The country has whatever "rights" they choose to put in their highest rule of law. If a draft is a legal provision for that country then yes, they do have that right.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
2% of Civil war fighters were draftees. Most were volunteers. The effect of the draft was largely minimal in that instance. This only further proves my point: if the war is really worth fighting for, there should be no need for the draft. Most of the wars the US is fighting today are not worth it.
Slavery was also practically more efficient and was in the wider interests of the south, but that does not justify involuntary servitude. The exact same argument is true for the draft. It doesn't matter how practical it is. That the draft has been historically effective is questionable at best (often with the draft there were many volunteers) but even if I grant that historically it has been more effective, that says absolutely nothing about better ways of doing things in the future. If the draft was not granted as an option, other ways would be developed to meet the need. In this way the existence of the draft hinders other more just options from coming into usage.I return to my original and sole argument which is that on occasion it is sometimes in our wider interests (even if some disagree) to engage in conscription for specific purposes. I'd never claim it is anything other than a hypocritical position for me to take, but I'll still stake it out. On a practical level it clearly has utility and its comparison to enlistment incentives or mercenaries fails because of the palpable reality that historically conscription has been a more effective mechanism for mass mobilization in more trying or difficult times. When euphoria wears out and crisis draws in it tends to do its job. Is it the ideal course of action? No. But on a limited basis can I justify the violation of your rights to serve what I think is a greater purpose? Yes.
Can I enslave you to pick my corn, violating your rights, to serve what I think is a greater purpose? No.
Can I enslave you to fight my war, violating your same rights, to serve what I think is a greater purpose? No, for the same reasons.
You are right about one thing: your argument is hypocritical. And to me, a hypocritical argument is far less convincing than theconsistent protection of basic human dignity and liberty.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
"When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."
"War" is GREATLY misused now.
Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq - were not "wars." They were "police military actions."
My answer is NO for "police actions" for foreign policy reasons.
Yes, for wars of true national defense and survival - such as WWII was.
WWII was not about national defense and survival. This doesn't mean our participation wasn't justified.
The problem with a draft in a policing war for foreign policy and for which there are 1,000 rules of limiting engagement as was in Vietnam, is a large percentage of those drafted and sent there singularly care about staying alive and getting out of there. Via filming, the military increasingly came to learn such draftees won't fight, won't shoot except for self preservation if at all, and would avoid battle and armed conflict anyway possible. They also found (I can't find a link at the moment and it wasn't shouted out) then tended to shoot officers who tried to force them into high risk combat.