Have you ever heard an argument between two people about US politics where one throws down the "I served my country, what did you ever do for America" trump card?
It is an interesting thing for me. In part I get tired of that crap. I don't really feel like any one person's ideas are more valuable because they have given up some part of their life in serving the country.
On the other hand, I do feel a bit annoyed by people who enjoy the freedoms our nation provides but have never really given anything back to the nation. Some argue that they have voted or protested or recycled faithfully but to me it's just not the same.
This is why I propose a 2 year service requirement for those who want to vote or enjoy other "premium" citizenship benefits.
No... I'm not suggesting that everybody has to join the Army. I think everybody should be required to "serve" for two years. People can chose to go build homes for the homeless, provide medical care to the poor, teach in public schools, etc...
There would have to be some sort of Americorps organization keeping track of the service. It would have to be controlled by some kind of legislative oversight (to keep the rich kids from "serving" at country clubs).
I think this would do a whole lot of good. Nobody would be able to say that they are more or less worthy of citizenship, we could get a whole lot of stuff done for the disadvantaged population and people would be forced to leave their little social bubbles and meet their countrymen.
I like it...
Of course there are all those pesky constitutional issues about depriving people of liberty but then again, we could apply that part of the constitution only to those who have served...
I'm brilliant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Do you want us all to take an oath of allegiance, too? And if we refuse will we get deported?
No deportation, no oaths, just a service requirement if you want to vote. Then when the guy in the back of the class starts talking about how "freedom isn't free." Everybody will be able to say that they paid their part.
If you don't want to serve you can still live here and we'll apply our constitution to you but you don't get to vote for the people who will make laws, appoint judges, wage wars, etc...
I hope you're joking, because citizens serve our country every single day. What about police? What about prosecutors? What about other people who work for local, state, and federal governments? What about doctors and nurses who keep the public healthy? This "service" proposal (and removal or suffrage rights) is insulting to the millions of Americans who contribute to the well-being of the country through their ordinary jobs every day.
You say you hope I'm joking but then cite several examples of citizens doing exactly what I propose. I never suggested that people do not serve everyday and I hardly think the "millions" of whom you speak would be offended by the suggestion that some of their fellow citizens be required to make a contribution similar to the one they are currently making.
The only people I would deprive of voting rights are those people who have never done anything that wasn't in pursuit of their own interests.
I know several of these people. They can be found among both conservatives and liberals. They claim to have done things to benefit the community but they often mistake a "private interest group" for a "public interest group."
In my mind it is fairly simple. People should be required to contribute something to the pot before they have a say in how it is spent.
That way the kid who has spent time helping people fill out forms at the DMV, the kid who has marched with the Marines, the kid who has ridden shotgun in an ambulance, and the kid who has taught english as a second language can all have a say while the guy who does nothing more than sell vulgar t-shirts mocking those who disagree with his political ideas on the internet will have to sit on the sidelines until he's willing to give something of himself.
I get your point, but even the people who only serve their own interests pay taxes. It just seems totally against the purpose of the American Revolution to tax people but not give them a vote.
Oh taxation is just the first among many flaws with my plan. The biggest problem would be the fear that the voting public would begin to vote for laws that intentionally harm the non-voters and create yet another sub-class of Americans.
It's a silly "love it or leave it" answer to a complex problem. Of course it has flaws.
The only point (if blogs have a point) is that there is a problem in the US now. There are many among us who have almost no sense of civic duty and there are others who have an overdeveloped sense of ownership.
Both groups kind of bug me. I admit the "non-servers" bug me more but the "What have you done for America" debate is lame.
In past generations people seemed to understand that underneath all the partisan arguments there is a cause of common good that requires the cooperative effort of all.
In my opinion, that understanding is gone. We as a nation are willing to let the house burn down while we argue about who gets to call 911.
Such probems call for absurd solutions. Think of it as my version of the wall between the US and Mexico.
You're definitely right in your main point. I do want to say that I'm sorry if I seem like I've been jumping down your throat on this (it occured to me tonight that I may have come across as rather rude). That whole "oath of alliance" thing in Con Law got me really worked up, so I'm sorry if I'm taking it out on your blog! I really like reading your ideas!
P.S. Aren't you supposed to be on vacation now? :)
The whole oath thing is kind of a laugh to me. The concept is absurd. If we did force everyone who had the same ancestry as our "enemy" to take an oath, do you think they would hesitate, even for a moment, before they took that oath?
I understand the view of our classmate. Many who have served in the armed forces (especially the branch in which he served) develop an extreme loyalty to their fellow soldiers and the soldiers who went before them. Often the bonds they form are stronger than the ties associated with family.
When you talk about "the price of freedom" they view that price in terms of the blood of their brothers. When you have a "brother" who has died defending the country other sacrifices sometimes seem trivial.
I understand how a person who is starting from that spot can arrive at the point where our classmate ended up. I don't agree with him on many things but I can follow his thinking and understand the logic behind his conclusions.
Yes... I am on vacation. Right this moment I am just outside Honolulu, HI. I spent the day hiking to a waterfall, swimming at the beach, and I just got back from eating some incredible sushi.
I have been using my computer to check weather reports and surf conditions and the blog is just too easy to check.
Post a Comment