National Service

Have a little generosity, Steve. He did say that "the point is that I can see putting in a year of military service as being a price tag for living under the protection of the government. The matter still, however, should remain a decision of the individual man or woman."

People here do say that they would prefer, perhaps, a sales tax over a flat tax, without being accused of heresy. If Jay is simply saying that one could use voluntary military service asd a form of tax payment, would you object?

Post 21

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 8:05pm

I think that we should have the right to become cannon fodder in place of paying our taxes.

Ed
[oh my god, what did I just defend?]

:-)

Post 22

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 8:53pm

Ted, I would still oppose it, for several reasons:

- First, it would establish the concept of service as a duty and I would NOT trust politicians to maintain the concept of 'voluntary' - how voluntary are taxes? It doesn't pay to muck about with this concept of owing a duty to the government which is supposed to be our servant.

- Second, why should the service by some people be allowed to increase the tax load of the other taxpayers - McCain and Obama are both talking about paying people for their service - like free tuition, or educational loan forgiveness, or military type benefits, to say nothing of the cost of administering this behemoth.

- Third, why would you expect me to get on this bandwagon of altruistic orgasm where the ultimate of values is attained by sacrifice.

- Fourth, why would I want young people to go wash or feed the poor or sweep streets, when they should be building their careers or preparing themselves to be of value in the market place.

Post 23

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 9:09pm

I thought Jay was only talking about military service.

Post 24

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 10:17pm

Military personnel already gets a bundle of benefits that added to the pay is adequate (just barely) for the people needed. Given the high tech nature of the modern military, a sort-term conscript is not useful - they need someone that will commit for 4 years. The people that need the tax credits are people already successful and not going to leave their high paying position to become a soldier. I'm not clear on what kind of practical arrangement is being proposed. Does anyone think that people will volunteer for 4 years, for altruistic reasons, and that the cost of military will then be reduced by that amount? That isn't what was mentioned or something workable. Why does anyone want to pursue this beg for free workers, or duty to the fatherland, or sacrifice for the good of others approach? No moral value, no economic value, wrong direction to have the government go.

Post 25

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:34pm

Again, show a little generosity. Can you not imagine some way in which the government, in return for the valued service it seeks - not as a welfare plan - could remit part of its payment for service as a tax credit? Is this not even conceivable? Of course one can imagine such a plan poorly exercised. Did Jay or I suggest a plan, as objectionable as it might be, that was intentionally poorly excercised as well?

Imagine if one issued politicians only tax credits, not salaries. Would they not then need to work for a living to make political service worth while? I should think this could be an excellent plan. Imagining such a plan might even be more fun than condemning an easy target!

Post 26

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:50pm

Jay,

First you say,

I've never believed in the 'draft'. On the face of it, I agree with Steve that is amounts to a form of slavery. Were it to be forced upon us again though, I would say that a universal one year term would be more appropriate than a "selective" process involving more than one year.

Then you say,

The point is that I can see putting in a year of military service as being a price tag for living under the protection of the government. The matter still, however, should remain a decision of the individual man or woman.

What should remain a decision of the individual man or woman? Whether to stay in the country at the price of serving in the military or else leave? But that's not a choice that one should have to make. One should be free to remain in the country without joining the military. Since the government doesn't own the country, it has no right to demand military service as a payment for one's right to live there.

- Bill

Post 27

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 12:15am

If you or Jay see some value to be found in that mess, knock yourselves out. The two of you can be the first volunteers, create a plan you like, and go for it.

Post 28

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 12:17am

He said "a" price tag, not "the" price tag. The implication is that he meant payment for, not cost of, but could have worded himself better. Else his prior stametment saying he opposes the draft, and his qualification that it be voluntary make no sense.

Post 29

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 12:38am

Ted,

I have no idea what Jay is talking about. I don't think Jay knows what he is talking about. One year of slavery, but voluntary, is a price tag paid for living under the government's protection? So, how many tax free years do you get for that one year? The sentence or two before that Jay mentioned the son of a friend, from another country, that was notified that he had to come home and serve for one year to retain his citizenship! Jay seems okay with paying one year as a price to keep ones citizenship.

