I just wanted to take a brief moment to congratulate Barack Obama on this historic inauguration day. But more than the achievement of one man - which, despite all of the inherent evils of the government and the power which he will wield - represents a tremendous feat for the United States electorate.
For a country as bitterly divided over race as the US, and historically unable to solve these issues without violence, both state-initiated and private - it is an honourable thing to be electing a black man to the country’s highest office. I find it ironic, that despite my disgust with almost everything Obama stands for, as well as my dislike of playing “the race card” for anything - I must admit that a black man’s election to president in this country is actually a pretty big deal.
I have already made predictions for what I think will follow in the next few years if things continue on their present course. Obama may very well end up being a worse president the Bush (if this is possible) if he does everything he says he will, and if past behaviour is an indicator of future actions.
Nevertheless, this is an historic day - and I will watch it with at least a little pride in the meaning of this moment.
I guess I’m already over the historic element. I can appreciate that it is a big deal that our nation has gone from the civil rights movement to a black president in less than 50 years, and I say that as a person of partial African descent. However, I’m really trying to guard myself against the hysteria that is Obamamania. It really is cult-like, and I mean that in the most literal way possible. That’s not his fault, but it’s a potentially dangerous situation when you have a desperate and “hope”ful population who are looking for a savior. It honestly reminds me of the rise of Hitler. I’m not comparing Obama to Hitler. I’m simply saying that a person of such charisma rising up during trying times is a situation ripe for bad things. In many peoples’ eyes, he can do no wrong. Its not much different from those die-hard Bush supporters that treated any constructive criticism of the administration as blasphemous, except that the Obama people are really in love with this man on every level. He is a much more skillful communicator, and can still relate to the common man, having actually been one of them - or so we are led to believe.
Colin has made his predictions, and now I shall make mine. I should have stated them earlier because they are already coming true.
But anyway, the appointment of Rahm Emmanuel will amplify a shift in national consciousness, whereby “national service” will be emphasized. Not just national service, but if they are successful, compulsory national service. Although they will be careful to say, “This is not a draft.” If they are unsuccessful in making national service compulsory, they will frame the debate around the ideal of collectivist national responsibility. This has already started. In fact, this was one of the driving factors behind the campaign - you know, “Yes, WE can.” If you want to see what I’m talking about, watch all the celebrity hoopla surrounding the inauguration and you’ll see a lot of talk about national service, albeit voluntary at this point. Anyway, Emanuel wrote a book about compulsory national service a couple of years ago entitled, “The Plan: Big Ideas for America”. In an interview about the book Emanuel said, “Citizenship is not an entitlement”. I think its on Google books if anyone wants to read it.
Saakashvili will allow the US to construct a base in Georgia, giving them a strategic position to possibly launch an attack against Iran and/or to threaten Russia, most likely with the aid of NATO and Israel.
And just to give you a clue on where Obamamania is heading, Rep. Jose Serrano has proposed to repeal the 22nd amendment in order to create the possibility of an unlimited term for the new president. Check this out:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.Res.5:
Chris, why is compulsory service necessarily bad? Israel has done it since its inception and has a great military and intelligence community.
Also, amendments take a long time to be approved (there are still some on the table since 1780s awaiting ratification). I highly doubt it would happen while Obama is still in office.
Its funny that you should bring up the fact that Israel does it, since Emanuel happens to be a citizen of Israel and a former member of the Israeli army. It has also been suggested that he is part of Mossad; this, however, is and shall remain unconfirmed.
Compulsory national service is bad for a number of reasons, but mostly because such service is defined by a corrupt state. The question is: What constitutes national service and who is in charge of defining it? You can bet the answer will be rooted in collectivism and will involve further erosion of individual rights and privacy “for the good of the whole”. In other words, make way for the secret police, among other things. The good of the whole means for the benefit of the state.
I agree in that I doubt they will get rid of the 22nd Amendment any time soon, but such a suggestion shows the lengths that some people would go to in order to keep President Obama in office for as long as possible.
Compulsory service is bad because it IS slavery. Not “like” slavery, it IS slavery. Compulsory service strips the rights of the individual to individual liberty, and in the case of military service can result in the loss of right to life. Service should always be voluntary, regardless of the need or service involved.
That said, I actually wouldn’t necessarily mind a requirement of service for citizenship, where only citizens could vote, make use of “public” services, or be taxed (taxes for services used would still exist). This would cause government to more closely resemble anarchist/libertarian ideals, where participation in government would require a voluntary submission to taxes and services. Anyone not choosing to participate would be held responsible for hiring their own personal protection, etc. Most people would still choose service, but such a program would no longer be slavery.
Room on this bandwagon for me? An ideal way to compromise between statists and anarchists.
