm seriously worried for the future of this nation.

,..and implementing slavery is going to fix it?

The situation we have now is why the inmates are running the asylum.



It's really sad.

Mandatory service to the government would only give the inmates more power.

I'm not for mandatory service or 'slavery'. But I am for earning the right to vote.

so,...30 million illegal immigrants sign on to do 2 years of service in exchange for the right to vote. They need a job, anyway.

Then what?

Earning the right to vote would not have to be anything so difficult/impossible.

Just the requirement to give SOMETHING of yourself to the greater good, to have a voice in the big decisions.

yes i would support it

But you're assuming that service to a government that lights up the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate homosexuality is contributing to the greater good.

If the government isn't a positive influence, service to the government isn't a positive influence.

That's rich. I'm not talking about illegal immigrants.


If the voters had some 'pride of ownership', we would not have 30 million illegal immigrants.

,...and our current government damn sure isn't a positive influence.

The demographics and entitlement attitude would not support it.
I like the ideas of service in Heinlein's Starship Troopers but todays politicians would turn it into National Socialism (in fact, they already have.)

Maybe you're not,...but you're not running the government.

Make it a law that only those who do 2 years government service gets to vote,...and see who ends up taking advantage of it.

Yes.

I assumed citizenship. I clearly assumed too much.

If done right, yes. But what has uncle Sam done right lately?

More and more this is how I feel.

This. IMO the biggest thing it would do is expose them to folks from different parts of the country and broaden their outlook on life. Something akin to the CCC program would be the greatest thing that ever happens to some of them.
I would go one step further though, I would say that the obligation needed to be fulfilled prior to starting college. How many young folks do you see that go to college that really have any idea of what they want to do with their like? Not very many. It at least would give them time to start sorting out their lives instead of sending them off to college at $25,000,00 per year while they are doing it.

drover

Here is an excellent article on the subject.

In previous posts for Task & Purpose, I tried to put reaction to the Veterans Affairs scandal into proper perspective. It is my contention that the way we, as citizens, process information about the problems in our country is a product of a profound shift in our attitudes toward our nation and toward one another as citizens. In a recent article, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal talks about this same phenomenon while espousing the virtues of national service.

There was one line in the opening paragraph that seemed to dovetail with my previously mentioned sentiments on the current state of Americans: “Citizenship no longer demands a common experience — and so we no longer believe in a common future.”




This is exactly right. This is the heart of the matter when observing current events such as the VA scandal. Because there is no common, unifying experience, and because we view ourselves as individuals who are separate from the nation, we don’t accept that we are meant to work together toward a common future. We absolve ourselves of the shared responsibility to shape this country’s future. It is for someone else to determine.

Strangely, by holding so fast to this individualistic dogma, we seem to be willing to give up control over our own lives. For example, by not serving in any capacity in any field, whether military or civilian, we are implicitly stating that those jobs, such as defending the nation or caring for the homeless, or enforcing the law, or any myriad of essential civic duties, are for others to do. So, as an individual am I really putting my life and my family’s safety and well-being in the hands of others without contributing to that same cause? Is that really what Americans are saying?

By instituting a system of national service, we would establish a minimum shared civic experience where each citizen contributes to the agreed upon duties of a nation. No one American would receive the benefits of such a rich and free society without sacrificing some of his or her time and effort to help one another. In that shared experience, a new sense of community and personal responsibility would flourish and reinvigorate a country that I see to be currently lacking in fortitude and civic mindedness. It is a simple, yet profound, concept.

How would it work? There are numerous proposals out there that run the gamut from required community service before graduating, all the way to reinstitution of the military draft. My own philosophy seeks to merge the idea of everyone serving with the American character of individual freedom. First, I would create extremely power incentives for everyone to serve. Second, I would give everyone a choice as how to serve.

Incentives. What if no American could receive federal benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, etc., without doing one year of national service say, after they turn 18? Again, this would reinforce the ideal that “freedom isn’t free” or you can have “something for nothing.” People would have the choice not to serve, but they would then choose not to receive compensation in the forms of social welfare when they have not contributed to this. Their tax money would still go to the public good and they would still have access to all public services, but without serving, they could not collect welfare payments.