Jay seems to be okay with politicians claims to own your citizenship, that you have to enslave yourself (voluntarily!) for their protection, and he spends lots of time worrying about the government not being able to exercise eminent domain. Jay says he agrees these things are immoral but that it seems to be okay with him anyway that government owning everything - homes, citizenship, one or more years of our lives.

What do you like about any of this? Have you decided that you are now a fan of serving others? I've gotten use to this strange attitude towards government from Jay, but I'm bewildered by your interest in this mess.

Post 30

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 2:44am

Obama

Q: Do you think women should register for selective service when they turn 18 like men do currently?

A: You know, a while back we had a celebration in the Capitol for the Tuskegee Airmen, and it was extraordinarily powerful because it reminded us, there was a time when African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat. And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal. And I think that if women are registered for service--not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft-- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do.
(Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007)

McCain is also opposed to military conscription.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other notes on draft: A, B

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 9/14, 3:10am)

Post 31

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 2:56am

Steve writes:

but I'm bewildered by your interest in this mess.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Ted just puts out statements to stir the pot, regardless of what he truly believes. Maybe he feels the need to fill the void created by others who have gotten themselves banned from this forum. Whatever the reason, I have great difficulty putting everything Ted says on these many threads together into one comprehensible package.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 32

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 3:09am

Obama: "And I think that if women are registered for service--not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft [...]"

Well, when someone says that they want to "register" me for "service" and that we have "got obligations to this great country", I seriously question their commitment to opposing the military draft. I'm sure that both McCain and Obama say all sorts of things to appease all sorts of people in the context of the moment, but if you look at the philosophy that drives both of them, I find it hard to believe that either wouldn't turn on a dime and institute a military draft if there were, by their judgment, even the smallest need for it. The State - oh excuse me, The Country - has precedence over the individual for each of them.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 33

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 4:40am

Well. This has been interesting. I'll try to clarify a couple of things.

First, I am only talking about military service.

Second, I was not suggesting such service was in any manner in lieu of taxes (interesting idea, but not something I'd endorse without knowing a lot more details).

Third, I didn't adequately elaborate on what 'loss of citizenship' would imply - because, while I might reason out some ideas, I could not accurately say. The example I gave was of a Scandinavian country, not the US. The particular case was of someone who had the option of US citizenship, and could have easily refused the service. This was an exemplary young man, who is bright, works hard, and who already had begun his career when called. He benefitted from the experience, can say he participated in the defense of his native country, and has moved on to become a leader in his field. I highly respect him and his decision.

Thanks to Stephen for the links to earlier posts regarding draft. Thanks too, Ted, for trying to direct the focus to what I actually stated in my earlier post.

Steve, it is possible to hold one belief, and still be willing to examine real world situations that one's belief would hold intolerable. In fact, I would say it is essential - there are things we must deal with which are difficult to change. This does not mean that we stop trying to change them. However, if we wish to be effective, achieving smaller steps is more efficacious than making a running leap at an insurmountable wall.

Going back to the draft and the military, one has a duty to one's self to defend one's rights. These rights are not given by one's government, but they are (at least in theory) protected by one's government. By extension - and it is a fair extension - in performing military service one is defending his or her individual rights. My hat is off to all who volunteer, though I'm sure not all of them fully comprehend the value of their choice.

I do not, absolutely do not, approve of the draft. I would oppose its being re-instated. However, if unable to prevent it, I would favor universal subscription over selective service. And I would favor the scandinavian example of only one year's service (everyone gets some basic military training).

Countries are bound more by philosophy than by geography. Citizens of a country should be willing to defend the philosophy it represents, and this means - in very practical and concrete terms - be willing to join the military, which is essential for its defense. Certainly, as the old saying goes - "somebody has to do it!", or we could just fold our tents and start reading Karl Marx.

jt

(Edited by Jay Abbott on 9/14, 4:44am)

Post 34

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 4:41am

What I believe is that Jay Abbott is not Chris Baker or Claude Shannon. Let's let him speak for himself before I defend or you attack him further.

Post 35

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 5:40am

Ted,

Thanks.

I know I am guilty of taking a more pragmatic approach towards achieving Objectivist goals. I do not see things progressing as well as they should - and could, and I'd sincerely like to see Objectivist ideas take deeper root in national and international culture.

