|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 25 2018 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:27 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On August 25 2018 01:44 On_Slaught wrote:On August 25 2018 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:We seem to be quickly approaching the end game here. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/24/longtime-trump-organization-cfo-weisselberg-granted-immunity-in-cohen-probe-dj-citing-sources.htmlLongtime Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg granted immunity in Cohen probeAllen Weisselberg, longtime chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, has been granted immunity by federal prosecutors as part of their investigation into President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, NBC News reported on Friday.
Weisselberg was subpoenaed by prosecutors earlier this year to testify before a grand jury as part of that probe.
News of Weisselberg's immunity deal follows a Thursday report that David Pecker, the chairman of publishing giant American Media, had also received federal immunity as part of the Cohen investigation. It will escalate pressure on the president, who was implicated in a number of crimes that Cohen pleaded guilty to on Tuesday in New York federal court.
Cohen admitted that he had facilitated unlawful payments to two women at Trump's direction in order to keep unfavorable information about the president, who at the time was still a candidate, from becoming public. Pecker shared information about the payments with prosecutors in exchange for immunity, including details about the president's knowledge of the payments.
Cohen seems to have been the forge that smelts the silver bullets. After Cohen's surrender, we are seeing people drop like flies. And it's not like before. Prior to Cohen, we would be able to see Mueller closing in on people, they resist, Mueller keeps pushing, eventually the person folds. After Cohen, we are seeing the grand prize folding without even a hint of resistance. It is interesting how the plan seems to be going after the Trump organization since there is a bit of uncertainty around the idea of indicting a president. If you just start out by ignoring the president, then go after the things he is extremely involved in, you can likely end up incidentally GG'ing the president. My expectation is that Weisselberg has information as damning as it gets. It is also very telling to see how Trump and his allies are taking the position of "nothing wrong" instead of "nothing illegal". I think their plan is to take the position that what they did was illegal, but not wrong. Their argument will be that it isn't a bad thing that Trump and his allies broke the law. These recent immunities are big news. If there was any financial wrong doing then these are the people who would know and have evidence. Looks like Mueller is going hard on the campaign finance violation angle. There may even be more financial crimes we dont know about (his charity maybe?). Seeming more and more likely that Mueller's report will state that he believes Trump obstructed justice and violated campaign laws as well as lied to the American public (a lot probably). As for the Russia collusion part we will have to wait and see what he has. As for how Republicans in Congress will respond to his report depends entirely on how the midterm goes, right or not. I think the big reason Guiliani is defending Manafort so strongly is that they know Trump is going to need all the same types of defending. They are trying to get people to accept the idea that white collar crime isn't a big deal and that it shouldn't be punished by defending Manafort. The big thing for me is the idea that it is looking like Mueller's report is going to be so conclusive that people (such as the crazy juror) will have no choice but to face the fact that Trump conclusively did a ton of illegal shit. I believe it will create a similar effect as what we saw with Clinton, but with a different group. The somewhat reasonable, mildly centrist republicans are going to feel really weird supporting someone with a long list of provable crimes to their name. It is going to generally depress enthusiasm and support for Trump because he will have such obvious blemishes. The dedicated will still vote for him, but I see this having a generally damping effect on his support. He will lose a lot of reluctant voters the way Clinton did. I'm not seeing the Clinton comparison you're trying to make. It feels like two very different sets of reasons. Can you elaborate/clarify your point? I think a lot of people wanted to like Clinton, but ultimately saw too much shady, elitist, establishment undertones. They definitely preferred her over Trump, but not enough to get out and vote for her. Similarly, a different group of people are lifelong conservatives and would clearly prefer to have a Jeb right now, but see Trump as the anti-Clinton. They voted for him because they felt like they had to and a lot of the legal stuff against Trump was pretty undeveloped. There have been more than a few people on this board who are still not COMPLETELY convinced Trump and his gang did a bunch of illegal shit. Many people are unwilling to negatively judge someone for shadiness, especially when it is someone on "your own team" until an actual figure of authority declares they have done illegal stuff. When Mueller finally comes out and lays out everything illegal about Trump's dealings/campaign, it will become a lot more difficult to deny the obvious.
hmm, ok, that's a very different read than what I've seen about how people act/feel in regards to Clinton. at any rate, thanks for clarifying your claim.
|
Of course, the "easy" answer would be to provide cheap livable social housing so it would be easier for people to move to where the jobs are.
|
I am definitely against any sort of compulsory military or civil service.
