Required (Military) Service (for all High School Students)?

FOX ^ | Monday, February 04, 2002 | The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[vannrox]

This partial transcript from

[Paul C. Jesup]

(sarcasm tag) Well I thought a coward like you would already know that.

[Nitro]

US Navy, 15 Jul '85 thru 14 Jul '89!

I served in the good ship USS Nitro AE-23!!

I went out as an OS2!

[Orion]

America should not be in the business of forced servitude. Anyone who wants to argue with that is a statist, pure and simple, and probably shouldn't be frequenting a site called FREE Republic.

How true. Let us count the statist pigs on FR, and weep for our "free" "republic."

[Orion]

I find it sick that a Republican is in favor of this crap.

Can anyone cite the date the GOP became the advocate for big government?

As if the GOP does not have enough problems with young voters...

[Orion]

If you say it often enough and loud enough, you will eventually believe it.

Keep going, you are almost there.

[Roscoe]

If living in american is a free lunch

Living in America isn't a free lunch.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You missed my point and you didn't even answer my question.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Given the time period, I am CERTAIN that you WILLINGLY joined the military.

Also, you left before Clinton screwed over the military.

The military of today is much more different than the one you joined.

[Future Snake Eater]

The military isn't as PC as some think. I'm thinking of my own basic training, with only men around. Yep, definitely not PC...just a lot of yelling and a lot of push-ups non-stop for four months. A lot of boys in my platoon became men b/c of that experience.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I have heard otherwise from recently retired Military Officers.

[VietVet]

...and all you other libertarians.

What you forget, or refuse to acknowlege, is that this country is not, never was, and was not intended to be a libitarian society.

To be sure, Jefferson used some language, in the introduction to the Declaration of Independance, which sounds much like modern libertarian jargon, but the body of that document states the collective right of the American colonies of Great Britain to declare themselves independant of the British Crown. Which they did as "Representatives of The United States of America," not as sovereign individuals. Had they been libertarians (or at least if they had been intellectually honest and consistant libertarians), they would have realized that they could not, by their actions, deprive any individuals who wished to maintain their loyalty as subjects of the Crown of their right to do so, and Independance would never have happened.

By the time the Founding Fathers got around to writing the new State Constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and the Consitution, even the libertarian-sounding rhetoric had gone by the boards. The Millenial old traditions of the English, the Law (conceived as something permanent, traditional, and -- unlike mere statutes -- basically unchanging), the principle of sovereignty, of the posse comitatus (all free men being potential members and agents of the sovereign government) and the Militia (the duty of all able bodied men to defend the nation) influenced the new founding documents more than the theory of the social compact. The Consitution, as the laws of the States, specifically included the Militia, whose duties were "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurections and repell Invasions." And the Militia included all men of an age and condition fit for military service.

So the argument that the free citizens of this Republic can not and should not be forced to defend it just will not wash. Maybe in some ideal State, which never existed except as some utopian dream, all military service (and tax paying and law abiding) can be imagined as purely voluntary, but the Founding Fathers, and all subsequent leaders, of *this* country would not recognize such a place.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Nice little temper tantrum. Now go back to your corner until the concept of freedom for all, not freedom for some.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Nice little temper tantrum. Now go back to your corner until you learn the concept of freedom for all, not freedom for some.

[mindprism.com]

By the time the Founding Fathers got around to writing the new State Constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and the Consitution, even the libertarian-sounding rhetoric had gone by the boards.

[SNIP]

So the argument that the free citizens of this Republic can not and should not be forced to defend it just will not wash.

Your right, the founding fathers supported 2 forms of slavery, one was conscription.

[VietVet]

I knew you would have no answer but insults, but it doesn't change the truth.

Freedom for all also means responsibility for all. If you don't pay your dues, you are not a member of the club.

[Paul C. Jesup]

That was not an insult, that was an ethical statement in the form of satire.

Or in other words; Can't you take a joke?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Freedom for all also means responsibility for all. If you don't pay your dues, you are not a member of the club.

Then I guess in your opinion that women should no rights since they are NOT subject to the draft.

By the way, how can I enjoy freedom if you send me to my grave?

[VietVet]

"...I guess in your opinion women should have no rights since they are not subject ot the draft?"

Reread my original statement. Since women are now full citizens, and since many modern military duties can be performed by women, women ought to be, by consistency, considered part of the Militia, and thus subject to the draft. Naturally, in normal circumstances, not everyone subject to the draft is called up.

Women do serve, my wife included; these persons have earned their rights. But never in our history have we had to call up 100% of the Militia, either by the Selective Service or by call outs of Militia units. Shall we then say that only those called up to serve have earned the rights of citizenship? No, of course not. But that does not change the fact that every citizen has a duty to serve, at the community, state or national level, if needed and called upon. It is one of the prices we pay for the rights and privileges of citizenship.

[VietVet]

"How can I enjoy my freedom if you send me to my grave?"

I require no more of you, nor of any citizen, than I was willing to perform myself. Indeed,I require rather less, since I do not ask you to volunteer, as I did, have and continue to do, but only to make themselves available for service at need and when called upon. If a person is not willing to do at least that, then they do not deserve the title of citizen, nor do they deserve the rights and privileges of citizenship.