I’ve been pondering for some time a good compromise. The problem with the anarchist view is that the vast majority PREFER the current system to having to contract their own “essential services”, and would opt in even if they had the choice. I suspect even those who opted out of such a government would still face access charges to their property (road tax) and might be expected to contribute to national defense, but most other services could be made part of a package deal from which you could opt out. Mandatory service would tend to reduce the monetary costs of services provided to those who opted in though, since for the cost of a few years service they could expect to benefit from the services of others later in life.
Atanamis, you aren’t really arguing against mandatory service if you’re arguing for a qualified version of it. But, here’s the problem if it is a requirement for citizenship: what about the children? Since they aren’t citizens, they are not entitled to any of the benefits or laws that the country makes. Also, if a child grows up and chooses not to enlist for citizenship, he is left as a foreigner everywhere–even where he was raised. In other words, to have mandatory service for citizenship means that one would have to have very loose immigration laws to allow these children to live (and work) in the country. And, chances are, they’d have to have immunity from deportation (where to send non-citizens who have no nationality?).
“Compulsory service is bad because it IS slavery. Not “like” slavery, it IS slavery. Compulsory service strips the rights of the individual to individual liberty, and in the case of military service can result in the loss of right to life. Service should always be voluntary, regardless of the need or service involved.”
Yes.
But, here’s the problem if it is a requirement for citizenship: what about the children?
So (in this whole “service-for-citizenship” scenario) are you excluding the possibility that children of citizens have default citizenship status till they are 18 (or so), then they can choose? Or are you just talking about how to convert illegal immgrants to the new scenario?
Sharon,
If service is required for citizenship, I don’t see how children can be considered citizens. However, even if they are some kind of citizen until 18 or so, there’s problem areas such as emancipated children, wards of the court, etc where they are typically considered legal adult citizens even if still under 18. I don’t mind complicated systems, but to create one to make it seem less like “slavery” is a bit too much for me. After all, “voluntary slavery” is still “slavery,” no matter how one cuts it. It might sound nicer (or ease someone’s conscience), but I do not see any substantial difference there.
“Mandatory service” means you are imprisoned if you do not serve. “Voluntary service” means you get special privileges outside the basic human rights to life, liberty, and property if you do it. Today, we have a “voluntary military”. Those who join it are given money and special benefits if they join. Those who do not face no penalty for not joining.
Today, is every child in the US a citizen? There are in fact MANY children living in the US who are not citizens, and it doesn’t seem to be the critical problem you seem to believe it to be. What rights / responsibilities did I mention being needed regarding citizens? I mentioned service would be required of those seeking to be citizens. Children are too young to be assigned service, and therefore this is not an issue. Children are currently not allowed to vote, so this shortcoming would be irrelevant to my proposed system as well.
The only remaining aspect would be access to services. Personally, I see no problem in allowing an organization I have voluntarily chosen membership in to offer free education, protection, and medical care to children whose families are unable or unwilling to provide it. A child is too young to voluntarily reject their rights, meaning that outside enforcers have the right to prevent others from infringing those rights even if done without the child’s consent to be protected. Alternatively, loan programs could be allowed that would allow the child to pay off the services provided to them in the event that they later decided not to become a citizen.
This makes no sense to me. Why should we care where we send a person with no citizenship? Does the US currently have to verify the true country of citizenship to everyone to whom we refuse entry? Even if this were the case, why is deportation or even citizenship considered vital? We already have a large number of people living and working in the US who are not US citizens both legally and illegally. There is very little evidence that this has any negative effect so long as we patrol borders to prevent the spread of disease or hostile armed forces. If any person were allowed to become a citizen for the cost of two years service to the government, anyone seeking US citizenship could obtain it.
I see no reason to reward or punish children on the basis of who their parents are. Any person of age 18 or older would be free to engage in a 2 year service term to the government to obtain citizenship. Anyone who has not performed such a service would not be a citizen. That said, being a citizen might allow you access to services like public schools in which you could enroll children in your care. These rights do not belong to the child, but to the parent.
Voluntary service can never be slavery on the basis of it being “voluntary”. I am not a slave to my employer because I chose to work for them. Even if I sign a multi-year contract, I am not a “slave”, since it was a decision I chose to make. To voluntarily sell oneself into service is not a bad thing, it is the very basis for capitalism. It is the “obligatory” part of your “obligatory service” which makes it slavery.
Atanamis, traditionally citizenship has been accorded to people by birth or by naturalization. By creating (unnecessarily in my opinion) a new class of people who have no citizenship elsewhere, you would, in fact, be creating a new kind of class discrimination. It’s not easy to become a citizen in any country if one is not already a citizen somewhere else. While you may think you are creating a “voluntary” service for citizenship (and possibly a loan program for the children who do not volunteer), you are in fact requiring military service for people to have the right to have rights–anywhere. Look at immigration laws across the globe and most require verification of identity (at some point) from the applicants country of origin (except in cases of asylum, etc). A service-for-citizenship system is a monopoly on the rights which much of “western democracy” is founded upon by requiring people to first pay with military service for citizenship, then pay to be a citizen in good standing (by taxes, etc). It creates a second class of non-citizens in a way no better than apartheid in South Africa or the “caste”-politics in India. I, for one, am against any such dehumanizing of people on the basis of neglect or capitalism.
