The draft, or "a national effort of service with some choice involved"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

If you've been reading the "fine print" on the proposals for a new draft that have been coming through from Chuck Hagel, Chuck Rangel and others, you may have noticed an agenda that goes far beyond the military.

Check out the transcript for yesterday's Lou Dobbs show and his conversation with "Retired Brig. Gen. David Grange, CNN Military Analyst" regarding Hagel's proposal:

"GRANGE: I don't feel, Lou, the draft will work. But I do believe in another version of his statements made of some type of national service. The military needs more people in the long run. And so do some the other homeland security and defense issues, with police, with firefighters, with our elderly, with our hospitals. I think it should be some kind of a national effort of service with some choice involved. I doubt if we'll see it this year. But I think in the long term, the United States of America, with its commitments, is going to have to do that.

DOBBS: It's interesting you put it that way, General. What is wrong with the idea that was so much a part of this country's history in the past century of young men and, presumably, women, being eligible for the draft, for the U.S. military, sharing burdens across all walks of American life, so that we share the pain of the decisions that our leaders make and pay particular attention, because we know that that will affect each and every one of us?"

So while Bush is fighting to keep the Patriot Act in place (and probably keep expanding its scope), and Tom Ridge is knocking on the office door with additional requirements to keep the Homeland secure, I hope that people who are following the "reinstate the draft" stories DO NOT THINK that the proposals are exclusive to military service.

Look at Grange's comments again: "the other homeland security and defense issues, with police, with firefighters, with our elderly, with our hospitals"...as long as you feel that being "drafted" into any of these areas of need is a GOOD thing, and have no objections to it, the "new draft" may not be an issue for you.

Look also at Dobbs' comment: "young men and, presumably, women, being eligible for the draft, for the U.S. military, sharing burdens across all walks of American life"...

It brings to mind Rosie the Riveter in World War II (as seen in the pic above). The men went off to fight the war, the women took the factory jobs...it was a different time. Everyone "did their part" and it was not strictly related to military service. And if you pay close attention to the "new draft" agendas, what's being discussed is a draft that will sign up all eligible men and women for not only military service, but ANY OTHER NEED the government decides is attached to the war. If you don't qualify for combat or the military in general, they will find SOMETHING ELSE for you to do. Teaching has also been mentioned. It's a "blank slate"...if they write the legislation around it, it can be whatever the government wants it to be.

Definitely a story to watch closely as it progresses.

[el_gato]

1. sounds an awful lot like communism to me

forced labor

[evil_orange_cat]

7. fascism... because private power is combined with government

business + government = fascism... according to Mussolini

[FeebMaster]

11. Communism. Fascism.

All the same to the people under the boot.

[Selwynn]

2. I have no problem with one year of national service required...

..if the choices were diverse and you could not be forced into the military.

[forgethell]

4. I do.

the draft is legalized slavery. It might be justified if we were under attack by a foreign power, if enemy troops were on American shores/ But not for a war such as the current one. and certainlhy not for 'social services'. The thought is an abomination.

[dr.strangelove]

8. Don't dodge the draft.

My ethical problem lies in the duty I feel to those brave americans who signed up to protect people. If these volunteers are understaffed and are getting killed because they don't have the numbers to support, then whether I agree with the President who sent them there or not, if Congress institutes a draft, I'm damn well gonna do what I can to help out those who volunteered.

[FeebMaster]

9. If you feel such a great duty to the people who signed up

then you're certainly free to sign up yourself.

[doni_georgia]

26. If there aren't enough troops to fight Dubya's wars

Maybe we need to rethink our foreign policy!

You know, if Americans TRULY felt like this war was justified. If we TRULY felt threatened, people would be lined up outside recruitment offices. First off, we have not declared official war on ANYONE! Until we do, I will not even consider supporting a draft.

We unilaterally attacked a sovereign nation who did not declare war on us or attack us. We were told they were a threat, that they had WMDs - IT WAS A LIE! Bush had unfinished family business to take care of and is spending the lives of Americans to do it. It's shameful and I will not support sending more American men and women over there to fight Bush's stinking war. If he wants to fight the Iraqi people - give the man a gun and let him go! Until he is at least willing to tell his daughters, neice and nephew that they must go he needs to leave the rest of our children the hell alone.

[Selwynn]

12. Forced education till 16 is slavery too then.

What I am proposing is not a draft into military service. Consider it part of your public education to enter into society as a fully functioning adult with some measure of public accountability and civic mindedness.

I am proposing that one year of early life every citizen of the country be required to publicly give back to their society via public service. Job, Peace Corps, working in medicine, fire fighting, police work, urban renewal, and yes, even though many people are negative on the military here, military service if that is what you ELECT out of your wide array of choices for giving back to society.

Teaching a little civic responsibility and teaching people that their individual freedom is balanced also with social responsibility is a good thing. And its not too much to ask. And there are already many things society forces us to do because they are right. :)

[FeebMaster]

14. Individual freedom?

When you're forced into slavery, you don't have individual freedom.

[Selwynn]

15. And again, you are forced to go to school for some period of time...

...is that wrong? I say not at all.

Individual freedom should be balanced with social responsibility. I think asking you to contribute to public service and give back to the society that gives much (though not enough) is a small and responsible thing to ask. I think incorporating into our educational outlook civil responsibility as part of that preparation to enter society is also not an inappropriate thing to ask.

Come to think of it, you know you are not forced to get a high school diploma, but if you want to get it you have to meet certain criteria. Perhaps 12 months of public service should be part of that criteria. Either way, your argument comparing it to slavery is weak, as we have many obligations to society - a certain level of mandatory education, paying taxes, obeying the laws, and so on. If you choose to call all of those things slavery too, so be it. But they are necessary to functioning society and core things of value in the democratic party. I'm not apologizing for support any of them. And a public service requirement is no different.

[FeebMaster]

17. We're talking about forced labor

possibly military service, not public education. Although considering the state of our public schools, maybe we should reconsider the forced part of that too.

"Individual freedom should be balanced with social responsibility."

Individual freedom should be balanced with forced social responsibility. What happens when people refuse to serve. Going to send them to jail? What happens when they resist their arrest for refusal to do their forced labor. Going to shoot them? Work or die. Sounds like slavery to me.

"Come to think of it, you know you are not forced to get a high school diploma, but if you want to get it you have to meet certain criteria. Perhaps 12 months of public service should be part of that criteria."

There was a 350 something post thread on just this subject in the Campaign 2004 forum. I wasn't convinced there, either.

[Selwynn]

18. I don't agree.

First of all, I'm not defending any other idea out there, I'm suggesting my own. My own idea does not include forced military service. It includes a wide array of options for public service. You call it forced labor. Well, guess what when I went to college, some of the requirements for certain degrees included internships - so in order to graduate you were "forced" to labor. No one had a problem with that.

Also you seem to believe that "forced labor" is somehow not comparable to other elements of civil society were we are "forced" to do certain, but you have yet to explain how it is different. We are "forced" to pay taxes. We are "forced" to receive some kind of education (your comment on public schools is irrelevant; you can be home schooled or go to private school, you just can't not get education by law until you reach a certain age.

You can try to use flamboyant language to exaggerate the issue all you want, but it just doesn't hold much water. To me, public service like I am suggesting could be seen as an internship - a "field" requirement to graduate high school perhaps. In that context, you could in fact choose not to participate, if you decided not to graduate. But your argument about the horrible injustice of advocating this requirement just doesn't hold much weight, as there are scores of examples where we are clearly required to society, i.e. forced to do certain things for society.

