OP-ED Beyond the Draft: Rethinking National Service

[Housecarl]

Hummm..........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/11/beyond-draft-rethinking-national-service/124022/

Beyond the Draft: Rethinking National Service

November 29, 2015 By Stan McChrystal

Four reasons the defense community ought to support universal access to national service.

Comments 16


In light of the recent coordinated attacks in Paris, the bombings in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner, the United States and other countries are grappling with questions about the best way to strengthen our security and defeat the Islamic State, or ISIS. Despite disagreements on strategy and tactics, most agree that this is not a battle that can be won overnight or through military solutions alone. Like many global challenges we face, it will require commitment, resolve, flexibility and resilience– not just our military strength and prowess. While there is no single antidote to the myriad of challenges we face here at home and overseas, there is a single idea that we believe can contribute to bolstering our citizenry’s ability to address all of them: national service.

Right now, less than 1 percent of our population serves in the military and, in my view, we need to rethink and create a system where every young American has an opportunity to serve their nation in other ways. We need to create a culture of service where we are all invested in our nation’s future and feel a shared sense of responsibility to our nation and to each other. For this reason, I’ve joined forces with a bipartisan group of leaders on the Franklin Project Leadership Council at the Aspen Institute to focus on strengthening a commitment to service here at home beyond the realm of military service. As chair of the project, I have been committed to the mission of making a year of national service a shared experience for all young Americans. We are working to create a system of universal national service that incentivizes and encourages national service, but does not mandate it.

A system of universal national service would not only enhance the lives of the individuals serving and the communities in which they serve, but it has the potential to transform our nation by bridging divides, developing future leaders, building national resilience and fostering bipartisanship. The support of the defense and national security community is going to be critical in this effort. On Monday, I will explain more in a panel discussion co-produced with Defense One, joined by CEO of the Center for a New American Security and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy and Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who served as a Marine in Iraq. Below are just four reasons I believe the community ought to be on board.

1.Bridging the military-civilian divide by building a sense of shared sacrifice: The military-civilian divide has widened with a dramatic decrease in the percentage of the population serving in the military. During World War II, more than 12 percent served compared to the less than 1 percent in our military now. In addition, almost half of those serving now live in just five states. And about 80 percent come from families with others who have served in the military. A 2012 Pew Study showed that connections between the civilian population and those serving in the military have become significantly weakened. Pew notes, “Just under four-in-ten (39%) of adults under the age of 40 say they have an immediate family member who served in the military. By contrast, 60% of veterans younger than 40 have an immediate family member who served.” In a June 2015 Sebastian Junger piece, he writes “The shocking disconnect for veterans isn’t so much that civilians don’t know what they went through—it’s unrealistic to expect anyone to fully understand another person’s experience—but that what they went through doesn’t seem relevant back home.” A system of universal national service can work to foster a shared sense of mission and understanding between those who serve in the military and those serving in other capacities overseas and at home. Universal national service would work to distribute the shared burdens associated with our foreign policy and defense decisions and commitments. Americans would feel more connected to one another, but also more connected to their country. According to Pew, 83 percent of Americans say that members of the military and their families have had to make “a lot of sacrifices,” but when asked about the general public, the number drops to just 43 percent.

2.Bolstering the talent pipeline and enhancing the defense/national security community workforce: Over the last year or so, studies have shown that Americans are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with government and trust in government is at all-time lows. Among the millennial generation, these trends are magnified with even lower social trust than prior generations. While the millennial generation is extremely interested in meaningful careers and making a difference, they do not always see government as the best way to do this. National service can help to restore greater confidence in our government by getting individuals more invested in its work. In addition, the expansion of national service programs like Peace Corps, Global Health Corps and others with a more international angle could help provide individuals with the knowledge and skills that would make them valuable assets to our defense and national security communities down the line. Programs such as these ought to be expanded not just because they work each day to assist us in facing challenges around the globe, but they train the next generation of foreign policy leaders.

