• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does a Country have the right to the draft during a time of war.

Draft?

  • Total voters
    85

cpgrad08

American
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
5,688
Reaction score
3,032
Location
WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This came up in another thread. Do you believe that a country was the right to draft it's citizens into it's armed forces during a time of war.

I personally believed that it does if that country is going to survive.


Added in:

In regards to the United States I'm talking about an official declaration of war being declared.
 
Last edited:
cpgrad08 said:
This came up in another thread. Do you believe that a country was the right to draft it's citizens into it's armed forces during a time of war.

I personally believed that is does if that country is going to survive.
Click to expand...

Only if it's a legal war having gone through all the constitutionally mandated steps.
 
Hell, I think some mandatory form of military/public/government service for a year would be great for the UK, and probably every other nation.
 
Well that is an interesting concept as it argues that the state has rights. What if the draft is for something like the war in Iraq or any other number of military adventures that don't actually increase the security of the country? Are drafts OK then? As an anarchist, I say no, the state does not have the right to force me into its armed forces.
 
Do you have a right to force people to fight for you? Yes or no? Why would it be any different for the government?
 
cpgrad08 said:
This came up in another thread. Do you believe that a country was the right to draft it's citizens into it's armed forces during a time of war.

I personally believed that it does if that country is going to survive.
Click to expand...

Generally I oppose conscription and mandatory service. Sovereignty of our own bodies should be a founding pillar of our conception of civil rights, I can't think of many rights that are more crucial. However under certain circumstances I'm willing to play the hypocrite and acknowledge that I'm being one. I'm willing to embrace a violation of your rights in the pursuit of a specific utilitarian goal--namely the preservation of the country that I live and prosper in and to accelerate the end of existential conflicts that challenge it. Conscription should be one of the gravest and little used powers a democracy exercises. I'm completely opposed to its casual use as a means of inculcating 'civic virtue'.
 
Governments don't have rights against their people. They have powers.

But mustering -- or drafting -- in defense of the nation is surely a legitimate power.

Of course, one of the few things I agreed with Eugene V. Debs on was that the 13th Amendment took that power away from the US government.

It says:


It differentiated involuntary servitude, which drafted military service is, from slavery, and it carved out one, that is, ONE exception to involuntary servitude, and that was as punishment for crime after due conviction. It did not exempt military service from the prohibition.

Some argue that the power to draft comes from the militia clauses of Article I, which I wouldn't really dispute, but that doesn't matter -- the 13th Amendment is sweeping, broad, and would supersede any previous clause.
 
cpgrad08 said:
This came up in another thread. Do you believe that a country was the right to draft it's citizens into it's armed forces during a time of war.

I personally believed that is does if that country is going to survive.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine why not. It'd probably be tough to pass in Congress, but if our country were threatened and that was really the only way? It'd happen. I rather doubt it will ever again be necessary. I think our technology has done away with the need for bodies. *shrug*

Iraq 4,487 deaths
Afghanistan 2,000 deaths
Viet Nam 53,000

Peak deployment Afghanistan and Iraq: 188,000
Peak deployment Viet Nam: 543,000
 
I don't like the idea, but i accept that it is sometimes necessary. When the freedom and protection of the country as a whole depends on the numbers defending it, then in the name of its people and their continued safety, drafting could be considered ok
 
I think we should all have skin in the game, so I am all for the draft. I think it would stop the silly wars.

But on the other side. When I went in the service there were still many around who remembered the draft and hated it. Said people who were drafted were **** birds, a common Marine Corps term for not very high functioning military personnel. I dont believe Marines were ever drafted, but the old guys around here probably know more. Not mentioning any names...you know who you are.
 

You can be drafted in the Marines. As with any branch of service.
 
Draft?
They don't need any draft.
They can just keep it a choice, and if you do not choose to participate, just tax you into oblivion until you do serve.
 
Henrin said:
Do you have a right to force people to fight for you? Yes or no? Why would it be any different for the government?
Click to expand...


I'll be the first to admit, I'm not exactly sure what an "anarchist" is besides the stereotype person who wants absolutely no form of government. That being said, I don't think those types of wars would qualify for the need of a draft. It's only in a situation where the nation's survival is at stake, would a draft be warranted, and necessary.


I think that is a very good point. Having such a large active military is like having a shiny toy in front of a small child. You keep it around him long enough, he's bound to pick it up and play with it.
 

If you want, I can shoot you some info in a PM which explains anarchism more throughly. It's much more than just anti-statism.
 

Why not, they now mandate that you have insurance, people that are for that better not be against this
 
If that's part of the social contract then absolutely they do. If you choose to be part of a culture where that's the expectation then you also opt in to follow the rules and laws of that nation. I'm continually surprised at people who can't get that through their heads.
 




As I mentioned, I find the draft dubious, morally politically and so on.


Only in the most extreme of circumstances, such as WW2, would I consider it justified as "the lesser of two evils".
 
Nope, conscription is wrong. I'd think it permissible if the country was being invaded, but for an offensive war it shouldn't happen.
 

By definition, a contract has to be an agreement, and since there is no agreement between those that make up society there can therefore be no contract between them. Since people do not choose to be conceived or born and are offered no chance to offer their agreement there is at no point in time a contract agreed upon. You would think the notion of their being a social contract would die out over the ages, but apparently it has done nothing but grow stronger. Strange really.
 

I say yes it does. But only if another country has directly attacked ours and didn't purposely stick any ships,troops,aircraft and etc into a ongoing war zone where it would be bombed in order to intentionally pull ourselves into the war. It should never be in defense of an ally.I think many of the past wars we were unnecessarily involved.
 
Last edited:

Doesn't the Judiciary also weigh the intent of an amendment or constitutional clause as well as it's textual literalism? Considering that we maintained a conscripted military and continued to draft troops after the amendment was passed during the Civil War it seems that this was hardly the intent of Congress.
 

Countries basically have the "right" to do whatever they wish to do, provided the citizens are willing to accept it. America is different in that it is not allowed to do whatever it wishes to do if its wishes go against constitutional protections. That said, America had conscription and the draft for decades, I dare say generations, so clearly it has the constitutional right to declare a draft. Whether the citizens would accept this or not would, in my opinion, depend purely upon the situation. Major world conflict, our country itself in jeopardy, I believe nearly all citizens would rally to defeat a common enemy, despite the personal cost, and would accept the draft as a survival necessity.

Otherwise, hell no, they won't go. :shrug:
 

The only thing that the courts seem to think the 13th amendment applies to is blacks and then only if it's chattel slavery. Every time its obvious something is involuntary servitude the court brings up the conditions of black slavery so they can keep the law in question around. It's just pathetic, imho.
 
Last edited:
I say yes but with a caveat: conscription would be necessary if the U.S. was invaded but not necessary in foreign adventures like Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
In my opinion no country has this right to make people enter a force that may cost them themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…