Remix.run Logo
chromacity 18 hours ago

> Generally speaking I am a fan of the idea that everyone should be required to do some kind of community service for 2 years once they turn 18.

Why? I get the warm-and-fuzzy angle of "instilling civic responsibility", but you're effectively instilling that at gunpoint: the government forces you to do this, else you go to prison. Is that really such an enlightened thing to do?

It takes away two years of your life, possibly delaying your education, entry into the workforce, or having children. So again, what's the rigorous justification for this? The government already calls dibs on a good chunk of your economic output, on a percentage of every penny you spend, and on certain types of property you own; so why should they also be able to draft you for some free labor if there's no war or other emergency going on?

tshaddox 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It also implies that most normal work isn't in the interest of society, which if that were true, would be a major problem on its own. In what sense is 2 years of military service or "community service" strictly better for society than going to school, or working as a waiter, or starting a small business?

antisthenes 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Roughly speaking, 2 years of community service should be worth some % of local & federal taxes.

In a developed society, I'm not sure what kind of labor an 18-year old can perform (what I mean is that it would be mostly unskilled labor), that would be better than taxing this same individual later in life, without delaying their education by 2 years.

I suppose there would have to be exemptions for college students as there typically are in such schemes in other countries?

quantified 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Shouldn't be. Just have a more-level playing field, make everyone (college-track or not) participate.

You seem to assume that tax dollars are equivalent to labor. A pile of quarters never did anything sitting there, it takes a human to do something for the most part. Money is a tool sitting there, not actual work.

antisthenes 15 hours ago | parent [-]

> A pile of quarters never did anything sitting there

Luckily, we don't have a pile of quarters sitting there doing anything, because the US operates at a deficit. So dollars are being borrowed then spent on projects.

quantified 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Borrowing money somehow does useful work without being spent?

mlsu 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, yes? I think when we say, we should force 18 year olds to do something useful for society instead of working doordash or taking college classes that they don't care about, that is kind of saying something about the usefulness of those things.

If the market figured it out we wouldn't be having these discussions in the first place.

mothballed 18 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not a market failure. If you pay enough money you can attract either citizens or even destitute African people to volunteer to get blown up for the glory of Trump and the oil companies.

joquarky 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The only reason to force two years of service is to reinforce conformity and suppress outward signs of neurodivergence.

r0m4n0 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not sure what I believe is right but one thing I can think of is there could be a bias for a certain type of people to join branches of the military and therefore our capabilities are held back by that bias. The same goes for companies that work with the military/defense which I think the parent article lays out as well.

If you allow everyone to pick and choose what they want to do, we may actually end up (or already have ended up) with all of the talented people and cutting edge businesses chasing money here and only second tier folks working with and for the government.

I think a great example of this is with NASA. They are doing a big hiring blitz (someone posted about it recently here). They have a ton of openings but I have to imagine that the talented folks that work in the field are chasing the money that is paid by private companies right now. I personally believe NASA is an important thing that needs to exist and we need to figure out a way to make it happen. Maybe we need to just pay folks more to make them incentivized to work in government? Maybe even more so if you working for the armed forces because you lose a lot of people based upon the sheer fact that your life is more at risk.

It would definitely be worth some research. I don't think free market concepts align well with working in the armed forces and there could be some arguments that we need to tip the scales to make it work better. For some things like the usual government services that aren't vital for our existence, I think we can all accept the longer wait at the DMV or the two decades to get a Real ID implemented. I don't think we can accept not defending our own country from an adversarial invasion so we need to make that importance reflected somewhere.

_doctor_love 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> there could be a bias for a certain type of people to join branches of the military and therefore our capabilities are held back by that bias.

Not only is there a bias, there is one on purpose (not saying that's a good thing). For example, the Marines are known to prefer recruiting from lower-income and lower-education backgrounds. They want scrappy, tough people.

Conversely, the Air Force is the "geek" branch of the military.

There are lots of other examples. If you go on YouTube you can see funny videos of the branches poking friendly fun at each other; e.g., Marines eating crayons.

> Maybe we need to just pay folks more to make them incentivized to work in government?

In the US I think this may be the only way. Private industry pays so much it's hard to compete.

pibaker 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Why? I get the warm-and-fuzzy angle of "instilling civic responsibility"

I have found that when older people ask young people to do this kind of "mandatory service" they never specify what exactly are they going to do while being on the government's leash.

It's always this warm fuzzy hand wavy "civic responsibility" or "build communities" thing, that they always seem to think is something someone else should do when they are fully capable of doing it themselves.

