• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does a Country have the right to the draft during a time of war.

Draft?


  • Total voters
    85
If a country, facing actual, dire peril from enemies foreign or domestic, can't field an army of volunteers ready, able and WANTING to defend her....








What good is a draft gonna do?

War and dying are frightening. Joining the military entails a massive disruption to your life. Even if you agree with the decision to engage in a conflict you may not be motivated to join the military. Look at the Civil War or the Second World War as examples of that. If left voluntary numbers would have flagged and as casualties mounted recruitment would likely have suffered (we know this occurred at times during the Civil War). The decision to use conscription is a mechanism for avoiding those problems and rapidly expanding your manpower pool for the purposes of war. I believe it is sometimes necessary for set periods of time.
 
Why do you believe that? Do you not believe that there is honor, to serve?

If I considered serving honorable I would have already served.
 
War and dying are frightening. Joining the military entails a massive disruption to your life. Even if you agree with the decision to engage in a conflict you may not be motivated to join the military. Look at the Civil War or the Second World War as examples of that. If left voluntary numbers would have flagged and as casualties mounted recruitment would likely have suffered (we know this occurred at times during the Civil War). The decision to use conscription is a mechanism for avoiding those problems and rapidly expanding your manpower pool for the purposes of war. I believe it is sometimes necessary for set periods of time.

The civil war is not a good example, lol. As for WW2, I believe more volunteered than were drafted, but I'm not 100% on that.
 
The civil war is not a good example, lol. As for WW2, I believe more volunteered than were drafted, but I'm not 100% on that.

Whether it was higher or lower the fact remains that it would have meant less manpower for the war effort. I also think the Civil War is actually a very good example as it highlights the occasional importance of embarking on a utilitarian goal despite contemporary misgivings.
 
Whether it was higher or lower the fact remains that it would have meant less manpower for the war effort. I also think the Civil War is actually a very good example as it highlights the occasional importance of embarking on a utilitarian goal despite contemporary misgivings.

The civil war resulted in the greatest losses of freedom this country has ever known. Naturally, a draft was needed to bring that about, lol.


And therein lies the evil of drafting.
 
Forcible draft is a barbaric practice that was inevitable at some point, as a survival matter, but can be phased out of existence as professional military becomes both sufficient and more adequate for defense.

This is a part of the general civilizational trend toward "less slavery" (of whatever form and degree) - progress, you know.
 
The civil war resulted in the greatest losses of freedom this country has ever known. Naturally, a draft was needed to bring that about, lol.


And therein lies the evil of drafting.

Ah. You're one of those people. I'll prevent this thread from devolving and cut this off.
 
The civil war resulted in the greatest losses of freedom this country has ever known. Naturally, a draft was needed to bring that about, lol.


And therein lies the evil of drafting.

"The American people, North and South, went into the [Civil] war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects … what they thus lost they have never got back." -- H.L. Mencken
 
Absolutely not. We have the right to refuse to kill. People will line up around the block to join the military in a war of self-defense - the only type of conflict where a draft could even be considered to be justified. All other conflicts must be fought entirely by volunteers, and some of our military exploits, such as Vietnam, should never have been undertaken in the first place, but especially not by enslaved college-age kids.
 
Absolutely not. We have the right to refuse to kill. People will line up around the block to join the military in a war of self-defense - the only type of conflict where a draft could even be considered to be justified. All other conflicts must be fought entirely by volunteers, and some of our military exploits, such as Vietnam, should never have been undertaken in the first place, but especially not by enslaved college-age kids.

Oh, oh, a Palin euphemism at work. Apparently you didn't watch the Bashir clip letting the world know exactly what slavery was all about.
 
The only thing that the courts seem to think the 13th amendment applies to is blacks and then only if it's chattel slavery. Every time its obvious something is involuntary servitude the court brings up the conditions of black slavery so they can keep the law in question around. It's just pathetic, imho.

Is forcing a woman to carry a child to term involuntary servitude?
 
I wanted to repost my response from earlier: Generally I oppose conscription and mandatory service. Sovereignty of our own bodies should be a founding pillar of our conception of civil rights, I can't think of many rights that are more crucial. However under certain circumstances I'm willing to play the hypocrite and acknowledge that I'm being one. I'm willing to embrace a violation of your rights in the pursuit of a specific utilitarian goal--namely the preservation of the country that I live and prosper in and to accelerate the end of existential conflicts that challenge it. Conscription should be one of the gravest and little used powers a democracy exercises. I'm completely opposed to its casual use as a means of inculcating 'civic virtue'.
If conscription is resorted to, the country is already lost. If a country devolves to the point where it forces its citizens to fight its wars, the country is no longer worth fighting for.

Looking more specifically at the US, the reason there are threats of us having to fight in wars and force citiznes to participate is because we act as meddling aggressors around the globe, intervening in conflicts everywhere and creating our own. Maybe without the guarantee of an army to support this nonsense our government would pick its conflicts more carefully.

Finally, the idea that the only way for a country to defend itself is through compulsory military service is absolute hogwash. If more soldiers are needed, hire mercenaries. Offer more incentives to join the military. It is a huge and unwarranted leap of logic to assume that no conscription will result in failure to preserve one's country.
 
