Global Warming? are humans to blame?

So Stonebreaker,

You're saying that even the trivial pay we give our servicemen and women is not worth the cost of the service they provide?

 

OK, you lost me there...

 

I'm so sorry Stonebreaker! It's such a difficult concept, I know. So let me try again.

Safewalrus made the suggestion above that it might be a good idea if members of a society earned the right to vote in their society by making an actual contribution to it first. He suggested military service as a way to do this. There could be many other ways as well, obviously. YOU seem to be saying that this is a bad idea because it is too expensive. I was merely asking you to affirm or deny the idea as applied to servicemen and women . . . which is where we started with this bit of off-topic-ness.

So it boils down to a very simple question: DO YOU THINK THAT THE TAX MONEY YOU PAY TO OUR SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN IS NOT WORTH THE MONEY SPENT FOR THE SERVICE RENDERED? This is what it certainly seems to me that you are saying, but I could be wrong. Please clarify, if you would.

BillyDoc

 

I'll clarify for him. That's a loaded question.

How many people are in, say, the Navy? Let's say 10,000 just to keep the numbers simple. The value of the service, naturally, should be more than the cost of the service. This is true in any job. McDonald's employees make what they make because they make more money for their employer than they are paid. Associate lawyers, intern doctors, cops, etc., all must be worth more than they are paid, otherwise the job wouldn't exist.

Anyway, the value, per "employee" in a 10,000-man Navy is MUCH greater than the value per "conscriptee" in a 250,000 man Navy.

There is certainly something to be said for the efficiency of smaller numbers.



But on the other hand, some services will never seem to be worth their investment. We could have had class 5 levees around New Orleans years ago. And, had we done so, but for Katrina, it would NOT have been worth the investment. It's insurance, really. And insurance is NEVER worth the investment....

Uhhh... That is.... until something really bad happens.


Similarly, the Navy is a complete and utter waste of money. (until something bad happens). Putting a dollar figure on "something bad happening" is right nigh close to impossible until the situation presents itself.

 

Conscription?

OK Toot, you and I seem to agree that the value received from our servicemen and women is greater than the cost. But who said anything about conscription? I know I volunteered, and I thought that everyone in our current service did as well.

And exactly how is my question "loaded?" Stonebreaker has been pretty plain in saying that the cost of sponsoring public service is too much for him. He would rather keep those taxes in his pocket, I suppose. Isn't my question simple enough for a direct answer? Or is it a case of "well, except for this" or "except for that" and other misdirection?

BillyDoc

 

Right, got that part.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. No, you're idea is unworkable. You cannot deny anyone in America the right to vote, if they so choose to earn that right. The Department of Defense would thus be forced to accept any citizen who wished to earn their right to vote. That's impossible to accomplish for several reasons:

1) Financial. Even assuming only half of the graduating seniors each year chose to enter the military in order to earn the right to vote, that's still 2,000,000 enlistees a year the military would have to deal with - and they couldn't reject ANY of them, for ANY reason. The DOD only recruited about 240,000 enlisted people last year, and that includes the reserves. That means you'd be increasing the size of the military in this country by 7 or 8 times. We'd need to put wheelchair ramps on all the tanks, too. Remind me again how much it costs to train one soldier?

2) Political. It stands to reason that the half of the population that would choose to not earn their voting rights would be moderates - those people who do not feel strongly one way or the other. Hard rights and hard lefts, on the other hand, would ALL do their service. The country is too radicalized as it is - it would only get worse.

3) Social. You would effectively be creating a class system. If only veterans could vote, it stands to reason then that only veterans could hold public office. You now have a class of citizens with full rights and another class with only partial rights. You'd have to put a tachometer on Martin Luther King's grave.

4) And I haven't even gone into what the rest of the world would think about us enlarging our military by 7 or 8 times...

 

stonebreaker- BillyDoc isn't saying that military service would be the only way. I think that, like me, he is thinking more along the lines of "public service" rather than military service. At least, I think that's what he's thinking.

For example, when I was in High School, I was required to do some community Service. I volunteered one day a week at a shelter for battered women (I always thought they'd be tastier deep-fried, than simply battered, but that's another debate for another time...). So, conceivably, this volunteer work would be applied to my "service requirement" of, say, 2000 hours. I could simply do that for 5 years and fulfill my 1 years service requirement. Or do a stint in the Peace Corps, or military or whatever. Heck, it wouldn't even have to cut into your life too much. Think about this- it's only four summers. You could do it during high school and be eligible to vote before your eighteenth birthday. Or during college. Or whatever.

I also spent some time at a raptor rehabilitation clinic. Presumeably their internship program (minimally paid) would also count toward the service requirement.

