davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jul 27, 2020 10:55:11 GMT -8
First, I must say, I cannot recall any legislation invented by Charles Rangel (D-NY) I would support, so it might be the case, I just haven’t fully understood H.R. 748 (113th): Universal National Service Act that he came up with under Obama. however... I was raised in a time, as I assume were many of you, when the draft was a real thing. Many of my friends were drafted, volunteered for the draft, or enlisted in one of the services to avoid the draft (I being in that latter group). today, we have an entirely different psyche in our youth: One seemingly consumed by self-interests and avoiding discomfort at all costs. One either ignorant of, or purposefully ignoring, many of the needs around them as their perspectives are manipulated by nefarious interests. The thought of a draft has always been with us, but it is not a deciding factor for most of our children (or their children). What if we implemented a National Service requirement similar to that promoted by Charles Rangel. 1. Generally speaking, everyone between the ages of 18-29 (25? 22? _____?) is required to serve, A. Service can be military, or B. Service can be social, as approved by the president (the VA? HUD? ____?) 2. Service is for 2 years, during which time, the draftee is paid AND an investment account (?) is established and funded which draftee cannot touch until commitment is fulfilled. 3. Social service should be reserved for those who have a legit reason or objection to military service. what other parameters? Like the idea or don’t like the idea? Reasons for liking or disliking. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jul 27, 2020 18:43:50 GMT -8
I believe it would be a good thing for nearly all people. However, so is eating a healthy diet and getting exercise and I don't want the government mandating that you have to do those things either.
So I am all for young people serving our country and have no issues with giving some wonderful rewards to them for doing so. It just goes against the concept of freedom to require people to do it.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jul 27, 2020 21:27:49 GMT -8
It just goes against the concept of freedom to require people to do it. Doesn't it also go against the concept of freedom when governments require us to pay taxes and obey laws? |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jul 28, 2020 6:31:46 GMT -8
I believe it would be a good thing for nearly all people. However, so is eating a healthy diet and getting exercise and I don't want the government mandating that you have to do those things either. So I am all for young people serving our country and have no issues with giving some wonderful rewards to them for doing so. It just goes against the concept of freedom to require people to do it. I’ve heard the “13th amendment” argument against this concept before, I’m just not sure it holds water. first, the weaker of the arguments, the “draftees” would be paid for their time so it is not involuntary servitude, per se. More importantly, a Republic thrives on certain principles that aren’t strictly “liberty” but exist for the benefit of the whole: MDDad mentions a couple, but the Draft (that was supported by SCOTUS) also existed contrary to “freedom.” by now, I have read the full text of Rangel’s most recent (2013) attempt and, now, realize why I would oppose that one. But Israelis require military service from all post-high school children and I believe they are much better off because of it. Of course, the argument might be, “well, yeah, but they are under daily attack....” which, I submit, we are now also experiencing. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jul 28, 2020 7:47:37 GMT -8
I have to believe that if a kid spends two years in the military or some kind of alternate service like the Peace Corps, he'd be a lot less likely to hit the streets rioting and looting when he got home.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jul 28, 2020 8:26:13 GMT -8
I have to believe that if a kid spends two years in the military or some kind of alternate service like the Peace Corps, he'd be a lot less likely to hit the streets rioting and looting when he got home. Yes, that is (also) one of my thoughts. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jul 28, 2020 8:51:32 GMT -8
It just goes against the concept of freedom to require people to do it. Doesn't it also go against the concept of freedom when governments require us to pay taxes and obey laws? Taxes, yes, although there is a reasonable argument that taxes for items that are used by all but owned by none (roads for example) are an exception. The alternative would be to make everything private, which would be different, but could work. Obey laws, no. Legitimate laws are nothing more than a description of acts that infringe upon anothers inalienable rights. You don't have an inalienable right to murder, so a law against murder does not suppress freedom. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jul 28, 2020 8:53:03 GMT -8
I have to believe that if a kid spends two years in the military or some kind of alternate service like the Peace Corps, he'd be a lot less likely to hit the streets rioting and looting when he got home. You are correct, but that is not a reason to require it. Freedom allows people to make choices, even if those choices aren't in their best interest in the long run. Don't fall into the trap of the end justifying the means. The railroads ran on time when Mussolini was in power, that does not justify his reign. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jul 28, 2020 16:56:14 GMT -8
I have to believe that if a kid spends two years in the military or some kind of alternate service like the Peace Corps, he'd be a lot less likely to hit the streets rioting and looting when he got home. You are correct, but that is not a reason to require it. Freedom allows people to make choices, even if those choices aren't in their best interest in the long run. Don't fall into the trap of the end justifying the means. The railroads ran on time when Mussolini was in power, that does not justify his reign. Again, I’ve heard the “13th amendment” argument against this concept before, I’m just not sure it holds water. first, the weaker of the arguments, the “draftees” would be paid for their time so it is not involuntary servitude, per se. More importantly, a Republic thrives on certain principles that aren’t strictly “liberty” but exist for the benefit of the whole: MDDad mentions a couple, but the Draft (that was supported by SCOTUS) also existed contrary to “freedom.” by now, I have read the full text of Rangel’s most recent (2013) attempt and, now, realize why I would oppose that one. But Israelis require military service from all post-high school children and I believe they are much better off because of it. Of course, the argument might be, “well, yeah, but they are under daily attack....” which, I submit, we are now also experiencing. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jul 28, 2020 20:26:24 GMT -8
My opinion isn't entirely based on the Constitution, but also on libertarian (small l) concepts. Even though we did have a draft and it was upheld by SCOTUS, fundamentally forcing citizens to take up arms in order to fight for their country goes against the concept that we are free men.
I fully understand that as free men, if we didn't have people in the militarily, we would have no country to be free in. That is the consequence of ones actions, if everyone choose to not defend the country, there would be no country to defend.
I much prefer incentives over mandates. Make serving in the military financially rewarding for ones lifetime and limit the number of folks who serve. Give special rewards (no income tax?) to veterans who complete a certain amount of service to the country. Make the military the place where people are in inspired to be as opposed to a place of last resort that you are forced to go.
That which gets rewarded, gets done.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jul 29, 2020 12:26:19 GMT -8
To clarify, in Rangel’s 2013 attempt at this legislation, there is a clause that limits a draft into the military only during a time of war (and he defines what that means). All other draftees serve the community, the state, or the nation in a way approved by the president.
those are two objections I have/had about Rangels legislation: If it is to be a conscription, then let the draftee choose military or community (including Americorps and Peace Corps). And investing that decision authority (as to what is or is not approved service) seems to be fraught with abuse potential: For example, a congressman's daughter gets a cushy assignment, approved especially for her, if the congressman authors certain legislation...
and, remember, Rangel tried five times to get this through, and the most recent, the 2013, he wrote for Obama... or while Obama was in office.
|
|
