End, Don't Extend, the Draft

The only fair measure would be to abolish registration and never draft anyone again.



This past week demonstrated with blinding clarity that 1) Republicans, contrary to their rhetoric, oppose individual liberty, and 2) the establishment news media really couldn't care less about the presidential candidates' views.

After the last Republican debate, the media continued its obsession with the reality-TV and horse-race sides of the election. News readers, correspondents, and "analysts" droned on about Marco Rubio's robotic repetition during the debate and the insult swaps by Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. You had to read the cable channels' "news tickers" running right to left along the bottom of the screen to find out that at least some Republican candidates think young women should have to register with Selective Service in case the military draft is reinstituted. On CNN, at least, this story was not deemed worthy of further attention.

Which is more important? Rubio's short-term memory problem, the Trump-Bush mud-wrestling match, or registration for the draft?

Here's a clue: the draft is slavery. It is short-term slavery at best, but it's possibly debilitating and even fatal. Thus registration with Selective Service is—surprise!—registration for possible enslavement. Anyone who supports individual liberty against state power would oppose conscription. This is no close call.

The draft ended in 1973 during the Nixon administration. (Classical-liberal economist Milton Friedman played a key role in its demise.) In 1980, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter signed a proclamation requiring 18-26-year-old men—but not women—to register with Selective Service, supposedly as a signal to the Russians that Carter had noticed their invasion. But the draft was not revived. (We later learned that the Carter administration helped to provoke the invasion by aiding jihadis, hoping Afghanistan would be the Soviets' "Vietnam." The 9/11 attacks were blowback from Carter's operation, and Afghanistan would become America's second "Vietnam.")

Ronald Reagan, Carter's opponent in 1980, criticized draft registration on grounds that it "destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending," but in office Reagan changed his mind because "we live in a dangerous world."

According to Selective Service: "Failing to register … is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both." (Counseling "another to fail to comply … is subject to the same penalties.") Failing to register can also result in loss of government benefits, such as student aid, federal jobs, and job training. 

With military combat roles now open to women, the question of extending compulsory draft registration to them has come up. The New York Times reports that "the Marine Corps commandant, the chief of staff of the Army and one of the top Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee [Claire McCaskill] said … that women should be required to register. Two days later, two Republican members of the House who are military veterans—Duncan Hunter of California and Ryan Zinke of Montana—introduced legislation that would require women to register."

That set the stage for the question at the Republican debate. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie endorsed compulsory registration of women. Christie, strangely, said not forcing women to register constituted discrimination against them. Bush said he did not expect the draft to be resumed, but hastened to add that he opposed ending registration. 

The remaining candidates said nothing. No one objected to registering women. More revealing, no one called for ending draft registration for men. The candidates of the party that insists it alone favors liberty and limits on government power favor draft registration! 

Few people call for a new draft; military leaders reportedly oppose conscription because it fills the armed forces with people who prefer to be elsewhere. So why continue draft registration? The usual answer is that it would promote readiness in an emergency. But that is no reason to violate liberty. The practical value of a quickly dated list of registrants is also doubted. 

Some misguided people will argue that if men must register, then fairness dictates that women must register too. It's an odd notion of fairness or justice, however. Compulsory draft registration is unfair because it violates young people's rights. Therefore, extending the unfairness cannot be fair. The only fair measure would be to abolish registration and never draft anyone again.

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog. 

NEXT: Self-Help for Soft Targets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We later learned that the Carter administration helped to provoke the invasion by aiding jihadis, hoping Afghanistan would be the Soviets’ “Vietnam.” The 9/11 attacks were blowback from Carter’s operation, and Afghanistan would become America’s second “Vietnam.

    You just can’t help yourself, can you Richman?

    1. Not that terrorism is unheard of in the former USSR*, but I don’t remember any planes flying into buildings in Moscow or St. Petersburg.

      * = Mostly from Chechen and Caucasian (as in, people from the Caucasus mountains) separatists, although still of the Islamic variety

      1. Not mostly false flag operations by Putin?

        1. Attacks happened before Putin was President/Prime Minister/dictator-for-life and after he left the KGB. I can’t say for certain that none of them were false flags, but I find it hard to believe that all of them were.

      2. How about them schools and movie theaters?

        Seems odd that so many people here hate Sheldon so much for his anti-Israel (not anti-Jew) diatribes that it colors everything they read from him, even when he’s right, or maybe especially so. Not much in the way of independent thinking or reading comprehension, but then it’s usually only the outraged who go into such blind furies.

        1. Yeah, all these knee jerk reactions to that one sentence in the article crack me up, especially since they completely misinterpreted what he was saying. He is not saying 9/11 was some kind of revenge for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He is saying that the Soviet invasion got many these terrorists started on the path of fighting the Western imperialism.

    2. There is no difference between Adam Lanza and Jimmy Carter.
      So, Richman is actually saying that a bunch of disgruntled Wahabbist Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? That seems retarded even for Richman.

      1. That seems retarded even for Richman

        There is no peak retard, especially where Richman is concerned.

      2. I think he is saying that Bin Laden set up show in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, which got him started on the whole terrorist path.

      3. Well seeing as you can’t even understand basic English sentences maybe you should shut up about retardation. 9/11 was blowback for funding terrorists in Afghanistan. Do I have to make it simpler or will you just get the special ed teacher to spell it out?

    3. It’s like nothing else happened between then and 2001. Blowback is real, but Richman is citing an extremely tenuous relationship here.

      9/11 had far more to do with the first Gulf War than 1970’s Afghanistan. Richman is an idiot.

      1. Yes, I’d say that claiming 9/11 is blowback from assisting an insurgency that took place 20 years earlier is a stretch and also relies on 20/20 hindsight.

        Second Vietnam? I don’t buy that either.

        1. To the Boomers, *everything* is a second Vietnam.

      2. “9/11 had far more to do with the first Gulf War than 1970’s Afghanistan. Richman is an idiot.”

        Yep and Bin Laden himself said so but then again he was not really an expert on his own motivations.

    4. He’s a special sort of evil. “Special,” if you know what I mean.

      Yes, cake.

      Truly the most horrifyingly embarrassing writer at Reason.

      1. Richman is the number one reason I won’t donate a penny to Reason. It would mean that even a small part of my personal funds went to pay this turd. That cannot be.

    5. Is just trolling us or what? Can he possibly take these throwaway lines seriously? Or expect us to take him seriously after he writes them?

