[CatoRenasci]

There is a signficant difference between telling citizens that, as they go about their private business they must obey certain laws and regulations, and telling citizens that they must set their private business aside altogether and, upon pain of death, do what the state tells them, ordering them about in ways (UCMJ, hierarchy) that would be quite unconstitutional in civil life. This is not Sparta.

It's one thing for citizens to voluntarily submit to military discipline, quite another to tell them they must do so. In fact, we amended the constitution to outlaw involuntary servitude, except upon conviction of crime.

I believe as strongly as anyone that citizens ought to feel a sense of obligation to preserve the state and a sense of duty that would lead them to share the burden of defending the state. That model of civic virtue rather reminiscent of the Roman republic was the founding model of the American republic: our notion of the entire male population of military age constituting the militia, but the organized militia was entirely voluntary, and subject only to limited service.

However, the fact that I think citizens ought to feel a duty does imply that I believe the state has the right to impose not only the duty but punishment for refusal to accept it. As much as I like the militia model - as a VMI man the notion of the "citizen-soldiers, attached to their native state and ready in every time of deepest peril to vindicate her honor and defend her rights" has stayed with me through the past 40 years since I first walked through the arch - I think we're better off today with a primarily professional army with strong citizen-soldier reserve elements, rather than relying on reluctant draftees.

[PzLdr]

Sparta was dived into three classes of citizenship. Only the first, the homoi [p/s?] was allowed to serve in the military - and run the country. The other two classes, the artisans and the helots were an enforced support system. One of the reasons Sparta fell to the Boetians was her refusal to expand her warrior class, and therefore her manpower [along with her refusal to update her military doctrine and tactics]. By the end of her war with Thebes and her allies, Sparta couldn't field an army of sufficient size to fight. so I think your example of Sparta is erroneous.

The Roman legions, pre Marius, were limited to property owners, but they were not voluntary. Service was a requisite of citizenship.

I also disagree with the proposition that the draft would be ..."telling citizens that they must set their
private business aside altogether and,
upon pain of death, do what the state
tells them, ordering them about in ways
(UCMJ, hierarchy) that would be uncon-
stitutional in civil life."

First, there is no "pain of death" and hasn't been that I can remember for those who refuse to set aside their private business instead of doing what the state tells them.Second, when you are in the service, you're not in civilian life Third this country has told its citizens the had to submit to military discipline in the Revolution [militia might be short term active duty , but all able bodied men were enrolled], the War of 1812, several of the Indian Wars, the Whiskey Rebellion,the Civil War [first draft law], WWI, WWI, the entire Cold War, and of course, Korea and Viet Nam. So for historical purposes, we've required submission for military service in all but the Mexican War, the Indian Wars of the West [and the Seminole War], and the Spanish - American War. So I would argue that on a historical basis, your premise is shaky.

And as an Army Officer from the Viet Nam era, and a student of history, I believe that a conscript Army will provide an Army of sufficient size, and more than adequate professionalism to best provide for the nation's security.