The Draft: Should it be brought back?

I'm arguing that once one has received these benefits for nearly two decades, there ought to be a period of paying back for the benefits they have enjoyed.

The generation before them paid for the services they enjoyed, just as they in turn were paid for by the generation before that and as the current generation will pay for the next. Nobody ever gets something for nothing, as they go on to fund the generation after them in turn. It's fair to everyone except for the first generation paying into this system, which is ancient history by now.

Edit:

but please recognize the basic truth that children and their parents are *two physically separate beings who are equally covered by these benefits, for which only one pays.*

The same could actually be said about meals served at home, but that doesn't change at all the fact that the parents pay for the whole meal either way.

-Paul

 

The generation before them paid for the services they enjoyed, just as they in turn were paid for by the generation before that and as the current generation will pay for the next. Nobody ever gets something for nothing, as they go on to fund the generation after them in turn. It's fair to everyone except for the first generation paying into this system, which is ancient history by now.

Nonsense. My generation is expected not to have Social Security when it retires, so there is no cost to be passed on to my kids. I think we are defining 'fair' in very different ways.

I have to ask - do you honestly see this issue in terms of personal entitlement or community building? I think that's the meta-issue on which we disagree - I think we have a stronger sense of community (and hence a greater desire to see it thrive) if we are personally vested in it at more than a monetary level.

Edit:

The same could actually be said about meals served at home, but that doesn't change at all the fact that the parents pay for the whole meal either way.

That is such an incredible misrepresentation of my position and disanalogy I don't know where to begin.

 

By definition, minors do not support the system - their parents do. However, the benefits of citizenship apply whether one is a day old or a hundred years old, equally.

That is not true. There are many benefits of citizenship that do not apply to minors. For example, the right to vote is withheld from minors, even emancipated ones.

When I was 9, I was injured in a bus accident, for which I wound up receiving a modest court settlement. My mother was my legal representative and represented my interests in the matter. She acted as an agent for me to do such things as signing legal documents (such as the settlement itself), handling financial matters (controlling the settlement amount), and similar matters. By law, she was required to represent me and act as an intermediary between me and the state. From a strictly legal perspective, any benefits that I received from the government I received through her (and my father) as my intermediaries and representatives. Similarly, they were responsible for providing my financial contributions to the government.

Fine, I don't have the text in front of me, so I'll take you at your word. There are still points of disanalogy between what I've proposed and how you've characterized it.

I never claimed that it was a perfect analogy. I said it was "along the lines of", not "identical to". Personally, I'm getting sick of people around here treating analogies as being perfect. Try looking at the point being expressed to see how it applies, rather than use the straw man argument of the areas where it does not match up.

Because, first of all, history has taught us nothing like "the Constitution is a living document and subject to amendment." Second, did I not mention that I was discussing an idea, and was not proposing new legislation or a fixed policy? Theory before application?

If you're going to discuss theory, then there is no better place to start than with the Constitution and the framework it provides. Calling the Constitution a "living document" does nothing to change the explicit words of that text. It may be subject to amendment, but until it is amended, any suggestions that you have must fall within its existing framework.

I see no justifiable reason to amend the Constitution to remove its protections against involuntary servitude.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't like the charged word "entitlement." Let's just say that on any given issue, personal liberty is likely to be my biggest issue. The bottom line is that I don't believe that the government has a right to lay claim to my person. However, as I believe you are incorrect in your logic as to why it would be a reasonable thing to do, I refute you in those arguments.

-Paul

 

I have to ask - do you honestly see this issue in terms of personal entitlement or community building? I think that's the meta-issue on which we disagree - I think we have a stronger sense of community (and hence a greater desire to see it thrive) if we are personally vested in it at more than a monetary level.

That may be so, but compelling that participation is not the way to go. The solution is to encourage, not compel.

Kimball Kinnison

 

That is not true. There are many benefits of citizenship that do not apply to minors. For example, the right to vote is withheld from minors, even emancipated ones.

I'm happy to grant you that there are exceptions. Driving is another clear example, as is property ownership. All well and good, but these exceptions still do not refute the basic principle involved that minors have rights for which they do not have to pay.

And the example of when you were 9 perfectly shows that there are exceptions to what I am arguing; it does not, however, defeat the overall argument being made.

I never claimed that it was a perfect analogy. I said it was "along the lines of", not "identical to". Personally, I'm getting sick of people around here treating analogies as being perfect. Try looking at the point being expressed to see how it applies, rather than use the straw man argument of the areas where it does not match up.

