Would national service improve our society?

[Angus Young]

I'm only 32 but I look at the state of our youth with some concern. I'm British but now live in Germany and have noticed teenagers in both countries seem to lack a sense of pride about who they are and where they come from.
Would a period of national service help? I'm not just talking about military duty but possibly a requirement for young people to work in community projects or work for local charities. Opinions please?

 

[ouch]

Feel free to mow my lawn.

 

[Angus Young]

Feel free to mow my lawn.

Maybe the older generation don't care either then.

 

[mdunn]

something about arming and training a disaffected youth, then forcing them to mow ouches lawn seems a little strange

 

[rth97601]

Yes. I'm all for national service, beyond the military. I also am 32, and am surprised at how disconnected so many of my peers are when it comes to their community/nation. They seem to have little conception of anything beyond their own little worlds, and national service would, I think, break that down a bit and expose everyone to a larger cross-section of life/identity/experience than they would otherwise get.

Now, to be fair, I myself never served in the military, and am a bit of a pacifist--I was never likely to join on my own. That said, it seems to me that here in the US, the lack of a draft seems to have really had an impact on the lack of involvement/investment many Americans have in our current military operations. Because of our all-volunteer military, so many people my age have never served, and know nobody who is serving or has served recently, and thus have no personal connection to the conflicts--it's not really hitting in the guts, but is just numbers and dollars.

Say what you will about the rights and wrongs of the past decade, but I think many US military decisions might have been made differently if there had been a draft and EVERYBODY had at least a little fear for themselves or someone close to them. And I'm not just talking about deployments either ... the torture debates, scandals at Walter Reed, the general breakdown in services for returning vets, and all sorts of related issues and events would likely have been affected by a draft.

But it's not just military--it's in all aspects of life. People complain about government, but they never get involved in it or really know much about it. People call themselves patriots but really don't give a s*** about what's happening on the other end of the country, to people they perceive to be unlike themselves.

It's not just selfishness--I think most folks really are, or at least can be, better than that. I think it's a lack of connection, which leads to an inability to understand or fairly acknowledge folks unlike themselves.

National service may not be a magic answer, but it might do a lot to expose people directly to one another, regardless of their native class, region, or cultural background. A little more connection=a little more investment in the national common good.

I do my own thing in my own way, and try to focus my skills and energy where it will be most useful, but it took a long time for me to come around to this point of view. I like where I am, but I may have made different choices if national service were compulsory ...

Sorry about the rant, but I do feel strongly about this, so it kind of flies out.

Ryan

 

[luvmysuper]

I think I'm against any type of mandatory service.
It's easy for people in an arm chair to prescribe what the youth should do to improve society.
Forced labor of any type for someone who committed no crime seems like something that a democracy would want to stay away from.

 

[rth97601]

I think I'm against any type of mandatory service.
It's easy for people in an arm chair to prescribe what the youth should do to improve society.
Forced labor of any type for someone who committed no crime seems like something that a democracy would want to stay away from.

But "mandatory" is negotiable. We wouldn't need to throw dissenters in prison. Perhaps certain benefits could be accrued through such service (like the Teach for America student loan benefits), or certain rights of citizenship (like the right to keep and bear arms, or even the right to vote in particular elections) could be awarded to those who complete their year (or whatever) of national service.

Plus, I think "national service" is negotiable as well--any number of activities/services could fulfill it, and it wouldn't necessarily involve armchair dictatorships (though it certainly could, depending on how it was implemented).

Ryan

 

[mdunn]

I'm all for national service, beyond the military... I myself never served in the military, and am a bit of a pacifist--I was never likely to join on my own.

I dont understand? are you saying:

a) its fine that you dont want to join the army, but we should force children to join?

b) youre a pacifist and against the army, but you think you should have been forced to do it regardless?

 

[luvmysuper]

But "mandatory" is negotiable. We wouldn't need to throw dissenters in prison. Perhaps certain benefits could be accrued through such service (like the Teach for America student loan benefits), or certain rights of citizenship (like the right to keep and bear arms, or even the right to vote in particular elections) could be awarded to those who complete their year (or whatever) of national service.

Plus, I think "national service" is negotiable as well--any number of activities/services could fulfill it, and it wouldn't necessarily involve armchair dictatorships (though it certainly could, depending on how it was implemented).

Ryan

I'm confused.

You say that "Mandatory" is negotiable. If Mandatory is negotiable, then it's voluntary.

If it's voluntary, then that's what we have now. The youth can volunteer for any number of community, national or international service groups.

Just for info, at least here in the US, the term National Service is indicative of mandatory service of some type.

 

[Obsessed]

Feel free to mow my lawn.

He'll have to mow your neighbor's lawn right after that, won't he?

 

[rth97601]

I dont understand? are you saying:

a) its fine that you dont want to join the army, but we should force children to join?

b) youre a pacifist and against the army, but you think you should have been forced to do it regardless?

Neither A nor B, really--you're setting up a false dichotomy here. In any case, I'm all for a national service that's larger than a military draft.

