I disagree with Ron Paul...

[ForLiberty2012]

on the draft. It's such a rare thing to happen anyway, but if it does happen, it's for the right reasons. I doubt we could have effectively taken on the Germans in World War II without the draft. I believe if you are born in this country, and you are given all the opportunities of this country, you owe it to the United States to serve when it NEEDS you to protect the freedoms of the people. I also completely disagree with his parallel to slavery. Slavery is an unpaid, lifetime duty to serve for an individual. A draft is a paid, temporary duty to serve to protect the freedoms of all individuals. If it's serving our national security interests (not an aggressive war, but a defensive one) and we just don't have the resources to fight, why shouldn't there be a draft?

How do you all feel about this? I'm definitely not in favor of this one and I don't understand his reasoning. Although I also believe the possibility of it ever happening again is very slim, so for that reason I don't believe it's a huge issue.

I also want to point out that it should be made more fair, however.

[hillertexas]

I don't remember his stance on the draft, but I do remember that he said that he would only be for it if they start with the oldest eligible draftee and work their way down to the young 18 year olds...so that the young kids would be the last ones drafted. Personally, I think that is a pretty smart way to insure there would never actually be a draft.

I am anti-draft myself. If it gets that bad, a draft wouldn't be necessary. People will defend their home. They only must be drafted to fight abroad.

By the way...the American gun owner is the largest armed group in the world. If Canada gets ballsy and invades , they are not *only* dealing with our government sanctioned armed forces.

[TheTyke]

A cause worth fighting for (like our Revolutionary war) will have the volunteers. But you can't preserve freedom by taking it away, and there's nothing temporary about sacrificing thousands of lives by force.

[1836]

The great thing about liberty is that we don't always have to agree on everything.

[rbohlig]

3 words...Gulf of Tonkin

As others have said, a worthy cause and a defensive war would certainly draw enough soldiers to the cause.

[ForLiberty2012]

I just think that there are times where it can be necessary.... you cannot predict the future, so to say we should get rid of the draft is just ignorant, in my opinion.

[sevin]

So slavery is ok if it serves the national interest? That's a slippery slope, my friend.

[sailingaway]

How much does this issue matter right now? Currently there is no draft.

[dannno]

I just think that there are times where it can be necessary.... you cannot predict the future, so to say we should get rid of the draft is just ignorant, in my opinion.

Did you read any of the refutations above? Some of them were pretty good.

Are you saying that if we had a cause worth fighting for, that people wouldn't volunteer to fight? Especially if it's a defensive war, which should be the only wars that we fight. I'm quite sure we would have plenty of people signing up if there was a real threat.

You also said:

if it does happen, it's for the right reasons.

Really? Because Vietnam seemed like all the wrong reasons to me.

[PPHILPOT]

Supporting the draft = admitting you belong to the state. If the state is making slaves of us what do I have to fight for?

[ForLiberty2012]

11 million people were drafted in World War II... If you've researched that war at all, you would know we needed each and every one of those men and who knows where we would be today if we just sat back and said, sorry World we don't have enough people to help you out.

[asurfaholic]

Personally, I wish we had stayed out of WW1 and WW2. If we had stayed neutral, what harm could have happened? Did we need to lose so many of our people? I know Pearl harbor got bombed, and I don't pretend to know all the answers. But I feel that the right course of action would have been to beef up defense, and arrange the existing military into defensive positions all around the states. We would have only suffered the losses that we suffered in Hawaii.

Maybe Germany could have won some ground all over Europe, maybe it would have been a tragedy, but that's life. We didn't need to send our own there to die too. Thats stupid.

Draft is WRONG. If the government stopped trying to regulate gun ownership, then our country would be more than prepared to deal with an actual true threat to our safety. I am confident that every man and many women would lay down fire in the general direction of the enemy if the enemy came here.

Making a Draft to get us involved overseas in someone else's war is wrong.

[Sola_Fide]

The draft only exists so people will be forced to fight for our government in offensive wars.

You never have to force a free people to defend their homeland....just like you never have to force a person to defend his family if they were attacked.

Reagan was right and Ron Paul is right.

[Sola_Fide]

11 million people were drafted in World War II... If you've researched that war at all, you would know we needed each and every one of those men and who knows where we would be today if we just sat back and said, sorry World we don't have enough people to help you out.

Are you serious with a post like this? You think Wilsonian progressivism was good?

[spudea]

its simple really.

Drafts are used by tyrants, kings, and baron's to advance their own agendas. Our leaders should spend all their energy to keep us out of wars, instead they take it upon themselves as having the power to reshape the whole world and never risking their own lives.

There are numerous examples throught history of armies consisting of volunteers defeating armies of conscripts and mercenaries.

The fact is, if we restore the ideals of our countries founding there will be sufficient armies ready to defend it at a moments notice.

[JoshLowry]

How do you all feel about this?

My government does not own my body, I own my government.

If one supports a draft because it comes during a war that defends freedom, then who fights the war against the people who came up with the draft?

