Should we raise the military enlistment age ????

If you don't have mature enough judgment to drink responsibility, then you don't have the judgment to make a decision to die for your country (or whatever).

I personally believe that giving 18-year-olds the vote was a mistake. (BTW, does anyone know why 21 is considered such a magic age, instead of, say, 20 or 22? I don't.)

If you have the judgement to drink responsibly, you probably have the judgement not to enlist....

I can't speak for everyone, but I wasn't even close to responsible or mature at 18. I think a lot of kids get swept up by the patriotism and the money they're promised. It can be very enticing.

There are no rights without responsibilities. How about compulsory National Service at age 18 or graduation from Secondary School, whichever occurs later, upon satisfactory completion of which one would be entitled to vote - or drink, or excersize any of the other prerogatives of putative adulthood. The National Service need not be military; it should include just about any public service endeavor, from among which the eligible might choose as suited each individual's preferences and abilities. Exemptions would be available only for legitimate medical indications, though deferments would be granted to those who wished to complete post-secondary education, their obligation to be discharged upon graduation or other separation from an accreditted institution of higher learning.

Carry that a bit further, and require that all eligible voters at least return a ballot, even if blank, even if electronically as opposed to physically attending a polling place. Violation to be subject to significant financial penalty, at the minimum.

Citizenship means little if it costs little.

Well it might be based on some very old thought or theory about the fertility age of a mother and replacing kids lots in battle.

I know that's way out there but think about it, in the years gone past wars were about numbers of bodies applied to a battle

I could go along with that, timber, but I would prefer to leave out the word compulsory. Somewhere between the ages of 18 and 24, our young people could decide whether they want the rights of citizenship, or not.

So far as making decisions at the age of 18, they will be making decisions, regardless of what they decide upon. Going to college would be such a decision, as would be chosing a major. I could argue that decision would be better made after a tour with the military or National service as proposed.

lots = lost

I've no objection to the service notion, so long as we make it retroactive. Perhaps add a grace period to allow folks some time to get that service under their belts.

Retroactive, or maybe just grandfather everyone above a certain age. I'm content to take a long range view.

Too easy to dump this responsibility on the latest generation. Let's make it cover everyone.

Noble idea, DD, but I think unworkable; no responsibility could attach to being beyond eligibility age when the law takes effect. Even if The Electorate went for the notion, I don't see how The Supremes could, if the question even managed to get that far. Now, nothing should prevent those "grandfathered" from volunteering - waiving their exemption. While social pressure might not drive hordes into the program, a special benefit, such as a hefty carry-forward tax incentive, would stir some to take up their rightful duty and discharge the moral obligation of citizenship despite having no legal obligation to do so.

I could go along with roger's idea of letting folks who wish to forgo the perqs the option to choose to do do so - don't wanna pay, don't get to play.


I'd still hold out for the compulsory response to elections, at least on the national level; don't hafta vote per se; an empty ballot is fine, but return a ballot or pay the price.

In terms of political and moral principle, I think an arrangement such as the Swiss have is a fine thing. I think mandatory service for everyone for a year with productive NGOs or government-arranged programs towards alleviation of suffering either outside or inside the nation would also be a fine thing.

The problem in discussing such a notion for America is that you guys are just too fukking militaristic and war-happy.

Perhaps the first focus of the new National Service Forces should be the conquering of Our Northern Annoyance

Bring 'em on.

Sorry. That might be copyrighted. Edited to go with...(please choose one)

Nyah nyah. You smell like one too. Yeah, you and whose army? I fukked your mother.

Since men between 18 and 25 are in their physical prime there's no way they would ever raise the enlistment age. You'd loose a big chunk of your best fighters. Men in that age are better fighters and are more easily brain washed to be killers. I also believe that men who are 18 are able to make this decision on their own so no, they shouldn't raise it.

I think that it would be a good concept, except for the "compulsory". IMO, that is tantamount to slavery. It took the country a long time to get rid of the draft, and good riddance to it. As a volunteer service, I think that it would afford young people the opportunity to learn the social and job skills that would stand them in good stead later in life. The Peace Corps is an attempt to give people an opportunity to provide some service to their country. But FORCE people to do it??? No way!

I am totally agianst compelling people to return their ballots. A component of a free society is the ability to vote for whomever you please, or not vote, if that is your preference.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm

No-one would be forced to do a thing - user's chice. Choices, however, have consequences, and this is about responsibility,and with responsibility come rights. The inherent rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remain unimpinged; you want more than that, earn it.