You guys make some excellent points that I did not consider… of course, I wasn’t in shape to consider much at the time…
Everyone who says five years is too long is right, so let’s theoretically reduce it to two years.
People who complain about the restrictions applied to non-citizens forget that as outlined, non-citizenship is a concious choice. You are only not a citizen if you a) refuse education b) refuse public service and c) refuse to hold a job. Basically, you can only refuse citizenship by being a large slab of worthless shit. Even if you do refuse citizenship, the only loss is the right to vote and pension. You wouldn’t become chattle, you’d just not be able to vote or have a pension at retirement age. And if you want to vote? Become a citizen! Get a job, join the military, or return to school. Be productive and you are granted citizenship.
Besides, I outlined the basic rights granted to all persons, not only citizens, which if you’ll notice, includes property ownership. Therefore, bills limiting property ownership to non-citizens would be unconstitutional (or whatever the document would be called).
As for business supporting the government instead of the people, the way I see it currently, the people support both the government and business, and the government supports both the people and business, but business only works in it’s own interest. So people support the businesses, the businesses support the government, and the government supports the people.
More later. Thanks again for all your great replies. They’ll help alot in addressing concerns in my personal manifesto ™.
Ok, so perhaps I have “mostly” respect for the military in spite of a few faults over the past 200 years. The point I am trying to make is that the military is as fallable as any other segment of society. Over its long history, the military has been guilty of both racism (blacks were segregated until around the 1940s) and sexism (Tailhook as SpaceGhostofArrakis pointed out). But, I don’t want to get off on a tangent.
Why don’t I think mandatory military service is a good idea?
The purpose of the military is to defend our country and citizens from external threats and to implement foreign policy abroad. A modern army is expensive and uses a great deal of resources and manpower, therefore, it should only be as large as necessary to achieve the objectives stated above.
Forcing a large segment of the population into military service (especially for 5 years) would unnecessarily tax the entire country. Imagine if, instead of building Microsoft and Apple in thier twenties, Bill Gates and Steave Jobs were stuck marching and pealing potatoes on an Army base for 2 years. The software industry would be 2 years behind what it is now. Now multiply that times the entire population. Besides, how does training someone in how to run an obstacle course and conduct an assault against a bunker help them in civilian life?
As for instilling some intangable military values, I don’t see the point. The battlefield is very different from the civilian world. Here in the world, I can try out new idea and new ways of doing things without worrying about getting my head or my buddies head blown off. In any case, values should be taught at home, not be enforced by the government. I get nervous whenever the government tries too hard to tell us what to think.
The other problem with having mandatory military service (without a war to fight) is that it reduces the overall quality of the military. With a volunteer Army, you get motivated people who want to be there. I know if I was forced to serve (especially in time of peace) I would be putting the least amount of effort possible until my time was up. Of course, I might like it, but thats not the point.
You see, what makes our country so strong is that we have the freedom to pursue whatever fits our abilities and goals. If I want to pursue a military career, I can do that. If I am better suited to be a doctor or lawyer or construction worker, I can do that as well. So eventually, we all end up doing what suits us best.
Splitting the country into citizens and non-citizens based on some civil service requirement is pointless. Most laws enacted by the government dont really affect our lifestyle on a daily basis. What really determines our quality of life is how much effort we put into it. If your smart, educate yourself and work hard at your career, and treat people with respect, you will generally be rewarded. If you are a lazy jackass who doesnt do anything, odds are you will be living in a van down by the river. Just don’t complain that the rest of the world is better off than you.
Homer - Before you go reengineering society, you should really outline what your objectives are. Are you trying to redistribute wealth? Enforce higher education? Dominate the world? Ensure freedom for all?
Also, you should probably get a little better understanding of economics. People don’t really support businesses. People create businesses because the see a need or want that they think they can fill at a profit. And if business supports the government and business only works in its own interest, do you think it is a good idea to have big business supporting the government?
I forgot this last night…Most kindergarteners have science, so why put it off until 3rd grade? Hell, my toddlers and pre-schoolers loved the natural science tie-ins when we did them. Why wait until their nine or so years old?
I suppose you would have to get rid of the don’t ask don’t tell policy too.
Why would you want to expand the military? It seems to me that there is no actual reason to. Countries with mandatory military service have that usually because they intend on either attacking or defending with large amounts of troops. America can’t do that because we only attack far away people or defend other far away people.
Also, how exactly would your system be better? You outline it and say its better, but you don’t give any reasons why.
Oh yeah, that’s right! Hey SpaceGhostofArrakis and Beelzebubba. I guess the military isn’t homophobic either! Sterra must be thinking of the the Iraqi military.
