Bill: End Involuntary Servitude
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2102
|There shall be no requirement for national service. The opportunity to serve your country should be voluntary.|
Old value:: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve either a term in the military or a lesser paid term of civilian national service, at their option.
Current: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve either a term in the military or a lesser paid term of civilian national service, at their option.
Proposed: There shall be no mandatory military or civilian national service.
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
|Date||08:58:45, August 25, 2005 CET||From||Leviathan Party||To||Debating the End Involuntary Servitude|
|Message||Not to be pedantic, but doesn't this bill violate the Assembly Rules agreed upon several years ago? Specifically:|
3) Repeat bills of identical proposal(s) are not permitted in the same session of the Assembly.
|Date||15:58:07, August 25, 2005 CET||From||Protectorate Party||To||Debating the End Involuntary Servitude|
|Message||It will not be put to vote until after election.|
|Date||22:51:45, August 25, 2005 CET||From||Leviathan Party||To||Debating the End Involuntary Servitude|
|Message||In that case, let us remind the parties here that we require people pay taxes. Why? Because it's how governments pay for services that everyone needs; taxes are, in essence, the price of admission to civil society. The national service is no different from taxation: it is the price of admission to our civil society, but instead of charging people a fraction of their income, we require a portion of their lifetime of labor go directly into a field that serves the community. We fail to see how the national service is any more servitude than taxation.|
|Date||04:11:05, August 26, 2005 CET||From||Protectorate Party||To||Debating the End Involuntary Servitude|
|Message||It is a matter of choice and ability. National service "taxes" everyone equally without regard to their abilty to perform this service. An small businessman can easily lose their buisness if forced to perform this service.|
Secondly, it forces individuals into jobs they may not want, many are employed in jobs which their is no public service counterpart. These people are forced to surrender years of their life in pursuit of a task which they have little interest in.
Taxes on the other hand permit different brackets based on the ability to pay, and permit freedom to pursue a desired career choice to enable payment.
|Date||04:34:21, August 26, 2005 CET||From||Social and Labour Reform Party||To||Debating the End Involuntary Servitude|
|Message||The SLP would be most in favour of a proposal to do away with compulsory national service. Individuals should be free to decide how they wish to contribute to society and their country; some might choose the military, some may choose the arts, some may choose business - but at the end of the day they would be all contributing in their own way, and we believe this is how it should be.|
|Date||12:42:59, August 26, 2005 CET||From||Leviathan Party||To||Debating the End Involuntary Servitude|
|Message||We would hardly consider someone who chooses to become a corporate raider as contributing to society, nor would we consider the 'contribution' of a lawyer who represents a business that has polluted a river to the point of toxicity worthwhile. Clearly, some contributions are more equal than others.|
Furthermore, while the PP can dissect the minutia that differentiates taxation from the national service, the two remain philsophically the same: they are obligations a citizen takes on by being part of civil society. Taking part in the national service, be it as a member of the military or as a civilian, gives people experiences they would not get otherwise, especially if they were allowed to phone in their contribution through mere pliny. This, again, is a hold over of outdated conceptions about 'adults' and the immutability of adult autonomy. Other than those who enter graduate school, the overwhelming percentage of the members of the national service will be aged 20-22, and requiring these young citizens take part in service for their country is no more onerous than requiring they take civics or learn the importance of free speech in an open society. They might not be interested in those issues, but they learn them nonetheless, as part of becoming a good citizen. The same principle applies here.
Many people are forced to surrender years of their lives to pursuits they have little interest in: they're called gas station clerks and restaurant servers. Most people don't particularly like their job, but they do it anyway. Having people do one more job they don't like as part of building a stronger national community and bettering local communities is hardly the boogaboo the PP is making it out to be.
And we are not grandfathering in business owners, clearly the national service only applies to newly graduated students, which really begs the question which students have already founded their own small businesses. Regardless, the national service is good for Malivia; it helps defend the country, strengthen citizens through the experience of service, provides services needed by the country, and does so without disrupting anyone's business. Making this just another part of a person's obligation to their fellow citizens is, to us, the most rational thing in the world.
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Total Seats: 48
Total Seats: 52
Total Seats: 0
|Random fact: References to prominent real-life persons are not allowed. This includes references to philosophies featuring the name of a real-life person (eg. "Marxism", "Thatcherism", "Keynesianism").|
|Random quote: "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." – Friedrich August von Hayek|