Because, you know, since I teach logic at the collegiate level, I am entirely dim as to strict versus loose applications of logical fallacies and rules of argumentation. By bringing up Heinlein, whether as a perfect or loose analogy, you are endeavoring to cast it in a light that is similar, despite the occasional difference. My argument is not that there are simply disanalogies between the two examples - it's that it is inappropriate to compare the model Heinlein proposes in his novel with what I am proposing here.

Words mean things when I type them too, KK - look at the overall reason I disagreed with your characterization, not simply the two examples I provided.

If you're going to discuss theory, then there is no better place to start than with the Constitution and the framework it provides. Calling the Constitution a "living document" does nothing to change the explicit words of that text. It may be subject to amendment, but until it is amended, any suggestions that you have must fall within its existing framework.

Why stop with the Constitution? Surely it would be germane to discuss all of the influences that helped to frame it, which means more than a discussion of Mill and Locke, who would gladly support your position, but also the positions of Plato and Enlightenment philosophers, who suggested that there are compelling reasons why an individual could be asked to sacrifice for his nation. I'd suggest a quick glance through Plato's Crito, if you're so inclined.

I see no justifiable reason to amend the Constitution to remove its protections against involuntary servitude.

Again, the characterization you use is designed to provoke a visceral reaction of negativity towards the idea of giving back to one's community. In turn, I see nothing in your argument justifying narcissism and an "I got mine" attitude.

 

Why stop with the Constitution? Surely it would be germane to discuss all of the influences that helped to frame it, which means more than a discussion of Mill and Locke, who would gladly support your position, but also the positions of Plato and Enlightenment philosophers, who suggested that there are compelling reasons why an individual could be asked to sacrifice for his nation. I'd suggest a quick glance through Plato's Crito, if you're so inclined.

Why stop at the Constitution? Because it is the highest law of the land, to which all other laws must comply. Plato, Mill, Locke, and other writers are not part of our law, even if their ideas were an influence.

Again, the characterization you use is designed to provoke a visceral reaction of negativity towards the idea of giving back to one's community. In turn, I see nothing in your argument justifying narcissism and an "I got mine" attitude.

Any mandatory (as opposed to voluntary) program of service would, by definition, be involuntary servitude. That is a clearly prohibited status under the Constitution. Involuntary servitude, except as punishment given after conviction of a crime, is blatantly unconstitutional.

What you propose is not a matter of "giving back to one's community", but a violation of the highest law in our land. Many people give back to their communities in a variety of ways. Personally, I spent 2 years on a mission for my Church serving the hispanic population (mostly in the ghetto), doing such things as teaching English, working at community gardens or thift shops, helping recovering drug addicts, and similar activities.

And I saved up the money to pay my own way (although my parent declined to use any of my money, opting instead to pay for it themselves). But you know what? It was voluntary, not mandatory.

Additionally, have you considered what the psychological effects would be of requiring people to provide such service? Many people would develop the attitude that they already did their part for the community, and so they would feel less inclined to participate in future service opportunities.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Why stop at the Constitution? Because it is the highest law of the land, to which all other laws must comply. Plato, Mill, Locke, and other writers are not part of our law, even if their ideas were an influence.

Fine, then lets stick with the Constitution, completely ignoring the significance these other political philosophies had upon it as well as upon the intellectual tradition from which the Constitution came. Let's also ignore appeals to greater community involvement and less narcissistic attitudes, like in Kennedy's speech.

You neglect to mention that the Consitution is a living document, and subject to revision. History has demonstrated that it has been found necessary to interpret the Constitution on a great many issues. Civil service might been seen as endentured servitude by one interpreter, and as community building by another. I think our discussion shows that it's possible to explore the constitutionality of a proposal from very different interpretations. I'm not resting my argument on constitutional relativism, however; I think that this issue is one that could be worked out in the legislative and judicial branches of government, like all other significant shifts away from the status quo. As I said, I'm not defending a completed policy or white paper.

Any mandatory (as opposed to voluntary) program of service would, by definition, be involuntary servitude. That is a clearly prohibited status under the Constitution. Involuntary servitude, except as punishment given after conviction of a crime, is blatantly unconstitutional.

This isn't jail - further, I've said nothing about whether civil service would be paid or unpaid. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea of a salaried position or stipend. Again, this isn't a white paper I'm proposing; it's an idea, and one that I'm willing to explore. After all, drafted soldiers still receive payment.

