Universal National Service

In this final post I will address my idea for a "Bill of Responsibilities" to match the Bill of Rights, specifically, the addition of a requirement that every able-bodied person between the ages of 18 and 26 give two years to Universal National Service (UNS). The military branches are one option, of course, but so too would be some civilian agencies such as Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. New groups, including a Disaster Strike Force (think Katrina), would be a part of the UNS menu. I also add all qualifying non-profit groups, such as Teach for America, which are non-governmental but offer the young solid alternatives for service.

UNS will appeal to the idealists--there are still some, aren't there?--and will offend libertarians. But in A More Perfect Constitution I try to make a strong case for national service. You'll have to be the judge once you read the full chapter in the book.

As I wind up this series, I'd like to thank Markos for the forum, but also the hundreds and hundreds of you who have commented here, emailed me, or gone to our website, www.amoreperfectconstitution.com. You've proven that there are a lot of good ideas to be considered, not just the twenty-three I suggest in the book. That was my purpose, to get a debate started so that others would be encouraged to participate. I've also put together a series of YouTube videos where I outline these proposals; feel free to take a look! (My explanation of UNS is here.)

Over the past few weeks, I've learned that almost everyone takes some time to absorb new ideas, especially a big one like a second Constitutional Convention. The hidebound nature of humanity, and the deep polarization that currently exists in American society, make most people inherently suspicious of any novel proposal. That's understandable, but I hope that as people think and read further about the subject, they'll see that we can take a good system and make it better--not today or tomorrow in a rushed manner, but after a long period of thoughtful discussion and debate that could last a generation. The opposite alternative--to do nothing, to stand pat, to say we don't trust ourselves and our fellow citizens to achieve constructive change--is not only depressing, it's wrong and dangerous. Societies that stop evolving and progressing are doomed. There are ways to evolve and progress outside the Constitution, of course, but the basic document of state must be a part of this forward-looking process.

Now, on to the proposal for Universal National Service...

•  umm yeah

  SLAVERY

  The best means available would be a constitutional requirement that all able-bodied Americans devote at least two years of their lives to the service of their nation

   Yeah that's what this country needs more of... SLAVERY.

  What a crock of shit.

  by pissedpatriot on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 01:36:33 PM PDT

  •  And, given who actually owns the government

    that would be administering such a program, I can only imagine what such service would entail.

    He even says so:

    appropriate incentives and rewards, especially for military service

    Unless a whole mess of other things change first, ain't no frickin' way I sign on the dotted line.

    by redstar on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 01:39:43 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, I can just see...

      ...a Republican Congress pushing through laws requiring all eligible non-military service organizations to have a platform that promotes Christianity in underprivileged parts of the world.

      Or, more realistically, abstinence-only education.

      What a terrible idea. :-/

      by nleseul on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 01:44:51 PM PDT

      •  Shooey... Ain't never seen a peace corps

        person do something 'off the books'?
        If they'll pay to put me there (and I had any wit for teaching, which I DON'T), I'd go, and teach my own way, as best I could 'off hours'.

        by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:21:22 AM PDT

    •  More Cannon-Fodder for Empire

      I understand the theory that conscription shares the costs of war and therefore acts as a constraint on military adventures. But the the historical facts suggest rather that the adventures happen anyway. A draft now would give the imperial war-makers (of both parties) more bodies to play with at precisely the moment when the strains on the all-volunteer force are making continuation of the war untenable.

      The US is a global hegemon in decline. Military supremacy is the one remaining trump card after our manufacturing base has been hollowed out and we are running balance of trade and account deficits. There is a logic of desperation behind the present adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that isn't going to go away if a Dem takes the White House in 2008. The manpower problem is one of the few possible brakes on that logic, but it won't be if earnest liberals take the lead in restoring a draft.

      The upside of course is that even a serious proposal for a draft would light a fire under the asses of the targetted youth and produce the open rebellion that this war should have sparked long ago.

      by Christopher Day on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:55:14 PM PDT

      •  Emphasis on the word earnest. n/t

        by redstar on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:05:56 PM PDT

        •  Uh, I Was a College Sophomore at 18

          Not that I skipped any grades or even had a good GPA, but I was big for my age, a precocious reader, so they started me in school young.

          So should I have dropped out of college?

          by bernardpliers on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:20:18 PM PDT

          •  So was I.

            And I spent the first two years of college depressed as hell.

            I'm an Aspie; change absolutely terrifies me.  I deal with it a bit better now, but not much.  And I sure as hell couldn't deal with it well then.

            Not to mention -- you take me, throw me in a group with twenty or thirty other randomly chosen people my age, and I'm probably going to find nothing in common with any of them.  Especially as an eighteen year old.

            If you made me do national service, I can guarantee you that I would have spent the entire time huddled in a corner reading science fiction.  And hating every moment of it.

            by lemming22 on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:58:25 PM PDT

            •  Young and depressed

              And I spent the first two years of college depressed as hell.

