Wasn't There An Amendmenty Thingie To End Slavery?
At the LibertyCrier, Ron Paul calls "national service" anti-liberty and anti-American:
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.
The government has no right, if you have committed no crime, to take your time and your labor from you.
Paul makes a good point:
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.
...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.
As of late, I feel very few "value liberty."
Most people seem to take it very much for granted.
I've gotten to the point where, when libertarian friends have a baby, I'm extremely grateful, because there's a better chance that their kid will be raised consider a liberty-driven lifestyle rather than just shutting up and consuming things and not caring that government is growing bigger and bigger and more power-bloated.
via @LibertarianView
This is why Ron Paul is rightly considered a crackpot.
National service, including the draft is constitutional, because the constitution isn't a suicide pact.
I am not in favor of national service, other than what is necessary for a military defense. But the defense needs, increase or decrease according to who in the world thinks we have something worth taking, and has the means to take it or extort it away from is.
(When I say extort, I am thinking of a rouge terrorist state like ISIS getting hold of nuclear weapon and threatening to detonate it in a major city unless their demands were met.)
We can have a vibrant economy, and a strong projected military posture, or we can become a third world basket case, and be invaded for our natural resources.
Pick one, because a global economy cannot exist without someone willing to shoulder the burden of defending both the transit routes, and production facilities, be it the car factories in Korea, or the coffee plantations in Costa Rica, and Sumatra.
I would like to revisit 1941 with an absolutist like Ron Paul as president. The moment he said: "but this is different", he would be exposed as the hypocrite that he is.
Isab at October 26, 2014 11:30 PM
"The government has no right, if you have committed no crime, to take your time and your labor from you."
Okay. WHO is this, "government"?
Radwaste at October 27, 2014 4:12 AM
Government-supplied forced labor (to borrow a line from the article) also will not be as efficient as free-will labor.
In other words, if forced to provide 2 years of service, most folks will do just enough to stay out of trouble. While those who are freely giving of their time to help a charitable organization will give their most to help out.
Forced labor will cause even more forced labor as organizations will claim they need more people to get the work done since most folks won't be giving their all. And what is then to prevent the government from claiming that 2 years isn't enough? Let's make it 3, then 4.
Oh heck, let's just make it a whole decade; young folks, in this obamanation economy, won't find any jobs until they're thirty anyway.
Charles at October 27, 2014 6:12 AM
What about the deal Heinlein, and no one can question his libertarian credentials, surely, posited in Starship Troopers?
(If you've only seen the film and not read the book, you may leave now).
National Service, meaning in any government capacity, most of which were not in combat, was voluntary *but* prerequisite to getting the vote. So you could opt out, not serve, and not vote, or put in some time and become a full citizen.
I see a big difference between that and 'you can vote at 18, guaranteed, but we are going to requisition some of your time anyway". It's an interesting idea and would maybe justify losing a couple of productive years, because you get something worthwhile out of it. As it stands, volunteering for service is a net loss.
On the other hand, Heinlein did rationalize the WWI draft as "being temporarily required to sort out the manpower situation". Not slavery at all - in the right circumstances.
Ltw at October 27, 2014 6:31 AM
National service, including the draft is constitutional, because the constitution isn't a suicide pact.
That's a nonsensical statement Isab. The concept that doing something unconstitutional because the constitution is not a suicide pact, is, by definition, justifying something that isn't constitutional but necessary at the time. The whole point is that it *isn't* constitutional.
So what's the national emergency that requires suspension of the Constitution?
Whether national service is actually unconstitutional, dunno. Although I agree with Amy. If it walks like a duck, etc.
Ltw at October 27, 2014 6:41 AM
Since when is John McCain a neoconservative?!? He has always been a lefty republican. A few speeches on the campaign trail don't wipe out a lifetime of votes.
Ben at October 27, 2014 6:45 AM
Well, Ben, the term neoconservative was originally coined to describe gung-ho, somewhat in favour of war Democrats. So McCain qualifies on that score.
Ltw at October 27, 2014 6:54 AM
"National service, including the draft is constitutional, because the constitution isn't a suicide pact.
I am not in favor of national service, other than what is necessary for a military defense. But the defense needs, increase or decrease according to who in the world thinks we have something worth taking, and has the means to take it or extort it away from is."