It’s a controversial idea, to be sure, but one that I believe is necessary in a time of national decline. (Of course, the incentives could always evolve as long as there was some serious consequence for not serving.)

Choices. What if when choosing to serve people could decide between different programs? Military. Peace Corps. AmeriCorps. This way, people could contribute in whatever capacity they desired. As long as it was a sanctioned program and the person completed the equivalent of one full year of time in the program, the requirement would be satisfied.

As a result of this, we would have a population with a common set of experiences that crossed class, gender and racial lines. The nation would be strengthened not only because of the work everyone did while serving, but also because everyone would, presumably, take the experiences gleaned from their service with them into their future careers and lives.

It all sounds incredibly idealistic. I am one of the most cynical people I know. Yet I keep coming back to this idea of national service. I can not help but think that this country really started to lose its way when we moved to an all-volunteer military. We lost something. We forgot that our national actions affect all of us. We forgot that we are responsible for each other and that the only way we can forge a new and bright future is together.

Maybe instituting mandatory national service is too extreme. However, the only way to rediscover the American spirit is to institute programs that foster the idea that by helping others, by serving, we are helping ourselves.


Eric Navarro is a combat veteran, having served two tours in Iraq. Now a Major in the USMC Reserves, he is also the author of “God Willing: My Wild Ride with the New Iraqi Army.” Follow Eric on Twitter @ericnavarro

I would gladly participate in "national service" as long as that involved hanging every filthy politician in Washington D.C. from streetlamps, using red and blue ropes if it makes a difference to anybody.

Happened in Maryland.

If they gave Americans the ability to opt out of social(ist) security and medicare, the government wouldn't have to worry about it any longer.

It's not a freebee. People are forced to pay into that socialist mess.

Frick this government and anyone who thinks it needs a damned thing more than it already gets.

Anyone who thinks national service is a good idea is a complete and utter moron. Send your kid off for national service and watch them come back as fully indoctrinated communist [bleep]. Yeah, that would be awesome...lol.

What a bunch of fricking idiots. Obama says he wants a civilian force as powerful as the military and you have people on here advocating national service? Holy schit! Have you lost your minds. Yeah, give the these government [bleep] an army of easily influenced and indoctrinated 18 year old kids and in five years, the people on this board would be ashes floating around camps scattered around the Midwest. Have any of you ever even heard of The Cultural Revolution in China?

God save us from well meaning idiots.

as long as manpower needs can be met with a volunteer force, that's the way things should be.

We already have a civilian force with plenty of power. We need to keep it so.


Civilian force, and national service, are two very different things, by basic definition.

Yeah, yeah...whatever.

National service, and military service, are two very different things.


Just like thinking is very different from impulsive reactions.

Have you ever studied history? Every totalitarian regime in history has ordered national service and indoctrinated its youth.

Not true! Not everyone served only draftees. You were draft eligible and they had a yearly lottery. but they had college deferment until 71 and they held the final draft in 72. I know, lottery number 40 and got my draft notice 2 June. Enlisted 31 May as there was a difference then bing a draftees vs enlisting.

[/quote]

Have you ever studied history? Every totalitarian regime in history has ordered national service and indoctrinated its youth. [/quote]

You would have to have a severe case of rectal cranial inversion to think that is not already happening in schools and college.

Have you ever studied history? Every totalitarian regime in history has ordered national service and indoctrinated its youth. [/quote]

You would have to have a severe case of rectal cranial inversion to think that is not already happening in schools and college. [/quote]

And national service will make it better? Holy frick, you people are hilarious.

I favor mandatory national service. In addition to military service, alternate service with the US Forest Service, National Park Service, Americorps, Teach for America, etc. would be acceptable. such service would instill a sense of pride and teach some skills and, hopefully, help young folks develop a love of country and service to the nation.