People should be allowed to choose what to do with their lives. If society wants people to serve in the military or provide civil services, it should pay so that people are incentivized to do it. Not force people to do it against their will.
|
On August 25 2018 02:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:38 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 25 2018 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:06 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 25 2018 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 00:46 Grumbels wrote:On August 25 2018 00:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 00:03 IyMoon wrote:
I dislike the college fund idea. It basically just becomes mandatory for everyone but the rich.
Just make it a straight mandatory like other countries. 2 years in the military or 2 years civil service at 18. No way out except for medical exemption
Have you considered that some people have a different path and that it would be hugely detrimental to them to have to give two years of their youth to your civil service? I am a professional classical musician. My late teens, early twenty were the most crucial years of my life, the ones you learn the fastest and acquire the skill to compete on an extraordinarily competitive, globalised market. I was practicing hours and hours a day, every single day. Had I been sent to do whatever where I couldn’t spend those precious years to study, I wouldn’t have succeeded the way I did. This objection honestly seems rather fanciful to me, since people go through mandatory schooling and still emerge from high school as accomplished musicians. Most people start with their instruments when they are very young. Your 19th year is typically not the most important year of one’s musical career. And you can still practice for two hours a day in civil service anyway. In any case, I don’t think a career as professional musician is important enough that you should be able to skip on some sort of civil service. Society has jobs that need to be done, though they might be unpleasant. Most jobs are like that. Part of the reason behind the civil service idea is to get everyone to spend at least 1-2 years doing them, regardless of educational background. I am absolutely not saying that you are not deserving of what you got and that I think I know better than you what I’m talking about. 19-20 are the single most crucial years for a young musician. Two hours is nothing. You need to study full time and practice 5 hours a day at least, with as little distractions as possible. Also may I ask you how you dare saying that a career as a professional musician is not important? This is beyond insulting. It’s my whole fucking life. As for the jobs that need to be done, I pay my 40% taxes, thank you very much. You do realize that you ask for society not to have a mandatory year of civil service because musicians and pro gamers would be hindered in their chances for an international career. There are certainly other careers as well that would have that problem, but overall it's a fringe problem. And in SK or Israel pretending to have a mental issue so you can play a classical instrument is pretty entitled. A lot of people dodge the draft for mostly selfish reasons, but "i want to become a professional classical music player" is certainly the most entitled i have heard so far. Well, I simply don’t think that such things should be compulsory unless it’s absolutely necessary. And it’s not. Now if you think you should fuck up every young person who has a plan and no time to lose so that other kids can find themselves, that’s fine, but I disagree. Also I don’t think you realize what level of comitment and what sacrifices we all make to become musicians. It’s my life since I’m 12. I was home schooled from age 15. If you think that it’s about luxury and entitlement good for you. I am a member of a major european orchestra, and I probably worked harder than most of the ones pretendendon it’s all superfluous and whatnot. I personally don’t think i have lessons to receive. I realize most people never had one thing they spent their whole life dedicated to. You won’t understand why it’s obvious that you want to dodge a civil service until you have been there. It’s the one thong that matters most for us since childhood. I’m all for civil service. On a voluntary basis. If people need to do stuff because they have not found themselves, good for them. But don’t fuck up a chance of a kid to win the olympic, or have an international career as a concert artist, or whatever needs complete dedication, for absolutely no reason. Look, i don't question your commitment and the hard labor you had to put in to reach the point you are at right now. I also don't question at all the value your job is giving back to society. I like listening to classical music and i can appreciate how hard it is having utterly failed at playing the trumpet as a child. It's just, in germany we have mandatory school until the age of 15 (i think) and no musician or athlete gets to skip that either. To say that because you have dedicated your life to something, you have earned the right to not do something society has agreed upon is mandatory is entitlement. I did not enjoy claening butts! I was 100% dedicated to enjoy my life but i had to disrupt that 5 days a week to do a job that was unpleasant and boring. It was still good for society that i did it, i provided cheap labor and took pressure from my coworkers. I was actually useful. I would argue that even if all musicians were worse as a consequence, civil service were a net benefit to society. And you should really not be throwing pro gamers under the bus here, you are both artists, you both need the exact same skills and you both live from people caring about your work being art. And when it is about