National Service

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

I think the term you're looking for is "sweat equity". So far as you've laid out your case, I don't see offering benefits as coercion, myself. I mean, I didn't have VA healthcare before I enlisted. I earnt that, like you, by being underpaid, underfed, and overworked.