drawbacks to this latter are many. In the first place compulsion anyhow
is bad. A voluntary citizen army may be all right; but to _compel_ a man
to fight, whether he will or not--in violation, perhaps, of his
conscience, of his instinct, of his temperament--is an inexcusable
outrage on his rights as a human being. In the second place it is gross
folly; for a man who fights devoid of freewill and against his
conscience, against his temperament, cannot possibly make a good
fighter. An army of such recusants, however large, would be useless; and
even a few mixed with the others do, as a matter of fact, greatly lower
the efficiency of the whole force associated with them. In the third
place compulsion means compulsion by a Government, and Government, at
any rate to-day, means class-rule. Forced military service means service
under and subjection to a Class. That means Wars carried on abroad to
serve the interests, often iniquitous enough, of the Few; and military
operations entered into at home to suppress popular discontent or to
confirm class-power. To none of these things could any high-minded man
of democratic temper consent. There are other drawbacks, but these will
do to begin with.

On the other hand, if we reject enforced militarism are we to throw
overboard the idea of "national service" altogether?

I think not. The way out is fairly clear and obvious. Let it be
understood that there _is_ such a thing as national or public service,
to which (within the limits of individual conscience and capacity) every
one is bound to respond. Let it be understood that at a certain age, say
from sixteen to eighteen (but the period would no doubt be a movable
one) every one, boy or girl, rich or poor, shall go through a course of
training fitting him or her for healthy and effective citizenship. This
would include _first of all_ bodily exercises and drill (needed by