Reference no: EM133342349
Assignment:
During the US Civil War, the Union army needed soldiers.
And so Congress enacted a draft conducted by lottery.
But the draft had an unusual provision.
Those who were conscripted had a choice.
If you didn't want to fight in the Civil War and if you had enough money, you could hire a substitute to take your place.
These days, the U.S., like most countries, has an all-volunteer army of paid soldiers.
No one is conscripted.
Some people argue it is more just to recruit soldiers by paying them then by conscripting them.
Others argue that using the market to decide who will fight our wars, whether in the Civil War way or in the way of the all-volunteer army, unfairly allows the affluent to buy their way out of military service.
What do you think is the most just way of allocating military service?
Conscription by lottery with no buyout provision?
Conscription by lottery with a buyout provision, as in the Civil War?
Or an all-volunteer system where the market decides who will fight our wars?