Every person born in the US is a citizen. Period. There are illegal immigrants in the US, but that is a very different topic than what I believe you are proposing. By requiring service for citizenship, a nation cannot allow children to be born citizens. In other words, every child must be a naturalized citizen, even if they were born and raised in the country by citizens in good standing.
To keep this short, I will end now with my primary, overarching objection: government (and citizenship) is not a commodity to be traded and exchanged as a value in a market. Capital, like all systems, has limits.
Where in any of my posts in this thread have you seen any mention of “military service”? My ONLY mention of military service was in reply to your OWN post where you expressed support for Israel’s policy of mandatory military service. Nobody here except YOU is suggesting such a policy, and it is disingenuous of your to suggest otherwise. It was YOUR suggestion that people be forced against their will to engage in a life threatening occupation in fear of imprisonment or other government oppression.
Anyone agreeing with your position can have no objection to mine, which allows anyone who wishes to join the military to get full benefits of government in its current form. To accuse ME of creating new levels of class oppressions is laughable. All my additions do is to allow those who do not wish to engage in mandatory service to avoid it by disavowing citizenship. Notice also that my “mandatory service” makes no mention of military service, but could also take a wide range of other forms. Many current government services would be less expensively available if they were provided by volunteer labor.
US hospitals could reliably validate identity for non-citizens. Those wishing to immigrate to another country would have to take up that issue with that other country’s immigration department. OBVIOUSLY there is no current method of processing “people born in the US who are not US citizens” because such a classification does not currently exist. Pointing at the current lack of such systems is therefore a ludicrous defense of your position.
This is precisely the system you suggested above, with the exception that I allow people an alternative to being slaves. It is CHOICE that makes the difference between an employee and a slave.
It creates a second class of non-citizens in a way no better than apartheid in South Africa or the “caste”-politics in India. I, for one, am against any such dehumanizing of people on the basis of neglect or capitalism.
You are against honest consideration of ideas, something that is quite strange given your field of study. There may well be valid shortcomings in my suggestion, but to this point you have merely pointed at shadows. In your suggested system, everyone is forced by the government to be in the military. In mine, anyone (from any country of origin) is allowed full citizenship for the same cost. Your system discriminates against people based on their place of birth, mine allows equal liberties to all people. Whose system is more like apartheid and caste systems?
Exactly! My system allows all PEOPLE to be treated equally regardless of their place or conditions of birth. Yours results in people who have lived in the US all their lives but were born elsewhere to be called “illegal”. In my system, any person native born or not has the exact same criteria to become a citizen. And you DARE to call mine more discriminatory? ESPECIALLY after you just suggested ENSLAVING everyone with the misfortune to be born in a certain geography!
And your insistence in begging the question is why I have ceased to discuss things with you most of the time. Assuming your conclusion is such an obvious cop out, you should be ashamed to call yourself a student of philosophy. Is that how they teach you to discuss things in school? Assume your position and make non-sensical comparisons of your opponent to disliked groups (like apartheid and caste systems)? Are you really so racist as to believe that there is something “magical” about the US that makes those born here more worthy to be citizens? Or is it that “mandatory” service is inherently preferable to allowing people to decide whether they want to be a citizen? Obviously your country is so great that nobody would want to go elsewhere rather than put up with your “mandatory service”, right?
I’d love to discuss this further, but if we are to do so please cease to assume you can beg the question, make nonsensically bigoted claims, and pretend to believe the opposite of points YOU made earlier in the conversation.
Atanamis, I never said that I supported mandatory service, but only questioned why others considered it “wrong” by necessity. It was misconstrued by some, including you, that it would be better to exchange military service for citizenship rather than require it of all citizens. Since then, I have argued against the service-for-citizenship model because it creates unnecessarily complex procedures for citizenship-related tasks of the government and society. Period. Now, are you saying that people be considered citizens until they are “of age” and then are required to serve their country in order to remain a citizen with the option of disavowing that citizenship in order to not serve? This is different than the previous model of people not being citizens until they serve the country. This second model creates a class of people “born in the country but not a citizen,” which is ridiculous.
Next, I made no suggestion on how to treat immigrants, so you cannot assume that I mean for them to be considered illegal.
