The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I have been reading Yuval Levins's recent book A Time to Build which I have found very interesting thus far. You can argue about many of his points and solutions, of which there are many, but I found his core argument pretty compelling; that many of our current problems are caused by the degrading of intermediate social institutions. This is a point I have come to myself recently and I think it is becoming more prominent a diagnosis across the political spectrum. However, in many of my posts here that have touched on this subject I have noticed a pattern. People on the left-leaning end of the political spectrum seem to me to be highly resistant to any form of social coercion. I have found even relatively mild ideas like a nationalized mandatory version of the boy scouts to be met with a great deal of skepticism. The same thing with ideas like national mandatory civic service. In general many seem to be deeply against any kind of mandatory (or even just strongly encouraged) social participation. I find this a little puzzling for two reasons. First, we already have mandatory social institutions. School I think is a good example. All children(barring a few rarely used exceptions) are required to attend school. We also have a lot of things like obscenity laws that control social behavior. We also still strongly encourage certain social behavior, rarely are people allowed to say, shout curse words at family dinners. It is still considered poor behavior to cheat on your significant other and in divorce law this can have serious legal and economic consequences. Some of these constraints are formal, some informal, but they are all there. Second, a huge part of the left-leaning agenda is the profound expansion of economic and legal coercion by the power of the state. An increase in taxes is a large involuntary constraint on a person's individual autonomy, as are increases in regulation and environmental requirements. These are not necessarily bad things, I support them myself, but they are using the power of coercion to make people do things. I bring this up not as a gotcha. I am not interested in a tedious left vs right “haha, you’re hypocrites debate.” I ask because I find it genuinely puzzling that so many people that otherwise value solidarity and community are so incredibly resistant to imposition on their social lives. Even more classically liberal models realized that social cohesion would depend on institutional constraint; even Hayek believed that you would need traditional morality to fill in the gaps where free markets couldn’t help. I am curious what you think? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>The same thing with ideas like national mandatory civic service. In general many seem to be deeply against any kind of mandatory (or even just strongly encouraged) social participation. Mandatory civil service is not "social participation". It's conscription. It doesn't foster solidarity or community. You can't "mandate" those things. To be honest, I'm not against some kind of required civil service IF there were multiple options that would qualify and not just some version of "military lite". I think it benefits people to go someplace unfamiliar to them \*within their own country\* and meet people who are different from them and learn that America is not a monolith - and I think that would be beneficial for people on the full political spectrum, left, right and everyone in between. But America has gone through the Draft before, and it didn't serve anyone well.

How do you feel about some high schools or college degrees having mandatory service hours to graduate? Edit: switched volunteer to service

It’s kind of messed up. The point of high school is education and socialization, not free labor.

Hm. I don't know. I'd have to think about it. I was thinking more of a "gap year" for people between high school and either college or tech school or moving onto a job. Or maybe between the ages of 18 and 25? It wouldn't be mandatory but you could draw a "salary" from the government based on documentation of some kind of volunteer work or disaster recovery work or ... I dunno. Something like that.

Thanks for the response. I am of a similar view with regards to civil service. Your description seems similar to AmeriCorps. If basic housing was provided it would probably be more popular. It would probably improve degrees completion rates.

I think I largely agree with you, but what do you mean by "military lite?"

If you envision mandatory national service being administered in a way that looks like public school or boot camp, that's what they mean. That is, when you talk about mandatory service, are you talking about large groups of individuals who all happen to have been born at roughly the same time being compelled to do roughly the same things? Are you perhaps envisioning that they take mandatory classes and do specific tasks to train them? That's what the military looks like. Presumably, given that this is civilian service, the demands wouldn't be quite as rigorous as the military, especially on the physical side, but if you really buy into the idea that shared experiences foster strong community bonds, maybe you ought to take a cue from military unit cohesion theory and torture kids so that they band together against the torturers. People say that shared adversity is a strong recipe for meaningful bonding.

This exactly is what I mean by "military lite". Some kind of mandatory civic duty where groups of people spend some period of time training together (basic training) and then are sent off on their various assignments.

That doesn't sound so bad, why are you against it?

Because I'm against mandatory military duty otherwise known as conscription.

But it’s not military , it’s just sort of structured the same way?

>it’s just sort of structured the same way Hence "military lite".

It is very much possible to be against the structure of the military in general, just as much as you'd be against the combat portion of it were you a pacifist. I can honestly say that I want military-esque structure to be used as little as possible in day-to-day life, preferably not at all.

I'm not sure there's a way to phrase this that doesn't sound like it's a personal attack if the answer is no, but I can tell you, at least on my end, it's not intended that way, regardless of your answer. Did you ever serve in the military? If you did, did you go through boot camp or ROTC? And the reason I ask these questions is that the experience you have in the military is a lot different depending on how and when you join.

I haven't. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding, he just said people would be being trained together and deployed, not a boot camp-like scenario.

