Revisiting an old question…

It’s been a while, so I’m gonna ask this question again now: 

Q: How would you feel about two years of paid mandatory community service (work intended to be of social use) for U.S. kids right out of high school?  Not necessarily military service but that would count toward community service too.  The work would be done in the U.S. for the benefit of the U.S.  Would it be a good or a bad thing?  Make your case, pro or con.


(by PrimalSoup)


_________________________

Here is how I described such service to milo, when addressing his concerns: 

Original Link.


Well, it IS true that any endeavor is only as strong as its weakest links. I'm sure there would be such people who would be damned before they would willingly give up their first two years out of high school. And they would do whatever they could to get out of it.

But right out of high school does seem to be the "right place" to put that kind of program in effect; before life and future family has really begun in earnest, and when future mindsets are still in such a formative state.

I'm thinking more in terms of a government program that sets the rules of engagement. It would not be run by drill sergeants or agenda-driven type people. The program's leaders would understand the goals of such a program. And the general goal would be (putting a poetic twist on it) "to walk a mile in another's shoes." Learn about life "on the other side" kind of thing. Take the focus off of "me" and put it on "we."

Very good incentives could be offered for those who agree to such service (just like in the military. They get many perks for volunteering to serve the greater country). And such community service records would look really good, stapled to a resume.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more