National Service

[Wolfshade]

Conservative MP Philip Hollobone says the reintroduction of national service, scrapped 50 years ago, would improve physical fitness and discipline in young people. All young people between 18 and 26 years old should have to perform a year of military or charitable service.

Caring for the elderly, working with the armed forces or emergency services are among the options he thinks should be included.

Now how do we feel about this, there are allegedly exemptions for people already in full time education, or full time employment, though those details are sketchy.

We have had a couple of topics down hear wander into the child raising issues.

So, would national service be a good thing?

[Psychosplodge]

Sounds like slave labour to me.
The original National Service was during the Cold War, and meant we had a pool of partially trained reservists if we needed them.

They're on about using them to do charity work and litter pick and community projects?

No. Just no.

[Wolfshade]

Also bear in mind other countires still maintain a mandated national service.

I do not think that people who are mandated to volunteer on or for a community project would bring the "right energy". As the old saying goes a volunteer is better than 10 pressed men.

[lobster-overlord]

I think the US should do it, with no exemptions whatsoever. Call me Heinlinian if you want, but I do think all citizens should do some thing like a year of service. full time education shouldn't be a factor, as thats a rich persons out as always.

we have americorps, but that is voluntary, and helps with school. I encountered some one in americorps this summer, for the first time in quite a few years, and her job at a state park was something almost any one could do.

but then again, I'm all for free higher education, nationalized healthcare, and all sorrts of other good things that many other countries enjoy.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Yeah, if they're fed and boarded and get a small stipend beyond that I don't see why not.
A canny person could even save up a bit of money or learn some valuable skills.
In fact I'd focus on in-community work with military service being an option rather than the other way around.
Provided that there are no exceptions or privileges available at any point (no toffs only work groups etc).

[Wolfshade]

Some more information on the proposed scheme.

Individuals would be paid the minimum wage, would be required to live away from home although accommodation and food would be paid for by the state.

There would be exemptions for anyone with a severe physical or mental disability.

Full private members bill here : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0032/14032.pdf

Regulations shall provide that the scheme must extend the scope of the National Citizen Service and include the following elements—
(a) educational assistance for those participants who have yet to attain basic educational requirements of reading and writing in English and mathematics;
(b) coaching and instruction to attain basic levels of physical fitness, personal discipline, smart appearance, self respect and respect for
others;
(c) instruction in personal financial budgeting, household bills, nutrition, cooking, time keeping, life skills, tolerance towards others, treating elderly and disabled people with dignity and respect; and
(d) instruction in basic aspects of the law in relation to the most common offences involving young people.

Sucessful completion would gain the individual a 10% increase in the personal tax allowance (an additional £1000 currently per annum)

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Screw it, where do I sign up?

[eldargal]

Meh, unless signficant social issues like youth unemployment and the like are addressed you'll end up with a bunch of disenfranchised young people who, once they finish the program, have paramilitary training.

I mean in theory it sounds ok but it's not just a lack of discipline, it's a lack of education and a lack of prospects that creates youth dissatisfaction.

[Psychosplodge]

I find b) objectionable.
How I dress in the majority of jobs has zero bearing on the ability to do them.
Especially as long hair and discrete piercings are hardly the end of the world, but would no doubt be an issue.

[Mr Mystery]

Meh, unless signficant social issues like youth unemployment and the like are addressed you'll end up with a bunch of disenfranchised young people who, once they finish the program, have paramilitary training.

I mean in theory it sounds ok but it's not just a lack of discipline, it's a lack of education and a lack of prospects that creates youth dissatisfaction.

Pretty much this.

[eldargal]

You can bet it would also involve making sure women are forced to wear some kind of shapeless sack to avoid arousing the men too. Because modesty is easier to force on women than teaching men how to be decent.

[Psychosplodge]

Well of course, or we'd be excluding a section of society.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

As long as the men have to wear the same shapeless sack I have no objection.

[Wolfshade]

Having read the bill I feel more comfortable with it then I was before.

I think b will be very hard to do.

As for you comment you can still have long hair and piercings and still look smart, likeways you can have short hair no piecings and look scruffy.

But I think most of the aims could be achieved through school.

I do think moving people away from home is a very good move. Amongst my circle of friends the difference between those who went to the local uni and those that went to further afield is quite palpable.
Also, by dislocating them you take them out of their usual habbits so could break down cycles of gang culture. Either that or you end up with better trained gangs which might be problematic.