I'm more inclined towards starving the beast.

I don't have the power to do that, but I'm sure as hell not going to encourage someone to work against starving it.

Another draft deferment was approved apprenticeship programs. A friend of mine, now deceased, had a college deferment until he graduated from a junior college and then got into an approved apprenticeship program which allowed him another deferment lasting almost until the draft ended.

The concept is best suited for smaller populated countries as a means to familiarize its citizens with some semblance of military preparedness.
National service in the USA should be: get a good education, get focused in a career and raise children that love their Country.

IMO, the biggest advantage would be giving high school graduates (I would make it mandatory then) two extra years of maturity before deciding on increasingly high priced college educations which no longer always translate to marketable graduates. Some with an extra couple years of life experience would invariably decide on trade schools or other avenues and learn useful, practical skills. Maybe we could begin to make something in this country again.

There is no doubt kids could be put to good work, learning discipline, gaining experience, and learning about themselves and their aptitudes.

I think the concept is good but on the debit side, I have almost given up on any post-modern government carrying out any program without more abuses, gross waste, and inefficiency.

I am all in favor or that. Either that or have to be a property owner, Born in America, Speak and read English, etc.

I'd be all for it.

Too many forget that we are the government. Ambivalence is what brought us here. Mandatory involvement would likely be better for the country than it would be for the current office occupants.

That about sums my feelings up as far as our gov't too.

IIRC, less than 10% of Americans served in WW2, how "universal" is that?

The under 25 age limitation makes it way more agreeable.

For it:

Makes for skin in the game

Better integrates citizens, in every way.

Might expose some to their first discipline.

National Service now would be obama's police force.

My obligations, and my kids' obligations for service as well, start with God. Then our immediate family and church. Then close friends and extended family. Then our community and strangers who need our help. Helping the federal government keep parks clean is so far down on our to-do list as to not even register.

The bloated national government doesn't need our help to keep running. And my kids don't need the national governments help to be good citizens.

I used to be fully in support of mandatory national service. No longer, though. This sums it up well:

I don't recall anyone referencing the gov't and any 'requirement', as you put it, to help keep it running. I guess that in a nutshell, I was musing about getting the younger generations to come to put their collective money where their nation's mouth should be on the list of things worth doing for themselves and their country. The idea that doing something for their nation, a show of solidarity and maybe a sense of pride and allegiance to is something worthwhile and noble. Just thinking out loud, as it were. I'm not a politician. I'm just some dude who thinks we as a nation are well on our way down the shytter, and tossing out a hypothetical.

I'd support mandatory national reading comprehension classes.

I'll give you a second shot at it. Here are your words, sport:

"The bloated national government doesn't need our help to keep running"

Show me where my response misinterpreted your point, if you can.

The queers could be called the "Gay Cadets". The blacks could be called "The Troublemakers" and the Mexicans could be called "The No Comprende Work Brigade".

I've been in favor of a National Model based on exactly like the Swiss have...plenty people need it, especially the welfare collecting crowd....

but everything for free from the government is more to society's liking it seems...

I remember John Kennedy's 1960 Inaugural Address, where he said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you do for your country"..... boy has that concept sure changed in the last 55 years, starting out with the 1964 Civil Rights Act....

if this nation was trained and mobilize the way the Swiss are, this nation would never ever have to worry about being attacked...by Russia, China or ISIS.........

but on the other hand also, our national government and its policies need a revamp from the ground floor up anyway....so we'll never see it... sadly..

National service? Isn't that like getting up and going to work. Millions depend on us to do it.

Also didn't that little Austrian experiment with it.

I'm not altoghter sure a draft is a bad thing. It certainly forced a lot of young men in the '60s-early '70s to take a hard look at what we wanted. Many joined the AF and Navy to avoid the Army. Probably benefited all three services. No doubt a lot went to and stayed in college just to stay out of the draft. The education probably benefited them later in life.

Beyond military service I don't see where there would be a benefit to National Service.

wow

How Many of the people commenting here were drafted?? in the 50s-60s-early 70s ? Rio7

I was drafted in October 1972...

