Originally posted by generalissimo
[/b]Sam has no idea what he is talking about, and the idea that the draft would save society money is nothing but a myth which is perpetuated by facile analysis of the cost of conscription, I really recommend you read the link I posted before (http://econjwatch.org/articles/the-role-of-economists-in-ending-the-draft).
as of right now the wealthy hav now how it went down fantastically well with the US public during the vietnam war, right?
I read the article which was largely reminiscing about how brilliant Milton Friedman was and was very spare in any actual arguments regarding the public cost of a draft. But I'm aware of the economic argument and it merely states that conscription is a tax on those drafted. So what? Last I checked, the US had an enormous budget deficit and taxes need to be raised. There is nothing unfair about a "tax" that will be borne by all at one time or another in their life as universal conscription would be. Opportunity costs to individuals have very little to do with the public purse; there is no doubt that a smaller drafted army using the reserve system I mentioned would cost tens of billions of dollars less as a public expenditure.
You really can't seem to follow an argument; the point was that the wealthy are freer to support all types of wars and military interventions now precisely because their children will not be asked to fight them.
What you believe is your own business, but I see little difference between expropriating the product of work through taxation to fulfill societal needs and requiring paid public service to fulfill critical societal needs (and national defense is one of the first order). In either case, you are sacrificing something for the public good.
The US has used a draft during every one of its wars from the Civil War to the Vietnam War and results were generally good. A reserve type system which I have alluded to was utterly common among European countries early in the 20th Century and worked quite efficiently. A smaller standing army would discourage military adventurism and force politicians to be more open in their intentions; calling up the reserves would have to be politically justified.
There are ample reasons to adopt the system proposed and the snivelling "I don't wanna" argument you have presented is unimpressive in the extreme.