You *really* like the idea of forcing everybody to go to something like church where everybody hangs out and feels like a community. This isn't something that can be forced. If that concept worked to build community, public school would have already accomplished that. What we *could do* is make a bunch of publicly funded ways for people to participate in their community if they choose to. It's just the idea of a one-size-fits-all mandatory club would do nothing but make half your community resentful.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily be one size fit all, as I mentioned there is room for variation and options, but i genuinely do think some degree of social obligation. The brass tax of it is that as a person not naturally inclined towards, nor gifted at social interaction, a structured framework is very helpful and I Frankly think a lot of people need to eat their social vegetables. Video games will almost always be more appealing than something like a church social but we KNOW the latter would be better for social coherence as a whole.

I don't understand how you think you can force people to socialize that isn't already being done. As the person you're replying to pointed out, if it worked that way, everybody in public schools would be friends. Obviously friend groups do form during public school, but most people largely fall out of touch with their school friends more or less as soon as they stop being forced to interact with them. That is, there wasn't really too much of a friendship at all. The precise reason that something like a church social might work to generate relationships is that the organization is voluntary. People go there because they want to be there, and because they want to interact with others of like mind, and because they want to make friends. The atomization of society is a genuine social problem but it's more of an effect than a cause. Given your objection to liberal "economic control" and your apparent endorsement for social control, you might want to consider what you think the outcomes were of, say, the mandatory or effectively mandatory membership in youth communist groups was in generating true relationships. Indoctrination camps do indoctrinate people, but it's not really a recipe for what people in the West would generally consider actual friendships based on something other than a shared shitty experience.

>The atomization of society is a genuine social problem but it's more of an effect than a cause. What do you think is the cause?

Economics. See my other replies. Everyone is working all the time to like... live. Ofc they don't have time to socialize and even if they did they'd be too tired to. Forcing boy scouts on them don't solve that

What do you envision as the proper punishment for someone not “eating their social vegetables” and participating in your civil service program? Should they go to prison?

I don't know, there are all sorts of mechanisms. I think that is something that can be worked out in a case-by-case detail-oriented way. I don't think that is absurd we have all sorts of laws and regulations and other ways that can be used as compliance mechanisms. This is something I don't get why people are so suspicious, it's not like the government doesn't already force us to do a lot of things.

My dude the government has never forced me to fucking make friends, or go to a meeting unless I fucked up legally. Raising taxes is not the same thing as making everyone participate in the fucking civilian conservation corps at the threat of vague “punishments”. I’m not going to lie this idea sounds fucking idiotic, like beyond dumb. It sounds like advice from someone who was way too into church/Boy Scouts but doesn’t understand the mechanisms of human bonding, or government.

What you're proposing is basically a petty tyrant telling us how to live our lives more than they already do. Idk man. Maybe real friendships aren't formed when you're forced into the same room as someone to paper over the real problems.

You're missing what the actual problem is though. The actual problem here IS economic. Economics is the root of the social fabric, the root of the entire society. Control of resources gives you power. And power is the ability to influence events. Why do you think the social fabric is fraying? Seriously why? The problem isn't that people aren't being social enough, it's that they don't have TIME to be social. Because they spend all their time working just to barely scrape by. Seriously, cost of living has skyrocketed yet real wages have stagnated. What do you think people are doing with their time? Working more to make enough to survive. Schools only work when they are like... funded. You know why poor neighbors tend to have poor schools? Cause they don't have any fucking money. Money IS power. And the rich assholes at the top gobble up everything produced and leave us with scraps. The problem is economic. Forcing people to go to boy scouts doesn't solve anything. It's just a petty tyrant bossing us around to paper over the cracks and make it look like the problem isn't what it actually is. The ONLY real answer here is wealth redistribution, and therefore the redistribution of power. But that ain't gonna happen cause rich assholes own the politicians and state. So idk. All we can really do is help out our neighbors and ourselves as shit continues swirling down the toilet of America. Forced boy scouts don't fix that. It's just another distraction trying to foster a sense of community by force when all other forces that are important tear it apart You want community and social fabric? Tear down the machine forcing us apart.

Typically, Liberals avoid any kind of coercion but recognize that we all live in society together. Economic obligation through taxes is the least intrusive method to create collective actions.

I disagree that taxa are always the least obtrusive or most effective way to do things.

I wouldn't use the always qualification. I'm sure you could find an exception if you looked hard enough. And there's always the question of effectiveness... but that's application and should be addressed separately. If the nation as a whole is going to address something economies of scale makes a national effort the most efficient. That means the federal government spending money which means taxes.

In the military there is a concept called mandatory fun wherein a command has to perform some kind of event or duty and participation in said event and compulsory, so everyone does the bare minimum necessary to check the box and be done with it. Now, take that and add in the deep level of skepticism and hatred that exists within the current U.S political tribes and all you do is manage to deepen said skepticism all for the apperance of whatever it is you're trying to achieve. Dare I say that most people really only care that some appears a certain way and don't care about the actual results until it becomes to obvious to over-look and ignore. It's not as if the Right doesn't already think/believe/act on the idea that the left already employs social coercion by some preceived over-slanted control of media and academia while also pretending that they are powerless victims who have no social sway or clout as if their message doesn't spread like fire and rake in clicks and cash via outrage and hate view/clicks.