3.Fostering bipartisanship: We live in an increasingly polarized country. In Washington, the ability to achieve great things and work together on issues related to national security and defense is often hampered by the gridlock of partisan politics. Bringing people from different backgrounds, geographies and political leanings together in service at a young age can teach greater empathy and understanding for those with different experiences and beliefs. Serving together whether in the military or in Teach for America or in the Peace Corps bonds individuals together on behalf of a mission and instills in them lessons that will be carried with them for the rest of their lives. Over time, these experiences can work to bring people from different communities together and hopefully drive the next generation of elected leaders to be less politically polarized than its predecessors.

4.Building national resilience and patience: Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are accustomed to taking on important missions in support of great enterprises—tackling challenges that may ultimately take generations to solve. Unfortunately, the climate in Washington pushes for immediate solutions that favor short-term gain over the long view. When a young person undertakes a year of civilian national service, she is chipping away at a problem with no apparent end in sight: improving education, health, or the environment. Civilian national service could instill the habits of resilience and a respect for the long-term that our nation needs to make pragmatic strategic decisions.


The 2016 presidential election provides us with an opportunity to truly transform and rethink national service in America. Over the coming months, we will hear proposals and plans from candidates on a variety of issues. Despite their differences, all of them surely will be talking about different ways to make America greater, stronger and more secure. National service has traditionally been an issue embraced by presidents on both sides of the aisle. While we can’t predict what all of tomorrow’s challenges will look like, a nation in which we are all committed to serving is bound to be stronger and more united than one that is not.

 

[Housecarl]

I guess it's that time of the year.........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/11/call-service-can-help-unite-divided-nation/124048/

A Call To Service Can Help Unite A Divided Nation

November 30, 2015
By Seth Moulton
Comments 2

What can you do for your country? For starters, tell Congress to support national service.

In 1960, President John F. Kennedy challenged us to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” He issued this historic call to service at a time when our nation was torn apart by the threat of communism abroad and the fear of its presence at home, not to mention the fight for civil rights that tested our fundamental values. Five decades later, we fear forces of terror abroad and worry it will infiltrate our communities, while the debate over the immigration status of millions of people living in the United States divides our nation. President Kennedy’s challenge is as relevant now as it was then.

As a freshman member of Congress, I often get asked about public service, mostly by people who question, “Why would you want to do this?” Congress is gridlocked, it has historically low approval ratings, and everybody seems to hate Washington. For me, my interest in Congress comes not from a background in politics but from the Marine Corps: It was during my time as a Marine in the Iraq War that I truly learned the value of public service—and the consequences of having the wrong people in Washington making important decisions.

Every day in Iraq, even in the middle of a war I disagreed with, my work had an impact on the lives of others—the lives of the amazing fellow Americans I was honored to lead, and of the Iraqis we tried to save. To be fair, I didn’t join the Marines expecting to go to war; I decided to join right after college graduation, just before September 11th. My inspiration came in part from a college mentor, the late Reverend Professor Peter Gomes, who lived a life of service and always encouraged his students to “make a life and not just a living.”

In truth, I imagined that when I finished my four years in the Marines I would have “checked the box” of public service and never have to do it again. Instead, when I got off active duty, I desperately missed it. I missed that sense of purpose I had in my life every day.

You can find that sense of purpose in many places beyond our military as well, and I’ve been struck by how much we military veterans have in common with veterans of other national service programs like CityYear, the Peace Corps, and Teach for America.

The service mindset strengthens our nation because those who have served their country will continue to seek other forms of service. National service veterans vote at higher rates, become more involved in our communities, and we even do better in business. As the fires blazed in the West this past summer, members of the Washington State Vets Corps who once put their lives at risk in foreign wars stepped up as volunteer firefighters.

And when we serve, we also tend to put hateful politics aside. In my platoon in Iraq, I had Marines from all over America: Massachusetts and Texas, Alabama and Vermont, a gated community outside Park City and a housing development in Brooklyn. We came together with remarkably different backgrounds—different religious beliefs, different political beliefs. Yet at the end of the day, we set aside those differences to do what’s best for our country.

That is exactly what President Kennedy called upon all Americans to do in 1960, a time when we were as divided a nation as we are today. Giving more Americans, young and old alike, the opportunity to serve through increased investment in AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, and in our veterans would make us a stronger nation. It would help us see beyond our hateful, partisan political bickering to focus on what’s best for our country. It would teach young Americans to think beyond themselves, and it’s a lesson Congress could learn as well.

