RE: A National Service Obligation?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: A National Service Obligation?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A National Service Obligation?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/2/2013 11:35:56 PM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

You have lived in both countries, and I like hearing your opinion on politics and such.. You being American gives your opinions more weight with other Americans.. Americans cant even attempt to change their country for the better if they cant see the problems..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to JeffBC)

Post #: 141

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 1:05:59 AM

RottenJohnny

Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

My view of the population is come by honestly, and the attitude expressed above, that freedom comes without obligation, is exactly what I would like to see carved out with a red-hot spoon.

The goal is not to increase government, but to staff it better, make it something we have all played a role in at some point in our lives, something we are personally invested in. It's always easy for the libertarians to claim they want nothing from government, right up until they hit a pothole. Spend a summer patching some, and you'll have earned the right to bitch.

No. You won't get a little red book to wave around, but you will get a discharge form that says you are more than a parasite.

You're attempting to put words in my mouth so let me clarify a couple of things...

First of all, nowhere do I say that freedom should come with no obligation at all. But our obligations shouldn't involve the government using the population like tools merely to teach us a value lesson.

In order for the population to utilize and enjoy the level of freedom we desire for ourselves the obligations to the state need to be reduced to the lowest common denominators that allow for the country to sustain itself. IMO, that means paying taxes, voting, and obeying the laws of the state.

Secondly, nowhere did I express the notion that I was a Libertarian or won't need anything from the government. Depending on how long I manage to live and work I may have no choice but to ask for their help at some point. That's one of the reasons I don't argue about having to pay taxes.

You say that the goal is not to increase the size of government but to staff it better and make it something we all play a role in and personally invest in. Do you actually believe this idea wouldn't increase the size of government? And as far as playing my part and being invested...as an active voter and taxpayer I'm already fulfilling both those obligations. Frankly, I've earned the right to bitch all I want.

Now, if your interest is actually to eliminate the "parasites" of society then why don't you consider changing the laws that allow them to take advantage of our tax dollars instead of trying to create a legal form of slave labor in order to justify your attitude?

_____________________________

"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 142

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 1:43:55 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

My view of the population is come by honestly, and the attitude expressed above, that freedom comes without obligation, is exactly what I would like to see carved out with a red-hot spoon.

The goal is not to increase government, but to staff it better, make it something we have all played a role in at some point in our lives, something we are personally invested in. It's always easy for the libertarians to claim they want nothing from government, right up until they hit a pothole. Spend a summer patching some, and you'll have earned the right to bitch.

No. You won't get a little red book to wave around, but you will get a discharge form that says you are more than a parasite.

Rich, I wanted to take issue with the part in red.

As a card-carrying Libertarian for almost 20 years, I can tell you that that is not the position of the party, at all.

What you will hear a good Libertarian claim is: "Liberty is opposed to constraints. The bigger the government, the more constraints.". We're not anarchists. I want the government to provide a common defense (an army, when we need one). I want the government to promote the general welfare. And that's what's at issue, here.

I will state, again, that I don't think that instilling a sense of obligation in people is a bad idea but, I think it's a matter of "public morality".

Let me explain that last phrase: I think your view of this country is (unfortunately), pretty accurate. Gone are the days of Kennedy's: "Ask not what your country can do for you ..." People have come to distrust government. They've come to feel like government is for no other reason than to screw them and I think that there's some merit to that argument with the way that government behaves.

I think we need to find a way to change the perception of government and I think (as is usually the case) that Jeff is not too far off. If there was a way to completely re-do the government by way of a "no confidence" vote, I'd be willing to bet that they'd be swept out by a 70 percentile or so.

So, what do we do? Can we legislate morality? Fuck no. No more so than we can legislate charity. I strongly believe that we need to offer benefits for such a national service. I don't think penalties for not performing such a service is a good idea; one of the reason I focused on free tuition/low-interest college loans.

I am not of the opinion that everyone is entitled to a higher education. However, I believe that those who don't have a college education will be at a disadvantage. I think something like that can be used as both a carrot and a stick.

I don't know if I can split this hair but, I'm going to try: I think we're all obliged to perform some form of national service but because of the state of affairs of our government, we don't feel obligated. I think that's where the disconnect is. As a result, we need to offer incentives; NOT add still more "penalties" which will widen the chasm.

Once again; Libertarians don't "want nothing from the government" we want the government to mind its place and not continue the invasive maneuvers into our lives.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 6/3/2013 2:27:11 AM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to RottenJohnny)

Post #: 143

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 5:34:00 AM

Zonie63

Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Do you think the people who aren't voting are the ones paying attention?

