And there are also the fundamental philosophical-ethical arguments against conscription as well, of course, including Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: "Always treat humanity as an end itself, and never solely as a means". And predictably, Niccolo "ends justify the means" Machiavelli himself, often seen as Kant's philosophical foil, was a huge fan of conscription, as he felt that mercenaries would be untrustworthy in terms of loyalty (gotta love that false binary there with no room for nuance whatsoever).
But every so often, the old zombie arguments (often in superficial shiny new drag) in favor of bringing back the draft resurface like a bad case of herpes. They can be grouped into the following: 1) Necessity, 2) Equality/Equity, and 3) Social Engineering. And here we will not only debunk them, but also debone, slice, dice, julienne, and ultimately lay waste to their scorched remains.
The "necessity" argument is probably the only good and coherent argument strong enough to justify the forcible confiscation of labor services (i.e. slavery, which is what conscription really is) of innocent erstwhile civilians in an otherwise free society worthy of the name. That is, if the necessity in question is actually true. Spoiler alert: for most wars throughout history, to say nothing of peacetime, that was not really true. That is because a) most wars throughout history were unnecessary wars of choice that could have been avoided, and thus inherently wrong except on the side legitimately defending itself, b) there almost always alternatives to conscription even if a war is necessary, such as (gasp!) paying our troops more, rather than forcibly doing it on the cheap, and c) a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose. (And being the world's de facto police force is really NOT a war of necessity, by the way.) And all of these apply a fortiori with today's technology, which reduces the need for the large numbers of troops in the wars of the more distant past.
Of course, to be fair, given a large enough scale AND a long enough duration of a war that really is NOT a war of choice and absolutely can't be pulled out of, the necessity argument CAN perhaps become valid in those select cases. World War II and the American Civil War are textbook examples of such from history. (Ditto for, God forbid, World War III, assuming it isn't largely an air and nuclear war, which would supersede this argument, albeit in a bad way). But these "edge cases" are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Then comes the "equality" or "equity" argument, sometimes called the "poverty draft" or "skin in the game". That is, poor and working class people (who often join at least partly for economic reasons) are disproportionately overrepresented in the all-volunteer military, and the rich are grossly underrepresented. That thus makes it easier for our elected leaders and their wealthier supporters to be cavalier about making war in general, knowing that they or their kids won't personally be affected. Also along with that, it is seen as a gross injustice towards the poor and working class, and especially for racialized minorities, that they do such a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying. While there is a kernel of truth to both components of this argument, that does NOT change the basic fact that the elites have ALWAYS been able to get themselves out of harm's way, draft or no draft, and practically ALL wars in recorded history have been primarily fought by the poor and working class for the benefit and wealth of the rich. And the real corrective for that is to simply abolish poverty and the desperation that goes with it with a robust social welfare state including, but not limited to, Universal Basic Income, single-payer Medicare For All, and free college. And yes, per the iron laws of supply and demand, we will have to pay our troops significantly more than they are paid now, or more accurately, pay them what they are really worth for once! And, of course, we have got to knock it off with the imperialistic wars of choice!
As for any supposedly "altruistic" or "humanitarian" wars (in the rare cases when it is not merely a cover for imperialism), hey, if you feel like YOU personally have a duty to risk dying for random people halfway around the world for whatever reason, be my guest. You can even go start your own "Human Shield Brigade" with like-minded folks. Just don't force or coerce other people to do it for you to soothe YOUR aching conscience, capisce? Such "vicarious altruism" with other people's blood and treasure is really not altruism at all, but rather egoism in disguise.
(By the way, the mere presence of a draft does NOT preclude a country's leaders from being cavalier about war or getting stuck in long military quagmires. See Vietnam, for example. Or more recently, Israel.)
Then there is the perennial "social engineering" or argument, which is probably the most vexing one of all. Not because is it particularly hard to debunk (it's really quite easy, as you will quickly see), but because of the way it sticks in people's minds so puzzlingly well even after the first two arguments are revealed to be hollow. Basically, some people arrogantly seem to think that they somehow know what is best for everyone else at a personal level, and believe that they therefore have the right to force or coerce it upon them if they won't willingly accept it "for their own good" and the supposed "greater good" of society. Such a thing is utterly patronizing and paternalistic, but we see it in so many other areas of life that few of us hardly even notice it anymore. So when people claim that bring back a (presumably universal) draft would somehow be a panacea for whatever ails society, there will always be some people who listen and agree. But regardless of how one feels about that and the limits of social engineering in a free society, it is literally the WORST argument there is for forcing people against their will to do something with as much gravitas (and danger) as military service. Regardless of what ancillary utilitarian benefits there may be to a draft, it all comes back to Machiavelli versus Kant once again. If we truly believe that human beings are ends in themselves and not just means to an end, then conscription is automatically a non-starter.
Otherwise, it is a Machiavellian solution in search of a problem, whatever that problem may be.
And all this is before we even get into the issue of age. As Phil Ochs famously sang in the 1960s, "It's always the old, who lead us to the war, it's always the young who fall". And that remains true to this day. If we really want to "share the sacrifice equally" like some modern conscription advocates claim to want, then by that logic, perhaps we should draft people in their 40s and 50s and beyond too. And of course, the very first to be drafted should be the billionaires, followed by the millionaires, and so on down the pyramid. After all, they are the ones who benefit from it the most, while being historically the most underrepresented. Or even fairer still, perhaps we could have "consensual conscription" where all wars are put up to a (non-secret) popular vote, and those who vote yes are drafted as needed, followed by those who abstained, and those who voted no would be exempt from the draft. But otherwise, there is really no such thing as an equitable draft, since drafts are by their very nature discriminatory.
Finally, there also sometimes is brought up the idea that being back the draft would somehow help the youth rights movement. It is true that the lowering of the voting age, age of majority, and drinking age from 21 to 18 was partly spurred by the Vietnam draft and the idea that it was wrong for someone to be considered old enough to die for their country but too young to vote, drink, etc. But guess what? The existence of a draft was neither necessary nor sufficient to effect such a change. First, the draft was in effect with a draft age of 18 from 1941-1946 and from 1948 to 1973, and yet it took three decades until 1971 to lower the voting age and until 1973 to lower the drinking age and age of majority in most states to 18. And meanwhile, Canada and the UK didn't have any draft since 1945 and 1960, respectively, and yet they still managed to lower the age for full adult rights to 18 by the early 1970s, which then became an international consensus. And no Western country, draft or no draft, raised its drinking age from 18 back to 21 except the USA in the 1980s and Lithuania in 2018, the latter country doing so after they brought back the draft in 2016. And in general, countries that currently have significant conscription don't seem to be more youth-rights friendly than those who don't.
It's more likely that demographics were the biggest factor: in 1968, fully half of the American population was under 18, and a vast majority was under 25. The same was true in many other countries well. Thus they had a strength in numbers that we wouldn't see in today's ageing population. Bringing back the draft would almost certainly backfire on the youth rights movement today, even if it may invigorate the anti-war movement all the same.
So let's put this zombie idea to rest once and for all. If WWIII happens, then all bets are off of course, but in any case, it is NOT a net benefit to the youth rights movement.