In the face of danger, it is easy to feel isolated and small. Serving teaches you how to be far bigger than you could ever be on your own. I am proud to have served my country in the Marines, and I’m proud to serve it in Congress. Let’s show the world—our friends and enemies alike—that we are committed to our country and committed to service. I hope you’ll join me.


Congressman Seth Moulton represents the 6th district of Massachusetts. He is a former US Marine and serves on the House Armed Services Committee, the House Budget Committee, and the House Small Business Committee.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Bullshit no free nation forces it's people into indentured servitude, no matter what the Kum By Ya Yo Yos and Fascist programmers say. When a nation reaches the point where forced national service is required for it's survival during a non catastrophic wartime setting them it's time to let it fade away and see what rises from the ashes.

.

 

[Housecarl]

Bullshit no free nation forces it's people into indentured servitude, no matter what the Kum By Ya Yo Yos and Fascist programmers say. When a nation reaches the point where forced national service is required for it's survival during a non catastrophic wartime setting them it's time to let it fade away and see what rises from the ashes.

.

Yeah, that which is being espoused in the second article (by Moulton) is entirely different than the intent of the 1790 Militia Act. The article by McChrystal is less "kum buy yah" but that content is still there but with a thicker national defense overlay.

 

[FREEBIRD]

Do you really want to trust TPTB in the government with running "national service"?

 

[Plain Jane]

This also suggests to me that the military is not getting the recruits of sufficient caliber that they want.

 

[naturallysweet]

Slavery is unconstitutional. Paying someone a stipend for being a slave doesn't suddenly make it right.

Besides we all know how this will work. Demonstrating for black lives matter or working for planned murderhood would count. Any and all conservative causes would not.

Democrats miss the days of slavery. They liked it so much, they want to make everyone slaves.

 

[Dosadi]

Draft / serving without choosing to do so is involuntary servitude which is slavery.

 

[Mr. Peabody]

Smedley Butler had it figured out. It makes a chosen few very wealthy. War is a racket.

Kings, emperors and dictators just rounded up the subjects and conscripted "forced" them to fight their wars, usually the subjects had no real idea why they were fighting. It's a racket.

Here in the good ol USA, we have ourselves spread all over the globe with a military industrial complex just itching to get their wares used up so they can produce more. TPTB use patriotism as a way to motivate the population into going along with fighting and dying in a far off shit hole for a race or people that have absolutely no bearing on the American way of life. It's a racket.

If the need ever arises, say thousands of insurgents infiltrates the boarders or are allowed in so they can eventually start a coordinated attack as a 5th element, there will be no need for a draft. There will be volunteers aplenty from the already engaged citizens that are actively defending their homeland. The problem nowadays is the TPTB don't want citizens defending themselves from this hoard, or any threat, because this basic right and ability are contrary to the plan. TPTB would rather have their people as sheep so only the gov can protect them. It's a racket.

Why is the USA so involved all over the world? Is it national security interest? If so, why doesn't the USA defeat the threat vs enabling like we see in ISIS? Why don't the Saudis defend themselves and their oil? Why did we not go after Stalin after WWII? Why were we in Vietnam? Why do we selectively bomb truck convoys vs killing the insurgents? Why are TPTB here so eagerly doing everything they can to get jihadist inside this country? It's a racket.

Money is being made, power is shifting, and entire continents are being manipulated by military force. The USA is the great supply house for fighters. It's a racket.

 

[Russell Crowley]

I much prefer R. Heinlein's solution. No national service but those who volunteer for military duty and serve their time in an honorable fashion then become voters. They are the only ones that can vote for the leaders of the country and they have paid their dues.

This does away with the slavery angle. Those who choose not to serve loose only the right to vote.

So only those that were willing to put their life on the line are eligible to make the decisions on how the country shall be governed.

To me that is a very elegant solution.

Russell

 

[Dosadi]

I much prefer R. Heinlein's solution. No national service but those who volunteer for military duty and serve their time in an honorable fashion then become voters. They are the only ones that can vote for the leaders of the country and they have paid their dues.

This does away with the slavery angle. Those who choose not to serve loose only the right to vote.

So only those that were willing to put their life on the line are eligible to make the decisions on how the country shall be governed.