As far as the what happens when people refuse question, there are multiple answers. First of all, in order to show the invalidity of your argument, I respond what happens when you don't pay your taxes? You're held accountable - jail, penalty, whatever. What happens if you do not go to school when the law says you have to? Something happens there is a demand for accountability.

Now, there are many possible ways to deal with non-compliance. First, it could be a system where the internship is a requirement for graduation, so you would still have the option to not graduate if you so choose. Or we could begin to teach our citizens to see civil service as a normal and honorable responsibility so that we would feel the same way about those who refuse to do it as we see other people who break the law.

Having said that, I personally feel the former option is the best one. And there are also alternative models, like the one suggested a few posts down, to encourage volunteerism by proving college tuition assistance based on service. That would also be viable.

Let's not loose the larger argument. I appreciate your rightfully expressed concern about over-forcefulness in demanding people do certain things. I even appreciate your point in asking, are you going to through people who refuse in jail? I'm not mocking your argument, however I do think pointing out all the ways in which our society already does require its citizens to do certain things whether they want to or not does refute an absolutist argument that a public service concept is wrong exclusively because it is forcing someone to do something. Our society forces people to do stuff all the time, and all all the things we are "forced" to do are wrong.

The larger argument I believe is this: our society has almost no concept of civil responsibility. We are the most self-centered, self-absorbed, corrupt, material driven consumers on the face of the planet, who use and use and take and take until we destroy society under the way of our own isolated selfishness. We have lost a sense of civil duty, community pride, relational compassion, a belief that we bear responsibility for the quality of our society. One of the best things that could ever happen to us is to begin to think seriously about changing those attitudes. How can we teach future generations to return to a more healthy valuing of society, a commitment to working not just for ourselves, but also for the betterment of our society, to contribute collectively as well as individually.

Now perhaps my idea is not perfect. :) But we need more and more people to be thinking seriously about how to made radical change in our society toward promoting greater civil duty and social responsibility. Otherwise, society will continue to deteriorate as it has been, and as it continues to do.

[FeebMaster]

19. Support slavery all you like.

You won't be convincing me.

[Selwynn]

20. Well now you're just being dishonest.

Clearly in my earlier post not only did I provide multiple refutations to your charge of "slavery" which you have continued through his entire thread to ignore, but I also suggested numerous alternatives to your so-called "forced labor," while at the same time pointing out substantial examples where we are already rightfully "forced" by society to do certain things which cause no one to go around crying "I'm enslaved because I am required to give back to society as well as consume from it!"

Longest. Sentence. Ever. :D

I've suggested plenty of variations to my basic theme which have nothing to do with anything that could even be remotely misconstrued as "slavery" or "forced labor." In fact I specifically suggested alternatives that would not be forced. But yet, even after acknowledging the merit of some of your points (though still disagreeing with them), all you can do is respond with a one line quip about slavery that has nothing to do with half the points that I made.

You also demonstrate a total unwillingness to talk about the larger point, or in all honestly, to have an sophisticated discussion at all.

Oh well, I guess part of my problem is that I always expect too much of people...

[FeebMaster]

21. You can dress it up however you like

but forcing people into your national service plan is still slavery. Alternatives that would not be forced? Like do the service or don't get a high school diploma? Some alternative.


"First of all, I'm not defending any other idea out there, I'm suggesting my own. My own idea does not include forced military service. It includes a wide array of options for public service. You call it forced labor. Well, guess what when I went to college, some of the requirements for certain degrees included internships - so in order to graduate you were "forced" to labor. No one had a problem with that."

Except everywhere along the line in that situation there is choice. You can choose to go to college or not. You can choose to go to a school that doesn't require internships. You can choose a major that doesn't require an internship. You can probably choose where you're going to work. Not to mention, interns get paid.




I'm going to jump to your older post for your other points to save some time.

"we have many obligations to society - a certain level of mandatory education"

I don't see how this compares. Plenty of people drop out of school. Plenty never get high school diplomas. Is there even a penalty for not going to school? How is this even an obligation to society?

"paying taxes"

You don't pay taxes to society, you pay them to the government. Considering just how much tax money the government spends oppressing people at home and abroad, I don't have much of a moral objection to people that avoid paying them.

"obeying the laws"

Which ones? Drug laws? Gun Laws? Sodomy Laws? Prostitution Laws? If you break these, are you breaking your obligation to society? Are all of these necessary to a functioning society? Are all of these core things of value in the Democratic Party?


"Now, there are many possible ways to deal with non-compliance. First, it could be a system where the internship is a requirement for graduation, so you would still have the option to not graduate if you so choose. Or we could begin to teach our citizens to see civil service as a normal and honorable responsibility so that we would feel the same way about those who refuse to do it as we see other people who break the law."

I like this one. You force citizens into your national service program and teach them all about how they aren't being enslaved while they're getting their mandatory public education. Let's not forget to teach them that people who avoid their mandatory service are no better than any other law breakers out there, like murderers and rapists.

"Having said that, I personally feel the former option is the best one. And there are also alternative models, like the one suggested a few posts down, to encourage volunteerism by proving college tuition assistance based on service. That would also be viable."

So we'll just tack an extra year onto high school so kids can do their national service. Hell, why bother. It's not like kids are leaving high school knowing how to read these days anyway.


I don't even know why I'm arguing with you. You think mandatory national service is alright. I don't. I'm not going to convince you otherwise and you certainly aren't going to convince me.

[Selwynn]

22. Thanks for the response -

No we're not going to convince each other other wise, but we can at least have honest argumentation instead of dishonest argumentation.

"Except everywhere along the line in that situation there is choice. You can choose to go to college or not. You can choose to go to a school that doesn't require internships. You can choose a major that doesn't require an internship. You can probably choose where you're going to work. Not to mention, interns get paid."

There is not always choice, no matter how much you want to believe that there is. In order to get a high school diploma, there are some things you have to do, period, in order to do that. If you want to get a collage degree, there are some things you have to do period, no matter where you go. No matter where you go, if your going into education with a degree for example, it requires forced field work in order to graduate. And your statement above is refuted on the following grounds:

1) There is choice in my system as well
2) You cannot escape all mandatory requirements in society, and cannot escape mandatory internship requirements for certain kinds of work already.
3) You are incorrect that internships are always paid. Some internships are paid positions, many (especially education internships, which I know from first hand experience) are not.

So the argument presented in that paragraph is refuted.

"I don't see how this compares. Plenty of people drop out of school. Plenty never get high school diplomas. Is there even a penalty for not going to school? How is this even an obligation to society?"

The obligation I was referring to is that society forces us to get an education until a certain age. We have no choice in the matter until that age. So society already forces us to do some things. At the beginning of this thread, your argument centered around your indignation that society forcing people to do something, but not I've pointed out the numerous examples of where society already forces us to do lots of different things.

"You don't pay taxes to society, you pay them to the government. Considering just how much tax money the government spends oppressing people at home and abroad, I don't have much of a moral objection to people that avoid paying them."

1) Government is part of/a function of society
2) You most certainly to pay taxes to society, insofar as you pay taxes to maintain society, improve society, etc.
3) Your moral objection or lack thereof to people who refuse to pay taxes is irrelevant. The only issue here was to point out the ways that we are forced to do many things to contribute to the society in which we exist, and paying taxes is one of those things.

"Which ones? Drug laws? Gun Laws? Sodomy Laws? Prostitution Laws? If you break these, are you breaking your obligation to society? Are all of these necessary to a functioning society? Are all of these core things of value in the Democratic Party?"