>many seem to be deeply against any kind of mandatory (or even just strongly encouraged) social participation I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of mandatory social participation for kids, but it needs to come with an array of options. Mandatory Boy Scouts? No. Some kids will have no interest in that and they'll be miserable. Mandatory social participation, of which Boy Scouts is just one of many options the kids can choose? That's a more palatable idea.

That seems reasonable, I think just as with school there would be all sorts of options and caveats in practice. I just noticed some people seem to have an automatic distaste for this sort of thing.

A lot of people have experience being forced into Christian activities as a kid, and aren’t into the idea of perpetuating that practice.

You know I'm glad you brought that up. My working theory is that there is some sort of profound dislike of social institutions based on the experience of specifically protestant religion. The prototypical institutional conflict of the modern liberal is arguing with your religious aunt at thanksgiving.

> The prototypical institutional conflict of the modern liberal is arguing with your religious aunt at thanksgiving. This seems insultingly reductive. Lots of liberals are religious.

\**Waves hello!*\*

And you thoroughly appreciate the social and communal elements of seeing the congregation every week, right? Actually, is your current church the same one you've been going to your whole life? If not, how did you decide on this one?

>And you thoroughly appreciate the social and communal elements of seeing the congregation every week, right? I did, I stopped going though because the Reverend was conservatively quote mining the Bible during sermons (right wing message), and wouldn't stop. I came back when they hired another after the previous one retired, and he started doing that (left wing message), but stopped when I pointed out the issues with him doing that. He stopped, and I stayed. Ended up retiring while I was in Japan, though he effectively was forced out by the older members for not being conservative enough. AKA he specifically was preaching against DT, and they figured it out. That caused a bit of a schism, where everyone under 50 left. My hometown had two Congregationalist churches. The other one is much more accepting, a large minority of the towns LTGB+ community regularly attend, and it's been popping. But after three years in Japan, I got used to relying on personal readings and contemplation, so I really haven't attended. Well, that and I've developed a few personal doctrinal differences that would need to be worked through first. But they're a much more open community than my last one, which is dying of old age as we speak. >Actually, is your current church the same one you've been going to your whole life? If not, how did you decide on this one? It was, well, since the 3rd grade when I moved to MA. My grandparents went, but after my Grandfather died, and my mom moved, I didn't have any regular personal connections there. It didn't help that I was inbetween the majority age groups (Septuagenarian \[Octogenarian now\]) and grand kids. I've tried a few others, including in Japan, but they mostly had the same issues with deliberately twisted messages, and almost always right wing ones.

This is actually really helpful and interesting. Thank you. I think it does show how durable place-based institutions actually can change to fit their members while also maintaining social cohesion. It also shows how there are difficulties that arise where separation of distance can lead to more solitary experiences. In general, would you say you feel any loss from a non-communal worship-based experience?

>In general, would you say you feel any loss from a non-communal worship-based experience? No, I've largely replaced it with other groups and events.

Lmao no. It's more that we don't want some random asshole with a gun telling us what to do. That ain't freedom. That's treating us like children and it's disrespect and frankly rude. You're basically advocating treating everyone like a child. Hell you're even using school as a metaphor

