The USFG should abolish the Draft.

Opening StatementsCon says that calling the Draft a form of public enslavement is an exaggerated opinion. In the last round, I've explained that forcing people to fight against their will is indeed a form of slavery. It involves the control of another person and forcible labor. It requires the dismissal of their rights and freedoms. It gives the government the power to disregard an innocent person's right to life and bodily autonomy. That is certainly akin to slavery. My opponent notes that the U.S. does not currently allow Drafting which is irrelevant to this debate. I'm not arguing that the U.S. has the draft, but that it shouldn't. Con challenges the unfairness and inefficient standards of the Draft saying they are neither. That is false. I've argued why the Draft is inherently unfair; it requires the forcible violation of one's most basic rights and freedoms. It disrupts people's livelihoods, can mess up their future and permanently scars them for life (when they survive). Further, the Draft tends to burden poor young males in particular. Researchers from the Department of Economics at the University of Helsinki and the Institute of Social Policy from the University of Hannover have conducted an analysis on military conscription. Their conclusion? "We analyze efficiency and distributional implications of the military draft and other compulsory work services... Even in the absence of its well-understood static inefficiencies, military draft would still be a worse solution for steady-state generations than levying wage taxes to acquire the same labor input in market wages" [1].In other words, according to this research (with well documented facts and mathematical formulas to navigate efficiency outputs), volunteer armies are better and more efficient. The Draft puts the “wrong” people in the military — people who are not interested in a military life, not well equipped for one, or who place a high value on doing something else [2]. Additional research from the University of Vienna and Copenhagen's Business school reiterate these findings. "Relying on forced labor foregoes the benefits of specialization, as well as fails to take into account differences in opportunity costs and comparative advantage. Staffing military or hospitals by unmotivated or underpaid draftees easily results in shirking and considerable loss of potential output" [3]. Former conscripts usually suffer from lower earnings than those exempted from the draft [4]. "The draft forces young people to work for the government, thus postponing their education and entry to the labor market, and shortening their remaining working career. Wage taxes reduce the after-tax return to education, thus also discouraging investment in education. We show that even if the draft were not plagued by inefficient matches between people and jobs, the lack of specialization, or other static inefficiencies it would still be a worse solution for steady-state generations than levying wage taxes to acquire the same labor input in market wages... All future generations would lose" [3]. Con writes that conscription "is agreed by contract to defend your country in the darkest of times" which is problematic. Why should anyone be forced to sign this contract in order to obtain the basic rights of citizenship? That stands contrary to the very principles this country was founded on. Indeed the United States only exists as a direct rejection of our previous government's demands. To suggest we are slaves to the government's demands is tyrannical and firmly stands in opposition to liberty. Furthermore, contracts are not valid if they are signed under coercion. Therefore being forced to sign this contract in exchange for basic rights of citizenship would not be valid under most legal standards. RebuttalsCon says that Rothbard's quote is irrelevant because it was stated in the 1970s. Of course that is nonsensical. Rothbard's quote still directly applies today as the concept is still the same. The quote describes the way conscription extracts labor and forces people to fight to the death vs. being productive within the economy. He mentioned that going to war via Draft is essentially a "lifelong tax" that one has to pay and that it may cause irreparable damage. That would be true in 1973 or 2073. My opponent writes, "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." First, this is nothing but a fallacious bare assertion. Con is stating his opinion here, not proving that it's valid. I vehemently disagree that citizen's lives belong to the state. Second, Con conveniently mentions being attacked on our own soil -- and yet the Draft is not only limited to those instances of direct attack. Even if it were, I would still disagree with the Draft -- however this is manipulative and ignores my argument from the last round. The U.S. can and has employed the Draft even in cases where our safety was NOT legitimately or directly threatened. Con writes "desperate times call for desperate measures" and that is certainly true... which is why people volunteer to fight in wars out of desperation when necessary. But here's why citizens do not inherently owe their lives to the state. One - the state exists to protect our rights (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). This does not require the state to give us anything but rather to protect us. With conscription, the state is not protecting our rights; it's violating our rights. Two - I've explained that we do not have an inherent tie to any particular country. We do not always agree with our government's conflicts (that sometimes put us in harm's way unnecessarily) and therefore should not be forced to participate or perpetuate those endeavors. Three - not all of us are patriotic nationalists. I do not feel an allegiance to the U.S. as I would move anywhere in the world that I could build a happy, healthy life with a good job and family. However, I should not be forced to just because I will not fight on behalf of the state. My opponent mentions a citizenship contract several times. Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a member of a country, and does not (in most cases) require the signing of any contract. I have never signed a contract to become or remain a citizen of the United States and yet I am one. He fabricates the so-called "investment" of citizenship. Moreover, consider the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Over 62% of them were citizens (38% were not allowed to become citizens though they wanted to) and yet their status as citizens did not protect them from having a slew of their civil rights violated. Since hundreds of thousands of people were locked up and enslaved on the basis of their ancestry's nationality, this proves how even citizens do not have inherent ties to one's country. Some Japanese-Americans renounced their citizenship in protest of being held captive like slaves in this instance. The point? We have allegiance to ourselves, our families and our values - not to the state under any and all circumstances. My opponent acknowledges that government cannot be trusted and fabricates or exaggerates reasons to go to war, in order to promote special interests... yet Con believes citizens should be forced to fight and die on behalf of these falsehoods which is completely immoral. Con also states that citizens should be Drafted in the case of facing legitimate military opposition. I've already explained that people who want to protect their livelihood, loved ones, rights and way of life can/should fight in order to do so -- or risk having those things being destroyed. That's why millions of soldiers have chosen to fight voluntarily throughout history. I'd like to note in saying "probably men" should volunteer for the army, I am not saying that men and women should have unequal rights and responsibilities. I'm saying that historically and scientifically, men make better soldiers. However women can, should, and do fight -- in fact there was a significant push to allow women to enlist and serve, even when a Draft was unnecessary, indicating we would not be short on volunteers in the case of a serious need [5].Con suggests that there are no legitimate "rights" which is a problematic claim. If there are no serious rights, then government surely has no right to rule over grown individuals by force and aggression. I'd like to repeat Ayn Rand's quote here: "If the state may force a man to risk death... if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom, then, in principle, ALL rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?" Indeed if the state does not exist to protect one's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then what is the purpose of the state? By that logic, citizens have no rhyme or reason at all to want to protect and uphold the state which does not protect them. ConclusionI've proven that the draft is unfair. I've proven that the draft is inefficient. I've provided alternatives: volunteer armies funded through taxes (and more military pay = more, better volunteers) which both economists and military personnel agree is better for the market, society, and the individual soldier's safety and well-being.[1] http://www.sopo.uni-hannover.de...[2] http://freakonomics.com...[3] http://ftp.iza.org...[4] Angrist, J.D. (1990). Lifetime Earnings and the Vietnam Era Draft Lottery: Evidence from Social Security Administration Records. American Economic Review 80: 313 – 335.[5] http://www.infoplease.com...