Resolved: Military Conscription is Unjust

First, i shall start out with addressing my opponents arguments: "Conscription in and of itself violates both principles. " Not so. Regarding the first principle presented by Rawls, the most important reason for conscription is to protect such basic liberties from being violated by other countries. If a dictator decides to wage war on a democratic country, conscription exists to help defend such rights from others. Conscription is the last refuge of protection against such an opponent, and i agree, is something of a last option. However, if Rawls is truly correct, and the first principle of Justice is to protect the rights and basic liberties of those under the justice system, then you must decide: Conscription followed by the protection of the liberties and rights by protecting the country, or no conscription, and having the enemy violate such liberties and rights after the enemy conquers your country? Regarding the second principle, although basically the same as the first, is also not contradicting conscription. If it is a decision between Conscription and the subsequent protection of the ability to posses Equal opportunities, and no conscription, with the removal and denial of such equal opportunities, which is the better option? Now this debate really gets interesting: "in all reality you aren't gaining anything. You are merely setting out to secure what should and may already be in place. " Tell that to Pol Pot That was a joke, but anyways, its true. The fact that equality and liberties SHOULD exist, or DO exist, has nothing to do with the fact that in many places, it DOESNT exist, and, if given the opportunity for, say, Pol Pot to come in and take over the USA, the basic equalities and liberties will NOT exist anymore. And this is the point. Conscription is not about GAINING anything, but rather, PROTECTING it. You wont GAIN anything if Pol Pot comes in and becomes the new Dictator of the USA. However, you will LOSE many things. "The key role of government is to uphold the principles of justice towards its citizens. " . .. Among other things, like protecting such principles of justice from outside sources. "If the people feel the war is necessary, and the government is legitimate, it will have no problem enlisting enough volunteers to fight in a war. " Again, this is the point about conscription. Take World War 2 for example. The USA produced its military conscription draft during the 1940s. First off, i would like to ask my opponent to answer me this question: Was the cause for WW2, just, and if so, why was a drafting procedure necessary to procure more than 10 million men during 1940 and 1947 into the military? "not to subjugating its people in order to protect themselves. " Not so. If, by "Protect themselves", my opponent means "Protect the people", then yes, i agree. Because that is what the government exists for. "you can't assume that the people have given the government consent to be conscripted. " Actually, no. Take the USA for example. The "Selective Service System", the official name for Conscription draft, still exists as a contingency plan within the government. Where is the opposition? Where are the uprisings against such "violations of Justice", as my opponent has put it? "Contention 1. Conscription immensely hinders the economy. " This is the same as saying that being born into a rich family, increases the amount of earnings on average than being born into a poor family. This has nothing to do with the fact that being rich, or being born in a rich family, is unjust. Apart from the fact that i do not understand how you could compare men who served in the National service, to those who were not apart of conscription, as the national service is not a conscription service, since my opponent has not provided a source, i cannot comment any further. "Contention 2. Conscription upholds communist ideals. " First of all, Collectivism and Conscription, is as similar as the justice system and Collectivism. That is, Everyone must abide by the justice system, with no exception. Does this mean that the Justice system is collectivism? Of course not. Not every system that is subjegated to almost all its citizens, is collectivism. Furthermore, this isnt even the case with Conscription, as conscription always entails specific regulations which constrict who is drafted into the miliary. Usually, men between the ages of 18 and 25. Secondly, sure, the definition of Conscription alone, is not enough to constrict the governments actions. However, so is the definition of Justice, so ambiguous, that it could mean anything from vigilantism to our current justice system. This is why it is always absurd to claim that the definition alone is all we have to go on, because it isnt, as clearly seen by the US Draft laws, South Korean draft laws, etc. "Contention 3. You are shooting yourself in the foot with conscription. " Subpoint A: Yes there is a check on authority. If the president of the USA, suddenly decided to become a dictator, or president for life, what do you think would happen? Do you seriously think that it would just happen? That congress would simply let it happen? There are always laws in place to prevent such things from occuring. It is stupid to think that every congressman is corrupt. Or does my opponent hold the skeptical view that no man in government is without a conscious? Subpoint B: Yes, it is. This is exactly why the government exists. My opponent has made an absurd accusation, that conscription entitles every man, woman, child, baby and old person into the army. This is not so. And to prove my point, i would like for my opponent to cite a single country that has the same basic liberties and rights as, say, the USA(As my opponent has cited Rowls) which has enlisted a mandatory Conscription service, in any time during its history to which the liberties and rights were implimented, and which have drafted every eldest man to the youngest child. Thank you. Furthermore, Compulsion is defined as "Required by rule". However, this does not say ANYTHING about the length of time. Therefore, it is absurd, again as i have stated with the definition of Justice, for example, that conscription will last for an infinite amount of time. This is why the Government exists, and this is why the rules exist. "conscription can be considered nothing but an injustice first because there are no limits to what the government can and can't do, and most importantly because conscription blatantly violates the principles of justice, conscription can be considered nothing but an injustice. .. .. .. .. .. As Martin Luther King Jr. would put it,"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. " and it is for these reasons why I respectfully urge a ballot in affirmation. " Congratulations. Words like "Freedom" or "justice", come with no definition that restricts how far Freedoms should go, how far Justice should be implimented. Yet, we dont simply allow the fact that every citizen deserves freedom, allow every citizen to hold Nuclear material, or Tanks, or shoot anyone they wish. These definitions alone are always useless. It is the Government, the leadership, that always place restrictions on such definitions. As for justice, remember this saying: "Justice has a price, the price is freedom". We always give up a few freedoms in order to keep the Justice in our world. But the most important aspect, which is protecting the RIGHT to have justice, sometimes require a certain violation of freedoms. And we violate it all the time. Imprisonment, Execution, confinement. These are all Violations of ones freedoms. Yet, regardless, these are necessary to protect the RIGHTS of people to have JUSTICE in the first place.