This argument is also irrelevant the question at hand. The issue at hand is that you began this discussion by acting as though the reason a service program is wrong is because government shouldn't force its people to do anything or infringe on individual freedom. And as I have consistently pointed out over and over again THAT PARTICULAR argument is just incredibly weak. That doesn't mean you have to support a national service program, it just means you need to find a different reason for not supporting it. The point about the law is that the government as a function of our given society already sets restrictions on your individual freedom - you don't get to go murder your neighbor and not expect there to be consequences. Trying to shift the focus of the debate from pointing out that there are laws that we are "forced" to follow (doesn't mean we can't break them, it means that there is "enforcement" behind them - we break them and there may be consequences) to a debate over which laws are good and which ones aren't is a straw man.

"I like this one. You force citizens into your national service program and teach them all about how they aren't being enslaved while they're getting their mandatory public education. Let's not forget to teach them that people who avoid their mandatory service are no better than any other law breakers out there, like murderers and rapists."

This isn't even a coherent argument. Again, I'm not challenging your right to oppose a national service kind of idea - I'm just challenging your ability to make a rational, reasonable argument in defense of that opposition. What's more, in my own argument I said that another option was preferable, so arguing against this is not even arguing against my actual position.

"Having said that, I personally feel the former option is the best one. And there are also alternative models, like the one suggested a few posts down, to encourage volunteerism by proving college tuition assistance based on service. That would also be viable."

So we'll just tack an extra year onto high school so kids can do their national service. Hell, why bother. It's not like kids are leaving high school knowing how to read these days anyway.

First of all, this is also not even an argument. The education system needs great important and no one is denying that. But I left high school knowing how to read, and every single person that I know today, and have known for the last 20 years has left high school knowing how to read. The point of that is not to say that the problem doesn't exist, its to point out that your all or nothing statement is logically unsound.

I think more disturbing than this weak argumentation is the fact that once again you completely (and I guess deliberately) IGNORE the larger point, even after I specifically stated what the larger issue is. You also ignore the many and multiple alternatives that promote public service that cannot be blindly refuted by running around crying "slavery" every where (by the way, news flash, the entire capitalist system is wage slavery.)

So once again, I restate what the larger issue is, from my earlier post:

Let's not loose the larger argument. I appreciate your rightfully expressed concern about over-forcefulness in demanding people do certain things. I even appreciate your point in asking, are you going to through people who refuse in jail? I'm not mocking your argument, however I do think pointing out all the ways in which our society already does require its citizens to do certain things whether they want to or not does refute an absolutist argument that a public service concept is wrong exclusively because it is forcing someone to do something. Our society forces people to do stuff all the time, and all all the things we are "forced" to do are wrong.

The larger argument I believe is this: our society has almost no concept of civil responsibility. We are the most self-centered, self-absorbed, corrupt, material driven consumers on the face of the planet, who use and use and take and take until we destroy society under the way of our own isolated selfishness. We have lost a sense of civil duty, community pride, relational compassion, a belief that we bear responsibility for the quality of our society. One of the best things that could ever happen to us is to begin to think seriously about changing those attitudes. How can we teach future generations to return to a more healthy valuing of society, a commitment to working not just for ourselves, but also for the betterment of our society, to contribute collectively as well as individually.

Now perhaps my idea is not perfect. But we need more and more people to be thinking seriously about how to made radical change in our society toward promoting greater civil duty and social responsibility. Otherwise, society will continue to deteriorate as it has been, and as it continues to do.

If you want to respond to the larger argument, with suggestions as to HOW we can renew and foster healthy spirit of social responsibility and community concern, civil duty and interrelatedness, by all means please do - I'm very interested in ideas. If you just want to reply to say "AAA slavery! slavery! force labor! Screw you I have my rights!" then don't bother.

[FeebMaster]

23. Honest argumentation?

"There is not always choice, no matter how much you want to believe that there is. In order to get a high school diploma, there are some things you have to do, period, in order to do that. If you want to get a collage degree, there are some things you have to do period, no matter where you go.

Of course there is always a choice. You can choose not to get a high school diploma or college degree. The choices might suck like voluntarily participating in your own enslavement to get a high school diploma or they might really suck like voluntary participate in your own enslavement or go to jail, but the choice is still there.



"No matter where you go, if your going into education with a degree for example, it requires forced field work in order to graduate. And your statement above is refuted on the following grounds:

1) There is choice in my system as well
2) You cannot escape all mandatory requirements in society, and cannot escape mandatory internship requirements for certain kinds of work already.
3) You are incorrect that internships are always paid. Some internships are paid positions, many (especially education internships, which I know from first hand experience) are not.

So the argument presented in that paragraph is refuted."

1) Of course there is choice. That doesn't mean there are good choices.

2) You can escape all mandatory requirements of society. There are people who don't get the required level of public education. There are people who don't pay taxes. They make the choices and they have to live with them.

Do you not see the difference between choosing to major in education and having to do an unpaid internship and being forced to go to high school and having to do mandatory service to graduate?

3) So some people get piss poor internships where they don't get paid and that refutes my argument?


"The obligation I was referring to is that society forces us to get an education until a certain age. We have no choice in the matter until that age. So society already forces us to do some things. At the beginning of this thread, your argument centered around your indignation that society forcing people to do something, but not I've pointed out the numerous examples of where society already forces us to do lots of different things."

"1) Government is part of/a function of society
2) You most certainly to pay taxes to society, insofar as you pay taxes to maintain society, improve society, etc.
3) Your moral objection or lack thereof to people who refuse to pay taxes is irrelevant. The only issue here was to point out the ways that we are forced to do many things to contribute to the society in which we exist, and paying taxes is one of those things.


So since society already forces us to do some things, it's alright if it forces us to do some more? Is there anything society can't force us to do?


"This argument is also irrelevant the question at hand. The issue at hand is that you began this discussion by acting as though the reason a service program is wrong is because government shouldn't force its people to do anything or infringe on individual freedom. And as I have consistently pointed out over and over again THAT PARTICULAR argument is just incredibly weak. That doesn't mean you have to support a national service program, it just means you need to find a different reason for not supporting it."

I think my current reasons for not supporting mandatory national service are just fine. The government shouldn't infringe on individual freedom and just because it already does doesn't make it alright for it to infringe on more individual freedom. It shouldn't be infringing on the freedoms it's already infringing. Personally, I find your "Government already forces us to do some things, so it's OK if it forces us to do some others" argument to be pretty weak.


"The point about the law is that the government as a function of our given society already sets restrictions on your individual freedom - you don't get to go murder your neighbor and not expect there to be consequences."

Are you seriously arguing that laws against murder are restricting individual freedoms? How can there be a right to murder when exercising that right would automatically infringe on another's right to life?


"Trying to shift the focus of the debate from pointing out that there are laws that we are "forced" to follow (doesn't mean we can't break them, it means that there is "enforcement" behind them - we break them and there may be consequences) to a debate over which laws are good and which ones aren't is a straw man."

Straw man? You made the argument that we have an obligation to society to obey the law. All of the laws? Even the bad ones? Are people who violate bad laws breaking their obligation to society?


"This isn't even a coherent argument. Again, I'm not challenging your right to oppose a national service kind of idea - I'm just challenging your ability to make a rational, reasonable argument in defense of that opposition. What's more, in my own argument I said that another option was preferable, so arguing against this is not even arguing against my actual position."

I thought it was a great argument and hilarious to boot. You advanced the whole "teaching people that avoiding national service is wrong like any other crime" argument. Whether or not you think it's the best way to go about things or not, you advanced it and I responded to it. Besides I addressed your preferred solution in my next paragraph.