Things along those lines would all count, at least how I envision it. But I agree with you that the administration costs and various "constitutional issues" would be insurmountable here in the real world.

 

Well, that's what I assumed at first, too - but when I pointed out that the admin costs alone would be in the billions, never mind the politics, that's when he jumped down my throat about military service. So I just analyzed it as if military service were the only way to earn the right to vote. It all amounts to the same thing in the end, anyway - Jim Crow all over again.

 

Exactly right Toot, if Stonebreaker will read my post carefully he will also find the statement:

But since the "military service" example is a very common one, and indeed the one originally posed, why not simply answer the question:

A simple "yes" or "no" will do, Stonebreaker, why not give it a try?

BillyDoc

 

Let me put it this way: My son is 17. He will be enlisting in the Air Force when he graduates next year. He's my only son. Don't question my, or my family's, patriotism again.

 

I put "conscription" in quotes. If there were a mandatory service requirement that could be completed through the Navy, then it would be borderline conscription. Not exactly the same as conscription, mind you, but it would be similar. That's why I put it in quotes.

It's really not a simple question. It's like insurance. Is insurance worth the cost? No. It never is worth the cost. Unless you need it.

As I alluded to before, sometimes value isn't the proper measure of worth.

 

Stonebreaker isn't saying that the cost of sponsoring public service is too much for him. He's saying that the cost of keeping tabs on 4,000,000 "NEW ENLISTEES" each year is too much. And I tend to agree with him, although, like anything, it's mostly a matter of how such a program would be conceived and whatnot. If you interfaced it with existing programs, it might be easier than starting from scratch, for example, requiring "public service" to be performed for verified 501(c)(3) charities, rather than inventing a new classification and maybe running the requirement through high schools (who would be given added funding), rather than creating a whole new branch of government.

But you think people cheat a lot on their taxes? I would imagine that the "public service" requirement could be much much worse....

 

Patriotism? Who said anything about Patriotism?

The question concerned the value of public service, not patriotism. Calling upon patriotism is merely another misdirection. Why won't you answer this simple question?

DO YOU THINK THAT THE TAX MONEY YOU PAY TO OUR SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN IS NOT WORTH THE MONEY SPENT FOR THE SERVICE RENDERED?

 

Well hell, if you're so hung up on it, then I'll answer.

The money paid to our service(wo)men is well spent. However, the money spent on new technology, the ability to project power, the money paid to civilian contractors, and the money paid to the bureaucracy may, indeed, be outrageous... depending on your political point of view.

I have never heard anyone say that servicemen are overpaid. Some people would say, however, that our military is grossly overpowered and meddles too much in the affairs of other countries. But, sadly, that's a political issue more than a social one.

 

I appreciate your input, Toot, and I agree with everything you said. Our servicemen are regularly called upon to put their very lives in harms way, for damn little in return! Our current administration, has even cut back on what little there was . . . but that is off the subject.

Stonebreaker seems to think that paying for such service is too expensive, and by using the "servicemen and women" example I think perhaps he has realized that he may have been dead wrong. He apparently doesn't want to admit it, though. In my mind our servicemen and women are a bargain beyond compare, and no doubt about it.

And I think that most of us who have been over that ground would also say that the bargain goes both ways. I wasn't paid enough to matter when in the service, in dollars, but was extremely well paid in experience, camaraderie, a feeling of accomplishment, and even that irrational concept: patriotism. I had a similar experience in the Peace Corps; where a superficial person might think I was “giving,” in actual fact I received far more . . . just not in dollars.

And those of you who paid taxes to support my Navy and Peace Corps experiences got a good deal too. First, I devoted years of my life to making our homeland safe from those who would do us harm, and second by acting as your ambassador to the world. I served as your representative in Africa for almost three years. I like to think that there are quite a few people there with fond memories of my stay, which reflects well upon you too. You really got a bargain on that one. And so did I!

I think that there is in most of us a tendency to want to help others, to be a member of a society. We find it very difficult to just walk by someone in need because helping would be “inconvenient.” And because we help, we gain ourselves. You can ask almost any question on this Board, and someone, usually someone quite knowledgeable, will try to answer it. This is why I think that making public service positions available in one way or another (and I would love it if they didn't have to be military) is an extremely good investment in our society. It is cheap by any measure, when you consider the benefits accrued against the costs. And one reward that would promote such a system is the privilege of voting. After all, do you think that society as a whole benefits by allowing some of it's decision makers to only take, but not contribute? Perhaps I am unduly optimistic, but I think that by far the greater number of our members are “givers” rather than “takers.” Making public service positions available is a way that we as a society give to those individuals, and will thus facilitate their ability to give right back. A good deal all around.

BillyDoc