To me that is a very elegant solution.

Russell

Fine so long as I'm not bound by anything that gov't that doesn't represent me does , no laws it passes, no taxes , etc. They leave me alone and I ignore them. Works for me.

 

[Melodi]

What I really think is going on is: "What do you do with millions of young people for whom there are no paid jobs in the current economy?" Oh, I know, just make up a "national service" it sounds better than a new WPA, you could warp it up in patriotic cloth and it looks "better" than just handing out dole money which in the US is traditionally linked to having babies (unlike in most of Europe where a single young person may get only a small amount of welfare but they don't have to make a baby to do it).

There are other "benefits" from a governmental point of view - the greater pool of military applicants is one (since a lot of young people might take that route, especially if it is better paid and the national service is basically room and board); the "benefits" also tend to produce people "used" to working together and doing what they are told; also working and not getting much out of it.

I am not totally opposed to certain forms of national service, but this one just smells of desperation on the part of some in Washington who know that the factories are not coming back anytime soon and that they are going to have even more millions of unemployed people that they don't have a clue what to do with.

Some may even be aware of the "Irish" and "Italian" experience, especially in Ireland during the 1980's where there were pretty much no jobs and most young people either moved away, went on welfare and/or lived with their parents.

What Ireland discovered when the economy "boomed" in the 1990's was that these people do suddenly "wake up" at age 32 with a work ethic and drive to go find a job; even if they have one they are over-looked by employers who favor younger graduates and ignore people with "no work history" even if the "no work history" really isn't their fault.

Ireland lost a good chunk of a generation now in their 40's and 50's; who either never worked paying jobs or more often never worked full time for long; found themselves stuck in services industries or still living on the farm with aging parents or relatives.

They also lost tons of people simply because they moved away and never came back, most Americans just don't do that - oh a few highly motivated professional people may take a stink in London or China but they don't usually move away in a permanent way; as the young Irish (who once again are leaving in droves and have been since 2008) who get work visas in Australia, Canada etc.

So, the "solutions" are "feed em for free" (aka basic welfare) or come up with "workfare" programs like the WPA or in this case "National Service;" in the current political climate I'm betting they thing "National Service" is going to be an easier sell.

I also like the Heinlein solution, with an extension for people like me (4'8") who could never have qualified in anyone's military again for a volunteer service system to do other things (it could be run on military lines, just allows those physically unable to be soldiers another way to the voting booth- in both cases a person has given something to the society that they are living in).

 

[tiger13]

There already WAS a way for this country to have national security, and it was called the 2nd amendment! But these idiots have not felt the citizens were to be trusted so we are spied upon, and our freedoms are stripped away from us, IDIOTS! They reap what they have sown.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Bullshit no free nation forces it's people into indentured servitude, no matter what the Kum By Ya Yo Yos and Fascist programmers say. When a nation reaches the point where forced national service is required for it's survival during a non catastrophic wartime setting them it's time to let it fade away and see what rises from the ashes.

.

I agree. Who could trust this Government not to abuse and misuse this.

 

[TerryK]

I'm torn on this.
On one hand I don't want A-hole "I don't wanna be here" types in my military.
On the other hand I think everyone should have to earn the right to be a citizen here.
No freebies.
Just being born here is just as stupid a reason for full citizenship rights as amnesty for illegals.
Everyone should have to earn those rights.

 

[Melodi]

TerryK - one solution would be a VOLUNTARY draft/national service along the Heinlein lines only including other forms of service rather than military - one reason I really don't think this will go anywhere though is costs.

A real program (like real welfare reform) costs a lot of money up front because there have to be folks to run the program, oversee the program, do all the paperwork (even on a computer) associated with the program; medical exams would have to be contracted out (or done by military/government doctors), insurance would have to be sorted etc, etc...

This is what tends to kill "workfare" programs on the ground (especially having to hire people to oversee the people and projects, combined with things like worker's compensation insurance for the workfare folks because legally they are workers even if only paid in welfare money).

It doesn't make it impossible but it is anything but cheap; the military can get away with more because they are exempt from some civilian laws and oversight but a civilian program probably would not be and even a military one that actually forced (aka drafted) people outside of war time might have legal issues.

