One of my favorite writers on civil liberties is J. D. Tuccille, Civil Liberties Examiner from Miami. As a member of the ACLU and, years ago, a participant in litigation on its behalf, I share many of Mr. Tuccille’s views. On the other hand, I sometimes disagree, respectfully, very respectfully.
I offer the following article as a springboard for sober reflection, acknowledging the concepts are foreign to our country’s psyche and to most liberal and progressive people; on the other hand, these are extraordinary times with extraordinary challenges. I urge readers to thoroughly read and think about the hyperbolic remarks by those who commented on the articles, comparing the concept of some form of compulsory service to be, alternatively, communistic, fascist, and the equivalent of slavery. It is none of these and deserves consideration on the merits.
A while ago I wrote about the need for universal sacrifice by all Americans to address a number of urgent needs. In the past, great Presidents have engaged the public in fighting wars and defending our country. More recently, it has been the vogue to avoid this for political reasons. The results were to be expected. World War II brought sacrifice on all levels, civilian and military. Rationing, expansion of the workforce to women building airplanes, “Victory gardens”, children pasting in defense stamps and buying saving bonds, all served to promote the war efforts, brought us together and brought victory.
On the other hand, Lyndon Johnson and George Bush, when faced with Vietnam and the terror attacks of September 11, intentionally left the majority of people out of the conflict. “Guns and butter” was the slogan of LBJ and President Bush urged us all to go shopping. Things did not, or will not, be as successful.
There is a way to correct serious problems in our society. Where are we now as a nation?
One of my favorite anecdotes from the time this country was established concerns a question from at the closing of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Benjamin Franklin was asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin is said to have replied, "A republic, "if you can keep it."
The founders of our country were not optimistic about the future of the Republic. They had good reason to believe it would fail. There had been only a handful of other republics in all of human history, and most were small and far away. The founders' pessimism, though, came not from history but from their knowledge of human nature. A republic, to survive, needed not only the consent of the governed but also their active participation. It was not a machine that would be perpetually in motion or to give another analogy, a plant that would grow without care and effort. Free societies do not stay free without the involvement of their citizens.
I have discussed this with close friends and the opinions expressed showed a belief that there were two primary acts of citizenship: voting and paying taxes. Very close friends have expressed their opposition to a compulsory service as a requirement of passage into responsible citizens; I would suggest, however, that a strong and informed citizenry is exactly what is needed in there times.
It is true that two major acts of democratic citizenship are the payment of taxes and voting/ And that’s basically it. There are Libertarians who take the philosophical view that Government now take too many choices and freedoms from us. However, I expect that most of us feel uneasy that only about half of us vote and don't do much more than send in our returns on April 15. The truth is, even the archetype of the model citizen is mostly a myth. Except for times of war and the colonial days, we haven't been all that energetic about keeping the Republic.
There is a certain irony here. Those who assert that the Second Amendment grants an individual’s right to have a weapon, forget the historical basis for that right was the need for an armed citizenry to repel threats at a moment’s notice – not for quasi-law enforcement purposes but as a well-trained ,militia to defend the collective society.
I see another trend and set of beliefs in our nation
Polling indicates that while confidence in our democracy and our government is near an all-time low, volunteerism and civic participation in the past 30 years has arisen to near all-time high. Why would this be so? If confidence is so low, why would people bother volunteering? The explanation is pretty simple. People, especially young people, think the government and the public sphere are broken, but they feel they can personally make a difference through community service.
After 9/11, Americans were hungry to be asked to do something, to make some kind of sacrifice, and what they mostly remember is being asked to go shopping. The reason private volunteerism is so high is precisely that confidence in our public institutions is so low. People see volunteering not as a form of public service but as an antidote for it.
That is not a recipe for keeping a republic.
Where are we now?
• We are at or near the bottom of the world’s industrial countries in the scientific knowledge needed to be innovative and important in the world’s economy.
• We graduate, or in any event, discharge, many children from our schools unable to read or write, unable to perform complex tasks, much less enter and succeed in college.
• There is an entire culture of young people more interested in celebrity gossip than in personal development, drifting in the Mall, hats askew, and pants drooping, without hope or direction.
• Many of our families do not have the resources to send their children to college, even if well-qualified.
• We have an uneven and often unfair distribution and availability of health care providers, not even considering the rationing of such care by reason of cost.
• We have a crumbling infrastructure, roads, schools, bridges need repair.
• We are near the bottom of the world’s industrial nations in providing mass transit.
• Our economy is in disarray, to say the least.
• We have not been able to develop alternative fuels and fuel efficient transportation.
• We have placed the burdens of war, natural disasters, and everything unpleasant upon the shoulders of an over-burdened and over-stretched military.
Barack Obama has made a proposal which has not been universally greeted with acclaim; many observers suggest that it is far too ambitious. It is available on one of the Obama websites and is cited below. I do not believe it goes far enough.
