Just because someone puts "the common" good first, and uses the power of government to force others to do the same, you say they hate freedom... The world is so upside down.

Laird says "But in a time when our nation is threatened by antidemocratic forces from without, universal service would go a long way toward curing the apathy within."

While I can make an arguement for universal service, this is not it.

If apathy within is the problem, universal service is not the cure. The cure might be honest, hard working, ethical politicians. It might be something else. It is not a massive government program.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was a volunteer soldier for 20+ years.

"Basically, you must put your individual desires and dreams aside for the betterment of society."

If you want to live in a particular society, then hopefully, you have desires and dreams that are compatible with that society. Otherwise, you are in the wrong time or place.

"You have no rights as an individual, you weren't born free. You have only the rights afforded to you by the government."

You do have rights as an individual, but they are limited by the rights that you have ceded to the government.

"You belong to the government from the second you pop out of the womb to the moment you die...cradle to the grave. What ever it takes to promote democracy."

Pure hype. No comment possible.

"Not liberty. Not personal choice. They want to protect the rule of the mob and the tyranny of the majority."

The government only has the powers that the people allow it to have. If it attempts to exceed those powers, it is the duty of all responsible to do everything possible to thwart those attempts.

Since the specific topic is universal service, why shouldn’t the individual have some responsibility to the society in general? Societies exist only as a collection of individuals. If you or I want to be a part of that collection, then we can be required to contribute. The definition of the contribution seems to be the sticking point.

I could be persuaded to be in favor of some type of universal service. I would not agree to 12-18 months, but I might agree to 36 months. Having spent many years in the Army, I know that 18 months is counter-productive. It takes entirely too long to properly train a soldier to limit service to 18 months. If service for a soldier is to be 36 months, then it must be at least that long for anybody else.

If universal service were to become law, I would make the following suggestions:
1. Everybody starting at age 18 or at the completion of high school, whichever comes second. (provision to start not later than age 21)
2. No exceptions.
3. Service could include military, Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, or other similar work.
4. Service could not include teaching---what can an 18 year old teach?
5. Number of years could be based on type of service. Perhaps 3 years in the Marines equates to 5 years in the Peace Corps.
6. There is nothing wrong with manual labor. While I would not re-start the TVA, there are things that can be done that are no “make-work”.

While I am not absolutely convinced that universal service is the right thing, it does have its merits, and should not be automatically dismissed.

Joe, you're a scary guy. Slavery is always wrong, especially when the government is the slaveowner.

If you want to live in a particular society, then hopefully, you have desires and dreams that are compatible with that society. Otherwise, you are in the wrong time or place.

I've never read that passage in the Constitution. Such reasoning is contrary to liberty.

You do have rights as an individual, but they are limited by the rights that you have ceded to the government.

What rights have I ceded? Please see the 9th and 10th Amendments. My rights are not limited to the 1st through 8th Amendments and the government is restricted by the Constitution, the individual is not.

The government only has the powers that the people allow it to have. If it attempts to exceed those powers, it is the duty of all responsible to do everything possible to thwart those attempts.

Agreed.

Since the specific topic is universal service, why shouldn’t the individual have some responsibility to the society in general? Societies exist only as a collection of individuals. If you or I want to be a part of that collection, then we can be required to contribute.

I do not believe in the concept of social responsibility, with the exception of the "harm principle." No such social responsibility is outlined as a mandate on the individual in the Constitution, outside of basic taxation.

Such actions as donating to charity or volunteering should be individual actions, free from government mandate or interference.

Ask not wht your contry can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

Isreal has long enforced universal service.

Participating and serving your society is noble and worthy.

OK, enough of that! A draft is a draft. Forced service can be justified only in time of clear and present danger - a declared war, for example.

I, too, can find supporting arguments for civil, humanitarian or military service. Especially for young people with no specific life goals or personal agenda. Sometimes it is just the right thing for young people to do, a maturing process.

I must agree with Jason in that "volunteering should be individual actions, free from government mandate or interference."

"But in a time when our nation is threatened by antidemocratic forces from without, universal service would go a long way toward curing the apathy within."

I think he's spot on there. Institute mandatory universal service and a whole bunch of young people will suddenly get active in the political process: against you and your mandatory service program