Next, let’s get to reality here. Do you know any Israelis? Guess what? They tend to accept their system because their mandatory service equates to a stable job for two years, as well as training for future jobs. There’s a handful that were here in Glasgow working in sales with my wife who we had the chance to get to know. None of them disliked their system. They did not see it as slavery. Also, if you look at the history of the 13th Amendment in the US with regards to the draft during WW1 (the only time this was brought to the SCOTUS), you’ll notice that even the SCOTUS agreed that conscription was both constitutional and a power of the federal government. If you look across the globe, you’ll notice that many countries already do it and nobody talks about “slavery” occurring in Sweden, Germany, Norway, etc. In other words, the argument against mandatory service which centers on slavery and freedom is more rhetoric than argument. There are good arguments against mandatory service, but “enslavement” isn’t one.
How is taking the concept of citizenship and making an abstract argument bigotry or begging the question? I’m not saying there is something “magical” about citizenship-by-birth, but that it is a commonly used concept. I love the ad hom crap you spew, but it doesn’t really work. If you want to call me out on an issue, do so, don’t use crappy rhetoric and expect people to ooh and aah at it.
I admit my assessment of Obama’s plan for national service is the result of my reading between the lines, considering both the language of the campaign as well as the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. I believe I read that Obama’s website, at one point, made mention of compulsory service; that was pulled from the website following criticism. The actual stated plan seems to have more to do with subsidized service than mandatory service with the exception of this one phrase: “Require 100 Hours of Service in College”. The following excerpt is directly from the site:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/
Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s Plan
Enable All Americans to Serve to Meet the Nation’s Challenges
* Expand Corporation for National and Community Service: Obama and Biden will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000 and they will focus this expansion on addressing the great challenges facing the nation. They will establish a Classroom Corps to help teachers and students, with a priority placed on underserved schools; a Health Corps to improve public health outreach; a Clean Energy Corps to conduct weatherization and renewable energy projects; a Veterans Corps to assist veterans at hospitals, nursing homes and homeless shelters; and a Homeland Security Corps to help communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies.
* Engage Retiring Americans in Service on a Large Scale: Older Americans have a wide range of skills and knowledge to contribute. Obama and Biden will expand and improve programs that connect individuals over the age of 55 to quality volunteer opportunities.
* Expand the Peace Corps: Obama and Biden will double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011. They will work with the leaders of other countries to build an international network of overseas volunteers so that Americans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries.
* Show the World the Best Face of America: Obama and Biden will set up an America’s Voice Initiative to send Americans who are fluent speakers of local languages to expand our public diplomacy. They also will extend opportunities for older individuals such as teachers, engineers, and doctors to serve overseas.
Integrate Service into Learning
* Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation’s Schools: Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year. They will develop national guidelines for service- learning and will give schools better tools both to develop programs and to document student experience. Green Job Corps: Obama and Biden will create an energy-focused youth jobs program to provide disadvantaged youth with service opportunities weatherizing buildings and getting practical experience in fast-growing career fields.
* Expand YouthBuild Program: Obama and Biden will expand the YouthBuild program, which gives disadvantaged young people the chance to complete their high school education, learn valuable skills and build affordable housing in their communities. They will grow the program so that 50,000 low-income young people a year a chance to learn construction job skills and complete high school.
* Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.
* Promote College Serve-Study: Obama and Biden will ensure that at least 25 percent of College Work-Study funds are used to support public service opportunities instead of jobs in dining halls and libraries.
Invest in the Nonprofit Sector
* Social Investment Fund Network: Obama and Biden will create a Social Investment Fund Network to use federal seed money to leverage private sector funding to improve local innovation, test the impact of new ideas and expand successful programs to scale.
* Social Entrepreneurship Agency for Nonprofits: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will a create an agency within the Corporation for National and Community Service dedicated to building the capacity and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector.
Barack Obama’s Record
A Lifetime of Service
Obama began his career by moving to the South Side of Chicago to direct the Developing Communities Project. Together with a coalition of ministers, Obama set out to improve living conditions in poor neigh- borhoods plagued by crime and high unemployment. After graduating from law school, Obama passed up lucrative law firm jobs to head Project Vote, which helped register 150,000 new African American voters in Chicago, the highest number ever registered in a single local effort. Michelle Obama was founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago, a leadership development program that identifies and prepares talented young adults for careers serving the public good.
cchrisr wrote: This second model creates a class of people “born in the country but not a citizen,” which is ridiculous.
Why is that ridiculous? It’s a perfectly workable system. We could create a status of “native resident” or something, which would allow a person to hold a US passport and ID card and all the basic things required to live life in the modern American world. Then there could be a level above that, called “citizen,” which would allow a person to vote, hold public office, participate in the national healthcare system, etc. Both a native resident and a citizen would have equal rights to live and work and own property in their country. We wouldn’t kick all the non-citizens out of the country; the native residents would have just as much legal right to reside in the United States as citizens do.
