If you are a citizen of another country and there is a draft,will they ship you back?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I do not disagree that the rights of the individual would be less trampelled upon. I simply feel that society as a whole would be in far more danger.

Why?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Why national glory? Service could and should involve international service.

Look at the number of Americans who join the Peace Corps. Compare to the number of Americans who join the Army.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Why?

Because it skews the electorate. Badly.

[notyoueither]

I don't recall many draftees of the Vietnam era being given a choice for the Peace Corps, or Canadian drafts for that matter.

National service can be whatever the nation deems it to be. If at war, then the military. If at peace, then a lot of peaceful options could and should be available.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Because it skews the electorate. Badly.

You've already said they don't vote anyway.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Look at the number of Americans who join the Peace Corps. Compare to the number of Americans who join the Army.

But Americans do join the Peace Corps.

Change the rules and I'd bet the recruitment numbers would change.

[KrazyHorse]

Those peaceful jobs can be better done by people paid to do them. National service is a concept best left applied to those jobs which economic remuneration is insufficient incentive. The military. A peace corps-type organisation. Political office. Otherwise you run into the problem of what counts as national service and what doesn't. Picking up garbage counts as national service. Why not working in a warehouse? Summer research at a university? The cost of expanding the peace corps and the military to accomodate everybody between 20 and 22 would be staggering. Never mind the hidden cost of a loss of worker productivity, as people lose two years of their life to this. They then have two years less of their prime productive years. Israel has this problem. Look at some of the Israelis on this board. Azazel is wasting his time in the Army when he could be finishing up a master's degree in chemistry.

This is in addition to what I see as the extraordinary danger of limiting the franchise.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You've already said they don't vote anyway.

It's not just the people who already don't vote. Those who vote now but wouldn't be willing to pay two years of their life to continue to vote are the ones I'm worried about losing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


But Americans do join the Peace Corps.

180 000 in 40 years out of a population of 300 million.

[KrazyHorse]

For every American who's served in the Peace Corps there might be 100 who have served in the military.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

here's a conscripted soldier.

[KrazyHorse]

Conscription when there's no need:

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Those peaceful jobs can be better done by people paid to do them. National service is a concept best left applied to those jobs which economic remuneration is insufficient incentive. The military. A peace corps-type organisation.

Sure. And building roads and dams. And travelling abroad to help other people build roads and dams, and wells and schools.

Otherwise you run into the problem of what counts as national service and what doesn't.

What counts as national service is determined by our elected representatives who are voted for by our electors, as always.

The difference is giving some emphasis to the idea of service as opposed to eveyone simply being entitled while never lifting a finger.

Picking up garbage counts as national service. Why not working in a warehouse? Summer research at a university?

Why not?

It's peace time. You sign up. You do what you are good at and will put your heart into.

The cost of expanding the peace corps and the military to accomodate everybody between 20 and 22 would be staggering. Never mind the hidden cost of a loss of worker productivity, as people lose two years of their life to this. They then have two years less of their prime productive years. Israel has this problem. Look at some of the Israelis on this board. Azazel is wasting his time in the Army when he could be finishing up a master's degree in chemistry.

As you point out, other countries do it. Surely it must be economical.

This is in addition to what I see as the extraordinary danger of limiting the franchise.

Don't limit it. Anyone who completes their service can vote.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It's not just the people who already don't vote. Those who vote now but wouldn't be willing to pay two years of their life to continue to vote are the ones I'm worried about losing.

Yeah, there's the communism.

We don't give a **** to contribute, but we want our due.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither

What counts as national service is determined by our elected representatives who are voted for by our electors, as always.

Way to avoid the question.

The difference is giving some emphasis to the idea of service as opposed to eveyone simply being entitled while never lifting a finger.

Most people work for a living, pay their taxes, obey the law and generally live useful lives. I hardly call that "never lifting a finger".

Why not?

It's peace time. You sign up. You do what you are good at and will put your heart into.

So basically it's the same as any other young person's job except you do what the government tells you instead of going out yourself and finding something you want to do?

As you point out, other countries do it. Surely it must be economical.

Soviet Russia had collectivized farms. Surely it must have been economical.

Don't limit it. Anyone who completes their service can vote.

You are limiting it. Just because you are limiting it by virtue of a choice to be made instead of by birth or by wealth doesn't mean it's not a limitation.