This is an extremely unconvincing line of argument for me. It smacks of an emotive hyperbole. I do not think the country was lost after the Civil War, after World War I, after World War II, etc. Do you?
In terms of principle, yes. However, only
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.
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.
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.
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 the
consistent protection of basic human dignity and liberty.