_doctor_love 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> why should they also be able to draft you for some free labor if there's no war or other emergency going on?

You can only prepare for a fire before it starts.

whatshisface 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In the conventional view, the earliest preparations for war involve building a strong industrial base, reducing corruption, and securing alliances through cooperative foreign policy. The near-term preparations for war include diverting a fraction of total resources away from compounding growth and towards non-compounding defense manufacturing. A draft is something you do after the war starts.

The strategic idea is to remain in a pose of compounding growth as long as possible by avoiding war and war preparations until they're known to be absolutely necessary. Peacetime investments like scientific research build on themselves, while military spending sits in a depot until it's obsolete and then costs even more to safely dispose. The same goes for replacing the first two years of professional school with standing around in a big shed.

_doctor_love 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The same goes for replacing the first two years of professional school with standing around in a big shed.

This may be true in an American context (though I don't actually know) in the sense that the US military is highly specialized and matrixed. In smaller militaries soldiers tend to be more generalist, while still having specializations.

e.g., they say in the British forces, if you ask an artillery soldier what they do, it's a little bit of everything. In the US military, a soldier might say "I pull the rope!" Not a good use of talent.

anigbrowl 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There are other bases besides war for national service, eg disaster prep, taking care of the poor and so on. In any case, being somewhat prepared for war at the human level and understanding what that entails is more productive that not being prepared and having to educate people in an unwelcome emergency.

The same goes for replacing the first two years of professional school with standing around in a big shed.

Exaggerated tropes like this don't make for useful discussion.

whatshisface 16 hours ago | parent [-]

One of the paradoxes of military service is that the real experiences of servicemembers sound exaggerated, while what sounds like reality is expressed through Hollywood tropes.

CobrastanJorji 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, but you also don't keep 1.3 million firefighters idling in case of a really big fire.

throwaway270925 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Of course you do, thats how fire brigades work!? Though you are somewhat right, its closer to only 1.1 million firefighters across the US.

https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-re...

1234letshaveatw 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't we? That is pretty close to the number of firefighters in the US, and they rarely fight fires

CobrastanJorji 17 hours ago | parent [-]

From some quick googling, I think the average firefighter fights about two fires per month, which is pretty good! And the average specialized wildlands kind of firefighter fights fires much more often.

But firefighters don't just fight fires, they mostly do medical emergencies, which keep them very busy. And that's the problem with standing armies: we generally don't want soldiers doing a bunch of other kinds of work besides wars because they're around.

bigfatkitten 15 hours ago | parent [-]

> And the average specialized wildlands kind of firefighter fights fires much more often.

For the most part, only during fire season.

red-iron-pine 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> but you're effectively instilling that at gunpoint: the government forces you to do this, else you go to prison. Is that really such an enlightened thing to do?

if you want rights, you need to do more than just exist.

gunpoint is optional; West Germany used to force people to go either into the Army, or else do a longer stint of service in hospitals, firefighting, old folks homes, rescue services, youth organizations, or other civil roles.

quantified 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you believe that in American civil society there are only privileges and not responsibilities?

Government already got the tax dollars to pay for the service at gunpoint. And makes you get a passport to travel internationally or a driver's license to get yourself around at gunpoint.

_doctor_love 15 hours ago | parent [-]

> Do you believe that in American civil society there are only privileges and not responsibilities?

Funny enough, the only true responsibility I'm aware of is jury duty. And that's only for citizens and everybody tries to get out of it.

quantified 12 hours ago | parent [-]

All of this is only for citizens. Many try to get out of it, but "everybody" is flat wrong. It sounds like you are aware of, and accept, responsibilities. Nothing wrong with adding to them.

hkt 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> free labor

I'm not sure anywhere expects people to do their national service for free - which is to say that such a programme would also likely be very expensive.

anigbrowl 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you're effectively instilling that at gunpoint: the government forces you to do this

I'm so sick of libertarian tropes. Starting every argument with oerwrought emotionalism has made me increasingly indifferent to your 'plight' over the years, because it's just victimization politics. Perhaps if we rebalanced public/private obligations overall tax burdens owuld be lower and society would be more pleasant to live in.

SJC_Hacker 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not a libertarian but I think they have a point here - conscription is tantamount to slave labor. The fact that it was accepted by societies for hundreds of years doesn't make it any less so.

Teever 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What if it didn't delay your education? In some countries an undergrad degree is only three years. I'd take a person with 1 year of civil service + 3 years of a degree over someone with 4 years of a degree any day.