"First of all, this is also not even an argument. The education system needs great important and no one is denying that. But I left high school knowing how to read, and every single person that I know today, and have known for the last 20 years has left high school knowing how to read. The point of that is not to say that the problem doesn't exist, its to point out that your all or nothing statement is logically unsound."

Of course it's an argument. You advocated sticking national service into the requirements for graduating high school. When are people going to do this service? After school? During the summer? Are you going to take time away from teaching algebra and geometry so people have time to do the service? There are only 8,760 hours in a year and that service has to squeeze into them somewhere.

I'm glad you left high school knowing how to read. So did most of the people in my required college English class, although the majority of them could only read a few words a minute. I don't know if I'd call that literate.



"I think more disturbing than this weak argumentation is the fact that once again you completely (and I guess deliberately) IGNORE the larger point, even after I specifically stated what the larger issue is. You also ignore the many and multiple alternatives that promote public service that cannot be blindly refuted by running around crying "slavery" every where (by the way, news flash, the entire capitalist system is wage slavery.)"

There is a difference between promoting public service and forcing people to perform it. If you want to give benefits to people who voluntarily perform public service, I'm not going to argue with it. But you didn't advocate that anywhere. You're own preferred method is to stick this national service requirement into the requirements for getting a high school diploma. That's not promoting public service it's forcing people to do public service. Do you see the difference between saying "you don't get some money toward college or some other benefit if you don't perform" and "you don't get a high school diploma if you don't perform?"

I'd ask how the "entire capitalist system" is wage slavery, but that would be a thread in itself and I'm sure as hell not interested in arguing that one.


"So once again, I restate what the larger issue is, from my earlier post:

Let's not loose the larger argument. I appreciate your rightfully expressed concern about over-forcefulness in demanding people do certain things. I even appreciate your point in asking, are you going to through people who refuse in jail? I'm not mocking your argument, however I do think pointing out all the ways in which our society already does require its citizens to do certain things whether they want to or not does refute an absolutist argument that a public service concept is wrong exclusively because it is forcing someone to do something. Our society forces people to do stuff all the time, and all all the things we are "forced" to do are wrong."

I'm pretty sure I already said it, but I'll say it again. Just because society/the government already forces people to do some things doesn't automatically make it alright for them/it to force people to do other things. It doesn't even necessarily make the things they/it are already forcing people to do right.


"The larger argument I believe is this: our society has almost no concept of civil responsibility. We are the most self-centered, self-absorbed, corrupt, material driven consumers on the face of the planet, who use and use and take and take until we destroy society under the way of our own isolated selfishness. We have lost a sense of civil duty, community pride, relational compassion, a belief that we bear responsibility for the quality of our society. One of the best things that could ever happen to us is to begin to think seriously about changing those attitudes. How can we teach future generations to return to a more healthy valuing of society, a commitment to working not just for ourselves, but also for the betterment of our society, to contribute collectively as well as individually."


Nice big, bold paragraph. Except it's the same argument the Republicans use when they oppose gay marriage and pornography and support prayer in school. It's also the same argument some drug warriors use to support the drug war. "Society is crumbling and we have to do something about it." Even if I did agree, which I don't, I wouldn't go around arguing that we have to force people to do things for their own good and for the good of society. How can you have a free society when the individuals who make up that society aren't free?


"Now perhaps my idea is not perfect. But we need more and more people to be thinking seriously about how to made radical change in our society toward promoting greater civil duty and social responsibility. Otherwise, society will continue to deteriorate as it has been, and as it continues to do."

I disagree. I think we need more and more people to be thinking seriously about promoting greater individual freedom.


"If you want to respond to the larger argument, with suggestions as to HOW we can renew and foster healthy spirit of social responsibility and community concern, civil duty and interrelatedness, by all means please do - I'm very interested in ideas. If you just want to reply to say "AAA slavery! slavery! force labor! Screw you I have my rights!" then don't bother."

I'm more concerned with the individuals that make up society. If you want to renew and foster a healthy spirit of social responsibility and community concern, civil duty and interrelatedness by all means try. But it's foolish to think that forcing people to do things is going to convince them that those things can and should be done. Maybe that was a "Screw you I have my rights!" argument, but like I said, I'm more concerned with the individuals that make up society than I am with society.

[Selwynn]

24. Response:

1) Of course there is choice. That doesn't mean there are good choices.

2) You can escape all mandatory requirements of society. There are people who don't get the required level of public education. There are people who don't pay taxes. They make the choices and they have to live with them.

Do you not see the difference between choosing to major in education and having to do an unpaid internship and being forced to go to high school and having to do mandatory service to graduate?

3) So some people get piss poor internships where they don't get paid and that refutes my argument?


1 and 2 don't help you're argument, they help mine. Depending on how you define choice, you're correct of course. Outside of adhering to the law, you can choose anything you want in life. In terms of functioning in society you cannot choose "anything" - there are some actions that are no permitted.

The thing is, in our society there are many requirements of the citizens that I don't believe are wrong. It's good that we pay taxes, and we should want to do so. But if anyone doesn't, we'll make them anyway under the law because its best for the majority. Now I understand that you don't like that. Tough. And while we're calling each other Republicans like you do to me below, its certainly not the Democrats who emphasize radical self interest over the welfare of society, who emphasis extreme individual rights rather than individual rights balanced with social responsibility, who argue that they supersede any obligation to society or others, who argue that the government shouldn't be forcing us to do anything, like you argue below.

As far as #3 goes, have you been to college? I ask because, it seems like you have no idea what internships actually are. There are many, many different kinds of internships - some paid and very good, some not paid and very good, some paid and not very good, some not paid and not very good, some associated with college education, some not associated with college education. The fact of unpaid internships refutes your argument that all internships are paid, yes.

So since society already forces us to do some things, it's alright if it forces us to do some more? Is there anything society can't force us to do?

There is a logical fallacy here and that is arguing against an argument I didn't make in the first place: my argument is not an abstract one that it is ok for society to force us to do generic "more" things because of the fact that it forces us to do some things already. My argument is not even that some kind of public service should be part of public education because government already forces us to do some things. You're confusing my argument for public service with my rejection of your argument against it. Your original argument against it was that it is "forced labor/slaver" and that was your sole stated argument against it: it is a wrong idea because you shouldn't be forced to do something you don't want to do.

But I argue that is not true, there are many times where we should be forced to do things we don't want to do. As a democrat, I believe we should be forced to pay taxes in part to support the welfare of others in society - health care for myself and others, access to public services for myself and others, better living for the poor, better communities for us all. I believe we should be forced to obey certain laws such as laws against murder. I believe children should be forced to get education even if they don't think they want it, at least until a certain age - whether that be public or private or home is a separate issue.

What you then did is take my refutation of your argument at though it was a supporting point for my original claim, which it is not. It is only a refutation of your claim that we shouldn't be forced to do anything, when I think there are lots of things we should be forced to do. I argue that teaching civil responsibility is every bit as much a part of good education as mathematics or science. What's more, many schools agree, and already include classes that do in fact have kids involved in their communities in public service for a certain part of their time...

My original argument is that some kind of public service should be part of public education because: a) public service is a good, healthy and appropriate, and should be a part of living in a functional society, b) educating people to respect their community, and balance their selfishness with a healthy sense of relational responsibility is best both for the individual and society


I think my current reasons for not supporting mandatory national service are just fine. The government shouldn't infringe on individual freedom and just because it already does doesn't make it alright for it to infringe on more individual freedom. It shouldn't be infringing on the freedoms it's already infringing. Personally, I find your "Government already forces us to do some things, so it's OK if it forces us to do some others" argument to be pretty weak.

