National Service

[The Grand Nudger]

As an 18 year old I would've taken any job I could get.  I'm not objecting on the grounds that it sounds like a bad deal for the people that accept it, I'm objecting to the huge expansion of the federal government and the cycle it would create.  The people that grow up relying on the gov't can only keep the things they've been relying upon if they then work for the federal government.

We rely on the federal government for those things regardless...by definition..since we're talking about a national healthcare system, for example (and is that a bad thing...why?).  Would the creation of a single payer healthcare system, in your estimation, "create a cycle"? More on this below.

I just don't think it's part of the government's job to be that huge a part of everyone's lives - even creating situations that are 'too good to refuse.'

Too good to refuse is a step up from creepy, I'm gonna call that progress.  

So, understanding that we rely on federal programs for this or that service...and assuming that there are at least some programs where you think our federal government should do more (there are, aren't there?)...does it not then follow that we would, somehow, have to make provisions so that said federal government was even -capable- of doing more, in those areas?  

Have you heard, for example, of the bottleneck on environmental cases?  That there simply isn't enough manpower to process them, in addition to the regular defunding (which of course reduces available manpower and the ability to outsource the same)? Or perhaps of healthcare providers who can accept no more patients...not enough time in the day for their manpower to handle?

[FatAndFaithless]

As an 18 year old I would've taken any job I could get.  I'm not objecting on the grounds that it sounds like a bad deal for the people that accept it, I'm objecting to the huge expansion of the federal government and the cycle it would create.  The people that grow up relying on the gov't can only keep the things they've been relying upon if they then work for the federal government.

We rely on the federal government for those things regardless...by definition..since we're talking about a national healthcare system, for example.  More on this below.

I just don't think it's part of the government's job to be that huge a part of everyone's lives - even creating situations that are 'too good to refuse.'

Too good to refuse is a step up from creepy, I'm gonna call that progress.  

So, understanding that we rely on federal programs for this or that service...and assuming that there are at least some programs where you think our federal government should do more (there are, aren't there?)...does it not then follow that we would, somehow, have to make provisions so that said federal government was even -capable- of doing more, in those areas?  

Have you heard, for example, of the bottleneck on environmental cases?  That there simply isn't enough manpower to process them, in addition to the regular defunding (which of course reduces available manpower and the ability to outsource the same)?

I think there are a lot of areas of the federal government that could use some serious funding reductions.  And yes, there are some federal programs that we rely on for this or that service, that aren't being defunded at the moment, without having compulsory service to keep them going.  And I'm sorry, I don't find a 'bottleneck' in environmental cases a valid argument for compulsory (I might even call it coercive) work.

The solution for not having enough manpower isn't coercing people to become part of the workforce.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think there are a lot of areas of the federal government that could use some serious funding reductions.  

A conversation that could be had even if we had a national service.

And yes, there are some federal programs that we rely on for this or that service, that aren't being defunded at the moment, without having compulsory service to keep them going.  And I'm sorry, I don't find a 'bottleneck' in environmental cases a valid argument for compulsory (I might even call it coercive) work.

In and of itself, no, but I could repeat the example in any area of federal service...which is the point.  

The solution for not having enough manpower isn't coercing people to become part of the workforce.

Now we're moving retrograde.  You just called the offer "too good to pass up", but now we're back to coercion.  

If the financial and labor burden of some project is, perhaps..to great to be born equitably (as it may be in the case of a national healthcare system, for xample) then one way to reduce that burden is to employ the populace at a reduced rate with additional benefits to sweeten the pot.  Soldiers don't get payed minimum wage or overtime.  I made 900$ a month when I joined.....and I often found myself working 16-20 hour days with no time off for months on end, lol. Work out that math...and while we're both reveling in the unfairness of it, understand that this -is- what allows us to afford our armed forces. Similar arrangements could be made for other branches of other..civil..services.

We may not have the money to pay, but collectively, we have the time to cover it.

The hook of compulsion is that it attaches the amount flowing out to the amount flowing in. If you put in the time, you get to extract the benfit..if you don;t..well, we might not be able to afford it, bu assuming we could, why should we extend the benefit to you rather than increasing the benefit for those who did put in the time that created it in the first place? Assuming we did..for whatever reason, extend it to you anyway, wouldn't more people supplying more labor have the effect of increasing the benefit available for extraction by all, in any case?

[FatAndFaithless]

Like I said, I just don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this one.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm okay with not seeing eye to eye. I don't expect that anything I say would cause you to join a national service if you have an objection.

I'm simply trying to relate to you the underpinnings and justifications for it, even in a compulsory form.  Not so that you would say "good idea, I'll join"...just so that you might be able to say, "ah, okay, yeah that makes sense....but I'm still not going to join because I disagree on principle"

A compulsory national service is not, necessarily, one in which the big bad bloated fed points the finger at some kid and says "You, comrade, go dig ditches for the fatherland, or else!"

---

-and hey, if I came of age in a trump administration...I'd probably opt out too, btw, lol.  So it's not as if I don;t understand that the idea isn't a categorically perfect one that can never go awry. I kindof like digging ditches and laying pipe and pouring concrete, but I sure as shit wouldn't build a goddamned border wall for those asshats.

[downbeatplumb]

Just to be clear, are we talking about compulsory service under the gov't?  if so, then no.

Pretty much, two years of compulsory service in whatever the person chooses. A reward at the end would be discounts towards university fees or something.

Then I would choose years of service in the Bahamas along with every other person that gets to choose. The reality would be that you would not get to choose. You would be forced nto two years of work you do not want.
And what about the people who would have done those jobs for actual pay?
Are you going to give a "proper wage" thought not, so you would end up giving slave labour and devaluing the work force.

[Rhondazvous]

How about volunteer service with clear and highly valuable benefits?  Say, college tuition, va care, and hiring preference?

That would be a better idea. If the service is compulsory, will we be paid? Where will the money come from to pay everyone who's required to serve? And if we won't be paid, well that's peonage.

Furthermore, there's no way the pentagon is going to let people choose civil service in lieu of military registration, so this would be civil service on top of military service.

[The Grand Nudger]

@DBP

Of course the choices available would be limited.  We also do aptitude tests for servicemembers and only have so many x-ray tech spots available.  I don't think that you could truly exhaust a persons interests with the full spread of shit our government has it's hands in, though.  Being subject to a second choice, or even a third choice, isn't exactly being forced to do something you hate (and what is being shuffled into a fry cook position at the mc'ds...anyway, we're all familiar, lol)....and..ofc, if your interests truly were exhausted, and you just hated absolutely everything available...and none of it was worth what it conferred....you could opt out.

National services sure do so bad when we subject them to hyperbolic objections, granted, lol.

@Rhonda

We pay our service members currently, not enough in some cases (too much in others, I'd argue, lol..fucking cooks....) So, yeah. I'm not sure what the business about the pentagon is supposed to be, if you object to military service, you don't have to serve in the military, pick something else. Saying "but the pentagon would make me!" isn't actually an objection to civil service, it's imagining things.

[frankiej]

I'll fight any cunt that tries to make me serve!

[The Grand Nudger]

No need for that, just opt out...god, so violent - you;d make a good groundpounder.   Queen of battle, follow me, you know it sounds sexy.