[Nabterayl]

I think the US should do it, with no exemptions whatsoever. Call me Heinlinian if you want, but I do think all citizens should do some thing like a year of service.
I ... don't think Heinleinian is the right term for mandatory service.

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!
I feel like there may be a geographical difference here? Or maybe it's a class difference. I'm skeptical:

This sounds like a program that would need to be fairly high-paying for the permanent staff if it was any good - (b) and (c) sound basically like, "Coach people in having their sh*t together," and people who can do that tend to command relatively high salaries, in my experience.
From an American point of view, I wonder what it would take to get my entire nation's worth of young people constantly cycling through worthwhile community service programs. That sounds like a daunting (i.e., expensive) administrative task. Of course, the UK has fewer young people, so maybe that seems like less of a concern?
I can think of plenty of American youth who would benefit (or would have benefited) from being taken away from their homes by the government and forced to do something with their lives, but I can think of a lot more who would have been needlessly retarded by that. I don't know what the numbers look like in terms of the nation overall, though, let alone other people's nations.

[Psychosplodge]

Well they managed to enforce military national service in the pre-computer age, so the administrative side won't seem beyond them...though since the growth of bureaucracy who knows?

[Wolfshade]

One possibility is that those who have been through the program could then admister it themselves the next time around, though that would only work for one "draft". You would be looking at a similiar price to a teacher's salary I would imagine.

A concern of mine is what the negative effect of people being forced to volunteer in schemes would be. Currently, there is a scheme by the UK government to push those out of work into voluntary positions and work experiance. That has not been without it's problems. Notably citing slavery as one issue the other was the inapprorpiateness of the activities involved.

[Nabterayl]

Well they managed to enforce military national service in the pre-computer age, so the administrative side won't seem beyond them...though since the growth of bureaucracy who knows?
That's kind of my concern. They did, and other people do, manage to put an entire nation's worth of young people to more or less useful work in the military year after year after year. But the military is not a small organization, or a cheap one, and it's relatively centralized. Managing the same fire hose of draftees but sending them to a country's worth of community service projects doesn't sound impossible to me, it just sounds like it would need a massive administrative apparatus to get all the kids going to places that could actually use them.

[Psychosplodge]

Oh cheap and well run it won't be...

[Mr Mystery]

I think the main worry here is what exactly is going to be the answer to 'Or what??'

Whilst far from keen on the Military side, the charitable side holds a certain appeal.

But what happens if the kid just refuses?

[Denzark]

Most regular professional militaries don't want the added problem of sullen conscripts. I know Brit Military certainly don't. We would have to use regular capacity to train them for starters. I also don't approvie of the idea of accomodating them - obviously they would need accomodating, but if you have insuffiicent housing for you current military and their families (if you want a barracks/docks/airbase somewhere off the beaten track, and you can't rely ONLY on the local workforce to man that base, you MUST provide accomodation) then you shouldn't bring on another body requiring housing.

As to some sort of voluntary/comunity work, I approve. Maybe have them bringing hospital wards back to cleanliness, on stnadby for when fire brigades go on strike, trained as first aid first response, shift sandbags after floods, that sort of thing..

Closing with and killing Her Majesty's enemies? No thanks.

[YorkNecromancer]

So, would national service be a good thing?

No.

It's a stupid idea invented by people who can't imagine that other people experience the world in a different way to them. "It worked for me, and I'm great, so it must work for everyone". Ugh. It also taps into a larger fetishisation of military culture and right-wing solutions; the idea that you can only serve your country through carrying a gun is a facile intellectual dead-end. There are many ways to serve, and most of them don't need bullets. Join the Rotary club or a worker's union.

Or are we just talking about means to serve that are mandated by a right-wing political view?

Yes, the army helps some people. But It doesn't help all, and it actively harms others. I know people who were moulded into great citizens by their time in the army. I also know people who spent twenty years in self-hating alcoholic homelessness because of what the army did to them.

The army is not a panacea; I would go to prison before I served.

If it works for you, great. But leave me and my kids the hell alone.

I leave this here for no particular reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j08fvUk67U

[Wolfshade]

But what happens if the kid just refuses?

Offence
Regulations shall provide for those guilty of an offence under section 1(4) to be subject to a penalty.

