This is a question to anyone in favor of the draft, but especially conservatives. Why do you favor involuntary servitude and putting the state's interests above all else? Why do you so readily abandon the individual liberty you ostensibly champion?
Actually I am a progressive, far from being a conservative, if you read my work, and I come down solidly in favor of a universal draft. I firmly believe that each American youth needs to devote 2-years of their life, between high school and college in the service of their country either in the military or some other public service.
It not only provides a benifit to the country, but to the individual themselves in maturing before they prepare themselves for the rest of their lives. On a philosophical level, I believe it is a moral duty of each individual to pay through their labor for the privileges they enjoy for living in our society and the protection our society gives them.
As to the conservatives, of course they are hypocrits, but so are the progressives, what is new? Conservatives have always believed that a State's interest superceeds all else, individual and federal.
I am slightly less opposed to German system which allows people to choose public service but it is still a massive theft of freedom and liberty, we all pay for the help of our state through taxation but to compel people to do something with their lives that they do not want to if they have not infringed on the rights of others is always wrong.
Both of your arguments are good, the taxation one less so, however, because it is paying for certain specific services; the only two of which that may enter my reasoning are those taxes which go toward education and defense. You more powerful argument, of course, is that of involentary servatutude. How is that different than the requirement to go to school, which is involuntary and for the benefit of the State and the individual as well, except they are being compensated for it?
An alternative is to allow the individual to buy his or her way out buy paying back the wages they would have earned, that way the rich can get out of service again or make paid public service a required course throughout high school.
Yes, exactly. I have often argued that enforced education is both a massive incursion into civil liberties and an admission of collossal failure on behalf of the state. If the eduction the state provides is so all encompassing and successful, why would anybody want to truant? Similarly, if the wars the state wants to fight are so obviously necessary for the protection of the populace, why wouldn't there be a sizeable force of people voluntarily signing up? And think about what is happening now. There is no draft, so there is more incentive for the military-industrial complex to develop tools of war that doesn't involve the sacrifice of the children of their own country, with drones and what not.
To subject young people to it is a form of tyranny in my opinion.
Well, to your first point, so long as you believe that the Supreme Courts decisions are enforcable law, they have ruled in many cases that minors do not have the same rights to liberty as adults, they can be compelled to do things adults could not.
I can't see how you can come to your second conclusion based on your argument. It is like saying "If the work environment a busness provides is so all encompassing good and successful, why would anybody of them want to be late for word, or miss work, or heaven forbid, sue the employer? That is simply a false argument.
It is not often in American history that the government "wants" to fight a war without a sufficient national security reason. Unfortunately, Iraq is not one of those examples and goes to prove your point, but it is still rare in our history. As I mentioned, in another comment, I think all the times American has been the aggressor, there has been no conscription, which sort of shoots down your last point. You might be able to correct be on that, however, if you do some research. BTW, there was no draft when those "tools", which save American lives, you mentioned were developed.
In the case of minors, where is the right of the parent to decide what schools their children can go to, or to decide whether they go to school at all? It is possible to home school but be subjected to governmental checks. Clearly young people are not responsible for themselves, but the responsibility lies with the parents, not with the state.
There is a key difference between an employer and the state. An employer offers a job that you can accept voluntarily in exchange for a salary - there is no coercion required to persuade you to accept the job. If you aren't persuaded, there is nothing forcing you to reject the job. Enforced education and the draft forces, compels you to participate, which proves that the state could not persuade you to to begin with.
On the contrary there has rarely been a war that has been justified with a legitimate danger to the public. One might be able to make the case for the Second World War, but again it is the result of the military-industrial complex manufactured First World War and subsequent treaties. We must point this out so as to reject the notion of a draft before it is implemented. I use the theory so as to point out the hypocrisy of the draft.
"BTW, there was no draft when those "tools", which save American lives, you mentioned were developed."
That's exactly what I said.
Slavery is illegal in the states isn't it?
The reason we as a society have decided that we can dictate terms to children is simply because they are children, they do not have the necessary mental capacity to make responsible decisions with their life, that is the same reason we don't let them drink or drive, at about the age of sixteen children are mature enough to decide if they want to stay in school or leave, extending that to military service is very different.