[brandon]

Wars are never fought to protect freedom.

Revolutions never mandate participation.

[kah13176]

- The draft is slavery because it means sacrificing your life for the state.

- Just wars never require a draft. There will be plenty of volunteers.

- The draft violates 14th amendment's Equal Protection under the law as women don't have to enlist.

End of story. $#@! the draft.

[mport1]

Supporting the draft is supporting slavery.

[ForLiberty2012]

Really? Because Vietnam seemed like all the wrong reasons to me.

The president can do whatever they want militarily. That's like saying guns kill people. The fact that there is the selective service doesn't mean it's wrong.... but a draft can be used for the wrong reasons, like a gun. It's in place to serve our best interest (national defense), just like you have a right to own a gun. But to say we shouldn't have a draft because a president might abuse it (parallel: shouldn't let people own guns cause they might kill people) is the wrong argument to make. Or to say one president made a mistake, so we shouldn't accept the notion of having any president.

[trey4sports]

stupidest thing I've heard on the forum in a while.

- rep

[dannno]

The president can do whatever they want militarily.

According to the Constitution, congress is supposed to declare war and vote for funding. The President merely directs the war.

That's like saying guns kill people. The fact that there is the selective service doesn't mean it's wrong.... but a draft can be used for the wrong reasons, like a gun. It's in place to serve our best interest (national defense), just like you have a right to own a gun. But to say we shouldn't have a draft because a president might abuse it (parallel: shouldn't let people own guns cause they might kill people) is the wrong argument to make.

The question is, if we are fighting a just war, why would we need a draft? Not having a draft is an excellent check against an over-reaching government. It allows citizens at least some say in what our military is participating in.

Or to say one president made a mistake, so we shouldn't accept the notion of having any president.

That would be better than a draft, imo.

[erowe1]

I doubt we could have effectively taken on the Germans in World War II without the draft.

You're probably correct about this.

But, given that the draft is evil, this is an argument against FDR's war, not for the draft.

The same could be said for a lot of other evil things the regime in DC did to facilitate its waging of that war, including taxes, price controls, rationing, embargos, and other methods of exercising totalitarian control over the American people.

If you were alive during WW2, and if you wanted to contribute to a portion of your wealth to the cause of fighting against the Nazis, then the appropriate way for you to do that would have been to donate however much you wanted to the Churchill regime, or some other organization involved in that fight, without forcing other people to join you.

[spudea]

individual liberty comes first

[mport1]

The great thing about liberty is that we don't always have to agree on everything.

We do have to agree on the non-aggression principal. This guy would forcibly enslave us to fight for the government and it is quite disturbing. By supporting the draft he supports using violence against people who would refuse to ever fight for the government such as myself. He clearly does not support liberty at all.

[MJU1983]

Draft? Uh, NO way. I'll be right here protecting my life, family, and property should anyone decide to attack me/us.

[asurfaholic]

The president can do whatever they want militarily. That's like saying guns kill people. The fact that there is the selective service doesn't mean it's wrong.... but a draft can be used for the wrong reasons, like a gun. It's in place to serve our best interest (national defense), just like you have a right to own a gun. But to say we shouldn't have a draft because a president might abuse it (parallel: shouldn't let people own guns cause they might kill people) is the wrong argument to make. Or to say one president made a mistake, so we shouldn't accept the notion of having any president.

You are missing the point. A JUSTIFIED WAR would NOT need a draft. Americans would be begging to assist defend their homeland. Are you getting this point? Or do you agree that we need to topple all the bad regimes in the world?

[TheDrakeMan]

on the draft. It's such a rare thing to happen anyway, but if it does happen, it's for the right reasons. I doubt we could have effectively taken on the Germans in World War II without the draft. I believe if you are born in this country, and you are given all the opportunities of this country, you owe it to the United States to serve when it NEEDS you to protect the freedoms of the people. I also completely disagree with his parallel to slavery. Slavery is an unpaid, lifetime duty to serve for an individual. A draft is a paid, temporary duty to serve to protect the freedoms of all individuals. If it's serving our national security interests (not an aggressive war, but a defensive one) and we just don't have the resources to fight, why shouldn't there be a draft?

How do you all feel about this? I'm definitely not in favor of this one and I don't understand his reasoning. Although I also believe the possibility of it ever happening again is very slim, so for that reason I don't believe it's a huge issue.

I also want to point out that it should be made more fair, however.

The issue doesn't matter much right now. At the moment, there's no need to defend the nation and there's no real threat to the nation that requires a draft. If Ron Paul stated that he would oppose a draft during the Second World War, then I would have to disagree with him there.

[Sola_Fide]

We do have to agree on the non-aggression principal. This guy would forcibly enslave us to fight for the government and it is quite disturbing.

Well...I don't agree with the non-aggression principle on its own terms, but I still reject aggression and endorse liberty. So, I don't think that is the defining issue here. But I agree about the slavery to the government part of your post.

[Brian in Maryland]

No thank you, involuntary servitude.

I will however pick up a gun to defend against invasion.