The general framework would have high school graduates enter into a commitment to our nation to serve in some form of community service. The service would be military, civilian, related to public health issues, activities leading to government service as a teacher, a tutor of and for troubled teens, readers and helpers to the elderly and infirm, all activities and services that we are sorely in need. In return, the individual could receive some form of government stipend or other device that could be used to provide for doctors in training, opening clinics for primary care in rural or inner-city neighborhoods
To my friends, do not dismiss this out of hand. Do not engage in characterizing the possibility as a wish for a communist or Nazi-like regime. We have flourished as a society that sprang forth for the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord, with hope and a dedication to the strengthening of our people. Let’s not stop now.
Comments
You wrote: "Those who assert that the Second Amendment grants an individual’s right to have a weapon, forget the historical basis for that right was the need for an armed citizenry to repel threats at a moment’s notice – not for quasi-law enforcement purposes but as a well-trained, militia to defend the collective society." I think _you're_ the one who's forgetting history. For the first hundred years of our republic, professional police forces simply did not _exist_. (Even London, England did not have a professional police force until well into the 19th century). Who then, filled this need -- if not the people bearing arms in defense of themselves and one another? Obviously, the purpose of an armed citizenry was _both_ considerations.
To the extent that professional police cannot guarantee us a society free of burglars, muggers, carjackers and serial rapists, the need for an armed citizenry remains; this is a key part of self-government. Wearing a concealed handgun to contribute to the general defense against armed robbery (a crime which destroys the Constitutional Right to Freedom from Unwarranted Searches and Seizures) _is_ a form of voluntary public service.
All compulsory service is slavery, including the draft, jury service, and whatever macabre plans Obama had or has for our kids. Slavery is ostensibly illegal (although we all know that the Constitution is void where prohibited by law), and is not something that has any place in a free society. At all. Ever.
Volunteerism and charity are great, as is the willingness to sacrifice for others. What makes these things laudable is that they are undertaken at the discretion of the individual.
It's different when an innocent person is compelled to give against his will. That's not giving or sacrifice; that's victimization. Giving changes from a noble act to an act of violence against the "giver" when it is changed from a discretionary to a mandatory act.
Fsilber: First and foremost, I thank you for reading my post, considering it on its merits (or lack of them) and then taking the time to write. As I wrote in the article, I was and am calling for a dialogue, hopefully with those who disagree with me and are willing to state why. Preaching to the choir, quite honestly, gets boring.
I am working on an expansion of my opinion on the Second Amendment and the historical fact that a professional police force did not exist in pre-Colonial England or in the United States until many years following the adoption of the Constitution. You are quite correct that citizens in a community would organize informally to pursue criminals -- dating back to the “hue and cry” of the late 13th century and the 19th century’s sheriff’s posse depicted in all manner of “western” motion picture. The rudimentary “police” represented by the British night watchmen and Sheriff were clearly not able to provide for citizen safety and, combined with a sparsely populated area, there was a need for each person to provide his or her own security.
But there is a difference between the need for immediate and interventional action and the searching out perpetrators of past crimes and punishing them. The latter is far too subject to abuse by past victims and should be undertaken only by official forces. Let me offer an example. A shop owner is robbed at gunpoint; no one is physically hurt. After the robber leaves the store, the now armed owner or a passerby chases him and opens fire. I would prefer not to have victims of crime turn into vigilantes or a Charles Bronson Death Wish character.
Mainly, though, I see a brief period of community service, receiving military training, but also training to meet non-military needs, would be a maturing process and beneficial to both the individual and to society. I listed some of our needs that could be addressed.
Thank you, again, for participating in honest and civil discussion.
The idea of public service is actually a good idea, so long as it is not done by edict of law, and (more importantly) it does not serve the political ends of those in power, but the civil & social needs of the community. IT is primarily this last in which I have little faith in President Elect Obama. He would start such an organization ostensibly for the needs of community, but over time its true purpose would become evident.
As those serving would be indoctrinated with the idea that they are the "elite" this public service arm would necessarily mutate into something more resembling the Brownshirts of nazi Germany.
Washington D.C., in short, does not need any more power!!!!!!
Voting may be inherent in a pure direct democracy, but that is not what America is. Instead, we are a reepresentative consitutional republic.
As for taxes, note that there was no legal federal income tax until the early 20th century. Having made through half its lifespan without a income tax suggests that isn't inherently part of "democracy" either.
Voluntary community service can be a good thing. Mandatory community service is just another unconstitutional draft, i.e.- slavery.
fsilber is right, you are wrong. The second amendment guarantees an individual right to carry a weapon to protect yourself, your loved ones, your property and your country, in that order. I agree that we should leave the chasing of criminals to the police, but the courts have decided that the police have no obligation to protect you as an individual. That means it's up to you to protect yourself. You can't do that by calling the police. You can only do it by being responsible for yourself and learning how to use and training with a weapon of your own. And by the way, if you read the papers of the founders, a well regulated militia is only one purpose of many for the second amendment.
It is important to remember that the 'Bill Of Rights' <u>grants</u> no rights. They are, every one, restrictions upon <u>government</u>. The 2nd amendment, in this context, plainly states that an existing right of the people is not to be tampered with by government.
Our government exists to protect the people's rights; the people do not exist to support the government. If the government must fall in order for the rights of the people to continue, then this represents our system 'working as designed'.