"National service" is unconstitutional. "Military conscription," if needed for defense of the homeland, may be constitutional. Since United States territory has only been attacked in three major wars (the War of 1812, the Civil War, and World War II), any other draft should not qualify. That includes the wars of choice World War I, Korea, and Vietnam, all of which may have been important for our foreign policy but were not necessary for our survival. The national emergency exception to Constitutional rights requires there to be an actual national emergency.
The government has no right to force me to do community service except as punishment for a crime.
Brian at October 27, 2014 7:59 AM
So, working a job and paying taxes along with voting are not sufficient "give backs" to society?
The only "moral obligation" a young person has to the society in which he lives is to become a self-sufficient human being (i.e., to carry your own weight) - that includes volunteering to help on occasion when things get bad enough to require us all to pull together temporarily (e.g., disasters, charity, invasions, eyewitness testimony, posses, etc.); and that only when one is physically able to help (to the degree one is able to help) and after one has secured one's own dependents' safety.
==============================
Also, why do only young people have this "moral obligation" to society. Why don't old people have it?
Why don't they call for two years of compulsory national service as a condition of receiving Social Security?
It makes one wonder if those two years are intended to be used as an indoctrination period - "Four legs good, two legs better."
==============================
Nor is it an indentured servitude contract.
The Constitution is a document that spells out the federal government's role in society and restricts that federal government from stepping on individual liberties.
The first military draft in this country (the Civil War) was controversial and hotly debated. Draft riots in New York and Baltimore tore those cities apart.
==============================
Oppose government interference with our personal lives? Liberals? The American political left?
Are those the same liberals who insist that a baker must bake a cake for a wedding despite having a moral objection to the ceremony?
The same liberals who insist on government-mandated universal health insurance premiums?
The same liberals who want to monitor the mileage of every vehicle in America so that mileage can be taxed?
The same liberals who insist on policing speech and even dating/hookups on college campuses?
The same liberals who insist children turn in their parents for gun ownership and that gun ownership is automatically child endangerment?
The same liberals who consider even light spanking child abuse?
The same liberals who want to tax soft drinks out of existence - to protect people's health?
Compulsory national service sounds right up their alley.
Conan the Grammarian at October 27, 2014 8:49 AM
I was unaware that John McCain and Ron Paul were 'liberals' but, hey, throw out that liberal bashing again if it makes you feel better.
DrCos at October 27, 2014 9:43 AM
From just a couple of years ago:
http://www.arcamax.com/parents/s-81042-484462
A: Another thing I say to parents, if someone said, here is a jar of peanut butter and if you feed this jar to your child, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance your child will be seriously damaged by this peanut butter. Would you feed the peanut butter to the child? Parents go 'no!' Would you feed it to your child if the chances were 1 in 100,000? Parents again say 'no.' Then why are you letting your child drive a car? And you know what people say, people 'say 16 is the driving law, John.' But 16 was established when there were not many cars on the road, when cars were not fast and powerful, and the only times children were driving was to go on errands to help their parents with something. They were not driving recreationally in the 30s. They were taking the family pick-up truck into town and picking up 20 pounds of feed. I just look at today's parents and I go 'What are you thinking!' They think that just because it is legal, you should let your child do it.
Q: What would the driving age be today if you could set it?
A: It wouldn't be an age. It would be a high school diploma and after one year of service. I am a strong advocate of one year of mandatory service. Military, Peace Corps., Domestic Corps., Salvation Army -- I don't care which one -- just some service to your fellow man. And then, you get a driver's license after you have shed a little bit of your self--centeredness. And in Europe, you don't see kids behind the wheels of cars. I drove around Italy for 3 weeks and never once did I see a kid behind the wheel of a car.
lenona at October 27, 2014 9:50 AM
Forgot to say: The author IS a conservative of sorts, but also something of a libertarian.
lenona at October 27, 2014 9:51 AM
The Republican Party has essentially three power bases (or wings):
Most Republicans straddle at least two of these wings. George W. Bush was both a social conservative and a Rockefeller Republican, despite the apparent contradiction in being of two diametrically-opposed wings of the party.
Despite being elected from a Western state, McCain is more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Goldwater Republican.