              Being a 16 year old HS senior was depressing! But yes, I could have taken a year off when I graduated and made a really good experience out it. I probably should have traveled, lived with relatives.

              But notice, I could NOT have done national service because I was too young. If I took a year off and then done national service, I probably never would have gone to college.

              by bernardpliers on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:34:58 PM PDT

            •  What if we spent the time..;

              training you how to drive a truck? or learning first aid? or something else well-ordered and non-scary.

              I agree, there is something that must be addressed: tendency of kids to frag other kids. (perhaps best dealt with by finding ways to isolate and integrate 'problem children').

              by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:23:55 AM PDT

              •  Now you're taking the idea ...

                ... of public service and turning it into an exercise in babysitting teenagers.

                That seems to negate the point.

                by lemming22 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 09:34:59 AM PDT

                •  See... I let the whole idea of public service

                  mean giving people skills to help others in an emergency.  Then driving trucks and learning first aid makes a lot of sense (and gives us enough choices so that people can have an actual choice).

                  Prevention of fragging does not need to mean babysitting. Simply put, removing all deadly weapons and having some sort of authority figure somewhere on the premises would probably do the trick (it takes a while to kill someone with bare hands and no training.)

                  by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:21:18 AM PDT

  •  At least he's right on one score...

    ...this libertarian is utterly horrified.

    Nothing as universal as the fact that certain groups of older Americans will believe that the country will be better if only the young are compelled to do stuff against their will.

    by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 01:45:14 PM PDT

    •  indeed, the very rhetoric of the thing

      frames it as if those lazy self-centered youth need to be whipped into shape.

      not like the middle aged middle class middle managers in middle america, those paragons of civic virtue.

      draft the comfortable, starting with those calling for a draft.

      by wu ming on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:17:08 PM PDT

      •  Or a revolutionary concept...

        ...supporting a free America is a form of actual national service.

        by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:19:07 PM PDT

        •  Blogging as public service

          one ironic step away from Colbert's viewer "heroes".

          by Daaaaave on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:21:53 PM PDT

          •  What are you talking about?

            American liberty is something that is good for America.  America benefits in a real way from being a nation where people are not compelled to serve the state.

            by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:27:12 PM PDT

            •  It benefits how?

              The best argument for national service is DoubleCoverage -- the idea that in a disaster, you're going to need SKADS of people trained in everyday occupations (like say... truck drivers, or medics).  Imagine 50% of your workforce going AWOL. And NYC starving because they only have less than three days food in the city.

              Tell me again why we can't train folks to help out in times of need?

              It's, you know, kind of like welfare. It prevents labs and rich peoples homes from being burned.  So yeah, it helps out everyone.

              People are already compelled to serve the state by paying taxes.

              by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:30:12 AM PDT

          •  a free press doesn't just make itself

            citizens have a responsibility to talk back. out of that mass horizontal conversation and debate emerges our collective right to a free press and freedom of speech.

            madison would have understood blogs intuitively. we're the ink-stained wretches of our day.

            by wu ming on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:15:13 PM PDT

            •  I agree

              but a free press alone does not make for a free country. Who stands for the rest of the freedoms we enjoy? Blogging is a good start but it's not enough.

              by Daaaaave on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:50:24 PM PDT

          •  Maybe not blogging... but muckraking?

            that's worth spending MY tax dollars on!

            by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:26:42 AM PDT

      •  I could go with that

        Draft everyone (that hasn't yet served) from 18 to 65, just like Israel does. Might have to raise the age limit just to include Cheney though.

        by Ed in Montana on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:51:33 PM PDT

        •  Israel does not draft anyone....

          ..over the age of 25, and does not draft women over the age of 21.  If you emigrate to Israel past that age, you have to volunteer for military service if you want to serve.

          by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:03:47 PM PDT

          •  Interesting

            Thanks!

            by Ed in Montana on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:38:51 PM PDT

      •  do remember...

        those middle aged people have to PAY for your service ;-)

        by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:27:14 AM PDT

    •  He's wrong on another score

      It's not just libertarians who dislike this crap - liberals and even socialist lefties like me don't support this either. Mandatory national service is an idiotic idea that falls apart on closer inspection.

      And you're absolutely right that this is nothing more than some older person feeling that social change comes only by forcing the young to do stuff. Why not let us follow our own path, eh?

      by eugene on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:51:17 PM PDT

      •  Which is part of why...

        ...I don't hang out with only other libertarians - because of people like you who also object to the same things, even if we sometimes object for different reasons.

        One thing which you and I probably share: this cheapens the hell out of the service of millions of Americans who chose to spend their lives in public service.  My dad has been a public servant for over thirty years.  My grandfather worked in the public sector for sixty years, nearly his entire life.  No one had to make either of them do it, nor millions more like them.  Funny how so many people's "own path" leads down that road, if you let them.

        by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:02:54 PM PDT

        •  That is a very good point

          Public service isn't the product of force, it's the product of education and public virtue.