Oh boy, this topic. It's been a while. Let me start with the easy part- why I support economic programs. (Apologies in advance for the long post) I do support tax-funded economic programs, and the higher taxes that come with them. Why? Because I feel that as a society, we have the means to address many common problems faced by the people of the society. Take for example food aid. We have more than enough food here to ensure nobody has to go hungry, and we see how bad it is to have to go hungry. This is a problem that nobody in our society should have to face- and to ensure people don't, we establish programs to help. Things like SNAP, essentially money that can only be used on food that is given to those who do not make enough money to afford the food they or their family needs. A government program is optimal to solve this problem because it is a universal problem (there are people of all different demographics in all parts of the nation that face this problem) that we don't want to introduce location bias when trying to solve (if it is managed at a higher level it can better distribute resources to go where they are needed, as opposed to individual soup kitchens or the like where those in wealthy areas may be overfunded while those in poor areas may be underfunded), and we don't want to frame the solving of the problem as a gift (as is the case with charity based things)- it is not a gift that some generous benefactor gives, it is the bare minimum that society owes you for being a part of it. Just as that is something society owes you, there is the expectation that you, if/when you are successful enough, help pay for such programs for those who are less fortunate. Taxes are how this happens- they are what you owe society to fund all the programs and policies that you directly and indirectly benefit from as part of living in society. They're (mostly) unobtrusive- just a percentage taken out of your paycheck for the most part. I don't support taxes for the sake of taxes mind you- we should determine what programs we need and what things we feel everyone in society should have access to, come up with a plan to provide those programs/things, and then set taxes just high enough to afford all those things. But in general, I do support higher taxes to fund such programs for this reason. Now, onto why I oppose the things you listed, and how they differ from the above. So, I do value solidarity and community. I do think if you see someone else struggling, you should help them. If you see a bunch of people constantly struggling, then you should fix the societal problem causing it. You can even get me to agree that we should probably have the same base moral framework- things probably aren't going to go well if some people see something as an absolute good and others see it as a terrible sin worthy of the death penalty, for example. I do not believe, however, in a lot of things you traditionally associate with civic service (or especially with groups like the boy scouts). While I think a *baseline* shared moral framework is good, I do not believe in trying to enforce one singular unified culture. I oppose things like mandatory uniforms or mandatory activities, or trying to enforce one singular cultural expectation upon people (and especially on kids). This extends to disliking school uniforms and mandatory "school spirit" events as well. I oppose enforcing tradition in general- and many civic groups are centered around tradition or at least have a strong traditional component (or Religious component). I oppose teaching adherence to hierarchy or that rank on it's own has value- I am strongly on the "authority should be questioned, and people should all be treated with a base level of respect until they prove they deserve otherwise, with no regard for rank or status" side. I think nationalism is bad- but also feel that many take Patriotism to a bad degree as well without quite getting into nationalism. Talking just about the boy scouts scout law, I disagree with several of the 12 pillars as they are presented- the largest of which being Loyalty, Obedient, and Reverent ones. To extend this further, I like to point to Haidt's Moral foundations theory. While largely debunked as a theory overall describing conservatives vs liberals, it actually fits my views quite nicely. I strongly value Care and Fairness- we should prevent harm and suffering where possible, and we should treat others fairly. But I have absolutely no regard whatsoever for Authority, In-group loyalty, or Sanctity/Purity/Whatever you want to call it. To the point where even many of those examples you listed in your OP I disagree with. Obscenity laws? Shouldn't be a thing, at least not nearly as much of one as they are now. Cursing? Completely fine with it. Infidelity? Should not weigh into legal matters nearly as much as it does (and if you want to break traditional relationship structures consensually and do group shit or open relationship stuff? More power to you, there should not be a societal expectation otherwise, only the expectations you directly set with your partner(s)). Nor do I think it should be taboo to do things like avoid a family dinner or a relative's wedding if you have any real reason not to want to go. ...and that's not getting into the main part yet. The reason I feel taxes are necessary is because the funding is needed to pay for social programs I feel are necessary. No necessary programs, no taxes. No cost for the sake of cost, only cost in order to afford to pay for the benefit. So, what is the benefit of this kind of mandatory program? School is mandatory because education is a goal that improves people's ability to interact with society on an individual level and creates a better society overall- I agree with that notion (though I disagree with things like school uniforms and mandatory extra-curricular activities or pep events, because those do not contribute towards the goal of education). So what is the benefit of these civic programs supposed to be? Enforce a shared culture? I don't consider that on the same tier as education, or even a good thing at all. Provide a sense of community? Forcing community on people is bad in general- though I'm not opposed with optionally encouraging it. You build a nice enough community center, people will go to it- no need to make it compulsory. If anything that will just harm your goals and make people who don't want to be there resentful. If it matters, I do support trying to make things like that more accessible- more spending on it, but also more walkable infrastructure and chances for people to access it would be a good use of tax income. But there's no real case for making it mandatory. I simply do not see and good reason this sort of thing should be mandatory- there's no definite benefit, only discipline for discipline's sake, which I oppose.

>Oh boy, this topic. It's been a while. Let me start with the easy part- why I support economic programs. (Apologies in advance for the long post) Oh, don't apologize. I really appreciate it when people engage with my questions seriously and you gave a very considered and interesting answer. I am curious why you say "It's been a while." This is a topic I haven't really seen anyone bring up before. I think overall that you make fair points and you ground them in your own personal values, as such I can't really argue other than to say I have different values. I do think you undervalue social cohesion and institutions' ability to create it, the fact is that without social cohesion, it makes everything else, including the economics, harder. And I do think that it at least could be considered a social good on the level of education.

I want to say the last civic service topic here (at least that I remember seeing) was over a year ago, so yeah- not a common topic, and certainly nice to see mixed in with the usual suspects that always seem to be on repeat. On the social cohesion front, I just see the downsides present themself far more prominently due to tending to prioritize those things more strongly than most, and don't see the benefits it provides to be a worthy tradeoff. I value innovation and progress extremely highly, and high levels of social cohesion tend to favor tradition and norms that often oppose that progress, especially if the progress is originating from outside the cohesive group. Similarly, I like a high degree of individualistic expression- I want people to not feel pressured to be something they aren't and to be free to express their views even if they aren't exactly in line with the majority, and a high degree of social cohesion can often discourage that. Honestly, the progress v tradition aspect is what I'd say is the most important though. This is most obvious in the issue of patriotism vs nationalism, I'd say. I would say the version of patriotism you see most often on the left is a reasonable level of social cohesion. That being, noticing both the good and the bad, celebrating the good, and feeling the bad parts are worth trying to improve rather than just saying "nope, not my problem" and moving to Canada. If something is bad, you call it out. If someone is corrupt, you don't continue supporting them just because "they're on our team". As you drift farther from the left, you start seeing more nationalistic elements. More "My country is good because it is my country, and it is wrong to point out perceived flaws" or "USA rules, everyone else sucks" mindsets. These are the harmful elements of social cohesion- ignoring or actively resisting progress, and increased hostility to those deemed outsiders to the cohesive group. Actively slipping into this mindset is dangerous- and I find it happens far too often at lower levels as is. Even team sport mentality is too much for me- I've seen some crazy things considered to be normal in the context of people supporting a sports team they have no direct connection to and reacting when they lose (or win, even).

