NationStates Jolt Archive

Ban The Draft
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong

Description: Banning the Draft, Propsed by The Republic of Millstone on November 05, 2003.

The draft-a system for or act of selecting individuals from a group (as for compulsory military service) (2) : an act or process of selecting an individual (as for political candidacy) without the individual's expressed consent b : a group of individuals selected especially by military draft

The draft I'm talking about is a military draft. I beilive that forcing a person to fight takes away from their rights as a human being. Some might say "Banning the draft could make a nation vunrable during a time of war!" ney I say! If the cause of your confilct is just then your people will rally behind the cause and their nation and serve their nation with vigor and patriotism.

I beilive instead of the draft replace it with a sort of "advertisment blitzkrieg" for the millitary during its time of conflict. If you can get support people will join and will fight.

As a peace loving nation, the citizens of Eponya agree. While yes, this may make your nation more vulnerable, we also believe it is unfair to make people opposed to the war have to fight it. That situation may only lead to citizen uprising if they are unhappy with this and could do far worse than a war.

As I said the last time a resolution like this was proposed, we in Gurthark would be very willing to support a proposal like this if it made an exception for countries that had been attacked within their own borders performing conscription to defend those borders.

That is, we would support a ban on the use of conscripted soldiers to fight wars on foreign soil.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Fought on foreign soil or not, a war is a war. A nation has a right to defend itself and ensure its territorial and political integrity. If this necessitates a pre-emptive strike, then so be it. Besides, wars are not nice parceled events. A nation that is suddenly attacked might not have the option to simply stop after expelling the hostile nation from its soil. The war might have to be carried on to the enemy's soil.

The draft is often a vital component of a nation's armed forces, especially for smaller nations faced with larger adversaries. How can the UN in good conscience deny these nations the ability to defend themselves?

Furthermore, some nations have reached a societal consensus to require everyone to serve in the military...not necessarily for any overtly hostile purpose, but to instill a sense of national pride or hard work ethic in their youths. Is the UN going to tell entire societies that their values are 'wrong'? I think not.

New Clarkhall stands opposed to any resolution banning the draft.

The Drama Isles supports New Clarkhall in its views.

We believe that the UN does not have the right to tell nations to abolish one of their time-honored traditions.

While the Drama Isles has a permanent volunteer military, it is small nonetheless. If we were to be attacked, and had to participate alone in a war, we would be in sorry shape if we could not have a draft.

The Drama Isles is also opposed to the resolution that would ban the draft.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Besides, there's always advertising for joining the military, and the world is starting to develop remote-controlled, unmanned planes and such. :D

Noncoercion supports this measure. For some reason, our nation is described as having a draft. It does not.

The draft shouldn't be banned.It is necessary if a small nation wishes to protect its sovriegnity and freedom. If less people are made to go into the military, then such a nation's army would be too small to counter potential threats. Besides, it is the duty of the citizens to protect their own freedom, not the government's, so the government unfortunately has to force people into military service if the people are not loyal enough to their nation. Unfortunately, the price of peace is eternal vigilance. To a point, national service may allow to foster better cohesion among the people. Such is the case in Singapore and Switzerland (anywhere else?).

However, we should endorse drafting to a point. Drafting should only be used for defensive purposes only and must never be used to assemble an army to attack another nation. It is in this case that drafting is not justifiable.


OOC: I might take back my comments in the 1st para in 2 years time...That's when I'm goin for me national service... :?

Celadon Islands agrees that a draft should be banned! If families are interested in the Army or Navy, then they can join.

The Incorporated States of MacroHard do not recognize the United Nations as a world government, and therefor reject any claims that it has the power to pass or enforce such a resolution.

Society is not a free ride, and not all contributions are voluntary. Conscription, like taxation, is a means of providing public goods. Were it possible for citizens to choose on an individual basis whether they wish to receive the benefit of military protection, and whom will receive the protective benefit of military service that they provide, a draft might be unjustifiable, but such is not the case.
If military service were always voluntary, a nation would find, in an emergency, that many would not serve, even if they favor military action, because they can receive the benefits of others' service in any case. In essence it is a multi-partner Prisoner's Dilemma; each person individually stands to gain by refusing to serve, no matter what the others do, yet the welfare of all depends on many choosing against their own personal welfare.
Universal peacetime conscription ensures that citizens are already trained for mlitary service in the event of an emergency. More importantly, it ensures that the military remains under control of the people, as it represents the whole of the people, and its members are essentially civilians, rather than members of their own separate class.
Ultimately, power resides in arms, not in laws or elections, as many countries have discovered by experience. Political power, as Mao said, flowers from the barrel of a gun.

As I said the last time a resolution like this was proposed, we in Gurthark would be very willing to support a proposal like this if it made an exception for countries that had been attacked within their own borders performing conscription to defend those borders.

That is, we would support a ban on the use of conscripted soldiers to fight wars on foreign soil.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Yes I forgot to include conscription. But drafting and conscription I guess you could say are the same thing in effect that they both take civillians and force them into military service. I know the Soviets did this.

Approved.

