Respuesta :
Some 19th-century English businessmen believed that the looms of Manchester could spin indefinitely if they could just persuade every lady in China to lower the hem of her skirt by one inch. Similar to that romantic calculation, the concept of universal service presupposes a fantastical economic and social order in which individuals act in ways that you find acceptable and have acceptable incentives. Universal service, in contrast, includes compulsion to assure conformity.
The idea of universal service was never sound, and it only gets worse over time. It fails politically, economically, morally, and militarily.
New supporters of universal service have emerged during the past almost century, each wanting to involve all young people in some activity. Justifications are the only thing that changes. The current defense is "homeland security." However, is it reasonable to say that young people who work as security guards at "public or private facilities"—let alone those who fill envelopes at a charity's office—are "shouldering the weight of war" in the same way as an Afghani soldier?
I don’t want to attach to Robert Litan all the customary arguments that universal service advocates have been promoting for years, especially because he states that “advocating universal service before September 11 would have been unthinkable” (at least to him). Except in times of mass conflict, such as the Civil War and the two World Wars, there has never been much of a reason for universal service. Still, the varied arguments for it need to be addressed.
To know more about universal service visit:
https://brainly.in/question/35768981
#SPJ4