          To me, liberal-left ideas are about using government to help people choose their own path. Because we recognize there are existing inequalities, we need to help folks overcome those inequalities first before they'll be able to realize their potential.

          That cannot be achieved through forced labor.

          by eugene on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:09:52 PM PDT

          •  Not what I've seen...

            but what the HELL do I know?
            I just spent time on food stamps because I was serving our country.

            by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:37:20 AM PDT

        •  Some folks deserve credit for working Public

          a lot don't.

          And my reason for wanting people to get some training more involves coverage for emergencies (no I don't mind if this happens in high school, for all I care, though truck driving high schoolers might be a poor idea. teach em all first aid, and the basics of being a nurse.  or basic strategic organizational thought).

          You gonna PRAISE the person who spends most of their time playign online poker while working for the federal government?  I sure as hell ain't -- even if they win!

          by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:36:22 AM PDT

      •  It's much worse than that.

        We're talking about compulsory service to the Bush regime or perhaps to any similar criminal regime that follows.

        We are losing our Constitution...we are losing our unalienable rights. What "service" will THIS government require of us? Running secret prisons? Torturing political opponents?

        Here's a job:

        

        But you won't catch me doing it, compulsory or not.

        by Rayk on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:17:47 PM PDT

      •  Well

        I'm a socialist who does support the idea of mandatory service, but it would be in a much different sort of government.

        by MahFellaMerkins on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:41:26 PM PDT

      •  How about this for national service?

        The idea that the more good fortune this country brings us, the more we owe it back.  A strongly progressive tax structure is another way of looking at universal national service, one which we need particularly badly right now.

        by Dallasdoc on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:07:18 PM PDT

        •  yes, but...

          that doesn't solve a good deal of the problems I would use national service to solve!

          It's a great way to train future computer geeks in something useful during Emergencies (like say triage or truck driving).

          by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:38:49 AM PDT

      •  I just want DoubleCoverage...

        not any social change.

        That would be helpful and worthwhile.

        But I just want some protection in case of emergencies.  If 50% of truck drivers go AWOL, i want people around who can take up the slack.

        -- believe it or not, military service teaches people a lot of practical stuff that isn't guns.

        --not saying that military service is the bestest idea, but they do know how to teach people quick!

        by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:32:52 AM PDT

    •  exactly.

      "Nothing as universal as the fact that certain groups of older Americans will believe that the country will be better if only the young are compelled to do stuff against their will."  (Including certain older Americans who will get cozy jobs at high pay to manage all the young slaveys in their organizations.)

      What those older Americans fail to realize is that the darwinian financial realities today make it just plain impossible for a very large number of young people to do anything except claw their way onto the treadmill and keep from slipping off into the abyss below.  And if the military was paid any less, only the most hardcore committed would be able to afford to join up.  (Much less two years of whatever at minimum wage with no prospect of a career.)

      The way to work national service is to establish a framework for some kind of volunteer-based effort that would be locally organized and open to individual initiatives.  Then provide Federal rewards such as scholarships and low-interest home loans for those who do it.  (As for health care, this libertarian Democrat believes in a single-payer universal system.  See also the subject of "emerging diseases that are potential pandemics."  That makes it a national security issue, among other things.)

      Speaking from experience here.  In college a few of us saw a local need, organized to address it, and did all the hard work involved including fairly arduous physical labor under less-than-pleasant conditions; and we ran this for a couple of years including over the summers and while in school.  And we quite clearly saw it as a type of national service even though there was no formal framework for that at the time.  

      A culture of service, and a framework to facilitate local initiatives, will accomplish much.  

      And while we're at it, let's treat young people with respect for their ideas, not just as bodies to plug into nonprofit groups run by older people who are doing it for regular salary.  Let's give young people the means to get mentoring and resources to develop their ideas and make them go.  Some of that would also include older people e.g. experienced professionals, volunteering their own time to help the younger ones get their service projects off the ground.  

      Last but not least, no "social engineering."  No preconcieved ideas about how this or that "experience" is "beneficial" for "growing up" or some such nonsense.  The kind of character-building that occurs in the military is an effect of the necessities of the military mission; and other cases will occur naturally in regard to other types of organizations and their own missions.  But these instances are a far cry from the idea of setting out to manipulate peoples' personalities for the sake of goals that have nothing to do with the intrinsics of the missions in which they are engaged.  

      If we are serious about national service as a means of building a viable future, then we have to empower the young people who are doing the service and inheriting the future.  Anything less than that is just another form of exploitation.  

      by G2geek on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:30:39 PM PDT

      •  =)

        I'm tired of age being the only qualification necessary to share ideas in this country and this world. It's only people 3 to 4 times my age who are managing my government, and look what they've done!

        by bhagamu on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:04:38 PM PDT

      •  What is most pernicious...

