are coercive. That does not by in itself make it authoritarian. Mandatory national service is also coercive. However that does not by in itself make it authoritarian. Some things that are coercive are authoritarian, not all (you seem to agree on that). You still have not said why this specific form of coercion is authoritarian.


Also I have to be getting off the computer in a few. If you post again quickly I'll try to respond, if not I'll be more than happy to get to it tomorrow.

OK but if thats the case then education is not (certainly was not when enacted)necessary, nor are social services, I'm not trying to get into a logic exercise with you, but you're positions are still not consistent. You obviously have very libertarian views toward certain things (sexuality, reproductive rights), but less so toward others (economic issues, education). Mandatory national service however cannot be compared to reproductive rights any more than economic issues.

It just wasn't the main point of the debate. It may very well be good idea in its own right (and maybe more achievable), but since I still believe in universal service it has no relevance to my argument. Again what is the IT I am trying to force on people? A couple of years of the the civil service of their choosing. Is that really so oppressive? Why?


My point is not to start a discussion of what legal status corporations should have, I'll leave that to another thread. I am saying that you since you believe in some forms of government coercion, you cannot simply discard an idea because it is a form of government coercion. As you say YOU want to pay your taxes, but what about the person that doesn't


BTW, I try to restrain from using hyperbole, calling me an authoritarian does nothing to bolster your case.

but not what you have done thus far in your posts. Your argument has been as far as I can surmise-Mandatory national service is wrong because it is a form of coercion, and all coercion is wrong (with the possible exception of taxation for the types of services you yourself happen to support).

No I don't think we don't NEED this plan, I think however, it could possibly be helpful to our society. We didn't NEED (or at least many thought we didn't) mandatory education, many people used the same arguments you are using saying the children already have farm or factory work lined up for them, and the government had no right to mandate children to get a certain level of schooling. Again if only a very few support it then it will never become law, and you won have to worry about it, but you've given no evidence of that being the case.

As far as taxation, many CEO's would agree with you (if for different reasons).

No my point is not just to force children of the wealthy to do it, I apologize if thats how its come across, I think it would be quite beneficial to everyone regardless of class.


I don't doubt that there are good reasons to oppose this (or anything else for that matter). However saying that we simply do not have the right to impress values on other people is not one of them. Every law, including many that you probably support impress values of the whole society on to those that would otherwise not conform to them- from taxes to support social services to laws against murder or other types of violence. You have to say why SPECIFICALLY it would be harmful to impose a very broad opportunity for a fairly short amount of service is so harmful.

That the idea of universal education is popular was never in dispute. Obviously (as I believe another poster already brought up) such a large idea as mandatory national service would need popular support to be enacted into law. What was gained by making education mandatory? MUch actually. There were many people who wanted their children working rather than attending school, that was the whole point of making it mandatory.

Whether they should or shouldn't be breeding is not the point, do they have the right to breed? If they don't you obviously have a huge contradiction with your libertarian views.If they do, than either they do or don't have the right to keep their children out of school, you can't just equivocate because you don't like the question.

The point is not where the tax money goes, its does a government have the right to levy a tax on someone that does not believe they should have to pay it? If they do (as I believe, and apparently you do also), it is without a doubt a form of coercion- "forcing" somebody to do something(pay a portion of their income to the government) they don't want to do. So if you believe coercion is right is some instances, you can't just say mandatory national service is wrong because it is a form of coercion.

Do you believe people have the right to "choose" if they should pay their taxes? Or comply with government regulation on their business? Or not educate their children? If you accept government coercion in some situations, then you can't just simply say EVERY form of government coercion YOU don't like is unjustifiable. If you are some sort of ultra libertarian who does not accept these things, well then that's another conversation....

Their contributing a small part of their life to a society they have a stake in and benefit from. If you're going to use the extreme libertarian slippery slope, why should people be "forced" to pay taxes they don't want to? Why should corporations be "forced" to conform to government regulation? Why should children be "forced" to go to school? etc.

nation in the world where they have democratic rights as a citizen, to spend a couple years of their life giving back either in their community or abroad in the way of their choice, makes me an authoritarian, I guess I'm an authoritarian

AB)To be frank; too bad if they or their family has a successful business than they owe this country for the bounty they have received from it, I'm sure they can find a way to take a couple of years to serve their nation. Yes we could give people subsides for rent and higher cost of living.

C)Again to be frank too bad, people have so much in our society it wouldn't kill young people to provide SOME type of service to their society. Between the military, peace corps, and Americorps there are many diverse opportunities,people should be able to find some service to the world that they find agreeable enough to do for a few years. Why would you be ordered around in Americorps more than any other job? In school are you not ordered around? As far as extenuating circumstances I would imagine some medical problem of either theirs or a family member, besides that I don't know, what do you have in mind?

and disturb you with a thread on what I think is an interesting policy idea, rather than thread 6 billion on why Bush is a douche bag, but since you were nice enough to humor me...


A & B)Obviously their service would be their job, if they have children they can elect to do Americorps which would not present any issue to their being able to take care of them. I would imagine a pay scale similar to that of enlisted soldiers.

C)It would depend on the reason,of course it someone faced extenuating circumstances it could be deferred, but why and who would refuse at the very least a few years of Americorps for anything but selfish reasons?

Alright, just thought I would throw this out there, and sketch out a very basic plan. All Americans at the age of 18 will have do do either two years in the military, 3 in the Peace Corps, or 6 in Americorps (which could be part time as it is not quite as involving as the other 2 options). In return free college education and lifetime health care for all those who finish their service. Personally I would also like to throw in a couple of other benefits for those who choose military service- as it is the most demanding, but I'll leave that off the table for now. Thoughts?