Posted on 07/06/2005 10:01:01 PM PDT by annalex
"You automatically assume that enforced community service will be for "the common good".
I don't "automatically assume" doodly squat. I think that it can be run for the common good, and I don't believe that the possibility of abuse is sufficient grounds to insist it not be done.
"Wars can be just or unjust, which is why we have conscientious objectors."
With very few exceptions, such as Quakers (who object to all wars, just or unjust), we have conscientious objectors because some people are always trying to scam their way through life.
"And "community service" is actually one of the most destructive government programs ever devised."
I'd prefer military service, but a stint repairing roads and bridges doesn't seem too destructive to me.
"Giving clean needles out, distributing condoms, midnight basketball, and whatever other whimsy some elite group of corrupt powerbrokers have decided for your children to do may be fine for you but I would not allow my children to be corrupted by their filth."
I see we have entirely different visions as to what sort of service should be performed, and who should be running it. I would define community service as finding people who think the things you name are a good idea and whacking them on the head with a baseball bat.
"If the French Army could supply mobile brothels for their soldiers, why is it such a far cry for U.S. women (and men)to be eventually conscripted for the "morale of the people" to bend over and 'take it like a man'?"
Because we're not French. Besides that, it's a total non-sequitur. Even the French didn't draft ordinary women to serve as hookers.
"After that, we'll be euthanizing people."
Yeah, euthenasia was such a *huge* problem back from 1941 though 1973, when we had a draft. There's a clear link.
Defense of the homeland is defense of life and property of the fellow citizen against an invasion. The rest is aggrandizing the state under one pretext or another, which is immoral for a Christian to contemplate. In particular, building up a cadre of militarily trained youth in anticipation of some imaginary invasion at some unspecified point in the future whets the aggressive instincts of the state and is a grave sin.
I stopped reading it after they smeared conservatives such as Buchanan and Sobran by lumping them up with the likes of Raymondo. But the deathist views of Ponnuru and Derbyshire are news to me, so I think I will ask them for a check for the balance of my loooong subscription, payable to Catholic Answers.
Derby's British. He probably longs for euthenasia. In England, that's upholding tradition.
What others are you suggesting. I'm not asking this in an accusatory tone. I'm genuinely interested in learning more. Please enlighten me.
Hillary, is that you?
Need some Twilight Zone music here.
"Defense of the homeland is defense of life and property of the fellow citizen against an invasion."
Oh? And what do you call defense of life and property of the fellow citizen against home-grown barbarians? What do you call maintaining a decent and moral society in which the life and property of the citizens are routinely safe from their fellow citizens?
"In particular, building up a cadre of militarily trained youth in anticipation of some imaginary invasion at some unspecified point in the future whets the aggressive instincts of the state and is a grave sin."
That is far and away the worst looney-left whacko bilgewater I've ever seen posted on FR.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you wish peace, prepare for war. This is an immutable principle of life on Planet Earth, and I'm sure the Romans got that proverb from an earlier civilization who got it from an earlier and so on back to Urrgh the cave man, who noticed that the tribe down the river with 15 warriors didn't attack his tribe that had 30.
Further, the state does not have "instincts" to whet, so your position is in that regard utter nonsense.
On top of that, given the scope of aggressive evil in the world, it is lunacy of the first water to dream that being prepared to oppose it could be "grave sin."
Yet further, when military veterans return to society at large, they are not a "cadre," with all the spooky boogy-man implications of that loaded term.
And finally (because I'm tired of typing, and not because there are no more fallacies in your position) military veterans bring much more than military training home with them, and the things they bring make them more valuable members of society.
Jeez, did you just wander over from DU?
I have no doubts that Ayn Rand was a woman, but somehow, I always thought she dressed in drag.
I can excuse a lot in a libertarian, being one myself till not long ago, but Derbyshire is no libertarian either. I liked his columns about shopping in Home Depot though.
I hesitated to include the third part, because it has nothing to do with the reasons I thought the E-Letter is remarkable, which is the observtions about NR. I ended up including it so that not to violate the copyright. I agree, the Peter II part is strange. If he has bigger news than an antipope dressing up like the big guys in his bedroom, he should have been direct about it. It is also mean to remark about the small size of traditionalist chapels when the powers that be did everything they could to keep them that way.
