Military Conscription is Unjust.

I have limited characters, so I'll get right down to it. During the Vietnam war, as many as 70% of Americans were OPPOSED to the U.S. being involved in the conflict [1]. Yet people were still drafted to fight a war against their will; a war that was pointless in the sense that it did not threaten the U.S. nor any of our liberties at all whatsoever. Proof is that we essentially lost that war, and yet our liberties are supposedly still in tact. In other words, while it's easy to draw up the argument that sometimes we have to fight to protect our rights, the reality is that often conscription is abused as it was during the Vietnam War. During the Bush administration, there was a fear that people might be drafted despite the declining support for the war. Additionally, Con's entire "argument" against my point has already been refuted by me in R1. He points out, "For the citizen government to allow a foreign power to take control of our country thereby eliminating unalienable rights permanently is unjust." This completely neglects my points from the previous round that stated (1) In case of a perceived necessity, we can increase benefit packages for the military to draw voluntary enlistment, and (2) History shows that during perceived necessity, military recruitment actually increases on its own such as after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the attacks on 9/11 [2]. Thus Con's proposed forced enlistment continues to violate rights of human liberty and jeopardizes democracy without considering other factors. Moreover, Con again appeals to emotion (fallacy) in bringing up the fact that it our patriotic duty to fight in the name of the U.S. and democracy. However, as I pointed out, the government as a corrupt institution manipulates its power to engage the U.S. and its citizens in conflicts that many of us do not want to be in, i.e. Vietnam. To say that we have to take away people's rights in order to protect rights is contrary to what our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted our constitution. It was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Those who are willing to give up liberty for a bit of temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." In other words, Con's suggestion is contrary to American values of democracy. Keep in mind that my point wasn't to suggest that the U.S. would become a totalitarian state as a result of the draft, but merely that the practice of forcing people into conscription was reminiscent of totalitarian objectives. In regard to conscription being a form of slavery, the term is defined as as servitude or the involuntary subjection to another [3]. In that case, it would appear as if conscription fits these parameters. Plus, just because the military might pay you doesn't mean that you get the benefits of being involved with none of the banes. In fact you become property of the U.S. government and are subject to various restrictions and relinquishing of certain freedoms, or risk being deemed AWOL, for instance. Plus, the point here is that you don't have the CHOICE of what you do, so yes, the term slavery applies. While Con offers that jury duty might be considered slavery as well, there are some fundamental differences that make this a less than stellar example. First, the penalties for skipping jury duty are far less than the penalty (in terms of jail time) for skipping out on the draft. Second, a jury is absolutely necessary for the implementation of the justice system that this country sees fit. On the contrary, sometimes we employ conscription in cases where it's NOT necessary, i.e. Vietnam. Additionally, you actually need to seek people out to serve in various juries; however, the military already has a standing army which can carry out all necessary functions for the time being. If something changes, we can always call upon our own citizens to enlist. If they choose to jeopardize their freedom by not enlisting, then clearly that's a choice the citizens have made for themselves. The government is supposed to be a representation of the citizens - not the boss of the citizens. In saying, "When one abstains from defending our freedoms, she steals the protection from those who are unable to stand in defense i.e. children, the handicapped, the elderly, etc." what Con is essentially conveying is that one should be forced to give or sacrifice their life for someone else without their consent. I disagree. Con notes, "War powers are not unconstitutional as the Constitution grants the Government war powers." True, but the war going on in Iraq right now is illegal and unconstitutional. By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, Congress allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or lies he chose. The members of Congress who voted for that resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself [4]. In other words, it's very easy for the minority to abuse the powers of government and overrule the majority in terms of political power. Instituting a draft would not be political suicide as Con implies, because so far there has been a successful conservative wave of patriotism and nationalistic values in the U.S. meaning many might even favor a draft if FOX News did a good enough job of persuasion. Next Con asserts that the draft's history of bias and discrimination is irrelevant to this discussion, because maybe in the future it wouldn't be biased. That's a ridiculous argument. Maybe it WOULD be biased, and history shows us that it's likely to be so. Moreover, the very nature of the draft is designed to be biased. For instance, the Amish can technically get drafted but typically don't because they're "conscientious objectors." What if that "conscientious objector" status was extended to ALL conscientious objectors? There would be no point of the draft. And if you discriminate about whom you apply that objection to, you're still discriminating, based on religion or anything else. If you violate people's rights in the sense that you force them to go against their religion, etc., then you're infringing upon other rights. Either way, you're going to infringe upon the constitution and morality. Con claims that draftees undergo "rigorous testing" to ensure that they're capable of enduring military combat, mental or physical. I merely have to cite a plethora of studies indicating otherwise: that may people sent off to war are not capable of handling the immense stresses and pressures of the military... Or how about this source, which cites the military voluntarily sending mentally unsound soldiers into combat on purpose [5]. Plus, if young people are forced to go into the armed forces, it will only foster resentment against authority and will undermine any skills they might learn. This is an ineffective ideal. Con says, "Cost is a non issue if the fate of the nation is in the balance" however cost most definitely becomes an issue if this unnecessary and immoral option actually contributes to the negative fate of a nation. Con has the burden of providing an example in which conscription would be necessary. A diminishing militia is not sufficient reason. Citizens should fight voluntarily for what they believe in. If people don't want to fight to protect themselves and their rights, they shouldn't have to, nor should they be forced to give their lives for others. That should be optional. Furthermore, Con's point about WWII is irrelevant; yes there was a draft, but people also volunteered just as they did after 9/11. Back to Con for now... References: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.usmilitary.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.albionmonitor.com... [5] http://www.democraticunderground.com...