[AZLiberty]

Government coercion is nasty, whether applied to male or female.

The author misses the point -- it's the draft that's bad, not that it might be applied to females. Otherwise, I might argue that my little girl (now 16) should be "protected" from paying income tax while my son should feel the full brunt.

High-tech warfare is now to the point where conscripts would mainly serve to get in the way. If we need qualified people, spread the burden around, run a deficit, and offer "huge" recruiting bonuses (e.g., no income tax for the rest of your life).

[xzins]

That's the point of the author.

We not only base our positions on some competition between the sexes, but we have no love for our own daughters. To support another man's daughter being eligible for the draft is to throw my beautiful daughters into places that they should not be.

Shouldn't our hearts be turned to a special protectiveness for our daughters, our wives, the mothers and future mothers of our children?

Have our hearts turned to stone?

[zeromus]

. If we need qualified people, spread the burden around, run a deficit, and offer "huge" recruiting bonuses (e.g., no income tax for the rest of your life).

Or quit teaching them to hate their country, civilization, and way of life in school, so they might be more willing to volunteer to defend it all.

[steve-b]

If we need qualified people, spread the burden around, run a deficit, and offer "huge" recruiting bonuses (e.g., no income tax for the rest of your life).

That reward for exemplary service would provide another public benefit -- it would salt the population with examples of just how much better off an average middle-class person could be if government were rolled back to its proper size.

[MEGoody]

"run a deficit"

You mean MORE of a deficit. War itself generally results in a deficit.