And an attitude of "If I don't want to do it, I don't have to do it" is exceptionally narcissistic and entitled, any way you cut it.

What you propose is not a matter of "giving back to one's community", but a violation of the highest law in our land. Many people give back to their communities in a variety of ways. Personally, I spent 2 years on a mission for my Church serving the hispanic population (mostly in the ghetto), doing such things as teaching English, working at community gardens or thift shops, helping recovering drug addicts, and similar activities.

Congratulations! I'm glad to hear about this, and I encourage everyone to do something similar. But notice that we're giving people a variety of options in this idea. Your type of experience would be one, military experience would be one, work in health care or education would be one. And the 'violation of the highest law of the land' assumes a static conception of that law, which is exceptionally ignorant of the concept of interpretation of said law.

And I saved up the money to pay my own way (although my parent declined to use any of my money, opting instead to pay for it themselves). But you know what? It was voluntary, not mandatory.

Again, it's great that you had the opportunity to do so, and again I encourage everyone to do the same. But exactly why does it disprove my argument that we should not have a period of civil service, like many other nations?

Additionally, have you considered what the psychological effects would be of requiring people to provide such service? Many people would develop the attitude that they already did their part for the community, and so they would feel less inclined to participate in future service opportunities.

Additionally, have you ever conducted a study of the psychological effects in question? Have you any proof of your position other than that it happens to agree with the position you're advocating? Every class I teach, every health care worker I talk with, and every community leader I have met with believed that people are personally invested in the things for which they have had

 

You neglect to mention that the Consitution is a living document, and subject to revision. History has demonstrated that it has been found necessary to interpret the Constitution on a great many issues. Civil service might been seen as endentured servitude by one interpreter, and as community building by another. I think our discussion shows that it's possible to explore the constitutionality of a proposal from very different interpretations. I'm not resting my argument on constitutional relativism, however; I think that this issue is one that could be worked out in the legislative and judicial branches of government, like all other significant shifts away from the status quo. As I said, I'm not defending a completed policy or white paper

Yes, the Constitution can be amended, but until it is, that is the framework that we have to work with. Saying "well, it may be unconstitutional, but we can always change that" doesn't cut it when discussing policy. And yes, we are discussing policy. Go and read the bills in Congress that proposed restoring the draft. They are very much along the lines of what you propose.

And if any judge were to ever "reinterpret" the Constitution to allow such a program, in spite of the explicit prohibition against it, I would be one of the first people raising arms against the government to fight it. What you advocate, no matter how good your intentions, is wrong and unconstitutional. The People will never revise the Constitution on their own to allow involuntary servitude (I thought one of the liberal mantras against the FMA was that no amendments have been passed to take away rights), and any other means to bring it about would be unconstitutional.

The courts have to deal with the law as it is written first, and that is explicit.

This isn't jail - further, I've said nothing about whether civil service would be paid or unpaid. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea of a salaried position or stipend. Again, this isn't a white paper I'm proposing; it's an idea, and one that I'm willing to explore. After all, drafted soldiers still receive payment.

And an attitude of "If I don't want to do it, I don't have to do it" is exceptionally narcissistic and entitled, any way you cut it.

Regardless of whether it is paid or not, it would still be involuntary servitude. Servitude is definied as "a condition in which an individual lacks liberty esp. to determine his or her course of action or way of life". That definition makes no mention of payment, one way or the other. Some masters paid their slaves a wage, as a means to keep them happy. That didn't mean that they were no longer slaves. Servants today (maids, butlers, etc) get paid, that that doesn't make them no longer servants.

Congratulations! I'm glad to hear about this, and I encourage everyone to do something similar. But notice that we're giving people a variety of options in this idea. Your type of experience would be one, military experience would be one, work in health care or education would be one. And the 'violation of the highest law of the land' assumes a static conception of that law, which is exceptionally ignorant of the concept of interpretation of said law.

You wouldn't be encouraging people to do something similar. You would be requiring them to do so.

That highest law of the land has a specific wording, that no matter what way you try to twist it, would still require any program you advocate to be voluntary. "Involuntary servitude" is pretty clear. Involuntary - literally "not voluntary". Servitude - a condition of service. Put them together and what do you get? A condition of service that is not voluntary. How is that any different than what you are advocating? Unless you plan to exploit the one loophole (conviction of a crime), then I fail to see how you can "reinterpret" that to mean anything else. Even if you do convict them of a crime, what crime would that be? Being young?

