Is public education unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor in public schools? Is care for old people unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor cleaning old people's bedpans?
(I'm assuming you support these two policies, based purely on the observation that most people do.)
But, there are a few other big differences between waging war and providing social services.
Perhaps the biggest is that a particular war is a one-time, no-easy-turning-back event, that generally provides little direct benefit to the population funding it. By way of contrast, I'm not saying that civil defense should in general go unfunded.
I'm saying that a single massive expenditure of blood and treasure, which will almost certainly result in the violent deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, should probably need to meet a somewhat higher bar than the requirement and funding of compulsory high school. Whenever many extra innocent people are likely to die prematurely, extra scrutiny of the decision-making process is required.
Because it is precisely when people are asked to pay for something that they seriously evaluate whether it is worth the expense -- and this is a calculation that needs to be made for war more so than for anything else. In general, I think most populations are more than willing to spend what's necessary to defend themselves from a large, immediate threat -- there was little trouble in getting people to pay extra taxes for WWII.
Also, because of its one-time nature, the cost of the war could easily come at the expense of other services. In general, people have consented to paying for social services (yes, in the long run they'll cause America to run a deficit if nothing changes, but for now it's being paid for with tax dollars).
Soldiers also do it for money. You are advocating that we change this in order to make a policy you oppose less politically popular.
I'm just trying to determine whether you are willing to apply this logic in an intellectually consistent manner, or if it's just a political maneuver unrelated to your real motivation [1].
If the possibility of deaths is the justification for tying forced labor to another policy, then there are many government programs we should tie forced labor to - construction, policing and firefighting are all obvious examples.
[1] See, for example http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/
The draft, and taxation, help to provide the needed reckoning.
There is no comparison, here, to the provision of social services. Or to debt-financed infrastructure construction.
War is categorically different.
The gist (which seems to be going over your head), is that the decision to go to war is not one that should be made lightly. If you don't have any 'skin in the game,' then you're more apt to make the decision lightly (or just be apathetic, letting others make the decision).
Instituting a draft increases the chances that someone you know may die as a result of the decision to go to war. It's easy to make the decision to go to war if someone else's friends/family are the ones making the actual sacrifice. For example, how many politicians are willing to put their kids on the front-lines?
I'm addressing this reasoning: "In my opinion, it's unlikely that $POLICY is just if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to a draft [to provide necessary labor for $POLICY]."
Nothing leot said is specific to war, so I don't see why you are attempting to contrast war to other policies.
Also, regarding the chances someone may die, forced labor on construction projects increases the chance that someone you know may die as a result of the decision to engage in construction (to select one particular non-war policy with real physical risks). It's easy to make the decision to build roads if someone else's friends/family are the ones making the actual sacrifice. So should roads be built with forced labor?
For example, how many politicians are willing to put their kids on the front-lines?
This is unknowable, since we (thankfully) don't allow parents to enslave their children.
>> For example, how many politicians are willing to put their kids
>> on the front-lines?
>
> This is unknowable, since we (thankfully) don't allow parents to
> enslave their children.
In this specific case, it means things like:
1) How many policitions would be happy to see their children on the frontline?
2) How many policitions would support [WAR AGAINST X] if they knew that their child would be on the frontlines (or killed in action)?
3) How many policitions would implement a draft, and then pull strings to make sure their children exempt?
It's a matter of the people making decisions only reaping the benefits, but being divorced from the costs.