[illuminant]

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.

[marssaxman]

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.

[goatsneez]

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?

[illuminant]

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.