If we're on the subject of the draft in particular, then I'd probably lean more toward B. I wouldn't really want to shoot anybody, but that doesn't make me a conscientious objector, either--I'm a bit of a pacifist, which means I try to avoid violence whenever possible, but I'll swing if I feel I have no other choice. I don't flatter myself that I have the strength of will for true pacifism. Anyhow, I probably would have been a good fit for the medical corp, but I imagine I would have carried a rifle if ordered to do so--many draftees in past eras did their jobs whether they wanted to or not, and I don't know why I would be any different if placed in such a circumstance.

My point in my first post, however, is that a populace whose government wages war should have some personal stake in that war. Far too many people I know don't. For many of my generation (and I am still of draftable age, BTW) military service wasn't a duty so much as a career option. Nobody told us to get involved, and we didn't--particularly if we felt we had other opportunities. Now a small group of military personnel and their families are bearing the burden of a war that most of us can ignore if we choose. This seems wrong to me--I'm not sure the draft is the golden answer, but I do think it would make a lot of folks sit up and take notice in a way they haven't been.

Still, the OP was about national service, not about a military draft. The men with guns are only a part of that larger picture.

Ryan

 

[Emmett]

But "mandatory" is negotiable. We wouldn't need to throw dissenters in prison. Perhaps certain benefits could be accrued through such service (like the Teach for America student loan benefits), or certain rights of citizenship (like the right to keep and bear arms, or even the right to vote in particular elections) could be awarded to those who complete their year (or whatever) of national service.

Plus, I think "national service" is negotiable as well--any number of activities/services could fulfill it, and it wouldn't necessarily involve armchair dictatorships (though it certainly could, depending on how it was implemented).

Ryan

The problem with this is that the current systems (TFA, Americorps, etc) offer benefits that are below what many middle class young people can afford to live on. A lot of those positions are filled with rich kids who use them as resume padders, while the not-so-rich kids try to get jobs that they can pay off their student loans with.

The incentives would have to be considerably better than they are now. I worked it out once, a person would only have to make somewhere around 20K a year to contribute more towards their loans than the Americorps tuition/loan credit. (Assuming they maintain a standard of living around my own, that is!)

Tying service to mediocre benefits and then privileging service as a sign of character ends up widening the class divide between the people who can afford to volunteer and those who can't. And I think that tying voting rights of any sort to service of any sort is a horrendously bad idea.

 

[garyg]

This topic will have some legs - my own humble 2 ¢ is that while it is a noble sounding concept, once the gubmint gets involved it will be somewhat less than envisioned. Yes some of the youth around here are less than ideal citizens, but then so were Charlie Manson & Co when I was but a lad of 18.

Fact is, by the age anyone would permit such service they are formed, sociopaths or solid citizens. Sending Lee Harvey or Charley Joseph to the Marines for their national service didn't work out all that well, eh? Not because of the Marines, but because they were already what they were

My idea would be to round up the slugs, then send their parents into service, for which they pay. If a politician wants 10 of his lazy relatives on the crew, he pays their salary

 

[Emmett]

I was required to perform service in order to graduate high school. I don't feel it helped my character or my connection to my community or country. It was just something I did because I had to. Service should be voluntary, IMO. The things I volunteer for now are things I actually want to help out with.

 

[_JP_]

This is an intriguing idea. On the one hand some sort of service to the country could help to create a sense of pride and purpose, along with fostering maturity and responsibility in young adults. And it could be an option of either military service or some other sort of work for a year or two where the person still gets paid.

But I don't think that it would work as far as the goal of improving society goes. I base on the fact that we used to have the Draft, which forced men into military service. Many of those people just did their mandatory stint and got out. Some stayed longer. But not everyone came out a better person because of the experience, although some did. And I think that the same sort of thing would happen now with some sort of mandatory service.

I think that the country of Israel requires all able bodied men and women to serve in their armed forces, and to stand ready to be called back after their term of service is completed. That only makes sense for Israel because of it being a small nation in constant defense of itself. It also appears that the service requirement does instill a better sense of patriotism as well for those who served.

 

[rth97601]

I'm confused.

You say that "Mandatory" is negotiable. If Mandatory is negotiable, then it's voluntary.

If it's voluntary, then that's what we have now. The youth can volunteer for any number of community, national or international service groups.

Just for info, at least here in the US, the term National Service is indicative of mandatory service of some type.

Mandatory is negotiable, if one's form of service, and benefits or punishments for performance (or not) of that service are negotiable. "You must fulfill this requirement in order to gain this right or benefit" is not quite "Do this or you'll be punished"--and in any case, one can still choose whether or not to participate, as with any "mandatory" activity. Paying taxes is mandatory, as is school attendance of some type for children of a certain age. Exactly how we pay our taxes or send our kids to school is negotiable, however, even within the compass of legal mandate, and some people ignore those mandates anyway. Unless you can and will physically force someone to comply, a mandate is nearly always negotiable.

