Ron Paul: “National Service” Is Un-American, Anti-Liberty
LETTING GOVERNMENT DECIDE OUR “MORAL OBLIGATIONS” IS AN INVITATION TO TOTALITARIANISM BYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
LETTING GOVERNMENT DECIDE OUR “MORAL OBLIGATIONS” IS AN INVITATION TO TOTALITARIANISM BYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
120 comments
I think requiring 2 years of military service or other compulsory service would be good for the country.
Good to know that you’re for compulsory service.
What age would you propose cutting that off?
I’d be for it now. When I was in college, my friends and I had a discussion about how we wished we had done some sort of stint like that in the military before we started college. I think a lot of people go to college because everyone else their age is.
Boot up, Fucker! It’s never too late…
Wife would never allow it. Now if it was mandatory, she’d have no input into the decision.
but-but-but — what if it also applied to females?
Seems ok to me. They should be registering for the draft now that we’ve said they can participate in combat roles.
but-but-but — what if it also applied to females?
“Dig those ditches, bitchez!”
Yes it is.unless you’re a Catholic priest.
“my friends and I had a discussion about how we wished we had done some sort of stint like that in the military before we started college.”
“and then we said, fuck, let’s force other people to do what we wish we had done, cause we know what’s best for everyone now that we are older and more wise”
Basically yes.
compulsory service is immoral. Good or bad for the country, it’s immoral and therefore not an option.
Not only is it not immoral, it is not unconstitutional.
Forcing someone to take part in an activity, against their will, under threat of death or imprisonment isn’t immoral? You have an odd standard of morality.
No one should be forced to do anything. You should be allowed to give up your citizenship and leave the country. Service would be your duty as a citizen, and the price of citizenship,and living in the country. If you don’t want to live here, or be a citizen, you should be allowed to peacefully leave.
You, sir, make a good argument.
No, the arguments are quite weak. In fact they are red herring.arguments.
“red herring arguments”…on both sides.
How so?
I wasn’t necessarily referring to you.
Sorry, forget the last statement. I thought you were saying Jeremy Bullocks arguments were good. Its ok if you were, I just don’t agree.
Sorry, forget the last statement. I thought you were saying Jeremy Bullocks arguments were good. Its ok if you were, I just don’t agree.
Years ago TBG had an buddy who was an ex-Navy, bong owning, card-carrying Libertarian, Citadel grad …who strongly advocated a 6 months to a year of forced state servitude for everyone when they turned 18… His belief was that it could accomplish much in the way of infrastructure improvement and such, as well as instilling in the people an appreciation of our country’s freedoms. As the years have gone by, TBG has started to come around to his way of thinking.
“You need slaves to protect freedom.”
Bleh
Are you willing to apply that argument universally? If the Government decided that a 100% tax rate was the price of citizenship, would you gladly pay it as your service to the country? Would you accept “if you don’t like it, leave” as a valid response to your objections? What if the price was lack of control over your profession? Lack of control over when and how many children you have?
If you are willing to draw the line somewhere based on your own values, then you must recognize my right to draw the line based on my own and accept my argument as valid as you accept your own.
Your argument presupposes that all rights, like people, are created equal. They are not. Sometimes rights clash. When that occurs inferior rights must give way to superior rights. Further, no rights are absolute. There are always circumstances under which rights can be lost, temporarily or permanently. All of constitutional litigation is about the clash of rights.
Further, you insert hypothetical actions that have never happened and which would generally not further our accepted purpose of government, to secure the inalienable rights of the people. Even though property is not such a right, some level of property ownership by the people is necessary to secure the inalienable rights of the people.
But to answer your question specifically, It would depend on what the government was offering in return, for the taxes. If the barbarians are at the gate, and will kill me and my family, I would most likely be willing to contribute the entirety of my property to the financing of defense.
I appreciate your response.
Firstly, I do believe that all rights and people are created equal. Rights cannot clash, and there is no such thing as competing rights. Individuals are created with ownership over themselves, if person A has the right to force person B to do something, than person B no longer owns themselves, and person A owns part of person B. If all people are created equally (which I believe, based on your response, that you believe to be true), than all people have equal rights and all rights are equal as well.
Second, property is an extension of self-ownership. By trading my time and labor for property, that property is in principle an extension of myself. Because I have a right to my self, my time, and my labor, I have a right to my property.
To your third point, were the situation dire enough, and if I trusted that the Government could provide the best solution to the problem, I might be willing to contribute 100% of my property as well. But if someone did not make the same decision as me, I would not force them to.