Maybe rather than think about it as creating a class of people “born in the country but not a citizen,” we could go the opposite way. How about, everyone is a citizen, but people who perform public service are supercitizens, and only supercitizens can vote and hold public office and so forth.
cchrisr wrote:
Just because lots of countries do it and many people don’t complain doesn’t make it right. The morality of something doesn’t depend on popular opinion.
cchrisr, everyone else here understands what I am suggesting, so I don’t think I am being unclear. The US currently has legal residents who come here as students and workers who are not citizens. This is NOT an imaginary thing, and does not cause the kind of chaos you suggest. Such people are not allowed to vote, or take public office. According to the US founders, requiring these people to be taxed without representation is immoral. Obviously we cannot provide free services for anyone who chooses to come here if they aren’t contributing to the economy. Doing so would bleed us dry in no time. Why do you automatically assume this already working system could not handle people who deliberately choose not to become a US citizen.
Good, then these people would ALL be in favor of my system. My system allows all who wish to do so to serve for two years (and not necessarily in the military) in exchange for all the rights we currently provide to citizens. Anyone choosing NOT to do so will be required to pay for any government services used (including passport and ID services). Assuming (as you do) that nobody will have a problem with working for the government for two years, nobody will ever be in the “native resident” class and all your fears are unfounded. Anyone who DOES choose it will do so because you are wrong in assuming everyone would be fine with being enslaved for two years.
From your view of mandatory service, my suggestion is absolutely identical to that used in Israel (everyone will chose to become a citizen by working for the government for two years). From my viewpoint, my suggestion allows those who don’t want to work for the government an opportunity to live a productive life without being imprisoned or becoming a free rider. It is entirely impossible for my suggestion to be worse for the native born person than the system currently implemented in Israel (where rather than merely losing the right to vote and government services, they will be imprisoned if they freely choose not work for the government). This is why your attacks on it are completely illogical, and why all mandatory service requirements ARE slavery whether or not people mind. (Note that people didn’t used to mind enslaving African natives. The majority doesn’t define morality.)
Atanamis, foreign-born immigrants are not the same as Jew’s “native residents.” If this group is not considered citizens, they are citizens nowhere and are not bound to any national set of laws or treaties except for the nation in which they reside. They will not be able to travel anywhere because they do not have the status of citizen of some nation. This leads to a position eerily similar to the detainees in Gauntanamo Bay in which they are not accorded the same rights to due process as citizens are nor are they able to be “protected” by various international treaties, Geneva Convention, etc. At this point, my argument is not concerned with voting and public office.
The system in Israel only imprisons those who do not choose alternative service or get exemption from service (which those people who are studying or taking up religious orders and may be conscientious objectors get). I would rather see those who evade service by not petitioning for exemption or alternatives be imprisoned because they are trying to get out of something through means not acceptable at the legal level (it’d be different if there were no way to be exempt from combat duty). That, by definition, is illegal activity. Israel, like most of the countries which actively conscript citizens, provides alternatives for combat duty. The differences I see between what I see as mandatory service and what I see as your service-for-citizenship are the following:
1. The status of those who evade service in service-for-citizenship model are no longer citizens while in the mandatory-service model are citizens who have done an illegal activity. This group of people do not include conscientious objectors who are given exemptions/alternatives by the government.
2. The default position of native-born residents. In the service-for-citizenship model, they are non-citizens until proven otherwise. In the mandatory-service model, they are citizens without exception.
First, I just want to go on record as applauding this discussion of sci-fi-popularized government arrangements. Next up, can we have “Glory Season”?
On another note, Atanamis, what would you do about people who change their mind halfway through their lives, and decide they no longer want to be citizens, but have already put in the time? Will there be some sort of reimbursement program? And also those who will never attain the mental/physical abilities required to fulfill these voluntary duties? Are they citizens? If so, they’re definitely free-riders. If not, it’s jolly easy for the disabled to fall through the cracks; they do with our current system quite frequently.
http://www.dkgoodman.com/cannot.html
Ardith, thank you for at least committing the thought to pose honest questions about the idea.
There would be no additional reimbursement for the two years of service (other than the salary), but someone wishing to “withdraw” from the government would file the appropriate paperwork after which they would no longer be subject to taxes but would also lose the privileges of being a member of the government. If at a later point they wanted to re-join, they may be required to provide another two years of service to avoid people hiding from taxes and “re-enrolling” only when they need something.
Any anarchist would likely support the right of an organization with voluntary membership (my psuedo-government) to assist the disabled in any way it chooses. However, the mentally infirm should rightly not be taxed or given the vote. Since taxation and voting are the primary distinguishing marks of citizens, they would not technically be citizens though a reasonably compassionate citizenry SHOULD be willing to provide services to these people regardless of their citizenship. This is no different than today. The mentally ill do not vote themselves benefits, but have those benefits granted to them by caring voters.