I also grew up as a military dependent...so I had the intention of military service anyway... it was in the blood...

but the Peace Corp was available in those days to others also...

instead of doing that sort of service overseas in third world countries, I always thought that it should be done within our borders.... we aren't short the opportunity or the need, neither then or now...

Roosevelt had the CCC back in the 1930s...

Leighton, I appreciate where you are coming from in that service might instill greater pride in what we have and result in a higher degree of care for it.

But I would not support Nat'l service simply because our govt doesn't represent the people anymore. Govt's sole function is the promotion and representation of the people it governs. Our govt has failed to do this in so many ways, from the Civil War to abortion, to no-fault divorce, to enforced atheism and finally, unchecked immigration. There is no way I would support mandatory govt service, except if I thought it would start a revolution.

As far as voluntary service, we already have plenty of that. I would not encourage my children to participate in that either.

Pretty well mirrors my POV, and this from someone who had high hopes for his son to follow in my footsteps, but I did my best to discourage him from doing so. I used to be a firm believer in compulsory military service. Two years, not any longer.

I was drafted back in 1967, and served my time just like lots of others. I think that it helped me to mature, as it did lots of others. In fact, Judges used to let miscreants join the service instead of doing time for some things. The only one here, that I know of, that it hurt was Gus. Now I know that lots of the young men drafted during that period did not come back, but who am I to say that they would not have perished in some other way, such as a car wreck. If done correctly (seems to leave the government out) it would instill some good things into the young people. miles

Every member of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and every federal employee gets paid well for serving our country. Why should any mere citizen be required to provide free national service?

I figure that about 30% of every hour I worked for pay went to serve the nation. That's more than enough.

Do I really want my kids spending two years elbow to elbow with a pack feral Urbanians and "No habla" illegals instead of studing at the university? To what purpose do I want them learning about the finer points of teen alcoholism and blunt rolling from the experts? Not that I don't see the value of such a program but I wouldn't let my kid participate.

Where are these kids going to live while they do there service. Old military bases? They are in the process of being closed and the land sold. I see it as a huge gov't expense that will serve a very limited purpose.

With the IDIOTS we've got running the country....I can no longer recommend to any young person to join the military! Nothing but a lost cause! As a Vet...I'm hereby classified as a terrorist and now the AH of the country want me to disavow my Southern heritage so as far as I'm concerned they can bow up and kiss my stinking Irish azz!!

This! Though, I'd have to claim Irish/Scot/English/French/Welsh/Swiss/German/Powhatan/Monacan/Cherokee ass...

it's der broken. it was broken back in 1970 when the blue-eyed, blonde, chain smoking female SS representative working for the war criminal Johnson ordered me to laydown 2 years (or more) of my life to support his Catholic war that was supported by the Baptists of the time.

the 22 months didn't hurt me, but they sure as hell didn't help either. two uncles built time in the WPA and then the CCC's under the Roosevelt regime. later, the USFS partnered with Labor I think to train people, young time, in the building trades. I can't say any of it was bad, but it certainly wasn't good either.

what to do with the young people? is that it? my scotti friend camo man, wants to know what we should do. we should leave them the hell alone, that's what we should do. let them figure it out for themselves. it's called evolution of the human condition. ever heard of it?

no more involuntary servitude, not under the war criminal Johnson, nor anyone else who might incarnate in his perception.

federal service (that's what it is), has some good points, but overall, the bad far outweighs the good. it'd be a bad investment for America.

camo man, have I answered your question? as a scotti cousin, you know people like you and I call it as it is, the detractors be damned.

RemGuy, it may be true that only 10% (I have not checked that number) served in the military during WWII, but EVERYBODY participated. From building bombers to raising wheat, not a single citizen failed to make some kind of contribution to the war effort. That built character, and character is what made that the Greatest Generation.

Today, less than 1% of the population is in the military, and the rest seem to have an attitude of permanent personal entitlement. Probably the Greediest Generation.

