Resolved: Military Conscription is Unjust.

Here is the final "draft" of my first argument... INTRODUCTION In 1979, President Ronald Reagan wrote that military conscription "rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state – not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers – to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea." Because the Nazis were wrong, I espouse the conviction of Mr. Reagan, and the resolution, which states: RESOLVED: MILITARY CONSCRIPTION IS UNJUST But before we get started, DEFINITIONS: MILITARY CONSCRIPTION: compulsory enrollment of persons for military or naval service; draft (www.Wikipedia.org) UNJUST: marked by a lack of justice. Since justice is "righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness" according to www.Dictionary.com, injustice (the state of being unjust) must therefore be "unrighteousness, inequitableness, or moral wrongness" RESOLUTION ANALYSIS: 1. The question today is of justice - whether military conscription is just or unjust. Proofs about its effectiveness, necessity, or other unrelated factors shall therefore not affect the debate. Genocide, for example, would be effective in eliminating racism, because there would be no one to be racist against, but it would not be just. 2. Most of my cites come from http://www.counterpunch.org.... If you can't find anything here, I will be happy to locate it for you. 3. As the most applicable example, the United States will be referenced very often in this debate. However, the injustice of military conscription extends to all nations and all peoples, and the principles described here would apply equally halfway around the world. CONTENTION I: LOCKE'S SOCIAL CONTRACT SUPPORTS NATURAL RIGHTS A. Natural rights are the basis of American ideals. The American system is founded on the basis of natural rights: those rights given, not by government, but by the very nature of justice (or God; take your pick – regardless they are sacred). Among the most famous are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as they are described in the Declaration of Independence. The protection of these rights is vital to any governmental system. If a government would deprive its citizens of life (genocide or simply mass murder), liberty (slavery or oppression), or the pursuit of happiness (severe constraints on business, as defined by Butcher's Co. v. Crescent City Co. in 1884), it would be condemned by both the international community and by everyday citizens who are aware of these rights. B. Locke's Social Contract upholds natural rights. John Locke's Social Contract, the basis of American government, declared that it was the government's duty to protect the "life, liberty, and property (analogous to the pursuit of happiness)" provided they do not infringe on the same rights of others. Only a government which upholds these criteria, in Locke's view, is a legitimate ruling system. C. Locke's Social Contract is just. Locke's Social Contract, when obeyed, preserves the integrity of these natural rights. Because these rights are natural rights, the government has no jurisdiction to take them away unless other natural rights are threatened. This type of system preserves natural rights and therefore is just. CONTENTION II: MILITARY CONSCRIPTION IS UNJUST A. Military conscription violates natural rights. Military conscription is a blatant violation of natural rights. The government forces military service upon unwilling citizens. These citizens' lives are endangered, their liberty confiscated, and their pursuit of happiness tossed to the four winds. It is the ultimate form of dehumanization: all the rights of a sentient being are confiscated by its "benevolent" overseer. Natural rights, not given by government, can therefore not be taken away by government without violating justice. B. Military conscription threatens national security. The negative will most likely make a point about national security, and the possible necessity of a draft. But military conscription not only does not improve national security, but it threatens it. One only has to look at the Vietnam War, the most famous U.S. draft example. After the draft was enacted in 1965, not only were there rebellions across the country that threatened domestic tranquility, but also the resulting military force failed to achieve its objective: winning the war in Vietnam. But it's no wonder it didn't work. Everybody's favorite Texan Representative, Ron Paul, once quipped, "A draft weakens the military by introducing tensions and rivalries between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been conscripted. This undermines the cohesiveness of military units, which is a vital element of military effectiveness. Conscripts also are unlikely to choose the military as a career; thus, a draft will do little to address problems with retention. With today's high-tech military, retention is the most important personnel issue and it seems counter-productive to adopt any policy that will not address this important issue." C. Military conscription is a violation of Locke's Social Contract, and therefore, unjust. All the natural rights of Americans are tossed aside like trifles in a system of military conscription. Natural rights are supplanted with danger and deprivation; democracy with despotism. With all of these rights taken away, the only "benefit" is a larger military force – but even this does not increase security, and has not in the past. In fact, it is counterproductive to the duties of the military. The enactment of conscription, drafts, or any other compulsory service mechanism is a direct and blatant violation of Locke's Social Contract. And when a government violates its commitment to its own citizens, that government has lost all authority and legitimacy. CONCLUSION: Great orator Daniel Webster once said: "Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government." Word.