Coercion Neg

Framework
I value Autonomy.

Autonomy is a necessary part of a good life. Nicole Hassoun, Associate Professor of Philosophy at
Birmingham University, comments in Arizona Universitys 3rd International Conference on Philosophy:

[Human Rights, Needs, and Autonomy University of Arizona, ATINER 3rd International Conference on
Philosophy]

Consider, first, why autonomy (understood here as just requiring reasoning and planning ability) is necessary for a minimally good life.
Rewarding struggle, deep understanding, good relationships, significant achievement, virtue and so forth are some of the things that make a life go minimally well.
Each of these things requires autonomy. People must be able to reason about, make, and carry out simple plans on the
basis of their commitments to create and maintain good relationships. People must, for instance, be able to reason about, make,
and carry out plans to talk with their friends and families for their relationships to flourish. Reasoning and planning are also necessary for developing important skills

and character traits, deep understanding, significant achievement, and so forth. So, autonomy is necessary for a minimally good life. Autonomy is also partly

constitutive of such a life. This is because personhood is, partly constitutive of a minimally good life and autonomy is partly
constitutive of personhood. Consider, first, why personhood is partly constitutive of a minimally good life. As persons we have a conception of
ourselves and of our past and future. We reflect and assess. We form pictures of what a good life would be, often, it is true, only on a small scale, but occasionally

also on a large scale. And we try to realize these pictures (Griffin, 2006, Ch. 2). These conditions for personhood are also conditions for a minimally good life. To

live a minimally good life one must be able to hope and dream, to pursue ones goals and carry out projects, to
live life on ones own terms. Those who lack a conception of being a self, persisting through time, with a past
and future cannot hope or dream. Those who never pursue their conception of a good life cannot achieve their goals or carry out projects. Hence
personhood is partly constitutive of a minimally good life. Consider next why autonomy is partly constitutive of personhood. Recall that autonomy requires the ability

to reason, make, and carry out simple plans on the basis of ones desires. These conditions for autonomy are also conditions for
personhood. To reflect and assess in the way that personhood requires one must be able to reason. To pursue
ones conception of a good life, as persons do, one must be able to make and carry out simple plans. We can also
see that autonomy is necessary for and partly constitutive of a minimally good life via examples. Suppose Aefa drifts through life making one choice then another

randomly or letting others choose for her. Suppose that Aefa has not freely chosen to drift. He simply [One who] cannot reason about, make, or carry out [her] plans.

Aefa cannot shape his [her] own life. He does not choose consistently enough to [and cannot] attain most of the things he [one] desires. He may end up subject to

anothers will. Even if, by chance, Aefa secures many valuable things, his [Ones] life will still lack an important kind of value. His life will be like a prize won

accidentally (Raz, 1998). Aefa [One without autonomy] cannot live a minimally good life because his [her] life is not truly her own.

Next,
Autonomy is a pre-requisite for people to pursue other desires and goals. 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 One is Coercion

First, a compulsory national service would require the central planning of the government this planning
would be coercive because it overrides an individuals sense of freedom Mario Rizzo writes:

Rizzo, Mario. Moral Dirigisme: The Knowledge Problem In Ethics. August, 1998. Web.
August 17, 2017. <https://ideas.repec.org/p/cgm/wpaper/04.html>.
There is, however, another argument one rarely recognized that is, in our view, even more important. Freedom, in the sense of the absence of
coercion, is a sine qua non of virtue because individuals must use their personal and local knowledge when
making moral decisions. This knowledge helps satisfy empirical requirements in the application of general moral principles. These requirements appear in
different ways in various moral systems but, in each system, knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place [Hayek, 1948: 80] is critical to the choice of a

specific action in fulfillment of a general rule, maxim, or principle. The argument here will be familiar to economists. It rests on an analogy with
another kind of decisionmaking: economic or market decisionmaking. In market transactions individuals make use of personal or local knowledge in determining the prices and other terms
on which they trade. It is through this process of bringing to bear, on his decisions, the agents knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place, that individual knowledge is
The price system, it is argued, tends to embody a knowledge vastly superior to that
mobilized for a social purpose [Hayek, 1948].

