The Draft: Should it be brought back?

Totally inappropriate.

 

My opinion on this is that not all people are meant to be soldiers. I am not fit enough to go through boot camp and wouldn't be that great as a soldier. Plus this puts them at a more likely rate to be killed People do not derserve to fight who either don't want to or aren't physiclly able to.

That's true. Conscripts also tend to be less motivated/enthusiastic than volunteers, regardless of their physical condition, so putting them in desk jobs doesn't help. Productivity will still be low.

Another issue is it's not cost effective for the military to have to train so many new people who have a relatively high turnover rate and will probably leave in a year or two.

 

I wouldn't support a draft unless it was absolutely necessary. In addition to the moral objections of forcing people to join the military, the overall quality of draftees tends to be noticeably lower, at least in America. (draftees in say Taiwan or Singapore are probably better motivated because they're used to the system)

Of course, if the draft returned and my number was called, I'd serve unless I had lost a limb or something.

 

Check out this video clip of Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio telling why Democrats don't believe Bush is not going to bring back the draft.

I'm not saying I agree with him, but it was a damn good speech.

 

NO

There should not be a draft under any circumstances. So many people in Vietnam got screwed up in the head because they were forced to go over. There's too many in the 18-26 demographic that I don't want to see get hurt. If they fight against their will and end up with their arms and legs blown off, I would go into an unrecoverable depression and that's just as bad as what those people in Vietnam went through. I hate the idea competely. There are other means of defense than a draft. John Kerry has a plan.

 

The only justifiable form of the draft, IMHO, is mandatory civil service like in many European and Middle Eastern nations (e.g., Israel). I don't think it unreasonable to expect some element of return for the state.

That being said, I also support the idea that military service is not for everyone, physically or psychologically. Ergo, I'd prefer to see a system in which people could choose either to serve in the military (say for a year), or to fulfill civil service (for eighteen months in a social, educational or health care field).

 

John Kerry claims to have a plan. How can he double the size of the armed forces, as he claims he will, without a draft?

 

The way that they could get people to join the military for 2 years of service is if the government aids with college for those who serve. How do we double the reserves?

 

A better question: How do we pay for it? The last thing this country needs is more deficit spending.

 

I am generally opposed to a draft unless there is a national need to do so, such as WW2.

However, like Sith said, I dont see the harm in having anyone of a certain age (say 18) having to give 2 years for civil service or voluntary military service. I do think that some return is needed for all the great things this country gives us.

 

The last thing we need is for the government to decide that it has a legitimate claim to two years of our lives.

 

I beg to differ. There are myriad benefits enjoyed by the citizen throughout their lives (roads, education, food/water/air standards, military protection, etc.); there are many compelling arguments that civil service, in some form, is both a reasonable expectation of the citizenry as well as a manner of fostering a sense of community.

 

I beg to differ. There are myriad benefits enjoyed by the citizen throughout their lives (roads, education, food/water/air standards, military protection, etc.); there are many compelling arguments that civil service, in some form, is both a reasonable expectation of the citizenry as well as a manner of fostering a sense of community.

But how does the government provide those benefits? It can provide them because the citizen paid taxes to the government to fund them.

I could understand your argument for those who do not pay taxes, but that also gets into the concept of things such as debtors' prison.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Precisely. If you're going to try to claim my body for two years, then I don't owe you a penny. I should be tax-free for life.

Not that it will matter, since I will be leaving any country that lays claim to my person when I have not committed a crime. But really, I already pay for those things and certainly owe no more. (Not to mention the fact that I already find it abhorrent that the government offers many of those "benefits" to begin with.)

Edit: By the way, I have some use for the concept of mandatory civil service for those whoo don't pay taxes, either because they are trying to defraud the IRS or because they fall below the wage guidelines. That is, as long as we're doing income taxes as we do now, which I don't think we should.

-Paul

 

But how does the government provide those benefits? It can provide them because the citizen paid taxes to the government to fund them.

I could understand your argument for those who do not pay taxes, but that also gets into the concept of things such as debtors' prison.

Hey, hello, not the position I'm advocating.

First and foremost, your argument on taxation assumes that the citizen receiving those benefits are paying taxes. Unless I'm not up on child-labor laws, there are a lot of Americans under 18 who do not have to pay taxes. Yes, there are those that have part-time jobs, but you only pay taxes after hitting a certain level of income (meaning they get the money back). So, in essence, they don't pay for these benefits, and hence, could be asked to pay the country back for them; ergo, civil service (e.g., right after high school graduation).

Secondly, it could be a means by which individuals pay back student loans (we have some similar programs now, but nothing, to my knowledge, on a national scale) - say federal loan forgiveness for individuals who fulfill their civil service requirements in lower income communities (e.g., rural areas, inner city areas, etc.).