        ....about this idea is the intent to "instill a sense of duty" in American youth.

        You can simply call this "reeducation" or "The Great Leap Forward" and not be too far off the mark.

        by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:53:52 PM PDT

        •  if it's done by coersion yeah...

          "Sense of duty" should be part of the culture, and should be reinforced via the normal means by which cultural values are propagated (e.g. the media).

          But hell no to spreading it by way of anything coercive or compulsory.  If a value is worth anything, it'll spread among free people acting freely.  

          by G2geek on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:57:12 PM PDT

          •  Sense of duty is part of the culture....

            ...already.  How many millions of Americans are police officers, firefighters, EMTs, public sector employees, military volunteers, in the Coast Guard, and doing other volunteer work?

            The notion here is nothing more than that we should force everyone to be more like them.

            by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:09:13 PM PDT

            •  small part....

              "Sense of duty" is a tiny part of the culture compared to "sense of entitlement."  For every soldier, cop, firefighter, etc., there seem to be ten more whose major goal in life is to be a parasite or predator of some kind.

              And the media reinforce it relentlessly.  

              So maybe we disagree on the need to do more to promote the values of duty, but we certainly agree that it's just plain wrong and unacceptable to do it by coercing young people.  

              And I would take the promoters of "compulsory this and that" more seriously if they were truly equal-opportunity compulsers.  When they start talking about pulling business executives out of their corner offices for two-year stints cleaning up toxic waste dumps or mopping floors at the Veterans' Administration, I'll believe they really mean what they say about service, but that still won't persuade me that compulsory anything has any place in a free society.  

              by G2geek on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:21:59 PM PDT

              •  Depends on who is doing the promoting...

                ...I have no problem with any individual promoting the value of duty.  I also think that the government should be value-neutral.

                Whether they talk about equal opportunity compulsion means nothing to me though.  The reality, which is absolute, is that compulsion will never be equal opportunity.  Connected people will always have an advantage, even under a compulsory system.  The draft got neither George W. Bush or Al Gore on the front lines.  And it never will.  

                by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:29:40 PM PDT

                •  no such thing as value-neutral

                  Not-doing is doing. Any action taken by government or by any other significant center of power in a society, has implications in terms of values.

                  Seems to me the core value-set is liberty, equality under the law, justice, free and fair markets, and sustainabilty.  As for the latter, that's no more "optional" than acknowledging the law of gravity, as we are presently finding out.

                  by G2geek on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 04:02:42 PM PDT

            •  Yes, there is the irony of it

              I was vacationing in West VA last week when I heard about an autistic child lost in the Dolly Sods wilderness, not too far from where I was. I volunteered to join the search; what a marvelous experience that was! I know that saying my faith in human nature was restored is a cliche but it's true.

              Volunteers sprang up, seemingly from nowhere. Tourists like me, old folks who found beating the brush very difficult work, college kids who bely the stereotype of "slacker", all working together in spontaneous groups to help one kid, who happily was found alive.

              And yes, I do acknowledge the important part that the expertise of the professionals involved played in this effort. But the professionals are all volunteers too.

              The spirit is there. We don't need government-run slavery to "inspire" it. Indeed, such a program would smash the volunteer impulse, not inspire it.

              by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 06:36:01 PM PDT

              •  How about this, then?

                find me a place where you can train responsible volunteers to do what will need to be done during emergencies (truck driving, medical help, riotcontrol).

                that's what I'd want to use national service for anyhow.

                by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:41:59 AM PDT

                •  Those places already exist

                  Those places exist now. That's where the professionals I referred to come from. The places are staffed by dedicated professional volunteers; what do you need slaves for? Do you think they would do a better job? And guess who will do the training...

                  You speak as though no emergency services exist. I don't understand that.

                  by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:10:35 PM PDT

                  •  linkie??

                    Also, I sincerely doubt that we have ENOUGH 'dedicated professional volunteers' to deal with LARGE-SCALE emergencies.

                    Hell, we don't even have enough doctors NOW, without the emergency.

                    So let's make a different suggestion to the diarist, maybe: free 'double coverage' schooling and training (hands on for the people who need it) to everyone in the United States of ages 19-25.

                    Does that sound a hell of a lot less 'publically palatable' than 'national service'?  Sure does to me!

                    by RisingTide on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:22:35 AM PDT

                    •  What?

                      Do you know what a "fire department" is? Or a "rescue squad"? A "search and rescue team"? They're all over; I'm sure there is one in your town. They ran the search operation I spoke of (very ably). None of their members were forcibly drafted. So I'm not sure what it is you're demanding. Whatever it is, the federal government can't do it without fucking it up, and politicizing it to boot. Remember "you're doing a heckuva job Brownie"? How many times does this have to happen before people start to catch on?

