Aren't there other consequences for draft evasion? Or, at least, not registering for Selective Service. Like isn't it a requirement to vote? And I think certain scholarships require you to have registered for selective service. And immigrants may be required to register in order to obtain citizenship.
It's at the very least a requirement for some federal positions and contracts. I think a lot of states have built-in systems that related the Selective Service with things like driver's licenses.
I agree that the draft - as administered in the past - was certainly inequitable. I also believe that everyone who evaded service, male and female alike, should be called upon today to perform National Service.
Unlike you, I volunteered my draft in 1971 and served two years. Hopefully, should America be attacked, you won't be in that 72%.
I agree that the draft - as administered in the past - was certainly inequitable. I also believe that everyone who evaded service, male and female alike, should be called upon today to perform National Service.
Unlike you, I volunteered my draft in 1971 and served two years. Hopefully, should America be attacked, you won't be in that 72%.
I am not saying this changes the main argument at all, but shouldn't the number 2% be modified to include the likelihood of being sent to Vietnam if drafted? It looks like something like 30-40% of the military was deployed to Southeast Asia during the conflict, as opposed to being stationed stateside, Germany, Korea, Japan, ect. With the 2% of fatalities coming from (assuming the higher part of the range) 40% of the military deployed to the theater, wouldn't the fatality rate for a draftee be closer to 0.8%? Not saying the ratio of fatality versus jail being closer to 1 to 5 instead of 1 to 2 changes the final judgement!
This is a bad take by Bryan. It's not clear if the draft will still be a full requirement for warfare going forward given drone advancements, but previously the ability to draft had been critical for nations to fight wars and defend themselves. Nations without the draft would have been almost trivially destroyed by ones that did. It's an unpleasant, but necessary part of human existence. Draft dodging has a big free-rider problem if it's not cracked down on in times of conflict. If you genuinely oppose whatever war is being fought, the correct place to do so is at the ballot box (assuming you live in a democracy).
The problem with the theory of civil disobedience is that it gives credence to anyone who disagrees with any law, considering it "unjust." I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer, Major Hasan (of Fort Hood fame), Harvey Weinstein and serial rapists follow the theory of civil disobedience too. Likewise with the Hatfields and the McCoys. I can only imagine Major Hassan's similarly utilitarian calculation: a few years in prison is worth killing 13 infidels.
Sure, if you're willing to say that rape and murder are morally permissible and that laws against rape and murder are unjust, then yeah, there's no difference between a rapist/murderer and a conscientious objector. But if your position is that we can't say that rape and murder are immoral, then what's the point in making any moral claims at all?
A central feature of the theory of civil disobedience is that the law you're disobeying has to actually be unjust. A draft is unjust. Laws against murder are not.
I agree, but there is a spectrum of what individuals think are unjust, certainly not an objective standard, which is the crux of the problem with disobedience. You and I agree that murder and rape is wrong, Dahmer does not. Subjective standards always have this problem.
I think that in addition to the probability of dying in Vietnam you need to add the probability of serious physical injury and psychological trauma.
Prison has those same problems, plus a felony conviction for the rest of your life.
Aren't there other consequences for draft evasion? Or, at least, not registering for Selective Service. Like isn't it a requirement to vote? And I think certain scholarships require you to have registered for selective service. And immigrants may be required to register in order to obtain citizenship.
It's at the very least a requirement for some federal positions and contracts. I think a lot of states have built-in systems that related the Selective Service with things like driver's licenses.
I had bone spurs. Ducked the draft, became a billionaire, AND got a full-dress military parade in Washington in my honor.
Life is good. Lock 'n' load, Sucker!
Can you conceive of a war where the draft was morally correct to impose?
Sounds like you are part of the 72% - 72% indicated that they would not be willing to volunteer to serve in the U.S. military in the face of a major conflict. https://www.newstarget.com/2023-11-17-poll-72-percent-unwilling-volunteer-military-service.html
I agree that the draft - as administered in the past - was certainly inequitable. I also believe that everyone who evaded service, male and female alike, should be called upon today to perform National Service.
Unlike you, I volunteered my draft in 1971 and served two years. Hopefully, should America be attacked, you won't be in that 72%.
Sounds like you are part of the 72% - 72% indicated that they would not be willing to volunteer to serve in the U.S. military in the face of a major conflict. https://www.newstarget.com/2023-11-17-poll-72-percent-unwilling-volunteer-military-service.html
I agree that the draft - as administered in the past - was certainly inequitable. I also believe that everyone who evaded service, male and female alike, should be called upon today to perform National Service.
Unlike you, I volunteered my draft in 1971 and served two years. Hopefully, should America be attacked, you won't be in that 72%.
I am not saying this changes the main argument at all, but shouldn't the number 2% be modified to include the likelihood of being sent to Vietnam if drafted? It looks like something like 30-40% of the military was deployed to Southeast Asia during the conflict, as opposed to being stationed stateside, Germany, Korea, Japan, ect. With the 2% of fatalities coming from (assuming the higher part of the range) 40% of the military deployed to the theater, wouldn't the fatality rate for a draftee be closer to 0.8%? Not saying the ratio of fatality versus jail being closer to 1 to 5 instead of 1 to 2 changes the final judgement!
This is a bad take by Bryan. It's not clear if the draft will still be a full requirement for warfare going forward given drone advancements, but previously the ability to draft had been critical for nations to fight wars and defend themselves. Nations without the draft would have been almost trivially destroyed by ones that did. It's an unpleasant, but necessary part of human existence. Draft dodging has a big free-rider problem if it's not cracked down on in times of conflict. If you genuinely oppose whatever war is being fought, the correct place to do so is at the ballot box (assuming you live in a democracy).
The problem with the theory of civil disobedience is that it gives credence to anyone who disagrees with any law, considering it "unjust." I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer, Major Hasan (of Fort Hood fame), Harvey Weinstein and serial rapists follow the theory of civil disobedience too. Likewise with the Hatfields and the McCoys. I can only imagine Major Hassan's similarly utilitarian calculation: a few years in prison is worth killing 13 infidels.
Sure, if you're willing to say that rape and murder are morally permissible and that laws against rape and murder are unjust, then yeah, there's no difference between a rapist/murderer and a conscientious objector. But if your position is that we can't say that rape and murder are immoral, then what's the point in making any moral claims at all?
A central feature of the theory of civil disobedience is that the law you're disobeying has to actually be unjust. A draft is unjust. Laws against murder are not.
I agree, but there is a spectrum of what individuals think are unjust, certainly not an objective standard, which is the crux of the problem with disobedience. You and I agree that murder and rape is wrong, Dahmer does not. Subjective standards always have this problem.
Shouldn't you condition the probability of being killed on registering for the draft and not having a deferment, rather than on being sent to Vietnam?
It wasn't that a lot of guys were opposed to the war in Vietnam. It was that they were opposed to their personal involvement in the war in Vietnam.
The war machine is always hungry and demands its pound of flesh. When you shirked your oigation, someone else took your place.