There is simply no logical, moral, ethical or philosophical argument under which population should not revolt and destroy the evil of elites who demand this (as Ayn Rand explains):
Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.
One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.” Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.
A volunteer army is the only proper, moral—and practical—way to defend a free country.
And the greater shame, the value of the lives who do so volunteer to the fickle mob interests of which states are compromised.
I would support the right to deny voting rights or civil posts, and other civic benefits to "draft dodgers", for those truly do belong to the body of state. Incarceration or other forms of coerced bondage does contradict the imperative of a free society.
Ukraine suspended consular services for draft-age men living abroad last month, and that seemed fair to me. It's reasonable that someone might not care enough about the state to fight in its defense, but it's equally reasonable that the state might then decline to provide its services.
Neither of these two opinions stem from a consistent set of moral principles of freedom, which Im sure both would claim to defend. It is a logical inconsistency to be pro-freedom and yet to hold such arguments of draft as valid. The conclusion is obvious
I would like to hear under which moral and philosophical framework of freedom these opinions of state-based-slavery stand?
The right of a state to barter access to services or rights beyond the fundamental right to be LEFT ALONE is not as you say.
I agree that the state may not coerce. The right to vote, or take office, become employed as a civil role, or even receive welfare or basic income type services are all rights of the state. State has rights too. I don't think Ayn would disagree.
I have merely suggested the state could conceivably bargain for things beyond the basic human rights TO BE LEFT ALONE.
That is the basis of moral principles, by default everyone has the right not to be interfered with, everything else may be bargained for by free will (uncoherced determination of willful resolve.)
Other than a "righteous rule of law" (lawful domain) the state doesn't owe you anything.