So I suspect this is going to be a lot of hot air if goes anywhere at all; and once the figures come out of the budget committee it will either die quietly right there or morph into some tiny, barely funded, trial program that lasts a couple of years before going away.

 

[Melodi]

One stipulation, if a real war breaks out than yes this IS likely to happen; but without one a "new and improved" WPA is more likely...

 

[Faroe]

The article reads like it was written by Hitlery. Touchy-feeley.
Standing alone, below, are all the cliche warm and fuzzies.
Some of the stuff that ticked me off the most got bolded. LOAD OF CRAP!

commitment, resolve, flexibility and resilience– not just our military strength and prowess. a single idea that we believe can contribute to bolstering our citizenry’s ability to address all of them.

a system where every young American has an opportunity to serve their nation in other ways. a culture of service where we are all invested in our nation’s future and feel a shared sense of responsibility to our nation and to each other. a system of universal national service that incentivizes and encourages national service, but does not mandate it.

enhance the lives of the individuals serving and the communities in which they serve, but it has the potential to transform our nation by bridging divides, developing future leaders, building national resilience and fostering bipartisanship.
1.Bridging the military-civilian divide by building a sense of shared sacrifice

2.Bolstering the talent pipeline and enhancing the defense/national security community workforce
3.Fostering bipartisanship: We live in an increasingly polarized country. Over time, these experiences can work to bring people from different communities together and hopefully drive the next generation of elected leaders to be less politically polarized than its predecessors.

4.Building national resilience and patience: our nation needs to make pragmatic strategic decisions.

a nation in which we are all committed to serving is bound to be stronger and more united than one that is not.

 

[cat killer]

I didn't think about that in 1963 when I was drafted. I guess I could have went to Canada with the other draft dodgers but that didn't seem right. I won't go to to what I was thinking when carter pardoned them.

 

[Faroe]

I'm torn on this.
On one hand I don't want A-hole "I don't wanna be here" types in my military.
On the other hand I think everyone should have to earn the right to be a citizen here.
No freebies.
Just being born here is just as stupid a reason for full citizenship rights as amnesty for illegals.
Everyone should have to earn those rights.

Simple answer to that, is no anchor babies, and no welfare.
People contribute by working a job, starting a business, and raising the next generation.

 

[Ravekid]

I will never agree with forced national service, or make it so that if one doesn't serve they don't get student loans, etc.. However, I do think that the current offerings in this arena could really be reformed to provide more opportunities for young people.

 

[FREEBIRD]

This is what "national service" will get you in the current political climate:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."--- B.H.O.

Not my kids.

 

[Dozdoats]

TerryK - one solution would be a VOLUNTARY draft/national service along the Heinlein lines only including other forms of service rather than military

Sorta like the mandatory volunteer community service the high school kids have to do these days? I knew they were prepping them for something bigger...

 

[Housecarl]

When you add op-ed like this within weeks of that recommendation to tie the individual ready reserve (IRR) to the "Total Force", giving at least another 250,000 trained people literally on tap along with all the smoke sources hazing the air and I am definitely not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling.

It would be one thing if it were a straight from the shoulder discussion of this sort of a very big thing in real national security terms, but this wishy washy manner only tells me they'll half ass the whole thing burning tons of money with nothing to show for it other than another big government agency and a budget to doll out for political gains.

 

[Dozdoats]

AR-15s are relatively cheap right now.

If you don't have one, it might be a good time to change that.

Plus a basic load of magazines, cleaning gear, ammo, web gear to carry it all ... and some good training. Start with a hunter safety course if you are a total newb, go on to an Appleseed after that and you should have the basics down pretty well at that point.

http://appleseedinfo.org/

I sent one of my young cousins to an Appleseed event before he joined the armed services - he said it really helped him a lot.

 

[Housecarl]

This is what "national service" will get you in the current political climate:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."--- B.H.O.

Not my kids.

^^^^^This^^^^^

Yeah, with nothing to loose at this point I wouldn't put anything past them now.

 

[Blacknarwhal]

I much prefer R. Heinlein's solution. No national service but those who volunteer for military duty and serve their time in an honorable fashion then become voters. They are the only ones that can vote for the leaders of the country and they have paid their dues.