      I also could have sworn that he had previously claimed that 9/11 was “blowback” for America’s support of Israelis murdering Palestinians. Or for our involvement in the first Gulf War. Or for engineering the overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran. Or at least fifteen other things he doesn’t like…

      Also, I though Iraq was America’s Second Vietnam. Or was Vietnam America’s first Iraq? It’s so hard to keep these facile historical comparison’s straight.

      1. Is just trolling us or what?

        People used to ask that a lot more about Sheldon. I think most have concluded that either he is sincere, or he’s never going to break troll character. This is the Sheldon we will see, from here to eternity.

    6. Look in the mirror.

    7. Listen, at least he’s blaming Islamic fundamentalists for 9/11 and not a Jewish conspiracy.

  2. I don’t think it’s un-libertarian to argue that equal justice under law requires that government not discriminate on basis of sex in terms of who it asserts authority over to shanghai into the armed forces. The rational for excluding women from conscription is, after all, based on sexist ideas that they have no place in the military (and there are numerous non-combat roles so their physical abilities aren’t an issue).

    Of course the draft is slavery and should be abolished as a nation that cannot find enough willing participants to defend it does not deserve to survive. But that’s an entirely separate argument from women and the Selective Service. If the government is going to fuck people over it can at least be fair about it. It might even make people think twice about supporting said government.

    1. You’re correct. Additionally, when a bad law is applied universally and all are subject to it, it’s much more likely to be repealed. The only way to make draft registration and the draft itself onerous enough to be repealed is to make it apply universally to those young and healthy enough for military service.

      1. How likely is the income tax to be repealed?

        1. “applied universally”

          There is no graduated draft.

          Slave armies are so….early and mid 20th Century.

          1. Well, we need to be ready for the next troop-intensive ground war with another superpower. Because really, nothing has changed since 1944.

            1. Haven’t you seen the war with China brewing? Clearly they’re going to invade Alaska and we’ll be on the Fallout timeline 50 years in advance.

              1. Inconceivable!

              2. Excellent! I’m getting a Fat Boy the moment they become commercially available.

          2. So you’re saying we should raise all tax rates so we can finally all stop having our money stolen?

            1. No, I think he’s saying it should be universally and evenly applied to everyone so everyone has skin in the game.

              1. No, I think he’s saying it should be universally and evenly applied to everyone so everyone has skin in the game.

                Service guarantees citizenship: Would you like to know more?

            2. Perhaps if 70% of the American population weren’t net receivers of government transfer programs, we wouldn’t be staring at long-term bankruptcy.

              1. Long-term? We’re already bankrupt.

                1. We’ll be formally bankrupt when they won’t loan us any more money.

              2. Would that make us more free?

            3. If you had a system where in order to vote, you had to pay out more money than you received from government transfers (excluding wages and benefits from a government job, although, that actually might help too), taxation would look very very different.

            4. “So you’re saying we should raise all tax rates so we can finally all stop having our money stolen?”

              Flat tax, yes. About 15% would leave receipts the same. For most that is a higher rate, but for many it’s a lower rate.

              1. Total personal income is approaching $15 trillion while receipts from personal income tax are approaching $1.7 trillion. That puts the tax rate at under 12% to keep receipts the same.

                1. except that the real number is receipts plus real deficits (inclusive of unfunded obligations), inflation and siphoned growth are taxes, they are just hidden.

            5. So you’re saying we should raise all tax rates so we can finally all stop having our money stolen?

              If everyone had to pay an equal rate, it probably would lead to not having our money stolen (or at least a lot less). Right now, what’s the incentive for someone who pays little or no tax to object to raising taxes on “the rich”?

        2. Well, the income tax is not universally and evenly applied to all. In fact, those at the lower income range not only don’t pay income tax, they receive “Earned Income Tax Credits” which are nothing more than handouts from other people’s income taxes. So there is a fairly large constituency that has no incentive to see it change.

        3. If an actual draft occurred there would be a push for repeal, particularly when females started coming home in body bags.

          1. Or worse. Imagine how the Imperial Japanese would have treated female POWs.

        4. How likely is the income tax to be repealed?

          That’s not really an argument against universality, though, is it? The fact is a very sizable portion of the population doesn’t really pay much in the way of taxes.

      2. That’s true. I’d never seen Jezebel or XX or any of those discuss the draft, until a couple service chiefs testified to congress that if women are fully allowed into combat roles, then they need to be registering for the draft. Suddenly conscription starts looking a lot less fun to them.

    2. This.

      The same argument applies to gay marriage. IIRC Richman wasn’t calling for the abolishment of marriage as a governmental institution.

      If the law is going to be unjust, it must be unjust equally.

      1. Marriage is a benefit, not a harm.

        Obviously the real problem pre-Civil War was that there weren’t millions of white slaves.

        1. Tell that to anyone with an ex-wife.

        2. “Marriage is a benefit, not a harm.”

          Not to those who subsidize it. If that subsidization is unjust (harm), then extending subsidization to homosexual people increases injustice. (Equality and injustice are be located somewhat differently here: gays are treated equally, someone else is thereby treated [even more] unjustly.)

          1. Single people are a myth. They don’t exist and the benefits of government marriage do not cost them even if they did.

        3. Obviously the real problem pre-Civil War was that there weren’t millions of white slaves.

          By your argument, I suggest we formally make all drug laws apply only to blacks. That would be a net reduction in harm, wouldn’t it?

          1. It would be, and equal protection doesn’t particularly matter to me per se. I don’t make the argument that arresting more white people will end the drug war, so I don’t think it would last longer if it were smaller. The discrimination might energize people.

            1. The discrimination might energize people.

              Ask the Jews and Kulaks what they think about that.

              1. So is your complaint about equal protection, or specific animus?

                Because I don’t think anyone would seriously make the argument that men register for Selective Service because women are targeting them specifically out of hatred. Y’all made this bed for yourselves.

                1. Nikki: “Y’all made this bed for yourselves.” Who is “you all” (not)? The argument is at the level of legislation, of democratic process. You misplaced the bed.

                  1. the argument is she is the worst

                  2. If Nikki is a female (that’s ‘her’ claim) shouldn’t SHE be the one making the bed?

                2. Equal protection doesn’t care if you are discriminating to punish someone, or reward them.

      2. The same argument applies to gay marriage.

        Exactly right. As I recall the libertarian argument went like this, and should map over to the draft argument very cleanly:

        Well, naturally we think state licensing of marriage should be abolished. But as long as we have it, it should apply to man/woman and gay couples equally.

        Well, naturally we think the draft should be abolished. But as long as we have it, it should apply to men and women equally.