Well it would be weak, if that had been part of the argument I was making to support my original argument. But it wasn't. However, I do see that we have a fundamental disagreement here. You apparently don't believe the government should demand anything from its citizens: "It shouldn't be infringing on the freedoms it's already infringing." How to you reconcile that believe with the Democratic platform? Because most certainly, no matter how moderate or how liberal you swing, the Democratic platform represents to some extent a belief that individual freedom is to be balanced with social responsibility and the general welfare, and that I am responsible for not only my own well being, but the well being of my neighbor. Indeed my own well being cannot be separated from the well being of my neighbor, I do not exist as a isolated self enclosed automaton.

Even science and contemporary philosophy seem more and more to refute the modernist (i.e. 19th century western European) notion that I am a "radical" I - a radically self-enclosed autonomous person. The reality is that our personhood is in part relational, that my "I" is a combination of my internal self awareness and my relationships, context, culture etc. Maintaining good relationships, good community, indeed good society is directly correlated to maintaining a healthy self, and it is impossible to separate some kind of autonomous "self" from the context of relationships, and interactions with others, culture, community, etc. The idea of "I am my own person and nothing affects that but myself" is a fading facade of an idea, that is difficult to hang on to. The reality is that my context, and my relationship to people around me, things around me, and the community and culture around me in part define the "I" that is me.

I would be a much different person had I been born in Africa, or any other context for that matter, I would be different had I had different relationships, made different choices, interacted differently with my environment, etc. Individual freedom is certainly not a farce - we do have some agency wherein I can make some decisions about who I choose to act and what I choose to do in given situations. However, we do not, no matter how much someone might desperately want to pretend like we do, have unqualified, unconditional, "radical" freedom. Our choices, and "freedom" as it were, is conditioned by our context.

Because I understand the nature of selfhood, I also understand that part of my own well being and fullness of self identity lies in part in my not rejecting all responsibility to society but embracing it, and looking to balance my individual "freedom" with my investiture into other people and the greater community in which I exist. What some people call "radical" individual freedom is in actuality the stunting of human development. The self is not strictly autonomous, but relational at essence, and maintaining and sustaining those healthy relationships and interconnected dependencies is part of being a healthy human being.

Understanding that, allows me to think about proper balance between individual freedoms and social responsibility and community relationship, participation with others - whether public service should be an element of education or not, we can start from a foundational place of saying that we should be committed to the maintaining of healthy interpersonal relationships and rich communities not as an act of "self-less" giving but rather as an acknowledge act of "self-fulfillment." I believe that teaching children to better understand their self-identity as interrelated to the people place and things around them and thereby help create an ethic of concern and compassion for others, for community, for society as well as the individual members of society - is a very good thing.

Are you seriously arguing that laws against murder are restricting individual freedoms? How can there be a right to murder when exercising that right would automatically infringe on another's right to life?

I'm glad you asked. The answer is, it depends on how you define "rights." A law prohibiting murder is by very definition, prohibiting an individual from taking a certain action that he/she could take if he/she so chose. That by definition is a restriction of choice, therefore a restriction of freedom. Free choice is not synonymous with "rights." Choice is just a action I take. The law restricts what actions I can take. If I take them anyway, there will be consequences. So society does sanction us (i.e. force us) to follow certain rules which limit our choices if we want to to avoid the consequences. There's no denying that.

Straw man? You made the argument that we have an obligation to society to obey the law. All of the laws? Even the bad ones? Are people who violate bad laws breaking their obligation to society?

No, my argument is that there are laws that force us to do certain things and laws that prohibit us from making certain choices already. My argument was again specifically challenging your claim that a public service requirement is wrong specifically because it was forcing someone to do something. And so I pointed out multiple different ways in which we are rightfully forced to do things (or prohibited from doing things) all the time the law is one example. It is irrelevant to my argument whether or not we should choose to obey all laws or just some. Unless you are arguing that there should be no law of any kind, my point stands. That there are some laws that society rightfully enforce which tell us either to do or not to do certain things. Do you believe there should be no law of any kind? If not, then that's my point exactly - we are already "forced" to do some things by government and society. Forced not meaning that it is impossible to refuse, for that is never true - obviously we can choose not to obey and suffer the consequences. Rather I mean "forced" in the philosophical sense of "sanctioned" - to do or not do certain things.

That is why a discussion of why laws should be obeyed and which shouldn't, civil disobedience, etc. while interesting, are irrelevant to this discussion. As long as we agree that there are at least some laws that are rightfully enforced by society, then my point still stands.


I thought it was a great argument and hilarious to boot. You advanced the whole "teaching people that avoiding national service is wrong like any other crime" argument. Whether or not you think it's the best way to go about things or not, you advanced it and I responded to it. Besides I addressed your preferred solution in my next paragraph.

No, what you actually did was dishonestly argue something I wasn't even saying. First, what you put in quotation marks is not a direct quote by me. What I said was, "Or we could begin to teach our citizens to see civil service as a normal and honorable responsibility so that we would feel the same way about those who refuse to do it as we see other people who break the law." Then I preceded to say that I didn't think that "or" alternative was the better choice. However now I am going to defend it. First of all, there are many degrees of breaking the law. I do in fact think that we could go a long way to creating a culture and society wherein civil responsibility and service to others was considered honorable and normal, were people felt and obligation to society and where refusing that responsibility would be seen in about the same way as not paying your taxes is seen. Sure there are some people who think people who don't pay their taxes are heroes. But most of society basically seems paying taxes as part of responsible citizenship. We participate in politics (in part) to advocate how those taxes should be used and how they should be but in our society, paying taxes is seen by the majority as a normal part of social responsibility. If we could begin to teach future generations to see public service and community participation in the same way, that would be a great thing.

That is a far cry from your straw man hyperbole.

Of course it's an argument. You advocated sticking national service into the requirements for graduating high school. When are people going to do this service? After school? During the summer? Are you going to take time away from teaching algebra and geometry so people have time to do the service? There are only 8,760 hours in a year and that service has to squeeze into them somewhere.


There are countless different possibilities. First of all, as I said above, there are some schools that already incorporate community service into their educational program. Kids will, for an hour a day or so, learn about civic responsibility and community awareness, and even go out and participate in some fashion in public service for a certain part of certain days. So in some small way, some of this already happens in some places. Second of all, there are plenty of different possibilities - one is to have it as a class similar to what I just mentioned. Not all of the school day is taken up with "algebra and geometry" as you say. I graduated with honors and took multiple AP classes in high school, and yet I still had open "independent" blocks of time all year two of my four years as well as room for all kinds of electives. It is not inconceivable to think that we could incorporate the teaching of some "applied civics" into the mix there - I know there was time when I was in High school. Another approach is summer internship. Honestly, my favorite idea is a two pronged idea - now I know we're all in "argument" mode and so you don't want to listen to anything I have to say (maybe) but hear me out anyway:

Part 1 - incorporate teaching community awareness, applied civics, social responsibility in school, 1 class each year. This is where we start trying to educate future generations to be better caretakers of this great society of America, and teach responsibility, community action, compassion, and a sense of responsibility and relationship to our neighbor. As part of that education, perhaps even some "field trips" to do a little community service wouldn't be a bad thing.

Part 2 - summer internships, eligible but voluntary to every high schooler from 9-12. These internships would not be "paid" in the traditional sense, instead they would go towards college tuition assistance. A student who volunteered for public service each summer during high school would received a college tuition assistance up to a certain cap, but a significant amount. Or maybe it would have to be something where you received x % of assistance for each summer internship, instead of making someone do all for years to get full assistance.

