The idea of owing a duty to serve your nation is one that I
believe a lot of people would agree with.
What is unsettling is that it may come at the cost of their life.
Furthermore, individuals may not agree with the reasons for why their nation is
in a conflict to begin with. Thoreau’s piece, On Civil Disobedience touches on the duty of a citizen to his state
to both obey and disobey. Many
other political thinkers share Thoreau’s belief that we have a duty to obey
just laws and to “disobey” unjust laws.
But the only way that such an outlook is possible is if you understand
the relationship between citizen and state to be like the child-parent
established in “Conscripts and Volunteers”. Those that believe you have a duty to always obey or to
serve your nation in the armed forces might agree with the idea that the
citizen-state relationship should be more like a romantic relationship; a
relationship where you stand by your partner unconditionally. Even though you may not agree with
everything they do, you support them.
You support them, “in sickness and in health…till death do us
part”. In the United States I can
see why the relationship is not understood to be this way. Americans have so much individual
liberty that they don’t feel like they have an obligation to the state because
all the state ever does is get in the way of their individual liberty. Those that don’t serve don’t understand
what it means. Those that serve do
understand and they might look at the citizen-state relationship as a romantic one.
I
don’t agree with Fullinwider’s analysis of the child-parent relationship in
that the children actually have no obligation to obey the parents. In fact, to
me I find the relationship to be very similar to that of the citizen-state one. The results may be different but the
situation is the same. Every day
you see the benefits that your parents give to you: a house, food, clothes,
etc. When you get to a certain age
you have to take on some of that responsibility; you have to clean your house,
do your chores, get a job, etc. And eventually you move out and have to do it
all yourself. I find this point to be much like the relationship between
citizen and state. Once you get to
a certain age you pay your taxes and you receive benefits. No teenager wants a job much like how
citizens don’t want to pay taxes or don’t want to serve in the armed forces. Someone in your household has to have a
job in order to pay for the house.
Citizens have to pay taxes for the construction of roads, bridges,
stoplights, etc. We have to have
an armed force for certain situations.
Does everyone need to serve in it? Maybe not, but we should be willing
to if our name is called because your nation is like your parents or your
partner, there for you so long as you are there for them
Even though I disagree with compulsory military duty, I particularly liked your take on it- that instead of treating it as a parent-child relationship we might compare it to a romantic relationship. I think your way of putting it is a better representation of the patriotism and loyalty that is involved. Furthermore, I agree with your claim that the inherently American value of individual liberty is at odds with the citizen-state and parent-child parallel in terms of military duty. Americans certainly do not like big government, and I can only imagine the type of backlash that would occur, from all sides of the political spectrum, if a draft was to be re-instituted.
ReplyDeleteI like this connection; it really plays into the idea of America as a paternalistic state. It's like there is always that obligation to the state as long as there is some sort of reciprocity.
ReplyDelete