Does a Draft Contradict the Principles of a Free Society by Forcing People to Fight for Freedom?

Question

"loretta" JFK also said...
People have not been horrified by war to a sufficient extent.War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.

Answer 1

Big Brother,

You ask a question that is both important and provocative (as all truly great questions are). And unfortunately, the answers you've received thus far are not very well thought out. They're just so much "Yahoo Vapor" being released into cyberspace. Please, let me attempt a full, measured response to your excellent question.

Before answering, I checked out your answers page, and from the "About Me" section I gleaned that your political leanings run to the "Libertarian" side of the spectrum. From that point of view, the idea of conscription represents the worst sort of abuse. With great respect to the sincerity of your position, I disagree.

Libertarianism is a philosophical offshoot of Classical Liberalism, which itself is based on a "Contract Theory" notion of the origins of societies. Nations are formed by the consent of the governed; and this agreement is formalized in a Constitution. Well and good.

The problem with Libertariansim (in my opinion) is that it begins and ends with the "contract," while for Classical Liberalism, this is merely the starting point. The heart of this difference is revealed in the answer to a single important question: "What is the ultimate nature of society?"

Classical Liberals will answer that society is organic, while Libertarians argue that it is mechanistic (i.e. the "machine" of the contract). For Libertarians, the only thing that is non-negotiably real is the inherent, intrinsic, everlasting value of individual liberty. If you like, the "Summum Bonum" and "Totum Bonum" are one -- the individual.

I reject this notion on both philosophical and practical grounds. Philosophically, the ideals of Libertarianism are unbalanced -- disproportionately skewed on the side of the individual. Because my view of society is organic, I must regard society in the same way I view a living organism -- as a synergism -- the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

When the body is threatened, it sends out anti-bodies to destroy the invading organisms. Imagine if the anti-bodies said, "No. I have other plans, and this gets in the way of my inalienable right to pursue them." The body dies, and with the death of the body comes the death of the anti-bodies as well. Why, because each and every one of us in bound-up together. It's unrealistic to view society as a series of individually negotiated contractual obligations. No, the poet John Donne was far more accurate...

No man is an island, entire of itself.
Every man is piece of the continent,
a part of the main...

An organic understanding of society requires us to acknowledge that we aren't a series of free floating atoms. We are all interconnected, just as the cells of the body are interconnected.
An enlightened approach to society requires us to understand that we owe each other a positive response (which is far superior to the response of the Libertarian whose basic response is merely neutral -- "Stay out of my way, and I'll stay out of yours"). I maintain that an organic view of mutual interconnectedness is morally superior.

On a practical, empirical level, the triumph of this interconnected view has led to the growth of the West, and the betterment of each and all in society. Consider the impact of free education. The beneficiaries of that are children who themselves cannot pay. Libertarians (particularly those without children) often lament about the unfairness of being forcibly taxed to maintain institutions they don't use. But that's a narrow and short-sighted view of things.

The child who is being educated in that school may one day find the cure to a disease that is killing you, or someone you love. Moreover, the failure of that system may ultimately lead to a youngster who loses hope, take to crime, and kills you on the street for your wallet. Empirically, you cannot escape it; the fate of that child you don't know, is inextricably bound up in yours. That fact that you can't always see the connection doesn't mean the connection isn't there.

You yourself are the beneficiary of the sacrifices of countless millions who didn't know you, and yet who sacrificed everything that you might live. Don't you think you owe them something? Don't you feel a connection to them in some intrinsic way that goes way beyond the confines of a contract?

It's not just about liberty -- it's also about equality. And the good society must continually strive to balance these competing claims. Just as the body must balance the seeming contradiction of anabolic and catabolic biological forces, so must the organic society.

The paradox of struggling with these two forces is that they make competing and mutually valid claims. But if we are to achieve balance, we must recognize that for society to live, people must make many sacrifices (thus placing the needs of the many above the interests of the few); and for society achieve its goals, it must often liberate the creative forces of the individual so that invention and expression are maximized (thus placing the needs of the individual above and outside the constraints of the many).

It's a neverending struggle between these two forces. But the one thing of which I'm certain is that the moral value of a society is a direct measure of the extent to which society as a whole is willing to consider the plight of the least and most defenseless elements of society -- at the expense of the individual; and that the virtue and quality of society is a direct measure of unleashing the dynamo of individual creative genius -- often at the expense of the whole.

We need both -- and we must strive relentlessly to achieve the balance between the two. And how does this relate to the draft? Society has the right to defend itself. As a member of society, you enjoy its benefits, and thus are obliged to bear its collective burdens. In a just society there can be no "right" without a countervailing "responsibility." For to discuss rights without responsibilities is no longer to discuss "liberty" but "licentiousness." And licentiousness is antithetical to the ends of liberty.

If you accept that rights go hand in hand with responsibilities, then, does it not also follow that if an individual is not willing to accept those responsibilites voluntarily that society has a right to compel acceptance -- for its own survival's sake? I would argue that it does. For if society goes down, then so also does every individual in it. It is illogical to assume that the defense of the whole can be held hostage to the desires of the individual. Thus, so long as a draft is determined to be necessary by individuals who wield power with the consent of the governed (and who must return once again to the governed for validation of the decisions they make) I see no problem with conscription.

Does that mean the US should have one now? I don't think so. This is just a political ploy on the part of Mr. Rangel, and it has Zero Percent popularity within the Democratic leadership or the base of Democrat constitutents.

Be that as it may, the right of society to compel for sake of its defense is a principle I hold as axiomatic. Compelling people to fight for liberty is no more a contradiction than saying, responsibilities underscore rights.

Thanks for asking a wonderful question. Hope this answer helps.

Answer 2

Nope. We are able to live in a free society only because we fight to keep it and maintain that freedom. A draft is simply a tool to ensure that the mechanisms for our democratic-republic are kept in good order.

Answer 3

Yes.

We need to keep the volunteer army. We do not want soldiers fighting who do not want to be there.

We would not need a draft if we fought to win in Iraq. No more PC wars.

Answer 4

It seems to me that people who are truly opposed to war are able to get a special consideration to be excused from the draft. I know that Muhammed Ali did that during the Vietnam mess, and the Amish are not drafted.

Answer 5

No sir, I do not believe it does. After all is said and done, you cannot buy freedom at K Mart, someone has to serve and sacrifice so others may enjoy it.

Answer 6

It's just pragmatism. You can't have a free society without an army. Without an army, someone will invade you and take over and then you won't be free. With all things, there are trade offs.

Answer 7

In a manner of speaking it does, however forcing some one to fight for liberty is sort of oxymorinac.

Answer 8

If they loved that freedom, why would they not want to fight for it? Hate to revert to clicheland, but anything worth having is worth fighting for.

Answer 9

Nope. People got to fight for freedom if freedom is under attack.

Answer 10

it doesn't contradict anything ....... IF THE DRAFT IS IMPLEMENT FOR THE SECURITY AND FREEDOM OF THE COUNTRY

does the war in IRAQ falls under this criteria? if it's implemented "WHOSE FREEDOM ARE WE FIGHTING FOR" may i ask? did the iraqi asked for this war?

the us invasion turned iraq into a recruitment ground for terrorists. what are these us soldiers dying for? THEY DIES SO AS TO CREATE MORE TERRORISM IN THIS WORLD.

people, GO, if your country wants you to fight in agfhanistan ........ RUN TO CANADA ........ if THAT MORON WANT YOU TO DIE FOR HIM