What that penaltyy is is unspecified.

[Mr Mystery]

That's actually pretty worrying then....

Send it back until it's written down what the proposed penalty is.

[Wolfshade]

Yes, the army helps some people. But It doesn't help all, and it actively harms others. I know people who were moulded into great citizens by their time in the army. I also know people who spent twenty years in self-hating alcoholic homelessness because of what the army did to them.

It is not just the army, or indeed limited to any of the armed forces, but also to cover

(i) charitable work,
(ii) social action,
(iii) care for the elderly or disabled,
(iv) overseas development activity, or
(v) work connected with the National Health Service, the emergency services or the Armed Forces.

[Wolfshade]

That's actually pretty worrying then....

Send it back until it's written down what the proposed penalty is.

It is a private members bill and there is not enough time this parliament to hear it through. Incidentally, an online petition against the bill might recieve enough votes for it to be debated in parliament, which is kinda backwards but ho-hum.

[Mr Mystery]

When it comes to care for anyone, let's not use pressganged people eh? Might be a better idea to keep it vocational stuff.

And I really hope this bill dies the death it so richly deserves. Just more right wing Tory rose tintedness being vomited up into the modern age.

[Wolfshead]

Finland has a national service that is pretty much the same as what is proposed here. There is the option of military or civilian community service (care homes and the like) and it's a paid position. There is a choice of time frame, too, from six to around 18 months and there is an option in the military side of it to take the officers course (which many Finnish employers value highly and is always good to have on the CV).
The important thing about the military service here is that it is purely training and those serving never see combat during the NS time.

It is still only compulsory for men over here as it dates back to post WWII when things were still very touch and go between Finland and Russia, but women are allowed to sign up if they wish to.

Personally, I don't think it would be entirely a bad thing at all to happen back home as the Finns I know and have met really do seem to value their country and their democracy a hell of a lot more than many of the people I knew back home, and the national and community services must play a big part in that, IMO. Give people the opportunity to see that they are a part of something much bigger than their own circle of influence and let them experience things that they may not have gone on to do off their own back otherwise, and I think and hope that people will turn out better for it.
While I know that I would have complained to High Terra back in the day if I'd have had to do community service at 18 (the armed forces are not my thing!), I do think that it would have made a positive difference in my life.

So, um, yes. I think it would be a good thing.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

A labor corps would be much better. Turn it into a massive manual labor work force for government projects to keep scumbag unions and crony corporations away from that taxpayer money. At the end of their tenure they have a marketable skill if they don't want to pursue higher educations.

[Mr Mystery]

Yes. The Unions.

On no account must the working man have any way of obtaining a voice against his overseers. He should know his place and shut his mouth.....

Sorry, I'm in favour of Unions overall.

[Wolfshade]

Yes. The Unions.

On no account must the working man have any way of obtaining a voice against his overseers. He should know his place and shut his mouth.....

Sorry, I'm in favour of Unions overall.

The day of the union is over. It caused the collapse of the coal mines and car production by over inflating wages. Now all that is left are the teachers, and they regularly hold parents to hostage.

I agree that there should be a body but I think Unions are as self serving as corporate big-wigs. But that is a discussion we've had previously, and is off topic,

[Psychosplodge]

Yes. The Unions.

On no account must the working man have any way of obtaining a voice against his overseers. He should know his place and shut his mouth.....

Sorry, I'm in favour of Unions overall.

Not bad money working for one is it?

[Rissan4ever]

Whilst far from keen on the Military side, the charitable side holds a certain appeal.
I agree. We need to get more young people involved in charity work and actually building up their communities, rather than just trying to escape.

But what happens if the kid just refuses?
Good question. Fines? Public registry of refusers? What did they do if someone refused in the 80's?

[eldargal]

Double tap to the chest, one to the back of the head...

I like the charity idea also. Get people helping other people, hopefully learning respect and responsibility without the paramilitary overtones.

[Rissan4ever]

I think unions are a good idea; the workers need a voice. However, something I've noticed about American unions is that, over time, they tend to get complacent and can easily become just another part of the establishment. I think a decent solution would be dissolve each union's board of directors every 10 years or so and let some new blood take over.

[Wildeybeast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

[DarkLink]

I ... don't think Heinleinian is the right term for mandatory service.