being thankful for a profession, musicians are really not on the top of my list. If anything you should be thankful for other professions to enable you to live your passion. Good for you, personally I am thankful to myself for working my ass off, and the 4000 or so people who listen to me every week are thankful to me to move them, and make their life richer and more interesting. I don’t see why I have anyone to thank. I provide a service at an extremely hard level for a relatively mediocre pay, and if other people haven’t followed their dreams, it’s not really my business. As for pro gamers, they are athlete and not artists, if anything and I would rather have a society without pro league than a society without concerts. But that’s personal. We have to go to school because it’s essential for being a whole human being. You comparison is irrelevant. A good society is a society which allows each individual to access his full potential, to exploit his talent, to work as hard as he can to be the best version of himself, and to pursuit hapiness with as little obstacles as possible. I don’t see how your civil service helps with any if that, and I would argue, it would be on the way for many, many people. Oh please, how entitled must you be to celebrate that you managed to avoid 2 years service just so you can celebrate succeed whilst those who couldn't dodge it cannot? Do you think nobody else would had rather they spent those 2 years to gain valuable skills either? Do you really think that somehow your life is just that bit more valuable just becuase you are a successful musician and your worth as a human being is more valuable just because you was able to gain 2 years of practice over other musicans that couldn't? I just can't over how entitled, how the the special snowflake mentality, I am enriching people's life, therefore I should avoid service, it is. In that respect, then I would say yes, wiping butts for 2 years is certainly enriching life more, and certainly the life of those in the hospital and care home.
does the UK have mandatory civil service i’m unaware of? or are you similarly entitled? or is it actually just the celebration of your shared entitlements that warrants you criticizing him? because that seems ridiculous.
|
On August 25 2018 02:42 gobbledydook wrote:
I am definitely against any sort of compulsory military or civil service.
People should be allowed to choose what to do with their lives. If society wants people to serve in the military or provide civil services, it should pay so that people are incentivized to do it. Not force people to do it against their will.
So then why do we require high school education? What makes high school the logical ending point for you?
|
On August 25 2018 02:42 gobbledydook wrote:
I am definitely against any sort of compulsory military or civil service.
People should be allowed to choose what to do with their lives. If society wants people to serve in the military or provide civil services, it should pay so that people are incentivized to do it. Not force people to do it against their will.
No one is talking about unpaid labor. Military service isn't unpaid. People are discussing paid civil service being the end of public education.
|
On August 25 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:42 gobbledydook wrote:
I am definitely against any sort of compulsory military or civil service.
People should be allowed to choose what to do with their lives. If society wants people to serve in the military or provide civil services, it should pay so that people are incentivized to do it. Not force people to do it against their will. So then why do we require high school education? What makes high school the logical ending point for you?
Because we consider minors to not have the judgment to decide not to go to school, and we also want to protect minors from parents/guardians who don't want to let them go to school.
Adults on the other hand, should be able to live their lives as they desire. Hence, no compulsory service.c
|
On August 25 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:42 gobbledydook wrote:
I am definitely against any sort of compulsory military or civil service.
People should be allowed to choose what to do with their lives. If society wants people to serve in the military or provide civil services, it should pay so that people are incentivized to do it. Not force people to do it against their will. No one is talking about unpaid labor. Military service isn't unpaid. People are discussing paid civil service being the end of public education.
For most countries with conscription or mandatory civil service, this service has such a low compensation that it may as well be unpaid. It is very difficult to afford to pay fair wages to everyone in mandatory civil service.
|
On August 25 2018 02:47 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On August 25 2018 02:42 gobbledydook wrote:
I am definitely against any sort of compulsory military or civil service.
People should be allowed to choose what to do with their lives. If society wants people to serve in the military or provide civil services, it should pay so that people are incentivized to do it. Not force people to do it against their will. So then why do we require high school education? What makes high school the logical ending point for you? Because we consider minors to not have the judgment to decide not to go to school, and we also want to protect minors from parents/guardians who don't want to let them go to school. Adults on the other hand, should be able to live their lives as they desire. Hence, no compulsory service.c
I agree with the underlying logic but disagree that 18 is the point at which someone's development can be considered "complete" wherein the person can be assumed capable of handling and planning their own lives.