Hold on here! I’m not ready to quit, yet. I want to talk about my obsession of the moment, the institution of universal national service on the order of the Draft but broader and more repressive (yes, I have chosen that word carefully).
Let me start out with an unfair and sarcastic comment. A fair number of the posters here, but certainly not all of them, seem to:
Mount their high horse and gallop off in all directions at once without bothering to even try to read the entirety of the post they are responding to:
Gather a fair amount of their information on any given topic from commercial movies (I am still arguing with my daughter about the murder of President Kennedy and the nature of the war in Vietnam, thanks to Oliver Stone), or from network TV news (the principal purpose of which is to terrorize and titillate):
Argue from a position of woeful, if not simply perverse, ignorance:
Think that anyone who disagrees with them is either a fool or a villain.
That said, let me state my modest proposition, once more.
I propose a universal system of conscription for national service at age 18 or completion of high school. Generally, with necessary exceptions for hardship and mental and physical disability, each young person would be required to devote 12 consecutive months to some sort of national or other public service. The period of full-time service would be one year, not two or five or some other period as has been suggested here. The national service would not necessarily be in the armed forces, although that would certainly be one of the possibilities. There are other options, for instance the National Health Service, the national and state departments of natural resources, and the park service.
During that year of service the conscripted youth would receive minimal pay but full room, board, clothing and other necessities, including health care. Once the initial one year is completed, there would be a continuing part time obligation for another four years. There would be a program to subsidize higher education after the mandatory tour along the lines of the old GI Bill and a high interest or matching funds savings program.
Good idea. Model our new society after ze Germans. See, here’s the problem. You are only willing to give people the right to vote as long as they share your values and beliefs. What if I said "I don’t want anyone voting who is too lazy or stupid to earn $70,000 a year? Or “I don’t want someone voting unless they can slam dunk a basketball”? And what if I am lazy? Don’t I have the right to vote down legislature that would be against my interests (say a bill that made me work longer)?
The way a democracy works is we don’t let the stupid, lazy, shiftless people run the country. We give everyone the right to vote and hope there are more intelligent, ration people than dumbasses. And even then, theres no garantee that we all get our own way.
Could some PLEEESE give a reason for WHY and HOW mandatory service will benefit the country? And weeding out the lazy people is not a valid response. You can be lazy and selfish, but make rational decisions that benefit everyone and you can be hardworking and compationate while making short sighted decisions that haven’t been thought through.
First, what’s wrong with modelling our ‘new society’ after Germany? Note I’m not talking about Nazi Germany, but Germany as it exists today.
Secondly, nobody anywhere in this thread has said anything about restricting the right to vote to people of a certain socio-economic class: that’s purely your statement. All that is required for citizenship is a short term of service. In addition, nobody’s mentioned a time limit on when you have to do this term of service either. If you decide at age 90 that you’d like to vote–go for it! And no, I don’t think people that are too lazy to work deserve anything. If a lazy person wants to vote against a bill mandating longer hours, they should become a citizen. My view is that you’ve got to balance the interests of the individual with society and a term of service seems a rational way of doing just that.
Your faith here is touching (and I’m not being sarcastic–I’m honestly impressed), but I’d rather have some concrete process in place to stack the deck towards the responsible elements of society.
If you get something, anything, for free, you don’t tend to value it as much as something you’ve had to work for. If you don’t value something, chances are you’re not going to use it responsibly (ex. look at the difference between how ‘Habitat for Humanity’ houseowners take care of their property as opposed to anyone who gets free public housing). My opinion is that the only way to actually have people appreciate their freedom is to make them earn it. I think that someone who is hardworking and compassionate will make better decisions (and more of them) than a person who is selfish, stupid and/or lazy.
You claim that most in the voting class will be mostly hardworking and compassionate. Then the “lower” class is the one that your not in and most of those people are selfish, stupid, and lazy. And since you are so obviously compassionate you know whats good for them better than they do so they have no need to vote. Why not just go back to only white men with property can vote?
Considering the fact that the “selfish, stupid, and lazy” aren’t being helped much now I doubt turning them into second class citizens will make things any better.
The idea is not to create an underclass of the lazy, stupid, and selfish. The idea is to limit “political power” to those who care enough about the society to perform service for “the body politc”, for a minimum of two years, or as long as required by said body.