If you think rights do not clash you are sorely mistaken, and do not understand the nature of constitutional law and theory . Tell me, is your neighbor’s right to freedom of movement equal to your child’s right to life?
My neighbor has freedom to move about on his own property without limit. My neighbor does not have a right to move about on my property without permission. Likewise, my child does not have a right to trespass on his property. If my child is killed as a result of my neighbor’s movement, either my neighbor violated my right to my property, or my child violated my neighbor’s rights to his.
Neither has a right to violate either right of the other. Is that where you were going with that?
No, it was not, because all property does not belong to you or your neighbor, but I can go there as well. Does your neighbor have the right to kill you or your child for trespassing on his property?.
Yes, actually there are circumstances, but you wouldn’t understand them, I would hazard a guess. Now…back to your cave, Troll.
Yes. Your neighbor has the same right of movement upon property that they have the right to be upon. His right of movement does not supersede someone’s right of property and vice-versa.
You answer is non-responsive. Move on down to the next question, this one is over you head.
(*SHRUG*) So sayeth the expert named William.
So we are back to George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” in that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
You have my permission to determine just how many angels can dance on the top of a pin.
You may be willing to contribute the entirety of you property to finance some type of defense but something tells me you could just as likely pay the enemy to go somewhere else if they were paid enough to do so.
Yes….telling someone they have to leave if they don’t do as you command isn’t forcing them.
Show where the constitution grants the authority to conscript someone for anything other than the army for periods longer than a couple days (at best for Jury “duty”).
Since you are not a Supreme Court Justice I see no need to engage you in a debate on that point. Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, this is settled law
Selective Draft Law Cases., 38 S. Ct. 159, 245 U.S. 366 (1918),
Literacy and knowledge of the Constitution is not vested solely in the SCOTUS and it’s occupants. You argue like a child.
Why is it immoral – not trolling, just curious as to your reasoning.
Forcing someone to do something against their will is wrong. You’re talking about telling someone that they must uproot their life, leave their family for long periods of time, train to kill, regardless of their opinion on the use of violence in general, possibly be shipped to other countries to use violence, regardless of their opinion on the use of violence in that specific situation, and go to jail or be killed if they refuse at any point.
If that isn’t immoral, I don’t know what is.
Have you served?
does that somehow change the accuracy of my statement? If I told you that I have would that matter? What if I said that I can’t due to a disability? If I said that my two brothers did, and are now both on 100% disability because of injuries sustained while overseas, would that add validity to the statement?
What I said is either right, or it’s wrong. Whether or not I served is irrelevant.
“Whether or not I served is irrelevant.”…just like what we say on here is irrelevant.
Just asked you a question, if you don’t want to answer that is up to you.
I’ll answer yours if you answer mine. Does it change the accuracy of my statement?
I asked, you refused to answer with a simple yes or no. You want an answer from me before you will answer my simple question and that speaks volumes.
Your question is unrelated to the argument I made. You’re playing a game, and I’m not going to play it for free.
“Forcing someone to do something against their will is wrong”…and you say I’m playing a game.
Pro Tip (for JB):
Always answer a direct “yes or no question” with a simple, forceful “yes” or “no”. In this particular instance…if you have never served…your answer should have been:
” No.”
If they try to give you flak…then point out that Ron Paul did serve.
I will still happily answer his question as soon as he admits that the answer is irrelevant. He won’t admit it, because it reveals that he was attempting to play the stupid “if you haven’t served then you can’t have an opinion on service” game. I’m not going to play.
Maybe
Maybe
Yes, changes the debate a little, are you using a disability as an excuse or would you have not served regardless?
No – what happens to some is irrelevant, you can be hit by a bus tomorrow.
Service to the state has never been a requirement for citizenship.
The Constitution only grants the ability to raise an army, not conscript for other purposes of “service to the state” to payback a non-existent debt to the same.
Confiscating 30% of my income is immoral as well but necessary (at least some of it) for the existence of the state – or do you not pay your taxes (rhetorical).
Forcing me to pay for things I find abhorrent is immoral or doesn’t Obamacare cover abortifacients? Do you agree with the posted highway speed limit? If you don’t (and I for one don’t) folks can “…go to jail…if they refuse at any point….” to follow the posted limit.