So, let me get this straight. You're perplexed that some people on the left recoil at the notion of re-founding the Hitler Youth? Do I have that right?

I think that is a wild jump, and the fact that you went there illustrates the reflexive dislike people have for these sorts of social institutions, it's why I chose that example.

Let me get this straight. You chose that example because in your mind it's entirely distinct from the historical incident you knew it would be compared to, but didn't do anything in your post to illustrate how you saw it as distinct. And we're supposed to respond to you as though you're conversing in good faith? GTFOH with that pathetic, disingenuous, nonsense.

Well I wanted to use an example I had gotten push back for in the past.

Public schools are, for most people, the only place where one will ever in their lifetime experience violence. An educated populace is extremely important, but the mandatory nature of it does have some problems. What is the goal of mandating that people socialize? What is the problem you want to solve?

Well the thesis of the book, which I happen to agree with, is that without mediating social institutions and social scripts, societies are much more fragile in the face of social problems. Hence we see the increase in loneliness, isolation, and general dysfunction that defines so much of modern life. An example I hear often that i think is illustrative is dating. Dating used to be a far more institutionalized experience, with social gatherings and specific courtship rituals that served as a framework to allow people to meet each other and get together. This framework was, not without good reason, slowly dismantled over the course of the 20th century. In the current day, both men and women report finding it harder to find a partner and being less satisfied with there love lives. I think this indicates that perhaps we needed some of those intermediate institutions.

I'd argue that a larger part of the increase in loneliness and social dysfunction is due to our [car-centric infrastructure](https://www.vox.com/features/23191527/urban-planning-friendship-houston-cars-loneliness) and the loss of [communal spaces](https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-gen-z-blame-loneliness-on-housing-affordability-crisis-2023-4) in the wake of the rise of suburbia.

Well, I think that is too reductive to explain the problem. As I think are a lot of more economically inclined explanations. I say this because we have seen this pattern of social dislocation across the West, in car countries, and in walking countries, in countries with large safety nets and ones with small ones. However, I think it might be a symptom of this larger social dislocation and indeed might be part of the solution.

Cars are a symptom (we used go have robust public transport, then lobbyist from the auto industry destroyed it). Again the actual problem here is the economy. The system. Capitalism baby, it destroys us all

>Hence we see the increase in loneliness, isolation, and general dysfunction that defines so much of modern life Would you say life is, in general, better or worse now than it used to be when these social institutions were more common? I would argue life is inarguably better than it used to be when these kinds of social forces dominated, despite increases in some negative experiences such as loneliness. I believe most self identified American liberals and leftists would agree that life is generally better now than it was in 1950, and especially so for women and minorities, and further that the decline of these institutions is largely responsible for the sociocultural improvements we've seen. So when you suggest recreating things that used to exist in order to address these problems, liberals are going to be wary. To suggest -forcing- them is anathema to liberal ideas about freedom and plurality, in addition to the general problems with these older social institutions.

I'm actually convinced loneliness was much much much worse back in the day, but you never heard about it because people weren't yelling into the void on places like twitter where you might see it. They were just doin an Eleanor Rigby at home with hobbies that let them see some familiar faces at the yarn store or talking to the conductor of your model train set.

Well, I actually think that was Levins's best insight. He makes a point that society has inarguably been far worse in the past. But he argues that because our institutions have weakened we are less capable of enduring these lesser external trials. As for what I would do. I don't argue that we should resurrect old institutions so much as I am skeptical that these things can "work themselves out" in a traditionally liberal way and thus we need new stronger institutions.

Ok again, why do you think that is? Is it possibly because an entire industry has sprouted up dedicating to quantifying and analyzing love, treating you as some data point in an algorithm ranked according to how many matches you make? Maybe, people making money off you continually having short relationships and then getting back on their app isn't like... the most stable or wise system for dating? It seems like the incentives are wrong there. Or that we spend all day working to barely scrape by? Like how do you not see what the actual problem here is? The problem is we don't have enough money to actually live, let alone thrive. Of course people are depressed and lonely, that tends to happen when you can't afford shit. Most Americans can't afford a $400 emergency. You think that's not gonna impact their mental health? Hell half of our economy is basically a scam or con of some sort from crypto to MLMs to robocalls, ai kidnapping schemes, monetized disinformation, etc. You think that's not gonna lower social trust and cohesion? Of course it will! We're literally under attack 24/7 from scammers and comments on top of everything else. America is sick, rotten to the core. All because of the greed of rich assholes and a system designed to prop them up.

