Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Would national service be by force or voluntary? If by force it would not be a
good idea.Would national service cost money? Car we afford it?
Every so often, this monstrous idea of "national service" raises its
ugly head. The whole notion of based on the premise that nationalism is a good
thing. Worse is the root belief that individualism must give way the greater
good of society. William Buckley was right about some things but wrong about
more. I read his book about this topic because I admired him at the time. I have
come to understand since then that he was an ardent nationalist.Nationalism is toxic to any nation, as history has shown time and again. Its
most destructive trait is to annihilate the value of the person in favor of a
government-selected "higher cause." This is what is behind the false
ideals of "exceptionalism" and "national righteousness" that
gets nations into spreading their superiority via wars and non-requested
interventions. This whole national service idea needs to be
dismissed along with the military draft as a very bad one.
SEY - what on earth do you mean by "nationalism?"Is this a
new conservative boogeyman?
National service programs won't change the public or the digression to more
selfish motives. You can't compel people to serve as it would violate
their rights and you can't pay them because the cost would be to great on
our government right now. Truthfully the only way for people to change is when
they find the motivation within themselves and this usually only happens by
people attending church, working in volunteer organizations, or by hitting rock
bottom. Necessity creates change and right now young people are finding they
don't have the freedom to make that change as our regulations are to strict
and legally cumbersome our corporations and government to large and our
opportunity to small. Mostly it is just leading us to rebel as we find a
government that is oriented to taking our tax dollars and giving it to the old,
lazy or to industries with big lobbyists (the farm bill) leaving us with massive
unfunded liabilities and debt. They get the cushion we get the rock ledge.
one old man: nationalism is nothing new. It's been around for centuries and
it has always been at odds with the individual. Here's how an online
dictionary defines it:1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole
of a nation. 2. devotion and loyalty to one's own country;
patriotism. 3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism. 4. the desire for
national advancement or political independence. 5. the policy or doctrine
of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the
interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. See
also "chauvinism": exaggerated, passionate, or fanatical devotion to a
national community When I talk of nationalism, I refer to points 3
and 5, but point 3 most particularly as a chauvinistic phenomenon. Fanatical
authoritarians have been at heart nationalists. Think of Hitler, Mao, Stalin,
Pinochet and a host of others.
SEYI think your view of Patriotism as being bad, is not good for the
country either. Why would a person go into the service and fight for the
country if they did not have some degree of devotion and loyalty and patriotism?
And who is to judge when a person is "too" patriotic? I'm sure
many on the left think that the T-Party people were too extreme, but all they
did was use the system to create change. The energy to do that whether a group
or individule must come from some degree of passion for your country. In other
words, I don't necessarily think nationalism is bad, especially when it
comes from an exceptional country, like the United States of America, which has
done far more good for the world than bad.
The penchant for conservatives to make straw men monsters out of just about
anything these days is exhausting. Don’t you guys ever tire of
feeling/expressing only fear and rage?And on this issue I just
don’t get it - people all across the political divide are promoting
community service (mostly today for returning veterans) as a way to feel valued,
give back, and strengthen community bonds.And this is bad
because…?Sure, if it’s forced, OK. Or if it by
“service” we mean nationalistic indoctrination (e.g., Hitler Youth)
then you have a point. Bit who is promoting anything like that… who?Please… take a walk… exercise… read a relaxing book…
and most of all gain a little perspective.
SEY that seems to be a badly twisted definition.
So why does anyone want to force ( the article seems to promote individually
voluntary but socially coercive compliance ) all the young graduates into a
situation where their autonomy is subjected to the control of others ( called
"the country" although it inevitably is the ruling bodies of a nation
not the nation itself). I repeat why would anyone want to make all
young men and women subject to the dictation of the State? Even if only for a
year any of them could suffer or die for some assigned cause whether or not
they understand or support that cause. Would you voluntarily let someone else
control you so completely?
Gildas, please turn your radio off.We could also ask: ". . . why
would anyone want to make all young men and women subject to the dictation of
the Church?"Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose
missionary callings. They do a lot to prepare young men and women for the
future. Might not this idea do similar things for others?
SCfan: indeed, why WOULD anyone join the military and fight "for the
country?" I'm assuming you've never done that yourself. I have.
Most people join the military for the benefits. Patriotism may be a motive, but
it's down a ways on the priority list. More importantly, soldiers are not
fighting for the country. They're fighting for the government, which is a
whole other issue. I'm more than willing to fight for my country, but not
necessarily for my government.
one old man: take up your complaint with the dictionary, not me.
25% of young people are unemployed. So this is the solution? We can't seem
to work things out so you can get a job. So why don't we force you to work
for free.mandatory service would never work, those who need it the most
"rich kids" would find a way out of it.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments