testfactor

Why is this superimposed on a screenshot from Quest 64, lol?

I mean, I still prefer my pitch to yours, but I wouldn't be sad with your idea either.

I don't think your pitch really combats the "people won't actually want to do the work" issue. I think in either example you'll have a lot of people who are "just here so I don't get fined," as it were.

But I think you're overstating that issue in either case. Will it have that issue, sure. But so does the military writ large. Does it impact efficiency, sure. But making an efficient, well oiled machine isn't exactly the point.

But other than that, reading your proposal again, I kinda think that the only thing that makes your proposal different from mine is the mandatory nature of the service.

The benefits you outlined are commensurate with the lower enlisted ranks in the military, so like, yeah, that's what I'm proposing I guess.

I think the benefits of forcing people to leave their bubbles justifies the forced nature of mandatory service. It a means of helping young people escape cycles of abuse, and exposing them to other cultures. It's also a great equalizer, in that it effects poor and rich alike, where your system ends up just admitting poor people who are desperate (not unlike the military as it stands.)

I'd also be open to having a program option where you can defer up to 5yrs to pursue a college degree if it's in a relevant field (civil engineering, etc) and do your mandatory service afterwards utilizing those skills. The program still pays for that college time but gets relevant use out of you at the end. This prevents people who know what they want to do from having to delay and gives them relevant job experience right out of the gate as a resume builder.

I actually kinda support a mandatory civil service? Hear me out.

First, while I think structuring it like the military makes sense from an organizational standpoint, I think the focus would be on civil works projects. Maintaining national parks, infrastructure projects like federal interstate system improvements, etc.

This would serve as a way to get a big influx of money and labor into these large scale infrastructure projects in a way that's bipartisan. The Republicans would like it because it's cheap and they support mandatory military service. The Democrats would like it because it's a big public works project that creates jobs and builds out infrastructure.

I think it would also be a unifier and help build a sense of national identity and break people out of their insular bubbles. They say travel is the antidote to bigotry. This would get people from all parts of this nation travelling around and intermingling. The son of a clansman from Arkansas would be exposed to, and have to work closely with, queer people from SoCal. The young gang member from Detroit would be able to get away for a few years and perhaps reinvent themselves. The son of the billionaire will have to work hand and hand and side by side with the kid raised penniless in the foster system.

It gives people a precious few years after highschool to see the nation and not have to make huge decisions about their future careers at 16 years old. It can expose them to different fields of work, and teach them skill to best prepare them for their futures.

All in all, I think a system like this could do a lot of good, both for the people in it, and for our nations failing public works.

Me: I'm questioning the premise of this comic. I think it's flawed.

You: Oh yeah? Did you see how it worked out for the characters in the comic? Did ya think about that?

Ideally through the civic channels that exist to accomplish change. Run for office. Campaign for reform. Pass the BAR and join a firm that does pro-bono work fighting for important issues.

But if all that fails, there is certainly a point where the people need to rise up and overthrow an unjust government.

But what I'm arguing is never justified is violence against other citizens just because they benefit from the unjust system. If the system is unjust, fix the system, don't lash out at those who just benefit from it.

I think my issue is less with the idea that property is protected with violence.

The point of the original comic though was that one is justified in using violence to take from the rich because they only have/maintain their property with violence.

But if all property is maintained by violence, am I not then justified in taking any property I see fit? If so, is it free reign to take the property of those whose ability to protect it with violence is minimal? Am I justified in stealing from children or the disabled, since they are protecting their property with the threat of violence?

The fact of the matter is that none of us want to live in that world, so we give over that threat of violence to the state. The state holds a monopoly on violence and notionally uses it to meet out it's use in an equitable and just way.

When the state is bad at that, that can be reason to work towards the restructure of the state, but it's never a reason (imo) to simply violate the law.

I mean, I think you're hugely discounting psychological barriers, if nothing else. Most people are decent and wouldn't steal the blanket, even if they wanted it.

Ownership of things is a pretty intrinsic part of human existence, and humans are deeply social creatures. There are a lot of non-physical aspects that influence people's concept of ownership.

So the blanket my grandmother knitted me when I was a baby? Am I justifying my ownership of that property via coercion and the threat of violence?

All property is gained and maintained through violence?

Does this mean any property, or just land ownership?

Is there a value threshold below which it becomes immoral to take someone's property from them?

I see this position bandied about sometimes, and I'm always curious what people actually think it means.

It seems to me what you (and Biden) are saying is that things have progressed to the point where Hamas (and by extension the Palestinian people) are unwilling to reach a peaceful solution.

If that's the case, what should Israel actually do? What terms should they offer? And what if Hamas rejects those terms? Is there a solution to this problem that actually solves anything?

I like Chase Oliver. I don't agree with him on all the issues by a long long shot, but I think he seems like a genuine dude, and I understand his positions, even when I disagree with them. And he's ideologically consistent if nothing else.

I'm in a state where the Electorial College is a hard lock anyway, so I'll probably vote for him since my vote doesn't matter otherwise. Just as a protest vote if nothing else.

Plus, if they can get enough of the popular vote they'll get federal funding in the next election cycle. The Libertarian Party definitely has an extremist wing to it I can't stand, but there's something to be said for rewarding them for picking a reasonable human being for a candidate lol.

I think this theory of science is so prevalent in this thread because you have to adhere to it in order to dunk on Elon Musk.

I doubt most of these ardents would have taken this position in a random thread about sea cucumbers or something.

I like dunking on Musk as much as the next guy, but the amount of double-think people are willing to commit to to do it is always pretty off-putting to me.

It's like every ArsTechnica article on SpaceX has people come out of the woodwork to say that their accomplishments are trash and not even worth reporting because of Elon, which, like, you have to be delusional if you don't think SpaceX is absolutely killing it.