Now, I understand that I'm shifting what we're arguing about - in this idea public service isn't quite so required to graduate high school (with the exception of a little education) and the service itself would be voluntary, simply rewarding those who choose to participate with college tuition assistance. Still though, I think this is my favorite idea so far. As far as questions about how we are going to pay for it, see my response to the last post in this thread.

There is a difference between promoting public service and forcing people to perform it. If you want to give benefits to people who voluntarily perform public service, I'm not going to argue with it. But you didn't advocate that anywhere. You're own preferred method is to stick this national service requirement into the requirements for getting a high school diploma. That's not promoting public service it's forcing people to do public service. Do you see the difference between saying "you don't get some money toward college or some other benefit if you don't perform" and "you don't get a high school diploma if you don't perform?"


No, I don't. But the reason I don't is because you and I disagree about what a High School diploma should mean. You and I would agree that a High School diploma means you have received and demonstrated your understanding of a certain level of education. Reading, mathematics, language, history, etc. etc. Remember now, that the argument about how effective public schools are at education is a different argument. But we agree that a high school diploma is suppose to reflect a certain level of education. We're not like pissed off that kids are "forced" to be taught mathematics in order to get that diploma. We're not mad that they are "forced" to by taught science or history or language in order to get that diploma. Why not? Because we consider those things important part of education and fundamental elements of what it means to graduate high school. I see teaching civic responsibility in the exact same way. I would be no more angry if my child was forced to be taught civic responsibility even if that teaching included some community/public service than I would be that my child was "forced" to learn math, or science, or history, or any thing else.

And that's the chief difference we have in opinion. I believe teaching civic responsibility is just as important a part of education as math or science; you don't. You feel it is a luxury that an individual should be free to choose to do or not do, at leisure.


I'd ask how the "entire capitalist system" is wage slavery, but that would be a thread in itself and I'm sure as hell not interested in arguing that one.

:)


I'm pretty sure I already said it, but I'll say it again. Just because society/the government already forces people to do some things doesn't automatically make it alright for them/it to force people to do other things. It doesn't even necessarily make the things they/it are already forcing people to do right.

And I'm pretty sure I said it, but I'll say it again too. Just because the government shouldn't force people to do some things doesn't automatically make it wrong for them to enforce other things. It doesn't even mean that there are things that are not enforced right now that should be.


Nice big, bold paragraph. Except it's the same argument the Republicans use when they oppose gay marriage and pornography and support prayer in school. It's also the same argument some drug warriors use to support the drug war. "Society is crumbling and we have to do something about it." Even if I did agree, which I don't, I wouldn't go around arguing that we have to force people to do things for their own good and for the good of society. How can you have a free society when the individuals who make up that society aren't free?


Well, instead of really being willing to discuss my larger point, you just decided to call my republican for saying it and avoid the issue by returning to the other argument: we shouldn't be forced to do anything.

You're response here was completely unfair, and offensive to be honest. I am not arguing against gay marriage, nor pornography, nor arguing for school prayer. And it would be pretty hard to use my argument to do so. My argument was not that our society is "unrighteous," or that we are sinful, nor was it that our society is sexual decadent, nor that our society is lost its religious center. In short my argument is not that we have a problem of the "flesh."

Try my argument again: my argument is that we have a culture in which our mindset is extremely selfish, so much for that we actually undermine the potential of our society. Take another read: We are the most self-centered, self-absorbed, corrupt, material driven consumers on the face of the planet, who use and use and take and take until we destroy society under the way of our own isolated selfishness." My problem is with absolute, unlimited self-centeredness that ignores the reality of our relational selfhood and in doing so undermines both individual fullness of humanity as well as undermines healthy sustained relationships and community. That is pretty much the opposite of a "republican" argument. In fact, to be perfectly honest, you're the one making the republican argument. Republican talking point number one: "we're for individual rights; not group rights." Republicans are the ones that don't believe they should be asked to do anything for anyone else. Republicans are the ones who claim to care about the "individual" and pretty much scoff and scorn the idea of "community." It is republicans who say "why should the needs of anyone else, then needs of my community, the needs of the public, concern me at all?" Sounds more like you than me.

One of the best things that could ever happen to us is to begin to think seriously about changing those attitudes. How can we teach future generations to return to a more healthy valuing of society, a commitment to working not just for ourselves, but also for the betterment of our society, to contribute collectively as well as individually. It's pretty hard to pervert that into a Republican argument. They tend to avoid things like responsibility and words like "collectively" and "for the betterment of society." It is in fact simply a call for JUSTICE.

"How can you have a free society when the individuals who make up that society aren't free?" First by dispelling the myth of absolute freedom. But the very fact of you being born a male or female, you're not absolutely free, by fact of being born a certain race, you are not completely free, by being born into a certain country, locale, culture and context, you are not completely free, by living your life with the history of the relationships you have had, instead of others, you are not completely free. In philosophical terms, taking a queue from recent feminist theory, weak constructivism or strategic essentialism reminds us that our "self identity" is an ambiguous mixture of essential elements and existential elements, i.e. unchangeable predetermined traits of who I am, and also constructed traits of determined by factors outside of my immediate control - culture, context, relationships, history, etc.

Freedom doesn't mean free from societal obligation, nor does freedom mean free from all dependency. We are interdependent and interrelated in our context, through our culture, and through our history. I would be a completely different person if I hadn't gone to school, met Andrew and Ellie and Mike and had the experience I had for the last ten years. If for example, instead of doing that I had spend the last ten years in China or Africa, I would be a radically different person today - still partly Selwynn, but also not Selwynn at all anymore. We are not autonomous creatures - we are not "radically" free meaning free and wholly independent from others. We are a mixture of essential and contextual elements.

We are only free when we understand the nature of our freedom, as the freedom of full humanity, not as a freedom from our natural dependencies. We also only make the most of what freedom we do have when we admit the ways in which we are not free, and never will be - the very nature of existence precludes the notion of absolute freedom, instead what we possess is some degree of relative freedom, and with that freedom comes responsibility.

Now, maybe you're right and we can not metaphorically "put a gun to people's heads" and force them to do what's best for healthy society. But at the same time, we should certainly continue to work hard to change hearts and minds in society to a place where they realize that working together for the benefit of others and the benefit of society is in fact in their personal interests, and that it is a false division to speak of "individual rights" as though they are somehow opposed to greater social responsibility and relational commitment. Continuing to work for toward a society in which people accept and understand the truth that working for the betterment of others, the betterment of my community, the betterment of my society is in fact directly in my own best interests, is an undertaking we should embrace.

I disagree. I think we need more and more people to be thinking seriously about promoting greater individual freedom.

What you fail to understand is that individual freedom and relational responsibility are inseparably related. You imply a disparity where none exists. In fact, people who stick there head in the sand, flip the middle finger to everyone who asks them to lift a finger to help someone else, believes in the philosophical and scientific as well as political lie what they are a radically autonomous self enclosed individual self unaffected by and unconnected to anyone else, and resist any obligation ever put on them are not actually making themselves more free - they are instead living the most unfree captive life there is. The are refusing to be truly, fully human and imprisoning their own potential.

The way to promote individual "freedom" is through understanding our relational connectedness to those around us, and how those connections create what we call community, and how when those connections are positively maintained and nurtured, we are more free, more fulfilled and have more options for our own personal development. But when those relational connections are abused, misused or ignored, and we instead lie and pretend that we have no responsibility to anyone or anything but "ourselves" and lie and pretend we are not dependant/don't need anyone or anything but ourselves, and should not have an obligation to do anything for anyone but ourselves, that is when we start losing our freedom, not protecting it.


