[An apology to our non-American readers: this article is about the United States. You might want to skip it. Besides, it’s rude to eavesdrop on a neighbor’s conversations.]
All citizens of the United States, who are of sound mind and body, shall be required to give two years of service to their country, in a manner prescribed by law.
The above is a proposed Constitutional requirement for Universal National Service, offered by Larry Sabato in his new book, A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Nation. Sabato believes that America has become too focused on rights, and needs to pay more attention to responsibilities. One way to improve responsibility is by requiring that every citizen devote two years of service to the nation. Sabato’s proposed Universal National Service (UNS) would not be limited to military service. Charity work, like the Peace Corps, would be an option. In fact most people would choose non-military service. UNS would become an integral part of American life, Sabato opines:
It is quite possible that a new generation of young Americans will one day ask one another with pride, “Where did you do your national service?” just as the “greatest generation,” who fought and won World War II, traded stories throughout their lives of common youthful sacrifice and service.
How sentimental! It sounds so appealing–we can make every generation a Greatest Generation. But UNS would be a gross violation of personal liberty and of the principles upon which America was founded. Sabato states as much in a recent interview:
[The major obstacle to Universal National Service is] the libertarian objection to compulsory service. After all, individual freedom is at the heart of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, it certainly is. Individual freedom is at the heart of the Bill of Rights. Individual freedom is at the heart of America. It’s why we fought the Revolutionary War. It’s why we are a nation. America is founded on the principles of life, liberty, and property. These rights are frequently mentioned in the founding documents of the nation.
The Declaration of Colonial Rights by the Continental Congress in 1774:
The inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights:
Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.
The Declaration of Independence in 1776 uses the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in place of “property” but the meaning is the same:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States:
No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Can universal national service coexist with the right to life, liberty, and property? Well, I’ve never heard of anybody dying because they had to do some charity work, so UNS is compatible with life. UNS is not compatible with liberty, though. UNS mandates that two years of each citizen’s life be given to the government, in service to the nation. The fact that Sabato’s proposal gives each citizen a wide range of choices in how to fulfill that obligation does not diminish the central objection: UNS is a form of forced servitude. For two years, the citizen must surrender his right to liberty, must put aside his own aspirations and goals, must put his life on hold, to work for the government.
What about the right to property? Or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, the “pursuit of happiness.” Universal national service violates that, too. For two years, citizens must give up their right to work for a decent wage, and live on a government pittance. Sabato doesn’t address how this might affect young people with families to support. Presumably they will survive somehow. Sabato justifies this forced poverty on the grounds that it will be cheap on the taxpayers:
Paying minimum wage [to people serving their two years], while still providing health care, life insurance, and disability insurance, would help keep costs down for taxpayers.
Life, liberty, and property. Universal national service violates two of those three rights.
As I mentioned before, Sabato himself recognizes that UNS violates individual rights. Surely, then, he must think the benefits of national service far outweigh the egregious violations to liberty. What exactly are his reasons for advocating mandatory service?
There is no time in life quite like the late teens and early twenties. Many young people are bursting with energy, a sense of adventure, and an idealistic determination to make the world a better place. Not yet careworn, rarely cynical, and infused with a belief (sometimes naïve, sometimes accurate) that they can find a better way, the young seek out opportunities to strut their stuff and make a difference.
Oh, OK. It’s because young people are optimistic, full of energy, and are eager to work to make the world a better place. They just need the opportunity. Sounds fair enough, right?
But Sabato can’t even keep his story straight.
There is no expectation in our society now that any significant service is owed. … Universal national service is less about governmental authority and more about a renewal of personal citizenship through sustained individual commitment to improving the nation. Here, we return to the young. That they and the nation need this civic renewal is unquestioned.
Oh. So America needs mandatory service because young people today are ungrateful and need to be reminded how much they owe to America. Let’s see if I can sum up Sabato’s tortuous reasoning: Mandatory service violates individual freedom, but America needs it anyway because young people today are eager to serve, even though they are ingrates who need to be taught the value of service and civic duty.
No thanks. Universal national service is un-American.