        Isn’t that the way equal protection is supposed to work? And doesn’t equal protection apply to state-imposed burdens (draft) and state-provided benefits (marriage licensing) alike?

    3. The other logic for using relatively few women in a real war is that they can have children, Losing a generation of men to war is bad but does not mean that you lose the next generation as well.

      1. I always assumed this was the bigger justification.

        1. Amusing, almost endearing. You mean that “losing” the next generation is a good thing, right?

          1. I meant exactly what I said.

            1. Naturally. The question is what “this” is meant to refer to, losing men, or losing the next generation. And some may actually see it as sarcasm.

              1. I wasn’t being sarcastic. I simply always thought that 99.9% of the justification for keeping women home from war was because they’re counted on to re-fill the population afterward.

                1. That may be the ultimate reason, and so arguably is from an evolutionary perspective. Proximate causes are more likely to be notions of manliness, that it hurts more to see – feel – a woman harmed, male combat effectiveness/unit cohesion, and specialization.
                  (By the way cf. sex. Proximate cause: sexual attraction; ultimate reason: reproduction. “Wanting children” is not necessary, as a cause.)

      2. That is it Drake. And the fact that mixed sex combat units don’t work as well as single sex ones.

        1. Absolutely!!!
          If women are going to be allowed in combat roles, they should have women’s only units. I am not a ground pounder, but i would think in today’s Army structure it wouldn’t necessarily need to be at the brigade level, but AT LEAST at the company level.

          1. Not familiar with military structure. But I generally agree with that. Yet I would like to see what a mixed unit that is truly voluntarily mixed can do.

            1. The Israelis had a bad time of it in their early wars. Exceptionally high casualties among the men as they would take extraordinary risks to protect their female comrades. For decades they kept women out of all combat units. Now they have a few mixed gender units guarding borders – but still no women in armor, artillery, and most infantry units.

              1. Protectiveness, very plausible. Did the members of the mixed units form them voluntarily? If you know of a good book on the Israeli military, I’d appreciate your suggestion.

      3. A small fraction of military roles are combat. Women can push paper as well as anyone.

        Would they have separate lotteries for “male” roles and “female” roles? Are they really going to assign female conscripts to the infantry?

        1. Since promotion in the military strongly favors people with combat roles/experience, it would be discriminatory to bar women from combat roles and combat, wouldn’t it?

    4. Expanding injustice does not increase justice, it does the opposite. Yes, fairness is a good, but I do not see that a situation becomes more fair by oppressing everyone equally. When the law unfairly oppresses one group and not another the solution must be to stop the law from oppressing the one group; it is not a compromise solution to extend the oppression.

      Rights are individual and personal, and real. The idea of group rights are at the heart of the progs’ identity politics and they work precisely by this sort of misdirection. Progs focus on the inequality of treatment of groups in an unjust situation, instead of on the actual injustice which happens to individuals. Then they can propose solutions that shift the injustice to some other group. Gays cannot marry? Let them marry and oh by the way now you can fine a baker for not baking a cake.

      1. People like fairness when it lets them lash out rather than confront their own failings.

        1. We agree on the draft being an inherently unjust institution and that the better solution is to abolish it.

      2. If only one sex has to face the injustice, you still have injustice and you have sexism. Rights are not real. WE made them the fuck up. Tell me how much a right weighs? What is its density? Rights are nothing more strong social conventions.

        1. Social conventions restrict rights; they do not create them. Rights are nothing more or less than the autonomy a rational living thing possesses innately. The social conventions circumscribe that autonomy.

          In a truly free society the conventions circumscribe that autonomy only in cases where the action prevented directly harms another. In other words they define limits to autonomy for each that maximizes autonomy overall.

          In a truly slave society anything that is not prohibited is compulsory, and there is minimal autonomy.

        2. So in your view your rights are always up for a vote?

      3. “Let them marry and oh by the way now you can fine a baker for not baking a cake.”
        Get your facts straight. A large portion of those cases happened prior to the state having marriage equality.

        Elane Photography, in New Mexico, refused service to a gay couple in 2006.
        New Mexico didn’t have marriage equality until December 2013.

        Sweet Cakes by Melissa, in Oregon, refused service to a gay couple in January 2013.
        Oregon didn’t have marriage equality until May 2014.

        Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Colorado, refused service to a gay couple in 2012.
        Colorado didn’t have marriage equality until October 2014.

        Arlene’s Flowers, in Washington, refused service to a gay couple in March 2013
        Washington didn’t have marriage equality until December 2012.

        Rail against non-discrimination law if you want, but given how the majority of these cases happened *before* marriage equality was a thing, it’s disingenuous to blame gay marriage.

        1. I’ll rail against non-discrimination laws later, today I am railing against the idea that expanding unjust laws to everyone makes them more fair, not blaming gay marriage for anything. For the record, my position on Gay Marriage is:

          1. The State has no even remotely valid role in licensing, rewarding, penalizing, or forbidding anyone’s cohabitation choices.

          2. Marriage is realistically only two things, a contract and, for those who are religious a sacrament

          3. To the extent that it is a contract competent adults should be free to structure it as they see fit. A man and a woman, two men, fourteen men, ten women, whatever the participants want. And there should be no tax or other State benefits or consequences to one’s choice.

          4. To the extent that it is a sacrament it is entirely up to what ever religion is involved to define it. Again, no State role.

          1. It works best that way.

    5. This is my litmus test for whether women are truly for equality. You can talk about all the normative shit you want, but the reality is the men, in order to exercise their rights as adults to vote and shit, first have to agree to sign up to maybe die. Until women face up to the same, albeit stupid and immoral, responsibility and pejorative consequences that flow therefrom, I really don’t give a fuck what they have to say about equality. Furthermore, this unequal treatment is why men deserve more money. If these snowflakes want the same pay, they should have to deal with the same bullshit

      1. So you are angry that the progs have restricted your liberty with their identity politics of sexism and racism, and your answer is to do the same thing in the opposite direction?

        Wouldn’t it be nice to try freedom? Then the chips can fall as they may. Groups can rise and fall as their constituent members succeed or fail in life. You won’t have equality of outcome, but you will have the liberty to take your shot at success.

      2. Service guarantees citizenship! Do you want to know more?

    6. and who knows… maybe the reality of seeing women signing up for Selective Service is enough to make them rethink the concept of having a draft. Make women eligible and suddenly the pro-draft hawks might dial it back

    7. Most of the military roles (combat and non-combat) conscription is good at filling are ones that are physically demanding. Basically, drafting women does not serve the utilitarian needs which are the only things that can possibly justify a draft at all. Drafting women serves no purpose other satisfying an obsessive-compulsive desire for superficial equality.