I'm more concerned with the individuals that make up society. If you want to renew and foster a healthy spirit of social responsibility and community concern, civil duty and interrelatedness by all means try. But it's foolish to think that forcing people to do things is going to convince them that those things can and should be done. Maybe that was a "Screw you I have my rights!" argument, but like I said, I'm more concerned with the individuals that make up society than I am with society.

It is also foolish to act as though there is a division between individual "freedom" and relational responsibility. Our lives are a continuous mixture of individual freedom and interrelated responsibility - if we lost individual freedom, we can act responsibly in community or relationship. But at the same time, if we loose interrelated responsibility, we lose what it means to be a self, loose what it means to be really free. Freedom is not simply the ability to do "anything" - freedom in this context is in part, "fullness" of being - I am "free" when I am "fully human" or exercising my fullest human potential. We do by understanding the limits of our freedom, understanding that we both have freedom and also have responsibility - and striving to honor both realities.

[FeebMaster]

27. Sweet merciful crap.

I had a really long post going over yours, but I decided to delete it and start at this point here in your post since some of mine was nasty and we can apparently come to some agreement on the issue.


"There are countless different possibilities. First of all, as I said above, there are some schools that already incorporate community service into their educational program. Kids will, for an hour a day or so, learn about civic responsibility and community awareness, and even go out and participate in some fashion in public service for a certain part of certain days. So in some small way, some of this already happens in some places. Second of all, there are plenty of different possibilities - one is to have it as a class similar to what I just mentioned. Not all of the school day is taken up with "algebra and geometry" as you say. I graduated with honors and took multiple AP classes in high school, and yet I still had open "independent" blocks of time all year two of my four years as well as room for all kinds of electives. It is not inconceivable to think that we could incorporate the teaching of some "applied civics" into the mix there - I know there was time when I was in High school. Another approach is summer internship. Honestly, my favorite idea is a two pronged idea - now I know we're all in "argument" mode and so you don't want to listen to anything I have to say (maybe) but hear me out anyway:"

Well, to be honest, about half of my brain shut down after your "the entire capitalist system is wage slavery" comment and the other half is screaming at me to stop responding to your posts, but I'll hear you out anyway.


"Part 1 - incorporate teaching community awareness, applied civics, social responsibility in school, 1 class each year. This is where we start trying to educate future generations to be better caretakers of this great society of America, and teach responsibility, community action, compassion, and a sense of responsibility and relationship to our neighbor. As part of that education, perhaps even some "field trips" to do a little community service wouldn't be a bad thing.

Part 2 - summer internships, eligible but voluntary to every high schooler from 9-12. These internships would not be "paid" in the traditional sense, instead they would go towards college tuition assistance. A student who volunteered for public service each summer during high school would received a college tuition assistance up to a certain cap, but a significant amount. Or maybe it would have to be something where you received x % of assistance for each summer internship, instead of making someone do all for years to get full assistance."

I have no problem with this because it's voluntary, other than the class of course.

"Now, I understand that I'm shifting what we're arguing about - in this idea public service isn't quite so required to graduate high school (with the exception of a little education) and the service itself would be voluntary, simply rewarding those who choose to participate with college tuition assistance. Still though, I think this is my favorite idea so far. As far as questions about how we are going to pay for it, see my response to the last post in this thread."

I don't have any particular problem with doing it this way because it's voluntary. It's a far cry from telling students, do X hours of community service or don't get a diploma.


"No, I don't. But the reason I don't is because you and I disagree about what a High School diploma should mean. You and I would agree that a High School diploma means you have received and demonstrated your understanding of a certain level of education. Reading, mathematics, language, history, etc. etc. Remember now, that the argument about how effective public schools are at education is a different argument. But we agree that a high school diploma is suppose to reflect a certain level of education. We're not like pissed off that kids are "forced" to be taught mathematics in order to get that diploma. We're not mad that they are "forced" to by taught science or history or language in order to get that diploma. Why not? Because we consider those things important part of education and fundamental elements of what it means to graduate high school. I see teaching civic responsibility in the exact same way. I would be no more angry if my child was forced to be taught civic responsibility even if that teaching included some community/public service than I would be that my child was "forced" to learn math, or science, or history, or any thing else.

And that's the chief difference we have in opinion. I believe teaching civic responsibility is just as important a part of education as math or science; you don't. You feel it is a luxury that an individual should be free to choose to do or not do, at leisure."

Yes, that basically sums up our difference in opinion.


Well, instead of really being willing to discuss my larger point, you just decided to call my republican for saying it and avoid the issue by returning to the other argument: we shouldn't be forced to do anything.

You're response here was completely unfair, and offensive to be honest. I am not arguing against gay marriage, nor pornography, nor arguing for school prayer. And it would be pretty hard to use my argument to do so. My argument was not that our society is "unrighteous," or that we are sinful, nor was it that our society is sexual decadent, nor that our society is lost its religious center. In short my argument is not that we have a problem of the "flesh." "

I quite clearly didn't call you a Republican and didn't say that you were against gay marriage or pornography or for school prayer. But your argument is similar to theirs in that you think there is a problem with society and you want new laws to force people to act in ways that you think will benefit society.

"Try my argument again: my argument is that we have a culture in which our mindset is extremely selfish, so much for that we actually undermine the potential of our society. Take another read: We are the most self-centered, self-absorbed, corrupt, material driven consumers on the face of the planet, who use and use and take and take until we destroy society under the way of our own isolated selfishness." My problem is with absolute, unlimited self-centeredness that ignores the reality of our relational selfhood and in doing so undermines both individual fullness of humanity as well as undermines healthy sustained relationships and community. That is pretty much the opposite of a "republican" argument. In fact, to be perfectly honest, you're the one making the republican argument. Republican talking point number one: "we're for individual rights; not group rights." Republicans are the ones that don't believe they should be asked to do anything for anyone else. Republicans are the ones who claim to care about the "individual" and pretty much scoff and scorn the idea of "community." It is republicans who say "why should the needs of anyone else, then needs of my community, the needs of the public, concern me at all?" Sounds more like you than me.

One of the best things that could ever happen to us is to begin to think seriously about changing those attitudes. How can we teach future generations to return to a more healthy valuing of society, a commitment to working not just for ourselves, but also for the betterment of our society, to contribute collectively as well as individually. It's pretty hard to pervert that into a Republican argument. They tend to avoid things like responsibility and words like "collectively" and "for the betterment of society." It is in fact simply a call for JUSTICE. "

Republicans claim a lot of things, but they don't follow through with any of them. The Republicans don't resemble me in the slightest.

I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with our society that couldn't be cured with a bit more individual freedom. It would be nice if people respected individual freedom a bit more, I suppose, but it's not like you can force people to respect individual freedom by passing more laws. Well, maybe if you completely got rid of individual freedom people might miss it. I guess in a few years we might be able to test that hypothesis.


""How can you have a free society when the individuals who make up that society aren't free?" First by dispelling the myth of absolute freedom. But the very fact of you being born a male or female, you're not absolutely free, by fact of being born a certain race, you are not completely free, by being born into a certain country, locale, culture and context, you are not completely free, by living your life with the history of the relationships you have had, instead of others, you are not completely free. In philosophical terms, taking a queue from recent feminist theory, weak constructivism or strategic essentialism reminds us that our "self identity" is an ambiguous mixture of essential elements and existential elements, i.e. unchangeable predetermined traits of who I am, and also constructed traits of determined by factors outside of my immediate control - culture, context, relationships, history, etc.