Conscription is more than labour though, isn't it? it's being asked to potentially give your life, sometimes for a war you may not even believe in.
To force military service on a population without it's consent is involuntary servitude, like the author of the article claimed. It's about increasing state power and having disposable bodies to engage in imperial wars.
Your first reason has merit, your second has little basis in American history. Only two or three times has America been the agressor save for the genocide commited on Native Americans, and, if I am not mistaken, there was no conscription in force durning any of them.
Operation northwoods my friend. Also, Woodrow Wilson locked up dissidents in World War I. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi … coop.html/(page)/3. The last page is all that matters. It's a conservative piece, but the information about Wilson silencing protestors is accurate.
FDR's intentional provocations of the Japanese and Germans were also about the state enforcing it's will on the people http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291a.asp
The state is hardly some benevolent protector looking out for it's citizens
Obama also now has a kill list, and he is the ONLY one who ultimately gets to decide who to target. One power-hungry President is all it would take to change the United States overnight.
Have we all forgotten the draft was used in Vietnam? Where the US slaughtered millions of innocents for the purposes of containing an ideology it disagreed with and preventing a democratic decision which would not suit it thereby destroying any illusion of supporting democracy world wide.
Well I was trying to use examples that most people considered more legitimate, to show they may have been less so. The only war I can even possibly lend my support to that the U.S. has engaged is in World War II.
But I've only been fed state information on it, so who knows how accurate that actually is?
Vietnam, for most people, is already considered a mistake, and has been used ad naseum as an example of the misuse of the draft (if there is a proper use!). I want people to think about wars that generally aren't so unfavorably looked upon by history to show that the state continually and massively overreaches into our natural liberties.
Ugh, it's true, I have heard quite a few people arguing for it as a way to "give kids discipline and keep them out of crime" which is such bull, I did my compulsory in Argentina and got recalled for the Falklands war, it's not just that the compulsory service is a massive infraction on liberty but also that conscripts are used as cannon fodder for example of the 194 army personnel lost by Argentina on the Falklands 143 were conscripts and of the 341 navy 303 were conscripts, they were just used as meat shields and that is a trend that permeates combat that includes conscripts because they are considered cheap and expendable.
Meat shields are the only way a war can be conducted and won. That's the disgustingness of it all!
How other countries use their enlisted has no bearing on how enlisted are treated in America, especially in today's American military. But even in yesteryear, when enlisted military life was the pits, it was worlds better than in most other countries militaries, even some of today.
Another argument against nationwide drafting is that some men and women simply aren't cut out for military life. They excel at other aspects of life, I'm sure, but forcing them to be soldiers is harsh. Harsh enough only to be considered during time of need, like major conflict. We have enough cases in the US already of people getting in over their heads by joining the military and not realizing what it means, or how hard it is.
You are absolutely right about that. I volunteered, rather than be drafted, so I could join on my own terms but soon learned my personality and the Army's didn't exactly match. Even so, I stayed in the National Guard and am now retired from the Army, we never did get along. I also retired from the Dept of the Air Force as a civilian, something that suited me much better.
Sorry, I got sidetracked. Yes, I agree some people aren't suited, that is why other choices need to be made available.
Before you post something of this sort it would be wise to do a little research on the issue. In the past your Vice President Joe Biden, New York Representative Charlie Rangel, and Michigan Representative John Conyers, to name a few, have all voiced their support for a draft, Rangel as recently as 2011. So it seems the hypocrisy here is coming from you, calling out conservatives in regard to supporting the draft but giving liberal democrats a pass on it.
I think they are wrong to do so, as is OBVIOUS from my comments on this forum, but your response is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Are you in favor of the draft? If not, then I applaud you for sticking up to the nationalist flag worshippers in your party. If so, then the criticism stands.
It would be more productive if you respond to the actual substance of the argument I posted, like a few other conservatives have done.
Even if I am hypocritical and cheat on my wife while telling you not to cheat on yours, it doesn't negate the fact that YOU SHOULDN'T CHEAT ON YOUR WIFE. It's fallacious to even suggest something so absurd.
Just pointing out that you are as hypocritical as those you accuse of such hypocrisy. You can dismiss it as irrelevant and absurd if you like, if it makes you feel better, but the truth remains.