If service isn't tied to direct punishment (jail), then service could be more a prerequisite for full access to the privileges of citizenship. If you don't want to participate, then you don't have access to those privileges--something that would give pause to many, I think (or hope, anyway). Like the citizenship version of a driver's license, it would be at the same time mandatory (if you want or feel you need the right to "drive" your country) and negotiable (if you're not interested in "driving").

And as for national service in the US, I'm not in support of any particular proposal, so I'm not proposing support for a "do this or be punished" sort of mandate.

Ryan

 

[Emmett]

Mandatory is negotiable, if one's form of service, and benefits or punishments for performance (or not) of that service are negotiable. "You must fulfill this requirement in order to gain this right or benefit" is not quite "Do this or you'll be punished"--and in any case, one can still choose whether or not to participate, as with any "mandatory" activity. Paying taxes is mandatory, as is school attendance of some type for children of a certain age. Exactly how we pay our taxes or send our kids to school is negotiable, however, even within the compass of legal mandate, and some people ignore those mandates anyway. Unless you can and will physically force someone to comply, a mandate is nearly always negotiable.

If service isn't tied to direct punishment (jail), then service could be more a prerequisite for full access to the privileges of citizenship. If you don't want to participate, then you don't have access to those privileges--something that would give pause to many, I think (or hope, anyway). Like the citizenship version of a driver's license, it would be at the same time mandatory (if you want or feel you need the right to "drive" your country) and negotiable (if you're not interested in "driving").

And as for national service in the US, I'm not in support of any particular proposal, so I'm not proposing support for a "do this or be punished" sort of mandate.

Ryan

Again I think this sort of idea is a terrible one. You are either a citizen or you are not. Those unwilling or unable to do service would effectively become second class citizens.

 

[bigred90gt]

Perhaps certain benefits could be accrued through such service ......or certain rights of citizenship (like the right to keep and bear arms, or even the right to vote in particular elections) could be awarded to those who complete their year (or whatever) of national service.

Ryan

Now you are suggesting crossing a line that should not be crossed. Those are fundamental rights afforded to every American. One should not have to "pass muster" to "earn" said rights. The United States Constitution grants us those rights. There is no need to go fiddley fartin around with the Constitution, it's fine the way it is.

 

[rth97601]

The problem with this is that the current systems (TFA, Americorps, etc) offer benefits that are below what many middle class young people can afford to live on. A lot of those positions are filled with rich kids who use them as resume padders, while the not-so-rich kids try to get jobs that they can pay off their student loans with.

The incentives would have to be considerably better than they are now. I worked it out once, a person would only have to make somewhere around 20K a year to contribute more towards their loans than the Americorps tuition/loan credit. (Assuming they maintain a standard of living around my own, that is!)

Tying service to mediocre benefits and then privileging service as a sign of character ends up widening the class divide between the people who can afford to volunteer and those who can't. And I think that tying voting rights of any sort to service of any sort is a horrendously bad idea.

I agree about the incentives, and I think there are big problems with TFA--it does seems to me to be failing in its intended goals because the limited pool of folks with the means and desire to participate tend to finish out before they get the experience they need to do any real good, and many aren't invested professionally because they aren't planning to pursue careers in the classroom anyway. For that reason I think national service would have to be something more than simple expansions of TFA/Americorps. Like the military, qualifying service positions would have to be real jobs with real pay, and some benefits besides.

The idea of tying voting or other rights to service would have to be predicated upon a system in which all folks could legitimately participate--TFA/Americorps, as you point out, would NOT fill that bill, especially for poorer folks.

Ryan

 

[rth97601]

Now you are suggesting crossing a line that should not be crossed. Those are fundamental rights afforded to every American. One should not have to "pass muster" to "earn" said rights. The United States Constitution grants us those rights. There is no need to go fiddley fartin around with the Constitution, it's fine the way it is.

Fair point on many levels, but the thing is, I'm thinking about a carrot vs. stick approach. As of now, service isn't really rewarded so much as punished in the lack. There's plenty of mandatory stuff we're required to do by order of the state--taxes, jury duty, education, immunizations, medical tests (yes, in NY this happens), and so on--but if we choose not to, for whatever reason, we are punished. While that works in some cases, why must that be our usual model? Why jail for tax cheats? If you're not going to help pay for your gov't, why expect to be allowed to participate in it? If you don't pay your water bill, your water gets shut off--why should gov't be any different? Why punish jury dodgers? What purpose does that really serve?

So while I understand concerns about limiting rights, I guess my question is, why not expect someone to do something in return for the rights and privileges of citizenship? Those rights, remember, have evolved over time--if I recall correctly, there used to be a time in the US when only landowning white males could vote, and a bit of "fiddley fartin" in later years made US politics a lot more inclusive. The fear that gov't involvement would screw it up is fair, but in theory, why is a reward model less palatable than a punishment model (provided everyone is in fact able to participate?).

Maybe constitutional rights shouldn't be on the table, but I still think there should be some responsibilities associated with the privileges of citizenship. How those responsibilities would be defined/enforced is, I guess, a different issue entirely.

Ryan