Freedom doesn't mean free from societal obligation, nor does freedom mean free from all dependency. We are interdependent and interrelated in our context, through our culture, and through our history. I would be a completely different person if I hadn't gone to school, met Andrew and Ellie and Mike and had the experience I had for the last ten years. If for example, instead of doing that I had spend the last ten years in China or Africa, I would be a radically different person today - still partly Selwynn, but also not Selwynn at all anymore. We are not autonomous creatures - we are not "radically" free meaning free and wholly independent from others. We are a mixture of essential and contextual elements.

We are only free when we understand the nature of our freedom, as the freedom of full humanity, not as a freedom from our natural dependencies. We also only make the most of what freedom we do have when we admit the ways in which we are not free, and never will be - the very nature of existence precludes the notion of absolute freedom, instead what we possess is some degree of relative freedom, and with that freedom comes responsibility."

Our definitions of freedom are completely different. As far as I'm concerned as long as you're free to exercise the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness then you have freedom. Basically the right of life and property and all the rights you can derive from them.


"Now, maybe you're right and we can not metaphorically "put a gun to people's heads" and force them to do what's best for healthy society. But at the same time, we should certainly continue to work hard to change hearts and minds in society to a place where they realize that working together for the benefit of others and the benefit of society is in fact in their personal interests, and that it is a false division to speak of "individual rights" as though they are somehow opposed to greater social responsibility and relational commitment. Continuing to work for toward a society in which people accept and understand the truth that working for the betterment of others, the betterment of my community, the betterment of my society is in fact directly in my own best interests, is an undertaking we should embrace."

If you want to work to educate people and win their hearts and minds, that's fine, but forcing people to do things is counterproductive and breeds resentment.


"What you fail to understand is that individual freedom and relational responsibility are inseparably related. You imply a disparity where none exists. In fact, people who stick there head in the sand, flip the middle finger to everyone who asks them to lift a finger to help someone else, believes in the philosophical and scientific as well as political lie what they are a radically autonomous self enclosed individual self unaffected by and unconnected to anyone else, and resist any obligation ever put on them are not actually making themselves more free - they are instead living the most unfree captive life there is. The are refusing to be truly, fully human and imprisoning their own potential."

I'm certainly not advocating sticking your head in the sand and flipping everyone off. But on the other hand, if someone wants to stick their head in the sand and flip off everyone who asks them for help I certainly think they should be free to do it. Just because I advocate individual rights over all doesn't mean I think people should live locked away from everyone else concerned entirely with their own self-interest.


"The way to promote individual "freedom" is through understanding our relational connectedness to those around us, and how those connections create what we call community, and how when those connections are positively maintained and nurtured, we are more free, more fulfilled and have more options for our own personal development. But when those relational connections are abused, misused or ignored, and we instead lie and pretend that we have no responsibility to anyone or anything but "ourselves" and lie and pretend we are not dependant/don't need anyone or anything but ourselves, and should not have an obligation to do anything for anyone but ourselves, that is when we start losing our freedom, not protecting it."

I think the way to promote community and to keep those connections positively maintained and nurtured is by maximizing individual freedom. Individual freedom helps in two ways: First, free people are happy people. Second, people who want nothing to do with the community aren't forced to contribute to the community and the community is healthier for it. What's better, forcing someone who wants nothing to do with the community to contribute and having them drag the community down with them or having a community made up of people who want to work together to better the community?

"It is also foolish to act as though there is a division between individual "freedom" and relational responsibility. Our lives are a continuous mixture of individual freedom and interrelated responsibility - if we lost individual freedom, we can act responsibly in community or relationship. But at the same time, if we loose interrelated responsibility, we lose what it means to be a self, loose what it means to be really free. Freedom is not simply the ability to do "anything" - freedom in this context is in part, "fullness" of being - I am "free" when I am "fully human" or exercising my fullest human potential. We do by understanding the limits of our freedom, understanding that we both have freedom and also have responsibility - and striving to honor both realities."

Well, like I said, we have different ideas about freedom, I guess. In any case, I guess the whole forced labor thing is settled, since what you're advocating now is voluntary and I have no problem with it if it's voluntary.

[Selwynn]

28. Good discussion! Last word to you, friend.

Have a great evening.

[drkedjr]

3. Yes, it makes publican sense, except

WHAT TO DO WITH THEM OPENLY "GAY PEOPLE?" They should be exempt for obvious reasons.....

[dr.strangelove]

6. Man, Some people HATE the draft

I posted a topic on this earlier and got ripped by a few people. forgethell, do you really feel any forced government service is slavery. Man, next you'll be claiming that the government shouldn't take your hard earned money and give it to lazy sofa loafers who don't want to work.

A draft has its place. When the voluntary military does not have ranks large enough to ensure the safety of this land, and our troops in other lands, the draft becomes necessary.

It is NOT necessary now, but it may be necessary.

I'm gonna pose a question directly to you forgethell in my next post.

[Selwynn]

16. Not easy to be so dogmatic if you're a pacifist.

[beyurslf]

5. I think a year or even two years of service

for young people is a greta idea if the choices are diverse. Wasn't it Edwards who suggested this vounteerism to pay for college? Two years of services and we will pay for your college. What a great idea!

[dr.strangelove]

10. It is a great idea, but the cost is too high

Two years of service at entry level jobs are worth maybe $25 - 30,000. Four years of college is hitting the $100,000 for some state schools and $150,000 for some private schools.

It is one of those ideas that would be great, but we'd have to cut ot to many important programs to afford it.

[Selwynn]

13. not so fast...

There are a lot of ways to make it happen ~ first of all, while there may be some "state" schools that cost 100,000 bucks, many don't. Colorado State University was about 40,000 for 4 years. Boise State University (my hometown) was about 6,000 a year. My school, Northwest Nazarene University, was 17,000 a year.

Second, even if you can't pay for all of tuition to Harvard or Yale, the program doesn't have to be all or nothing. I know that a program that would have even promised to pay for all of school up to a certain cap would have still been helpful. And for many people who cannot go to college at all, going to a more inexpensive school for free beats going nowhere at all. For me if I would have had that kind of help and even gotten 20,000 of support, I would have half the student loans I have now.

Third, if education was priority number one for this country, if it was seen as the silver bullet for so many of societies ills (which it is) and if it truly became the honest and unpoliticized concern of our government, we could pay for that and much, much more. So don't ever say "we can't afford it." Instead say the truth:

WE CHOOSE NOT TO AFFORD IT

For one thing a 1% tax increase in the inhumanely wealthy would be enough to at least get the program going. But I'm not as simple in my solutions as just "raise taxes" - we have to spend smarter. For example, we could have taken the 87 BILLION we spent on Iraq and made 5 year pilot programs to test and find tune the idea of volunteerism to assist with college. The money is there, in fact there is more than enough wealth in this country to take fund almost every beautiful and brilliant idea out there - our government and many of its citizens actively CHOOSE NOT TO DO THAT.

[doni_georgia]

25. I already work for the government

I'm a teacher. I see it as a service and a calling. It is what I was meant to do. I love it, and I am good at it. I want to be there and I want to make a difference, and that's why I DO make a difference. It's the same way with police, fire fighters, people in medical fields. The good ones are there because they just KNOW that was what they were meant to do. Everyone is not cut out for this kind of work. I think the problem with drafting people into these kinds of roles is that people who are doing something they are being forced to do are seldom devoted to it. I just can't justify forced public service.