More on forced labor, er, 'national service'
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, law professor Ilya Somin lays an eight-post smack-down on an issue near and dear to my 25-year-old heart -- forced or induced government labor of young citizens, otherwise known as its more politically appetizing title of "national service." In an Opinion Daily column last week, I wondered exactly what it is about we sub-30ers that inspires presidential candidates to call for our government servitude. Somin answers:
Why then the focus on the young? I suspect it is because they are politically weak. Research shows that 18-21 year olds are less likely to vote, less likely to engage in political activism, and have lower political knowledge levels than any other age group (see e.g. - this book). Obviously, they also have less money, make fewer campaign contributions, and are least likely to actually hold positions of power in government. The AARP would crucify any politician who had the temerity to suggest that the elderly be required to do forced labor. Unfortunately, the young lack that kind of power.
Somin also points out the obvious moral repugnance of national service:
It would still strike at the heart of the liberal idea that each person owns his or her own body, and cannot justly be compelled to work for others merely because it might be convenient to do so. Short of outright slavery or the murder of innocent people, it is hard to think of anything that violates individual liberty more clearly than forced labor.
The rhetoric of "national service" obscures the true nature of the idea, perhaps intentionally. It suggests that forced labor at the orders of the government ("national service") is somehow morally different from forced labor at the behest of other private individuals. But there is no intrinsic moral difference between the two. Yes, forced labor for the government might benefit the nation (though that result is by no means guaranteed). But so could forced labor for a private enterprise. Indeed, even outright slavery was regularly defended on the grounds that the labor of slaves produced valuable benefits to society as a whole.
"Maybe the politicians wouldn't be so quick to send people into battle if they knew it was their kid who'd be up to go."
I don't see an all volunteer army as being a big problem. I know some people have questioned whether we had enough boots on the ground in Iraq, but I haven't heard any of them say that the reason we didn't have enough boots on the ground was because we didn't have enough volunteers.
I imagine a guy wanting to volunteer to go to Iraq but not being let in because the slot he would have taken was taken by somebody who was forced to go, and for what? ...just to make sure that some politician's kid get the cannon pointed at him just like in that old CCR song?
That just seems so, um, absurd.
One of the reasons for invading Iraq that I found compelling was the idea that we were going to depose a vicious dictator who, among other things, forced people into military service. And one of the things I think is really cool about the United States of America is that we have an all volunteer...
Posted by: Ken Shultz | September 28, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Maybe the politicians wouldn't be so quick to send people into battle if they knew it was their kid who'd be up to go.
Posted by: aaron | September 27, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Make national service a condition of obtaining the right to vote. It could be argued that those unwilling to serve their country don’t deserve to vote.
Fair enough -- only if I get to stop paying taxes. If the government won't give me a say in how it spends money I've earned, then why should I have to pay The Man?
Posted by: Paul Thornton | September 27, 2007 at 02:24 PM
I blame the same misconception in part, by the way, for our Iraq debacle.
If there weren't so many people here in America under the mistaken impression that it's the elections that bestow the lion's share of the legitimacy on our leaders, then far fewer of us would have fallen for the claim that elections were going to bestow legitimacy on the government of Iraq in the eyes of the Iraqi people.
It's all the same thing. Culture, tradition, competent governance and respect for people's rights--in terms of legitimacy, all of these things are much more important than who won an election. ...personally, the more my government forces me to give ( to put "at stake"), the less legitimate its leaders are in my eyes.
Posted by: Ken Shultz | September 27, 2007 at 02:17 PM
"I think not enough people are partaking in our democratic process simply because they're not asked to give anything beyond taxes."
If winning an election via our democratic process gives someone the right to force other people to work for the government, then I'm going to stop voting.
For some reason, people seem to think that winning an election entitles them to make decisions about my life--I don't know why. But If elections are responsible for this misconception, then the only people who really have a right to complain are the people who don't vote.
Posted by: Ken Shultz | September 27, 2007 at 01:35 PM
Then I for one wouldn't have the vote. Which, now that you mention it, might not be the worst idea....
Posted by: Matt Welch | September 27, 2007 at 01:13 PM
There is one good way to promote national service while also providing an opt out for those that don’t want too. Make national service a condition of obtaining the right to vote. It could be argued that those unwilling to serve their country don’t deserve to vote.
Posted by: Mathew | September 27, 2007 at 12:25 PM
So why not have national service? Other countries do.
Other countries are dropping National Service, especially of the military variety, like flies. Unless you're a weird country like Switzerland, it's a terrible way of building up your defense capabilities (the largest single justification for it), it routinely wastes what should be some of the more productive/interesting years of a kid's life, as often as not sours him on his own country, then becomes a game of Avoidance for the rich while the poor suffer.
The enormous societal changes and protests in the sixties and much of the activism was started because there was a draft. There was something at stake.
Yeah, except for the aforementioned rich and well-connected, who could beg off. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of conscripted men -- many of whom fought poorly, compared to the more highly motivated professional military -- died. Is the death of poor people really worth an imagined uptick in activism? Seems rather a heavy price to me. If the populace needs to feel the threat of conscripted death before it stirs itself to opposing needless war, then I daresay it gets the foreign policy it deserves.
Why not have flexible service --go serve in Peace Corps, Teacher Corps, for the National Parks, and also for the military?
Nothing "flexible" about not having an opt-out, is there?
I think the more we involve people in some sort of activism, the better off we'll be in the long run.
But isn't the activism stronger when it's affirmatively chosen, rather than assigned by the federal government under threat of jail?
Posted by: Matt Welch | September 27, 2007 at 09:48 AM
If you'd read the book by Kathy Roth Doquet and Frank Schaeffer, AWOL, you'd understand where this is coming from.
I think not enough people are partaking in our democratic process simply because they're not asked to give anything beyond taxes. The enormous societal changes and protests in the sixties and much of the activism was started because there was a draft. There was something at stake.
Similarly, when it came time for the war in Afghanistan. and also Iraq, the numbers and lack of activism was sad. In comparison to other countries, such as Germany which has mandatory service, our protests have by and large been confined to small very left-leaning groups.
So why not have national service? Other countries do. Why not have flexible service --go serve in Peace Corps, Teacher Corps, for the National Parks, and also for the military? I think the more we involve people in some sort of activism, the better off we'll be in the long run.
One thing that strikes many of us in the center is that of the senators and congressmen who voted for funding these wars, all but one has anyone in the service. And of those voting, many have never served in the military. The discourse was run either left or right, with absolutely no perception of the intricacies of building up a war. They wrote a blank check, they got it.
All of this leads to a misperception about the military, and as we could see by the smear ads run against Petraeus, the perception for many is caught up in the 1960's, when military leaders were uniformly seen as corrupt and ignorant. It is wrong and steeped in hoary stereotypes.
And I think national service could help open up avenues of civil discourse of where there is none now.
Posted by: zacy | September 27, 2007 at 08:41 AM