Granted that compulsory service would be a violation of a residents right to freedom. Would requiring service as a pre-requisite to voting rights make sense though? Most people in the US do not value their voting rights. They do not educate themselves about the issues or candidates, and often don’t even bother to register or show up at the polls. Worse, the people who DO vote often don’t do so with any familiarity of how government works, or interest in the “good of the nation”. While compelling national service as a requirement of residence would be violating the principle of liberty, would compelling it as a requirement of voting rights?
Historically, voting was NOT universal. It was restricted to land owners, who were assumed to be at least somewhat educated and to have a stake in the local community (since they owned land there). Would restricting the right to vote to those who had “contributed to the community” be compatible with these values, and if so would it be advisable? “National Service” doesn’t even have to be “government work”, and the equivalent man hours in any humanitarian or public service fields could be considered acceptable. The idea would be that the right to vote would be “bought” by time serving the community. This could be considered a reasonable cost for the right to made decisions for that community. (Similarly, perhaps we should require ADDITIONAL “service hours” for those seeking to hold political office?)
Disclaimer: I am not saying that I support any kind of mandatory national service, or restrictions on voting. I am merely raising the idea and will weigh in later with my own opinions on the subject.
Atanamis said: “Would requiring service as a pre-requisite to voting rights make sense though?”
The US Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote, so it would certainly be constitutional. What you’re suggesting is sort of what Robert A. Heinlein suggested in his book Starship Troopers. In that book, nobody got the right to vote unless they served in the military (or served a similar stint in some civilian agency.) It seemed to work in the book, but that’s just fiction after all.
In the real world, I’m not sure that military or other national service would make a person any more fit to be a voter. My buddy from high school joined the Army and spent 18 months getting shot at in Iraq. Does that give him any special insight into how government works? Is he more qualified than I to vote for a president? I can’t see how he is. Nor does charity work serve to make someone a better voter. I know people who volunteer to do charity work, but have zero interest in politics and government.
National service–military or charity–doesn’t correlate to civic responsibility or to a mature understanding of politics. From a practical perspective, mandating national service as a prerequisite for voting will do nothing to improve the quality of the voting public. Further, it discriminates against people who cannot afford to take time off from work. Young people with families to support will be much less able to complete the service requirements for voting. People today already complain that the system is stacked in favor of the rich. A national service requirement would skew the system even more to the advantage of the rich.
Yeah, yeah, freedom, blah, blah, blah. Individual freedom might be overrated. (Dangerous words in this particular forum!)
We don’t give children all the freedom in the world–maybe UNS could be thought of as the last two years of childhood. Or even make it one year. I could see great benefits for numbers of kids who get lost in the transition into adulthood.
Conscription is common around the world (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Weltkarte_der_Armeeformen.png )though it takes many different forms. I would be willing to consider a form that provides a non-military option.
Thainamu said: “We don’t give children all the freedom in the world–maybe UNS could be thought of as the last two years of childhood. ”
Hmm. We could think of it that way, but do you really want the government taking your children and forcing them into a work program for two years? I certainly don’t. When I have children I intend to raise them myself, and no government is going to conscript them. The responsibility for raising children lies with parents, not with Uncle Sam. UNS is even less appealing to me when it’s pitched as a program for children.
Conscription is no more having the government raise my children than making them obey laws, pay taxes, get a social security card, etc. which the government forces also them to do. By that age, they’d mostly be “raised” anyway.
I’m just saying that many 18 year olds get a taste of intoxicating freedom without much responsibility and then lose their way. Maybe having to be responsible in a one or two year work situation might make them more mature when they go off to college after that. Or, they might have gained some valuable work experience from the UNS with which they could actually get a job.
But again, I’d only agree to this if it included a non-military option.
Thainamu said: “Conscription is no more having the government raise my children than making them obey laws, pay taxes, get a social security card, etc. which the government forces also them to do. By that age, they’d mostly be “raised” anyway.”
So if they’re already raised, then they are adults.
We can’t have it both ways. Either they are children–and still under the authority of their parents–or they are adults, with all the privileges and rights that entails. If we’re going to justify UNS, we can’t just say that it’s OK to curtail the freedom of young people because they are children. If they are children, their care is the responsibility of their parents–not of the government.