Regarding the physically disabled, I was very careful in specifying “service commitment” to not express any particular type of service. In no case should anyone be expected to serve in a way that is impossible for them to do so. The biggest question becomes whether the handicapped from other countries are allowed to immigrate and automatically obtain free services. I’d still say yes, on the basis that physically handicapped people can definitely learn skills and trades that circumvent their handicaps. This problem would be equally true of any other immigration reform that made it easier for people to obtain citizenship though.
cchrisr, your positions are becoming so obviously untrue it is becoming boring to refute them. If you honestly dislike the idea, please try to use valid facts and logic to defend your dislike rather than the ridiculous untruths to which you are resorting.
As the EXISTENCE of Guantanamo Bay demonstrates, citizenship in a country in no way guarantees anyone that their rights will be protected. Laws and treaties OUGHT to protect “people”, not just “citizens”. The fact that someone in our country is not a citizen here really shouldn’t matter. Even if it does matter though and a person cannot possibly live without citizenship though, they are STILL no worse off than in Israel. They can still choose to become a citizen by engaging in the required service, and have all the rights and privileges of any other citizen.
Conscientious objection is no excuse under my model, because my model never requires military service. The US has PLENTY of volunteers willing to join the military without a need for “pressured” soldiers. If anything, military service should be allowed only to those who have already performed their service. In my system, nobody has to “evade” service, since they are fully allowed to refuse it. The fact that you don’t mind imprisoning those who do not want to serve (especially in a military!) shows a fundamental difference of values, but one which is hardly relevant to this discussion. You support forcible enslavement (at the threat of imprisonment), while I allow each individual to choose how they want to live their life. Someone who is unwilling to follow the rules of a government ought not be forced to be a member of that government.
That is a tautology. Of course its true. It says absolutely nothing about the desirability of either scenario though. Didn’t you used to be better at debating things? Of course, even in the “mandatory service” model one must STILL prove that they are in fact native born. How do I prove where I was born if no officials were present to witness it? Again, my scenario is simpler since we don’t CARE where you were born. If you WANT to be a citizen of the government, you are. No other records needed than that you want to are are willing to work two years to become so.
Atanamis, I think you are trying to create more difference between our positions than what is there. International laws and treatises first and foremost work for citizens of nations, not just “people.” There are very few laws which are for “people” and not citizens, including the US Constitution. Yes, it does read “we the people” but that is specific for citizens. Those rights are not immediately bestowed upon others (a fine example here: representation). My main argument is for those who would be considered citizens by birthright under other circumstances but “choose” not to serve the country (example here would be the Amish). A group like that should not be disallowed citizenship because they have religious obligations which exclude them from military service. Under the model of nations like Israel and Sweden, these people are still citizens as long as they file an exemption or take up one of the accepted alternatives to military service.
This leads directly to my next point: most nations that employ the mandatory-service model have room for exemptions for viable reasons (handicapped, religious beliefs, etc). There is no where in this model that I have begun to propose which requires all members to go into combat duty. The only people who can possibly be imprisoned for “evasion” are those who not only choose against military service but also do nothing to get an exemption. In other words, the few people that seriously try to escape service while remaining in the nation and not even attempting to get an exemption from military service (akin to citizens evading taxes without filing for extensions, etc). This type of action is, by definition, illegal. The specific act of getting out of military duty is not illegal because there are legal alternatives and exemptions. People who wish to not be a citizen of that nation should be free to leave and renounce their citizenship. The difference between my mandatory-service model and your service-for-citizenship model is that the people in mine must renounce their citizenship while the people in yours must gain their citizenship.
My second point, which you call a tautology, shows where you are mistaken. Your model excludes the possibility of naturally-born citizens since everyone must gain citizenship (akin to naturalization). I am not against allowing naturalization, but for those who would be considered natural-born citizens have the option to prove such. In a country like the USA where the office of the President is restricted to natural-born citizens, my model succeeds while yours fails. It is a tautology only if you assume that naturalization is not an option, which can only be done if one ignores the first part of the point: “the default position of native-born residents.”
And once again you demonstrate you aren’t actually reading anything I say. I have never referenced military service other than to condemn it. The US has effectively demonstrated the value of a voluntary military, and would likely only be WEAKENED by imposing mandatory military service.
The specific act of a black slave choosing not to work for a white slave owner used to be defined as illegal. Mandating how other people live their lives (other than preventing them from acts of force or demanding compensation for direct damage done) is a violation of the fundamental rights of a human. The legal issues involved don’t change this. You might SUPPORT that legalized slavery is moral, but that doesn’t make it true.
Does it really matter whether Obama was born in Hawaii or whether he moved there at 1 month of age? What about a hypothetical candidate who was born here, but hasn’t lived here since 1 month of age? Would Schwarzenegger make a terrible president because of where he was born?