The two ears of service that most of us who believe in such things would be performed at the end of high school, long before “..they must uproot their life, leave their family for long periods of time…”
Almost no one advocates “military service” as the only option – so your “… train to kill, regardless of their opinion on the use of violence… argument is moot. Even during WWII, when we actually inducted 10,000,000 men, 72,000 registered as contentious objectors. 52,000 of them were granted CO status, another 20,000+ went into the Army in non combat roles, 12,000 or so entered some other service to the government and a few went to prison (6,000+-) Of the 350,000 draft dodgers, only 16,300 or so were ever prosecuted.
For the record, morality has nothing to do with the argument – it’s an issue of necessity. Many of us believe in a system that works something like this:
Barring a disease, defect or mental condition that prohibits service, every high school graduate would do 18 months to 24 months of service. for those who elect military training, 18 months for the rest 24.
The pay would be extremely low with substantial amounts (equal to what a private makes, roughly $2,000 per month) set aside for each participant – at the completion of the term of service, the money set aside can be matched for educational purpose or simply paid out for those who wish to enter the work force or start a business.
A young man or woman could come out of their two years of service with $50,000 in hand and some skills training to get started – doesn’t sound immoral to me.
It seems them, that we differ on one major point: Whether or not immoral actions can be justified based on a subjective value of “need”. I don’t believe that they can be, and you believe that they can.
I think we’re at an impasse.
No, the real problem is your intractable assumption of immorality, to quote a favorite movie, “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”
Intractable, but not incorrect. I draw a hard line, but I draw it based on firm moral principles. Perhaps we just don’t share the same principles.
Unequivocally, as my morals have required I serve the nation for more than thirty years. Damn, I’m getting old.
I can testify that as a young paratrooper from 1972-1974 that I learned what I DIDN’T want to do was spend 18 more years in the Army.
Got out with an honorable discharge and the Vietnam era GI bill, was WAY more focused on my studies than before, earned 3 degrees and I’ve been gainfully employed ever since 1975.
I had absolutely NO applicable civilian skills ( I learned how to jump out of airplanes – which I LOVED doing) and kill people and break shit in the name of the United States of America but again, I was FOCUSED and DISCIPLINED on going back to college and applied myself.
I’m sure I would not be in the favorable position I am today if I had not joined back then. So many guys who were draftees have said that too!!!
I’d put the average draftee of 1971 up against any 18 year old kid of today I can tell you that!!!!!
I wouldn’t be against it but maybe limit it to 1 year like most countries that still do it (Swiss, Korea, Netherlands, ect…)
I concur with Ron, as usual. Involuntary servitude was supposedly abolished with the 13th Amendment, was it not? While I know a lot of good people who I respect have made good arguments for compulsory military service, such as causing aimless young folks with no direction in life to develop structure and self discipline, I feel that this is wrong and evil.
There will always be noble, patriotic young men and women who have a sense of adventure who will seek military service out, so long as they are not needlessly abused in manners that our military has a long and shameful history of doing (nuclear radiation exposure, Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, and now Ebola details).
Involuntary servitude is OK if the state does it.
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Communists, Fascists, Nazis, Baathists, Korean Kims, Pharaohs etc all agree.
It takes slaves to defend freedom, build Pyramids etc. For the greater good…
Only the wacky libertarians would question something so self-evident!!!
“It takes slaves to defend freedom”
lulz! Perfect my Southern Indian Jewish friend.
The first thought that jumped into my head upon reading your comment:
“I had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market system.”-Bush the Dumber
You know these wacky Libertarians should move to an Libertarian country. Wait, there isn’t an utopian paradise??
Actually there are quilte a few countries that operate on libertarian principles. They are largely in Africa. They are great examples of countries with little or no taxes and no government services. Every man pretty much operates on his own. Hires his own security forces. Uses his security forces to collect debts due him. etc. Somalia, is a good example, the Congo.
Somalia has got more gov’ts squeezed into a tiny area than you can count on your two hands.
As would any libertarian paradise.
Go google “libertarian” and let me know where you find that the philosophy would include lots of little governments. (not Libertarian, but libertarian)
Extreme libertarianism will always lead to one of three results. Oligarchy, Anarchy, or Oligarchy followed by Anarchy. Either way you end up with one big government benefiting a very few at the expense of everyone else or a bunch of little governments, run by war lords.
“I contract myself routinely, but my opinions are important even if not factual.”
Opinions are not facts. Therefore they cannot be factual. Facts are objective, opinions are subjective. Sound opinions are however based on observation of objective data i.e. facts.
History is replete with factual examples of what happens in the absence of effective government.
I’m not arguing with crazy people today. Maybe tomorrow.
*contradict
I contract myself routinely, …
TBG’s expansions have *outweighed* his contractions over the last couple decades.