                      To advocate "national service" must mean that you believe (whether you realise it or not) that we are all the property of the federal government, to be used (and discarded) in whatever way the government sees fit. The notion that we are just like cases of toilet paper in government warehouses is contrary to individual liberty. Maybe you're cool with that but I'm not.

                      by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:17:15 PM PDT

                      •  The concept of a Social Contract

                        is contrary to individual liberty. Yes. I am not an anarchist, however, nor a puritanical libertarian.

                        What I am asking for, is essentially an internet of emergency providers (ranging from nurses to police to EMTs to broadcasters).  The internet, if you'll recall, was originally designed to be a fault-tolerant system that could overcome multiple nuclear attacks.

                        In a pandemic situation (or tsunami, for that matter), you are likely to see 50% of emergency personnel out of commission -- if not more.

                        I do not believe our system is designed for that -- in fact, our health care system is practically stretched to the limit in a lot of places.

                        I can cite many instances of the government doing a GOOD job, without politicizing ANYTHING.  And what I'm suggesting here is essentially just student aid for picking up a second skillset deemed essential to supporting society during an emergency.

                        by RisingTide on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 05:07:40 AM PDT

        •  oh, one more thing...

          The idea of setting up any kind of service corps as a means of "putting young people through experiences of whatever kind" is a form of brainwashing.  It's psychological social engineering, and making it compulsory turns America into nothing more than a cult.  

          If a voluntary program has certain experiential components because they are essential to the mission, e.g. boot camp and the spartan life of a warrior, that's OK with me.  

          But if "experiences" have nothing to do with core mission requirements and are deliberately designed for the purpose of what they will do to/for someone after they leave the program, that's way creepy.  

          For example one of the things Marines undergo at the end of basic training is a 3-day combat simulation exercise that is done basically with zero sleep.  By the end of three days with no sleep, the average person is hallucinating and borderline-crazy.  However it's understandable that this is necessary for Marines, who very often have to fight under those conditions as the "point of the spear" in the toughest combat.  The Marine Corps needs to find specifically those individuals who can remain functional under those kinds of extreme conditions, during times when life and death is at stake every minute of the day.  

          However if something like that was done with e.g. Conservation Corps volunteers, it would be way the hell over the line.  There is nothing in their mission, unless they are going to be firefighters or some such, that requires it: it would be purely gratuitous, and that is not acceptable.  

          by G2geek on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:06:56 PM PDT

          •  yes, but...

            it is of value to general society to know who those people are who will not crack under pressure, and suit em up to work riotcontrol in an emergency.

            Someone should be able to opt out of such trials, but I think it is of value to be able to give people the opportunity to shine.

            meh. we're in agreement.

            by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:44:32 AM PDT

    •  meh.

      Years ago, we used to have Homemakers, who spent much of their time volunteering.

      Don't say they don't practice what they preach.

      by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:25:40 AM PDT

  •  While I'd support it as a law...

    I don't have an issue with people serving their country, so I don't mind if it became law (as it could be repealed or changed should it become obsolete due to lack of funding for programs like Americorps), but making it a constitutional requirement is out of the question.

    Making it a constitutional amendment would make it absolute and as such could be used to keep a peacetime draft through defunding of Americorps or other agencies, leaving a peacetime military draft as the only option.

    While I wouldn't mind seeing a draft for the war we have now (I'd love to see the conservatives backing this war forced to be in it, not to mention the protests in the streets that would result to end the war), I believe that the military should not go back to conscription once this war is over.  And a constitutional amendment requiring service would do exactly that.

    by djtyg on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 01:48:47 PM PDT

    •  You know, if military service were in the service

      of a defence corps, peacekeeping force (on the Canadian model) or similar, it would be one thing.

      But that totally ignores power relationships in the US, and how power is wielded, namely, through projection by force.

      Iraq is only the most recent example of this.

      In most of post-war Europe, service was compulsory, and it often was (though didn't necessarily have to be) military. But in post-war Europe, there was a flip-side to this social contract, namely, I do my military service. And later, I will have housing, I will have healthcare, I will have access to decent and inexpensive to free education for me and my children, I will have a job or decent unemployment insurance if I can't get one, I will have a bare minimum of revenue once all other resources are depleted, et c. And there will be a progressive tax to ensure these are adequately funded.

      I get a kick out of especially American so-called liberals with their call for service, and nothing in return. It's a joke you have to be upper middle class or richer not to get, I think.

      Or simply an old fogies reminiscing about their hero JFK, and how great he was before everything went to hell, and acting out on their age-old desire to make younger people do things against their will for nothing.

      Never mind that the great drive towards a less progressive tax structure began under said hero, arguably America's first Laffer curve aficionado, setting in motion, ultimately, the beginning of things going to hell.

      by redstar on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:01:38 PM PDT

      •  What the youth here is saying

        Is show them a clear path to massive wealth, power and fame through public service, then they'll jump through hoops to get into the program. Unless there is a massive compensation program, forget about it. They feel "We were born here we have a right to everything and we don't have to contribute anything". "Sounds just like the R's with their Fuck you I got mine". "Or Daddy and Mommy has Mine".  