This does away with the slavery angle. Those who choose not to serve loose only the right to vote.

So only those that were willing to put their life on the line are eligible to make the decisions on how the country shall be governed.

To me that is a very elegant solution.

Russell

You'd likely have a lot of people refusing to pay taxes to a government that insists upon your being jumped in as though it were some kind of gang.

Seriously, that's a comparison Heinlein likely never saw coming. "So if I want any say in how this operation's run, I have to spend two years or so killing people at your request. Isn't that how the Crips operate?".

 

[TerryK]

2 years military service, and be a net tax payer (not a receiver) not receiving food stamps or welfare before you can vote in national elections.
Screw the civilian community service crap.
I would add property owner to that but someone would just start selling 1 square foot lots
If you are getting food stamps or welfare or other unearned government benefits you should not be allowed to vote. (conflict of interest)

New immigrants should only be naturalized and able to vote after they complete 15 years of unbroken residency without ever being on government welfare or other unearned benifits. Again, should probably also require ownership of property or residence.

We have too many parasites that vote.

 

[ShadowMan]

I much prefer R. Heinlein's solution. No national service but those who volunteer for military duty and serve their time in an honorable fashion then become voters. They are the only ones that can vote for the leaders of the country and they have paid their dues.

...those who choose not to serve loose only the right to vote. [AND...the right to run for political office was also included in that particular franchise.]

So only those that were willing to put their life on the line are eligible to make the decisions on how the country shall be governed.

Another consideration....my SIL is Finish, in Finland you have two years of National Service required of all Finish Citizens...no service - NO SOCIAL BENEFITS! In a "socialized country that is a big deal! Now that service can be either the Military or Non-Military and are to be completed upon graduation of high school.

So here's the suggested deal:

National Service x 2 years in either:

A. The Military = FULL FRANCHISED CITIZENSHIP, Full Political Rights and Full Social Benefits
B. The Civilian Service Corps = Standard Citizenship w/Social Benefits only
C. No service = no Citizenship, no Political Rights and no Social Benefits.....your choice.

With Full Citizenship you gain Full Political Rights, you have earned the right to vote and to hold political office.

Now there will be a lot of folks that say this is totally unfair....but if an individual is unwilling to put their own life on the line for the country why should they have the power to put other peoples lives on the line? Think about it.

 

[Blacknarwhal]

Another consideration....my SIL is Finish, in Finland you have two years of National Service required of all Finish Citizens...no service - NO SOCIAL BENEFITS! In a "socialized country that is a big deal! Now that service can be either the Military or Non-Military and are to be completed upon graduation of high school.

So here's the suggested deal:

National Service x 2 years in either:

A. The Military = FULL FRANCHISED CITIZENSHIP, Full Political Rights and Full Social Benefits
B. The Civilian Service Corps = Standard Citizenship w/Social Benefits only
C. No service = no Citizenship, no Political Rights and no Social Benefits.....your choice.

With Full Citizenship you gain Full Political Rights, you have earned the right to vote and to hold political office.

Now there will be a lot of folks that say this is totally unfair....but if an individual is unwilling to put their own life on the line for the country why should they have the power to put other peoples lives on the line? Think about it.

Will C still be required to pay taxes and abide by the laws created by A?

 

[TerryK]

Another consideration....my SIL is Finish, in Finland you have two years of National Service required of all Finish Citizens...no service - NO SOCIAL BENEFITS! In a "socialized country that is a big deal! Now that service can be either the Military or Non-Military and are to be completed upon graduation of high school.

So here's the suggested deal:

National Service x 2 years in either:

A. The Military = FULL FRANCHISED CITIZENSHIP, Full Political Rights and Full Social Benefits
B. The Civilian Service Corps = Standard Citizenship w/Social Benefits only
C. No service = no Citizenship, no Political Rights and no Social Benefits.....your choice.

With Full Citizenship you gain Full Political Rights, you have earned the right to vote and to hold political office.

Now there will be a lot of folks that say this is totally unfair....but if an individual is unwilling to put their own life on the line for the country why should they have the power to put other peoples lives on the line? Think about it.

I like it.
Once someone has had to write a blank check for everything up to and including their lives, they may think more before they ask others to do so.