You could argue that UNS is justified according to social contract theory. The government provides services, and in turn, citizens owe a debt which they pay via taxes and UNS. I happen to believe that sort of social contract is un-American, because it is not compatible with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. But that would be one way to argue in favor of UNS.
Jew said, “So if they’re already raised, then they are adults.”
Well, there is precedence for thinking otherwise: The government lets kids vote at 18 but we doesn’t let them drink until 21. Our government doesn’t see 18-20 year olds as full adults, apparently, and “curtails their freedom.”
In fact, parents and the government both know that “becoming an adult” is not something that happens automatically on a given birthday. Rather, it is better defined more subjectively by how mature a person is and it is a gradual process. Money has a lot to do with it too–who pays the bills? To quote myself talking to my own kids, “You aren’t independent until you are financially independent.” An adult is not supported by parents. But I digress…
Perhaps these almost-but-not-quite-adult, post-high school people could benefit from the maturity that a year or two in UNS could bring, and maybe the country could too. It could be a win-win situation.
Quite frankly I think that the best way to get a lot of American youth involved in society is to let them get out of formal schooling earlier if they or their parents would like. That last thing youth need is more time mandated outside of the “real world” in failed government social engineering projects.
Thainamu said: “The government lets kids vote at 18 but we doesn’t let them drink until 21.”
I find that particular policy abhorrent, and I hope we can get it changed.
“It could be a win-win situation.”
I’d rather spend my two years in prison than do my national service.
On second thought, what I’d really rather do is spend my two years being a productive member of the American workforce. My national service could be helping a businesses by developing the software systems they need to compete in the modern marketplace. And I’d get paid a fair wage for it, too. Everybody wins.
Colin said: “I’d rather spend my two years in prison than do my national service.” and Kenneth said, “what I’d really rather do is spend my two years being a productive member of the American workforce.”
Well, of course you would, since you’ve both already gotten past the age of the type of conscription I’m envisioning and you didn’t ruin your lives doing drugs (or whatever) the first year of college because you were too immature to handle all the freedom you suddenly had. Not everyone can say that.
I do realize that the arguments for a UNS year are not based on helping the person but rather on helping the country. I don’t know if our country would be helped or not–I’m not enough of a politician to hazard a guess. I’m just thinking about it from the point of view of watching kids grow up and I think many could benefit personally from UNS.
Actually I said both of those things.
The main difference here is you’re thinking of the 18-26 demographic as kids. The law views them as adults–with a few exceptions, as you pointed out. I’m all for making sure kids are raised properly, and given every opportunity to succeed, including character-building exercises like service projects. That’s not what Sabato is proposing, though. His proposal targets young adults just about to enter the workforce–and he targets them specifically.
I don’t know whether it’s because Sabato thinks the populace needs to be reeducated into valuing charity work, or whether it’s because he believes the young are easily exploitable resource. He’s not clear on what he believes, really, nor is he clear on the benefits. Sabato thinks UNS will become some sort of nebulous shared American experience. I’m not really sure what the benefit is. I guess if the most important thing in the 21st century is to shape a new American identity around a shared experience, then UNS is desperately needed.
OK, and now I should explain in more detail what I said earlier about working. I’ve read R.G. LeTourneau’s autobiography twice, and I take it seriously. LeTourneau thought about going into full time Christian ministry, because he thought it was the only way to serve God. Then his pastor spoke to him. “You know, Brother LeTourneau,” he said, “God needs businessmen as well as preachers and missionaries.”
That’s true. God needs businessmen. And LeTourneau served God tremendously, as a businessman. And I figure, if businessmen can serve God, then businessmen can serve America. Business is a necessary and good part of our world. I enjoy being part of the sector of the economy that gets things done. Without me–and millions of other workers–the world wouldn’t work. That’s service to America, is it not?
I’m not arguing in favor of materialism. Money and toys isn’t all there is to life. Maybe some time spent in more direct charity work would be a good part of everyone’s life. But two years? I’m not convinced that would be good for everyone, or that working for a charity is any more noble than working at a for-profit business. Both are necessary roles in today’s world, and both can be experiences that build character in young people.
“Actually I said both of those things. :)”
My apologies. I can’t read.
Forcing young people chomping at the bit for freedom into prolonged service is a great way to 1) have really poorly operated charities, and 2) disillusion an entire generation against charitable work. This proposal strikes me as not only unconstitutional, but counter productive.
