FWIW....I dont have a problem with the draft. I see the obligation to defend the country as a more compelling argument than simply trying to find a solution to young people wasting their youth.
No argument there. It's hard enough to clearly define what constitutes wasted time. Universal service for the sake of providing an internship seems like a constructive education. States already mandate that high school students take a US history course, as well as other graduation pre-requisites.
Historically, in considering mandated service, we've only used a military draft, which, from the most democratic standpoint, imposes a responsibility upon half the population, based on gender. Actually, it's far less than half that get imposed on, because people with moderate to mild disabilities, people with connections, and the larger percentage, who avoided the draft simply by living through the draft-age-window during peacetime, are free to exult in their youth.
So, in a quarter century, a rather smallish percentage are put upon, not just to provide a community service, but one that greatly increases the risk of severe physical and emotional damage, and death. Sure, there are times when the country needs protecting, but isn't there a more balanced way? Out of respect for those who endure those risks, is it too much to say "hey, we're not just gonna flagwave at Veteran's Day every year and deliver flowers to your graves on Memorial Day. We're gonna do a little of the hard lifting to enhance this society." ?
I'm also speaking from the perspective of researching the multi-faceted things accomplished by the CCC in the Depression, which included art, theatre, trailmaking and building (lookouts, ranger cabins, restrooms, etc) throughout our National Forests) and dozens of other disparate projects. Voluntary work for pay it was, yes, but the participants typically have related it as a positive experience and of all the New Deal programs that tried to get folks working, historians tend to agree that the CCC was the most - if not only- successful one.
I like the idea, not because it keeps kids off the street or productive, but because it provides hands-on education, job skills, it's paid - perhaps not handsomely, but neither is public education - and mostly because it's more egalitarian.
As to mandating something for the wasted years that early retirees have to offer, perhaps you overlook the societal benefit of good grandmothers and grandfathers? A lot of the early retirees I've known retire due to disability or diminished endurance, or to actual vacationing after being productive for many years, earning some consideration simply because they've 'been good' (not lazy or destructive) and were talented enough to make enough money that they could make a reasonable effort to invest or save some, then disciplined themselves to actually save some.
Yet again, I'm not suggesting society is saying to the young that 'you have to prove yourself' (though, for the most part, we all must, regularly) nor 'we've got something better for you to do.' More like 'hey, we've got something important to be done and we'd like everyone to pitch in'.
Finally, as I noted previously, the incentives of pay, broad choices that can align with career aspirations, job references, and training/education (1.e., the GI Bill) would make it long on carrot, with a sharply curtailed stick. There'd be no jail for the non-compliant. But that engineering firm down the street might give extra hiring preference to those that serve.
A societal preference can be an effective mandate that a large majority heeds, without the heavy handed threat of incarceration. If the only absolute is that one registers and attends a thorough orientation that fully reviews the choices and benefits, and does this with the knowledge that many believe it to be an important part of citizenship, I see no grave harm arising to thwart freedom.
Because each can ultimately conclude society does not know best and pick up where they left off. |