I think the vast majority of people who are 18 are extremely inadequate from a "capable of life planning" perspective. 18 is just kinda what we have now. But I think the data available to us shows that it isn't a good number.
|
I don't understand what the advantage of civil service being mandatory is. Sure, its a great idea to have the mechanism there for people who want it, but it would be absolutely detrimental to the overall skillset of the nation. Just as with learning a classical instrument, there are countless skills that can only be perfected with total dedication from a young age. Chess, sports, art, music, architecture, medical training, etc.etc.
Allowing people to choose their own life path is really important, but providing the mechanism to enhance that path is what we should be about.
|
On August 25 2018 02:49 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 02:42 gobbledydook wrote:
I am definitely against any sort of compulsory military or civil service.
People should be allowed to choose what to do with their lives. If society wants people to serve in the military or provide civil services, it should pay so that people are incentivized to do it. Not force people to do it against their will. No one is talking about unpaid labor. Military service isn't unpaid. People are discussing paid civil service being the end of public education. For most countries with conscription or mandatory civil service, this service has such a low compensation that it may as well be unpaid. It is very difficult to afford to pay fair wages to everyone in mandatory civil service.
I’ve never seen those stats and don’t really see that as a problem. Israel and South Korea both have stable, functioning economies, governments and citizens.
On August 25 2018 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't understand what the advantage of civil service being mandatory is. Sure, its a great idea to have the mechanism there for people who want it, but it would be absolutely detrimental to the overall skillset of the nation. Just as with learning a classical instrument, there are countless skills that can only be perfected with total dedication from a young age. Chess, sports, art, music, architecture, medical training, etc.etc.
Allowing people to choose their own life path is really important, but providing the mechanism to enhance that path is what we should be about.
I've seen zero evidence presented that a year or two of civil service would negatively impact the nation's education level as a whole. There are modern nations that have these requirements, like South Korea and Israel. People's path through life is not a linear progression.
|
On August 25 2018 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't understand what the advantage of civil service being mandatory is. Sure, its a great idea to have the mechanism there for people who want it, but it would be absolutely detrimental to the overall skillset of the nation. Just as with learning a classical instrument, there are countless skills that can only be perfected with total dedication from a young age. Chess, sports, art, music, architecture, medical training, etc.etc.
Allowing people to choose their own life path is really important, but providing the mechanism to enhance that path is what we should be about.
I think you are underestimating just how many Americans are unacceptably unskilled. Tons of people have almost no prospects and just kinda float around life doing shitty jobs until they die.
|
On August 25 2018 02:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:30 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:59 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:38 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 25 2018 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:06 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 25 2018 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 00:46 Grumbels wrote:
[quote] This objection honestly seems rather fanciful to me, since people go through mandatory schooling and still emerge from high school as accomplished musicians. Most people start with their instruments when they are very young. Your 19th year is typically not the most important year of one’s musical career. And you can still practice for two hours a day in civil service anyway.