Yeah... a lot of people really weren't paying attention when they read Starship Troopers.

[Phototoxin]

I'm against it on one hand. It is invasive, disruptive and against personal liberty. Teaching people to use weapons at large is idiotic. It can only help pave the way towards fascism.

At the same time there's lots of unemployment and it might give people something to do. Then again 'Big Society' , anyone remember that?

[DarkLink]

So Switzerland is facist?


I think unions are a good idea; the workers need a voice. However, something I've noticed about American unions is that, over time, they tend to get complacent and can easily become just another part of the establishment. I think a decent solution would be dissolve each union's board of directors every 10 years or so and let some new blood take over.

Too much union-ing is just as bad as too little. Teacher's unions in America have become such a political force that they're as much an obstacle to improving education as they are a help to the teachers.

[Rissan4ever]

Too much union-ing is just as bad as too little. Teacher's unions in America have become such a political force that they're as much an obstacle to improving education as they are a help to the teachers.
That is definitely true. They keep teachers' jobs safe, and that's good. But they keep ALL teachers' jobs safe, including the lousy ones, and that's a problem.

[Wolfshade]

So Switzerland is facist?
Just like Finland et al. :)

[Denzark]

Yes. The Unions.

On no account must the working man have any way of obtaining a voice against his overseers. He should know his place and shut his mouth.....

Sorry, I'm in favour of Unions overall.

I'm in favour of Unions. We need something to grease our tank tracks with.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm against it on one hand. It is invasive, disruptive and against personal liberty. Teaching people to use weapons at large is idiotic. It can only help pave the way towards fascism.

At the same time there's lots of unemployment and it might give people something to do. Then again 'Big Society' , anyone remember that?

Big Society. An attempt by Call me Dave to abdicate as much government responsibility as possible? Telling us to club together, whilst cutting back the services it would have needed to work.

Nice work Dave....

[Denzark]

The big society, whilst being particularly ham fisted, is probably a necessary concept. Because services need to be cut. If they are essential, something needs to replace them. Once you accept the concept that there is not an infinite amount of money - our resources are finite - then you need to look at spending them only where necessary.

Big society (the need to have such a programme) can directly be attributed to Labour profligacy.

I am a firm believer in what is often called 'workfare'. Because i don't see why anybody should get something for doing nothing - particularly when that soemthing is funded by people who do something. That being the case, and to come back on-topic, National service is good - if it means getting an output from an untapped resource.

Those people get more money than they would on benefits. They would learn life skills - if nothing else there could be compulsory first aid and food hygiene as they would presumably self cater. No-one including the children of the 'rich' could opt out - so you get the inter-mingling of class so beloved by lefty inclusionists. People would be better citizens after than they would have been before, and would understand sacrifice and value liberty more.

Whilst I completely disagree with a supposed threat (discontents with military training or a lean to to fascism - most National Service was done in UK whilst Labour was in power) caused by military national service, it is not ideal for operational reasons I described above.

[DarkLink]

That is definitely true. They keep teachers' jobs safe, and that's good. But they keep ALL teachers' jobs safe, including the lousy ones, and that's a problem.

Plus any change to the status quo that might vastly benefit students, but might possibly theoretically hurt teachers is a no-go.

[Phototoxin]

Big Society. An attempt by Call me Dave to abdicate as much government responsibility as possible? Telling us to club together, whilst cutting back the services it would have needed to work.

Nice work Dave....

Exactly. But who to pick instead of Torys, Labour 'we're only half tory' or the LibDems - about as liberal and democratic as a rock. But they might change their mind on that half way through. UKIP? Green? BNP? (I have to say, while not a facist, I think having the BNP in for a term (before we chucked them out in armed uprising) would make life interesting)

[Rissan4ever]

Exactly. But who to pick instead of Torys, Labour 'we're only half tory' or the LibDems - about as liberal and democratic as a rock. But they might change their mind on that half way through. UKIP? Green? BNP? (I have to say, while not a facist, I think having the BNP in for a term (before we chucked them out in armed uprising) would make life interesting)
Sigh... I envy you Brits and your multiple-party system. The American tug of war between Democrats and Republicans gets so boring.

[Mr Mystery]

You know what would be nice?

A tax based reward for charitable efforts.

