Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (130879)	2/15/2010 7:42:25 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542233

Sabato cites studies which show that the elite and privileged largely avoid service while the lower and middle classes mostly compose it. We don't need studies to tell us that. The only question is whether or not that's a problem or a benefit or neutral. Are we not just not buying off our values by doing this? Which values might those be? Furthermore, aside from the proposed civics class for college students you have not indicated how and what programs will produce the responsible citizens we both desire. Other than extolling the wonders of shared sacrifice, neither have you. (For the record, I was not advocating that college program, merely trying to show that there are alternatives. At one point in this discussion you agreed that mandatory military service was only "one of the best" approaches but in further discussion you seem to forget that and returned to the be-all-and-end-all. I was just reminding you.) And the fairness argument can be made apart apart from the costs argument. I am loathe to get into a fairness argument. But let me mention briefly the major problem with arguing fairness: there is no standard for what is fair. Different people have very different ideas of what is or isn't fair as a matter of principle and also in application. Many of them think that their sense of fairness is the standard but it isn't. Here's an example that I think informs the assessment of the scenario we're discussing. Is it unfair that everyone doesn't get to play quarterback? Of course not. You can't have a team unless someone plays center and someone else plays free safety. Different players are suited to different positions. It makes no sense for someone with the attributes of a tackle to play quarterback. Or one with the attributes of a quarterback to play tackle. It makes no sense. As for the elite avoiding service, my values were offended by the wealthy and connected avoiding service back when there was a draft. In that paradigm, avoiding service was disreputable. I wouldn't have any argument with that being called "unfair." But I can't find unfairness in a volunteer military paradigm. It is free and it is efficient and it is effective. What more could you ask? But I think the argument is more than just about dollars---its basically about how we choose our values as represented by the money we spend. The value at stake is your notion that everyone should sacrifice equally for the collective, specifically via military service. (Please correct me if I have misrepresented that. Earlier there seemed to be agreement that the value that we need all support the foundations of the country, which are the basis for our freedoms and opportunities and strengths, and that required military service was a means to that end. You seem to have backed off from that.) Assuming for the sake of argument that that's a desirable value, then how much do you think we should be willing to pay to install it? The answer would be based on how critical you consider installing the value to be, how much it would cost, what other downsides there might be including opportunity costs, and the projected probability of success. It seems to me that it's a no brainer--no way it's even remotely cost effective--but that could be because I don't place much value on it and can't easily put myself in the place of someone who places a high value on it. Perhaps you could tell me, then, how much it would be worth to you. Would you trade it even for, say, federally provided health care? How about social security? Or something a bit cheaper such as environmental protection or energy? Or maybe you could suggest a dollar figure. What do you think it's worth? "We can't afford not to" is not an answer. unless we can our political act together and establish the will to live within our means we're basically going to go belly up Yep. Which is a large part of why I'm challenging you on cost. You may "have to spend money to make money," as they say, but you you have to weigh the cost/benefit and the probabilities of success before you throw money at something. All this data points to an era of belt tightening and sacrifice on the part of the citizens as some of the governments programs will have to become less generous. No argument from me. So why not take the direct approach instead of some round-about, long-term, potential values changer? Why spend a couple of generations of continued expenditures, not to mention a boatload of money for the program, breeding a different attitude, which may be too little, too late? Why not address it directly. Why not initiate a program now to first stop adding to the problem, then start cutting? Challenge the country to suck it up? Of course, there would be a pushback. But would that be worse that investing in a program and waiting for a couple of generations for cultural enlightenment that may or may not come?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (130879)	2/15/2010 8:06:34 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542233

your pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness comes at the expense of those who are dying for it === That is a sentiment that is often expressed but I don't see the basis of it. I was born in 1962 so during my lifetime we've had a number of wars during which various numbers of U.S. military died ... I don't see how anyone can argue that those people died for my life, liberty and happiness in any way, shape or form. The strongest argument would be with respect to Afghanistan, but the people there represented a very minor threat to me and in any case my idea was to bomb the living **** out of them and come home, not to occupy the nation for a decade. We could engage in endless argument over what those wars were really about, but I feel absolutely certain they were not about my life, liberty and happiness.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (130879)	2/15/2010 1:13:04 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542233

<<<you disagree with the principle of fairness >>> For some people fairness is a concept they can't get a firm grasp on and are readily willing to toss it under the bus. The concept of fairness is very much like the concept of beauty. You will know it when you see it but more than that, imo : "Fairness is truth, truth fairness,"--that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (130879)	2/24/2010 6:09:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542233

Lane you're pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness comes at the expense of those who are dying for it. And why shouldn't every eligible to vote young adult be equally exposed to that risk? Because forcing such a thing on people is detrimental to life, liberty, and (and the pursuit of) happiness. A draft involves involuntary servitude, you can't get much more detrimental to liberty than that, other than making the forced service permanent (so it become full blown slavery). Also in the context of the way our military works today and the type of wars we have been in, its detrimental to the military mission. Yes "boots on the ground" are important, but we go with well trained and well equipped "boots", to try to reduce our casualties and those of civilians in the theater of war. Mass armies means you can't afford to train or equip them as well. It also means your taking more people who really don't want to be there, or even to be in any way associated with the military. Some of those people will perform great anyway, but I think the percentage is less. And its detrimental to our federal budget situation. Paying so many would be too expensive, or if you pay them peanuts because you can force them to accept the low pay, than you increase the harm to their "life, liberty, and happiness", and still have a situation where its too expensive to adequately support them. And its detrimental to the economy, as you lose the production, or education in preparation for future production that you would have gotten from all those you force to "share the burden". Now you have stated that you disagree with the principle of fairness in requiring service Fairness in requiring service generally means not requiring service. Its unfair to force people to serve, and unfair in another way since practically you can't force everyone to serve. we could at least reinstitute a lottery system that would give us a more representative military. That might solve the budget problem. It could help with but doesn't fully solve the lost work and education problems; probably doesn't solve the reduced military effectiveness problem (you still have more people who don't want to be in the military, and besides just desire, those who self select for the military are more likely to have the attitudes and abilities the military needs than a random selection); and doesn't touch the infringement on liberty issue. It also greatly reduces any possible fairness argument. Accepting volunteers is more fair, than forcing some but not forcing others. I also don't really think the draft (esp. one with deferments, or even just a very low percentage lottery) would do well at creating a sense of shared sacrifice being beneficial. Or even that such a sense is generally what we need.