# Bringing back the draft **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 30, 2002, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664 "2002-12-30T12:34:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/61 "2003-01-03T00:57:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > > 1. There are probably too many government employees as is without forcing another 20 million into bullshit jobs they don’t want to do. Since 1986, federal civilian employment (not counting Postal employees) has **declined** from 3.022 million to 2.710 million in 2001. Source: [http://www.opm.gov](http://www.opm.gov) The federal civilian payroll (including Postal employees) **increased** from $97.3 billion in FY1986 to $193.7 billion in FY2001. Source: [http://www.opm.gov](http://www.opm.gov) Since 1990, the total US population **increased** from 253,451,585 to 286,196,812 in 2000. Source: [http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004997.html](http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004997.html) The federal budget has jumped from $946 billion in FY1985 to a projected **$2.1 trillion for FY2003**. Source: [http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/maindown.html](http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/maindown.html) The real problem is not with federal employees, doing more and more work with fewer coworkers, but the President and Congress spending more and more with pet projects and pork barrelling, and diverting funding. Granted, there are federal employees on a gravy train. I have a workload which should be done by four employees. For FY2003, my workload will increase to that of ten employees. (My agency has been cut 52 percent between FY1991 and FY2001, and Bush wants an _additional_ 20 percent cut for FY2003.) Many things are not gonna get done, including Congressionally mandated requirements. _You_ will suffer as a result, especially your children as they grow up. My inbox is always full, and although I enjoy what I do, I resent being placed in the same bad apples basket with those who do not have the work ethic I do. ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/62 "2003-01-03T01:23:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Baskil \* > **You call bullshit? Why else would they offer those deals? The government does not play thankful sympathizer. It may not be the only reason that people enlist, but to think that the main reason people enlist now is to defend their country is delusional. Most of them try to either learn discipline, stay out of trouble, get a degree, learn a tradeskill, or a combination of those. Hell, I’d imagine that even with officers, the primary reason for joining the armed forces has nothing to do with national security. That percentage may have increased since 9/11, but I’m damn sure it’s not the main reason.** > > Provide me any kind of cite that says that people entering the military are there expressly to dodge any kind of combat while learning a trade, learning discipline, etc. Contrary to what you believe, I think that people entering the military know full well what may be expected of them. Whether they’re a cook, a clerk, an MP or an engineer, they all know that the military is where the bullets fly. > > \*\*I call _fascism_. (Corrected italics) The idea of being forced to earn your rights is institutionalized indentured servitude, which is exactly what the 13th amendment tries to prevent in this country. But then again, under your system, they wouldn’t have that right until they’re already through that system. \*\* _Forced to earn your rights?_ Again, contrary to your beliefs, rights are not granted. They are _earned_. And the “institutionalized indentured servitude” argument falls flat because the people in the military are _paid._ They’re also fed, clothed and housed. It is by _no_ means indentured servitude. It doesn’t have to be military service. As I said before, there are many, many other kinds of service one could perform. Ask yourself this: Who (or what) gives you the right to vote? Just because you were born in a certain country and have attained a certain age? At present…yes, it does. But why does that make you qualified? Because people fought and died for the idea. “Taxation without representation” and all. To rest on the laurels of those that fought, and sometimes died, and not wish to _do your own part_ to maintain the security and rights you enjoy seems rather cowardly to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/63 "2003-01-03T01:42:25Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Rysdad_ > **Ask yourself this: Who (or what) gives you the right to vote?** Being responsible for following the laws gives us the right to have a say in the making of those laws. Our government derives its legitimacy from the people; we are citizens, not subjects. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/64 "2003-01-03T03:31:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysdad \* > _Forced to earn your rights?_ Again, contrary to your beliefs, rights are not granted. They are _earned_. Ummm, no. On both counts. Under the Constitution, rights are inherent, meaning they already exist within each individual. The Constitution places _limits upon the government_ as to what it can do to restrict those inherent rights. This has been discussed before in other threads. Under Article I, Section 8., Congress has the authority, “To raise and support Armies, …” Typically that can mean a military draft. > [@](#): > > The constitutions adopted during the Revolutionary War by at least nine of the States sanctioned compulsory military service. Towards the end of the War of 1812, conscription of men for the army was proposed by James Monroe, then Secretary of War, but opposition developed and peace came before the bill could be enacted. In 1863, a compulsory draft law was adopted and put into operation without being challenged in the federal courts. Not so the Selective Service Act of 1917. This measure was attacked on the grounds that it tended to deprive the States of the right to ‘‘a well-regulated militia,’’ that the only power of Congress to exact compulsory service was the power to provide for calling forth the militia for the three purposes specified in the Constitu tion, which did not comprehend service abroad, and finally that the compulsory draft imposed involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court rejected all of these contentions. It held that the powers of the States with respect to the militia were exercised in subordination to the paramount power of the National Government to raise and support armies, and that the power of Congress to mobilize an army was distinct from its authority to provide for calling the militia and was not qualified or in any wise limited thereby. > > Before the United States entered the first World War, the Court had anticipated the objection that compulsory military service would violate the Thirteenth Amendment and had answered it in the following words: ‘‘It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the State, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.’’ Accordingly, in the Selective Draft Law Cases, it dismissed the objection under that amendment as a contention that was ‘‘refuted by its mere statement.’’ > > Although the Supreme Court has so far formally declined to pass on the question of the ‘‘peacetime’’ draft, its opinions leave no doubt of the constitutional validity of the act. In United States v. O’Brien, upholding a statute prohibiting the destruction of selective service registrants’ certificate of registration, the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Warren, thought ‘’[t]he power of Congress to classify and conscript manpower for military service is ‘beyond question.’’’ In noting Congress’ ‘‘broad constitutional power’’ to raise and regulate armies and navies, the Court has specifically observed that the conscription act was passed ‘‘pursuant to’’ the grant of authority to Congress in clauses 12-14. Source: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/41.html#11](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/41.html#11) ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/65 "2003-01-03T04:18:41Z")
OK…all well and good. The Constitution says rights are inherent, and they are…_as long as the Constitution is in effect._ Without a military, I wonder how long those rights would be “inherent.” Only as long as the next government decided how inherent they are. Even the Constitution wouldn’t exist without those that fought to make it the law of the land. Why is it that people expect something for nothing? Why don’t those same people feel some kind of obligation to the country that guarantees them the liberties and freedoms they enjoy? Whatever. I didn’t expect alot of support on that proposal of mine. I just feel better that I did my part. ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/66 "2003-01-03T04:20:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*Being responsible for following the laws gives us the right to have a say in the making of those laws. \*\* That doesn’t scan. Legal aliens can follow every law to the letter, and they don’t have the right to vote. ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/67 "2003-01-03T11:29:04Z")
Chanticleer i will not argue with you because quite frankly i do not think i could possibly learn anything from such a debate. ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/68 "2003-01-03T12:42:35Z")
soldiers do deserve much respect for volunteering. if you make service mandatory those who would have volunteered anyway will lose much of the respect they deserve. at the same time others, who now deserve their respect for being excellent students, engineers etc… will also lose their respect when they become hopelessly-average soldiers. only the worthless scum can possibly gain any respect in this mandatory scheme, i guess this is why chantecleer likes it. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/69 "2003-01-03T13:07:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysdad \* > \*\*That doesn’t scan. Legal aliens can follow every law to the letter, and they don’t have the right to vote. \*\* Aliens, legal or illegal, do not have the same responsibilities as US citizens (such as registering for Selective Service or serving on a jury [?]), therefore they don’t get all the rights. Similar logic can be used to justify the disenfranchisement of minors. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/70 "2003-01-03T13:10:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vasyachkin \* > \*\*…only the worthless scum can possibly gain any respect in this mandatory scheme, i guess this is why chantecleer likes it. \*\* Enough with the drama. France has conscription, (Though I believe they are in the midst of a 6yr. plan to phase out conscription.) Germany uses conscription. Italy has conscription, although they as well are phasing it out. I don’t think that the above nations (and others) are chock full of ‘worthless scum’. ‘National Service’ or conscription is nothing more then a way of keeping the armed forces staffed at a level deemed neccesary by the government. While I am not too thrilled by the concept of introducing the draft today (maybe in the future, if the quality of our armed forces declines), I hardly think that ‘worthless scum’ will gain any respect if implemented. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/71 "2003-01-03T13:19:46Z")
This morning Congressman Rangel conceded on NPR that his bill probably wouldn’t garner much support; however, he never thought that it would and has floated the balloon to get a natioanl debate going on the US’s policy re: war (and the threat of war) as a foreign policy tool. His point: Only one member of Congress has a son that is serving as an enlisted man in the armed services. Perhaps some thought should be given as to why that is, and whether the mothers and fathers of those who are serving are as eager to use force as the 400+ members of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/72 "2003-01-03T13:25:17Z")
“A volunteer soldier chooses his path because he is willing to put the needs of his country ahead of his own without expecting anything in return.” I’ve had several friends from college enlist and the very last thing on their minds was “service to country.” Instead, they were looking for the benefits associated with the GI Bill and an opportunity to see some of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Chanticleer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/65b543/32.png) [@Chanticleer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chanticleer)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/73 "2003-01-03T13:41:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vasyachkin \* > \*\*Chanticleer i will not argue with you because quite frankly i do not think i could possibly learn anything from such a debate. \*\* I agree, I doubt that you could. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/74 "2003-01-03T15:19:58Z")
