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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My apologies. I can’t read.

You can read all his 23 proposals at his website: http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/23_proposals.htm

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

Yes, because 100% of our soldiers die over there, not .1%.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.