If you are going to try and twist that around

 

Kimball, you are familiar with the concept of a 'straw man', right? Please tell me you're cogniscant of exactly how poorly you are representing what I say. Suggesting that I want to burn the Constitution is the worst kind of inflammatory rhetoric in an otherwise civil debate. I expect better of you. Further, fiating motivations on people would have gotten you a warning and then a spank when I was modding.

I have never stated that we would have to amend the Constitution - history is replete with instances of existing laws being reviewed in light of new interpretations. Please don't put words in my mouth.

If I understand your argument correctly, and please let me know if I am misunderstanding it, you are suggesting that any infringement on personal liberty (though we would disagree on whether this consitutes such a condition) constitutes endentured servitude. You feel that this violates the letter of the Constitution, as it stands today. You are advocating a purely voluntary system of giving back to one's community.

I fundamentally disagree; it's been my experience that stronger ties are forged when someone has to work for a mutual goal, sometimes involuntarily. You have persistently approached this with the attitude that this service would amount to glorified slavery, and I'll simply have to chalk that up to a difference of opinion, along with the Constitutional interpretation argument. My argument has consistently been that we need to have a period of nation-building at home; a period of giving back to one's community before taking on full adult responsibilities. At worst, I would say it's similar to working at a job you didn't like for a year or eighteen months, which most of us have to do anyway. At best, it would provide communities with individuals dedicated to urban renewal and community development.

I do not believe that a nation of narcissists constitutes a strong community, and it certainly does not foster a sense of mutual identity or purpose. If someone wants to be a slacker following a period of civil service, fine, so be it. There is nothing in what I propose that forces them to do anything once that period is over. But do I believe that everyone owes their community and nation for the benefits they receive? Absolutely. I guess we can chalk that up to differences in personality and experience. It seems to me that the issue is not merely the letter of the law, but also the spirit.

 

Kimball, you are familiar with the concept of a 'straw man', right? Please tell me you're cogniscant of exactly how poorly you are representing what I say. Suggesting that I want to burn the Constitution is the worst kind of inflammatory rhetoric in an otherwise civil debate. I expect better of you. Further, fiating motivations on people would have gotten you a warning and then a spank when I was modding.

If you have a problem with anything I say, or thing that I deserve a warning, then feel free to speak to another mod. Otherwise, trying to act like a mod, whether a former mod or not, can also usually earn someone a warning. Do you really want to start down that path?

I have never stated that we would have to amend the Constitution - history is replete with instances of existing laws being reviewed in light of new interpretations. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Then why don't you try answering some straightforward questions.

How would you have the courts interpret the 13th Amednment in such a way as to allow a program such as you describe? How would you explain away the plain English of "involuntary servitude"?

If you wouldn't reinterpret it, you have only two choices: either amend the Constitution (either to specifically allow your program, or to repeal the "involuntary servitude" clause) or ignore it. Quite frankly, there's virtually no way that you would be able to pass such an amendment, as too many people (from both the left and the right) would oppose it. That only leaves disregarding it, which is essentially burning the Constitution.

Why not simply make any such program voluntary? Why are you so attached to forcing it upon people?

Saying it is a "community building" program doesn't change the involuntary nature of the program, and therefore does not alleviate the constitutional issue. As I said before, it is a false dichotomy to assert that just because it is a community building program it is not involuntary servitude. In order to show that it is constitutional, you need to show that the involuntary servitude clause does not apply to your program. That means either finding another portion of the Constitutuion to authorize it (specifically where Congress would have power to implement it), or showing how it is not involuntary servitude.

Quite honestly, I can't see how you can do that and maintainthe integrity of the English language.

I fundamentally disagree; it's been my experience that stronger ties are forged when someone has to work for a mutual goal, sometimes involuntarily. You have persistently approached this with the attitude that this service would amount to glorified slavery, and I'll simply have to chalk that up to a difference of opinion, along with the Constitutional interpretation argument. My argument has consistently been that we need to have a period of nation-building at home; a period of giving back to one's community before taking on full adult responsibilities. At worst, I would say it's similar to working at a job you didn't like for a year or eighteen months, which most of us have to do anyway. At best, it would provide communities with individuals dedicated to urban renewal and community development.

All of that may bne true, but that is no basis to ignore the Constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude. Until you resolve that, no matter what your intentions, it is pointless to discuss the possible merits of such a program. A choice of programs doesn't cut it, any more than a choice of masters makes a person less of a slave.

There's also a difference between working at a job you don't like and being required by the government to have a job. If you don't like your job, you can always quit (requiring at most 2 weeks notice). You face no other legal penalties for it. Avoiding a legally compelled servitude would give a person legal troubles.

