|
|
National Service: A Solution in Search of a Problem
| Article
# : |
17993 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
5 / 1990 |
2,916 Words |
| Author
: |
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
|
In some intellectual and public policy circles, economic nationalism has struck a fever pitch in the form of proposals for so-called national service. There are now several plans floating around Congress and the White House for a national youth corps. One plan would provide a $100 weekly salary and a $10,000 yearly tuition credit voucher for people between 18 and 26 who join a "Citizens Corps" for two years or serve in the armed forces at a reduced rate of pay.
The reasons given for why the nation supposedly needs a "youth corps" are that it is important to instill in youth an admiration for individualism. Of course, national service proponents rarely are so forthright in their use of language. But a brief survey of some of the "national service" literature reveals that this is exactly what they intend.
One congressional sponsor of a national service bill says the bill is "based on the premise that our young people must move beyond the narcissism of the Reagan years." Such egocentricity, says the congressman, was socially irresponsible because it "led many to ask what their country could do for them." Thus, it is supposedly undesirable for citizens to think of government as an institution whose main purpose is to serve the public. Rather, it is the other way around: Citizens should be compelled to serve government. Citizens are thought to have special "duties," as defined by government, which they must fulfill through "national service."
Donald J. Everly, executive director of an organization called the Coalition for National Service, believes that "young people have a responsibility to their heritage to contribute a period of service to our land and our people in need." It is unclear, however what portion of the American heritage he refers to and why individuals have "responsibilities" to it (by whose authority? to serve whose ends?).
One thing that is clear is that Everly is not referring to America's constitutional heritage. The American republic was founded on the belief that individuals have inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, not some vague obligation to become indentured servants for the government. This aspect of the American heritage suggests that citizens should strongly resist any national service schemes. True voluntarism is a legitimate part of the American heritage, but that's not what national service is about. National service under the auspices of the federal government is necessarily coercive.
Prominent members of the media also have jumped on the national service bandwagon. One Washington Post writer decries the "appeal to self-interest" and that "selfishness" that he claims was spawned by the election of Ronald Reagan. This Post writer maintains that what is needed is "a counter-appeal to altruism" in the form of a new "social contract." Such a contract would "define not only what our country will do for citizens, but what our citizens will do for our country."
The word "contract," as used here, has a rather unique meaning. Millions of youths who would be subjected to a national service plan would have little or no say in the drafting of the contract, nor would they be asked to sign it. The "contract" presumably would be made out by a small group of national service advocates and their congressional allies. When the government (or the Washington media
...
Read Full Article
|
|