If conscription is resorted to, the country is already lost. If a country devolves to the point where it forces its citizens to fight its wars, the country is no longer worth fighting for.

Looking more specifically at the US, the reason there are threats of us having to fight in wars and force citiznes to participate is because we act as meddling aggressors around the globe, intervening in conflicts everywhere and creating our own. Maybe without the guarantee of an army to support this nonsense our government would pick its conflicts more carefully.

Finally, the idea that the only way for a country to defend itself is through compulsory military service is absolute hogwash. If more soldiers are needed, hire mercenaries. Offer more incentives to join the military. It is a huge and unwarranted leap of logic to assume that no conscription will result in failure to preserve one's country.

Then why did the USA win WW2 ( they used the draft) if a country has lost already if they draft?
 
If conscription is resorted to, the country is already lost. If a country devolves to the point where it forces its citizens to fight its wars, the country is no longer worth fighting for.

I like the sentiment. But I would rephrase as, "If conscription is resorted to, the state is already lost. If a state devolves to the point where it forces its citizens to fight its wars, the state is no longer worth fighting for."

There is a very big difference between a society and a state. A state is simply a corporation that claims jurisdiction over a society.
 
This came up in another thread. Do you believe that a country was the right to draft it's citizens into it's armed forces during a time of war.

I personally believed that it does if that country is going to survive.


Added in:

In regards to the United States I'm talking about an official declaration of war being declared.

Only if the people give that 'power' to the country (govt). For example, in the US, there is no such power. In fact, involuntary servitude is specifically prohibited, as is deprivation of life and liberty without due process.
 
Only if the people give that 'power' to the country (govt). For example, in the US, there is no such power. In fact, involuntary servitude is specifically prohibited, as is deprivation of life and liberty without due process.

But is that negated since the Government can call up the Militia and every able body man is part of the Militia under the U.S. Law?
 
Then why did the USA win WW2 ( they used the draft) if a country has lost already if they draft?
I didn't say the country has lost. I said the country is lost. The is a difference there. Also, what I meant should have been clear--it was explained in the second sentence of my post.
 
I like the sentiment. But I would rephrase as, "If conscription is resorted to, the state is already lost. If a state devolves to the point where it forces its citizens to fight its wars, the state is no longer worth fighting for."

There is a very big difference between a society and a state. A state is simply a corporation that claims jurisdiction over a society.
There is a difference between society and state, but I didn't use the term society. I used country, typically used to mean state. With that said, I agree with your change if that makes it clearer and agree with you.
 
But is that negated since the Government can call up the Militia and every able body man is part of the Militia under the U.S. Law?

It does not say every able bodied man is part of the militia, in the constitution. And the bill of rights and 13th amendment would superceed that. Remember that in the Declaration of Indepence, conscription was one of the complaints levied at King George.

“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.”

I would argue that while congress has the power to raise armies, they do not have to power to do so by effectively forcing citizens at gun point to join those armies.
 
It does not say every able bodied man is part of the militia, in the constitution. And the bill of rights and 13th amendment would supersede that. Remember that in the Declaration of Independence, conscription was one of the complaints levied at King George.

“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.”

I would argue that while congress has the power to raise armies, they do not have to power to do so by effectively forcing citizens at gun point to join those armies.

Our Second Amendment is a States' right.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

N.Y. MIL. LAW § 2 : NY Code - Section 2: Militia of the state; division and composition

1. The militia of the state shall be divided into the organized militia, the state reserve list, the state retired list and the unorganized militia. The organized militia shall be composed of the New York army national guard; the New York air national guard; the inactive national guard; the New York naval militia; the New York guard whenever such a state force shall be duly organized and such additional forces as may be created by the governor. 2. The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five who are not serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on the state reserve list or the state retired list and who are or who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, subject, however, to such exemptions from military duty as are created by the laws of the United States. 3. The state reserve list and the state retired list shall include the persons who are lawfully carried thereon on the effective date of this act and such persons who may be transferred thereto or placed thereon by the governor in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 4. The terms "organized militia," "all or any part of the organized militia," "organized militia or any part thereof" and "organized militia or any force thereof," whenever used in this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required by the context, shall be deemed to include any unit, command, component, element, headquarters, staff or cadre thereof as well as any member or members.
 
If conscription is resorted to, the country is already lost. If a country devolves to the point where it forces its citizens to fight its wars, the country is no longer worth fighting for.

Looking more specifically at the US, the reason there are threats of us having to fight in wars and force citiznes to participate is because we act as meddling aggressors around the globe, intervening in conflicts everywhere and creating our own. Maybe without the guarantee of an army to support this nonsense our government would pick its conflicts more carefully.

Finally, the idea that the only way for a country to defend itself is through compulsory military service is absolute hogwash. If more soldiers are needed, hire mercenaries. Offer more incentives to join the military. It is a huge and unwarranted leap of logic to assume that no conscription will result in failure to preserve one's country.

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? 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.
 
And? asdasd

The domestic Tranquility of a State, is also a States' right pursuant to our Second Amendment.

The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five who are not serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on the state reserve list or the state retired list and who are or who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, subject, however, to such exemptions from military duty as are created by the laws of the United States.
 
Back
Top Bottom