TBG blames Golden Corral and Krispy Kreme Kiosks in convenience stores…
Blah blah Somalia blah blah. You realize that argument has become a joke right? It’s second only to the stupid “Who will build the roads?” question. By making that argument, you show yourself to be clueless as to the actual viewpoints of libertarians.
“You realize that argument has become a joke right?”
I don’t think he’s that self aware. He’s just spouting talking points:
“They are great examples of countries with little or no taxes and no government services.”
then his reponse to Somalia having govt’s is “as would any libertarian paradise”.
This is similar to conversation with homeless mentally ill people.
then his reponse to Somalia having govt’s is “as would any libertarian paradise”.
As long as there’s some form of government, no matter how small or ineffectual it is, they can always fall back to their “NOT A TRUE FREE MARKET” play.
Truth is annoying sometimes, isn’t it?
It’s second only to the stupid “Who will build the roads?” question.
I’ve yet to read a credible answer to that question. It mostly gets dismissed by libertarians without any real serious discussion of how private road systems would work. It isn’t a simple question, that I’ll agree to, but it does not warrant dismissal.
Somalia is a libertarian paradise, just with uncivilized people. What libertarians typically argue for is a civilized society (Europe, America, certain countries in Asia, Australia, etc.) to try it. Of course, those countries have lived with centuries of government to achieve their current level of civilization, so, yeah, there’s that.
I’ve heard great things about Galt’s Gulch Chile, though!
“I’ve yet to read a credible answer to that question.”
Here, you don’t even have to read:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWximmaAuWw
If you want to read:
https://mises.org/document/4084/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways
Maybe you’ll rethink(or not).
Somalia has been steadily worn down by decades of conflict and chaos, its cities in ruins and its people starving. Just this year, tens of thousands have died from famine, with countless others cut down in relentless combat. Now Somalis face yet another widespread terror: an alarming increase in rapes and sexual abuse of women and girls.
Some paradise!
they actually had a working government till we took it down in the early 2000’s just because we didnt like the warlord who was winning
ah william you guys would like to think that but it just isn’t true
“Wait, there isn’t an utopian paradise??”
Yep, it would be utopian to have a society without compulsory service.
“While I know a lot of good people who I respect have made good arguments for compulsory military service”
I suppose the incidence of 2nd louey fragging(among other issues relevant to compulsary slavery) in Vietnam wasn’t enough to give them pause.
It’s interesting how much of the country will condemn forced labor camps in China but think nothing of forcing people to “do good” for other reasons.
Not that I’m pro draft but I think Article 1, Section 8 allows it.
Paul is correct – both on forced military service and forced charity.
My last pay ???7?????
->>>>>>>
——————————————————————–
{Go to next link in this site}
Gee Sophia, you don’t even have to bathe as long as your client interaction is on the web and not in person. You might want to wipe your ass though as those stains on your butt do show up on camera.
Wasting all those , > and – makes me suspect this is a relative of BigT.
You sound like,Redd Foxx;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uldt6Y-CE3s
“128 people have a problem with washing their ass.”
I’ve got to wonder why people still create bots to try this form of advertisement. Is there really someone out there like “holy crap, this internet commenter that can barely write the english language really must have made that kind of money, because why would they randomly talk about how much money they made working from home in the comment section of articles that have nothing to do with working from home?”
Sadly, if they get just 1% of the people who see it to respond, it makes it worth their time. Humanity is such that there are always that 1%….
Isn’t that one of yours?
I’d imagine bored hackers looking to compromise dumb internet users? Maybe to get a botnet set up or something? Dunno.
It’s true what people say “once a politician always a bottom feeder”. He should start sharing his heartfelt beliefs with his son Rand Paul.
RP don’t believe in national service cause he don’t believe in a nation. he believes we are a bunch of autonomous individuals who just happen to live near eachother. but he does believe in a hereditary aristocracy and he damn well wants his family to be part of it.
Bring back corvee labor, but for everyone regardless of age, bigshots and fat Laz-E-Boy palaverers and all. Clean the roadways, fix the potholes, paint the park buildings, repair the simply-fixed rundown, teach prisoners to read, and a thousand other things. See how the pro-drafter paunchy post-prime like that national service.
” a thousand other things” …. like teaching the GrandTurnip how to think and type at the same time…
“Bring back corvee labor”
Shit, I could argue it never left.
Nice word usage(as usual) btw.
Educate me:
Whats “corvee”?
I can’t do it full justice, but mainly it was a scheduled annual short period of required service to community maintenance or improvement. An example–perhaps san scheduling here–required persons living along a road to maintain the road.