You are fixated on the idea that location of birth somehow makes a person more worthy of human rights than someone born elsewhere. This is a morally reprehensible idea. People should be judged based on decisions they make and the lives they live, not on things outside their control like the color of their skin or the location of their birth. Morally, it is wrong to violate someone’s human rights whether they were born in your country or born in another country, and regardless of whether they are a citizen of the country they were born in or another country or no country.
What you are doing is defending one moral injustice (slavery) by pointing to another (lack of legal rights for “free” slaves). This is similar to defending black slavery on the premise that blacks need slave owners to protect them from racism of those around them. If a black person has no legal rights without a slave owner, the problem is not the need for slave owners but of unjust laws. If a person has no legal rights without national citizenship, the problem is not their lack of citizenship but of unjust laws.
Tautology:
Assuming everyone born in a specific location is not automatically a citizen, they cannot automatically be assumed to be a citizen.
Assuming everyone born in a specific location is automatically a citizen, one can automatically assume everyone born in that location is a citizen.
Your point two did nothing more than define itself. Regarding “proof” of citizenship, there is absolutely no reason why citizenship should be any harder to prove than place of birth. You have no point here.
Atanamis, my comments have nothing to do with denying rights to people. Where are you getting this? If anything, I am saying that the service-for-citizenship model is the one denying rights to people because it requires at least some people* to “volunteer” themselves for a period a time to gain what they would have had by birth anyway. I am not talking about people foreign-born who want to be naturalized, as you continue to berate me on. There’s no magical difference between someone who is a citizen by birth and someone who is a citizen by naturalization except for the origin of their citizenship. I’m not the one who wrote the US Constitution (which requires the position of the President to be held by a native-born citizen of the US, which is defined as either by birthright–those born to people who are citizens, regardless of location–or by birth–those born within the nation, regardless of their parent’s citizenship).
My reasoning behind this is that nations do not allow people to immigrate into their country unless they are emigrating from a country–as a citizen. By denying citizenship to people born within a country because they have not volunteered to serve that country creates a class of people who are forced to remain citizens of nowhere and non-citizens of everywhere, effectively forcing into slavery to whichever government they reside in as they will have taxation without representation or equal rights. This issue is completely separate from what you are calling slavery in the mandatory-service model, and it is largely based on a libertarian reading which I have already suggested is nothing but rhetoric. Requiring service (in a general sense, not necessarily or specifically military service) from citizens is no less slavery than requiring them to pay taxes. Furthermore, it is just as much as participation in the government as is paying taxes.
Secondly, you are still trying to force me into a position which I did not suggest. While I do not disagree with mandatory service, every model which currently uses that I have referenced or suggested as a good model are fairly (if not exceedingly) lenient on how that service is performed–even if outside of military service. In this case, “draft-dodging” is illegal–just as it was illegal in the US during the Vietnam War, WW2, WW1–if done outside of the legally provided ways (such as religious service, serving the country in another aspect such as in the firefighting force, etc). You are making this into a disjunctive of “military service” or not. I am suggesting a spectrum of options, one which includes military service, but also others including hospital service, Peace Corps, Red Cross, religious service, etc. The only illegal option in that wide spectrum is to say none of the above without any reason other than pure choice.
Your argument is centering on domestic law and rights. I have not disagreed with those issues. However, I have suggested that the service-for-citizenship model is no different on that front because it only gives the illusion of freedom. People should have rights, but traditionally, those rights have only extended to people recognized as citizens of some country. My argument against the service-for-citizenship model resides on international law and rights. You can be idealistic and say that the problem is unjust laws, but by sticking to ideals, there is a risk of even greater injustice.
* Specifically, people born within a nation who, in most other nations, would have been citizenship based upon that birthright.
So your argument is that anyone who cannot prove their place of birth today is in a limbo state they can never escape, since no nation will ever allow them to enter or become a citizen without proof of prior citizenship? I suspect there are literally billions of people in the world who cannot prove where they were born, and therefore would fit in this category. This is a completely nonsensical idea with no basis in reality. Even if it WERE true, you are basically arguing that because something does not currently exist it should never exist because things would have to change for it to exist. By definition, no country has rules for the movement of people born in the US who are not US citizens, because no such people exist. If such people were to exist, policies would be adopted regarding their ability to travel. There is no reason why the US could not issue them a “resident’s passport” that would validate their identity. Very little change would be needed to allow such passports to be equivalent to any other passport issued by a national government.
If you want to change your viewpoint, that’s fine. Please don’t insult all present though by suggesting that your new position is the one you’ve been arguing all along. This whole discussion is based on the assumption of mandatory service which you proposed. You have attacked my position on the basis of religious groups which require conscientious objection, which can only apply to military service. You have suggested I require military service for citizenship when I have been expressly clear in not doing so.