First, the Second Ammendment does not "grant" the right to own firearms; it prohibits the government from abridging an already existing right.
Second, may I recommend Robert Heinlein's "Starship Trooper" for your reading (the book, not the movie) pleasure. In it he more or less splits the difference between volunteering and compulsory service. Anyone may volunteer for any of a long list of positions, and the government must accept that person and find a place for him/her. Service is not required, indeed the volunteer is offered every incentive to withdraw. Pay is poor at best. The reasons to complete service are simple. If you do not, you may not vote. You may not hold any government position, from President right down to policeman. You have no say in anything the government chooses to do, or not do.
Mr. Heinlein explains it much better than I do. He has some other interesting ideas in there too, on physical punishment for example.
As others have said, compulsory service does not sound very good to me, but there needs to be something seriously valuable, other than money, before true volunteers will step forward.
Keyword you wrote, "collective". You're not only a liberal idiot, but a communist stooge as well. How about this? Get out of my life and out of my business. Brain farts like you do not compute, only "feel". You want something, you need something? Then go do it, but stop reaching into my pocket for it, and trying to enslave my children. We ain't cooperating, and you ain't very smart if you try to make us.
It amazes me how someone can spend so many words making a good strong argument for the legitimacy of VOLUNTARY service to society OUTSIDE of the moronic and ruinous grasp of government, with phrases like "People, especially young people, think the government and the public sphere are broken, but they feel they can personally make a difference through community service." . . and then turn around and say that MANDATORY service in a government run system are reasonable answers to societies ills . . . can you say "non sequitur?"
Does anyone else really accept this propagandistic drivel? The very reason that people believe in VOLUNTARY service to their fellow man is because it IS VOLUNTARY! That is exactly why it works, and MANDATORY “service” doesn’t work . . . mandatory MEANS “at the point of a gun.” VOLUNTARY” MEANS from the heart . . . there is a UNIVERSE of difference between the two . . . and whether Mr. Stillman likes it or not, “MANDATORY” MEANS exactly “communistic” and “Fascist.”
As I stated before, I welcome and appreciate all of your comments and criticisms; I specifically asked for a debate and that means opening me for the latter. On the other hand, I'm sorry that some feel the need to characterize me as having a “moronic and ruinous grasp of government” and spouting “propagandistic drivel”, and being a “liberal idiot, but a communist stooge as well”.
While maintaining our freedoms and essential liberties, we have had, for example, since the earliest days of our Republic mandatory compulsory school attendance. There are substitutes for this, namely home schooling, but the vast majority of children attend public or private schools – whether they want to or not – up to a certain age, depending on the state. We have compulsory school attendance because it is recognized that an educated public benefits all of us. And it does and neither our nation nor its ideals have been compromised.
I am not proposing that a form of compulsory service be imposed. What I am suggesting is that the possibility and the framework for such a proposal be honestly and soberly discussed and considered, without the name calling and ad hominem remarks. There are a number of modern democracies that have adopted some form of national public service. Let’s tone down the rhetoric and explore the possibilities.
Mr. Stillman -
It is not a "characterization" . . it is fact. You argue for government imposed, mandatory service on the basis of people wanting to do voluntary service. This is known as "transfer" propaganda. See:wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda.
You are using techniques of propaganda, ergo, your comments are "propagandistic drivel." (actually, it is fair to call any propaganda "drivel," because it is disingenuous at best, and is deserving of a "detractive moniker"). Further, I did not characterize YOU as "moronic and ruinous grasp of government (sic)" . . . I characterized government as "moronic and ruinous" as it is associated with "public service." All said, it is nothing more than a propaganda piece, and it is deserving of Marxist/Leninist connotations.
"Let’s tone down the rhetoric and explore the possibilities."
I begin my reply with a quote from the political philosopher Etienne de la Boetie:
"There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always, like Ulysses on land and sea constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney, cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them,behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised."
Mr. Stillman, you can disguise your desire to enslave people to the State with whatever propaganda you wish. However, there are some of us who see this for what it is and will resist it. I don't owe the State anything. The State is not my friend or my mother or my father or any kin to me. In fact, it is my most oppressive enemy. It is an institution which lives on robbery and has an monopoly on violence. It is the greatest threat to my life, liberty, and property and always will be.
It has brainwashed the majority of Americans through the public school and the media so much so that they are willing to submit themselves to this entity and give up their own desires to pursue its wants. The people willingly submit themselves to be ruled by this entity as if it were a diety.
But what is the State? It is only a group of men and women. Thus, a group of men and women, the agents of the State, has convinced many people, including you, that your own life would be much better if you would only submit to its own desires.
I also find it disappointing that you would invoke the Revolutionaries as if they would tolerate this nonsense. These are the same people that were willing to die just to avoid paying taxes. Thomas Paine's Common Sense helped the colonists break their ideologial commitment to King George, and in his pamphlet we find this quote
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”
Yet you would have us believe that they would willing submit to service to the State and give up their inalienable rights to be lead as sheep. This Orwellian rewrite of history will not deceive all of us.
Slave masters could only dream about indoctrinating their slaves to the point that they would want to be kept in bondage. Such is this mandatory service propaganda.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!