|
I agree with most of what he said.
By going to an all-volunteer military, we have disconnected most people from the consequences of war. People who volunteer for the military are either desperate for a way out of poverty, or they have a patriotic calling to military service to their country. After service, many veterans are chewed up and spit back into society no better off than they were before, and many of them go on to work to perpetuate the interests of the military. Often fiercely and blindly patriotic to the service they dedicated themselves to, they now vote or are employed looking after the interests of the military. Thus we perpetuate a warrior class of citizens.
I think mandatory service would be a good thing. Not only would it teach good discipline to kids who sorely need it, but it would put everyone's children at risk during times of war. Teabaggers would not be nearly so eager to go invade the next resource-rich country if their own children and grandchildren were the ones being sent against their will to secure it.
However, I do disagree with Mr. Hartmann's ending of his piece, which he pretty much blundered into when he spoke of Thomas Jefferson's dislike of standing armies:
"The first strong advocate for mandatory military service in the united states was Thomas Jefferson who in 1787 fought for a year for a ban on standing armies during times of peace, replaced by a national civilian militia with mandatory service, to be written into the constitution as its second amendment. And that's how the first draft of the second amendment started. That there should be no standing army during times of peace. That every male from 17-47 should be part of a local militia, and that in order for those citizen militias to be well ordered, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In the compromise the first part was dropped in the debate about the draft and so today we have the NRA and a massive for-profit war machine."
Thomas Jefferson did indeed dislike the idea of standing armies during times of peace, as did many of the founders. The reason was not because they wanted everyone to share the burden of war efforts, however. The reason was because they feared a concentration of power in any one branch of the government. This is why our entire government was set up as a series of checks and balances - to prevent such concentrations of power. They feared the concentration of power that a standing army would present and the power it would give to the entity that wielded it. That is why they did not like the idea of standing armies, and that is the reason they decentralized the military, opting instead for each state to be responsible for its own military force. In this manner, the founders figured that it would be unlikely for states to gang together to oppress other states. This would also have, of course, the happy benefit that in order to engage in external wars all the states collectively would need to agree and donate their military forces and equipment to the cause. Imagine how many wars in our history might have been avoided if this were the case?
Here is what Alexander Hamilton had to say about standing armies:
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude<,> that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
It's clear here that Hamilton felt that any standing army would not be a threat to similarly-armed and disciplined citizens.
Also, Mr. Hartman is incorrect in that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not enumerated for the purpose of having ordered, or well-regulated militias. Here are the original drafts of the second amendment:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The final version passed by the Senate was:
"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The House version was:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is important to understand what "regulated" means in 18th century vernacular. Think "intestines" not "rules". That is, when you have a well-regulated digestive system, it means that it is in good working order. It does not mean that your digestive system operates under a strict set of rules. A well-regulated militias was simply a militia in good working order.
It is quite true that since the militias were to be made up of armed citizens that in order for the militias to be in good working order the people would need be armed. But you will also note that the second amendment, through all of its drafts and final renditions, always enumerated the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not the militias.
I am certain that this was quite deliberate. The ultimate power was intentionally reserved to the people, so that their interests would ultimately hold sway in any armed conflict. They probably feared that even the institution of the militias could be corrupted or usurped, and in fact they were - in 1903 the state militias were federalized, forming the National Guard. From then on the state military forces served as an adjunct to, rather than a counter to, federal military power.
Mr. Hartmann implies that the people were to be armed only so that the militias would be "well ordered" (should be regulated). This is not true. It is true that a well-ordered (regulated) militia intended to be made up of armed citizens does require armed citizens in order to exist. But it does not also follow that the only reason the people are armed is so that the militia can exist.
The right to keep and bear arms was repeatedly reserved to the people because they are the ultimate stakeholders in liberty.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