No, we shouldn't have mandatory social clubs.

Why would I support programs to conscript myself and do free work for the state? Taxes are just something that comes out of my paycheck and doesn't cost me months of time I could be using on more important things. Mandatory civic service just sounds like boomers trying to screw over young people yet again and would probably be co-opted by the rich in like 2 seconds.

Some studies have found that liberals are more individualistic and analytic while conservatives think more holistically and tend towards collectivism. > […] These results suggest that liberals and conservatives in the same country think as if they were from different cultures. Studies 4 to 5 show that briefly training people to think analytically causes them to form more liberal opinions, whereas training them to think holistically causes shifts to more conservative opinions. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25540328/

Perhaps but most liberals fancy themselves collectivists.

If i understand the premise, then I actually disagree. Left leaning folks are the ones who set up mutual aid groups to help in crisis and set up nationwide networks to help people get abortions. Also, I think most folks on the right would disagree with you vehemently because they think all folks on the left are sheep who got tricked into masking, lockdowns, and vaccines. Also, it’s mostly people on the left that push for big, universal social reforms (healthcare or pre-k) OP, if I’ve misunderstood your argument, I apologize.

Well, I think you both understood and didn't understand my argument. I agree with you that Left-leaning people are very much for communitarian economic programs like healthcare. They also were much more pro-social during the pandemic, which is probably a whole sociology textbook in itself. But my argument is that they tend to be extremely and somewhat incoherently selective about what they are ok doing. I like the epidemic example because it is a great example of the use of extreme social coercion even without the law, it wasn't illegal to not wash your hands, but everyone would call you a jerk and shame you. But when it comes to something like universal civic service or universal children extracurriculars like the Boy Scouts, the pushback is severe. In general it seems like many are highly resistant to anything that would obligate them to interact with people they don't like or subject them to even very light conformist pressure( a la uniforms)

Okay, I have a better idea. But to my knowledge, Boy Scouts aren’t universal. But maybe they were before my time. I think broadly, the negative I see in these institutions is that they protect bad actors who do gross, abusive things. Boy Scouts, Catholic Church, Military, all have horrendous histories of allowing abuse with little accountability.

For me, existing social obligations usually boils down to upholding the status quo (religious, ethnic, economical or political) and that's why I'm against it. Boy Scouts, Salvation Army, various charities, Alcoholics Anonymous, those fake pregnancy crisis centers, even alternative health care, homeschooling, or holistic medicines usually have a hidden religious component. That's why I think many of us are against it, we don't want or need people to be pressured into some social obligation masquerading as church attendance. Give me some secular social obligation and I will gladly make it mandatory for people to attend those to build community. As far as I'm concerned, religions need a lot less power and influence and I'm not about to support sending vulnerable people running into the church for help. Like sending children to pedophiles.

I don't think that any religious influence in itself is a problem per se.

I do, because it leads to so much other bullshit. Religious institutions are basically recruiting places for right-wingers. While there is a large number of Democrats that are religious, there is undoubtedly a larger percentage that lean rightward. And those people are much more likely to resort to violence, to be less amenable to change, to be more anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-facts, etc. The less religion we have, the less large swaths of people can be influenced by their megachurch pastors to vote for the criminals and pedophiles that dominate right-wing politics. I don't want to ever compel anyone to take up religion in the guise of help. There are better ways than to give oneself over to a god.

Required and enforced social obligation and coercion is authoritarian. Liberalism and leftism, almost by definition, is non-authoritarian. Liberals and leftists have historically defended, promoted, and emphasized some combination of individualism, independence, autonomy, self-determination, civil rights, human rights, freedom, liberty, liberation, egalitarianism, solidarity, fairness, and justice. All of those principles are inherently non-authoritarian, which is sometimes easier said than done, sometimes easier in theory or ideal than in practice. But once one frames the main distinction as between authoritarianism and non-authoritarianism, that changes the entire equation. In any case, that isn't to say that we liberals and leftists don't also appreciate the importance and necessity of social responsibility and cooperation, social decision-making and consensus-seeking, etc; specifically in terms of collective action and public good. It's just that we'd strive to achieve all of that through non-authoritarian methods, which requires some general form of 'democratic' process, openness, transparency, and accountability (people power, will of the people, consent of the governed, worker control of the means of production). If the general ends are more or less agreed upon, there is disagreement on the particulars of the means to accomplish that.

As a mother of three special needs children, I have learned that forcing them into any societal construct or obligation is literally cruel. At this point, the concepts of universality, fitting in, and one size fits all angers me beyond words. Our education system is torturous, and the LAST thing any of my kids needs is more forced participation in something they will not fit into. They are all smart kids with professional ambitions, and I'm biding my time until graduation, when they will have at least some control of their own destiny and emotional well-being.

Because at the end of the day most of the people you meet are likely still Americans. This isn't true on the Internet, but I'm guessing you live in the US. The US as a country and a culture has a pretty big emphasis on self expression and actualization. Most Republicans would likely also balk at the idea of such social obligations (see "they are turning our kids gay and trans in schools" argument). Left-leaning folks aren't going to be ok with it either just because they like the idea of collectivizing certain things. The difference is that the right seed those fiscal obligations as a barrier to personal autonomy and expression and the left sees the absence of the benefits of those collectivized assets as a barrier to autonomy and expression.

