The USFG should abolish the Draft.

Thank you for providing your argument.Opening Statements I believe your statement of naming the draft as a form of 'public enslavement' is an opinionated exaggeration. Currently, the United States does not allow drafting and only keeps the Selective Service plan for contingency [1]. There isn't exactly an inefficiency, or unfairness standard which you have provided in order to name the Draft program as such. It is agreed by contract to defend your country in the darkest of times, no matter how improbable it may be, especially to a nation like the United States. Rebuttals and Other Arguments Against your quote regarding Murray Rothbard and your debate naming the United States as the nation that should abolish the Draft, Murray was describing a nation that uses highly aggressive military tactics in order to push it's agenda. He wrote that in 1973 [2]. 1973 was also during the year and time that the United States was under a massive controversy of using military intervention to enforce it's ideals which was under harsh criticism by it's public (Refer to Source 1). Your source does not state what or who Rothbard was targeting. Regardless, I believe it is safe to assume that the time period and target in which Rothbard was attempting to persuade was the legislative debate that dominated the news and headlines across the country, using his well known status as an established economist among other things in order to push more support for his view. The debate pushed the United States Military into becoming an all-voluntary military force but leaving the Selective Service Program as a contingency plan (Refer to Source 1). Going to war does leave devastating psychological and physical effects on a person, there is absolutely no question to it. Going as far to call conscription as a form of slavery is pushing it, I believe. When you become a United States citizen, in the event that the United States is under a state of war where the homeland is under a credible threat to being attacked on its own soil, the benefits that the United States gave to these citizens should be rightfully expected to be returned through with undying loyalty. This is, of course, incredibly improbable although any responsible government should have a contingency plan for anything and the United States, the most recognized country on earth, would be foolish not to have one. In a sentence, "Desperate times calls for desperate measures". In response to your quote of Ayn Rand, I should again say that it is still stretching the subjective vocabulary to call the Draft as a form of enslavery due to restricting 'rights'. I repeat, there was a contract signed when citizenship was given in the United States, and under the most desperate times, when war is at the doorstep of the American homeland, there should be a choice between whether enemy occupation is worth temporarily losing your 'rights' [3]. It is in an investment, and when you invest, you lose something but get it back later, usually in interest. During war-time, if the United States is ever to face off against a might nearly equal to it's own, when US military forces are having their libertarian backs broken in order to not infringe upon the 'rights of the people', they will suffer under the enemy who would be more than willing to restrict a few rights in order to subdue the enemy as much as possible. While very improbable to meet these nations in the battlefield, even with rising tensions, these nations exist. With the only rival military mights which have a credible chance of reaching the United States being Russia, and China [4]. Besides there being the concept of human rights abuses, the question is brought up concerning, 'What is rights'? Do rights really apply in the wild, much less in the conventional concept of human warfare? There are no official human rights on Earth [5], and in society when a civilization is bent on destroying the other, certain concepts need to be warped in order to defend with everything the years that was spent on advancing your nation. When you are also defending the concept of people's individual rights, I'm afraid I must label controversy in your statement of "If one's country is being attacked, people (probably men) should volunteer to fight if they value their rights, lives and freedom". If you are fighting for individual rights as is obviously evident in your argument, wouldn't men have as equal rights as woman? Is that not a restriction of freedom if not oppression? Concerning volunteer armies, when the enemy is at the doorstep, fear shows its might against courage. I will provide an example at the end my of my argument. For your argument in which a person is not inherently bound to swear allegiance to a nation, you are correct. They are not 'inherently bound', but they made a conscious choice in which their loyalty and civil duty to uphold the societal stability they made in their contract for the ability to participate in the American republic in exchange for blood when it is needed. Otherwise, what society is there to defend if all people are looking out for themselves? The draft does force people to causes which are not their concern, far away and abroad, and the danger to the homeland is not legitimate. With that case, you are correct. Although, in the US there is no longer a draft that can be implemented for those cases synonymous to Vietnam or Korea, which renders that argument null (Refer to Source 1). The government will always manipulate reasons for people to fight for special interests, especially major powers like the United States which has the capacity and will to do so. They already did this with their volunteer army in Iraq where the evidence of Iraqi WMD's were allegedly faked and the siphoning of Iraqi resources were met after occupation [6]. The Iraqi argument is proof that since the draft has already been 'inhibited by practice' (the US hasn't made a draft since the 1973 military move to stop it and only keep the Selective Service Plan), the US will still keep manipulation of it's interests to the public. Regardless, the already war hungry history of the United States and current actions taken abroad by the US makes scarring tensions with the biggest military rivals of her time. If the course of events do take place when a nation is knocking at the front door of the continental US, a contingency plan will always be needed, and the United States has one in place. I can't call the United States a repulsive society whose interests are evil for inciting so much war, they are one of the most stable and free nations on Earth with a high Human Development Index [7] and should defend it when a rival military power should come, even if it means temporarily restricting it. The next argument of yours in this round can still be refuted by the argument where the contingency plan is the only justifiable reason for the United States to not abolish the Draft. A volunteer army is good for the offensive and defensive however, when the volunteer army fails or is destabilizing at the hands of a major enemy about to cross the ocean to the US, a draft is the back-up plan. Conscription is applied justly to the class and ranking of the person about to be drafted. A man with no education and no target to be educated is less likely to be successful than a college graduate. The argument in which ethnicity and wealth plays its role on the success of a person is an entirely different argument. That's why we need national healthcare and education! But I digress, the current system targets the people that would be least successful to the progression of the current American society. Senator Roberts has absolutely no idea how important it was for the USSR to have drafted their available manpower to fight against Operation Barbarossa. If Moscow hadn't forced conscription, even if how weak and the massive casualties they experienced, they would have lost the war and Germany could redirect their entire army to the Western front [8]. The manpower versus the quantity of persons in the Red Army wouldn't have matched if not for the conscription and never proven a match to protect the Russian homeland and lost more lives to the West. Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://mises.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)[4] http://www.globalfirepower.com...[5] http://www.lesley.edu...[6] http://www.cnn.com...[7] http://hdr.undp.org...[8] https://en.wikipedia.org...