  3. End the draft, but extend firearms instruction and small unit tactics into the high school curriculum.

    1. Wolverines!

    2. Also, allow the purchase of light anti-tank weapons.

      1. You can buy those now. you just need a $200 tax stamp for each explosive shell.

      2. and heavy

    3. Also, license the hunting of progressives. I want them to be an endangered species. Won’t you all help make my dream come true?

  4. “The remaining candidates said nothing. No one objected to registering women.”

    Cruz later did, which seems an odd thing to skip over in an otherwise thorough coverage. Granted, his objections were more of the “women are a beautiful flower that must be protected” variety and he indeed did not protest the draft for men.

    And yes, I was laughing my ass off at Christie trying to spin the current men-only forced military service program as unfair to women.

    1. It is not odd when you remember that Richman is a hateful mendacious retard.

      1. He does love cake.

      2. Aren’t you late for synagogue?

  5. What’s up with the “Reason Staff” thing?

    1. They found a stick in the yard and named it the “Reason Staff”. They need to get it enough writing credits to count for its secret society of online writers membership.

    2. It’s so that people don’t see “Sheldon Richman” and refuse to click through to the article.

      1. I don’t know. Maybe they actually agree with him, which would be a shame.

    3. The blog post indicating that a new magazine article is available is attributed to Reason Staff while the article itself is attributed to the author, whereas the blog post used to be attributed to the author as well.

      Not sure I agree with the decision, but it does make some sense. Sheldon Richman wrote the article, but someone else (or even a bot) produced the blog post announcing its availability.

      1. *shakes head*

        That would be a level of inane pedantry I don’t think even reason would sink to.

        1. No, it would be a pretty normal editorial decision. I don’t get why anyone is confused by this choice.

          1. Confusion is confusing.

          2. Obviously someone would sink to that level.

          3. I think they could have handled it better. The way this has worked for a long time, and probably why the authorship was transitively propagated to the blog post before, is that the blog post reads like the article, but then the last 3/4 or so gets cut off with a link to the rest.

            Given the “editorial decision” of the blog post byline now being “Reason Staff”, the article should be introduced by some prefatory text including the name of its author IMO.

            1. Women will always be under less of a threat of being drafted because they always have the option of getting pregnant. You can’t put a pregnant woman through military training and no way will society tolerate sending women to jail for the crime of getting pregnant. Even after they gave birth, do we really want the government separating newborns from their mothers in the name of “equality”

              Drafting woman would make the draft much more barbaric and cruel than it already is.

              1. Drafting woman would make the draft much more barbaric and cruel than it already is.

                This is the point where Richman jumps in to point out that Israel is one of the few nations that includes women in the draft.

                Don’t feed the Richman, John.

                1. It truly is amazing where Richman’s anti-Zionism (ok I will call it for what it is, anti-Semitism) finds places to poke through.

                  And Israeli women DON’T have to serve in combat roles. As a matter of fact, they can do National Service outside of military (usually religious women choose this option).

                  1. The IDF also has a separate female battalion which is not regular infantry, recognizing the physical limitations of woman in the infantry. They’re more like MPs or border guards.

                    1. And to the extent the IDF has used women in combat roles, it has been out of necessity because of the small size of the Israeli population not because they thought it was a good idea.

                  2. You’re late for temple. Don’t forget your jerry-curls.

          4. I don’t get why anyone is confused by this choice.

            Some people look for conspiracies everywhere.

    4. It’s stupid.

    5. Seems to be the H&R front page generic “byline” for all contributors who are not staff.

    6. It’s probably what Sheldon has to out in his mouth after he has a private meeting with Nick to get his vile bullshit published.

  6. Obviously the solution is to require every resident to perform two years of “national service”. Why, it could even be done in “camps”!

    1. We can give them helpful tattoos for easy identification!

      1. And haircuts!

        1. Gold stars for participation!

  7. Bailey’s comments was more useful than this article. The interesting questions are relegated to and ignored in your final paragraph.

    1. *comments [section]

  8. The argument from autonomy does not work in your favor. By increasing the pool, the autonomy of men is less restricted, that of women more restricted. A reduction of of overall autonomy is not apparent. Further, equality before the law is a guardian principle, serving autonomy. It should be adhered to.

    1. Except that being forced under threat of imprisonment to go to a government office, and register with that office, so that the government can enslave you should they wish, is in itself a restriction of autonomy. Your argument also assumes that an expanded pool of potential draftees would not lead to an increased number drafted. In other words that the draft is a zero sum game. It is entirely possible that the expanded pool might lead to an expanded draft.

      The Government has not shown much ability to walk away from troughs that still contain anything to consume.

      1. Appreciate that.

        That’s the problem of measuring autonomy. If 5 men face a 20% chance each to have to serve in the military, is that worse than/equal to 10 people (5 men and 5 women) each facing a 10% chance?

      2. Yes, for Sevens’s post to have legs, the inclusion of women in the draft would have to be accompanied by a change to the lottery schedule.

        However, this all presumes that women and men are interchangeable for the purpose of military service, which is an assertion I do not believe is supported by fact.

        1. “However, this all presumes that women and men are interchangeable for the purpose of military service, which is an assertion I do not believe is supported by fact.”

          No doubt, as to combat. But there are other roles (to be involuntarily filled), and gradations of danger. // Thoughts on measuring autonomy?

          1. It’s hard to measure the autonomy of slaves.

            Since the choice of career is not up to the draftee, and women are better suited to non-combat roles, assuming no change in enrollment numbers, a drafted man (so, conditional probability here) would be more likely to end up in a combat role than he is in a situation without women being drafted. However, he remains less likely to be drafted in the first place. So, a wash for the men, I guess.

        2. I agree they are absolutely NOT interchangeable. That of course doesn’t mean that women can’t have roles in the military. And possibly even combat roles, though it should be in women’s only units. (Not entirely due to sexuality, although frankly that is an issue. It has more to do with the amount of load individual soldiers have to carry in addition to their own body weight and assisting others.) Women, could have more specialized roles as ground troops, perhaps a light infantry, or stick to Stryker units. Not for conditioning mind you (lot of women can run real fast for a long time) but simply the requirements for the load that infantry have to carry.

          1. Yes, the biological differences are immaterial to whether women should be drafted, since there are roles other than infantry and combat in general. However, it is material to a probabilistic analysis on the likely outcomes for the different sexes under different scenarios.