Bear in mind, folks, I haven't written a white paper on this - this thread is about spit-balling ideas. I'm not attempting to throw something iron-clad or anything approaching a complete policy proposal. I'm just indicating the only form of "draft" I would support.

Last, it's only a "debtors' prison" if you choose to characterize it, which maligns the spirit behind it before any genuine discussion begins. You're poisoning the well by categorizing it in those terms.

Edit: Precisely. If you're going to try to claim my body for two years, then I don't owe you a penny. I should be tax-free for life.

Nonsense. If you were born and raised in the United States, you've potentially had up to 18 years of tax-free living with all of the benefits of American citizenship. Asking for a year or two of giving back to your community isn't an unreasonable burden, unless you are advocating a very egoistic social philosophy, in which case, don't expect me to hold open the door for you. A year of civil service is by no means a "Get Out Of Taxes Free" card; the onus of proof is on you to prove how you should be able to get something for nothing.

 

First and foremost, your argument on taxation assumes that the citizen receiving those benefits are paying taxes. Unless I'm not up on child-labor laws, there are a lot of Americans under 18 who do not have to pay taxes. Yes, there are those that have part-time jobs, but you only pay taxes after hitting a certain level of income (meaning they get the money back). So, in essence, they don't pay for these benefits, and hence, could be asked to pay the country back for them; ergo, civil service (e.g., right after high school graduation).

Those who are under the age of 18 have legal guardians who represent their interests and pay taxes, and also receive benefits from having dependents. Additionally, they pay taxes in the future, which you could see as a return on the investment.

It is a bad idea. Period.

Secondly, it could be a means by which individuals pay back student loans (we have some similar programs now, but nothing, to my knowledge, on a national scale) - say federal loan forgiveness for individuals who fulfill their civil service requirements in lower income communities (e.g., rural areas, inner city areas, etc.).

I could support something like that, as long as it is voluntary. When my father joined the navy, the navy agreed to pay of the last of his student loans. That is a completely different ballgame from any sort of mandatory service to "repay" the government for its services. The government is there to serve the people, not the other way around.

What you advocate would be more along the lines of what Heinlein advocated in Starship Troopers, where a person had to serve in order to gain citizenship.

Nonsense. If you were born and raised in the United States, you've potentially had up to 18 years of tax-free living with all of the benefits of American citizenship. Asking for a year or two of giving back to your community isn't an unreasonable burden, unless you are advocating a very egoistic social philosophy, in which case, don't expect me to hold open the door for you. A year of civil service is by no means a "Get Out Of Taxes Free" card; the onus of proof is on you to prove how you should be able to get something for nothing.

As I said above, you aren't getting "something for nothing". Legal guardians provide for the needs of minors, and so also pay any taxes needed to support them. In other words, they might owe a debt, but it isn't to the government. They would owe it to their guardian(s), who have provided for them.

Kimball Kinnison

 

All minors' income is done by proxy through their parents. The income minors would be earning is earned by their parents, because the expenses minors would be paying is paid by their parents. And their parents are being taxed on that income (setting aside for a moment dependent exemptions, which I don't think really ought to exist). It's not as though minors are being given the services for free; their parents pay for them, just as they pay for their children's clothtes, food, medical expenses, and recreation.

Although I am, as I say, open to the idea of requiring public service of those who are financially independent (i.e. adults) who do not pay taxes because they fall beneath the minimum income guidelines.

Edit: Kimball beat me, and said it better. And regarding the idea of student loan forgiveness -- as an optional program, maybe. But as a mandatory thing, it would be really quite unfair. Between scholarship, parental contribution, and my contribution, it looks as though I may make it out of college loan-free. Even if I don't, my college does not utilize federal student loan programs -- it offers its own programs. So I'd be really screwed over under that system compared to students who had gotten a lot of loans from a federal program.

-Paul

 

Those who are under the age of 18 have legal guardians who represent their interests and pay taxes, and also receive benefits from having dependents. Additionally, they pay taxes in the future, which you could see as a return on the investment.

It is a bad idea. Period.

Your parents income is not your income. Period. While they receive benefits for having had you, you receive benefits simply by being alive, too. Your argument does not show how growing up American does not provide you with free benefits, which is the issue in my argument.

What you advocate would be more along the lines of what Heinlein advocated in Starship Troopers, where a person had to serve in order to gain citizenship.

Nope, false analogy. Notice that I am not requiring military service, which is the first disanalogy to Heinlein. Second, Heinlein has very different definitions of citizenship and social model, which is the second point of disanalogy. What I prefer is the model that is found in many European countries presently as well as in Israel.