Society is not a free ride, and not all contributions are voluntary. Conscription, like taxation, is a means of providing public goods. Were it possible for citizens to choose on an individual basis whether they wish to receive the benefit of military protection, and whom will receive the protective benefit of military service that they provide, a draft might be unjustifiable, but such is not the case.
If military service were always voluntary, a nation would find, in an emergency, that many would not serve, even if they favor military action, because they can receive the benefits of others' service in any case. In essence it is a multi-partner Prisoner's Dilemma; each person individually stands to gain by refusing to serve, no matter what the others do, yet the welfare of all depends on many choosing against their own personal welfare.
Universal peacetime conscription ensures that citizens are already trained for mlitary service in the event of an emergency. More importantly, it ensures that the military remains under control of the people, as it represents the whole of the people, and its members are essentially civilians, rather than members of their own separate class.
Ultimately, power resides in arms, not in laws or elections, as many countries have discovered by experience. Political power, as Mao said, flowers from the barrel of a gun.

Fucking socialist. There is no valid reason to force an individual to fight if he does not choose to--individual rights are sacrosanct and superior to any other cause.

The end cannot be used as a valid justification for the means, EVER.

Society is not a free ride, and not all contributions are voluntary. Conscription, like taxation, is a means of providing public goods. Were it possible for citizens to choose on an individual basis whether they wish to receive the benefit of military protection, and whom will receive the protective benefit of military service that they provide, a draft might be unjustifiable, but such is not the case.
If military service were always voluntary, a nation would find, in an emergency, that many would not serve, even if they favor military action, because they can receive the benefits of others' service in any case. In essence it is a multi-partner Prisoner's Dilemma; each person individually stands to gain by refusing to serve, no matter what the others do, yet the welfare of all depends on many choosing against their own personal welfare.
Universal peacetime conscription ensures that citizens are already trained for mlitary service in the event of an emergency. More importantly, it ensures that the military remains under control of the people, as it represents the whole of the people, and its members are essentially civilians, rather than members of their own separate class.
Ultimately, power resides in arms, not in laws or elections, as many countries have discovered by experience. Political power, as Mao said, flowers from the barrel of a gun.

f--- socialist. There is no valid reason to force an individual to fight if he does not choose to--individual rights are sacrosanct and superior to any other cause.

The end cannot be used as a valid justification for the means, EVER.

Modalert?

Modalert?

Modalert for a useless and pointless modalert.

You can ban it in your nation. I won't.

Maybe he meant "fantastic" socialist.

I agree with Rational...

though technically it's more of a Free Rider dillemma than a prisoner's dillema.

Thank you, Mall.... my game theory has all been acquired tangentially and incidentally.

Modalert?

Modalert for a useless and pointless modalert.

Well, telling him to either f--- a socialist, or that he is a f---ing socialist, or saying to f--- socialists (I can't tell which, your grammar in that post made no sense) is flaming. Which is why I modalerted you. If you can't learn to debate without flaming then you shouldn't be debating.

The draft is a necessary measure for all nations in my opinion. If it wasn't for the draft, some nations would be defencless against tyrannical invaders.

It seems that perhaps a compromise could be reached. After all, the larger nations of some 100s of million people, or even some billion people can afford such bans of the draft, they most likely have enough voluntary military to back up their might. The smaller nations security would be strapped, however, and thus I believe an exception clause should be created allowing the draft for purposes of self-defense.

I believe it may be a moot point, but if this is to function as a world government, all bases must be covered, no?

It seems that perhaps a compromise could be reached... I believe an exception clause should be created allowing the draft for purposes of self-defense.
The difficulty, of course, is in defining "self-defense". What about pre-emptive strikes? These can range from plainly defensive (Israel 1973, UK and Prussia 1815) to purely aggressive (Germany 1939, USA 1846), or murky cases in between (USA 2003, Austria-Hungary 1914). What about interventions on behalf of an ally who is a victim of aggression (USA 1965), or in defense of national interests against an aggressor on foreign territory (USA 1917, UK and France 1854)? Counterattacks necessary to defeat an aggressor (UK 1808, USA 1991)? Wars to recover territory taken by previous aggression (Austria 1757)? Are invasions of a nation's own territory (USA 1861) defensive?

For those of you into Game Theory, you should visit: http://perspicuity.net/ratlife.html. It's an excellent non-partisan site by Leon Felkins, though it does have a slightly (emphasis on slightly) libertarian lean. Also, as for the draft, as Ithuania said, the act of forcing an individual into the military is slavery, and the ends rarely justify the means (a very low tax rate would be an example). The draft is a war crime during wartime and a gross human rights violation during peacetime. Either way, UN intervention is justified. In addition, anyone who is drafted is legally denied of his or her free will. Therefore, ANY war crimes committed by a drafted soldier can NOT be held against him, but should rather be held against the government as a whole.

For those of you into Game Theory, you should visit: http://perspicuity.net/ratlife.html. It's an excellent non-partisan site by Leon Felkins, though it does have a slightly (emphasis on slightly) libertarian lean. Also, as for the draft, as Ithuania said, the act of forcing an individual into the military is slavery, and the ends rarely justify the means (a very low tax rate would be an example). The draft is a war crime during wartime and a gross human rights violation during peacetime. Either way, UN intervention is justified. In addition, anyone who is drafted is legally denied of his or her free will. Therefore, ANY war crimes committed by a drafted soldier can NOT be held against him, but should rather be held against the government as a whole.

You have far less people enrolled in your militia than I, what are YOU going to do about it? :P