          2. The presense of women can change/interfere with male bonding and (mission) priorities.

        3. However, this all presumes that women and men are interchangeable for the purpose of military service, which is an assertion I do not believe is supported by fact.

          It is, however, current policy.

  9. Of all the dumb things were are currently debating, this is the dumbest.

    1. Oh, that sounds like a challenge!

    2. To be fair, we aren’t debating it. As the article notes, it was mostly glossed over.

  10. No one objected to registering women.

    If they have to display identifying license plates, we may have a solution to several problems.

  11. Nobody really thinks drafting women is a good idea, it’s just meant to point out the absurdity of forcing women to be accepted into all combat arms jobs. Without accepting the underlying reality that men and women are different, no justification exists for excluding them.

    1. Exactly that. Women have no business line combat units. The Progressive just want them there because for Progressives there is nothing outside of politics. To them, the military doesn’t exist to fight and win wars and defend the country. To progressives the military has the same purpose every other institution has; to advance progressive politics. Putting women in combat units advances progressive politics and that is why the want it.

      The entire idea that “everyone should have the opportunity to serve” is insane. No, everyone shouldn’t. The military exists for a specific, nasty and sadly necessary purpose. Everything it does should serve that purpose nothing else.

      1. And if it turns out that specific genetic markers indicate that someone would make a better soldier? Should the government screen for those markers and make only those people register because it serves their utilitarian purpose?

        1. Sure. If you agree that they can draft, why not? Would you make paraplegics register? How is what you are proposing any different except in degree? If there are enough people out there with this genetic makeup to fill the country’s possible future needs and these people would make for a better military, (all totally unrealistic assumptions but lets make them), that is exactly what they should do.

          1. As I said above, the only possible justification for a draft is utilitarian argument to give the military capable warm bodies. Men above a certain age are no longer subject to be drafted because of this. If your draft must include progressive piety to superficial equality then you are not in a desperate enough situation to justify a draft in the first place.

        2. No. But, if what was the case, those people should be given preferential treatment in regards to voluntarily enlisting.

        3. I don’t think they should. However, the government (via beltway bandits) *will* genetically engineer better soldiers.

          1. See “Soldier”

        4. They essentially already do that excluding people they think are unlikely to be successful based on height, weight, and medical criteria.

          It wouldn’t matter anyway, the issue only exists to watch the schadenfreude of people claiming women are equal when it suits them to singing a different tune when equal doesn’t bring a perceived benefit. If there ever was an actual draft they would just get rid of the rule for women.

          1. And how about the affirmative action draft of women to make up for years of discrimination? Another idea that explodes Proggie heads.

            1. Oh my god, I’m using this.

            2. *polite applause*

      2. The military exists for a specific, nasty and sadly necessary purpose.

        I disagree with the word “necessary” there. It always means “I’m scared of [A] and in order to protect myself from [A] I think I need to enslave you.”

        Thomas Paine was only half right, government is an intolerable evil.

        1. You can’t defend yourself alone against an army. As long as other people are willing to have army, you have to have an army or face enslavement by someone who does. The world just sucks if you haven’t noticed.

          1. As long as other people are willing to have army, you have to have an army or face enslavement by someone who does.

            Non-sequitur. You “need” a militia, at most.

            (I know the world sucks. I spent 2007 in Haditha)

            1. John can’t see Switzerland over his war boner.

          2. You can’t defend yourself alone against an army.

            Tell that to Simo Hayha.

      3. “The military exists for a specific, nasty and sadly necessary purpose. Everything it does should serve that purpose nothing else.”
        And yet here you are, putting the “women have no place in combat” over having the most capable *person* in combat.

      4. It’s also a nice p,us for progressives when they hurt or weaken America. They love doing that. Which is why they love the Iran deal.

    2. “Nobody really thinks drafting women is a good idea”

      Seriously, dude?

  12. So you guys all filled out your cards rather than protesting the fact that you were required to register for enslavement. So now I need to be targeted because maybe then it will finally end? Are women so much more willing than men to risk prison through civil disobedience?

    1. Yes, yes, women are special flowers that must be protected from the harsh things that men are forced to face, we know. As far as whether are more willing to risk prison, I guess we’ll see.

      1. You could have protected us by actually protesting it, you know.

        1. Ha! No White Knights here!

          1. Yeah you wouldn’t want to save yourselves from slavery. That would be crazy.

            1. If you don’t fill out the card and send it to the Selective Service, you can go to jail. Nobody has been jailed in a long time, but nobody has drafted in a long time, either. The idea that refusing to fill out the card protects you from slavery is absurd. If they’re going to call a draft, they’re not going to get hung up on pesky technicalities. Besides, you can always flee to Canada.

              1. With post-9/11 border controls? You wouldn’t be driving across on the pretense of taking a short holiday. They’d scan your passport. See that you’re due in the meat grinder, and probably imprison you right then and there before you entered Canadian territory.

            2. What’s more likely, landing in prison, or landing in the military? And what’s worse? There’s no definitive choice here. (Risk, preference, risk-aversion, time preference.)

        2. “You could have protected us by actually protesting it, you know.”

          Some of us did.

      2. WTF, you got that the wrong way around. It’s more of a “be a man”/”don’t be worse than girls” thing.

        1. Nikki: “You could have protected us by actually protesting it, you know.” Whow, there you go. — For some reason, that’s actually sexy. Yout’ve found the right appeal.

    2. Well, we want to find out. That’s why were advocating extending the draft to include them.

      1. *we[‘re [Not going to correct more such things, as this would be prove to be more annoying.]

    3. So now I need to be targeted because maybe then it will finally end?

      One of the more fucked up aspects of Western women is that they are all for equality, until them ugly things like consequences and responsibilities raise their ugly heads.

      1. White western women – the most privileged group the world has ever had.

      2. You have a point. But Nikki doesn’t seem to fall under that. Generally, she appears pretty responsible. And the occasional appeal to male protectiveness makes things less boring..

    4. Nikki’s right on here, but if we were brave defenders of liberty we would be dead or in jail and not bitching on a website. We’ve all made our choice, and reinforce it daily.

    5. If you do not register then you are barred from getting student loans, for instance. There are a lot of petty ways the government screws with you for not complying.

  13. When I was enlisting in the Marines, they made a big deal out of checking that I had registered for the draft. Seemed a bit silly.

    1. It is hysterical. I am still in the reserves and yet am constantly asked on government forms if I have registered.

      1. When I was in that age group I was also repeatedly asked even though I had a commission in the Naval Reserve.

    2. I joined the Army when I was 17. The Army checked for Selective Service registration in Basic. If you weren’t registered, they did it for you. They also registered me to vote and requested an absentee ballot.