Wow! Now there's an interesting point and I probably agree with it. Honestly the only thing that makes me vote nowadays is some mistaken sense of forlorn hope that possibly one of the two parties might want to become a people's party again. My sons don't have that hope so they don't vote. I think they understand American politics better than I do or else I'm simply running on autopilot.

I've always believed that, no matter how one feels about the government or the illusions of "democracy" we live under, there's no real reason not to vote. It doesn't cost anything to the voter, and it only takes a few minutes (maybe longer if there's a line). If we assume that the electoral process is not totally fixed and predetermined before Election Day, then there might be some value to it.

The trouble that I see is not so much with the political parties (although they're definitely part of the problem), but it's also with the psychology of the voters. Instead of voting their conscience, there's a tendency to vote strategically or for the lesser of two evils. For example, during a primary election, you might have three candidates running (Huey, Dewey, and Louie), and you might hear voters say something like "Well, I like Huey the best, but I know he doesn't have a chance against the incumbent, Donald Duck, so I'm voting for Dewey instead." So, by the time of the General Election, we're stuck with two candidates that few people actually liked at the beginning but only got there because of supposedly "smart" voters who cast their vote based on who they think is going to win (a perception undoubtedly influenced by media polls), not who they think is the best for the job.

Back when Ralph Nader ran as a third-party candidate in 2004, the Democratic establishment was condemning him and anyone who might vote for him, claiming that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush (since many Nader voters would have likely voted for Kerry if the choice was not available). It's a variation on the old argument "those who are not with us are against us."

If more people would vote their conscience (and I like the idea of having a "none of the above" choice), then we'd probably end up with a much better government. People should think about what's best for their country, not their political party.

(in reply to JeffBC)

Post #: 144

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 5:43:56 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

... People should think about what's best for their country, not their political party. ...

While all of your post was terrific, THIS should be stapled to quite a few foreheads (writeen backwards so it can read when looking in the mirror).

Peace and comfort,

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Zonie63)

Post #: 145

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 5:44:37 AM

Zonie63

Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Let's put this on the table, Jeff, to give you something on the notion that is ALREADY a government of the people (I put on my own tin foil hat for this one).

When I originally tossed this idea into the ring a few years ago, the article at the link was the starting place. Interesting read.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/12/class-war/singlepage

Just noticed this - now that the article has been archived, you have to provide one answer to the annoying marketing survey.

This article seems like an argument against a public service obligation. If the people who are already paid big bucks for working for government (and have fat juicy pensions waiting for them) don't feel any sense of dedication to public service, why should anyone else? Seriously. They're the ones who have been paid - and quite well - and they haven't done anything except drive our political and economic system into the ground.

And now it's up to the peasants (read "those who don't have government jobs") to fix everything that was screwed up by the elite and privileged government workers? Doesn't seem right to me. The citizenry deserves to extract a pound of flesh from the government workers in this country. They deserve justice first, before being asked to volunteer for national service.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 146

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 7:08:15 AM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I've always believed that, no matter how one feels about the government or the illusions of "democracy" we live under, there's no real reason not to vote. It doesn't cost anything to the voter, and it only takes a few minutes (maybe longer if there's a line). If we assume that the electoral process is not totally fixed and predetermined before Election Day, then there might be some value to it.

if someone is homeless or very poor without the "right" ID, I doubt they are allowed to vote until they pay for the "right" ID.. so for those people that can not afford it, they are shut out of the voting process..

I stopped voting when I was younger, for several reasons.. the way I view voting now is that since i prefer to vote with my feet, it is up to the people that will stay all their lives in that country to determine what happens to their country.. that, for me, is a reason not to vote (I am reflecting on the concept of voting, not specifically about US voting)

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Zonie63)

Post #: 147

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 9:07:11 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
If more people would vote their conscience (and I like the idea of having a "none of the above" choice), then we'd probably end up with a much better government. People should think about what's best for their country, not their political party.

I agree but I've come to understand this is a flaw in our election system not in the voters. The voters in this case are, in fact, acting reasonably aligned with their own proper self interests. I'm not enough of a poli-sci guy to answer this but my understanding is we'd need to change the "winner take all" system we currently have to be more aligned with other democracies before we can get what you're hoping for.