Freedom ain’t free. Those unwilling to risk life and limb in times of need should not enjoy the fruits of freedom in times of peace. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/75 "2003-01-03T17:57:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysdad \* > OK…all well and good. The Constitution says rights are inherent, and they are…_as long as the Constitution is in effect._ Without a military, I wonder how long those rights would be “inherent.” Only as long as the next government decided how inherent they are. No, our rights are not defined by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is an expression of what the founding fathers believed were the rights that all people were inherently entitled to all people (well, all white landowners, but that’s a diferent debate). You people fight for a piece of paper or do they fight for the freedoms that are spelled out on that paper? Someone obviously believed those rights existed before they were written down. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysdad \* > Why is it that people expect something for nothing? Why don’t those same people feel some kind of obligation to the country that guarantees them the liberties and freedoms they enjoy? Someone mentioned something about for every line soldier there is something like 10 other soldiers in supporting roles. There are also probably another 1000 civilians behind him fueling the economy that keeps him supplied and armed. You mentioned that alternatives to military service were acceptible. Why is a person forced to dust off headstones at Arlington against his will providing more of a service to his country than the guy who puts in 40 hours a week making Blackhawks at the Sikorsky factory or the guys at the deli down the street where he eats his lunch? The best way to serve this country is for everyone to do their part to keep the economy and the military strong. Conscripting tens of millions to create a bloated military and work on token public service projects means tens of millions of people not working on the thing they trained to do. I don’t see that benefits anyone. Why not just make service mandatory for everyone, for life and call it Communism? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysdad \* > Whatever. I didn’t expect alot of support on that proposal of mine. I just feel better that I did my part. \*\* That’s because your idea does not make sense. If you truly believe in freedom then you would allow people the choice to fight for that freedom. If no one is willing to fight then they deserve the consequences. We don’t live in a society run by warlords where only those who fight for the warlord have the rights. ---
**Author:** ![Baskil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@Baskil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baskil)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/76 "2003-01-03T18:32:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysdad \* > \*\*_Forced to earn your rights?_ Again, contrary to your beliefs, rights are not granted. They are _earned_. And the “institutionalized indentured servitude” argument falls flat because the people in the military are _paid._ They’re also fed, clothed and housed. It is by _no_ means indentured servitude. > \*\* I would ask you to look up the [history of indentured servitude.](http://www.stratfordhall.org/ed-servants.htm) Tell me again that it falls flat. And about the rights earned vs granted, I would refer you to one of our founders: “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/77 "2003-01-03T18:49:10Z")
**aahala**"Freedom ain’t free. Those unwilling to risk life and limb in times of need should not enjoy the fruits of freedom in times of peace." Nice blurb but some might disagree on what a “time of need” is. Signing up because my country is about to be invaded is one thing, it’s quite another to sign up to invade Afghanistan. BTW, how do you propose we revoke those fruits of freedom? ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/78 "2003-01-04T03:11:02Z")
Let me clear something up… I said that I’d like to make some kind of national service a prerequisite _to being able to vote._ You don’t want to contribute? Fine. But you also don’t get a voice in how the country is run, how it spends it’s money, nor who gets to be dog catcher. You don’t _have_ to serve, but you don’t get to vote if you don’t. All the jobs mentioned above by **Msmith537** could just as well be done as a part of national service if it was deemed that those jobs were an appropriate utilization of that person’s abilities. The deli guy could work at the PX on base. The Sikorsky mechanic could maintain Blackhawks at a local Army Reserve station. The two years of service could conceivably provide lots of young people with a useful skill they wouldn’t get otherwise–thereby making them more valuable in the job market. What’s more…someone who had “done their time” would more than likely take a more serious interest --and therefore much more likely to directly participate-- in the electoral process. Furthermore, people would still be able to volunteer for military service. Of course, they’d be welcome, and _they_, the volunteers, would probably be the ones in the actual combat arms. The “worthless scum” mentioned by **vasyachkin** probably wouldn’t be suitable for combat, anyway–and no-one would want them there. C’est la vie. (C’est la guerre?) It ain’t gonna happen…but I’d support it if it did. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/79 "2003-01-04T03:27:06Z")
—I thought the anti-draft movement was one of the defining issues of the modern democratic party?— And conservative economists. —‘National Service’ or conscription is nothing more then a way of keeping the armed forces staffed at a level deemed neccesary by the government.— What if the government deems that the level just keeps getting higher and higher? Military bases, national service projects, and so on, are great pork, and having large portions of society forced live their lives under government authority is great for the government in general. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664/80 "2003-01-04T21:53:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysdad \* > I said that I’d like to make some kind of national service a prerequisite _to being able to vote._ > > You don’t want to contribute? Fine. But you also don’t get a voice in how the country is run, how it spends it’s money, nor who gets to be dog catcher. Then why should I be subject to its laws? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysdad \* > All the jobs mentioned above by **Msmith537** could just as well be done as a part of national service if it was deemed that those jobs were an appropriate utilization of that person’s abilities. The deli guy could work at the PX on base. The Sikorsky mechanic could maintain Blackhawks at a local Army Reserve station. I fail to see how any of this is usefull or how it would solve a single problem in the US. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bringing-back-the-draft/145664.md?page=5)