It is my considered opinion that they got that way simply because they have no investment in the country. They haven't ever shed a drop of sweat, tears, or blood for their country.

Before we return to Great from Greed, they need to.

Rocky,

Someday somebody is going need to explain to me how the Greatest Generation, who lived through the Great Depression, WWII - and Korea for some-had this service and discipline, but spawned the Baby Boomers who made up the Hippie anti war movement and are the leaders of the Left today. How is that possible?

Would be an excellent idea for those citizens who have no inclination to do anything on their own..

If a sumbitch can't prove employment come tax time, draft his sorry ass to a Chinese drag line and move damn road dirt if nothing else.

It takes good, smart soldiers today... you no longer have dog faced grunts on the battle fields, but highly specialized fighters.

Putting these sorry asses, Obama's sons, in boots would be a hindrance to good men.

I think under 25 years being told what is best for them by 50 year olds who didn't do jack when they were that age isn't a good idea.

Kinda like a Senator pushing for war and getting his kid in the national guard.

matter of fact, I think Credence Clearwater wrote a song about it.

Compulsory service - no, it should be strictly voluntary.

As a mandatory prerequisite for being able to vote and/or hold public office, absolutely!

National service would currently be in the form of leftist brown shirts helping to empower every socialist/gay/minority agenda. Didn't obama propose such a program already?

Oh yeah totally 'cept I think Big Brother oughta REALLY become Big Mother. Just give kids to the state right off the tit. Better yet right outta the womb; we can pay wet mothers to work for Big Mama.

I never cease to be amazed at the things suggested here by those who claim to be Conservative. We lament federal seizure of our local schools then advocate this? Seriously?

No; absolutely not. There is nothing about required service that is anything but statist BS; the presupposition of any such requirement is that the state owns us.

And yes, I have the same problem with the draft. If there is an existential threat to my country my boys and me will sign up but there's no way in hell I'm giving the state my young men for their free wheeling escapades attempting to democratize a bunch of savage goat [bleep].

Not just no, but HELL NO.

Anyone who'd advocate this deserves the crap hole we have now. I'll try something bold called parenting and consider the stupidity of others' dependency as a learning opportunity for my kids.

Mandatory national service.

hatari, every young generation rebels against its parents. It shows in clothes, music, and in lifestyles. Many - but not all - "Boomers" showed their rebellion by shunning the values and character of the Greatest Generation.

Those drug-addled, freeloading, ne'erdowells born in the 50s and 60s are now the people running and ruining this country. Unfortunately, their children seem to have inherited rather than rejected those woeful traits. We can only hope that it skips only one generation and wasn't a tipping point.

Yet you think mandatory service to them is a good idea.

The tipping point is ancient history. The best we can seek to do is stave off the insatiable hunger of tyranny in hopes that a few of us can maintain the freedom to raise up wise children. Their opportunity to put them into slavery has already been conceived: it's called National Debt.

Not all of them by any means. Many did not even make it through basic training , discharged for "nonadapability" homosexuality, alcoholism, flat feet, bed wetting, etc, etc. Dumfuggery was not an automatic discharge, as we know from all the soldiers who needed someone else to write their letters home for them.

I served in the military under both the draft and the all-volunteer, there is simply no comparison in the quality of the people who now serve, and an "up or out" promotion system gets rid of the homesteaders in short order.

Can't imagine it NOT becoming a 21st century version of Hitler Youth.

What's that saying about remembering history?

I forget but at least I clearly am not the only one .

So service to/reeducation by country is more valuable than actual contributions to the economy?

How about if only net contributors to the funding of the gov't through taxation are allowed to vote? That seems wiser that allowing the govt to reeducate us before we can vote don't ya think?

Sorriness has become over populated. These sorry bastards need to be tasked to do something for their room and board.

Military service NO! Nothing more than polishing good men's boots. But at least put them to work to keep them out of the sack.

It's the only choice other than cutting welfare programs and letting them starve to death or becoming more animal like than they already are, and obeying the law of the jungle.

