Compulsory National Service

Opponents of compulsory national service claim that such a program is not in keeping with the liberal principles upon which Western democracies are founded. This reasoning is reminiscent of the argument that a tax on one’s income is undemocratic because it violates one’s right to property. Such conceptions of the liberal state of us must bear a share of the burden to ensure that the community is protected.

The responsibility to defend one’s nation against outside aggression is surely no less than the responsibility to help pay for law enforcement within the nation. Therefore, the state is certainly within its rights to compel citizens is needed for the benefit of society.

It might be objected that the cases of taxation and national service are not analogous: While taxation must be coerced, the military is quite able to find recruits without resorting to conscription. Furthermore, proponents of national service do not limit its scope to only those duties absolutely necessary to the defense of the acceptable boundaries of governmental interference in the lives of its citizens.

By responding thus, the opponent of national service has already allowed that it is a right of government to demand service when it is needed. But what is the true scope of the term “need”? If it is granted, say, that present tax policies are legitimate intrusions on the right to property, shared sacrifice and community benefit that are essential to the functioning of a liberal democratic state.