  14. Gay marriage. If you agreed with gay marriage you need to agree with the draft being applied equally to men and women. It’s the same concept. The government has no business doing what they are doing, but if they are going to do it anyways they need to do it equally.

    1. That is a good point. Somehow when talking about gay marriage reason was all about “equal protection” meaning the government can’t treat anyone differently for any reason. Now that the subject has changed, well maybe equal doesn’t mean everyone gets treated the same.

      Do they even try to be intellectually consistent? Or do they just worry about virtue signaling and let the logic take care of itself?

      1. Women are special little flowers we place on a pedestal where they whine they aren’t paid more for less work while demanding free shit.

      2. I have two words for you:

        Sheldon. Richman.

        Bailey had a post a day or two ago about this that seemed to lean the other way; the draft shouldn’t exist, but if it does, women probably should be included.

        1. Sheldon Richman shouldnt exist.

    2. I don’t agree, Lotus. Part of the problem is the tension between equality and sameness. For purposes of marriage law, hetero- and homosexuals are the same. (Though if the purpose is having and raising children, that’s a questionable assumption/legal fiction.) For purposes of military law, women are not the same.

      Equality: treating the same things the same, and different things differently.

      1. For purposes of marriage law, hetero- and homosexuals are the same. (Though if the purpose is having and raising children, that’s a questionable assumption/legal fiction.) For purposes of military law, women are not the same.

        You’re just begging the question.

        1. T-mnstr: “You’re just begging the question.”

          Yes, a question. I set out to illustrate the tension between equality and sameness. The only way to ensure equality is to make things the same, but that removes the very point of equality. What we have is a system in which someone else gets to determine “bona fide sameness” (see occupational requirements/qualifications; disparate impact [assumption of equal outcome/sameness]).

          1. Fair enough. I think I read your first comment wrong. My apologies.

            *gets another coffee*

            1. No need to apologize, T. (My respect for it, though.) I left a lot out and for readers to construe and fill out. The thing still isn’t complete.

          2. I set out to illustrate the tension between equality and sameness.

            Once sameness is policy, and distinctions are no longer officially recognizable, then I think you have to have equality as well.

            The next layer, of course, is to say that, well, the rate at which women make it into the combat roles will be less than the rate at which men make it into the combat roles. However, the fact that someone from a particular group is more likely to fail, seems like a dangerous reason to deny equal protection of the laws. Imagine saying that, well, women are more likely to get into car accidents, so we will not license them to drive any more.

            1. I propose this: under the concept of equality, sameness is a legal fiction. No “bona fide differences”, usually means there are difference, but the law doesn’t recognize them (so they don’t count, do not exist in the eyes of the law).

              Good example with the car. What you are saying is that when probability (eg group averages) is used in determining obligations (draft), then probability must be used in determining privileges, in the same way. I agree. A more realistic example: when women are more likely to “leak”, to drop out of or not proceed from high-investment positions (law, STEM), then they should not get these positions to begin with.

              1. Cars: not allowing people past a certain age to drive.

          3. And that is why I don’t count equality as a good. Liberty is a good. Justice is a good. Equality is largely meaningless as it either refers to substantive equality which can only be approached by tyrannically imposing sameness, clearly an evil, or to laws of general applicability (no one is above the law), which is just an aspect of justice.

            1. Hm. General applicability of law: white people are not allowed to marry black people. Only strawberry icecream is permitted, no other kind. Are these laws, are they justice?

              1. “an aspect” does not equal “the entirety of”. You are not arguing against my position, you are expanding on it as another aspect of justice is that the laws not be oppressive.

                In other words a law that says: “Black people may not steal, whites may” is unjust as it is not generally applicable, even though a law against stealing would otherwise be just. Similarly, a law which said, “Any criticism of the State will be punished by death”, is generally applicable but not just, as it is oppressive. I am not dismissing General Applicability, nor am I hallowing it. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice.

                1. It wasn’t my intention to argue against your position. I’m intending to determine your position. When you refer to oppression, do you make “liberty” a necessary element of justice?

                  1. Hmmm. Interesting question. I am not sure if that is a necessary implication of my position here, but I see how it could be. I’ll have to think about it.

      2. For purposes of military law, women are not the same.

        Pretty sure they are, now. This was triggered by the new policy of opening all combat roles to women.

        Once you accept (as we officially have) that women and men are equally eligible for combat, the argument for gay marriage maps over to argument for drafting women very cleanly:

        Well, naturally we think state licensing of marriage should be abolished. But as long as we have it, it should apply to man/woman and gay couples equally.

        Well, naturally we think the draft should be abolished. But as long as we have it, it should apply to men and women equally.

        1. “Equally eligible” is too vague. As I see it, the law assumes that women are less likely to be suited to combat roles, then it assumes that those who self-select (volunteer) are “likely enough” to be suited to combat roles. “Likely enough” may be connected to other purposes: for example working against sex-stereotypes ([legitimate purpose, rational basis?] to the law, this may be worth the net costs of screening and accomodating the few women). The various pieces are somewhat arbitrarily selected. But that doesn’t seem atypical. Still, something feels wrong. Please outline how the laws of military and marriage are/should be analogous.

        2. “Once you accept (as we officially have) that women and men are equally eligible for combat […]”
          When the average man or woman can pass the physical fitness requirements, that line will make more sense. But your average man or woman can’t.

          Above average men or women can. And yeah, the men don’t have to be *as* above average to meet the requirements as women have to be, but both have to perform better then your average Joe or Jane to even make it to boot camp.

          So as far as “equally eligible” goes, it’s “equally eligible to try and fail on their own merits”. No one thinks that men and women are ever going to be equally represented in the armed forces. But they should be allowed to try.

          1. You can argue for the distinction, but unless and until that distinction is officially recognized by the military (and I don’t think it is, any longer, now that no combat roles are barred to women), then I think equal protection requires that women be drafted equally with men.

            1. How does combat roles being open to women mean that the armed forces confuses equality of opportunity with equality of results?

              “[…] I think equal protection requires that women be drafted equally with men.”
              Nope. Just like men, women will show up, go through their physical, and some portion will be sent home because they’re inadequate. And that will happen to more women then men.

              So sure, they’ll get their number called equally, but more men will still end up being drafted then women.

    3. It’s not exactly the same. Marriage is a state-granted privilege, not an imposition on the rights of the married. Anyone, gay or straight, could still have a “marriage” in the eyes of their friends, family, and faith without the state’s involvement.

