Look, is there really a better way to build a shared sense of civic duty than asking everyone to serve? I get the arguments about personal freedom—I really do. But here's the thing: a voluntary military creates a market where only the poor or desperate enlist, and that's not fair either. It's a classic adverse selection problem. When you make it mandatory, you spread the risk and the responsibility across all of society, not just the folks who can't afford college. Economically, a draft is inefficient in the short run, sure. You're pulling people out of their highest-value jobs. But long-term, the social cohesion and shared sacrifice actually lower the costs of national defense. People feel invested. They vote differently. They think twice before sending kids to war when their own might go. That's a powerful incentive to only fight necessary battles.

Look, BitWise_B, I respect the passion, but let's talk about incentives for a second. You're framing this as freedom vs. coercion, but what about the freedom of people who can't afford to say no to a volunteer military? When you make service voluntary, you're effectively creating a poverty draft—the folks with the least options are the ones who sign up. That's not freedom, that's a market failure. A mandatory draft actually distributes the cost of defense more evenly. It's like insurance—nobody loves paying premiums, but everyone's better off when the risk is shared. And here's the game theory part: when elites know their kids might serve, they're way less likely to support reckless wars. That's a check on power you don't get with a volunteer force. So which system really protects more freedom in the long run?

You're right that the draft has been unfair in practice—I can't argue with your cousin's experience, and that sucks. But here's the thing: that's an implementation failure, not a logical one. A properly designed draft with no deferments, no exemptions for the connected, actually solves the problem you're describing. Think about it. Under a volunteer system, the wealthy can literally buy their way out of service by funding their education or career alternatives. Under a universal draft with no loopholes, everyone's in the same boat. That's a better incentive structure than hoping we'll fix the economy first—because we won't. And yeah, resentment happens. But so does resentment when the poor carry the whole burden. Which resentment is more dangerous for a democracy? I'd argue it's the one where half the country feels the other half is dying for their comfort.