Take Scouting, as an example I'm personally familiar with. For decades my parents have been actively involved in Scouting. From running Cub Packs (Mumsie Mystery was an Akela), to leader training, arranging Jamborettes (like a Jamboree, but smaller) and so much background work. They've given a lot to an organisation they believe in with no reward. And I know they're not the only ones

Through their efforts, they've had a positive impact on a great many lives, and now into their 60's, they continue to do so.

So how about a little recognition and reward for them and the thousands like them who spend their free time making the world a slightly better place for everyone? If Call me Dave wants Big Society to be something other than just another ill defined political sound bite, give something back to those who have given so much!

Even just an increased tax threshold would be welcomed. Done at the end of the year. Or treat it like many self employed things. Although many organisations like Scouting do raise their own funds, you'll be exceedingly hard pressed to find an activist amongst them that doesn't regularly top that up out of their own pocket. So make that tax deductible against the individual.

[Lukas The Trickster]

As an ex-serviceman, I am appalled at the idea of conscripts filling the ranks of the armed forces. National Service and the two World Wars notwithstanding, the British army in particular has a long tradition of volunteer service that dates back 300 years, and I feel that I can speak with confidence when I say that serving personnel are completely opposed to serving alongside conscripts in any form. That notwithstanding, I remember when I enlisted and shipped down to the West Country for my training. The general attitude and 'backchat' that the staff got off of many of the recruits that started in my troop frankly stunned me, bearing in mind that they had volunteered and already gone through six months worth of paperwork, medicals and selection tests to get there - I cant imagine what it would be like serving with packs of sullen, mentally and physically deficient youths dragged kicking and screaming away from their mums, Iphones and PS3's.

[Deadlift]

I have to agree, I like to think our service men and women have a reputation as being some of the best in the world. We really don't want that quality being diluted by our drop out scumbags do we ? Send them out to pick up litter.

[Rissan4ever]

I agree that militaries (all of them), except in times of extreme emergency, should be composed entirely of volunteers. A soldier that WANTS to fight is far more effective and is more likely to keep up morale than a soldier who is FORCED to fight.

[Lukas The Trickster]

Don't get me wrong, I think that the principals of 'The Big Society' are quite laudible in trying to change (ironically maybe) the Thatcherite mindset of 'everyone for themselves' that has persisted for the past twenty or thirty years. Most people seem to feel that the government now, be it local authorities or central agencies, exists purely to help them when they need it, mainly in the form of handouts. The idea of actually giving something back to society is lost on most. I think some form of compulsory public service for six months or a year is a brilliant idea, be it helping with a cub or guide group, working for Wildlife Trust on biodiversity projects or helping cook the meals in a homeless shelter, that sort of thing. With a lot of young people, I think it would show them how society and our government can and should interact for the mutual support and benefit of both.

[Denzark]

You know what would be nice?

A tax based reward for charitable efforts.


Good idea MM gets my vote.

[DarkLink]

A much better idea (than conscription) that came up in a discussion in one of my college classes (I don't know who originally proposed it) was a sort of investment scheme. The government would open a bank account with, say, $10,000 in it for each person at their birth. That money could only be touched by that person, ever. No relatives or anyone else. Until that person reaches adulthood (18 in the USA), that money would just sit there and collect interest.

When that person turned 18, they could collect that money if the fulfilled three conditions. 1: no criminal record. 2: graduate from school. 3: register to vote.

If you fulfill all three conditions, you get your money. You now have resources to go to college, move out of your parents house, buy a car, move across the country and get whatever job you want, etc.

If you fail to fulfill any of those conditions, then you forfeit the money and it all goes back into the government's pocket.


It's a pretty elegant system. It provides people a pretty solid incentive to stay on the straight and narrow. It gives them a means to immediately become a contributing member of society rather than having to scrap by for five or ten years before they get their finances squared away. And if they're a bad egg, no big deal, the money just goes back to fund more important things.

[Mr Mystery]

There's also the danger of negatively reinforcing the myth that school is your only chance.

Me, I got bored of school at age 17, and entered employment. I didn't hit success and satisfaction until I was 30. And I'm not the only one. Most of my friends are similar 'late starters', but are now kicking serious career arse.

I'm not sure national service would have benefited me or them.

[Phototoxin]

I suffer from severe depression, if I was taken away from home and given a weapon it might have been disastrous.

