Mandatory Civilian Service

[David S]

Do you favor requiring all US citizens to perform mandatory civilian service? Bear in mind that this would be mandatory. Failure to do the service or failure to do it satisfactorily would result in penalties.

[David S]

If you have the opition between Civilian (Peace Coprs, etc) or the Military (the person's choise of which service), I would have no problem with that.

Service to your nation is a good thing. I would encourage it but let's not force it. If you use it as an opition to say payoff debts (ie: college), that's a good idea.

I have no issue with voluntary service. But when it becomes mandatory that's a very different matter.

[David S]

oh, bandit just called you right-wing fb!

How then is the idea left-wing? It isn't.

Modern America is run by a right-wing leader, so if it is imposed there it is by very definition right-wing.

Bandit this idea is in fact from the left. John Kerry made the following statement during his 04 campaign;
"We need a new era of service—not an effort for one time, one purpose, or one group—but a permanent and national endeavor. For America now, service is not just an option, but an obligation of citizenship."
[ Kerry, John. "A New Era of National Service." Manchester, New Hampshire. May 19, 2003.  (Emphasis mine.)

Also Charles Rangel has written a bill called the Universal Service Act which would make it the law.  Both of them are definitely from the left.

(Lest anyone get the wrong idea I don't support mandatory service. I just asked the question. In fact my answer would be  hell no.)

[David S]

Bandit this idea is in fact from the left. John Kerry made the following statement during his 04 campaign;
"We need a new era of service—not an effort for one time, one purpose, or one group—but a permanent and national endeavor. For America now, service is not just an option, but an obligation of citizenship."
[ Kerry, John. "A New Era of National Service." Manchester, New Hampshire. May 19, 2003.  (Emphasis mine.)

In the quote above, Kerry didn't put forth a specific government mandate (even if he did elsewhere). Even so, Kerry really was not the ultraliberal everyone claims, so this still doesn't prove your argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh really? Rangel spends more time criticizing Hugo Chavez than he does Bush.

Also, I thought the point of Rangel's bill was more to discourage the war than anything else. (Of course I agree with him that the war is bad.)

Well  would you call Kerry and Rangel right wingers? If so who would you consider left wing in American politics?

[David S]

Well  would you call Kerry and Rangel right wingers?

They're both a bit more conservative than I am, I'll admit.

Bandit my friend, "a but  more conservative than you are" would put them about 10 miles left of center. My question is; are they right wingers?

[David S]

Do you favor requiring all US citizens to perform mandatory civilian service?

David, I'm not what the difference between NO and EMPHATICALLY NO is, but I voted no.  I'm suprised you, of all people, would even ask. 

In the past it would have been a choice between no and hell no. But one of my new years resolutions was to be more polite on this forum. So I switched it to emphatically no, which according to the David S dictionary means HELL NO! (Think of the Vietnam war protestors; Hell no - we won't go!)

[David S]

Do you favor requiring all US citizens to perform mandatory civilian service?

David, I'm not what the difference between NO and EMPHATICALLY NO is, but I voted no.  I'm suprised you, of all people, would even ask. 

In the past it would have been a choice between no and hell no. But one of my new years resolutions was to be more polite on this forum. So I switched it to emphatically no, which according to the David S dictionary means HELL NO! (Think of the Vietnam war protestors; Hell no - we won't go!)

ah, guess I figured that out.  I was more curious about what possessed you to ask such a question.  It's like asking "Do you support a law requiring the village elders to go out on the first of every month and give all adults between the ages of 18 and 21 a thorough beating?"  Sure, you'll find one or two people saying "oh, hell yeah, that's a grand idea" but mostly folks will say, "David, WTF?"  Especially since you're a libertarian.  Libertarianism seems orthogonal to bad ideas like mandatory beatings and socialized medicine and minimum wage laws, and yes, even compulsory civilian service.  So what gave you the idea for this poll?  Something Bush said?  Something Hillary said maybe?  Just curious.

Then later I read the thread and figured out you were talking about an idea proposed by congressman Charlie ("Jobs For Iraq? What About Us?") Rangel.  You have to remember the unemployment rate in Rangel's district is around 35%.  In some parts, such as Lennox Terrace, it's over fifty percent.  That's high.  The unemployment rate on this forum is probably lower than the national average.  My guess would be a very low one-digit number, if not zero.  So you can't expect socialist/authoritarian ideas to go over quite as well on this forum as in Rangel's district.

Angus just so there is no mistake I absolutely oppose mandatory service.  However I think there will be more of this idea coming from the Democrats. Rangel is not the only one talking about it, although he is the only one who has authored a bill for that purpose.

You may not think such a thing will happen, but in fact it is already happening. Many high schools now make community service a requirement for graduation. The high school kids probably don't understand it for what it is, involuntary servitude. Also they can't vote so they can't throw out the bureaucrats who are forcing it on them. And finaly the bureaucrats are holding their diploma's over their heads, so the kids have little choice but to comply. I think its just a way to condition them to the idea that the government can demand service of them and they must comply. The government should be the servant and the people should be the masters, but this plan makes government the master and the people the servants. In my opinion its an extremely dangerous direction to follow. What could do more to destroy our freedom than to make us servants of government?

[David S]

I think its just a way to condition them to the idea that the government can demand service of them and they must comply.

Or... maybe it's a way to get them out to do something nice for the community in the hopes that they will enjoy the experience and continue to do such things out of their own volition later in life.  I'm sorry to break this to you, but politicians are human beings, not emotionless robots who exist solely to break the wills of their subjects.

Not to say that I agree with requiring community service before graduating, but I think you're being a wee bit too paranoid there.

If the child stands up for his constitutional rights and says this is involuntary servitude and I refuse to do it what happens then? Well those nice politicians will say sorry chump you don't get to graduate. You won't be able to find a decent job or get into college and  your life is basically screwed. I would call that an extreme use of government coercion inflicted upon those who are most vulnerable and unable to resist.

Gabu if you want community service to be voluntary or for extra credit in high school then I don't object. But as soon as you say its a requirement or its mandatory then I object ...strenuously.

Also note that Rangel's bill calls for penalties for not performing the service satisfactorily. In other words you must do the service the government tells you to do or you will be punished.  I don't see how any freedom loving person could tolerate that.