I'd like it also. But honestly, gerrymandering leaves me little hope that either party will want to fix this.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to Zonie63)

Post #: 148

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 9:07:24 AM

Zonie63

Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I've always believed that, no matter how one feels about the government or the illusions of "democracy" we live under, there's no real reason not to vote. It doesn't cost anything to the voter, and it only takes a few minutes (maybe longer if there's a line). If we assume that the electoral process is not totally fixed and predetermined before Election Day, then there might be some value to it.

if someone is homeless or very poor without the "right" ID, I doubt they are allowed to vote until they pay for the "right" ID.. so for those people that can not afford it, they are shut out of the voting process..

I'm not sure how or if the homeless can vote. I don't know if they can use a general delivery address to register to vote or if they're actually required to have a fixed permanent address. That may also be a barrier to getting an ID card, although I'm not sure of that either. Still, there must be some ways around that. Perhaps using a friend or relative's address, or perhaps the address of the local homeless shelter. I don't know if that would be allowed, but there must be some way to get around these barriers.

quote:

I stopped voting when I was younger, for several reasons.. the way I view voting now is that since i prefer to vote with my feet, it is up to the people that will stay all their lives in that country to determine what happens to their country.. that, for me, is a reason not to vote (I am reflecting on the concept of voting, not specifically about US voting)

Voting with one's feet is even less of an option for a lot of people, especially the homeless and the very poor who won't ever be able to get the right ID for going overseas. Passports are far more expensive than the standard state-issued ID card or driver's license, and then there are visa fees, costs of travel, etc. Those without money or some sort of marketable skill are going to be shut out from the process of voting with one's feet. Even moving within the U.S. carries some expense and risk.

So, a lot of people are just stuck where they are, unable to vote with their feet. Many others just don't want to. They like it here and can't conceive of living anywhere else.

I've toyed with the idea myself. I've often thought that the country is going to hell in a handbasket, being looted and run by crooks who are voted in by a mass of idiots from coast to coast. It just seems so utterly hopeless at times, that we're on a sinking ship and there's nothing we can do. But at least now, I have a country and an identity associated with it. I am an American. That's all I've ever been, and no matter where I go on this Earth, that's what I will be seen as.

I have a few cousins who are expatriates, and they seem to think that one's country doesn't really matter or shouldn't really matter. Maybe that's more enlightened thinking, I don't know. I've heard some opinions that the age of "nations" is coming to a close, that we're entering a new era of a world without borders. Some people see that there's a world service obligation that might trump any national service obligations, and this is another potential complication in the OP's proposal here. It makes one wonder if patriotism and national loyalty are becoming outdated concepts in our modern world. Now, it seems more a matter of international business, with national boundaries becoming obsolete. But we're not there yet, so if one decides to move to another country, one has to consider the kind of government one would have to live under.

Canada seems an attractive option, but the trouble is, if America goes down the drain, then Canada will likely go with it, along with a bunch of other countries that might seem attractive at the moment. If there's a chance of political instability or upheaval, then you never know what might happen, whether in America or some other country. But at least in America, I know my way around and can speak the language and understand the culture. In some other country, I'd be at a disadvantage.

(in reply to tj444)

Post #: 149

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 9:13:31 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
You have lived in both countries, and I like hearing your opinion on politics and such.. You being American gives your opinions more weight with other Americans.. Americans cant even attempt to change their country for the better if they cant see the problems..

The real answer to your question is that I was becoming politically disappointed with the US long before we moved and it was a part but not all of the reason for moving. It became more and more of a reason as moving time got closer and we moved from Bush to Obama. In the end I moved because it was the only way I could figure to take the blood off my hands. The US was taxing me and then doing things with those taxes both domestically and abroad that I find reprehensible. There is only way to get out of that. Of course, I still pay US taxes and I will until I renounce my citizenship but at least now Canada gets first cut at my tax money.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to tj444)

Post #: 150

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 9:57:36 AM

Zonie63

Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
If more people would vote their conscience (and I like the idea of having a "none of the above" choice), then we'd probably end up with a much better government. People should think about what's best for their country, not their political party.

I agree but I've come to understand this is a flaw in our election system not in the voters. The voters in this case are, in fact, acting reasonably aligned with their own proper self interests. I'm not enough of a poli-sci guy to answer this but my understanding is we'd need to change the "winner take all" system we currently have to be more aligned with other democracies before we can get what you're hoping for.

I'd like it also. But honestly, gerrymandering leaves me little hope that either party will want to fix this.