Conan the Grammarian at October 27, 2014 10:24 AM
A little history of the conservative insurgency within the Republican Party and the rise of the Goldwater Republicans:
http://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2014/10/27/reagan_goldwater_and_rise_of_conservatism_184.html
Excerpts:
"The Republican Party had largely cast itself as simply a watered down version of the Democratic Party...."
"A conservative revival came out of this decade as William F. Buckley’s newly founded National Review became an outlet to promote conservative principles and to simultaneously reduce the influence of the extremists. Then a staunch, old-fashioned conservative from Arizona named Barry M. Goldwater began to shake the political establishment. A bespectacled, articulate figure, Goldwater was a fierce anti-communist and a critic of labor unions and the welfare state. After a long, bitter primary against the moderate New York governor, Nelson Rockefeller, Goldwater became the GOP presidential candidate against incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Reagan became Goldwater’s most consequential spokesman."
"While Nixon won the White House in ’68 on a platform filled with conservative rhetoric, his presidency was largely a continuation of [Lyndon Johnson's] on domestic issues. The progressivism of the Johnson-Nixon era followed by the malaise and foreign policy embarrassments of the Jimmy Carter years had finally moved voters to the right in a way that had not been seen since the 1920s as Reagan defeated Carter in a landslide and then Walter Mondale in an even larger landslide four years later."
"The coalition that brought about the Reagan ascendancy would not be the exactly the same as the one that followed Goldwater. In the late 1970s and increasingly throughout the 1980s, the religious right’s influence grew in a way that displeased Goldwater on a number of social issues, including abortion and gay rights."
Conan the Grammarian at October 27, 2014 11:13 AM
> National Service, meaning in any
> government capacity, most of which
> were not in combat, was voluntary
> *but* prerequisite to getting the
> vote. So you could opt out
LTW is fascinated by the United States... By the history of her soldiers, her gifted authors, and even by her science fiction movies.
Indeed, the United States of America is endlessly enchanting & instructive, no matter where you live.
> because the constitution is
> not a suicide pact…
Well, perhaps that depends upon to whose constitution you've sworn allegiance.
Thinking out loud here.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 27, 2014 12:52 PM
> So McCain qualifies
Even our politicians... Eternally bewitching!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 27, 2014 1:02 PM
"So what's the national emergency that requires suspension of the Constitution?"
Most countries in the world have had no problem making military service a requirement for able bodied male citizens.
It has historically been considered a duty of citizenship.
Armies,historically had high desertion rates, especially if they were formed from the local population of an area involved in the conflict.
This is why foreign Mercenaries were preferred when fighting overseas. They were more likely to be loyal to their comrades in arms rather than desert into the indigenous population.
The draft has been found constitutional, as has the suspension of many of what we consider our *constitutional rights* during war time, and the imposition of Martial Law.
Lincoln faced these issues during the Civil War, and virtually suspended the Constitution (habeus corpus) for the duration of the conflict.
Tanney apparently ruled it was an unconstitutional abuse of authority, but he was ignored.
And every war time president since has been sued for ordering people to serve in places they didn't want to go.
We don't seem to be able to compel our current occupant of the White House to uphold the constitution for even peacetime domestic issues.
(He learned the lessons of Lincoln apparently)
Your constitutional rights are not as enduring as you think they are.
Good luck getting the government to recognize any of them when it doesn't want to.
And if Ron Paul were president, we would potentially be worse off then we have been under Obama foreign policy wise. They both suffer from a similar delusion.
Isab at October 27, 2014 2:54 PM
Most countries were not founded on the basis of limited government and individual rights.
The lives of citizens in those countries were considered the property of the ruler, later the government as a whole. The social welfare state was an adjunct of that - to wit, "if you own us, you have to take care of us."
The US was a radical experiment in the world. The rights of citizens were viewed as inviolable (granted by God), not as something the government granted and could take away or limit as it saw fit (hence the furor Lincoln roused when he suspended habeas corpus and implemented a military draft).
Washington had to lead a militia to put down several rebellions during his first term in office because people resented the government imposing taxes on the fruits of their labor (whiskey, etc.).
US citizens were considered to have responsibilities that went along with being a part of society (posses, militia drills, etc.), but nothing that anyone could enforce upon them by government fiat.
This country is not like all those other countries you read about. It's unique ... and exceptional.
