[ovH9wfSJ]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They wouldn't. And I don't want to live in that society.

Your scheme would further polarise society into those who care and those who don't. It would not, bespite your wishful thinking, make those who don't care care. That would be a choice. One that draftees do not enjoy.

[gusunsuth]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That would be a choice. One that draftees do not enjoy. I do not disagree that the rights of the individual would be less trampelled upon. I simply feel that society as a whole would be in far more danger.

[Laqswrnm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I do not disagree that the rights of the individual would be less trampelled upon. I simply feel that society as a whole would be in far more danger. Why?

[fotodemujerahldesnugdo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Why? Because it skews the electorate. Badly.

[mincbiori]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Because it skews the electorate. Badly. You've already said they don't vote anyway.

[cristmiff]

Those peaceful jobs can be better done by people paid to do them. National service is a concept best left applied to those jobs which economic remuneration is insufficient incentive. The military. A peace corps-type organisation. Political office. Otherwise you run into the problem of what counts as national service and what doesn't. Picking up garbage counts as national service. Why not working in a warehouse? Summer research at a university? The cost of expanding the peace corps and the military to accomodate everybody between 20 and 22 would be staggering. Never mind the hidden cost of a loss of worker productivity, as people lose two years of their life to this. They then have two years less of their prime productive years. Israel has this problem. Look at some of the Israelis on this board. Azazel is wasting his time in the Army when he could be finishing up a master's degree in chemistry.

This is in addition to what I see as the extraordinary danger of limiting the franchise.

[usacomm]

Originally posted by notyoueither


But Americans do join the Peace Corps. 180 000 in 40 years out of a population of 300 million.

[HowardtheDuck]

here's a conscripted soldier.

[Qnnoshxj]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Those peaceful jobs can be better done by people paid to do them. National service is a concept best left applied to those jobs which economic remuneration is insufficient incentive. The military. A peace corps-type organisation. Sure. And building roads and dams. And travelling abroad to help other people build roads and dams, and wells and schools.

Otherwise you run into the problem of what counts as national service and what doesn't. What counts as national service is determined by our elected representatives who are voted for by our electors, as always.

The difference is giving some emphasis to the idea of service as opposed to eveyone simply being entitled while never lifting a finger.

Picking up garbage counts as national service. Why not working in a warehouse? Summer research at a university? Why not?

It's peace time. You sign up. You do what you are good at and will put your heart into.

The cost of expanding the peace corps and the military to accomodate everybody between 20 and 22 would be staggering. Never mind the hidden cost of a loss of worker productivity, as people lose two years of their life to this. They then have two years less of their prime productive years. Israel has this problem. Look at some of the Israelis on this board. Azazel is wasting his time in the Army when he could be finishing up a master's degree in chemistry. As you point out, other countries do it. Surely it must be economical.

This is in addition to what I see as the extraordinary danger of limiting the franchise. Don't limit it. Anyone who completes their service can vote.

[diundasmink]

Originally posted by notyoueither

What counts as national service is determined by our elected representatives who are voted for by our electors, as always. Way to avoid the question.

The difference is giving some emphasis to the idea of service as opposed to eveyone simply being entitled while never lifting a finger.

Most people work for a living, pay their taxes, obey the law and generally live useful lives. I hardly call that "never lifting a finger".

Why not?

It's peace time. You sign up. You do what you are good at and will put your heart into.

So basically it's the same as any other young person's job except you do what the government tells you instead of going out yourself and finding something you want to do?

As you point out, other countries do it. Surely it must be economical.

Soviet Russia had collectivized farms. Surely it must have been economical.


Don't limit it. Anyone who completes their service can vote. You are limiting it. Just because you are limiting it by virtue of a choice to be made instead of by birth or by wealth doesn't mean it's not a limitation.

[vipdumpp]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Way to avoid the question. I didn't avoid any question.

The difference is giving some emphasis to the idea of service as opposed to eveyone simply being entitled while never lifting a finger.

Most people work for a living, pay their taxes, obey the law and live useful lives. I hardly call that "never lifting a finger". Then why the objection to service?

Why not?

It's peace time. You sign up. You do what you are good at and will put your heart into.

So basically it's the same as any other young person's job except you do what the government tells you instead of going out yourself and finding something you want to do? Yes, but you may be directed to areas that most young people would never consider, like building infrastructure in remote areas or helping people in far away lands get the basics of what our ancestors would have called minimal services.

As you point out, other countries do it. Surely it must be economical.

Soviet Russia had collectivized farms. Surely it must have been economical. I find comparisons between the econonmics of the Soviet Union and modern western European countries pretty interesting. Do you want to continue down this path?

You are limiting it. Just because you are limiting it by virtue of a choice to be made instead of by birth or by wealth doesn't mean it's not a limitation. And?

[TOD4wDTQ]

I am pretty sure of what would happen if kids were told that there was a test coming up, and if they pass it they get something important, and if they fail they do not get it.

I'm pretty sure kids would put as much importance into their citizenship as they place in their drivers' licences.

It's amazing what they do to get those things. How they fixate over being allowed to drive or not. Even if they never will own a car and just want to use their parents car the odd Sunday.

It's a right of passage that they have to earn, and that assigns it some real value. They pay a great deal of attention to the rules of the road. Let them also pay some attention to the rules of citizenship.

[Sttim]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Canada won't ship you back even if you aren't Canadian.
Common misconception. They will. Times have changed.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Everyone who turns 18 or 21 or pick your age, owes the state 1 or 2 years of service.

Whether you wear a uniform and carry a gun, or you count beans for the federal or other level of governments, or you pick up trash, no matter.

No selection involved. Everyone has to do it, if you want to be able to vote. Pretty simple. If I got paid a reasonable wage-not neccesarily high, but 3 or 4 times minimum wage, providing I could avoid combat, I'd sign up. It would be good for the country and also, proboably a good career for anyone who plans to enter a "professional" field.

[naturaherbal]

Originally posted by Vesayen



Common misconception. They will. Times have changed. No, we wouldn't.

We will ship back deserters.

[77Dinaartickire]

Originally posted by Vesayen

Common misconception. They will. Times have changed. I searched, briefly, for dodgers being shipped back. I know there were some immigration cases pending, but I didn't find anything.

Have you a source of a recent dodger being shipped back?

[spacecrafty]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I searched, briefly, for dodgers being shipped back. I know there were some immigration cases pending, but I didn't find anything.

Have you a source of a recent dodger being shipped back? No, but I could of sworn I read about canadian policy changing recently.

[arindiruppyr]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Yes, as I said, Canada ships back draft dodgers now. When was the last time you had a draft to dodge, numbskull?