I can see where voters could be persuaded to think that they're acting reasonably aligned with their own proper self interests, but that's where the political shell game comes into play. Basically, people act as their own personal pundits, analyzing the political situation and trying to make a reasonable decision based on their own self interests. I get that, and I agree that would actually be a good thing and indicative a responsible, informed electorate - but only as long as people did their own unbiased research, studied the candidates and issues, and reached their own reasonable conclusions! When they rely on the talking heads of TV and radio to spoon-feed them everything, then it seems the problem goes much deeper than any systemic reforms could adequately address.

My sense is that democracy may have been much easier back in the days when most of us lived in small towns of less than a thousand people, where everybody knew everybody and candidates were more accessible to the general public. Nowadays, the people and the politicians seem far more disconnected from each other. Politics has turned into more of a "father-son" enterprise - or maybe it always was that way and we've been fooling ourselves all along.

I'm not saying that there aren't some things that can be done to fix the system, but whether or not the system is reformed is largely dependent on the public's willingness and ability to demand such reforms. If they're willing to accept the lesser of two evils, then that's what they will get. Of course, the voters also have to act like politicians to some extent, since we're all different and we all want different things from our government. That also requires an ability and willingness to compromise, which also seems absent in our current political drama. No matter what reforms we might make, if we have a system of entrenched, intransigent political factions working against each other, then they'll muck up any system they touch.

I do agree that the 'winner take all' system be abolished. Perhaps the problem with our system is that it's too limited to an either/or, zero-sum game. We try to balance the will of the people with longstanding principles of being a constitutional republic and a nation of laws, that it seems the people's will has become a lower priority, even with the people themselves. There are some people with legitimate fears of pure democracy, as potential consequences could lead to mob rule or a dictatorship of the "majority." But if there are more options available and more public offices to vote for, then perhaps there could be a greater plurality and diversity of political views within government. But the downside of that is that there could be more intense bureaucratic infighting and political gridlock, even more than we have now.

Our best hedge against extremism in this country is an informed, aware electorate capable of understanding the issues and making reasonable decisions at the polls. If the public is too idle or apathetic to demand any serious change or reform from their leaders, then they will get what they deserve - in more ways than one.

(in reply to JeffBC)

Post #: 151

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 10:05:23 AM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

you bring up some interesting points..
Yes, I know most people are stuck here, and that is why they need to do whatever it takes to make better changes to govt.. given how your politics is set up, you pretty much need a military coup type of revolution to get rid of the corrupt politicians (which means 98% of em) and enact a new, fairer system that is much harder for corps & 1%ers to hijack.. OWS failed, massively.. without the military & police on your side (instead of armed & against you), you are screwed.. I know that sounds sorta radical to some..

But few Americans have the stomach for that so unfortunately ya'll will end up limping along with the corruption & political deadlock you have now..

I dont know about Canada going down the tubes if the US does, yes, Canada is a major US trading partner and logistically next door but Canada has been one of the least affected countries in the world that has not been really damaged due to this current recession/depression.. so, Canada seems to still be doing better than most.. it has tried to diversify and get more trade with other countries which helps, not sure to what degree tho.. and it has a more conservative banking system which keeps speculation, etc at a lower level..

I expect I will take a second citizenship in the next few years, I have to decide first on which country to spend most of my time in first tho & what that country's requirements are.. I think a second citizenship & passport is good, as a back-up and also easier entrance to that country, of course.. Its an easy decision for me to keep my Canadian citizenship tho, as Canada taxes based only on residence, not on nationality as the US does.. there is a good health care system there which if I wanted to, I can go back and access (there are certain rules to go back to the fold but they are minimal).. the politics is more liberal & progressive there.. there is no draft there (not for me but for any kids that come along).. when the time comes they will send my pension where ever I am in the world.. and I still want to travel there.. so far there is not really much reason to give it up.. I feel for Americans that are faced with that difficult decision, it is not easy to give up your first citizenship.. my mother was an immigrant and never gave hers up even tho she considered herself a Canadian..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Zonie63)

Post #: 152

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 10:16:52 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

I pretty much agree with all of that Zonie and abolishing the winner take all election system is just one piece of the puzzle. In my little pet plan for "what to do if occupy wall street ever wins" step one is to shoal up the education system and step two is to shoal up the media/journalism sector. If you're going to have a democracy then you better educate your populace. Of course, I personally believe this is exactly why both institutions have suffered so in the US. In my heart of hearts I agree with tweak... it's going to take a military coup to do it. And you know what else? I fear writing that. That is something which is just plain wrong.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to Zonie63)

Post #: 153

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 10:20:55 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

Where does it say that what is good for your political party cannot be good for the country?

