Since 1986, federal civilian employment (not counting Postal employees) has declined from 3.022 million to 2.710 million in 2001. Source: http://www.opm.gov
The federal civilian payroll (including Postal employees) increased from $97.3 billion in FY1986 to $193.7 billion in FY2001. Source: http://www.opm.gov
The real problem is not with federal employees, doing more and more work with fewer coworkers, but the President and Congress spending more and more with pet projects and pork barrelling, and diverting funding.
Granted, there are federal employees on a gravy train. I have a workload which should be done by four employees. For FY2003, my workload will increase to that of ten employees. (My agency has been cut 52 percent between FY1991 and FY2001, and Bush wants an additional 20 percent cut for FY2003.) Many things are not gonna get done, including Congressionally mandated requirements. You will suffer as a result, especially your children as they grow up.
My inbox is always full, and although I enjoy what I do, I resent being placed in the same bad apples basket with those who do not have the work ethic I do.
Forced to earn your rights? Again, contrary to your beliefs, rights are not granted. They are earned. And the “institutionalized indentured servitude” argument falls flat because the people in the military are paid. They’re also fed, clothed and housed. It is by no means indentured servitude.
It doesn’t have to be military service. As I said before, there are many, many other kinds of service one could perform.
Ask yourself this: Who (or what) gives you the right to vote? Just because you were born in a certain country and have attained a certain age? At present…yes, it does. But why does that make you qualified? Because people fought and died for the idea. “Taxation without representation” and all. To rest on the laurels of those that fought, and sometimes died, and not wish to do your own part to maintain the security and rights you enjoy seems rather cowardly to me.
Being responsible for following the laws gives us the right to have a say in the making of those laws. Our government derives its legitimacy from the people; we are citizens, not subjects.
Under the Constitution, rights are inherent, meaning they already exist within each individual. The Constitution places limits upon the government as to what it can do to restrict those inherent rights. This has been discussed before in other threads.
Under Article I, Section 8., Congress has the authority, “To raise and support Armies, …” Typically that can mean a military draft.
OK…all well and good. The Constitution says rights are inherent, and they are…as long as the Constitution is in effect. Without a military, I wonder how long those rights would be “inherent.” Only as long as the next government decided how inherent they are.
Even the Constitution wouldn’t exist without those that fought to make it the law of the land.
Why is it that people expect something for nothing? Why don’t those same people feel some kind of obligation to the country that guarantees them the liberties and freedoms they enjoy?
Whatever. I didn’t expect alot of support on that proposal of mine. I just feel better that I did my part.
soldiers do deserve much respect for volunteering.
if you make service mandatory those who would have volunteered anyway will lose much of the respect they deserve.
at the same time others, who now deserve their respect for being excellent students, engineers etc… will also lose their respect when they become hopelessly-average soldiers.
only the worthless scum can possibly gain any respect in this mandatory scheme, i guess this is why chantecleer likes it.
Aliens, legal or illegal, do not have the same responsibilities as US citizens (such as registering for Selective Service or serving on a jury [?]), therefore they don’t get all the rights. Similar logic can be used to justify the disenfranchisement of minors.
France has conscription, (Though I believe they are in the midst of a 6yr. plan to phase out conscription.) Germany uses conscription. Italy has conscription, although they as well are phasing it out.
I don’t think that the above nations (and others) are chock full of ‘worthless scum’. ‘National Service’ or conscription is nothing more then a way of keeping the armed forces staffed at a level deemed neccesary by the government. While I am not too thrilled by the concept of introducing the draft today (maybe in the future, if the quality of our armed forces declines), I hardly think that ‘worthless scum’ will gain any respect if implemented.
This morning Congressman Rangel conceded on NPR that his bill probably wouldn’t garner much support; however, he never thought that it would and has floated the balloon to get a natioanl debate going on the US’s policy re: war (and the threat of war) as a foreign policy tool. His point: Only one member of Congress has a son that is serving as an enlisted man in the armed services. Perhaps some thought should be given as to why that is, and whether the mothers and fathers of those who are serving are as eager to use force as the 400+ members of Congress.
“A volunteer soldier chooses his path because he is willing to put the needs of his country ahead of his own without expecting anything in return.”
I’ve had several friends from college enlist and the very last thing on their minds was “service to country.” Instead, they were looking for the benefits associated with the GI Bill and an opportunity to see some of the world.
No, our rights are not defined by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is an expression of what the founding fathers believed were the rights that all people were inherently entitled to all people (well, all white landowners, but that’s a diferent debate).
You people fight for a piece of paper or do they fight for the freedoms that are spelled out on that paper? Someone obviously believed those rights existed before they were written down.
Someone mentioned something about for every line soldier there is something like 10 other soldiers in supporting roles. There are also probably another 1000 civilians behind him fueling the economy that keeps him supplied and armed.
You mentioned that alternatives to military service were acceptible. Why is a person forced to dust off headstones at Arlington against his will providing more of a service to his country than the guy who puts in 40 hours a week making Blackhawks at the Sikorsky factory or the guys at the deli down the street where he eats his lunch?
The best way to serve this country is for everyone to do their part to keep the economy and the military strong. Conscripting tens of millions to create a bloated military and work on token public service projects means tens of millions of people not working on the thing they trained to do. I don’t see that benefits anyone.
Why not just make service mandatory for everyone, for life and call it Communism?
That’s because your idea does not make sense. If you truly believe in freedom then you would allow people the choice to fight for that freedom. If no one is willing to fight then they deserve the consequences. We don’t live in a society run by warlords where only those who fight for the warlord have the rights.
And about the rights earned vs granted, I would refer you to one of our founders:
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
Those unwilling to risk life and limb in times of need should not enjoy the fruits of freedom in times of peace."
Nice blurb but some might disagree on what a “time of need” is. Signing up because my country is about to be invaded is one thing, it’s quite another to sign up to invade Afghanistan.
BTW, how do you propose we revoke those fruits of freedom?
I said that I’d like to make some kind of national service a prerequisite to being able to vote.
You don’t want to contribute? Fine. But you also don’t get a voice in how the country is run, how it spends it’s money, nor who gets to be dog catcher.
You don’t have to serve, but you don’t get to vote if you don’t.
All the jobs mentioned above by Msmith537 could just as well be done as a part of national service if it was deemed that those jobs were an appropriate utilization of that person’s abilities. The deli guy could work at the PX on base. The Sikorsky mechanic could maintain Blackhawks at a local Army Reserve station.
The two years of service could conceivably provide lots of young people with a useful skill they wouldn’t get otherwise–thereby making them more valuable in the job market. What’s more…someone who had “done their time” would more than likely take a more serious interest --and therefore much more likely to directly participate-- in the electoral process.
Furthermore, people would still be able to volunteer for military service. Of course, they’d be welcome, and they, the volunteers, would probably be the ones in the actual combat arms. The “worthless scum” mentioned by vasyachkin probably wouldn’t be suitable for combat, anyway–and no-one would want them there.
C’est la vie. (C’est la guerre?) It ain’t gonna happen…but I’d support it if it did.
—I thought the anti-draft movement was one of the defining issues of the modern democratic party?—
And conservative economists.
—‘National Service’ or conscription is nothing more then a way of keeping the armed forces staffed at a level deemed neccesary by the government.—
What if the government deems that the level just keeps getting higher and higher? Military bases, national service projects, and so on, are great pork, and having large portions of society forced live their lives under government authority is great for the government in general.