So, apologetically, I tend to support what I'd guess I would call strategic compromises - make the ethical argument, move opponents ever closer to Objectivist positions, settle for a fairer if not a fair laws or regulations, and always push for improvement, always move things in the right direction - a small momentum. Momentum grows over time.

The "my way or the highway" approach just doesn't work - particularly when one is in the minority. There is a massive political and cultural infrastructure already in place. Self righteousness doesn't necessarily stink, but it is very ineffective against this infrastructure. Worse yet, we not only fail to make progress, but we can easily lose ground to more obnoxious philosophical ideas - e.g. "all americans should serve a greater cause than themselves."

These are my concerns, and what temper my posts. If plan A isn't working, it is good to have a plan B. I suspect Objectivism could use a good plan B. This is not a comment on the values of the philosophy, it is a comment on value of the methods used to promote it

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 9/14, 5:43am)

(Edited by Jay Abbott on 9/14, 5:47am)

Post 36

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 8:13am

In any compromise with good and evil - evil wins...
In any compromise with food and poison - poison wins...

The pragmatic is - the unprincipled,
and the unprincipled is - not an Objectivist...

Post 37

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 10:31am

Jay,

Looking at the world from the viewpoint of rational self-interest makes for some differences. For example, I see no reason to go all gooey and teary-eyed over the fact that some people choose to join the service.

That emotion is one that arises out of either holding the view that sacrifice is noble and they are sacrificing, or that doing battle and being a warrior is superior to all other professions and those who are warriors should arouse our heart-felt emotions. Or that a deeply held subjugation to the fatherland, a sense of duty, carries over to the folks in the military.

I see the military as a proud and honorable profession because they do indeed serve a good purpose. But so do doctors and engineers. Members of the military risk their lives, but if they do it for others, that is altruistically, they shouldn't. The more they approach their profession as professionals and to be the best they can be for their own sake, the better off they are and the better the job they will do. (Sure, I feel bad when anyone is hurt when doing battle with evil forces and I am angered if they are put in harm's way carelessly or needlessly - but that's different.)

But lets cut this short. Your chain of reasoning in your last post goes like this: I ought to defend my own rights, government protects my rights for me, by extension I protect my own rights when I'm in the military, therefore I should volunteer to serve in the military for 1 year.

Okay, then this would work too: I ought to defend my own rights, my bodyguard protects my rights for me, by extension I protect my own rights when I become the assistant to my bodyguard, therefore I should volunteer to serve as his assistant for 1 year.

Government is supposed to be our bodyguard, our assistant - don't mix up the emotional appeal of patriotism, pride of independence, love of what is great in our nation, lingering pull of 2000 years of altruism, with forgetting that one does not serve their servants. And besides, government is just the structure intended to protect the ideals, the core political values, and those - which are more worthy of treating as sacred, are just there to serve us. That is why it makes no sense to serve - it will always become either the silliness of calling for servitude to ones self in ways that make no sense, or servitude to others.

Post 38

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 10:49am

Ted,

I haven't compared Jay to anyone else, nor have I seen anyone else doing that. And, everyone here IS letting him speak - everything we have addressed to him is in reply to what he has said - and often on threads or discussion he has initiated - knowing they would probably draw fire - he is NOT dumb.

I write to present what I hope he will see as an alternative to some positions that look quite confused to me. Jay writes, I assume, because he still has concerns that are not answered by his view of Objectivism and he wants to find answers to those concerns. He accepts some of the tenets of Objectivism yet still feels a strong attachment to some practices that seem to conflict with Objectivism.

I certainly understand how unpleasant it can be to find oneself as the lone lightning rod in a thread. I can understand how uncomfortable it can be to be not just unclear on an issue but exposing that uncertainty to those who seem like they treat uncertainty as blood in the water. But resolving internal conflicts is what everyone needs to do and sharp, clear opposition is helpful at the same time it feels hurtful. (Yes, Jay, it is good for you :-)

The only one in this discussion that is curious to me is you... Your only position seems to be to put Jay out there speaking more on this question of service, almost like a stalking horse, because in some strange, perhaps unprecedented, occasion you don't present us with your take on the issue.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/14, 10:50am)

Post 39

Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 1:18pm