        We've seen it in every decade since people were exploited with Vietnam. Whatever was hot the college classrooms were flooded with it. In the 80s, Investment bankers. In the 90s, Tech. In the Early Years of the Bush administration: public service provided there was a clear path to a multi million dollar lobbying job that they could have preferably before 30.

        Larry you have the "what's in it for me" generation speaking. They go through the hectic schedules you describe in a frenzy of competition for the top spots. The rest. Time for some serious fucking off.  Their parents sometimes push them, but mostly it's internalized. They are out for themselves only.

        You said an end age of Mandatory Service is 26. It's funny because studies show that 26 is now the average age a young person is considered mature enough to be an adult. The reaction to your diary by at least the ones above is absolute confirmation of that.

        It's clear because they didn't bother to see what you called for in your other diaries to get to this point or if they saw, they didn't give a shit.

        All they saw was that they would be forced to make a sacrifice and they just aren't down with that at all. They have a sense of entitlement. Yes they'll come on and blog about all the injustice in the world but the ones speaking out now feel that's about as far as it goes with them.

        There are some good ones. But the above comments are truly indicative of a spoiled brat like culture that wouldn't spend a day of their time unless it was something they could put on their resume to insure fast wealth, a scholarship to a "good " university or some other immediate pay-off.

        They'll go into debt for 10s of thousands for an education that gives them a shot at wealth. But fuck the rest of it.

        That's the nation's  future speaking. Just fills me full of confidence.

        by Dburn on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:37:12 PM PDT

        •  You have an interesting

          view of "entitlement."

          If someone wants to work hard to get an education, that's hardly "entitlement."  Rather, it is quite the opposite: hard work merits rewards.  Do you begrudge that?

          And, as for this:

          They'll go into debt for 10s of thousands for an education that gives them a shot at wealth. But fuck the rest of it.

          Have you not noticed what is happening to everyone but the (very) upper class in this country?  It is harder and harder to get a job, obtain health insurance, etc.  A college degree is now, effectively, the minimum necessary education for a middle-class existence.  And tuition costs a fortune.  Thus, a logical person would want to go to college, get a job, and start paying off those loans ASAP so they're not so saddled with debt that they can't buy a house or support a family for years.  

          Furthermore, there are many careers that require years of training already.  Medicine, for instance, can require 12 years post-college.  That means they're 34 before they can start their careers and even begin to pay off loans.  (and, before you start complaining that doctors are greedy self-interested bastards, remember that medicine is, in fact, a service, and a lifelong, demanding one at that.)  Understandably, such people would rather not be yet older by the time they finish.

          I could get on board with 6 months - 1 year of service, provided that there were strict government controls (do you want legions of young anti-choicers   organized to protest around every OB/GYN office in the country?  How about evangelicals knocking on your door to "spread the good news" every other day?), but 2 years is a bit much.

          by gkn on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:37:58 PM PDT

        •  Deeply Offensive Comment.

          And frankly I think you are the one who knows nothing.

          Let me tell you about coming up in America today.  "Get rich or die trying" is not just a catchy phrase, it is the literal truth.  If you are not rich in America, you can fuck off and die.  That's how it is.  

          I was one of those guys who worked my ass off and got into a tech career in the 90's.  Only time in my adult life I've had health insurance.  You know what happens to people who don't work big jobs with health insurance?  One of my friend's mother had a stroke, without health insurance, and had her house seized and sold to cover the medical expenses.  Now she's a brain damaged woman who can't speak or feed herself, with no assets to speak of or pass on to her impoverished family.  

          Maybe you are feeling comfortable.  Have you got enough?  Most bankruptcies are caused by excessive medical bills.  Losing everything is not just for the poor and irresponsible anymore.  It is for you.  Chances are, you're just a bad roll of the dice away from it.

          Get rich or die trying.  Absorb it, because this is the truth of the new America.

          by Jack the R on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:51:14 PM PDT

          •  and odds are even health insurance

            won't save you.

            every year they make more money
            cause wall street says they must.

            by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:50:21 AM PDT

      •  Compensation is a GREAT plan

        ... too bad it's ALREADY being done.

        I knew a lotta folks in Americorps who were in it for the Thousands of dollars of education money.

        by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:46:40 AM PDT

  •  i totally disagree

    citizenship has RESPONSIBILITIES not just rights. you claim to be a pissed patriot. I claim you are nothing of the kind, if you don't recognize that people have responsibilites to the society they live in. if we had UNIVERSAL conscription, ie everyone, every  man and woman this country would be a totally different place.frankly your pathetic argument that service = slavery is the crock of shit. what have you ever done for your country, mister pissed patriot? I got EIGHT years military service.  paying taxes is NOT service to your country so don't even start on me with that.

