Rangel pushes for slavery

Slavery is the social or de-facto status of specific persons, usually captives or prisoners (or their descendants), who are considered as property or chattel, for the purpose of providing labour and services for the owner or state without the right of the slave to refuse, leave or gain compensation beyond room, board and clothing.

Slavery is a condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion. Slavery almost always occurs for the purpose of securing the labor of the person concerned. A specific form, known as chattel slavery, implies the legal ownership of a person or persons.

Definition from here.

Isn't that exactly what Representative Rangel is up to in his continuing effort to revive the draft? (As set out here)

Libertarian U.S. Representative Ron Paul has dealt with this before, as did President Reagan. See here:

However, the most important reason to oppose HR 163 is that a draft violates the very principles of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded. Former President Ronald Reagan eloquently expressed the moral case against the draft in the publication Human Events in 1979: "[Conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state ­ not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers ­ to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea." [Note by Eagle1: In fact, it rests on the assumption that not just your kids belong to the state, but everyone of us. Instead of the people being masters of the government, the government masters us all.]

Some say the 18-year old draftee "owes it" to his (or her, since HR 163 makes women eligible for the draft) country. Hogwash! It just as easily could be argued that a 50-year-old chickenhawk, who promotes war and places innocent young people in danger, owes more to the country than the 18-year-old being denied his (or her) liberty.
***
Without conscription, unpopular wars are difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants think nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars. A true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I am sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case with wars of mischief far away from home, which we have experienced often in the past century.

And the necessary use of force to bend others to his will is exactly what Mr. Rangel is up to- oh, he claims it is something else:

Rangel, incoming chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.
***
He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve in uniform. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Commit themselves? How completely misleading! In fact, Mr. Rangel is doing precisely what President Reagan warned against, using the power of the state "to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society." You know, Rangel wants a draft "for the purpose of securing the labor of the person concerned" - slavery, in other words.

Mr. Paul also has the better argument in how to stop adventurism- in an unpopular war, the troops will vote with their feet.

Oddly enough, but for far different reasons, Antiwar. Blog also sees the slavery angle.