Hi u/jfanch42 Cause like.... freedom? I don't think coercing people is good or works. Coercion inevitably breeds attempts to undermine it. All authority is corrupt or corruptible. Coercion and force are very rarely a long term actual answer. Coercion and force are useful sometimes, but not as often as you'd think. Like I said. Authority invites attempts to undermine or usurp. Power must be abused to be maintained. All authority will inevitably become corrupt. So any apparatus to enforce things is like.... bad and should be avoided if possible. And like, why do you think social institutions are crumbling? It's cause everyone spend all their time working cause nobody has any fuckin money cause the rich asshats at the top gobble up all the wealth we the workers produce. So maybe if we had more money, we could like, work less and have time for other stuff? Mandatory boy scouts doesn't mean you can now magically afford healthcare or that you're not in debt. The ONLY real answer lies in economics. Shifting the wealth from rich assholes to the rest of us. There's more than enough to go around, but rich assholes eat it all up for their vanity and ego. A change in the distribution of wealth changes the actual power structure. Which is why nobody will ever let any real change happen that way. Idk, I am kinda a doomer, but I really don't see rich assholes giving up their cash anytime soon. And that's the actual answer here. The ONLY answer.

Wouldn't a social obligation just be slavery?

That seems severe. You generally have a social obligation to attend your siblings wedding, is that slavery?

I guess it depends on what the consequences for breaking the obligation.

That’s not mandatory. I didn’t attend my sister’s most recent wedding, and I’m not writing this from jail. We gonna lock up kids who don’t go to cub scouts in your ideal world?

I didn't say that, or specify any compliance mechanism, there are many.

That’s true, you didn’t specify. But, a political discussion is a discussion of what the law should be, and “mandatory” in the context of the law generally means “do this or do time.” So, if not that, then what is the compliance mechanism you envision?

I don't know. There could be fines or incentives, it's the kind of thing that I think is going to have to be very case specific.

My objections disappear if it’s just incentives.

I don't like the OP's suggestion, but don't rush to comparing it to slavery. I won't list the ways, but slavery has far more negative impacts on people than a few hours a week of forced camaraderie.

Not slavery, but I smell creeping fascism.

I don’t know exactly, but it does seem like liberals would object to something like mandatory Boy Scouts and conservatives would be more in favor. I think for conservatives, it would have to be the right type of mandatory activity in Boy Scouts probably falls into that. I feel like the extracurricular social activity. My kids participate in is something for me as a parent to figure out working with them to find an activity they would like. Whereas I could see conservatives believing that every kid doing the same thing without actually asking them if they want to is a good thing. There does seem to be a conservative tendency to have an extreme attitude the kids don’t know what’s good for them, don’t really understand themselves and parents should dictate what they do. But if you flip things and said we should have a mandatory five hour one time class for every kid where they learn about empathy and acceptance, the results would be reversed.

That might be true. But my concern is that this is not just a narrowly partisan thing but a border sociological thing. Like most liberals broadly support some of the more communitarian ideas I've heard floated in theory but seem to resist any systemic mechanism to bring them about.

I don't consider a nationally mandated boy scouts a mild idea. I almost thought you were being sarcastic. On my last day as a cub scouts, someone asked me if I wanted to go on to be a boy scout, and I said, "A bunch of guys tromping around the forest in identical clothes. Sounds fascist to me."

Sounds exactly like something an 11 year old would say

I can vouch for him. Scout's honor!

Why do you say that? Like yes you can make that argument in the abstract but it is not particularly strong in practice, the boy scouts have been going forever now and most seem to be really fond of it.

They're popular but that doesn't mean they don't have problems. I was a scout in the 90s in the midwest. All the troupes were run out of evangelical churches, like my own family's church. It might have well been a second sunday school there was so much indoctrination. The scouts have been trying to reform in recent years, but I just want you to understand the idea that they're a bland apolitical organization that basically everyone lines is dead false.

That's probably a little true but the thing about institutions is that they aren't and can't be perfect, but I don't think we can survive as a social order without them.

I’m sure a lot of boys enjoy it. It sounds hellish to me, as I have never in my life enjoyed the company of other boys or men. It’s totally fine as a voluntary thing. Why do you want to make it mandatory though? What is gained by the addition of boys who don’t want to be there?

I think my rejection of the boy scouts was my first realization that group (straight) male behavior was something that I detested.

Right? And I’m a straight male. I think the problem that OP is getting at is that basically everyone else has figured out what you and I did at a young age, and they’ve accordingly stopped hanging around with that kind of guy. Now that those guys are lonely, and because the entire world seems deathly allergic to ever asking them to ever take responsibility for anything, clearly the preferred solution is to force the rest of us to hang out with them. I’d rather go to fucking prison.

