Eupher, a responsible government is formed to protect the rights of its citizens. It cannot exercise that power by denying the rights of its citizens and still be called responsible.
But you're right, I'm resolute, as are you. Witness where your premise has led, though. Dutch wants mandatory national service for two years, and IIRC you are against a mandate of that sort. I am, as well, but I'm the only one that has any grounds to say why. You can't claim the right to dispose of your life as you see fit, because you believe that right can be negated if the need is great. From your premise, all the government has to do is attach a tag to mandatory national service that says, "needed for the greater good," and your rights become meaningless.
This is where we part company, Chump. A government is formed for many reasons, not just the reason you keep harping on, namely that it's "formed to protect the rights of its citizens".
A government also represents the people and, as such, it has an obligation to protect itself through its people. As a government is an entity (though it's staffed by people), it cannot defend itself unless it calls on its people both proactively and reactively. (We get into trouble when the government forgets the "proactive" part and becomes "reactive.")
I also disagree with you when you say you're the only one who can articulate why a national service mandate is a bad idea. I'm saying it's a bad idea for a number of reasons:
1. Such a mandate increases the size of government to administer, direct, and enforce the mandate. As government is already bloated beyond comprehension, that mandate does not serve us well.
2. An inevitable fight would ensue due to a perceived conflict with the laws against posse comitatus. This may sound silly, but much energy would be expended in trying to convince a skeptical electorate that a "national service" initiative wouldn't turn into the current administration's personal armed guard. Don't laugh - plenty has been said about Obama and his "thoughts" on such matters.
3. This mandate actually attempts to legislate morality and personal responsibility. This is where Dutch has it wrong. While I appreciate his POV and understand it completely in that, like him, I've seen all manner of dirtbag people who cannot, as a result of their service to themselves only, cannot seem to get their heads out of their asses. From my perspective, this is DIRECTLY attributed to a decided lack of both a sense of responsibility to community and a sense of duty to others. Most young people I've worked with have no sense of teamwork, no sense of obligation to others, and are utterly selfish. Those who have served in uniform and have once again immersed themselves in civilian life know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. But in the end, this kind of morality and sense of personal responsibility cannot be legislated by the government. It must come from within.
In the end, I recognize that I am one of 300 million people in this country. If it's necessary for me to give my life in the defense of my country or its interests, I'm prepared to do that. You say you're prepared to do the same, but you're unwilling to let go of the power that actually makes that decision.
So with you, Chump, it isn't the right of self-determination nearly as much as it's got to be your call. You have to have the power and the authority.
Those of us who have served recognize that we are not always best placed to make those judgments. We therefore allow our elected leaders and officers appointed over us to make those decisions. (Words like that go into the various oaths that we take, so I wouldn't expect you to know about that or understand it.)
In short, I choose to climb down off my high horse and work for the common good. You seem to have a problem with that.
Based on my comments above, you'll note that I am exercising my right to self-determination. I am making decisions that are mine to make and not the government's. I am freely stepping aside and am putting my trust in others. That's the essence of teamwork and of sacrifice.