You post an article from 2005 and post a forum thread about conservative hypocrisy and then dismiss as irrelevant and absurd more recent information that flies in the face of your argument. Hypocrisy indeed.
Dodge dodge dodge. I didn't admit I was being hypocritical. ANYONE IN FAVOR OF THE DRAFT IS WRONG. I also did not claim conservatives were the ONLY people in favor of the draft, nor did I say ALL conservatives favored the draft. You need to reread what I originally wrote. You have absolutely no credibility when you bring up arguments I didn't even make.
I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of voters in a party that wraps itself in the flag and the rhetoric of liberty, but favors involuntary servitude.
Again, since for some reason you did not understand the first time: are you or are you not in favor of the draft for all able bodied people that are 18 to 35ish years of age? It's a simple yes or no question.
Your original post mentions conservatives specifically and then you provide zero proof, except an article that is seven years old, to back up your claim that conservatives support the draft more than you, being the morally superior liberal. I provide more recent examples of people of your political leaning who support the draft and you dismiss it as irrelevant and absurd, who's dodging?
Just to clear this up, I in no way, shape, or form support conscription of any kind; unlike Joe Biden, Charlie Rangel, and John Conyers.
Think about it for a second Sooner. The conservatives are hypocritical on this issue, only because you oppose the draft because you see it as an unconstitutional imposition of involuntary servatitude. It isn't slavery because the individuals are paid a fair wage for their labor, it is just doing a job the state needs them to do for the good of the state.
So the question comes down to wether the state have the legal right to so. You say no because, in fact, the draft is involuntary servitude. The conservatives and myself say it should be legal and the Supreme Court says it is legal and not a case of involuntary servitude so technically, the conservatives are not hypocrites aren't hypocrits.
Now that I said that, I am going to reverse myself because of something else you say. You bring up the point that conservatives flout the fact that they believe in individual liberty. In fact, they don't, and that is the real hypocracy. They believe in subservience to the State, both by the individual and the federal government. In reality, it is the progressives who believe in individual liberty which your objection to the draft is a prime example.
My support of the draft is a matter of pragmatism. I support it because it is needed and philosophically it can be supported. Servitude impies slavery, which, of course, it is not. It is duty, from my point of view, a duty to serve your country for the privledges it bestows on you. Otherwise, in my view, you are a simply a freeloader.
It is still involuntary servitude, even if someone is paid for their work. That's the legal definition. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i071.htm.
Just because the Supreme Court rules something, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Remember separate but equal, and the Supreme Court ruling the Patriot Act constitutional? Examining the reasoning behind a decision can be support for an argument, but simply claiming they ruled something does not make it correct.
Conservatives believe in subservience to the State, and you do also since you support the draft.
Since I already mentioned the legal definition, I'm not going to repeat it again. I'm just going to take issue with something you have said, which is the "privileges" the state "bestows" on me. I'm more of the persuasion that there are certain inalienable human rights that are not bestowed upon me by ANYONE. They exist by virtue of the fact that I am a human being. You make it sound as though my rights exist only because the State allows them to.
I agree with you on a lot of other issues, but on this one I think you are misguided.
Yes, my position on the draft is very hard to articulate and takes a lot of care, which I haven't given it here. Nevertheless, I don't look at the draft in the same light as you do as true involuntary servitude, although it certainly can look like it.
The "privlilges" of which I speak which first not being a particularly great choice of word, doesn't refer to the inalienable rights but the environment in which a person can exercise them in. An individual has the same inalienable rights whether they belong to a free society or a dictatorial one. I maintain that in the former state, the citizen has a duty to give part of his or her time in service of the state for the "privilege" of that freedom, as it were, while in the later state, the citizen has no duty at all.
I consider myself conservative and libertarian. I am staunchly anti-war to begin with, but I am even more anti-draft. You're completely right; there is no justifiable reason for a draft. All it does is take away freedom, then take away lives. Nobody wins except coorporate war-crows.
Being a conservative and libertarian makes you bi-polar, lol. Yes, if you are libertarian, then I understand your stand. If you were only conservative and not libertarian, you would most likely be on the other side.
Where are the usual right wing suspects?
Noticeably missing (in action?)
Guess it's a slow night here on Hub Pages.
I'll check back later.
Not a conservative. Not remotely in favor of a draft.