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 154

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 10:26:20 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
As a card-carrying Libertarian for almost 20 years, I can tell you that that is not the position of the party, at all.

For the record I recently tried to research what the hell "libertarianism" was exactly. I was unable to walk away with a clear answer except for in the US the libertarian party had been infected by Ayn Rand & Co so I'm fairly certain that whatever it is the US LIbertarian Party is about it's nothing that I approve of. The political label "libertarianism" is confusing as hell.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 155

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 10:51:38 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

As a card-carrying Libertarian for almost 20 years, I can tell you that that is not the position of the party, at all.

For the record I recently tried to research what the hell "libertarianism" was exactly. I was unable to walk away with a clear answer except for in the US the libertarian party had been infected by Ayn Rand & Co so I'm fairly certain that whatever it is the US LIbertarian Party is about it's nothing that I approve of. The political label "libertarianism" is confusing as hell.

Well, there have been threads about Ms. Rand and being a Libertarian on these very boards. I don't know enough about her writing to know what her slant is but one of the things that I have found about our party is that there's a pretty broad spread of ideas but the core issue really is freedom.

However, Libertarianism also spread from the word "liberal"; back when it meant "free thinker" instead of the sullied definition of today. I find that when I talk to other people that truly are registered Libertarians (not just the ones that say they are), that we have all kinds of ideas that don't necessarily fit into any one ideology.

I have found that the party is made up of "renegade" republicans and democrats that feel that they have no place in the party(/ies) that they supported for years. BOTH parties have polarized. Most of America resides in the middle; the two major parties don't.

We're a group of people that believes that this country can recover and work together but only once the ideological gridlock of the "big two" is finally put behind us and people realize that we have much more that binds us than tears us apart and that there are some good ideas on both sides of the political divide.

I'll share this: I'm not quite anti-abortion (though I am close) but I'm pro death penalty. I'm pro-legalization of drugs. I want drug tests for pre-employment abolished but, I refuse to be subjected to drug testing before I can be employed so I can pay taxes to support people who might be gaming the system (see my sig line). I'm neither republican nor democrat, obviously and the Libertarian party has room for me in their tent.

I know I got wordy but I hope I helped, to some degree.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 6/3/2013 10:53:28 AM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JeffBC)

Post #: 156

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 11:47:42 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

My view of the population is come by honestly, and the attitude expressed above, that freedom comes without obligation, is exactly what I would like to see carved out with a red-hot spoon.

I must not have got the memmo.
Who made the decission that freedom is not free?

quote:

The goal is not to increase government, but to staff it better,

That sounds like the primary plank in the progressive party platform.

quote:

make it something we have all played a role in at some point in our lives,

But not something we should continue to play a role in...a period of forced labor and then we are life members?

quote:

something we are personally invested in.

Some people view the taxes they pay as a personal investement in their country.

quote:

It's always easy for the libertarians to claim they want nothing from government, right up until they hit a pothole.

Acording to ms. rayn the libertarian paid for the road to be in good repair.

quote:

Spend a summer patching some, and you'll have earned the right to bitch.

I have a right to bitch when I do not get what I pay for.

quote:

No. You won't get a little red book to wave around, but you will get a discharge form that says you are more than a parasite.

What is wrong with being a parasite?

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 157

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 11:54:19 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I know I got wordy but I hope I helped, to some degree.

Not at all wordy and honestly you make more sense than most of the "libertarians" I know. In point of fact I've come to associate Libertarianism with the party of slavery. The moment you say you want to remove most or all restrains on the powerful getting more powerful and the rich getting richer there's only one end destination and the US is well along that road. I'll never, ever, vote libertarian for that reason but it's useful to know that some Libertarians might be interested in "liberty".

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 158

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 1:34:04 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I'm all for carrots, Aswad, and loads of flexibility in when, where, and how, such an obligation might be met, but at the end of the long road, it would be something people had to do.

Take a look at which people would follow you down that road, and which would pick the other road.

One of those roads has some very high output people volunteering in it, and a firm respect for liberty; the other has neither, but has at least one stick that keeps on stinging.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

< Message edited by Aswad -- 6/3/2013 1:35:46 PM >

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 159

RE: A National Service Obligation? - 6/3/2013 1:57:29 PM

theresthavegonew

Posts: 2
Joined: 8/29/2012
Status: offline

I was just curios, has anyone in this discussion participated in non military national service?

(in reply to tj444)

Post #: 160

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A National Service Obligation?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.093