quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I'm not sure if it's that Americans lack the stomach for any kind of political activism, but I also think that Americans have a short attention span and a short memory. People nowadays are fickle and easily bored by anything serious or meaningful. They want to be entertained. Of course, if the corruption and political deadlock continue unabated, then the system will eventually collapse on itself. The ensuing chaos will be anything but boring, so at least we have that to look forward to in our twilight years.

just like some people predicted the mortgage & housing crash & made money from that debacle, some will make money from the future chaos/crash that I think is also inevitable.. I guess it depends on which side of that a person prefers to be on..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Until the Pendleton reforms, people could legally and openly walk in with a pile of money, and buy a job as a federal agent, or a commissioner, or an officer in the Army, so yeah, there's a great deal of difference.

That may be so, but in practice, I don't see a heck of a lot of difference nowadays. There's still corruption in the system, as anyone can be bribed.

Besides, I recall that the Pendleton reforms were supposed to ensure that hiring and promotion to civil service jobs were based on merit, yet that hardly seems to be the case nowadays. Even setting aside the corruption, there are also seems a great deal of incompetence and waste in government, making me wonder about how much "merit" our Federal employees actually have. I'm judging them by the results of their work, not what they think they are on paper.

Maybe it's time for some new reforms. I don't think it would mean that we'd be going back to the bad old days, not from The Heretic's suggestion anyway. I don't see how limiting their service to 4-5 year contracts would entail people coming in with bags of money to buy a civil service job. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. People who have worked in government all their lives and have no conception of what it means to work in the private sector are out of touch with the society and people they're supposed to be serving. I can't see how an insular, out-of-touch bureaucracy is any better than before.

At least under the spoils system, people got what they elected. That is, if the civil service appointees have the same political views as the elected politicians, then the people are still getting the politics they voted for. If they do an unsatisfactory job, then the politicians get voted out, and all their appointees go, too. It may have been an imperfect system, but what system is perfect?

Without that, then guys like J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles were able to gain a great deal of power, rivaling that of any President they served under. The entrenched bureaucrats-for-life and the military-industrial complex became such a powerful behemoth that even Presidents could hardly keep it under control (JFK tried, but look what happened to him). Those were the real "bad old days," and it hasn't really changed that much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

That's like saying we should go back to the mental hospitals of the 1800s because health care today isn't perfect.

quote:


Today's incompetence and corruption in government work was magnified to full blown atrocities under the old system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

That's like saying we should go back to the mental hospitals of the 1800s because health care today isn't perfect.

That's an odd comparison. Obviously, science has improved immensely since the 1800s, but I don't think we can say the same about government.

quote:


Today's incompetence and corruption in government work was magnified to full blown atrocities under the old system.

Yeah, but how much damage could they have done, considering that government was smaller and much less powerful than it is now? We had no CIA, no NSA, no IRS, no FBI, no military-industrial complex, no foreign entanglements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

It isn't a contest. The genocidal treatment of Native Americans by Indian agents, the dumping of diseased carcasses into the food supply, etc. were not harmless, and the current civil service system is still a product of reforms. Those were *not* the good old days.

quote:


If you are going somewhere besides derailment with this, be sure and say so any time now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I remember "challenging" Rich to start this thread and he and I disagreed, essentially, on the word: "compulsory".

Well, I was tooling around ... just kind of ambling along and I discovered something; some US citizens can be forced into national service.

Sounds crazy, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Ain't that a bitch?

Maybe these illegal aliens ain't so dumb.



Regards,



James Earl Carter

quote:

to instill in all Americans a sense of civic duty,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

At the link is an article from General Stanley McCrystal, calling for a system of universal national service. I like the idea. It's something that goes far beyond the bounds of drafting people into the Army. In the vision I have, our military would still be composed of people who choose to enter the armed forces, instead of serving in another capacity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324809804578511220613299186.html

He wraps up with this (my bold)

quote:


Universal national service would surely face obstacles. But America is too big, and our challenges too expansive, for small ideas. To help stem the high-school dropout crisis, to conserve rivers and parks, to prepare for and respond to disasters, to fight poverty and, perhaps most important, to instill in all Americans a sense of civic duty, the nation needs all its young people to serve.

Whatever the details of a specific plan, the objective must be a cultural shift that makes service an expected rite of citizenship.

Thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

This is the *worst* idea to enter the mainstream of political thought in a *long* time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Okay, Phydeaux. I was getting ready to go point by point through your objections, but as I read over them, it is obvious that you are objecting without a clue to what I'm suggesting. Let me refer you to post #63, towards the top of page 4 of this thread.

If you want to do this, show me that you've read that, say by losing the stupid accusation that people wouldn't be getting paid for what they do, and I'll give you the opportunity for a conversation. Stick to the nonsense of your point 1, and you can just trade useless posts with XXXXXX (user name redacted), down in the kiddie league of shameless liars and douchebags.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

In my opinion- and in the opinion of the founding fathers - a small government is the best option - and only because government was a necessary evil. Despite all our good intentions - and I share yours here - the evils of a large government outweigh any possible good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Now, on an aside, I do think a national service requirement would be an excellent tool in the box

quote:

Slavery is often an excellent tool in the box of for keeping the unruly masses under control. Why would it be any different here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Slavery is often an excellent tool in the box of for keeping the unruly masses under control. Why would it be any different here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Works about as well here as it does for jury duty, Jeff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
Given the shit they do I really don't want to help them in any way at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Works out well that you left then, doesn't it?

quote:

That's one of the advantages to what I'm suggesting. Since we would have all been participants in the process and procedures at one point, it helps remove the us/them outlook towards government, as well as creating a better informed and experienced electorate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
If you want to educate them on how the system works then you're going to need to find a way to expose them to how the system actually works.