    If you have an argument WHY it wont help lets hear it.  simply running this guy into the ground because you are too lazy and fearful to serve isn't a counter arguement

    by johnfire on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 01:53:46 PM PDT

    •  Not that I disagree, but why isn't paying taxes

      service to ones' country?

      by Indexer on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:00:59 PM PDT

      •  beacuase that isnt service

        it isnt. that is paying for services rendered. ie you are going to a store and buying something, in this case roads, police, army, fire protection etc.

        you sir are making the logical argument that it is ok to buy your way out of service which is exactly the whole point of having universal conscription. you have to give more than your money, buddy. you have to step up to the plate and give your time and if need be more, up to and including your life.

        btw the first people called up should be cheney, and rice. send them to the front lines. i guarantee they will return with a different perspective...

        by johnfire on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:08:12 PM PDT

        •  I am making no such argument

          but if I were, I think I could logically make it more sound than yours.

          In our economy labor is money and national service is but one way of returning effort to the economy.

          by Indexer on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:15:06 PM PDT

          •  it doesnt involve putting your life on the line

            like I DID

            and thousands of other vets for people who feel that they can sit at home and not do squat.

            one of the reasons i tell young people NOT to volunteer  is precisely because no one respects vets anymore or honors their sacrifice.

            including alot of liberals, and posters here at kos

            by johnfire on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:19:32 PM PDT

            •  So in other words

              you don't agree with the proposal put forth in the diary. National military service is the only thing you'll agree to.

              by Indexer on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:25:12 PM PDT

              •  in my case

                yes.

                put that in your pipe and smoke it.

                everyone EVERYONE no mater HOW RICH HOW MUCH STINKING MONEY does 2 years.

                IN THE INFANTRY.

                would do wonders for dick cheneys belly and his heart condition.

                and his kids, and grand kids. wouldnt be so quick to try and bomb iran...

                by johnfire on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:27:22 PM PDT

                •  for someone

                  for someone who claims to have fought to perserve freedom, you sure dont know jack about it.

                  by pissedpatriot on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:29:00 PM PDT

                •  does this apply retroactively

                  to those like Cheney and Bush and Rush who all got of Vietnam? Maybe they could have John Kerry as their drill sargeant. He might whip their chickenshit asses into shape.

                  by gnat on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:36:08 PM PDT

                  •  Maybe they can retroactively pay 90% marginal

                    rate taxes on all their income, capital gains and dividends "earned" since the end of the Vietnam war instead.

                    Y'know, they want retroactive immunity. How about retroactive taxes to pay for their bullshit. And national health care. And decent affordable housing. And Pell grants worthy of the name. And free child care from age 2. And decent public transport for all. And so on, and so on.

                    They want retroactive immunity. I want retroactive progressive taxation, back to, say, Eisenhower levels.

                    Those lard-asses would be worthless in combat boots anyhow.

                    by redstar on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:44:06 PM PDT

                •  Don't be so sure. The wealthy will certainly

                  find a way to avoid conscription into combat. They always do.

                  And the poor will continue to fight wars for the rich, paid for, primarily, by the oblivious middle classes.

                  Solve the inequality equation, and then talk to me. Until then, no thanks.

                  by redstar on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:52 PM PDT

                •  Unfortunately, the wealthy will skate from drafts

                  Just as we know they did.

                  Bush, Cheney, et al...Bush in the "National Guard", protecting Texas from Vietnamese invasion, and seven deferments for Mr. Man-sized Safe.

                  by jbeach on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:45:24 PM PDT

                •  That Is Easily In the Top Three

                  Dumbest things I have ever read on this site.

                  Congratulations.

                  by karateexplosions on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:43:10 PM PDT

                •  Even my friend who breaks a hand?

                  picking up a 5lb. bookbag? -- and is in a wheelchair to boot (not because she can't walk, but because if she falls over, she's likely to die).

                  I can see her working supply, or tech support, but Infantry?  That's cruel and inhumane punishment.

                  by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:57:24 AM PDT

            •  so

              so is fighting for Exxon/Mobile in Iraq really protecting this country?

              by pissedpatriot on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:27:23 PM PDT

              •  Security!

                Throw this guy out. He's thinking!

                by jbeach on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:45:55 PM PDT

            •  Look, no one is questioning your bravery

              or your service; however, there are myriad ways to serve your country that do not require one to don a military uniform. My family has been represented in every war in which the US took part, so I am fully cognizant of the role of the military, and I appreciate those who have served; however, I don't believe that you must "put your life on the line" in order to serve your country.

              by LynneK on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:30:41 PM PDT

              •  problem is

                its the only way to really make it fair. also by doing so you put people like cheney etc in the line of fire, also their kids, so perhaps they will think 3 or 4 times BEFORE getting us into a bullshit war.

                which generally is being ignored by the vast majority of Americans.

                which i find totally unbelievable, and probably explains why i am so pissed about it.

                by johnfire on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:34:36 PM PDT

                •  ok then support a front-door draft

                  like Rangel does, not a back-door draft like the one being diaried about.

