Ask Not What Your Country Can Order You To Do

As you can see from my recent comment, I'm giving some serious thought to placing "libertarianism" on the political spectrum of state intervention. If we assign anarchism a special place at absolute zero, libertarianism is anything that has any state intervention at all. But when do we cross the line away from libertarianism?

The recent article by Bruce Reed at Cato Unbound helps me place that line very clearly. In one quick sentence, he glosses over a key issue that divides libertarians from the DLC: For example, I believe that every American owes our country a debt of service.

What?!

As the Inactivist blog responds:

I ain't havin' it, not from left or right. I take a dim view of involuntary servitude, Mr. Reed, and a government large enough to impose and organize it. We need a military; not a perpetual draft for any other service the government thinks wise.

I'll be very clear--I am a huge supporter of voluntary national service. Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, National Guard, a new expanded CCC, or George McGovern's proposed Farmers Corps--I'm all for it. If the government is going to be doing a job, better to attract the attention of young idealistic college students in need of a job than to turn it over to public service unions.

This present the big divide between libertarianism and whatever lies beyond it. By supporting the state as a means of protecting the individual, libertarians have no problem with "Thou shalt not" orders from government when the goal is to protect an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. The libertarian objects, however, when the government begins to say "Thou shalt not" to behaviors that are deemed "too risky" for an individual to do, be it gay sex, recreational drug use, eating fatty foods, smoking, or the danger that is foi gras. That should be obvious, but we also take a firm stand against "Thou shalt" orders that force the individual to serve the government, like Bruce Reed's call for mandatory service.

This is a very intriguing site, and I just sent up a post that I expect won't please the GOP-leaning "neo-libertarians" who tend to infest Inactivist (but not always do they dominates. I wrote about FD here.

I used to also tilt GOP. Not anymore.

Mona, the Freedom Dems appreciate you kind words and boost in visibility. We're working hard to craft our message and spread it whenever possible. Please feel free to join in our discussions when the mood strikes you.

I would say that every American citizen owes a debt of gratitude to their country, but that shouldn't be construed as justifying coercive policymaking. Its more a psychic notion that should influence the way we think about one another, but I'm a bit of a pedant when it comes to community and nation.

The only way I would accept compulsory service to the state is if we redefined the definition of citizenship. The American model of democracy is based on a fisherman's approach - cast the net of citizenship to the largest number of people to avoid socio-political stratification. In a way, the loony J.D. Haywoth is right when he says the 14th Amendment was designed to incorporate Southern blacks into America after the Civil War. That shouldn't discount the fact that it still serves the same purpose today.

Like it or lump it, as long as the American economy will be strong, foreigners will come to live here. If the Congress sets immigration roles too tightly, some will risk coming here illegally for the opportunity to live and work in the U.S. Birthright citizenship is the only way to successfully incorporate illegal immigrants before their families become multigenerational. It is easy to deal with an immigrant who has come to the U.S. illegally if that immigrant comes here to work for a few decades. It is far more complicated to deal with a child or senior who is here illegally.

Notionally, I wouldn't object to compulsory service if citizenship could not be established by geographical or filial birthright. In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, citizenship is be earned by anyone who completes a service requirement in the military. This undoubtedly could result in the stratified society if citizens and "civilians" weren't at least given the same rights outside of political franchise. Once again though, I am wandering off into theoretical territory, so I will stop right there.