A Military Draft

I disagree. Freedom is only a problem for those who like to dominate other people for the sake of dominating them, and for those who enjoy being dominated. So, putting those creatures aside, human beings want freedom.



Again, tastes vary I suppose, but I for one would rather be a poor freeman than a pampered slave. It makes no differnce to me if someone uses their freedom; the point is that they are able to use it if they choose.



Ah yes, that attitude worked out wonderfully for the Romans huh? Their republic never fell to a dictator...:whistling: Again, what is the point of fighting a total war to avoid conquest and subjugation by a foreign power if that requires the sacrafice of everything of value in the society? If in order to defeat fascism in the Second World War the U.S. had had to become exactly like NAZI Germany, why not just invite them in and surrender? Is there a difference between oppression by foreigners and oppression by one's own government? No. I say again, if society can only survive by depriving its members of freedom, then let it perish. I would rather have anarchy than totalitarianism.



When in history have 'emergency powers' ever been relinquished? You talk about the silly illusions held by Americans or by libertarians...this idea of depriving the people of rights so that those rights can be saved for the future is an illusion.



Yes. In case you haven't noticed, individual freedom has been on a nosedive since just about the time your talking about. The role of the state has been steadily growing since the New-Deal/War-time collectivist policies of the 30s and 40s.

Do you actually believe that Germany could have defeated the U.S. had the U.S. not taken the war to Europe first? We in this nation are in a very privilaged position; we have several thousand miles of deep, salt water on either side, we are continental, we can easily produce all of our own food, and we are all armed to the teeth. Since at least the War of 1812 there has been no chance, zero, of the U.S. actually being conquered by a foreign power. And, as long as the U.S. remains united, there never will be. There is however a long-standing and rapidly escalating risk that we will become hopelessly oppressed from within.

[QUOTE=Leonard;96064] Subjectively Interpretable Questions[/QUOTE]I am in favor of universal national service. Not necessarily universal military service.

[QUOTE=Leonard;96064] 2. If you have a strongly grounded opinion on draft, what makes it morally right or wrong? If possible, use logic (the philosophical definition of logic). [/QUOTE] The notion that the freedoms and privileges which you enjoy as a citizen are "free" and that you have no obligation to the nation or government that secures those rights for you is "a morally bankrupt" notion. Those who are willing to let others serve and sacrifice to preserve their freedoms and rights and who are willing to make no sacrifice or perform no service on behalf of the nation do not deserve the "rights" and "freedoms" that are their privilege as citizens.

[QUOTE=Leonard;96064] 3. Is the draft responsible for gender, age, race, religious discrimination? Explain. [/QUOTE] Although the military reflects the general prejudices and attitudes of the society at large;, historically the military has often been at the forefront of social change. The throwing together of disparate ethnic, racial and geographic units and individuals iin a military organization and in the pursuit of a common goal often has been the forerunner of greater integration, mutual respect and social change. The service of American Indians, African Americans and others in WWII in many ways foreshadowed the later changes in American society. The Armed Forces were among the first integrated social structures and the military has been a source of upward mobility for many minorities other marginalized individuals.

[QUOTE=Leonard;96064]4. Is a Public Service alternative sufficient compensation for conscientious objectors, or is it not? Would you choose Public Service if you were chosen for a draft? Explain. [/QUOTE]Yes, national service in lieu of military service is acceptable. Already did military service.

There was a time when almost all males had served time in the military. These individuals knew the meaning of sacrifice in the service of the nation. They were much more appreciative of the rights and privileges of citizenship and much more patriotic. They had lost friends, relatives, and loved ones in the wars that secured their freedoms and felt an obligation to give back and live meaningful lives. The nation that loses its sense of purpose, it higher goals; that gives in to self interest (as the highest form of pursuit) is a nation in decline.

The entire picture of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have an entirely different complexion if the military were not all volunteer. In fact these wars either would never have taken place or would probably be ended by now. Separating national service and military service obligations from your rights, privileges and freedoms as a citizen is not healthy for the nation or for the individual.

It is immoral to let others secure the rights and freedoms to which you think you are entitled for "free".

[QUOTE=Leonard;96064]5. Inane Bonus: What is, like, your favorite, like, color lol? [/QUOTE]Blue sky and ocean green.

I have to agree that freedom requires a responsibility and that certain measures must be taken to preserve it, but my doubts lie in the effectiveness of a drafted army and the desperate practices taken by the US military to keep a full supply of voluntary soldiers.
I do not mean to call the military desperate, but its practices show that they struggle to keep a volunteer army going.

No army would be complete without young soldiers; they influence the younger sphere of society in particular. Anyone young enough is good enough to fight as long as they are physically fit. The problem isn't young people, it's the recruiters going into schools. They also use scare tactics and patriotic propaganda when they visit high schools because people under 20 are seen as risk-takers to them. I'm not sure of the source, but I think they carry a list of students with phone numbers and background information and have the legal right to consult them.

I do see some good in serving the nation; and I find it unjust for citizens who have never fought or served the country to heckle and stereotype them. They have no obligation to serve, and are voluntary. Maybe forcing unwilling people into the army wouldn't persuade them, but taking some action against discriminating people who are in the military could be considered.