Sabato proposes 23 different ideas in his book, and some of them actually sound pretty good. I don’t like the Universal National Service idea, but I think expanding the House of Representatives to 1000 members is a good idea, as is allowing naturalized citizens to run for President.
You can read all his 23 proposals at his website: http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/23_proposals.htm
thainamu: “maybe UNS could be thought of as the last two years of childhood.”
or the last two years of their life, it they’re sent to Iraq.
p.s. i know who’s borrowing Atlas Shrugged next, now that i’m done with it!
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
“or the last two years of their life, if they’re sent to Iraq.”
Yes, because 100% of our soldiers die over there, not .1%.
the first year of college because you were too immature to handle all the freedom you suddenly had. Not everyone can say that.
But we have to ask why kids suddenly have a lot of freedom after high school, and are so prone to mismanage it. I think a strong case can be made that a good portion of kids in high school (and college) really don’t want to / aren’t fit to be there at all. They don’t learn about freedom in the risk and reward environment of the market, and instead learn it in unrealistic and poorly government schools.
Colin, I agree with you about forcing kids to stay in school. Well, I agree, they should stay in school, and great if they can go on to college, but that is beside the point.
The real problem I see is that in America we don’t offer much in the way of vocational training for high school age kids, and somehow they are looked down upon if they want to go that track anyway. No wonder they feel useless and incapable.
I think the German system solves that problem better (although probably some capable kids probably fail to get into the university track.
But back to the topic: in the olden days, many young men joined the military just because it was kind of the next expected step after high school in the growing up process.
Colin, I agree with you about forcing kids to stay in school. Well, I agree, they should stay in school, and great if they can go on to college, but that is beside the point.
The real problem I see is that in America we don’t offer much in the way of vocational training for high school age kids, and somehow they are looked down upon if they want to go that track anyway.
But see, the problem and the cause are both in your response. Why would we make more and more government programs, vocational, formal education, etc.., when these things are accomplished fine on the market. Let kids leave school when they have learned basic math, reading, writing and social skills. Why cloister these kinds away. Or only provide them an outlet through some monolithic government vocational program?
Going through his suggestions:
- What would a “National Senator” entail?
- How would “set Senate terms to coincide with all Presidential elections” work with the possible 2 year extensions of a 6 year presidential term?
- We have a “Continuity of Government” system, and it entails running on the remaining people until new members are nominated by state governors. If a large portion of the government were killed suddenly, we would need to rely on executive power to deal with the emergency, not a legislature.
- I don’t see how three more justices on the Supreme Court would really matter.
- Are front loaded primaries really a bad thing? What’s WRONG with a national primary?
- I really don’t see how we can “reform campaign financing” without massively infringing on individual rights of political expression.
- The only voter registration reform I want to see is one that independently verifies a person’s right to vote, then issues them a card that can readily be linked to belonging to that individual and to being valid. It should NOT use used as an ID by any other institution or function (therefore should NOT be a SS card or driver’s license).
- Mandatory National service should ONLY be used when core functionality of government cannot be otherwise achieved. Primarily, this would involve an inability to keep public order or defend the nation from aggressors. It might be useful to have more people doing things for the benefit of their neighbors, but forcing such behavior strips much of the usefulness.
The rest of the ideas look interesting, and could be integrated slowly over time. Too drastic a change at once could cause problems, but many of these ideas could benefit us if integrated gradually.
Atanamis said: “I don’t see how three more justices on the Supreme Court would really matter.”
I agree with you. In the past we’ve had as few as 6 and as many as 10 justices, and I don’t think it affected the quality of Supreme Court very much. Sabato thinks that an even number of justices would prevent the “swing vote” phenomenon, where one moderate justice is sitting the the middle between the liberal bloc and the conservative bloc. I don’t see how 12 justices would fix that; we would just end up with a series of 6-6 tie votes.
But the main reason seems to be that Sabato thinks 12 justices will bring increased diversity to the Court. I’m not convinced diversity is a worthwhile goal in itself. It might be a means to an end, but seriously, will 12 justices be notably more diverse than 9? This particular proposal seems like change for its own sake.