Conan the Grammarian at October 27, 2014 3:22 PM
Get hysterical, why don't you? Conscription in this nation is as old as the nation itself. Get over it. And since our soldiers are compensated for their service, comparing it to slavery is worse than an exaggeration. It's disrespectful to the memory of those who lived under it.
The only objection I have to the selective service is that women are exempt. Women are entitled to the same rights, but not the same responsibilities? Discrimination.
Patrick at October 27, 2014 5:07 PM
This country is not like all those other countries you read about. It's unique ... and exceptional.
Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at October 27, 2014 3:22 PM
Yes, except when it chooses to either ignore, or interpret the constitution differently than you do. Then all those bad things become perfectly ok.
Isab at October 27, 2014 5:18 PM
And in Europe, you don't see kids behind the wheels of cars. I drove around Italy for 3 weeks and never once did I see a kid behind the wheel of a car.
Posted by: lenona at October 27, 2014 9:50 AM
The reasons for this have to do with money, and a licensing age of 18.
Cars are expensive in Europe. Insurance is expensive in Europe, fuel is expensive in Europe, and public transportation is ubiquitous.
Most countries require a private driving school certification to even get a license. This is thousands of dollars.
So, no Lenona, Europeans are not smarter, more sophisticated, and more socially conscious than Americans.
They just can't afford it,
Just like the Chinese, who are not riding around on bicycles because they are enviro friendly.
Isab at October 27, 2014 5:30 PM
and public transportation is ubiquitous.
_________________________________
I admit that Rosemond didn't seem to be quite aware of this European fact, in a separate interview.
lenona at October 27, 2014 6:53 PM
"Your constitutional rights are not as enduring as you think they are.
Good luck getting the government to recognize any of them when it doesn't want to. "
We already live in a post-constitutional America. Our government has made it absolutely clear that it doesn't give a goddam about our rights. All of the Bill of Rights are routinely violated, and not a single person in Washington will even acklowledge the existence of the Ninth or Tenth Amendments. As far as Washington is concerned, everything we have down to our friends, family, and our very existence is a grant from government, a grant that government can revoke as it sees fit. America as we know it is over; the President is effectively a dictator with Congress as a rubber-stamp body providing a fig leaf of democracy. Citizens have no say-so whatsoever -- in fact, we really aren't "citizens" anymore. We are subjects. Our purpose for existence is to do the bidding of our betters. We are not human beings; we are an inferior species that our betters only begrudigly allows to exist because they need us to do labor. Our thoughts are inherently subversive and we must be kept closely confined in order to Save The Planet, or something. We are inherently too stupid to understand it, so government has no obligation to explain it to us. Our job is to shut the fuck up and do as we're told.
Cousin Dave at October 28, 2014 7:17 AM
WAIT A MINUTE!
Stop everything.
How did Conan do the indented bullets?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 28, 2014 7:47 PM
LTW is fascinated by the United States... By the history of her soldiers, her gifted authors, and even by her science fiction movies.
You're getting a bit boring Crid. Yours isn't the only culture I know something about. There are about three blogs I regularly comment on. This is the only US based one. Live with it.
Ltq at October 29, 2014 6:03 AM
> Yours isn't the only culture
> I know something about.
The important thing is that it's the one you pretend to be part of.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 29, 2014 7:22 AM
"The important thing is that it's the one you pretend to be part of."
I look at it this way... it's encouraging to hear of someone outside the U.S. who takes an interest in finding out what American culture actually is, rather than blindly accepting what leftist conventional wisdom in their country says it is.
(And yeah, that sentence was a mouthful... I couldn't figure out how to write it more concisely.)
Cousin Dave at October 29, 2014 7:56 AM
Nope, this person is from Canada... They're living the lefty dream up there. LTW's postings are nothing but insider-y snarking about virtues they don't express, bills they don't pay, and blood they don't shed.
OF COURSE they're interested in "finding out what American culture actually is." Of course they are. Their culture is for shit, and completely dependent upon (where not meekly derivative of) their southern Big Brother. Their media don't even bother with their own culture.
Real quick: Who won the Juno Award for best new artist of 2011?
Who ever won a Juno award? Guess.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 29, 2014 8:03 AM
Lists in HTML:
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_lists.asp
Conan the Grammarian at October 29, 2014 8:29 AM
Damn.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 29, 2014 9:20 AM
Leave a comment