In any case, I don’t think a career as professional musician is important enough that you should be able to skip on some sort of civil service. Society has jobs that need to be done, though they might be unpleasant. Most jobs are like that. Part of the reason behind the civil service idea is to get everyone to spend at least 1-2 years doing them, regardless of educational background. I am absolutely not saying that you are not deserving of what you got and that I think I know better than you what I’m talking about. 19-20 are the single most crucial years for a young musician. Two hours is nothing. You need to study full time and practice 5 hours a day at least, with as little distractions as possible. Also may I ask you how you dare saying that a career as a professional musician is not important? This is beyond insulting. It’s my whole fucking life. As for the jobs that need to be done, I pay my 40% taxes, thank you very much. You do realize that you ask for society not to have a mandatory year of civil service because musicians and pro gamers would be hindered in their chances for an international career. There are certainly other careers as well that would have that problem, but overall it's a fringe problem. And in SK or Israel pretending to have a mental issue so you can play a classical instrument is pretty entitled. A lot of people dodge the draft for mostly selfish reasons, but "i want to become a professional classical music player" is certainly the most entitled i have heard so far. Well, I simply don’t think that such things should be compulsory unless it’s absolutely necessary. And it’s not. Now if you think you should fuck up every young person who has a plan and no time to lose so that other kids can find themselves, that’s fine, but I disagree. Also I don’t think you realize what level of comitment and what sacrifices we all make to become musicians. It’s my life since I’m 12. I was home schooled from age 15. If you think that it’s about luxury and entitlement good for you. I am a member of a major european orchestra, and I probably worked harder than most of the ones pretendendon it’s all superfluous and whatnot. I personally don’t think i have lessons to receive. I realize most people never had one thing they spent their whole life dedicated to. You won’t understand why it’s obvious that you want to dodge a civil service until you have been there. It’s the one thong that matters most for us since childhood. I’m all for civil service. On a voluntary basis. If people need to do stuff because they have not found themselves, good for them. But don’t fuck up a chance of a kid to win the olympic, or have an international career as a concert artist, or whatever needs complete dedication, for absolutely no reason. Look, i don't question your commitment and the hard labor you had to put in to reach the point you are at right now. I also don't question at all the value your job is giving back to society. I like listening to classical music and i can appreciate how hard it is having utterly failed at playing the trumpet as a child. It's just, in germany we have mandatory school until the age of 15 (i think) and no musician or athlete gets to skip that either. To say that because you have dedicated your life to something, you have earned the right to not do something society has agreed upon is mandatory is entitlement. I did not enjoy claening butts! I was 100% dedicated to enjoy my life but i had to disrupt that 5 days a week to do a job that was unpleasant and boring. It was still good for society that i did it, i provided cheap labor and took pressure from my coworkers. I was actually useful. I would argue that even if all musicians were worse as a consequence, civil service were a net benefit to society. And you should really not be throwing pro gamers under the bus here, you are both artists, you both need the exact same skills and you both live from people caring about your work being art. And when it is about being thankful for a profession, musicians are really not on the top of my list. If anything you should be thankful for other professions to enable you to live your passion. Good for you, personally I am thankful to myself for working my ass off, and the 4000 or so people who listen to me every week are thankful to me to move them, and make their life richer and more interesting. I don’t see why I have anyone to thank. I provide a service at an extremely hard level for a relatively mediocre pay, and if other people haven’t followed their dreams, it’s not really my business. As for pro gamers, they are athlete and not artists, if anything and I would rather have a society without pro league than a society without concerts. But that’s personal. We have to go to school because it’s essential for being a whole human being. You comparison is irrelevant. A good society is a society which allows each individual to access his full potential, to exploit his talent, to work as hard as he can to be the best version of himself, and to pursuit hapiness with as little obstacles as possible. I don’t see how your civil service helps with any if that, and I would argue, it would be on the way for many, many people. Mandatory civil service requires the haves and the have-nots to serve together doing the same work. It may interrupt some professions that exist at the global level, but the benefits could out weight the flaws. But this is pipe dream that would never get traction in the US. I don’t really get the goal of it. What’s exactly the benefit of it? If the idea is that the economy would gain from it, I personally don’t see how it’s that different from forced labour. I am thinking of the benefits to the people involved and the undercutting of capitalistic theory that everyone needs to be building towards increased production their entire lives. Plus the level of the playing field for rich working with the poor for the good of the general public. Don't forget that while many here are proud of it, the fact that a significant portion of Americans will never live more than 50 miles away from where they were born is a huge component of our nation's seemingly terminal sense of discord. Folks eager to chalk up the US' coming out of the Great Depression to WWII too easily forget how much cohesion began via implementation of New Deal federal jobs programs, many of which requires folks to move far away from home.
the US is a big place and arguably more homogeneous than the EU. what are the US's stats on distance from place of birth/childhood vs the EU?
i suppose the EU is also arguably more "discordant"
|
The normative idea that people *should* be free to do whatever they please is obviously something far short of a maxim given the positive reality of the fact that there are a host of things forced on people because they need money to live, eat, fuck, and even die. This high fallutin take on a freedom that is necessarily circumscribed by the capitalist circumstance in which it dwells does no one but ideologues any good.