I'm a just-over-the-border and in-only-the-most-basic-way Conservative, and I'm absolutely, absolutely against any draft or any other kind of required service.
I'm against the draft. Maybe if we paid our soldiers more and stopped trying to police the world, we wouldn't need a draft.
I agree with you about not wanting to police the world, and if you look back in American history, virtually all of are governments have not wanted to, and didn't. But, after WW II, the choice was taken away from us.
Think of what the world would be like today if we hadn't stayed engaged and turned isolationist instead, which is America's nature.
Was the world a better place before WW II? Would the world have been a better place if the Russin and China had completed their desire to dominate the world if America had not opposed it? Would Europe been able to withstand their pressure? Certainly Africa, Asia, and South America wouldn't have, they almost didn't with American involvment.
Now that the communists are essentially gone, there will always be somebody to take their place, currently it is fundamnentalist religious terrorists. You are telling me, you would rather give them a free-hand.
Personally, that isn't my kind of world, it may be yours, but not mine.
I have not forgotten how a good friend of mine, rabidly conservative, chastised me for not pushing my boys to join the military during the Iraq War. I pointed out to him that it would be ridiculous for me, one who opposes the war, to encourage my own boys to fight, but that he had a son who could sign up anytime. He shot back that his son was too old. When I told him that the maximum age for enlistment had just been raised and would include his son, he shut the hell up.
Total hypocrite. And there were a ton of them. So anxious to get their jollies watching other people fight for the good ol' U.S. of A. but careful to find excuses for themselves and their own kids.
It's typical of many like that. Bush dodged the draft . I don't blame him. It was immoral. But he would never have afforded someone else the same courtesy if the politics of the draft would've been favorable.
I have no use for those who push war without sacrifice of their own. They are the worst kind of human being, if you can call them that.
You know what? I DO blame him, if he supported the war. Why should his hypocritical butt be spared the horrors that others were forced to endure?
Many books have been written about liberal hypocrisy. Fast and furious comes to mind.
I've already responded to the hypocrisy argument. You are completely dodging the point I was making in the thread.
Furthermore, as for Fast and Furious, it was done by both Bush and Obama, and it was as dumb of an idea then as it is now.
There is a huge difference between fast and furious, and operation wide receiver. On the one hand during "wide receiver" the government was attempting to trace US manufactured fire arms that had crossed into Mexico. During "Fast and Furious" Eric Holder's policy intentionally enabled weapons to fall into the hands of drug cartels, to further his anti-second amendment agenda, and then he placed the blame on independent arms dealers. But that's just a pesky detail that doesn't need to be brought up.
I was actually on the fence on this issue, mostly because I hadn't really thought about it. Although I was leaning toward a draft in time of war, and only in time of war IF necessary. But unfortunately, the government can make anything necessary.
After reading several of the arguments, I've been persuaded. I agree with Sooner, it would be essentially slavery. While I believe we need a military, and a strong one, forcing people to involuntary give their lives for the "defense of their country" is just unAmerican. The government is (obviously) not infallible and to make people who disagree with the government, fight for it is just wrong. The supreme court is also not infallible, and in many cases has shown to be FALLIBLE. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the supreme court made up of mostly old, conservative, men?
I wonder what those currently in the armed forces think. All servicemen and women I have met have been honored to serve their country, because they WANTED to do so and most of them are fighting for the people in this country, not necessarily the government. At least, that's what they told me.
I also agree, even though this wasn't part of the initial question, that compulsory education is unconstitutional. But, I'm wholeheartedly against "formal" schooling to begin with. In my opinion, formal education allows parents to be lazy. But that's a whole other forum thread.
I am a declared socialist. I am in favour of the draft.
If you are a pacifist then you are opposed to your country having armed forces. I respect your sincerity but I think you are an idiot.
Every state will use force from time to time. So who goes to war? If there is a fair draft - no exceptions or deferrals - then everyone's child is at risk. That makes aggressive wars a lot harder to sell to the public. At the moment the USA's wars are disproportionately fought by the children of the poor and disadvantaged who don't matter politically. When politicians' sons and journalists' sons are at risk or are actually killed and maimed this strikes at the decision makers and war boosters.