It's a vicious cycle and must be broken at some point. We can no longer afford to keep them.

Quit reading your own prejudices into what I wrote based on your own idea of what "national service" means.

Kamo gari asked if we would support mandatory service. I do not support mandatory national service. Are we clear so far?

As to eliminating universal suffrage, I am 100% in favor of that and would be glad to entertain any number of ideas of how to accomplish that. In this case I was limiting my remarks to the one in the original post - nothing more.

So back the f*ck off and quit trying to put words in my mouth.

So how exactly would giving all children over to the gov't for reeducation & training... To the same gov't that has been telling them it's ok to be dependent upon it all their lives... Make the situation BETTER?

When has a new gov't program EVER made something better?

Seriously y'all prove the assertion that neo-conservatism is militaristic Liberalism all the time. Simply astounding.

Got a problem? We have a gov't program! Said:

A) Obama

B) Statist "conservatives"

??

Things that make ya go hmmmmm.....

Sorry Jim; genuinely didn't mean to go there with you. You're someone here I respect and I apologize. My directness there was not meant to be disrespectful nor to put words in your mouth.

I do not suggest natl service necessarily equates to military service. I do, however, believe that given the sort of gov't we have that another program is a bad idea whether mandatory for purposes of citizenship or for the privileges thereof.

Taxation seems a better basis for deciding voting rights IMHO.

you just won't let anyone vote that doesn't do it

If national service makes it, I'm sending my kid to Canada. I will not have her serve this criminal regime in any way, shape, or fashion beyond paying her taxes and trying to get by. And, no, I don't think a Republican president will constitute a change of regime.

National Service mandatory... How many here believe in slavery?

Hehehe... work or starve to damn death..

I would like to see that here in Canada. I think it would make our country a better place.

Thank you, I too apologize for my angry reaction and I really appreciate your PM.


Back to the subject at hand - my main beef is with universal suffrage. The Founding Fathers knew their history and did not believe in it either. Their aim, as I understand it, was to only allow people who showed some stability and had a vested interest in electing a responsible government to participate in elections. Their solution was to only allow property owners the vote.

I'm not wedded to some form of national service as being the only avenue to suffrage but I could make a decent case for it - and remember that national service does not mean only military service although that would certainly count. And it should NEVER be mandatory. That's the whole point, only those folks willing to voluntarily give up their private lives and goals to serve their country for a period of time are allowed to participate in determining its course. The idea of only allowing taxpayers to vote has much merit as well - they earn the money to run the government, only they should be allowed to say how it is spent.

I'm sure there are other ways to skin this cat. But the underlying truism of this idea is that gifts and benefits received for free are not valued. The decision making process is one of our greatest responsibilities and it should be given only to those who have earned it in some way.

Jim,

I completely agree that universal sufferage is an anti-Constitutional idea that has wrought great havoc upon this nation. I'd add that the original method of selecting Senators which allowed them some detachment to popular whims is also vastly superior to our current practice.

That having been said, the issue at hand is one that I'm fundamentally opposed to.

I think about it this way: no matter how broadly one were to define service (ie no matter how long the list of "acceptable service organizations") it'd become politicized just like the tax code and international aid. This politicization would inevitably lead to attempts to indoctrinate. That's just the direction of gov't programs. There has never been a problem that couldn't be made worse through a gov't program.

Now attach voting rights to that "service"? You see my dilemma.

Nothing is going to cure our country's lack of individual responsibility except a re institution of family and good parenting. That will mean a reduction in the size and scope of government to allow for a reduction in the tax code so our mothers can come home and be mothers rather than out being men.

In other words it's a pipe dream.

I would have been all for it 15-20 years ago, but I fear that it would become the far lefts re-education camp wet dream run awry.

Wow back at you.

I saw where someone said that you should be able to pass a test on how government works before you can vote.

I think I might be for that.

So what would we do with the dead beat that didn't show up for their National Service?

Would we fill the fill the prisons with them?

Come do your National Service, so you can build prisons for Service Dodgers.