Let’s just say no one off-ed himself on Olly’s watch … unless one did, in which case the less said the better.

“[W]e live in a world [in which] clearly defining the duties and roles of, as well as restrictions on, government is probably the best way to achieve our shared goal of a lot of freedom for everyone.”

Aaaaaand enter Andy into the discussion.

I agree with you that utopianism is a fool’s errand, but I disagree that democracy really provides good regulatory outcomes per se. There are, well, problems with any voting system so the potential for good outcomes is somewhat limited. Meaning, of course, that we live in a world of second best and that clearly defining the duties and roles of, as well as restrictions on, government is probably the best way to achieve our shared goal of a lot of freedom for everyone.

The issue is that empowering government to do things you like grants them exactly the same power to do things you hate once somebody else is running it. The only solution to that problem is not empowering government all that much to begin with. As for your axioms, well, I disagree with you on the first but only so far as I think many problems simply don’t have solutions and libertarianism is the only political ideology that recognizes that. As for the second, I think that’s about right and reflecting those values in the editorial direction of the magazine under your tenure is perfectly reasonable.

Also keep in mind that I do not believe “society” exists in any sort of meaningful way, individuals are the only actors and only individuals are affected by actions. So, I think, to say X or Y helps or hurts “society” is somewhat meaningless: there’s no collective will, I think this might be where we run into issues, I’m sorry if I’m a bit of an asshole at times. I’d make an excuse, but it’s really more of a personality trait than anything else. First couple of rounds are on me when next we get together.

*I mean that in the technical sense of being non-exclusionary and non-rivalrous in consumption.

I have only taken the 200-level series of Econ classes, and I’m sure it shows. My arguments against free-market ideology are not a reflection of my problem with the free market as such, but rather of my problem with ideology as such. I believe two things with all my being: First, that no one ideology holds all the answers, and Second, that your politics don’t matter if no one cares about them. I have tried to reflect both of those beliefs in what I’ve done with the magazine, and I inevitably bring them to this blog. If the purpose of this blog is simply to be another ideological echo chamber, than I have little interest in wasting my time here.

I get it that the draft thing constitutes “slavery” for y’all. That’s cool. I don’t think it will ever happen, precisely because only Americans see one year of sacrifice as an onerous, unfair, cruel and illiberal step towards serfdom, totalitarianism and communism. I guess what I meant to say was “Gee, wouldn’t it be swell if everyone realized that strengthening the community is actually in their self-interest, and decided to step out of their self-satisfied ignorance to do something about it.”

At the risk of being called ignorant, apathetic, and selfish, I’ll refrain from holding forth in public about whatever history of charitable good works I may have. When people resort to that sort of thing in order to support an argument, I find that it tends to make them sound - at best - sanctimonious.

“Does sacrificing of ones [sic] own liberty to ensure the liberty and autonomy of another not demonstrate sufficient dedication to the cause of liberty for you?”

It’s neither here nor there. However, what you’re doing here is something else: you’re proposing a law forcing other people to live their lives in a way that you’ve decided would be better for them. Way to ensure the autonomy of others, ace. (It’s a bit less noble when you’re sacrificing other people’s liberty.)

“Clearly we come up short on these qualities today, as a nation, and national service is one way to revitalize Americans as citizens.”

I’m really not sure how to respond to this. Are you serious?

My experience was also instructive in showing that people with developmental disabilities need help to live full, satisfying and autonomous lives, and that without individuals making huge sacrifices, that help would not be there. Does sacrificing of ones own liberty to ensure the liberty and autonomy of another not demonstrate sufficient dedication to the cause of liberty for you?

That’s not freedom. It’s serfdom at best, slavery to the state in all likelihood. And for what? To maybe prevent something like Iraq from happening again? Color me unimpressed. Sponge bathe retards on your own time, I’ve got work to do.

Therefore… everyone else should have to as well?

Yes, conscription armies are typically less effective, and as a result should the invasion, occupation and regime change of a sovereign state take place, military planners would have no choice but to follow The Powell Doctrine. A conscription regular army would also put the brunt of the War On Terror combat on the shoulders of (volunteer) special forces, where it belongs in the first place, making our strategy more focused and effective.

Also, I think that giving the option for “national service” would have to be an integral part of such a draft. I worked for a year and a half as a caregiver for developmentally disabled victims of institutional abuse, and not only did it make me a stronger, better person, but it also opened my eyes to the how ignored large sections of society are. The tiny, atrophied social conservative inside me believes strongly that serving the community makes individuals and the nation stronger and better. That, and it’s just another step to the Glorious Dictatorship of the Proletariat ™

Yeah, but so what? You can come up with lots of policies that would have precluded Gulf II; that doesn’t necessarily mean they should have been put into practice. Replace “instituting the draft” with “disbanding the military” in your last sentence and it doesn’t make any less sense.

(To take Rangel seriously, just for a brief second: The main reason - even apart from all the liberal-individualist objections I have to it - that the draft is a bad idea is that a conscript army is fundamentally different to a professional one. They do different things. Moreover, the things a conscript army can do just don’t seem to be tremendously useful in the world as it is currently constituted. Finally, as has already been pointed out, recent history doesn’t indicate that a conscript army is any less likely to be deployed in a non-essential conflict than a professional one; in fact, the opposite might well be the case.)

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is not an apt comparison since the primary reason the draft is so unpopular is because of that very resolution. World War II, a war where the use of conscription was appropriate and widely supported, was the defining event in the lives of most of the people who voted in the mid 1960’s. There is no comparable event involving the draft in the lives of most 2004 voters besides Vietnam. Vietnam is what people think of when they think of the draft, whether it’s appropriate or not.

And yeah, fuck LBJ.

Since we already have a volunteer army of 4 million, would the draftees even be needed?

Probably not.

Don’t get me wrong– I’m not in favor of the draft by any means. But I think Rangel is absolutely correct that instituting the draft would force lawmakers to be a lot less eager to enter into foreign conflicts.

I heard rangel say he’s more for a “national service” like they have in Germany where you have to work as a little socialist drone for two years. It’s just so sick, the the family is torn apart by public schools and stifling taxes so that the kids are now raised by the state. Mom and Pop have to work just to pay the 50% tax rate on both paychecks so there can be the equivalent of one paycheck for the house.

Kiss my ass if you think you’re going to enslave me Rangel to do your socialist workers dream.

You’re right Ian about battalions of social workers - at least the Marines don’t take draftees!!

Three words: Gulf of Tonkin.

Anyway, Rangel’s been going on about this for years now. It’s never going to happen. Either he’s demented, or else his staff has determined that he’s getting some traction from periodically standing up and demanding that rich kids be sent to boot camp and humiliated. (Coming from Rangel in ‘08: bring back the draft, but only for children of Republicans earning over $100K/year!)