 

[Bubble Head]

I served during the last draft period. I had volunteered but I served amongst those drafted or volunteering to get a better deal than the draft. I can honestly tell you that at 2am waiting for all hell to break lose you do not want your partner to be a draftee. It may be different with some of the suggestions by Terryk and ShadowMan but it was one screwed up mess during Vietnam. The up side of a draft is kids get off their asses, put down the video games, take a shower and do something. The down side is trying to trust this government.

 

[ShadowMan]

Will C still be required to pay taxes and abide by the laws created by A?

YEP! Absolutely.

It's all about choices. If you choose the "C" option that is your choice, but you still reside within this country and benefit by the protection and services of "A" and "B" citizens whether directly or indirectly....i.e. roads, bridges, modern sanitation, police and fire services and a myriad of other benefits we tend take for granted. There are no free rides.

"C" option individuals are basically excluded from social services like: Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Social Security, Education Subsidies and so on down the line. Why should these folks benefit from the sweat and efforts of "A" and "B" citizens? Risk nothing...GAIN NOTHING!

In addition, upon honorable completion of two years of voluntary National Service both Full and Standard Citizens will have earned what is equivalent to the current G.I. Bill for education and Housing and small business loans.

If the "A" military option scares folks the "B" Civil Service option is not all that bad. For two years you will be conducting civic services ranging from Civil Conservation Corps to Peace Corps type work within this country and so on. You'll receive a small monthly stipend (wages), living accommodations (room & board) and training in your area of service. Two years of service for four years of higher education....not a bad trade off. And that education benefit is not restricted to just a two or four year college degree, but includes trade schools and specific job training.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Another consideration....my SIL is Finish, in Finland you have two years of National Service required of all Finish Citizens...no service - NO SOCIAL BENEFITS! In a "socialized country that is a big deal! Now that service can be either the Military or Non-Military and are to be completed upon graduation of high school.

So here's the suggested deal:

National Service x 2 years in either:

A. The Military = FULL FRANCHISED CITIZENSHIP, Full Political Rights and Full Social Benefits
B. The Civilian Service Corps = Standard Citizenship w/Social Benefits only
C. No service = no Citizenship, no Political Rights and no Social Benefits.....your choice.

With Full Citizenship you gain Full Political Rights, you have earned the right to vote and to hold political office.

Now there will be a lot of folks that say this is totally unfair....but if an individual is unwilling to put their own life on the line for the country why should they have the power to put other peoples lives on the line? Think about it.

The Constitution does not allow "tiered" citizenship for a reason.

 

[ShadowMan]

Another consideration of something along the lines of the option "B" Standard Citizen service option would be something like a National Worker Apprenticeship program where a civic program would allow your national service to be Apprentice to local small businesses. It's an opportunity for businesses to get paid help and volunteers to gain valuable basic trade/business training.

For example volunteers could gain experience in several different areas over the two year period that would help both government agencies and small business with basic worker bees and help a volunteer focus their later education. Want to be a nurse....work in a hospital, there is a ton of basic work and support always needed.

Want to work in the Forest Service, trails need to be made, maintained, fire suppression, etc. Think of all the areas and people in your community that could use an extra hand.

I once actually had a job where I shovelled shit.....pig shit on a Farrowing farm. It fed my young family and I learned that I didn't want to do that for a living. Call it motivation....that was very motivating BELIEVE ME!!

 

[Blacknarwhal]

YEP! Absolutely.

It's all about choices. If you choose the "C" option that is your choice, but you still reside within this country and benefit by the protection and services of "A" and "B" citizens whether directly or indirectly....i.e. roads, bridges, modern sanitation, police and fire services and a myriad of other benefits we tend take for granted. There are no free rides.

"C" option individuals are basically excluded from social services like: Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Social Security, Education Subsidies and so on down the line. Why should these folks benefit from the sweat and efforts of "A" and "B" citizens? Risk nothing...GAIN NOTHING!

In addition, upon honorable completion of two years of voluntary National Service both Full and Standard Citizens will have earned what is equivalent to the current G.I. Bill for education and Housing and small business loans.

