This question came up in a philosophy course. It may make for interesting discussion.

We will keep the players fictional so we can look to theory.

You are an adviser to the president of Freedonia, Rufus T. Firefly. The neighboring country of Sylvania is expected to declare war soon. President Firefly wants to know what is the fairest approach for Freedonia to use to fill its military manpower needs in defense.

You have three options:

1. All volunteer
2. Volunteer and mercenary
3. Draft

How would you respond to President Firefly and why?

Draft with very few exemptions. All citizens must share responsibility for the life of the nation when the nation is in danger not just the underclass and military minded.

What exemptions should be allowed?

Off the top of my head I'd exempt medical if really unable to serve and those with extensive criminal backgrounds. If we are to have a draft college students and parents can serve alongside unexempted blue collar people and resume their previous lives and studies at the end of their service.

Is there a way to have those exempted still, "share responsibility for the life of the nation when the nation is in danger?"

No, not really. Those who serve in uniform are taking a real risk of death or severe injury. All classes must share equally in the risk just as they share in the rewards. It is not fair, in fact its immoral to exempt some from the risk others must take.

Put more thought into this or perhaps another forum member has an idea. It may be unfair to put those at risk who couldn't handle the responsibility. Take for example an elderly person. They may not be able to wield a weapon on the battlefield, but does that necessarily mean that there is nothing they can contribute?

What is necessary in defending a country?

Here is President Rufus T. Firefly.

Freedonia has an "underclass"?!? Sounds like it isn't a nation worth fighting for.

I'm inclined to go with option #2, but would do so not knowing the current state of the militaries of Freedonia and Sylvania, which would be an important piece of information to have...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

All volunteer. If the neighboring country is about to attack there should be no problem recruiting. Thats assuming Freedonia is a free country and worth fighting for.

You don't need that information to answer the question. Why do you think option 2 (volunteer and mercenary) would be the fairest?

Recruitment is not the question. The fairest approach is the question. If you still hold to all volunteer, then can you explain why you think that it would be the fairest?

Its a bit odd to be worrying about fairness when facing an attack on your homeland, but to answer the question, I think to be fair to the country as a whole it is the duty of the president to raise the best army possible, and I believe a volunteer army is best if possible, and with the country facing attack a volunteer army should be very possible.

How a country wages war (defensive or otherwise) demonstrates the kind of people they are. The question has been raised" is Freedonia worth defending?" How it handles fairness would be an indicator of if it is a country worth defending.

Why would all volunteer be the best?

If Freedonia is worth defending its able bodied citizens will step forward to defend it. I see nothing unfair about that. Volunteers are likely to make better soldiers than those who had to be forced to be there.

Is it possible for someone to be able bodied and believe Freedonia is worth defending but not volunteering?