      1. Fine, it’s a negative draft… You “win” the privilege of not fighting in a war if your number isn’t called.

      2. Marriage is a state-granted privilege, not an imposition on the rights of the married.

        So we have equal protection against the state granting privileges on a discriminatory basis, but not equal protection against the state imposing on rights on a discriminatory basis? Sure you want to go with that?

        1. Rightful discrimination in military matters: (1) Excluding women/no obligation: sex differences, good proxy; (2) While allowing volunteers: self-selection: good proxy. + working against sex-stereotypes.

  15. if not, then we are going to need a definition of female

  16. Man, does it make me a bad person if, every time I see Sheldon Richman’s name in the byline, I open the article, skip the entirety of it, and just watch all the commenters lining up to kick him in the balls?

  17. I hear all the BLM crowd screaming that, “Good, a cracka got shot. No Justice, no peace.” Even if cops were/are targeting blacks, I see no reason to expand that injustice to whites. The draft is slavery and adding my sister to the list isn’t making it less immoral, it’s just adding more victims to list.

    1. This.

    2. Agreed. But does the same utilitarian logic appy when presented with, say, 5-6 crappy presidential candidates?

      1. Yah, funny thing, dealing with negative liberty in a utilitarian fashion.

    3. The draft is slavery and adding my sister to the list isn’t making it less immoral, it’s just adding more victims to list.

      I still don’t think equal protection applies only to government privileges, but to government burdens as well. And the morality or immorality of the burden is irrelevant, when we all know the burden isn’t going anywhere.

      I just don’t see the logical consistency between saying well, government shouldn’t give this benefit, but if it does, etc., and saying government shouldn’t impose this burden, but if it does, etc.

      If only the earnings of men were taxed, I kinda struggle with saying it would be immoral to also tax the earnings of women.

      1. “I still don’t think equal protection applies only to government privileges, but [not] to government burdens as well.”

        That’s not much of a problem, it seems to me. Government privileges are granted by burdening others, they are redistribution. Thus, whoever argues for equal privileges argues for greater redistribution, which means increased injustice.

        I find that equal injustice beats increased injustice.

        1. I find that equal injustice beats increased injustice.

          Only if fairness and equal protection have no “justice” value.

          I doubt you’d say a law that bars the death penalty from being imposed on white people was more just than a law that said whites and blacks were equally subject to the death penalty.

          1. “‘I find that equal injustice beats increased injustice.’

            Only if fairness and equal protection have no “justice” value.”

            No. Exactly because legal equality has a justice value. Assume as starting condition: person A: injustice points 5; B: 0. As a changed condition, I prefer A:5; B:5 over A:10; B:0.

            There’s reason for reservation, though. If you defend yourself against an attack by deflecting some of the damage to a third person (“bystander”), you violate the third person’s negative liberty. Consider voting as a form of self defense: would shifting harm be a violation of negative liberty? Does equality trump negative liberty?

    4. Yeah Murder = signing a piece of paper and maybe having to serve. Fuck you.

  18. Up to I looked at the draft which was of $7319 , I be certain …that…my neighbour was like they say realie receiving money part time at there labtop. . there moms best frend started doing this less than and just paid the mortgage on their apartment and bought a gorgeous Lexus LS400 . site here……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ???? ? ? ?

  19. Several points.

    Start off with Cruz, who actually objects to drafting women but (as noted above) Richman doesn’t mention this.

    Here is a “conservative” woman whining how, by not forcing women to register, Cruz is denying opportunities to women:

    “Cruz is really saying that in a time of extreme emergency ? the only conceivable time a draft would be needed ? women would not be able to serve in any military capacity. Are women less capable? Less patriotic?” etc.

    And this “conservative” chick gives her solemn assurances that even if women were drafted, they wouldn’t actually be sent into dangerous combat situations. And if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

    (The chick then goes on to denounce Cruz for defending civil liberties against the NSA.)

  20. Next point – Rep. Duncan Hunter says he introduced his “Draft America’s Daughters Act” to start a conversation about the role of women in the military, and added that he might actually vote against the bill.

    “If this Administration wants to send 18-20 year old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives.”

    That, plus the provocative title of the bill, indicate that he’s probably trolling.

  21. I see two main arguments going on here: (I will use ‘draft’ and ‘selective service’ interchangeably)
    1. If women were also subject to selective service, it would more likely be repealed.
    I think this has merit. Roughly 1/2 the population has no risk of being drafted. Since the existence of selective service is a legislative issue, if 1/2 electorate is exempt, it must result in less pressure felt by the legislators to end the selective service.

    2. The draft is immoral, therefore it is wrong to expand it to include women. It’s just tough shit for men that they got stuck with the burden.
    I see it this way: If the draft didn’t exist and today’s legislature was preparing to pass a bill to enact it, and the law said: “selective service will be required of all males aged xyz, and will not include any females of any age”, I doubt such a bill would pass and would be rejected on the grounds of gender discrimination and that it “should include all persons of age xyz, or no persons of age xyz”. If such gender discrimination is unacceptable if starting from scratch today, it should be unacceptable regardless of when selective service originated.

  22. Next point: A young woman has filed a federal lawsuit demanding the “right” to register for the draft. This may get interesting.

  23. Next point: I’m hearing a reprise of the Great Libertarian Gay Marriage Debate – advocating, on the grounds of “equality,” a policy by which government power increases.

    You may recall how libertarians had to support gay marriage because if you don’t you’re (a) a homophobe and (b) probably gay. In addition, there was the dogmatic assumption that non-equivalent things were actually equivalent – that for thousands of years, humanity had a totally ignored the *true* meaning of marriage, and instead of a union of a man and a woman it was a union of any two humans of any combination of sexes.

    And of course promoting gay marriage would not in any way restrict liberty, because it *ought not* to do so.

    Likewise, now it seems that libertarians have to support drafting women – if they don’t want to be sexists – in order to have everyone treated “the same.”

    I’m against drafting men except in the most urgent circumstances, but at least I know the rationale of doing so. Send the young men to the front to defend the country, but leave the young women alone unless they volunteer, and even if they volunteer don’t put them in tanks to attack the enemy positions.

    1. One of the reasons Americans rejected the “Equal Rights Amendment” was to avoid a female draft, which contradicts the Hayekian insights derived over generations from the fact that men and women are *different.* The American people saw no contradiction between adopting the 19th Amendment, bringing women into political affairs on equal terms with men, and rejecting the Equal Rights Amendment and its Brave New World vision of a unisex society.

