> Strategic or not, I don't support the state proposing
> forced conscription, whether it's to get folks "to see
> a point about war" or not. Abraham Lincoln said that
> anyone who supported slavery ought to be the first to
> offer themselves as slaves. I think the same with war
> in Iraq or anywhere else. The cheerleaders should be
> the first to go. Later on, the article Julio posted
> does mention something like that.
Abraham Lincoln was a fool who strategically supported slavery in the non-seceeding slave states by not including them in the Emancipation Proclamation.
Even though I most closely identify with anarchism, I have no problem with instituting a draft, absent any exemptions that would statistically favor the middle and upper classes. Simultaneously, I have no problem supporting resistance to said draft by working class people (which would be rampant). In other words, I would be the first to offer myself as a "slave" and then also the first to overtly resist said "slavery."
The prospect of massive civil disobedience to the authority of the U.S. government by way of overt draft evasion is the reason U.S. rulers avoid it. It leads to all kinds of shenanigans and directly undermines their power not only to wage war on people without the country but also to rule and control the domestic society in all spheres, not just militarily. They know this, too, which is why Rangel's bill won't ever become law, despite the good it would do for the rest of the world and even the U.S. Or I guess I should say *because* of the good it would do for the rest of the world and the U.S.