I've been reading Chris Salamone and Prof. Gilbert Morris' "Rescue America", and he makes a case for compulsory National Service.  It was non-combat and he admits that an all-volunteer military is better.  He instead says that all able-bodied males from the age of 18 up and all imigrants must serve a minimum of one year of service to some exisiting orginization, i.e. AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps after completing a Basic Training where they learn History, selfe defense, etc.  There is more, but I don't want to explain it all here, so read the book if you want more info. But my question is, can a libertarian support National Service?

I can't decide.  I personally support it and can see the advantages.  Many countries, including Switzerland, what some consider to be a very libertarian country, have it and are better for it.  But, with personal rights being paramount for any libertarian, can we honestly support National Service without being hypocritical.

Here are two arguments I saw.  Pro: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/09/09/pascal-emmanuel-gobry/libertarian-case-national-military-service

Con: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/09/09/there-is-no-libertarian-case-national-military-service

DTOM

I can't see how any individual/human-rights protecting person could support the forced servitude of individuals to a group, barring perhaps some disaster which made such a thing a necessity (which I can't imagine on a large scale outside of some unrealistic hypothetical).

There are numerous ways for a freedom-loving people to protect their land and ways of life without subverting their freedom by way of forced military service. The founding fathers suggested well-regulated (read: well functioning) militias and were wary of standing armies. (Related, peer pressure can be an effective way of raising money and manpower, a truth often overlooked by those advocating government force to solve social problems.)

Mercenaries have been used effectively throughout history, and any wealthy and rights-respecting people would naturally tend towards effective self-defense of their lands, made all the easier as time goes on with drones and other automated weapons. As it stands today, mercenary outfits (Blackwater/Xie being one example) do the same work as the military of the US and elsewhere, and often do it more cheaply and effectively than the military does.

Alliances (see for example NATO) can also be effective, and I would suggest that private insurance companies would be interested in wide-scale protection services if given the chance.

I would also suggest that targeted assassinations upon invasion would tend to discourage a lot of potential attacks, as having a price on ones head (I'm thinking key relevant government officials, key military, etc.) for life would make a much less appealing prospect than the modern-day "gentlemen's agreement" that prevents government officials from being targeted at present.

Any time someone suggests that a key principle (natural rights in this case) should be violated as a first/key step in "protecting" those rights in some way, I view the argument with suspicion. This is no exception.

Resources:

Chaos Theory: Private Defense | by Robert P. Murphy (audio, 34 mins)

The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives; by Stefan Molyneux (article) (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/stefan-molyneux/ for related articles by the same author, or https://youtube.com/stefbot for videos.)

Sounds interesting. I'll check it out when I get time. Soon.

Yeah, the more you look into this stuff the more it makes sense, though it will take time to think through it as the media and schools tend to promote government "solutions" at every turn, while demonizing the free market and voluntaryism either directly or indirectly when doing so...

also on private defense:

The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw

To me compulsory military service or training sounds like a very bad idea. I understand that someone could make good arguments for it if national defense is used as an argument. But whatever the end goal and benefits might be, the means are wrong.

I am also puzzled as to why this Salamone guy would suggest that this should be a requirement for males over 18 and immigrants but not for women. Women must be required to do as well if such law were passed.

Also why did he choose an arbitrary age of 18? Why not start military training at age 16, 12, or have ROTC compulsory at schools at all ages? To me it sounds like a dangerous path that is also absurd.

I agree, it shouldn't be just males. That's bull shit.