of any individual to the extent that individual agents are free to act on the basis of their own knowledge.
Central economic planning, on the other hand, explicitly replaces the knowledge of the individual with the
allegedly superior knowledge of the social planner. In reality, however, this knowledge is not superior, but
greatly inferior. So, paradoxically, a benevolent central planner is in a poorer position to attain his (or the societys) ends than the myriad of local decisionmakers. Just as central
planning of the economy founders on the Hayekian knowledge problem, so too the central direction of individuals moral choices founders on it own similar, although not identical,
knowledge problem. This is our thesis. Unlike the traditional Hayekian thesis, however, the moral or ethical knowledge problem does not rest on the superior ability of the price system to
communicate local knowledge. In fact, we are not here dealing with prices or markets. What will be shown is that, even outside of market decisionmaking, in certain cases, there will be a
superior application of general norms when people are free to act on the basis of their own local knowledge.

Central planning, like government requires that ones persons plan is superior to to others, and will override
other peoples ablity to live a free life. National service is deemed something that is worthy for one so it is
worthy for all, this forces people to do things they dont want to do.

And, The affirmatives use of force to conscript youth to participate in national service, inherently violates
their freedom of choice. Sam Woolife writes:
Woolife 13, (Same Woolfe, Professor at Durham University in the UK, "National Service Bill is a Violation of
Freedom" 2013 http://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/09/national-service-bill-is-violation-of.html, 10/3/17,
bgriffin)
The National Service Bill (2013-2014) was presented to Parliament on 24th June 2013, but since this was a first reading, there was no debate regarding the
Bill. However, on the 28th February 2014, the Bill is expected to have its second reading, in which it will be debated . This bill aims to make national service

compulsory for 18-26 year olds. It is conscription and nothing less. You can read the bill and all the details of
its proposals here. As it says, Exempt individuals are those with severe mental or physical disability. Whereas
Non-exempt individuals who do not serve one year of national service before the age of 26 shall be guilty of an offence. So the majority of the younger generation would be forced into it
under threat of criminal penalty. This would include myself, which Im not too happy about.Some proponents of the bill point to how beneficial a
year of national service can be to young people. For example, many useful skills can be attained. The years
national service will include the following elements: educational assistance, basic levels of physical fitness,
personal discipline, smart appearance, self respect and respect for others, financial
budgetingnutritiontime keepingtolerance towards others, treating elderly and disabled people with
dignity and respect and instruction in basic aspects of the law in relation to the most common offences
involving young people. So the bill aims to mould young people into healthy, responsible, moral and intelligent
citizens whats so wrong with that? Well the first criticism of these proposals lie in their efficacy. If an 18 year old comes out of school and is forced to spend a year doing something
they dont want to do, I cant imagine they would put much effort into the whole thing. Developing virtuous traits such as self respect and

respect for others depend on making conscious and voluntary choices you cannot force someone, under
the threat of a criminal conviction, to become an upstanding citizen.
Furthermore, mandatory services would decrease the effectiveness of national service because it
would decrease the volunteering spirit and overwhelm government infrastructure this turns case
because we would be worse off with a required system than with a volunteer only system. Michael
Brown writes:

Brown et al, 2008, The American Interest, A Call to National Service, https://www.the-
american-interest.com/2008/01/01/a-call-to-national-service/ Michael Brown, City Year, CEO
AnnMaura Connolly, City Year, senior vice-president Alan Khazei, Be The Change, CEO Wendy Kopp, Teach for America,
founder and CEO Michelle Nunn, Points of Light Foundation/Hands on Network, CEO
Gregg Petersmeyer, Director of the White House Office of National Service, 198992 Shirley Sagawa, Center for
American Progress, former managing director, Corporation for National and Community Service, and former Deputy
Chief of Staff to the First Lady (Hillary Clinton) Harris Wofford, former Senator from Pennsylvania and former CEO of the
Corporation for National and Community Service
We believe that national service brought to scale is an opportunity for social problem-solving and civic renewal that
America dare not pass up. That said, there are many ways one could go about such a project. Some believe that national service,
divided into military and a range of non-military categories, should be mandatory, and need not be accompanied by significant incentives for service. We respect
that view, but find it politically remote and, in any event, less than ideal. A mandatory program would saddle government
with policing truants, and it would drain away much of the idealistic spirit that abides with volunteerism. A mandatory
program for all young Americans would probably also exceed our organizational capacities to use that talent wisely, and the costs
of administrating a program of that size would be extremely high. On the other hand, we recognize a need to offer strong incentives along
with a much more substantial, and better organized, program for national service. In the spirit of reciprocity and echoing the idea of the GI Bill, Americans who
choose to serve their country should be rewarded with a head start toward achieving their own life goals.