                  And make contractors like Blackwater illegal while we're at it.

                  by gnat on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:37:44 PM PDT

                  •  I've always viewed a volunteer army as a social

                    contract. We get rid of a draft to protect our individualism, and in return, we promise our nation's military and their families that we will not send them off to stupid wars of choice.

                    Whoops.

                    by bhagamu on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:45:39 PM PDT

                    •  unfortunately

                      just the opposite. the attitude is , they volunteered to serve, so its ok to have a war. sadly this is the reality.

                      the whole thread is really a moot point. there will never be ANY form of national service in this country. there will never ever be any support for it. for that matter,  its highly doubtful that unless there was a direct threat of invasion would you ever get the number of people volunteering to serve  as you did in ww2. it just isn't going to happen. America, for better or worse has devolved  into a very different country. even if a  hilteresque figure did appear in the world you would never see the kind of unified support and commitment you saw occur back then. our society just isn't like that anymore.

                      by johnfire on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:04:18 AM PDT

                      •  Rwanda, Darfur...

                        by gollee, you're right!

                        --keep on fighting.

                        by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:01:20 AM PDT

                •  Fair Enough to have kids going to WarZone Schools

                  in the inner city... where you're likely to have a gun drawn on you.

                  In Americorps, I weekly walked past bloodstains and shot out windows.

                  by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:00:01 AM PDT

            •  So because you

              decided that you wanted to put your life on the line, so should the rest of us?

              by lemming22 on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:45:47 PM PDT

              •  Hey...

                ...what kind of lemming are you? :)

                Seriously though, I agree.  Volunteer service is not compulsory service.  You can bet that a lot of those 'volunteers' are trying hard to get back to the states now, and some may be regretting they ever volunteered to begin with.

                No matter what, we need to fix the type of people who would be directing such a national service force before creating the force, lest it be misused.

                by Stymnus on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:52:55 PM PDT

            •  who did you protect us from?

              seriously, what threat to our democracy did you defend us against?

              how did they actually threaten our liberties, our democracy? be specific.

              by wu ming on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:38:28 PM PDT

            •  So Service REQUIRES Risk of Life

              The person serving in a soup kitchen, or the person tutoring students to read, or the person cleaning garbage out of a river -- none of them are REALLY serving because they're not "putting their lives on the line".  

              But Blackwater -- now, those fuckers are serving.

              by karateexplosions on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:42:08 PM PDT

            •  I respect your service.

              And I also respect your continuing commitment to service.

              I know when there's trouble afoot, or a disaster, I can expect to see former servicemen pitching in.

              Republican or Democrat, it doesn't take politics to drive a truck, or save someone who's bleeding.

              I have currently chosen to delegate my community service within my household, but I have served.

              by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:55:38 AM PDT

        •  Not service?

          Where do you think the money to pay taxes comes from?  That money doesn't come out of nowhere, it comes from providing a good or service to the community in the form of employment.  

          by furiousxxgeorge on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:07:37 PM PDT

      •  This is more like a tax

        It's a tax on time, rather than on money, with the hope that it improves the character of those who do the service.

        There are reasonable arguments for and against it, but likening it to slavery is not reasonable.

        by CenterLeft on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:31:44 PM PDT

        •  I'd say

          that it's more about improving the nation as a whole than the character of those who serve, although improved individual character would certainly be a happy byproduct of the whole thing.

          But I agree that the original response likening this idea to slavery is ridiculous.

          by Team Slacker on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:37:11 PM PDT

        •  I agree, and I never likened it to slavery.

          Involuntary servitude is more like it, though there are good arguments that it doesn't even reach that level. I'm more incensed by the idea that one has to serve in the military to be a good citizen which johnfire is making. That is pure lunacy.

          by Indexer on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:37:12 PM PDT

          •  That's a fair argument

            And if all the arguments made against Sabato's view were as reasonable as yours, I wouldn't have felt the need to defend it against overstated attacks.

            by CenterLeft on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:25:20 PM PDT

            •  recs for sanity n/t

              by RisingTide on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:03:12 AM PDT

        •  Bull. it's a draft.

          Pardon my plain english.

          by jbeach on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:48:12 PM PDT

      •  Certainly Libertarians

        boo hoo hoo that they don't want to pay their taxes just as much as they boo hoo hoo about not wanting to contribute a small piece of their time and effort towards building a better country, a better world, and a better democracy.

        by Subversive on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:39 PM PDT

        •  Did you forget to read

          the "Not that I disagree" part?

          by Indexer on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:41:40 PM PDT

        •  Libertarianism is built on a lie

          There is this idea that they should not be taxed on their income, forgetting that said income is made under the protections of the state and with and from other citizens. Libertarians think they exist in a vacuum, it seems. Seeing them on DK is nearly as disgusting as seeing a Freeper.

          by MahFellaMerkins on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:00:04 PM PDT