Because you’d still be living here enjoying all the rights and freedoms that others have earned for you.
**
[/quote]
I fail to see how any of this is usefull or how it would solve a single problem in the US. **
[/QUOTE]
Did I ever say the purpose was to solve a problem? The purpose would be to do your duty.
It would, however, provide some training, theoretically lower some goverment operating costs, and possibly give people more of a feeling of “investment” in the country.
But you said yourself that they wouldn’t have those rights.
No, I didn’t. They just wouldn’t be able to vote.
And what freedom would that be? If someone who does not volunteer for service is unable to vote, why should they be allowed to exercise free speach or bear arms. If a person is unable to vote, why can we assume they would be allowed to keep any of their other rights?
No one “earned” freedom for me. They are not a gift bestowed upon us by those in power.
[/quote]
I fail to see how any of this is usefull or how it would solve a single problem in the US. **
[/QUOTE]
Did I ever say the purpose was to solve a problem? The purpose would be to do your duty.
[/quote]
Then describe to me the national benefit of voluntary service. Otherwise you are creating a giant bloated government service for no reason other than an inflated sense of nationalism.
What exactly is a persons “duty” to their country? Government is not the same as thing as a nation and duty to country is not the same thing as working in a public sector job. People should be able to initiate change in the government without having to be part of the government. That is what all those people who “earned us our freedom” fought for.
How does adding millions more government employees and the additional training programs lower costs at all? If anything, I think it would create an economic disaster.
I’ve already described what I think would be the benefits. Please read for comprehension. I’ve also addressed your last question with the quote immediately above it.
Msmith537, we’re going in circles, and this isn’t alot of fun. All this ishypothetical, and unlikely to come to pass anyway. I’ll gladly let you have the last word since I’m done with this.
Once a group loses the right to vote, its other rights are living on borrowed time.
Compare, for example, restrictions on minor drivers with restrictions on senior drivers. Both groups are statistically likely to cause accidents. In many states, minors receive “restricted” or “graduated” licenses that prohibit driving at night, driving with other minors, etc. However, seniors are not subject to any of these restrictions. The difference? Seniors can, and do, vote.