I agree with just about everything you’ve said. But I see the statement about a nation ‘deserving defending’ not as a reason not to serve but as a commentary on a society whose citizens are not willing to defend it.
If a society cannot muster a sufficient number of its citizens voluntarily when faced with an outside enemy that threatens to destroy it, then can one actually say that that society (which is defined by its citizens) is worth defending?
Failing to defend yourself in an existential battle is tantamount to suicide…Watching passively while others defend your life in an existential battle is the classic example of "free rider" syndrome.
Equating allowing an enemy to ‘win’ with suicide may be a little extreme. The results of that win may simply mean a dramatic change in the governance of a society (i.e., from representative republic to communism, or the like) – which might mean the death of liberty, but not literal, physical death.
Don’t get me wrong. I am a political conservative, with libertarian leanings. But I do believe, at least philosophically, in the idea that, if not enough of our people are willing to voluntarily put their lives on the line for our liberties, then perhaps we, collectively, don’t consider those liberties worth defending to begin with.
(And, what with the gradual erosion in citizen understanding of both the Constitution and citizen responsibility to uphold it, I’m afraid we’re approaching that point.)
tj |
