Posted on 10/21/2014 3:43:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
Former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently called on the government to force young people to spend two years either "serving" in the military or performing some other type of government-directed "community service." Neoconservative Senator John McCain has introduced legislation creating a mandatory national service program very similar to Reich's proposal. It is not surprising that both a prominent progressive and a leading neocon would support mandatory national service, as this is an issue that has long united authoritarians on the left and right.
Proponents of national service claim that young people have a moral obligation to give something back to society. But giving the government power to decide our moral obligations is an invitation to totalitarianism.
Mandatory national service is not just anti-liberty, it is un-American. Whether or not they admit it, supporters of mandatory national service do not believe that individuals have "inalienable rights." Instead, they believe that rights are gifts from the government, and, since government is the source of our rights, government can abridge or even take away those rights whenever Congress decides.
Mandatory national service also undermines private charitable institutions. In a free society, many people will give their time or money to service projects to help better their communities, working with religious or civic associations. But in a society with government-enforced national service, these associations are likely to become more reliant on government-supplied forced labor. They will then begin to tailor their programs to satisfy the demands of government bureaucrats instead of the needs of the community.
The very worst form of national service is, of course, the military draft, which forces young people to kill or be killed on government orders. The draft lowers the cost of an interventionist foreign policy because government need not compete with private employers for recruits. Anyone who refuses a draft notice runs the risk of being jailed, so government can provide lower pay and benefits to draftees than to volunteers.
As the burden of our hyper-interventionist foreign policy increases, it is increasingly likely that there will be serious attempts to reinstate the military draft. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, continues to suggest that US troops on the ground may be needed to fight "Operation Inherent Resolve" in Iraq and Syria. A major escalation requiring a large US troop deployment will likely add pressure to consider a military draft.
The only real way the American people can protect their children from the military draft is to demand an end to the foreign policy that sees the US military as the solution to any and every problem - from ISIS to Ebola - anywhere in the world.
Some who share my opposition to a militaristic foreign policy support the draft because they think a draft will increase public opposition to war. However, the existence of a draft did not stop the American government from launching unconstitutional wars in Vietnam and Korea. While the draft did play a role in mobilizing political opposition to Vietnam, it took almost a decade and the death of thousands of American draftees for that opposition to reach critical mass.
It is baffling that conservatives who (properly) oppose raising taxes would support any form of national service, including the military draft. It is similarly baffling that liberals who oppose government interference with our personal lives would support mandatory national service. Mandatory national service is a totalitarian policy that should be rejected by all who value liberty.
One thing I forgot. Especially for first enlistment in armed force return to the 3/3 or 4/2 service obligation. I think the obligation now is 8 years and that’s ridiculous for a first hitch. The only exception allowed should be for programs where the actual schooling is high cost and takes a year minimal such as the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program. Restore the full GI Bill as well.
Mandated national service on the idea that you as an individual “owe” something to society is a perfect example of the Left thinking the State has superiority over the individual. To them there is no concept of natural rights. To them all rights are bestowed by the State and you “owe” the State.
Rand is right. You are not born “owing” the State. The State has no claim on your rights. They are yours inherently.
I do not belong to the government. I am not mixed at all. Scary to even think that Americans could think otherwise.
“In a free society, many people will give their time or money to service projects to help better their communities”
This was actually the case before the depression. During that time since everyone was low on cash, charity diminished.
So, I agree that for the Depression it was valid for govt to get involved, but the problem is govt didn’t stop when the depression was over. It only expanded its social programs, once it saw the cash cow.
Get govt out of the charity business and the old local philanthropic organizations will return. No need for national service org in that case.
Like I said, if it was tied to voting it would be a mechanism to reign in Rat fraud at the polls.
Draftees have served our nation Honorably in war since The Revolutionary War. The exception was possibly the war of 1812 where Daniel Webster spoke up against it and it was not initiated for that war if I read right elsewhere. However up until FDR conscription/draft was only used at war time. FDR pushed for and got the Peace Time Draft. That as such is not needed and was a bad idea like most of the other bad ideas he had.
I do not belong to the collective. PERIOD. Not to the government and not to you. No surprise that the Reich is promoting this. There is no hope when supposed conservatives go for statists schemes. I a part of your life belongs to them, then surely so does your income and assets. Wake up, America.
Do read the Militia Act of 1792 as indication of the design of the Republic by the founders of this county.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
“each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia”
What we have now is what Washington warned us about in 1783.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s6.html
“a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country”
And yes, as a citizen, you belong to the “collective.” Same now as in 1792. Like it or don’t. You get the benefits you pay the price. This fact is one reason why the FedGov is so wrong in how it operates currently. To command the loyalty and service of a free people requires that the government be worthy of such support. Today the FedGov operates outside of the Constitution in over half of what it does.
Give me the Articles of Confederation. Constitution is the first document of that degree of significance in the history of western civilization that based its authority on the people rather than the Almighty. “We the people” unfortunately means what it says. The Constitution is how we got where we are today. Damn your Militia Act of 1792.
I read an op-ed piece some years ago in which the author was in favor of a mandatory two year service commitment in the armed forces. His premise was that many, if not most, today have never been cold, hot , hungry, wet, etc. and therefore are unable to adequately manage a little discomfort.
He contended that if young people were forced to manage discomfort and shut up about it, the wussification of America would not be occurring.
Said militia service started before the Revolution. Read a bit of history. The Militia Act of 1792, codified, to a large extent, what was already in existence. As to the Articles of Confederation, they didn’t work well, which is why we got the Constitution. Like it or not, that’s where we are today, and we’re not going back to them.
Mandatory national service was really big with both Hitler and Stalin. Socialists dream of a big field where everybody has to go every morning to exercise the same way to a cadence.
For his part, Stalin’s national service was to send students out into the malaria-wilderness to do forced labor building dams. Tens of thousands of them died doing this, and the dams they built were impressively shoddy. Gigantic, but destined to fail.
I think he makes an excellent point there.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The draft is involuntary servitude no matter how it is described, “national service”, gag me with a maggot from the rotted corpse of that philosophy. And on top of that, good luck convincing me that being young is a crime for which one can be “duly convicted”.
We couldn’t have fought WWII without a draft, which started before we had entered the war.
We couldn’t have fought WWII without a draft, which started before we had entered the war.
What does WWII have to do with peacetime enslavement and the fact that the selective enslavement act was foisted upon the people without a declaration of war shows that voter apathy is nothing new.
I don’t get your point, why doesn’t the peacetime selective service act of 1940 count?
In your view do we declare war on nations that we are not at war with, to give us the couple of years lead time needed to build up our military, or do you think the war breaks out and within days we have a million more new troops created out of thin air?
“why doesn’t the peacetime selective service act of 1940 count?”
The only thing that it counts for is to demonstrate with blood and treasure that two wrongs is more than doubly not right.
Your posts are not very clear.
Rand didn't write this, Ron Paul did. Unlike his old man, Rand supports fighting ISIS. But I agree, Ron Paul is right in his conclusion, if not all his premises.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.