Well they goofed, because somehow that requirement didn't find its way into the Constitution. Any such "specific statement" (by whom, btw, and when?) was nothing more than a hopeful assurance, an undertaking that said founding fathers had no power to make or enforce.
Your proposal is utilitarian because it rests on nothing more than the promise that it will not be abused and its promised result is desirable. You are not looking beyond usefulness, to the fundamental question of whether the principle of compulsory service is good or evil in itself.
The Declaration implicitly holds that the power that derives from the popular will has its source in God.
Sorry; it does not. The Declaration states that:
1. Man is endowed by God with certain inalienable rights (one of them being LIBERTY, btw!)
2. Governments are founded to secure these rights.
3. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The Declaration has nothing to say about an obligation of the popular will to be godly. It does affirm a God-given right to constitute whatever form of government "on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" -- another appeal to utilitarianism. Finally, there's no suggestion that this political judgment be accountable to a higher power: the "Supreme Judge" of the world is invoked not as a source of authority, but only presumptuously, as a vidicator of the founders' decisions.
Who is minding the store there? I always found Sam Francis refreshing.
Great post! Thank you! And yes, that is something I have noticed too. You've articulated something that has had me perplexed for some time. There always seemed to be a limit to the logic of status quo conservatism as you so aptly describe it. It isn't enough to just shout "stop" if you have nothing to offer in the wake of train wreck of history.
Legitimate role of the military is to win defensive wars. In America that translates to no need for draft. Everything else is statist fluff, which causes your typing fatigue.
Don't be dissing Ronnie.
We should be asking that question.
Many parents are asking that question. Home schooling is growing in leaps and bounds.
Whoa! Ramesh is not pro-death in any way. He is one of the most articulate pro-life writers I've ever read. And Derbyshire aside, I really do appreciate the fact that Professor Robert George is a frequent contributor to the magazine. It's not all bad. It just has some weaknesses.
You are right. Not Ponnuru, and Keating did not imply that either. I stand corrected.
Ditto. The reason why I was so disappointed in Derb is precisely because I've enjoyed a lot of his other columns so much. His "moderate, tolerant homophobe" column had me in stitches. But in temperament he is a British conservative. I remember reading a post of his in The Corner in which he defined his Anglicanism in a way that made actual belief and doctrine seem secondary. It was really just a tradition thing -- a sort of useful cultural institution that acts as a safety net to keep the more egregious consequences of man's sinful nature in check.
As a practical matter, you may be right. Get enough people to go along, and there is no limit on the power of the state. (In other words, might makes right.)
But that is not what the Framers had in mind when they wrote of inalienable rights.
That's clever -- maybe too clever. The US did require up to four years paid service from people in the years 1941 to 1945. Was that slavery?
Was it "community service" or defense? (the issues are more complicated as to whether or not it was really defense vs. policy but we'll put that aside for now.)
It gave them up to four years paid food, shelter, and medical care. Was that welfare or socialized medicine?
Why didn't it give them cash to buy all of those goods and services in a free market? It was pretty much the same "voucher" style system that Hillary tried to impose on medicine and the Republicans want to compromise with on Education.
I'm not saying that mandatory community service is a good thing, just that not all forms of required service can fairly be called slavery. If the country is in trouble, and that service is necessary to prevent real slavery it's justified.
Agreed but I would argue that the current political atmosphere is incorporating a form of subjugation akin to slavery and they will gradually and deliberately strip away many of our rights in order to control the larger movements of populations.
The military is one of the most "controlled" of organizations by government. And, necessarily so, but at the same time, you can see a constant attempt by politicians to put that template onto the population at large (with pretty colors) and a little sweet talk.
I went to the Catholici Semper Fidem site and there was no mention of "Pope" Peter II. On "Pope" Peter II's site, there is a reference to material written by CSI. It's not clear to me that "Pope" Peter II has any affiliation with CSI.
Gerry Matatics is speaking at a CSI conference soon. I hope Keating has his facts straight before he launches another public attack on Gerry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.