And we can see that the status quo volunteer program works now in the status quo. This means
the affirmative only risks ruining an already productive system. Jeff Shear writes:

Jeff Shear, March 30, 2012, Pacific Standard, Can Compulsory Service Unite the Nation?, https://psmag.com/politics-
and-law/can-compulsory-service-reunite-the-nation-40739#.ov0ip17y9
Objections to the compulsory system are many, ranging from constitutional obstacles to fears that service would become a welfare program. More fundamentally, do
citizens owe their country anything beyond taxes and a vote? Voluntary
national service has been successful; AmeriCorps, which
supports community work, has spanned four presidencies. According to the Corporation for National &
Community Service, the federal umbrella program for public volunteers, the national numbers for volunteers
has held steady from 2002 to 2009 at 26 to 28 percent. Sandy Scott, acting director of public affairs for the organization, points to a huge spurt in
volunteerism among Gen X-ers and millennials. Their rate of volunteerism more than doubled to 29.2 percent over the last 20-plus years.
The corporation estimates the value of services rendered by volunteers last year in the range of $173 billion.

CP

The USFG should incentivize civilian national service where. This counter advocacy would not require
Americans to serve, but would instead offer financial benefits to joining. Zach Maurin writes:

--civilian is not military

Maurin 13, Zach. [Zach Maurin is the Executive Director of Service Year Alliance.] America Needs Universal
Civilian National Service. Cato Unbound. September 13, 2013.

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry and Jason Kuznicki have so far debated different sides of mandatory military service. Im going to take the debate in a third direction and
argue for another big idea about what we owe and what we should expect of each other: universal civilian national service. By that I mean a year of full-time service

here at home tutoring in schools, responding to natural disasters, working in health clinics, and helping families climb out of poverty. Universal does not mean
mandatory; it means available to everyone who wants to do it. The target age is 18-30. While military service is certainly the most laudable type of service, it is
already well-resourced, well-staffed, and a vibrant part of our culture. What
we need from our citizens especially rising generations of young
citizens is to serve here at home and to make a year of service part of what it means to be an American. Five

Arguments for Universal Civilian National Service 1) National service tackles problems. Right now one million kids are giving up on school each year and dropping out.
One family in ten is living in poverty. Over
24 percent of Americans, ages 16 to 19, are currently jobless. A generation of
young people serving in struggling schools and communities could make all the difference. A small stipend to
pay them is far cheaper than the cost of high school drop-outs, for example. 2) National service unites diverse
Americans in common purpose. As a country we are getting more diverse, yet we are doing less together. A year of serving with Americans of all
backgrounds can help each generation appreciate diversity and realize its assets. American history is replete with examples of being unnecessary scared of the
other. That holds us back as a nation. 3) National service [and] creates leaders. With baby boomers retiring, there is a growing need for nonprofit leaders,
school principles, and government officials. AmeriCorps programs are one of the best pipelines to develop that leadership. The study Still Serving: Measuring the

Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni shows impressive results: Forty six percent of... [AmeriCorps] members are employed in education, social work, public
safety, arts, religion, government, or full-time military service compared to 33 percent of their comparison group. Altogether, about 60 percent of AmeriCorps alumni
in this study are employed in either government or nonprofit jobs. At a time when both these sectors are facing serious workforce shortages and the coming
retirement of the Baby Boomer generation, this
pipeline of new employees who are passionate about making a difference
and have experience in the sectors is absolutely critical. The leadership of our schools, nonprofits, and
community groups is everyones problem. Leadership is perhaps the biggest factor if these institutions are to be successful at preparing
students, solving local challenges, and helping communities thrive. As such, we all have an interest to ensure they are well led. Good leaders are not born. More
national service means more leaders. And if you happen to be someone who wants smaller government, you should be clamoring for ways to create a generation of
leaders. 4) National service helps veterans reintegrate. Over the next five years, over one million members of the armed forces will return to civilian life. Although
their military service is ending, their desire to serve isnt. Nine of ten veterans agree that serving their communities is important to them. Many veterans who did
civilian national service after their military service say that it helped them reintegrate into civilian life more successfully and helped them determine career and
college goals. We owe it to our veterans to make sure they have this option available. 5) National service is a way to pay it forward. We are lucky to live in America.