I do not believe that a nation of narcissists constitutes a strong community, and it certainly does not foster a sense of mutual identity or purpose. If someone wa

 

If you have a problem with anything I say, or thing that I deserve a warning, then feel free to speak to another mod. Otherwise, trying to act like a mod, whether a former mod or not, can also usually earn someone a warning. Do you really want to start down that path?

I'm sure Sape would love to hear about how I had to remind you of the Terms of Service, which *anyone* can do. For your benefit, from our beloved TOS:

User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive,

You state that I would likely burn the Constitution and then attempt to fiat personality characteristics, simply because I disagree with you. How is this not against both the letter and the spirit of the TOS?

On the issue at hand, I cannot post more right now - I have to return a tuxedo and get to class.

 

You state that I would likely burn the Constitution and then attempt to fiat personality characteristics, simply because I disagree with you. How is this not against both the letter and the spirit of the TOS?

Then PM Sape about it. Don't continue to derail the thread.

EDIT: But at least answer this: How is ignoring the clear text of the Constitution not akin to burning it? What that sort of thing says is that the actual content of the Constitution does not matter, in which case is might as well not exist. That is the ultimate end of what your sort of "reinterpreting" would cause.

Kimhball Kinnison

 

I think a volunteer army is ideal for a war like the first Gulf War, which involved overwhelming air power pummeling positions, followed by relatively easy desert warfware by heavily armored mechanized infantry.

But most volunteers sign up under the assumption that they'll never have to fight, and over the past 30 years or so, that has largely been true.

In a protracted guerilla war fought in urban terrain, I think a volunteer army is going to end up coming apart at the seams, especially if you already have a three-tiered system that looks increasingly like the draft at every tier: the volunteers don't want to be in Iraq, the reservists and stop-lossees who would have retired want to be there even less, and the people from the national guard want to be there least of all.

We're going to be fighting an endless stream of oil wars in the Middle East and maybe even Africa over the next twenty years. This will require a draft - since fewer and fewer people will volunteer for certain wartime service.

 

But most volunteers sign up under the assumption that they'll never have to fight, and over the past 30 years or so, that has largely been true.

According to who?

Again, I would be careful about attributing motives to large groups of people, especially since having served in the military, I experienced the overall majority feeling the opposite.

Sure, some "joined simply for the school money," but it is not the major reason for civil service. When one joins the military, there is no ambiguity about the role of a servicemember, unless one really works at ignoring it.

I think what happens, for the most part, is that those who would never join anyway, don't understand why people join.

There is nothing wrong with having either opinion, but they can't be generalized.

In a protracted guerilla war fought in urban terrain, I think a volunteer army is going to end up coming apart at the seams, especially if you already have a three-tiered system that looks increasingly like the draft at every tier: the volunteers don't want to be in Iraq, the reservists and stop-lossees who would have retired want to be there even less, and the people from the national guard want to be there least of all.

Again, your post is quite ironic, because just this morning, I was IM'ing someone from my old unit who is going back to Iraq, after being part of the initial invasion with the 3ID.

He is still proud to go back, and I specifically asked him how the overall unit was. Of course, there is some complaints, but they don't overcome the esprit de corps.

And again, it's funny that you bring up stop-loss beacuse I was subject to it 3 times back when I was in.

One prevented me from transferring to Ft Campbell during Desert Fox.

One almost postposted my 30 day leave from Korea.

The last added 5 months to my enlistment because of Bosnia.

Bush wasn't President for any of them.

Just recently, the National Guard unit that was deployed from Illinois was made up of mostly volunteers, who specifically signed to go support Iraq.

And here is an interesting study. While it indicates that it is not representive of the military as a whole, it certainly demonstrates a certain mindset:

HERE

President Bush retains overwhelming support among the military's professional core despite a troubled mission in Iraq and an opponent who is a decorated combat veteran, a Military Times survey of more than 4,000 readers indicates.

Bush leads Democratic Sen. John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent in the voluntary survey of 4,165 active-duty, National Guard, and reserve subscribers.

Officers and enlisted troops, active-duty members and reservists, those who have served in combat zones and those who haven't, all supported Bush by large margins.

You certainly raise valid concerns, but I wouldn't project them to any kind of overall situation just yet.

 

MR44, I myself mentioned that study, if it's the one done by Duke University, in the Election thread on Friday. I see no reason to doubt massive ongoing support for Bush among enlistees, who prefer Bush by a fair margin, and officers, who support him at least 8 to 1 over Kerry.