If the "A" military option scares folks the "B" Civil Service option is not all that bad. For two years you will be conducting civic services ranging from Civil Conservation Corps to Peace Corps type work within this country and so on. You'll receive a small monthly stipend (wages), living accommodations (room & board) and training in your area of service. Two years of service for four years of higher education....not a bad trade off. And that education benefit is not restricted to just a two or four year college degree, but includes trade schools and specific job training.

This whole concept is shaky. If I choose not to provide aid and comfort to a corrupt organization that is the United States government, in whatever form it may require for a period of two years, I lose all access to it, yet must abide by the laws it creates without my input and pay for it to continue doing so?

Your idea might--and I emphasize MIGHT--have worked if we didn't have the government we do now. Even if we'd had the most moral and forthright of governments, the idea of being a "lesser citizen" without being willing to kill in its service is revolting.

And any time you have a citizenship option that can be described as "not all that bad," your entire concept requires restructuring.

 

[Russell Crowley]

If my history memory is correct ? initially only male property owners were the only ones that could vote.

This changed over time as women and every one else became eligible to vote. This created the mess that we now have where the voters are looking for some one else to take care of them. So how do we get voters whose primary reason for voting is the good of the country. Currently, it seems that most voters have their own benefits from the taxpayer as the primary motivation.

For those that don't want to have to live under laws passed by someone else, that would be a choice made when the decision was made to not volunteer. You volunteer, you end up as one of the decision makers.

Lets face it, under the current set-up the voters are raping the tax payers for their own benefit, not the benefit of the country as a whole.

I recognize that some military people will look to there own comfort first, but I feel that many who would commit their all to their country are not that kind of person.

We badly need to do something or Issac Assimov's "Second Foundation " could be in the far future. The chances of changes being made are very minimal as so many benefit from the current setup with no pain on their part.

Russell

 

[Doat]

But...but you got to "give back". Isn't that one of the trance phrases the left uses. GIVE BACK,

 

[Thomas Paine]

The Constitution does not allow "tiered" citizenship for a reason.

As much as I like the Starship Troopers Model (used to be required reading at West Point) you have a point. I served voluntarily and I am against any sort of draft or required nation service. Forced service isn't service it's slavery. The problem we have in this nation goes deeper than forcing the young to serve against their will for rights the constitution grants freely. The freedom of no American should built on the forced labors of his fellow citizens.

 

[Thomas Paine]

If my history memory is correct ? initially only male property owners were the only ones that could vote.

This changed over time as women and every one else became eligible to vote. This created the mess that we now have where the voters are looking for some one else to take care of them. So how do we get voters whose primary reason for voting is the good of the country. Currently, it seems that most voters have their own benefits from the taxpayer as the primary motivation.

For those that don't want to have to live under laws passed by someone else, that would be a choice made when the decision was made to not volunteer. You volunteer, you end up as one of the decision makers.

Lets face it, under the current set-up the voters are raping the tax payers for their own benefit, not the benefit of the country as a whole.

I recognize that some military people will look to there own comfort first, but I feel that many who would commit their all to their country are not that kind of person.

We badly need to do something or Issac Assimov's "Second Foundation " could be in the far future. The chances of changes being made are very minimal as so many benefit from the current setup with no pain on their part.

Russell

Actually what created the problems we have is of several sources, taking the power to appoint the state senators from state governors/legislatures, the fact the damn Yankees refused to allow southern states to grow an industrial base prior to the war of northern aggression, the fact the fact the Lincoln just wouldn't believe if a state freely joined the U.S. they could Freely leave, FDR and his socialist policies in the 30's, Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson and their progressive ideas, the communist /socialist agenda being worked quietly in the background in the late 40's and 50's(Joe McCarthy was right) and openly in the 60's using academic freedom to pollute the kids of America's minds. This and much more is what has brought us here not a lack of national service, The Soviet and Soviet Bloc had tons of "national service" organizations for the youth of their nations to pour how great the all mighty state was into them and how bad not subjugating one's self to the state was. Nope The only time a nation should even consider a nation service requirement is in time of war that facing an enemy that might remove the nation from the map.

I personally believe our salvation lies in an break up over time of this union along political lines into a confederation of states with trade and defense pacts. The break up is coming it is better to be organized than a disorganized panicked manner.