And as Gobry notes, our rights and freedoms came from generations of sacrifice. Today, with economic and social inequalities at unacceptable levels, we should all be
asking how we can do more we should be asking how we repay our debt to our friends, neighbors, grandparents, and strangers who sacrificed to help build the
country. We cannot pay it back, but we can pay it forward to honor our shared past and help our shared posterity. Real gratitude is more than voting, paying taxes,
occasionally volunteering, and just being a law-abiding citizen. We need more. Our fellow citizens need more. Americas
future if its to be vibrant
and prosperous needs more. A year of national service is the answer, and its what we should expect of each
other.
 Case

Compulsory national service is a double bind either its arbitrary and will lack public support or it will be an
equal process like Vietnam.

Fullinwider 03, Robert K (Senior Research Scholar, Institute for Philosophy and Pub- lic Policy, University of
Maryland). Conscription-No. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 23.3 (2003): 8-13.

Galstons draft law is unlikely to send any such message because its rationale is so transparently didactic. His law will more likely come across as a meddling

busybody, disdaining the life courses young adults might choose for themselves (with civic and service components incorporated in any number of legitimate ways)
and insisting that all of them submit to the particular pattern the government thinks best for their civic souls. Galston claims to eschew any policy like the Vietnam-
era draft. This is a wise move, since that draft was thoroughly discredited by the time it ended in 1973. How- ever, the basic flaw in that draft was not that it gave

some college kids deferments or led to an active force skewed toward the lower middle classes. Indeed, the Vietnam- era draft had far fewer loopholes than the
1950s draft Galston admires. (For example, Galston notes that the conscription of the 1950s brought college graduates into the en- listed ranks, thus producing the
social mixing he desires. However, he doesnt say how many of these graduates stayed in uniform and for how long. In the 1950s, a drafted college graduate could get

right back out of the service by teaching in a public school, and some not insubstantial number did.) What discredited the Vietnam-era draft more than anything else
was its expressive content. Let me explain. By 1968, although Amer- icas active-duty military numbered 3.6 million, Selective Service was filling slots from a national
population of 200 million, a population disproportionately bulging right at the youth end, as the leading edge of the baby boom was slamming its way through high
school. Nearly 27 million men came of draft age during the Vietnam War but 16 million of themmore than halfnever served at all. Of that number, four million
were lottery escapees men put in the lottery pool after 1969 but lucky enough to possess lottery numbers that excluded them from the annual draft calls.
(Incidentally, these lottery escapees amounted to eight times the number of college kids given student deferments.) Small
draft calls from a large
target population made conscription look not like a mechanism of universal service but like a booby-prize for
the unlucky few. That was the expressive effect of the Vietnam-era draft. If a draft is to teach a lesson in
universal duty, it needs to approach universality itself, as it did in World War II and in the early stages of the Cold War. This is no doubt
why Galston wants to conscript all eighteen- year-olds. However, he concedes that shanghaiing into service a sizeable portion of the
four million kids who turn eighteen each year might take a considerable bite out of the public fisc and dampen voter
enthusiasm for a fully universal conscription. The best response to this state of affairs, writes Galston, is limited conscription using a lottery
in other words, the best response is reinstating the very feature of the Vietnam-era draft that divided youth
into the unlucky few and the lucky many.

Counter Advocacy solves

Greg Baldwin President, VolunteerMatch https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/real-reason-75-americans-