There has been an assumption that Iraq has hurt troop morale, and that should translate into support for Kerry. One or both sides of that assumption may be wrong, but what we know for sure is that link does not seem to exist on a significant scale.

But just because Kerry hasn't benefited from concerns over the war among the troops doesn't mean that there aren't morale issues, or that they won't become worse as the war becomes more and more protracted and prolonged.

Ultimately, the all volunteer army was perfect for the last decade of the cold war, but has not been tested yet in the post cold war world. The First Gulf War was not that test. The First Gulf war was a technological demonstration under ideal conditions.

The current war in Iraq may finally be that test
because it undercuts the advantages of a technological superiority in a way that is not entirely unlike what happened in Vietnam, but also of course with important differences.

 

Let's also ignore appeals to greater community involvement and less narcissistic attitudes, like in Kennedy's speech.

I'm fine with appeals for greater community involvement. I'm very very opposed to forcing such involvement. Besides, the country right now has a community service climate that pressures people to do their bit to support their communities, no law required. Isn't this how society is supposed to function, with people putting pressure on each other instead of having it imposed by the government?

This actually adds in a whole new wrinkle: You're saying that youth are getting out of the system and not contributing to it, so the two years of community service is kind of a debt payment. I've explained why I believe this to be utterly incorrect, but even if it is -- many students voluntarily choose to participate in community service organizations and the like from as young as elementary school. In what way is this not fulfilling the debt you seem to see? Is it fair to ask those who have put in thousands of hours of community service through school and those who have done none to pay the same "debt" after graduation?

-Paul

 

If they're already volunteering and putting in 'thousands of hours,' then there is nothing in what I've proposed that would force them to go above and beyond that.

Can't write more now - have a test tomorrow.

 

Oh, so you're allowing exceptions for people who've done service in high school? Provided they log all the community service time they do, and have witnesses sign off on it? And get every organization and activity pre-approved?

-Paul

 

Do you think modern culture in America would stand for it? I think you would have tons of people who would say no, I will go to jail or Canada.

In this day and age a father of 3 kids could say it's my right to stay home with my family, it's against my human rights to make me abandon my family for 6 months where I could be killed leaving my family without a father. This is the 21 Century it's insane to send people into a war zone that don't want to be there. You would have too many people disobeying orders. If they thought the mission would end in certain death, they would rather spend it in jail.

Compounding this type of thinking is if an educated soldier does not believe in the conflict itself. For example a drafted soldier might believe going to Afganistan to hunt Osama is the right thing to do. But be 100% against invading Iraq.

In the end some feel this way,
A live dog is better than a dead lion, type of thinking.

 

Oh, so you're allowing exceptions for people who've done service in high school? Provided they log all the community service time they do, and have witnesses sign off on it? And get every organization and activity pre-approved?

I'm not prepared to get that specific, but I don't see why not. As I've maintained throughout this thread, I don't have a policy pre-written, nor do I have a white paper outlining the specifics. This is still at the conceptual level.

 

in general, i'm opposed to a draft, whether it be for military or civilian purposes, unless it's in extreme circumstances. whether the community has a right to make that kind of demand on its citizens is, to me, beside the point: they don't work very well. they produce a poorly-motivated work or fighting force, the rich always find ways to get around serving, etc etc. unless the national survival is directly threatened, i just can't see any scenario where the benefits (and there are some, a renewed sense of social cohesion among them) outweigh the drawbacks.

 

What about this so-called "backdoor draft" where reservist soldiers agreed to serve for a certain amount of time, and when that time is up they go home, have been told they can't now. They have to be mad about that, if they have a wife and couple of kids at home they need to get home, the army needs to let them go. If they don't you might start to see more of those type of soldiers saying were not going on anymore dangerous missions, screw this, we never signed up for this BS.

 

But they did sign up for it! The stop-loss is one of the conditions of serving in the forces. It's not some surprise trick that's been pulled; it's part of the rules. While I certainly fefel sympathetic toward their frustration, it irritates me when people start pitching this as a "backdoor draft" instead of a procedure that's an established part of military policy. Anyone who didn't know it was a possibility clearly did not do a thorough enough reading of the rules upon signing up.

-Paul

 

Without really going into the reasons, I am against a draft. Though I'm not entirely convinced that we won't have a military draft in the next few years.

That said, if there were a draft, I would volunteer in one of the armed forces.