Under some circumstances rights violations must be evaluated on their merits, rather than rejected a priori on conventional libertarian natural rights grounds. I have made my point in terms of a hypothetical situation in order to confine the argument to the question of principle and avoid the disputes about facts which the discussion of any particular real world situation involves. It is claimed that only a draft can protect us. Two replies are possible. The first is that even if it is true, coercion is always wrong, hence we should reject the draft.
Temporary slavery is, after all, better than permanent slavery.
The other possible reply is to deny that the draft is necessary. This can be done in many ways. But the question I am currently concerned with is not whether under present circumstances, or even under likely circumstances, a draft is desirable. The question is whether under any conceivable circumstances it could be. The answer I am afraid is yes.