dont-volunteer-greg-baldwin?trk=prof-post

Principle 3: Focus volunteer engagement on true community needs Rather than responding to the supply of volunteers, identify key priorities in the community then
purposefully seek out volunteers with the core skills needed to address those priorities. We should also strive to communicate the value of volunteers to the
community by measuring their impact, not just the hours they serve. Principle 4: In order to get a return, you have to invest Organizations
that make
volunteers central to their work and manage them well are able to generate as much as three to six times the
community value from volunteers as the cost to manage them. This is a smart way to maximize impact, but it
requires up-front and ongoing financial investment in volunteer engagement in all sectors. We need more
funders to recognize that funding volunteer engagement supports their broader social missions and raise their
voices so that the funding community can learn from their stories. Like everything else in life effective volunteer engagement takes
leadership, planning and resources. Reimagining Service's four principles tell us that volunteering won't increase until there are more
organizations with the vision. leadership and resources to effectively engage volunteers.
It is like the job market, you can't increase the employment rate just by telling people they should go get a job.
To get more people working, you need more jobs. I believe knowledge is power and that the future of volunteering is bright. However,
change is hard and talk is cheap. So the status quo won't be easy to defeat. But we can make a difference if we stop spending so much time and money convincing
people they should volunteer, and spend a little bit more on helping communities and causes invest in asking them if they
will. The four principles are a foundation to help us get there. The real reason more American's don't volunteer is because we don't have enough leaders to ask
them.

Military Turns
Compulsory national service increases the chance of war by giving the government a functionally unlimited
reserve

Bandow 12, Doug. [Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan].
A New Military Draft Would Revive A Very Bad Old Idea, Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/07/16/a-new-military- draft-would-revive-a-very-bad-old-
idea/#402c3a505bb8 July 16th, 2012.

Yet the widespread use of reserve and guard units unintentionally achieved much the same social effect, but with little political impact. People complained when
their com- munities lost people from different walks of life, but George W. Bush nevertheless pursued his misguided nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the American people reelected him despite his deadly military mistakes. Moreover,
the Vietnam War demonstrated that a draft gives
the government a virtually limitless manpower supply with which to keep fighting even an increasingly
unpopular war with heavy casualtiesmore than ten times the number of dead in Iraq, for instance. It took years before opposition to the
Vietnam-era draft reached critical levels.

And any draft now would wreck support for future military involvement either we would be in a perpetual
draft or our military would be woefully unprepared when it mattered most

Bandow 12, Doug. [Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan].
A New Military Draft Would Revive A Very Bad Old Idea, Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/07/16/a-new-military- draft-would-revive-a-very-bad-old-
idea/#402c3a505bb8 July 16th, 2012.

the reduced willingness of Americans to

In the meantime Washington had no difficulty maintaining its forces and continuing the war. In contrast,
volunteer for both the active and reserve forces as deployments increased in both Iraq and Afghanistan had an
immediate impact on the military. Policymakers worried and debated how to respond. Whispers began about
the necessity of reinstating the draft. Government officials recognize that volun- teers can stop an unpopular
war by just not signing up.

And elite classes would be less likely to serve in combat creating inequality and hurting military
effectiveness

Bandow 12, Doug. [Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan].
A New Military Draft Would Revive A Very Bad Old Idea, Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/07/16/a-new-military- draft-would-revive-a-very-bad-old-
idea/#402c3a505bb8 July 16th, 2012.

Anyway, unless the U.S. ended up in a big war, even a draft wouldnt much affect the policymaking elite. Roughly four million people turn 18 every year; at the same
time the military takes about 160,000 new accessions, or four percent of the total. Moreover, draftees
with education and connections would
be least likely to end up in combat arms. Sending the kids of the elite to shuffle paperwork at a base stateside,
as Ricks proposed, wouldnt have much impact.

2ac
People are willing to serve we dont have to require them to do so

Stanley, 14
Retired general Stanley McChrystal is chair of the Leadership Council of the Aspen Institutes
Franklin Project, which promotes national service among American youth., 2014, June 2, Securing
the American Character, June 2, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/securing-the-
american-character-107318#ixzz33nUPvuqg

Many similar ideas have been proposed before, but this idea is now more achievable than its ever been. Despite
dwindling social trust, young people are in fact more likely than their predecessors to try to serve in some way. A 2010
Pew survey found that 57 percent of millennials report having volunteered in the preceding six months. Thirty percent of millennials identify meaningful work as the
single most important factor in a successful career, while 71 percent identify meaningful work as one of the top three most important factors. In addition, the
demand for service dramatically exceeds the supply of existing service opportunities. AmeriCorps had more than 580,000 applications
for just over 80,000 slots in 2011 . In the same year, Teach for America had some 48,000 applications for just 5,200 slots. Unfortunately, theres no common
pathway large enough to match such enthusiasm.