Personally, in support of this, I’m expanding the definition of “military” to include all of the civil service jobs: Military, FBI, yadda yadda yadda. Yes, the plan has it’s flaws. So does the current plan. I favor being forced to earn citizenship over awarding it at birth. I think Wabbit summed it up nicely:
Oh, and msmith537, the military is not homphobic, per se. If so, there would be a requirement that only heterosexuals could join. Certainly, individual members may be, just as individual members of any organization may hold different opinions than those “officially” endorsed. Does one homophobic janitor at the Y make YMCA a homophobic organization?
And I disagree with the statement that most laws don’t affect our day to day life. Most do. Speed limits. Tax rates. Whether or not to put cameras at intersections.
I fail to see how you can say making someone earn citizenship (again, this option is available to everyone regardless of sex or race or socio-economic class) is equal to racism. Please explain.
Also, no one is saying the ‘non-citizen’s’ should starve in the streets, just that they shouldn’t be able to vote. I am honestly puzzled that anyone sees this as being a bad idea.
It is my understanding that until rescently, a soldier who was found to be a homosexual was dishonorably discharged (in other words “kicked out”). That means the “official” stance of the military is or was “no gays allowed”. The new “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy says to me that the new official policy is “if your are gay, don’t embarrass us by admiting it publicly”. So is this wrong?
A couple of things. First of all, you are assuming that your definition of “selfish, lazy, and stupid” is benchmark by which those qualities should be judged. Some people may think that anyone who works less than 70 hours a week is lazy. For others, 50 is the cutoff. Some people think anyone who doesnt run 20 miles a week is lazy. So picking some arbitrary criteria like 2 yrs community service isn’t a valuable measure of a persons worth as a citizen or their commitment to society.
Second, America is based on the concept of “freedom”. That means that people have the freedom to be lazy. As long as that individual doesn’t expect society to support their lifestyle. You may not like lazy people, but who are you to judge what traits make a good citizen?
Third, what is it you think would improve in our society if there was mandatory civil service? Would the citizens vote in better politicians? Would crime go down? Would overall wealth increase? Please show how mandatory service translates into specific improvements in society.
Fourth, making people “earn their freedom” is not freedom at all. How can you be free if you have to jump through hoops for it?
I simply said you were creating a new class of people. One based on zero amount of evidence. I would like to see evidence of why we should deny some people the right to vote. My comparison was that your theory is similar to only allowing people with property to vote.
Actually it is. The don’t ask don’t tell was to stop people from actively trying to root out gay people I think. Now if they just lie and say they are heterosexual they can stay in the military. They are still dishonorably discharged if it is found out.
All semantics aside, there is a requirement that only heterosexuals are allowed to join the military. If they find out you’re gay – by whatever means – they kick you out of the military. Hence, gays are allowed in the military only in the same way that I am allowed to cheat on my taxes (i.e., so long as I don’t get caught). The military discriminates against homosexuals.
Women in the military are restricted from most combat roles and, therefore, are denied equal opportunity for promotion and service; they are second class soldiers. The military discrimates against women.
To be fair, the various pro-service plans in this thread all seem to include non-military options, so we can deal with that concept from here on.
Wabbit:
Not so. Spavined Gelding is proposing mandatory service for all, not merely restriction of voting rights. We have two issues here.
As for forced service, I’ve always believed it to be a fair political and ethical maxim that I shall make no claims on your freedom or way of life, and you shall make no claims on mine – a maxim which forced service clearly violates. What’s so wrong with the above sentence? At what point does anyone else assume the right to determine that my values, qualities, and way of life are not sufficiently in line with their own?
Furthermore, such a proposal is, on its face, discriminatory unless you plan to enforce it retroactively upon every citizen of any age. Surely every middle-aged gentleman who supports such a plan would have no qualms about dropping everything for a year or two to fulfil the duty that they seem so ready to impose on everyone else.
Regarding the “mere” restriction of voting rights, I think puk put it nicely:
Whether or not this ensures a non-voting underclass is debatable, but disenfranchised citizens (or “residents”) have tended throughout history to have a considerable derth* of freedoms relative to the voting population (take, for example, any country at all – ever – that had both a voting and non-voting class).
To speak extremely generally the more expensive an object is, the lesser it’s necessity, save certain objects such as homes and vehicles. Food and clothing would be exempt from taxes, or have a very low tax rate applied, making them easier for everyone to afford, whether rich or poor. The people who would buy more expensive personal items (expensive TVs, boats, etc) can generally afford to pay the higher tax rate. While this may keep someone of borderline income from purchasing something they otherwise may have afforded, it also increases the tax receipt from a ‘superfalous’ item. There’s a trade-off to everything, and I think a sloping tax rate is probably the least harmful method of taxation available at the moment. I would ask that refutations don’t include examples like “what about medical equipment for dying people?” because as we all know, there are exceptions to everything.