As I said above, you aren't getting "something for nothing". Legal guardians provide for the needs of minors, and so also pay any taxes needed to support them. In other words, they might owe a debt, but it isn't to the government. They would owe it to their guardian(s), who have provided for them.

Nope. As you said, legal guardians receive tax benefits for having children, so part of their "cost" is given back. Second, you have yet to demonstrate how minors are not getting something for nothing - they still benefit in the exact same manner as adults, with the exception of taxation, which only applies if their income is significant enough. I agree that children owe an obligation to the guardians who care for them; you don't seem to recognize that guardian is also a national concept.

Edit: Spacing - cursed WordPad...

 

Parents are obligated to provide for their children's needs. These needs include food, shelter, and clothing. These all come out of a parent's income. Why should payment for governmental services be any different? (Hint: It's not.)

I agree that parents should not receive tax credits for having dependants, but those tax credits don't erase the percentage of income devoted to the child.

-Paul

 

Parents are obligated to provide for their children's needs. These needs include food, shelter, and clothing. These all come out of a parent's income. Why should payment for governmental services be any different?

Because the government does more than provide food, shelter, and clothing? Educational assistance, food and air quality standards, military protection, rural electrification, etc., etc.?

 

Which the parents pay for, as they do all the child's other needs. That was my point.

-Paul

 

And, by definition, the minor does not, which is my point.

 

So, as Kimball said, the only debt is owed to the parents, and not to the government. And, while it's becoming less and less the case, this debt to the parents has traditionally been paid by the child's taking care of them in their old age. So it does all balance out.

-Paul

 

Your parents income is not your income. Period. While they receive benefits for having had you, you receive benefits simply by being alive, too. Your argument does not show how growing up American does not provide you with free benefits, which is the issue in my argument.

That's a load of BS. No benefits provided by the government are free. They are all paid for by those who pay taxes.

What benefit is it to taxpayers to have a public education program, under your argument, then? After all, those who participate (K-12) pay virtually no taxes, if any. Should anyone who goes to a public school have to "work off" their "debt" to the government?

You completely ignored my point of the government existing to serve the people, not the people existing to serve the government.

Nope, false analogy. Notice that I am not requiring military service, which is the first disanalogy to Heinlein. Second, Heinlein has very different definitions of citizenship and social model, which is the second point of disanalogy. What I prefer is the model that is found in many European countries presently as well as in Israel.

Heinlein did not require just military service. Go back and read the book (not the hideous movie). Military service was the easiest way to gain citizenship, but not the only one.

Any mandatory service program would be unconstitutional unless done as punishment for a person convicted of a crime. From the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Unless the program is voluntary, limited to criminals, or limited to only military service (as Congress does have the authority to raise and support an army, which allows for a draft), it violates the Constitution.

Kimball Kinnison

 

That's a load of BS. No benefits provided by the government are free. They are all paid for by those who pay taxes.

Hardly, it just happens to be an argument with which you disagree. By definition, minors do not support the system - their parents do. However, the benefits of citizenship apply whether one is a day old or a hundred years old, equally. Ergo, there are some sections of the population who receive benefits without paying into it. Yes, I will freely concede that parents pay for their children, but please recognize the basic truth that children and their parents are *two physically separate beings who are equally covered by these benefits, for which only one pays.*

What benefit is it to taxpayers to have a public education program, under your argument, then? After all, those who participate (K-12) pay virtually no taxes, if any. Should anyone who goes to a public school have to "work off" their "debt" to the government?

Hey, hello, not my argument #2. I'm not advocating child labor here; I'm arguing that once one has received these benefits for nearly two decades, there ought to be a period of paying back for the benefits they have enjoyed.

You completely ignored my point of the government existing to serve the people, not the people existing to serve the government.

And you completely ignored my argument that the state can expect to receive some benefits from those who are served by it. Kennedy's speech and all that. So we're even.

Heinlein did not require just military service. Go back and read the book (not the hideous movie). Military service was the easiest way to gain citizenship, but not the only one.

Fine, I don't have the text in front of me, so I'll take you at your word. There are still points of disanalogy between what I've proposed and how you've characterized it.

Any mandatory service program would be unconstitutional unless done as punishment for a person convicted of a crime. From the 13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Unless the program is voluntary, limited to criminals, or limited to only military service (as Congress does have the authority to raise and support an army, which allows for a draft), it violates the Constitution.

Because, first of all, history has taught us nothing like "the Constitution is a living document and subject to amendment." Second, did I not mention that I was discussing an idea, and was not proposing new legislation or a fixed policy? Theory before application?