Definition of CORVÉE
1
: unpaid labor (as toward constructing roads) due from a feudal vassal to his lord
2
: labor exacted in lieu of taxes by public authorities especially for highway construction or repair
I highly doubt we will succeed in the Government peasants out of the projects to perform roadwork if they won’t even keep their complex looking decent.
I would say mandatory national service isn’t “LETTING GOVERNMENT DECIDE OUR MORAL OBLIGATIONS,” it’s our own society designating a civic obligation. This is a public tradition as far back as the Code of Hammurabi.
Public “traditions” come in all flavors…including direct slavery, debilitating corporal punishment and immediate executions.
There is no stated obligation in the Constitution for any sort of “national service” other than raising an army. Period.
Where is the past about an air force?
Or space flight? Or genetic computers…or…or…
Your point is?
You keep saying “service” isn’t in there…
I wonder how the proposed to fill the army, hmmmm, maybe like they did it back then, with conscription.
You are mistaking service IN the army and service IN LIEU of the army.
Just a little snippet from Article 1, Section 8: (text can be found at: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html) …please tell me where your expanded view can be found:
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
You will notice there is NOTHING about conscription…only calling forth the militia or raising the army, which involved PAYING for the citizens to JOIN the regular army (which was also VERY small) if needed. Otherwise, all able bodied men were part of the MILITIA– by definition.
And we damn near lost the country in 1812 because we had such a small standing army and navy
The militia in 1812 was a fucking joke and were of hardly any value at all.
That was primarily due to the fact that Britain was not fully occupied fighting the French (a much more equal opponent) than the still new US. Yet, we still continued to keep relatively SMALL standing amy and navy when not actually AT WAR until post-WWII. Why was this possible? A couple bodies of water called the Atlantic and Pacific.
I’d prefer to decide my own obligations. But I know that’s controversial today.
I have to agree that compulsory service is wrong. If it didn’t apply to just military service, it would be less wrong, but “less” wrong is still wrong.
I do think the government should be able to draft people, but only in dire situations, such as immediate threats that threaten the survival of the nation. I’d argue that because if the country were taken over by an outside force, there would be no guarantee we would retain any of our rights.
There’s also been talk of tying student loan eligibility to government service, which I also oppose. Student loans are increasingly becoming the only means of access to higher education, which is bad enough, but requiring indentured servitude just for the honor of carrying debt to try and make a better life for yourself, no guarantees? Hell no. I’d rather do away with student loans altogether.
Just more bullshit to justify increasing MIC spending. Fuck those on the left and the right that support this shit.
“I have to agree that compulsory service is wrong.”
“I do think the government should be able to draft people”
Huh?
Quote Barney
“That guys a NUT!”
Mr. Rand is 100% correct. Mr. Reich is just wrong. He is a member of the generation which killed the draft (remember “Hell no, we won’t go”). Now that they are in charge, it’s OK?
The only way I would entertain discuss drafting today’s young people is if EVERY person who was draft eligible from 1971 to today is subject to the draft, and that all of them serve.
“Now that they are in charge, it’s OK?”
I couldn’t find a source for him actually saying anything like that. Far as I can tell, he thought the draft was harmful and that the military is already a jobs program we shouldn’t have at the excesses we presently do.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/interview/clinton-reich/
http://robertreich.org/post/938938180
I WAS eligible for the draft in 1971 and promptly joined. Served 3 years active in the 82nd Airborne, stayed out 14 years and then joined the reserves at the tender age of 35. Spent my 52nd birthday in Baghdad during my 3rd tour since 2002.
Still gainfully employed as a civilian and am drawing retired military benefits.
Hell, I’d go back tomorrow for free if recalled.
All Uncle Sugar has to say is come back in and put on green/tan/whatever baggy shit!!!!!
“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.””
Source, please; The only articles in which I can find he weighs in on the military, he basically says almost precisely the opposite:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/interview/clinton-reich/
http://robertreich.org/post/938938180
Yep, we all know that if there was no draft during WWII we would have prevailed.
“Ditto” for Israel which still has compulsory service for both men and women and males serve in the reserves until they are 40+
I volunteered for the US Army in 1971 while the draft was still active and pulled 3 years active duty and 22 years in the Reserves
The worst thing we ever did was eliminate the draft
it’s time for that old fart Ron Paul to shuffle off the the old folks home.
A few years in the service would have done wonders for “FITS” but he is suffering from the “coulda/shoulda/woulda served if I had the chance” syndrome like so may of his age group.