I
I take it that not many words need be used to expose the fallacy of the
argument, heard even in the Halls of Congress: "If men are to be
conscripted, wealth also must be conscripted."
_Men will be conscripted to the extent that it is wise and just and
needful. So, and no other, should wealth and the country's resources in
general be conscripted._
And, are not the children of the well-to-do conscripted equally with
the children of the poor?
Indeed, the proportion of the sons of the well-to-do on the actual
fighting line is bound to be a predominating one, because vast numbers
of wage workers in the industries and on the farms will necessarily
have to be retained at their accustomed vocations in order to maintain
the output of our factories and farms.
Have the children of the well-to-do been backward in volunteering? Were
they not, on the contrary, amongst the very first to offer to serve and
to fight?