The advantage of a fair draft is that there will be fewer wars, and the children of the poor are not disproportionately killed and maimed. Reserve the National Guard for returned veterans, who often have difficulty finding jobs.
Not sure I agree with the "idiot" label, that is their sincere belief, nothing more. I am not a conservative, far from it, but think socialism is a much a failed system as conservatism is.
Other than that, I absolutely agreee with what you say.
Did he call me an idiot? He doesn't even know me!!! WTF? When did this forum resort to name calling. That really doesn't do much to support his point.
If you're a socialist, your a communist, which makes you a Marxist. Who's the idiot again?
Quite right. I am sorry I said I thought someone who held your views was an idiot. I should not have said it.
I appreciate your apology, thank you.
In answer to your comment, I think there are different levels of pacifism. Personally, I don't think jumping into war to settle a dispute is a good option, however, I do believe there are times when war is necessary. So, I'm not entirely a pacifist. There are things worth fighting for, and I make a point to make this distinction, and that is why I believe we do need a military and a strong one. I just don't think conscription is the way to build an army.
=.= Can we please learn the difference between socialism communism and Marxism all of which are different things? I guess I will write a hub on this too.
FEWER WARS. LOL.
World War I, World War II, Vietnam. Those were pretty major wars my friend, and they all involved a draft. And your claim that if everyone has someone they know who dies it works out better for all of us? Your dismissive disdain for human life troubles me. It should be a very big deal whether we even go to war at all, and you think a draft is just a wonderful idea to ostensibly ensure wars will be reduced. History doesn't show that.
I didn't say I was against having a military either. Please stop inserting positions into what I claimed. Others have done it, and it makes it look like you are trying to create a straw man. I'm not a pacifist.
But if I were, I'd have the company of Ghandi, Jesus, and Martin Luther King Jr, rather than if I were a warmonger, and had the company of HItler, Mussolini, and Stalin.
For all of those wars, the draft was after the fact, not before the fact. I think his point is that if a universal draft, where even the wealthy and the politically connected's chirldren could not avoid it, then politicians would be less likely to go to war at the drop of a hat. I doubt it would have changed WW I or WW II much, other than shorten them because we wouldn't have had such a steep learning curve and less American's would have died as a result. But I seriously doubt Vietnam, Granada, or Iraq would have happened.
I agree with you in the sense that the draft is wrong but Charles James has a point that the draft can help prevent and end wars, the draft played a major role in ending Vietnam for example.
People who are in favour of the draft are not pacifists. The draft is un-provoked violence towards the populace.
The British ended peacetime comscription because the Army asked them to. It costs money to train a soldier, and the soldier is only beginnning to be useful when his two years expires, so much of the taxpayers money is wasted.
If one has fewer soldiers who are career soldiers they are easier to train and you can do more with them. For an effective armed forces, volunteer career soldiers are much better.
However, from a political point of view the draft has its advantages because the soldiers are seen as all being our family and their loyalty is to civilian society.
Sorry to upset you, Sooner.
There has always been warfare, and I suspect there always will be. So if there is going to be warfare, who should take part?
The poor people whose country is the battlefield are all victims. The fewer wars the better.
A country like the USA does not normally have a draft, but for the American Civil War, WW1 WW2 Korea and Vietnam I understand you continued or reintroduced the draft. With all the flaws there were in the draft system at least the war was a national war. Now it is a war fought on behalf of the rich and middle classes by the children of your poor.
If people are to be killed and maimed let the rich and middle class take their chances too. It will make them a lot less keen on war.
by Greensleeves Hubs2 weeks ago
The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and...
by Josak3 years ago
Conservatives love the constitution, they believe our founding fathers were wise men who are still right hundreds of years later... except when they don't. A recent survey found 55% of Republicans want to change the...
by Charles James5 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by aka-dj7 years ago
It seems(from a lot of documentaries I have seen lately) that there is growing problem with youth gangs all over the world. Mostly in large cities, esp in the US. Perhaps conscription should be re-introduced. Take these...
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
The phrase is being used as shorthand by some prominent conservatives for a kind of closed-mindedness in the movement, a development they see as debasing modern conservatism’s proud intellectual history. First...
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I have been in many controversial political discussions on hub pages. I consider myself a centerist. I believe we need both some components of socialism to provide the things that we can't do as individuals and...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.