As for businesses paying a higher tax rate, you are correct. But then, a business generally has more capital available than an average person, and a business is a for-profit conglomerate of people, not a single entity.
I apologize for generalizing, but I didn’t have time to write a thesis on economic theory. Please understand that I have a fine understanding of economics.
If people don’t support businesses, who does? The people support businesses by their purchases and loyalty et cetera. People create businesses to fulfill a need, but the business after creation is sustained by customers.
Why should business be allowed free reign to do what have you, when the people struggle to support both the business by their purchases, and the government by their taxes?
The people would direct the government through their votes and actions while the businesses would support the government through taxes while the people supported the businesses through consumerism.
Personally, I believe that businesses influence on the government should be relegated to the backseat much like currently the people’s influence on policy is limited with consideration to the influence of big business (lobbyists et al). The people should directly influence the actions of their government, while the businesses (which are constructs of the people) should finance those actions. The actions of businesses should (as would be in a completely free market) be directed by the influence of the people and the regulations of the government of the people.
ITR champion (Integra Type-R?), you are correct that HS curriculum should be much freer. The outlined plans aren’t the complete picture, they are what would be considered ‘core curriculum’, making up only about half of the classes. The rest would be electives focused on the interest areas of the students. In a society as complex and diffused as ours, any interest, any interest, can be made profitable and into a career. This was not true in more primative societies, but currently you can focus on just about anything and make money off of it. Hell, if I had it my way, HS students would have a 2 hr break in the middle of the day to do whatever they wanted, and the school day would be extended by a few hours, however if the correct mix of required and elective classes were presented, most students wouldn’t object to spending more time at school. Heck, football takes up HOURS of time every day, and no one who likes it really objects. How many comp-u-geeks would object to spending another three hours at school if it meant they got to be educated on computers for an extra three hours? Or artists who got to spend the additional three hours working on art? And so on. (Three hours is just a random number)
If they did, our society wouldn’t be approx. 75% morons, assholes, jerks, immature persons, inconsiderate persons, etc. I could go on. Most people don’t have the social skills, or coping skills, personal consideration, empathy, sympathy, or understanding to fight their way out of a paper bag. I’m trying to create a system that gives these people the tools they need to function without harm or deficit to others. Education, experience, and understanding are those tools.
If you are believing it is a benevolent fascist regime, you are seriously misinterpreting my comments. The direction of the system is to create intelligent, empathic, rational, responsible people who know their rights, freedoms, and responsibilities and have the methods and tools necessary to enforce them by themselves without the need of government intervention. The military service is to show people what it’s like where people don’t have rights, such as developing countries and backwater locales. The police service and social service is to give people a strong education in how the system works and how to make it work for you, etc. Please don’t misinterpret my objectives.
I see many comments that are creating problems where there are none, such as the ‘fascism’ comments above. Perhaps I have been unclear. I apologize.
The outlined education system would serve to teach people not only hard facts and knowledge, but also how to deal with the millions of people they will have to interact with over their lives with the least amount of friction.
No kidding. I’ve done construction. But I’ll tell you what the petty theives et al can do. They can hammer nails. They can put up drywall. They can pour concrete. They can hang drop ceilings. They can clean out buildings. You don’t need police to watch after them, because the foreman and the skilled labor on the job were policemen for at least two years. They know how to do it. Having people serve as police for a set number of years would eliminate the necessity for a huge amount of police. How many traffic cops would you need if everyone had been a traffic cop, and knew how to do (whatever)? How many would you need to arrest someone if everyone knew how to arrest someone? How many would you need to (fill in the blank) if everyone knew how to (fill in the blank)? Giving everyone an education in law enforcement would cut down the necessary size of the law enforcement system.
Why the hell would you do that? You put in your time, you are a citizen. How many times do I have to reiterate: The only way to not be a citizen is to do your best to not be a citizen. And you would have the same rights, except to vote and have pension. Why should you have a say in how things are run if you refuse to do anything about how they are run. Sit on your ass and complain all day, but don’t expect someone to help you if you don’t first help yourself.
Redistribute wealth to the degree that those who can and do, have, and those that won’t, don’t. Right now, it’s hard to get wealth unless you have wealth. Sure, you can get a fancy degree, but that costs money. I could go to a good school, and get a good degree, but I can’t afford it.
Enforce higher education? Yes, most certainly. There’s a hell of a lot of stupid people out there, and they make everything harder for those of us who bother to learn and try.