[Denzark]

Photo - you would clearly not pass a medical for military service, forced or otherwise, if you personally assess you symptoms to mean involvement with weapons could be for you 'disastrous'. So I guess, if you are arguing that some people are not medically/mentally suited to military service therefore shouldn't be conscripted, respectfully it is not relevant.

[Nabterayl]

I'm not sure national service would have benefited me or them.
Aside from the various issues of administration, etc., this is my main concern with a national service type thing even if it doesn't include a military component. Frankly, I don't think I would have contributed to society more by spending a year doing community service instead of jumping straight into my undergraduate studies, and it would have cost society a lot of money to make me. The universal aspect of it seems suspiciously like an excuse so that society can say to the layabouts who would benefit from a community service-type national service, "Look, we aren't just picking on you. Everybody has to go through this!"

[DarkLink]

There's also the danger of negatively reinforcing the myth that school is your only chance.

High school or equivalent is a pretty massive predictor of success. I don't think the fact that you can get by without it is a good reason to stop sending people to school. Not that we couldn't stand to reform our schools, but that's kind a different issue. It's not like we couldn't hand out GED's for completing trade schools where you can immediately start working as some sort of skilled laborer, and offer similar equivalents.

[tawelwch]

I have to agree, I like to think our service men and women have a reputation as being some of the best in the world. We really don't want that quality being diluted by our drop out scumbags do we ? Send them out to pick up litter.

I think the intent is that they wouldn't be drop-out scumbags after they had been trained. Makes me feel that you think this will not work as an idea.

It seems like some of the suggestions just pick up things which should have been learned in school earlier. I would rather they just spent the money improving education, rather than trying to cure problems caused by poor education.

[White Tiger88]

http://youtu.be/9OsV0pzywlY

It seems to work...

[DarkLink]

You Brits march funny....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwNpcHFJY5A

Funny thing is, that kid has the body language down perfectly. All he needs are some knife hands.

[Psychosplodge]

Sigh... I envy you Brits and your multiple-party system. The American tug of war between Democrats and Republicans gets so boring.

The multi party system is a lie. For most people it's a straight two party system. The last election was an anomaly, compared to normal results for the last fifty plus years.



http://youtu.be/9OsV0pzywlY

It seems to work...

You want Bad lads army. Lads army weren't delinquents, just volunteers for a reality show on national service. Bad lads army was when they did it again with people who had all been in trouble one way or another.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

The multi party system is a lie. For most people it's a straight two party system. The last election was an anomaly, compared to normal results for the last fifty plus years..
It's not even a two party system anymore really. We've got a choice of two upper class, old school tie, never had a real job tossers with neo-thatcherite policies or a 3rd neo-tahtcherite upper class, old school tie, never had a real job tosser who says that he's not one.
Oh and a bigoted moron who wants the good old days of intolerance and knee-jerk reactionary behavior back who is slowly winning political capital in a scary way.
In short, vote Uprising.

[Wolfshade]

Oh and a bigoted moron who wants the good old days of intolerance and knee-jerk reactionary behavior back who is slowly winning political capital in a scary way.

Yeah but apparently we "need" the Labour party...

[DarkLink]

If America is lucky, Democrats and Republicans will merge and Libertarians will form the new alternative party. There's already surprisingly little difference between Bush and Obama, other than maybe Obamacare.

[daboarder]

interesting thought darklink, kinda similar to some current observations made in australia that our right is your left and your left is our right.

[DarkLink]

It really is. Democrats and Republicans, as divided as they are, are acting more like on party that's fighting itself over some small ideological details rather than two parties competing for public opinion. They might not agree on gun control and immigration reform, but both want to take all of your money and tell you exactly how to spend your life. Libertarians, though, are pretty much like "well, maintain the army so China doesn't invade, and... other than that, you congressmen and women can go take all the vacation time you want, we the people can take care of ourselves".

Now, I do admit that there are some areas of the libertarian party that I don't fully agree with. Some are pretty extreme, to the point of practically being anarchists, which I am definitely not. But that's just like any political party, there will always be a tendency for extremism in some corners.

[Wolfshade]

Well they are both part of the international conservative movements. The choice you have is between a right party and a right party. Or in UK terms it would be between the conservatives and the liberal democrats. You have no left party.

[daboarder]

so basically its a question between being reasonably screwed and completely screwed.....:p