"Required National Service

I noted your paper's editorial page creed is, "We will defend individual freedom, pursue truth, build understanding and nurture a marketplace of ideas".  It is ironic the editor chose to present these questions about compulsory national service on the same page. However, it is also representative of the great depth of misunderstanding about the concept of freedom in this country.

It is assumed that, in a nation founded on a constitutional republic, the answers to these questions would be obvious. The responses should range from light-hearted guffaws or quick waves of dismissal, to condescending lectures urging the editors to review the constitution and the bill of rights.  However, the citizens of this country have exchanged their heritage of freedom for the control of a gigantic bureaucracy.  What once prompted a historic call for revolution now has become just another topic designed to legitimatize the state's control.

Therefore, if the editors are serious about defending individual freedom, they should point out that required or "officially encouraged" service to the state is a collectivist idea and has nothing to do with freely given voluntary service.  If the editors are pursuing the truth they should instead turn their attention to the motives of the political advocates of these ludicrous forum questions.  Since there is no mention in the constitution of enforced "national service", then any elected politician promoting such a scheme should be condemned for violating his/her oath of office.

Finally, if the Star wishes to build understanding it should produce a series of articles devoted to the concept of inherent freedom of the sovereign individual and the consequences of allowing the federal government to assume sovereignty over the individual.  Then, the market place of individual ideas will discover truth for itself.