Dominate the world? No. Educate people on how to dominate their own world with the least amount of unwanted run-off into the worlds of others.
Ensure freedom for all? Certainly. With great freedom comes great responsibility, and great responsibility is hard to carry without the necessary tools, which in this world, is education, experience, and understanding which are gained through service and schooling.
You know, you preview, then you proofread everything except the first line, and what do wind up with? A subtle allusion to myself on msmith’s “one,” that’s what.
Allowing the people an avenue to show their enthusiasm for the state may warm the cockles of your heart, but it is a poor excuse for the crippling tax-burden of a government which is sure to result from a program of mandatory civil and military service. Can anyone give me any compelling justification for such a government’s existance, aside from daydreams about ‘civic pride’?
Speaking of taxes, I pay them. Lots of them. The government already demands a huge chunk of my annual earnings for itself, and will only demand more as the size of government increases. That is my service to the ‘body politic’, and serves it better than a generation of civil servants suckling at the government’s teat.
Speaking of the goverment, they already use the money I send them ineffectively; why should I allow them to do the same with several years of my life?
Absolutely. You forgot to mention that within society are people willing to make asnine and condescending generalizations about the rest of society, while maintaining that they know better than the rest. Those people should, as a matter of diligent amd consciensious public service, be dragged out into the street and shot.
Without the need for government intervention? WTF? You wish to show people how to exist without relying on the government, by encouraging them rely on the government for years of their life? Have you thought this through at all? I don’t think people are misinterpreting your objectives; they’re realizing just how messed up your arguments are.
msmith and VarlosZ are, of course, correct: the military is a pretty homophobic organization. The paragraph in which I stated they were not was obviously typed without the benefit of thought. I apologize.
Jeff, the “service for citizenship” is the only aspect of Homer’s plan I support. Well, it might be a different plan entirely, because I’m not suggesting it be mandatory. I’m defining citizenship to mean “the right to vote and the qualification to hold public office”.
I would anticipate that it wouldn’t encourage a large number of people of join, and wouldn’t bloat the military much beyond its current size. That could just be the cynic in me, though. Again, while I use the term “military”, I don’t mean the strict definition of todays armed forces. Perhaps I should start using “civil service”.
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that citizenship, as previously defined, is not something a vast majority of the current US citizens take seriously. I strongly favor the idea of some requirement for these rights, beyond merely being born (or paying taxes). You pay taxes for the privelege of living within the society, being protected by its laws and enjoying the benefits of its public works.
The ability to help decide the bounds of public works, or to effect laws, should be reserved to those who have demonstrated in some way that they take the idea of citizenship seriously, and that they view the role of “voter” or “public official” as one of service to the society. I’m not referring to Ted Kennedy.
I am not in favor of further bloatin the government payroll or adding to the enourmous list of “social programs” that we have going on today. In fact, I’m in favor of removing most of them. Again, as my suggested scenario is voluntary, I don’t anticipate a sudden explosion in the civil service…I really wouldn’t expect your every day life to be any different from what it is today.
As far as freedom and personal liberty go, I can appreciate the noble idea of having a government in which every single person has the right to effect change or run for public office. The plan in which you must perform service prior to obtaining the right to vote does not discriminate, in my view, in an immoral manner. It’s merely stating that the rights to vote and hold public office come with responsibility, and you must demonstrate your sense of responsibility and your commitment prior to being awarded those rights. They remain available to everybody.
And when I rule the world, that’s the way it will be.
This statement is completely untrue. Is a Pokemon figure more necessary than my car because its less expensive?
You said there are exceptions. In the scientific world, when people propose a theory, they need to be able to account for those exceptions. Failing to do so usually means that the theory is unsound or incomplete.
I’m not sure you do. Your stements seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the complex relationship between taxes, consumer spending, unemployment, production level, inflation and supply and demand. And we aren’t even talking about the markets and interest rates.
For some reason, you feel that only businesses should pay taxes. Well thats fine if they can pass the entire cost onto consumers. But they can’t. The result would be higher prices, lower productivity and higher unemployment.
What you fail to grasp is that the money that goes to businesses is used to pay their employees salaries. When you buy anything from a pencil to a BMW, some worker now has money so they can buy stuff.
A strong economy is not one where everyone hoards their money. A strong economy is made when people spend their money.
Thats a pretty dim view of society. Besides, I am sure there are as many jerks in the military and civil service as their are in the civilian world.
From Webters dictionary:
fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
You definitely have the ‘nation above individual’, ‘centralized autocratic government’, and ‘economic and social regimentation’ parts. And if you start placing restrictions on who can vote, the rest creeps in sooner or later.