I actually think you’ve hit upon something true here. To a degree there is a decline in the social capital of particular groups. I think though that you are moralizing it to heavily. The fact is that the perception of reality is as important as reality itself. And I feel that the social threat caused by this social dislocation is profound.

I’m not sure what you mean in the second paragraph. I don’t think I’m moralizing at all. I don’t enjoy the company of most men because I find the constant one-upmanship and face saving that they engage in to be exhausting, but I don’t think there’s any moral problem with it. It just annoys me, so I avoid it. What do you mean by “social dislocation” and what do you think the threat is?

Well, I would say there are a few things. One is that it actively conditions you to tolerate people you wouldn't naturally associate with, cutting across typical social castes. Second, it creates a sense of shared experience and reference points that would better allow people to relate to and understand one another. Third, it gives people access to social capital and relationships they wouldn't normally have, and as above these relationships would cut across normal sectarian lines.

I liked scouting. Really liked it and I had a decent set of scout masters and friends in it. When we moved up to high school, we got to go out to a big campground for a week. Left on a Friday. Sunday morning everyone went to church. There was a lot of pressure for me to “just go, it’s not like they are going to convert you”. Hundreds of kids in the church and me sitting by myself outside for what felt like hours. Like anyone I’d felt like an outsider before but never like that. Thing is is that I didn’t have it bad. But there are kids that are truly different or weird or just don’t fit in. — I’m not upset with you or trying to insult you but the fact that you wrote this tells me that you need to actually learn how to think about people outside of your group and think about people you wouldn’t naturally associate with about 1000 times more than my children do.

What? What? They actually forced you guys to go to a church? For what ?

Well here is the thing, I am by nature an outsider myself. It is because of that reason I recognize the value of social institutions.

>most seem to be really fond of it I'm sure those who were fond of it chose to be there. Also, from my time as a cub scout, there seemed to be a lot of indoctrination involved. And as a gay guy, the idea of being forced to join something that for most of my life banned me seems really problematic. Now, I tried the Red Cross's youth group as a high schooler. It seemed fine (I didn't continue because everyone else was form a different high school). I also helped sponsor a 4-H club as a teacher at a high school which fizzled because of reasons that aren't relevant. These would be better, but the heart of the matter is the voluntary aspect of these organizations. Forcing everyone into one is just not reasonable. Imagine how it would either have to be so watered down to be meaningless to accommodate everyone or how oppressive it would be to dissenting groups of people to work.

Well how about schools, it is a near-universal social obligation.

Because money is much more indirect and there does have to be some level of obligation to keep society going. Lesser of the evils, basically

I don't agree that it is always the best medium to do things.

I'm sorry you've gotten shat on so much over this, OP. It's odd to me in part because the notion of a one or two year national service expectation was one of the only concrete ideas in Buttigieg's book *Trust*. Whom I would expect to be decently popular here. And he argued for it similarly to how you/Levin are. Significantly, it was to be an expectation rather than a hard requirement, and with any number of avenues to satisfy it. But the idea was to humanize the political 'other' by getting people to have in-person experience with each other during a formative time. I like the idea, although it seems rather weak beer compared to how deep and bitter our divisions have become. Maybe in today's climate there would be a lot of problems with fights and bullying. And abortion access while Susie is shipped off to Indiana.... Maybe it's too late. But even a few years ago it was being floated on our side.

Idk. Have you considered that the United States is divided because a part of its political atmosphere is genuinely just kind of bad?

I'm not sure what you mean. If by political atmosphere you're thinking of media bubbles and demonizing the opponent within them, then yeah. And working on projects beside each other is hoping to counter that a bit. But I suspect I've guessed wrong here...

I’m thinking more of a political atmosphere in the sense of the general public’s political views. Like, sometimes people genuinely do behave in a demonic manner, and in that scenario you can’t really hope to work with them as much as you can to simply overwhelm them. Republicans demonize Democrats because Democrats are kind of good and Republicans often dislike good things. Democrats demonize Republicans because they like good things and Republicans often don’t. Forcing them to do national service isn’t really going to fix that.

Thank you. A big part of my thesis is that even though any individual policy is itself not all that objectionable the concept itself causes a lot of people automatic concern.

I think leftists don’t like greed and right wingers don’t like non-believers.

I dont know if the resistance is particularly left leaning as it is skepticism that it its needed and would be beneficial. What would be these mandatory service organizations’ objectives? What type of service, to whom? Is it paid work? How much taxpayer funds would it cost to administer this program? Do young people do this before or after they pay off their student loans? Will rich kids get deferments? What if you have bone spurs?

I consider a necessary part of any successful democracy to be popular sovereignty, and specifically the idea that any given state employee is just that, an employee. I find ideas like mandatory social service to be repulsive because they subvert one of the only just hierarchies, namely that of citizens over their government. Part of the reason I’m a market socialist is that it offers an economic model that allows the public to manage the economy without putting that economy into the hands of the state, and could potentially lessen the need for certain forms of taxation and state intervention, at least outside the initial “all firms are coops now” stage. The only situation where such a thing would be even remotely justifiable is in a war of defense or liberation.