National service ought not be compulsory

because it violates freedom and autonomy

 I strongly negate the resolution: In the
United States, National Service Ought to
be Compulsory
Framework
 My Value is Morality
Liberty and individual freedom is a constitutive feature of morality. Ethical systems
that do not maintain liberty as their starting point fail because they make impossible
the concept of moral culpability.
Uleman 10
Uleman 10 [(Jennifer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Purchase College) An Introduction to Kants Moral Philosophy, Cambridge
University Press, 1/21/2010] DD

We can summarize these thoughts by noticing how they fit with Kants helpful distinction between Willkr the capacity to choose and Wille
the faculty of practical reason as a whole. Both, as the words themselves suggest, are part of will.24 And both contribute distinctive elements
or components to human freedom. The first, Willkr, is the capacity for free choice itself, thecapacity to choose at will between
alternatives alter- native ends, alternative courses of action, alternative guiding principles of action. For Kant, Willkr is metaphysically
necessary for morality since without it praise and blame and responsibility-holding would not make
sense: to be held responsible, to be considered the author of an action, an agent must be the ultimate source of her
choices. Wille, the second term, is the capacity to formulate ends, and to for- mulate action-guiding principles aimed at serving those ends.
Thus does Kant call Wille practical reason itself:25 Wille conceptualizes and formulates in ways that actually guide practice, or intentional
action. For Kant, ends and action-guiding principles formulated by Wille insofar as it seeks grounds within itself and not in external sources, that
is, ends and action- guiding principles formulated by pure practical reason, count, not surprisingly, as ends and action-guiding principles that are
deeply mine. Such ends and principles are grounded in interests internal, for Kant, to my deepest self, my free rational self. And
by
choosing to act in accordance with such purely rational ends and principles, I choose action that is given aim and
shape by this self. Of course, once I choose a course of action, I am determined I am no longer exercising a capacity to go this way or
that but if I have chosen to act toward ends and on principles that are truly my own, I am still free in the crucial sense that I am self-
determined. These two components of Kantian freedom a capacity for choice (Willkr) and a capacity to furnish ends and principles that
are my own (Wille) are not reducible to each other, but are both essential components of will, as Kant understands it. Together, they make
Kantian sense of the possibility of a free will.
 Thus, my Value Criterion is maximizing individual autonomy and
freedom
Prefer for the following additional reasons

1) Autonomy is a pre-requisite for people to pursue other desires and goals. Without autonomy, one
cannot have the freedom of individual choice to try and obtain other desirable aspects of life. Moreover,
regardless of what ethical principle is the best, people must be able to rationally choose that principle to
obey it, which requires an expression of autonomy. This makes autonomy a pre-requisite to any other
moral principle as well.
 Contention 1: National Service is a violation of
rights
National Service is a violation of rights
Paul 14
Paul, Ron. "National Service Is Anti-Liberty And Un-American | The Daily Bell." Thedailybell.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 14 Aug. 2017.

Proponents of national service claim that young people have a moral obligation to give something back to society. But giving
the
government power to decide our moral obligations is an invitation to totalitarianism. Mandatory national
service is not just anti-liberty, it is un-American. Whether or not they admit it, supporters of mandatory national service do
not believe that individuals have "inalienable rights." Instead, they believe that rights are gifts from the government and,
since government is the source of our rights, government can abridge or even take away those rights whenever
Congress decides. The very worst form of national service is, of course, the military draft, which forces young people to kill
or be killed on government orders. The draft lowers the cost of an interventionist foreign policy because government need not compete with
private employers for recruits. Anyone who refuses a draft notice runs the risk of being jailed, so government can provide lower pay and
benefits to draftees than to volunteers.
 Contention 2: National Service is a violation of
individual freedom
National Service infringes upon freedom
Hornberger 13
Hornberger, Jacob. "Destroying Freedom To Protect Freedom." Cato Unbound. N.p., 2013. Web. 14 Aug. 2017.

For anyone who places a high value on freedom, there can be only one answer: Freedom entails the right of one to live his
life any way he chooses so long as he doesnt forcibly or fraudulently interfere with the right of other
people to do the same. If people arent free to make their own peaceful choices in life, then there is no way that that they can be
considered genuinely free. Thus Catos 18-year-old intern, Stephanie Jones, has[ve] the moral right to say no when the military
comes calling, regardless of her reasons, just as others have the right to say yes. Thats what freedom is ultimately all about. Neither the
military nor Gobry has the moral authority to kill Stephanie for refusing to work for the military and instead choosing to remain employed at
Cato. The issue of mandatory military service or, for that matter, mandatory service of any kind ultimately involves
the issue of sovereignty. Either the individual is sovereign over his life or the state is. Under what moral authority does a
government seize a free person and compel him to serve the government or to serve others? How can people living in a
society in which the state wields that sort of sovereignty over them be considered truly free? Indeed, isnt that[s] what slavery is all
about the legal authority of some to force others to serve them? Throughout his piece, Gobry exudes a lack of
faith in free men and women. Its clear that he honestly believes that in a free society, people must be compelled by force to come to the
defense of their freedom. You especially see this in his analysis regarding Switzerland. Hes convinced that if the Swiss werent forced to join the
military, they would never voluntarily come to the defense of their country in the event of an attack. As an aside, we of course hear that
argument all the time from welfare-statists that the state needs to provide people with their retirement, health care, education, food, and
other essentials because free people and a free market simply cannot be trusted to provide them on a voluntary basis.