On August 25 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:36 farvacola wrote:On August 25 2018 02:30 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:59 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:38 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 25 2018 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:06 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 25 2018 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I am absolutely not saying that you are not deserving of what you got and that
I think I know better than you what I’m talking about. 19-20 are the single most crucial years for a young musician. Two hours is nothing. You need to study full time and practice 5 hours a day at least, with as little distractions as possible.
Also may I ask you how you dare saying that a career as a professional musician is not important? This is beyond insulting. It’s my whole fucking life. As for the jobs that need to be done, I pay my 40% taxes, thank you very much. You do realize that you ask for society not to have a mandatory year of civil service because musicians and pro gamers would be hindered in their chances for an international career. There are certainly other careers as well that would have that problem, but overall it's a fringe problem. And in SK or Israel pretending to have a mental issue so you can play a classical instrument is pretty entitled. A lot of people dodge the draft for mostly selfish reasons, but "i want to become a professional classical music player" is certainly the most entitled i have heard so far. Well, I simply don’t think that such things should be compulsory unless it’s absolutely necessary. And it’s not. Now if you think you should fuck up every young person who has a plan and no time to lose so that other kids can find themselves, that’s fine, but I disagree. Also I don’t think you realize what level of comitment and what sacrifices we all make to become musicians. It’s my life since I’m 12. I was home schooled from age 15. If you think that it’s about luxury and entitlement good for you. I am a member of a major european orchestra, and I probably worked harder than most of the ones pretendendon it’s all superfluous and whatnot. I personally don’t think i have lessons to receive. I realize most people never had one thing they spent their whole life dedicated to. You won’t understand why it’s obvious that you want to dodge a civil service until you have been there. It’s the one thong that matters most for us since childhood. I’m all for civil service. On a voluntary basis. If people need to do stuff because they have not found themselves, good for them. But don’t fuck up a chance of a kid to win the olympic, or have an international career as a concert artist, or whatever needs complete dedication, for absolutely no reason. Look, i don't question your commitment and the hard labor you had to put in to reach the point you are at right now. I also don't question at all the value your job is giving back to society. I like listening to classical music and i can appreciate how hard it is having utterly failed at playing the trumpet as a child. It's just, in germany we have mandatory school until the age of 15 (i think) and no musician or athlete gets to skip that either. To say that because you have dedicated your life to something, you have earned the right to not do something society has agreed upon is mandatory is entitlement. I did not enjoy claening butts! I was 100% dedicated to enjoy my life but i had to disrupt that 5 days a week to do a job that was unpleasant and boring. It was still good for society that i did it, i provided cheap labor and took pressure from my coworkers. I was actually useful. I would argue that even if all musicians were worse as a consequence, civil service were a net benefit to society. And you should really not be throwing pro gamers under the bus here, you are both artists, you both need the exact same skills and you both live from people caring about your work being art. And when it is about being thankful for a profession, musicians are really not on the top of my list. If anything you should be thankful for other professions to enable you to live your passion. Good for you, personally I am thankful to myself for working my ass off, and the 4000 or so people who listen to me every week are thankful to me to move them, and make their life richer and more interesting. I don’t see why I have anyone to thank. I provide a service at an extremely hard level for a relatively mediocre pay, and if other people haven’t followed their dreams, it’s not really my business. As for pro gamers, they are athlete and not artists, if anything and I would rather have a society without pro league than a society without concerts. But that’s personal. We have to go to school because it’s essential for being a whole human being. You comparison is irrelevant. A good society is a society which allows each individual to access his full potential, to exploit his talent, to work as hard as he can to be the best version of himself, and to pursuit hapiness with as little obstacles as possible. I don’t see how your civil service helps with any if that, and I would argue, it would be on the way for many, many people. Mandatory civil service requires the haves and the have-nots to serve together doing the same work. It may interrupt some professions that exist at the global level, but the benefits could out weight the flaws. But this is pipe dream that would never get traction in the US. I don’t really get the goal of it. What’s exactly the benefit of it? If the idea is that the economy would gain from it, I personally don’t see how it’s that different from forced labour. I am thinking of the benefits to the people involved and the undercutting of capitalistic theory that everyone needs to be building towards increased production their entire lives. Plus the level of the playing field for rich working with the poor for the good of the general public. Don't forget that while many here are proud of it, the fact that a significant portion of Americans will never live more than 50 miles away from where they were born is a huge component of our nation's seemingly terminal sense of discord. Folks eager to chalk up the US' coming out of the Great Depression to WWII too easily forget how much cohesion began via implementation of New Deal federal jobs programs, many of which requires folks to move far away from home. the US is a big place and arguably more homogeneous than the EU. what are the US's stats on distance from place of birth/childhood vs the EU? i suppose the EU is also arguably more "discordant"
I would wager that any concept of homogeneity as applied here would need to be complicated somewhat. I think it's fair to say that the US is more homogeneous than the EU in some ways, but less in others.