      So it’s perfectly OK to say “I’m against a male draft, and I’m even *more* against a female draft. I want to get rid of the former, but until that happens I sure will oppose the latter.”

      1. I just want people to be intellectually consistent, and I simply do not see how you can distinguish the equal protection argument for gay marriage from the equal protection argument for drafting women.

        By policy, we have rejected distinctions between women in the military and men in the military, so you can’t rest a male-only draft on those distinctions. Just like, once we rejected distinctions between man/woman marriage and gay marriage, you can’t rest man/woman-only licensing on those distinctions.

        You may think we shouldn’t have rejected those distinctions, but we officially have. You can’t argue for male-only draft or man/woman only licensing on the basis of those distinctions until they are officially recognized, again.

        1. The problem is, once the courts decide women have a constitutional right to get drafted, the clock will never get turned back.

          Congressman Hunter says he’s putting forward his Draft Our Daughters bill to *force* people to confront these issues, so nobody will be able to claim later, “duh, I don’t know how that happened, I wasn’t paying attention.”

          1. And as you might guess from the bill’s title, Hunter isn’t sugarcoating the issue, either.

            As opposed to the Obama/prog/neocon approach of just letting it happen and pretending it’s inevitable.

            1. If the draft-women crowd had a particle of intellectual honesty, they would *first* get Congress to pass the Draft our Daughters Act, and *then* call for women in combat positions. Because Congress’s male-only draft policy as it stands can’t be reconciled with women in combat, and they know it.

              But they want to sneak conscription of women past the voters, so first they adopt women-in-combat policies and wait for the courts to do the dirty work or giving women the “right” to be drafted.

              That way, they hope to fool the voters into thinking “hey, drafting women wasn’t *our* idea!”


        2. To me a big appeal of libertarianism is that when you reject the idea that it is acceptable to promote a social desiderata by the initiation of force, all these distinctions go back to the realm of personal preference, and no longer impinge on other people’s rights.

          I do agree that people (Mr. Richman included) often use the Equal Protection argument when they want an outcome and slide over it when they do not. That is largely why I am skeptical about it as a basic principal. Laws should ideally apply to everyone, but I think it is even more important that laws not be oppressive. Too often, and Gay Marriage is a prime case of this, we see an injustice and get misdirected into making sure it is shared equally, rather than eliminated.

    2. You got to it before I could do all the cutting and pasting on my phone! Obviously, I agree.

    3. Females have already been in war/combat for this country. Besides, THERE IS NO DRAFT ANYMORE.

      1. So is SFC MAC really Wolfman Jack? There will again be a Draft as soon as the Methodist White Terror, Klan, Mitt and Holy Father require Crusaders to convert the Saracen hordes to Christianity. They’ll simply continue to call it “voluntary” on teevee and the booboisie will recite it back. The only reason there is no draft right this minute is the Libertarian Party platform.

  24. Some misguided people will argue that if men must register, then fairness dictates that women must register too. It’s an odd notion of fairness or justice, however. Compulsory draft registration is unfair because it violates young people’s rights. Therefore, extending the unfairness cannot be fair. The only fair measure would be to abolish registration and never draft anyone again.

    -S. Richman, today.

    Let’s get something out of the way at the start: the state?even if it should exist?should not be involved in marriage drafting people into the military. But libertarians who think that this is all that need be said are wrong. To see this, imagine that the government declared that blacks could not use the interstate highways. Would it be enough for libertarians to say that the government should not own and operate highways, remaining agnostic on the particular policy? Of course not, because that’s not all there is to the matter. Libertarians should say that as long as the government does own and operate highways, it must not discriminate irrationally or invidiously in their use.

    -S. Richman last year.

  25. NEXT WEEK ON THE SHELDON RICHMAN COMEDY HOUR: Sheldon explains how the International Jewish Conspiracy brainwashed the Founding Fathers into creating a strong central government so that, two and one-half centuries later, that government would support the murder of Palestinians by Israel! Oh, those crafty Jews!

    Special Guest Star: Shecky Greene!

  26. why dont they draft citizens to be politicians and draft the politicians to go fight each other?

  27. i think it is interesting how seemingly universal the opposition to the idea of a draft is, yet the benefit of that, from a libertarian perspective, is completely missing.

    in a country that has no means of conscription, they have to maintain a larger standing army… something i think most here are also against. a means of conscription (or mandatory service, like in other countries) is necessary for a reduced military.

    and then there is the big missing of the point…. all the reasons being touted against the draft, are the exactly what makes a government more cautious in deciding to wage war. how loud do you think the calls for more wars in the middle east would be if we would fight them with a draft? how many bases do you think we would maintain around the world, if we manned them with conscripts? how big do you think the standing army would be if we had to fill it with non-volunteers? that was why the draft was ended when it was… that was the lesson of Vietnam. (you can’t get the support of the people to fight a proxy war with drafted soldiers).

    yes, the draft sucks… but it keeps a government more restrained. it naturally reduces our foreign interventionism. it naturally reduces our standing army size. i think our military should shrink, and the draft reinstated for that rare occasion where we should go to war. (and let public dissent keep the government in check about that justification)

    1. as for if women should be included… i think it’s fair… and it would make it even less likely the government would see them as resources to grind against the mill.

      PS- the current bureaucracy of the selective service could certainly use an update, but the dissent seems to be on if it should even exist.

  28. v

    Up to I looked at the draft which was of $7319 , I be certain …that…my neighbour was like they say realie receiving money part time at there labtop. . there moms best frend started doing this less than and just paid the mortgage on their apartment and bought a gorgeous Lexus LS400 . site here……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ???? ? ? ?

  29. There is no draft. It ended in 1973. What kind of crack are you smoking, Richman?

  30. I actually agree with Sheldon somewhat.

    Removing sexist discrimination in government servitude is at best a mixed bag.

    I feel similarly about gay marriage as a policy.

    Removing sexual preference based discrimination for eligibility to join a government privileged class based on lifestyle is similarly a mixed bag.

  31. Last I looked there were typos on the “Register Or Else” cards for cannon fodder enumeration. Has that changed? Has the Thirteenth Amendment also changed?

  32. just before I looked at the bank draft 4 $4970 , I accept …that…my father in law was like they say actualie making money in there spare time from their laptop. . there great aunt had bean doing this for less than thirteen months and at present paid the mortgage on there condo and purchased a brand new Volkswagen Golf GTI . check out here….

    Clik this link in Your Browser

  33. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

  34. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.