HmmFollow

Right, but the government does that because the incentives that the military can offer people will be deemed more worthwhile by the poor, obviously.

The military offers this transaction to the poor, and some take it for their own benefit.

I just think it's important to stress that they aren't coerced; that the military's recruitment of the poor is a transaction done for mutual benefit. With that in mind, I think the idea of "being fair to everyone" by forcing the hand of the rich is a little bit misguided.

Yup. I do wonder what would be a more effective way of encouraging voluntary military participation from the upper class. The "An army of one" campaign isn't exactly swaying me.

Nor is the prospect of fighting giant lava monsters with a sword.

Err...well that was the Marines. But yeah.

C-130 rolling down the strip, here we go on a one-way trip.

I'm not sure that "poor" is the marketing target of all of the services. More like, College level kids without the money to go to college (are those people poor?) or kids who have no idea WTF they're going to do in life.

One of my buddies had no idea what the hell, now he is a systems administrator and networking engineer for the Air Force. Sounds like a good bag to me when he gets out in four years (eight all told).

I'm also sure that most people of that just-graduated high-school age could do with the discipline and service aspects. Also: learning a trade for free while getting paid = awesome. Best deal in town, unless you've got some other awesome hookups.

But what about college, and how does that fit in? Take the four years of school, and be an officer or NCO [depending on skills and education] when you come out? Or because of college defer it entirely? That sounds more like a "help the lower class" program that I'm not sure would be helpful.

Assuming we count a college education as a class dividing line.



I found this. ROTC here we come...

The only thing I like about the act is requireing women to sign up for selective service. Hooray for equality.

Edited, Tue Jun 6 13:10:35 2006 by AngryUndead

It is not a bad idea overall, though I would lower it to only fresh out of high school age. However, this is not the right time to implement it because: A) unemployment is too low this will decrease the overall workforce available to business and the economy permanently and B) the budget deficit is currently too high and this will cost a lot of money to maintain.

The whole issue still comes back to what I said earlier. I'm frankly ok with government service (I also think it should include both civil and military though). But it needs to be applied universally, and not just when we're in a war.

The problem is that during war, the argument is that since the poor serve in the military at a higher rate then other economic groups, they bear the brunt of casualties. That's considered unfair and groups pop up out of the woodwork arguing that we should have mandatory service so that all socioeconomic groups bear that burden equally.

But during peacetime, those same groups don't want that mandatory service. Because if everyone was required to do it, then it would not represent a benefit to the poor as it does now. All the current benefits granted for those who serve exist because its a voluntary process. They are incentives. If everyone has to serve, most of those incentives will disappear, and a major path to economic advancement for the poor will disappear.


Which is why I call it a doublestandard. You can't call voluntary service unfair to the poor only during wartime. It's either fair all the time, or unfair all the time. Pick one. If you don't support mandatory service during peacetime, then arguing for it during wartime is purely about politics and not about any kind of broader social/civic responsibilty.

I'm selfish

BUT, I think I a fairly intelligent person. The problem with all of this is that I would have to agree with the war.

SO then you say "who am I to judge"? The government knows better.. ect.. ect.. eccttt

World War 2. Obviously this was a no-brainer. Certainly, it was total horror.. but it is waht needed to be done.
Vietnam. Iraq. As hesitant I always have been to compare these, these are wars that I do not agree with.

It is quite a conundrum to me really.. Blindly follow the faith of patriotism or try to maintain some personal moral standard...

I know that they already have this in several European countries... Which is fine... They are not America. They do not start sh[Aliceblue][/Aliceblue]it like we do. They are not run by people who I have grown to severely distrust.