The idea of inalienable rights is antithetical to this outlook. No matter how noble the authorities’ intentions may be, certain essential rights are allegedly sacrosanct.
> The idea of inalienable rights is antithetical to this outlook.
There's no such thing. The idea that a right is inalienable is aspirational. While we should respect it, we should also respect that nothing is absolute and the best laid plans of mice and men and whatnot. We cannot allow perfect to become antithetical to good.
The draft is still legal and constitutional. If society and the constitution thinks it's acceptable to send 18 year old boys against their will to get machine-gunned in a foreign jungle in the name of "national security", then by those standards none of the measures being proposed to combat the coronavirus are an unprecendented or unacceptable violation of any so-called inalienable rights.
The virus poses a larger threat to national security than the Viet Cong, after all.
Everything comes in shades of grey, and that's a particularly dark one. That doesn't mean small concessions aren't the right thing from time to time. In the same way while Americans are allowed to bear arms they aren't allowed to bear nuclear arms. I doubt you'll find a single person in favor of unrestricted domestic nuclear proliferation in the name of the second amendment.
Especially when the country isn't even sure about bump stocks.
How about we address such things on a case by case basis?
