I certainly agree that military spending should be dramatically cut. I just don't think it'll ever happen. So with that in mind I would like to see our military personnel re-trained and better utilized. Rather than protecting corporate interests they should be used to help create/maintain infrastructure and provide basic human services - both here and abroad. That I-5 bridge in northern Washington never should have collapsed. Detroit never should have deteriorated. The levees in NO never should have failed. Our soldiers should have been put to work keeping our infrastructure in tip-top shape. And abroad we could be providing clean drinking water, housing, schools, electrical grids, etc to the poorest parts of the world rather than driving around in armored vehicles and heavy artillery. Essentially reduce the fighting force and increase the Corp of Engineers. Rather than training people to kill, train them to build, teach, provide health care, etc (and also to kill as an absolute last resort). Not only would this be a generally decent thing to do, but it would slowly help improve our image internationally. I also think compulsory service might be a good thing. Two years of service for your country would buy you a free college education and some other perks (extremely low mortgage rate for first home purchase, free health care, etc). But compulsory service should only come after the reorganization of the military, and there should be some level of control as to what sector you're going to serve in (ie, nobody would be forced into the armed forces - though perhaps everyone would receive basic training). I also think that compulsory service might help reduce the "us vs them" mentality in our own country. Being compulsory it would be made up of all strata of the population, putting the Harvard-bound student and the itinerant farmer next to each other, working together and learning to view things from another person's perspective, hopefully creating more compassion between groups of people that the current system has pitted against each other.
I like where you are going with a lot of that. However no amount of retraining and infrastructure building would have saved Detroit from corruption and bad government. Compulsory service is an interesting idea, a lot of other countries do it and it could work out well here, especially if the higher education and/or trade schools were tied into it more somehow.
Compulsory? That's slavery. The Army Corps of Engineers does maintain some infrastructure, including those levees in New Orleans.
I think he is implying more focus on the army corps of engineers. He explained they already existed. So what about the draft? Our country has done this before.
depends on how you look at it? Are the Dutch and Israelites slaves? I think it might help the republicans feel ok about "paying" for other peoples education and healthcare, at least they earned it right?
The 13th amendment abolished slavery. Compulsory service is "involuntary servitude" (compulsory being the opposite of voluntary). Any nation that cannot find enough volunteers to defend it among its citizenry does not deserve to survive. Yeah, I know the Supreme Court ruled the draft is constitutional.
Yes, that ultimately was the demise of Detroit. But an expanded CoE could be utilized to rebuild Detroit as a city of the future. And, if something similar to what I described had been implemented decades ago, perhaps the issues that caused Detroit to fail wouldn't have materialized or wouldn't have become as entrenched. But it was just an example (and maybe not a good one)...I don't wanna sidetrack this thread with Detroit issues.
So let me get this straight Mags. You are agreeing with a proposal that essentially amounts to a massive expansion of the Federal government with something akin to the CCC that FDR implemented during the depression? If you put all of these soldiers to work on infrastructure projects, defense spending isn't going to go down as much as you think. The ACE will have to hire lots of construction firms, buy up massive amounts of steel, concrete, heavy equipment, etc. and spend a lot of money on retraining. Hell, it might even be worth it, but let's not kid ourselves that this would somehow drastically cut the amount of money being spent by the DOD.
I would drastically cut our military spending, its a waste of money. There will never be another war between major nations so its stupid to compare ours to China/Russia/UK. All nations can destroy each other 10 fold who cares if one can destroy the other 50 fold? The only role our military will play in the future is world police which they struggle with. Having more guns and weapons won't improve those struggles. Most the world rejects our presence and we act without international support. If people stopped glorifying military service in the US with propaganda and honor and "serving" your country rhetoric we would have more reasonable policies. We should fund what is necessary for public safety just as individual states do with their Police force.
Brian brought up an interesting point about piracy. In the early days of the nation, the navy was considered really important as a means of protecting our trade ships from pirates. Without our presence, ships from many nations would be at greater risk of piracy. To a huge degree, it is in our self interest to protect our trade ships. It's also in our self interest to protect those japanese transport ships carrying those fuel efficient cars to dealers here.
is it still considered slavery if everyone has to do it, and they receive good pay and benefits? Many nations do this and still deserve to exist. Two years service is not a lot to ask, especially if you have some say in what type of job you will be doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "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." The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." Onerous long term alimony and spousal support orders, premised on a proprietary interest retained by former marital partners in one another's persons, have also been allowed in many states, though they may in practice embody features of involuntary servitude.[1]
I oppose truancy laws for this very reason. There is no Liberty to it. Thanks for making the case for me!
I like barfo's point better, but choosing my job so me and my children can live a healthy life is about as much choice as compulsary military enlistment.
