From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax:mab
Newsgroups: net.followup
Title: Re: The Draft and Involuntary Service
Article-I.D.: purdue.437
Posted: Sat Nov  6 01:28:43 1982
Received: Tue Nov  9 03:56:20 1982
References: eagle.599 yale-com.232

   All this flaming about the draft and one's obligation to  society  poses
the question, "What if what society demands is unconscionable to the one of
which it is demanded?" There are a lot of people who object,  on  religious
grounds  (or  grounds  of conscience -- it's the same thing in the law), to
entering the military; does this mean that they have absolutely no right to
live  in  this  society?  It  seems  to  me that communities which obligate
service from its members in exchange for living  in  them  have  a  greater
obligation to respect the demands of conscience of the individual.
   One or two other comments.  The claim that a society  can  demand  one's
service  sounds very bogus to me.  Laudable as the idea is, you can't force
people to do it, and trying to do so by law is  questionable.  The  problem
is  that  you  can't  legislate  morality  --  look  at  the  "great failed
experiment" (as one historian called it) Prohibition.  There, people  tried
to  prevent  immorality (drinking); not only was that law the laughingstock
of the country, the mobs' business took off when that law was on the books.
   Even worse, who  decides  what  "serves  society"?  A  society's  values
change and what one day is seen as a traitorous act may later be considered
service above and beyond the call of duty later on (look at the writing  of
the  US Constitution -- certainly treason against the government then [read
the Articles of Confederation sometime] but now seen as a great service  to
our  society.)  Legislators  and  presidents  are not endowed with infinite
wisdom, and particularly in our society, one must be free  to  serve  one's
country as one believes best, not as the governors (legislators, president)
feel  best.  Unfortunately,  the  draft  does  not  give  one  that  option
(conscientious  objector status, contrary to popular opinion, was VERY hard
to get, because you had to  base  your  request  on  religious  beliefs  or
"beliefs which are as controlling a factor in the way you live as God is in
the life of a conventionally religious person" -- try  proving  THAT  to  a
draft  board!).  Universal  service may be a bit more palatable, but still,
who says that one person has met his obligation and another hasn't? Indeed,
who says what the obligation is in the first place?

Quivering about whether or not to sign my name...
Matt Bishop
mab@purdue, {decvax|ucbvax}!pur-ee!purdue!mab

PS: About Jerry Leichter's comment (yale-com.232) that the draft is ...
	Often the only alternative:  Suppose not enough people are willing to
		take the job of fighting that society agrees must be done?
Seems to me that if this is the case, "society" hasn't agreed the  fighting
must  be done.  Remember, "society" is not some abstraction -- it's made up
of people, and if these individuals agree fighting is necessary, they  MUST
be  willing to do it; they have no right (moral, ethical, or any other kind
except -- possibly -- legal) to force those who do not agree it's necessary
to do it.
   Sorry, but I just couldn't resist answering that one.