|
Did anyone present an actual good case for this "mandatory civil service" proposal, that answers the questions about it? I know I asked earlier, and I don't think I've seen one.
|
On August 25 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:
Did anyone present an actual good case for this "mandatory civil service" proposal, that answers the questions about it? I know I asked earlier, and I don't think I've seen one.
Farv and my arguments as to the merits of civil service were excellent, but I'm not sure if they answered your question.
|
On August 25 2018 02:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't understand what the advantage of civil service being mandatory is. Sure, its a great idea to have the mechanism there for people who want it, but it would be absolutely detrimental to the overall skillset of the nation. Just as with learning a classical instrument, there are countless skills that can only be perfected with total dedication from a young age. Chess, sports, art, music, architecture, medical training, etc.etc.
Allowing people to choose their own life path is really important, but providing the mechanism to enhance that path is what we should be about.
I think you are underestimating just how many Americans are unacceptably unskilled. Tons of people have almost no prospects and just kinda float around life doing shitty jobs until they die.
Maybe I am. Freedom can be a bitch when you're young, I know that cos I wasted my youth pretty badly. I don't see how some mandatory civil service would have helped though to be honest.
I think some people aren't quite getting the point here. Individuals need to be treated as such, not as one giant mass that get forced into labour. It would completely break some people, and no amount of mental health screening would stop that. There are people who are born with an extremely narrow set of abilities, the school system already does a good job of negating their ability to use them, mandatory service would be the final nail in the coffin for those people imo.
If you think those people are an acceptable loss, that its their fault for not being able to deal with that kind of thing, then fine.
I know that Israel + SK etc. has mandatory service, and it probably works well for a large proportion of the population. Its the rest of the people that are the problem.
Military service, as an example, changes people. There is scientific literature that says it changes your personality - in some ways quite negatively (depending on your opinion on things like agreeableness). To force people into that is the kind of social engineering that really makes me mad.
|
On August 25 2018 03:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:
Did anyone present an actual good case for this "mandatory civil service" proposal, that answers the questions about it? I know I asked earlier, and I don't think I've seen one. Farv and my arguments as to the merits of civil service were excellent, but I'm not sure if they answered your question.
I haven't been reading farv's posts, is there a particular one/ones which you think address the issue well? (just approx, like a this page, or a few pages back is fine)
I don't recall seeing anything in any of yours which would qualify as a good answer/case in favor of the proposal.
|
I would assume that in germany civil service was not as helpful to society, as we abolished it when we abolished the draft. Someone looked at it and said it's not worth keeping that. I personally know that now that it is gone, a lot of charity or unpaid work has been harder to do because the organisations cannot get as many social year applicants as civil year applicants before. Basically, if you are an uncommercial institution, having a pool of people that work for essentially free each year is a great boon. The medical service industry certainly cannot use civil year applicants anymore, i have no idea though how this has affected the business. For the young people themselves, there are a lot of valuable skills to be learned, but if that is enough of a reason to do it, i wouldn't want to say. I certainly grew as a person but i might have without it as well.
|
On August 25 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 03:07 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:
Did anyone present an actual good case for this "mandatory civil service" proposal, that answers the questions about it? I know I asked earlier, and I don't think I've seen one. Farv and my arguments as to the merits of civil service were excellent, but I'm not sure if they answered your question. I haven't been reading farv's posts, is there a particular one/ones which you think address the issue well? (just approx, like a this page, or a few pages back is fine) I don't recall seeing anything in any of yours which would qualify as a good answer/case in favor of the proposal.
That sounds like a you problem, my reasoning is staggeringly good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