Right, which is why a fundamental part of my idea was that only those who want to be citizens would perform a service, pay taxes, and vote. Even if “the service-for-citizenship model is no different on that front because it only gives the illusion of freedom”, it cannot be worse than a mandatory service government. Even if it just allows the rare anarchist to put their personal protection where their mouth is, it will serve a purpose. You suggest that this approach may lead only to more injustice, but rather than enslaving a populous and looting their possessions against their will one can at least give them the option.
Restricting someone’s basic human rights “for their own good” is the kind of logic that brought us slavery and communism. If you are right, nobody will decline citizenship and my idea can do no harm. If Colin is right, fewer and fewer people will enroll in government over time as they find superior solutions. Like you, I’d likely just do my service and buy my citizenship. However, while I may disagree with Colin, he is right in arguing that it should be his choice to make.
Atanamis, I think you are trying to misrepresent me regardless of what I say or propose. This isn’t a discussion, but rather you trying to vindicate your position as the only plausible, logical one. Even when I point out that you are misrepresenting me, you continue to use your misrepresentation. You have now sunk to taking short phrases out of context in order to continue your misrepresentation of me. Get rid of the rhetoric because it’s tiring.
Citizenship within a nation gives one the right to live in that nation. However, non-citizens who reside within a nation are allowed to do so if they comply with that nation’s immigration laws. These laws can be changed and may lead to non-citizens being removed by force from the nation. You are worried about mandatory service enslaving the nation and “looting their possessions against their will” but you don’t seem to mind service-for-citizenship ejecting those who choose not to serve.
You describe the mandatory service as enslaving the people to military service as well as looting their possessions. How is this so? From the beginning, I have shown that even the strictest version of this (Israel) gives exemptions–quite freely from what I have heard from Israeli citizens–to this. These exemptions are the “choice” you are talking about. Don’t want to serve the military? Fine, there’s also hospitals, firefighting, humanitarian services, etc. If one doesn’t want to do any of those, then one is free to leave the country and emigrate elsewhere. The only thing not permitted is to stay in the nation, use the government, and not serve in some way. It is not something that is done “for their own good” but rather for the good of the nation. If one does not want to participate, then one is given that to the fullest extent (i.e. leave). This is no different than when an adult child (say one who college age) who lives with parents. The parents’ have rules for living at the house and the child is free to leave if he chooses not to obey those rules. One of those rules is to contribute to housekeeping by washing dishes once a day and taking out the garbage once a week. If the child doesn’t want to do those things, then the child can leave. If you wish to boil it all down to the issue of slavery, yes it can be construed as that, but that is not the only possible interpretation.
The only differences between this and the service-for-citizenship reside in the defaults. In mandatory service models, people can be citizens by birth and it is assumed they serve the country in some way unless they say otherwise. In the service-for-citizenship models, people cannot be citizens by birth and it is assumed they do not serve (and are not citizens) unless they say otherwise.
With that said, both models do have flaws. The mandatory service model, if done in a highly restrictive manner, can lead to the exclusive choice of military service or prison. I have not disagreed with this statement at all. However, I have cited examples and cases to the contrary. In other words, it is not the only possibility. The service-for-citizenship model, if done in a highly restrictive manner, can lead to a group of second-class citizens because of a similar exclusive choice: military service or no citizenship. Jew has offered one case in which this need not be the case: citizens and “supercitizens.” Those who choose to not serve the country are a second-class citizen because while they must pay taxes and follow the laws, they have no voice in government. If they do not pay taxes, who would want to join the government? If that means that they can work and make a livable salary without spending anything, unless you would like to re-imagine the police force, firefighting, and other regulatory services typically provided by the government as a pay service? Even then, however, I will suggest that it impossible in this day and age to live in Western society without utilizing at least some part of the government, no matter how minimalistic it is.
COMPULSORY NATIONAL SERVICE UPDATE: The House has just passed the GIVE Act with broad bi-partisan support. GIVE is an acronym for Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education. This is one of the compulsory national service proposals. There is a similar one in the Senate called the Serve America Act. Here is a link to the House version:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”
The article below has some useful information, although the writer spends a lot of crying about how the White House press secretary wouldn’t call on him for his questions. Specifically it deals with a proposal Obama has made to create a “Civilian National Security Force”.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92109
Here’s an Obama quote from the campaign trail I pulled from a Chicago Tribune article on July 2, 2008.
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html
COMPULSORY NATIONAL SERVICE UPDATE!:
Okay, they haven’t quite managed to make this compulsory yet, but they have begun their propaganda campaign. The following is a commercial for the Americorps VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) City Week program. Americorps is part of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and has been integrated into the Deutschland…I mean Homeland Security apparatus. You can see that this is targeted towards young teens. Notice how they throw Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and MLK in there. Nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS4jTdD4WgY&feature=sdig&et=1242609233.4