Somebody who is confident enough to handle a rifle and throw a hand grenade is way more useful to me than someone who was forced to another literature or geology course.

Have someone demonstrate a command of the English language by following written instructions that require coordinating activities with a small group of people.

Instead of learning how to read a topographical map for first year geology lab final actually put the map in their hand with a compass and have them do an orienteering exercise as a group.

sunrunner 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Somebody who is confident enough to handle a rifle and throw a hand grenade is way more useful to me

For when daily standups go south or just the monthly All-Hands?

JuniperMesos 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What if it didn't delay your education? In some countries an undergrad degree is only three years. I'd take a person with 1 year of civil service + 3 years of a degree over someone with 4 years of a degree any day.

In a world where 1 year of civil service was normal for most people, I'm skeptical that this is the choice the labor market would consistently make. Remember, if pretty much everyone in society is doing the same national service, then that means the military had to find jobs for everyone to do, including people with mediocre general competence or who are in fact bad at following written instructions in English. "I completed my mandatory national service, just like pretty much everyone else" is not that strong of a signal.

In the Soviet Union, smart math and science students often competed hard for academic and technical positions that would let them fulfill their military obligation by doing some kind of math or science for the Soviet state, instead of being a conscript foot-soldier for a few years like was normal for Soviet males (boot camp sucks for everyone, but it really sucks for most smart nerds). If the US had a system like this, there would definitely be industries where it was normal for everyone working in them to have avoided the worst of actual combat training somehow or another - or for actually having done normal soldiering to be a culturally-unusual thing to do. Just like how in our actual society it's unusual for someone who works at a silicon valley tech company to have actually volunteered to serve in the US military earlier in life.

mold_aid 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd prefer someone who is confident enough to take another geology or literature course over the gun-handler. I'd make sure that person is in a supervisory position over welfare-state products of our armed forces, certainly.

Teever 16 hours ago | parent [-]

If you were presented with three options for hiring, each with identical professional experience, but the first has a four year degree, while the second has a three year degree, and the third has a three year degree plus + year of national service in a country with an effective military which one would you pick and why?

joquarky 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Who's going to pay for that?

Teever 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Taxpayers in non-failed states like Finland that are able to provide astoundingly high quality of life for their citizens while also providing a strong military that is based around mandatory national service.

Finland has been rated the happiest country in the world what, eight or nine years in a row now and was able to secure they borders against a overwhelmingly more capable neighbour with no participation in a mutual aid defensive alliance like NATO until very recently.

In so many ways Finland is the model we should all be looking at emulating in Western countries.

ux266478 16 hours ago | parent [-]

While the majority of Finns speak highly of their conscription system, there's also an understanding that it's propped up by Finland's unique history and place in the world. I think people are seriously naive as to how much shit the Finnish people have suffered over the last millenia, and how that has contextualized their modern existence.

> Finland has been rated the happiest country in the world

"Tilastollinen onnellisuus" is a concept relentlessly mocked by Finns. Finns are very proud of their country, but many are also very quick to call it a shithole, to engage in valittaminen, and for good reason. Their love for it is practically an expression of sisu. The contradiction of it being an absolute dreg of a swamp populated by insufferable FINNS, yet they would all agree to throw their life away to defend it anyways, is not a situation that was conjured out of thin air with some clever social policies and progressive tax reform.

unethical_ban 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Devil's advocate.

First, "national service" does not necessarily mean relocation like a military deployment does. Second, there is no requirement that national service be free.

This has me thinking about a way to encourage some level of public service in exchange for better access to government programs, like an extra 10% in retirement benefits or something.

Reminds me of Starship Troopers: "Service Guarantees Citizenship!" Yes, I know it's a play on fascism.

_doctor_love 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> Starship Troopers

So, disclaimer: I'm very aware that Verhoeven created Starship Troopers satirizing fascism and holding up a mirror to American society.

That said, I am somewhat a fan of the idea that citizenship is something that should be earned. For example, birthright citizenship - I think it's a good thing and should be kept around. That said, as far as I know no natural-born American is required to raise their right hand and swear that they will take up arms to defend the United States in case of war. A naturalized citizen is required to do this. That creates a real bifurcation in the society in my opinion.

gordonhart 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the government forces you to do this, else you go to prison

You'll never guess what happens if you choose not to pay taxes.

joquarky 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They use tax money to house and feed you?

dctoedt 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> They use tax money to house and feed you?

Indeed — just not in the style to which you'd like to become accustomed ....

mothballed 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And this justifies it why?

sieabahlpark 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]