It is unethical and terribly disrespectful to force people to fight for something they don’t support. It reminds me of someone trying to order dogs to jump through flaming hoops. The dogs, on their own, probably do not feel the urge to jump through or into an enclosed area lined by something potentially harmful or deadly that their instincts are probably telling them to avoid – namely fire. And yet, they are given the orders just the same. If the dogs cannot be convinced to do something incredibly stupid and counter-intuitive against their will, the trainer can get new dogs – dogs that are too stupid to listen to their primitive and far superior wolf instincts. Dogs that are “more intelligent” (which, by some peoples’ standards, seems to mean something like “easier to manipulate”. To me that seems to imply that the new dogs are actually less intelligent, especially since people now know that humans are easier to manipulate when they are deprived of a proper education, and also because dogs that are more willing to do things for treats are probably better suited for scavenging as opposed to hunting since the former doesn’t require as much brainpower and intelligence to be successful at, but anyway…). If there was a dog equivalent of the draft that would somehow force the first group of dogs to jump through flaming hoops despite their aversion to such behavior, we’d probably call that animal cruelty (well I hope we would, anyway). However, if this method of forcing dogs to jump through flaming hoops against their will was disguised adequately to make it seem as if it wasn’t animal cruelty, and if there was some sort of media storm bashing the old method and talking about how the new method is so much more humane, then the liberties of the unwilling dogs would be withheld somewhat longer than they would have been originally. As mentioned earlier, this can be compared to people being forced to do things. That being said, it can also apply to people being forced to not do things. Take bank accounts for example. They must be checked on obsessively like toddlers so you know your money isn’t being stolen by anyone who isn’t one of the bankers in charge of holding on to the money for you (because, hypothetically, you decided to trust a complete stranger with your money even after experiencing the Great Recession and learning about the Great Depression in school and hearing news stories about banks needing to be bailed out and knowing what the economy is like and so on), although this has become easier with the internet, mobile phones, and setting your preferences to receive notifications of things. Basically the machines are capable of doing it until/unless some part of the process becomes corrupted. But for anyone who doesn’t have a bank account, these people will make it an exhausting hell for you to cash a simple paycheck. This is how they try to get you to jump into the ring of fire. But anyway, back to the dogs. Let’s say the first group of dogs was replaced and the second group behaved splendidly for a while. Eventually the second group starts begging and whining for increasing amounts of incentive to behave and becoming aggressive if they are not pampered after they lazily make a feeble attempt at doing what they did so willingly at first – even if they do not accomplish the task. Maybe the trainer wants to get rid of the dogs and maybe he doesn’t. He checks around while thinking about it and suddenly finds that no one wants to buy the dogs because literally EVERYONE ELSE knew about their behavior problems and everyone refuses to put up with them. So now he has lost an option for getting rid of the dogs if he chooses to. As he considers other methods of potentially getting rid of the dogs (animal shelters and such), the dogs begin to act increasingly more problematic. He slowly begins to realize that he made a mistake in getting rid of the first group and that making dogs jump through flaming hoops was a ridiculous idea in the first place. Now he is stuck with ill-mannered dogs that he has to feed and clean up after every day. So in conclusion: you can choose to not bite the hand that feeds you, but you should never feed the mouth that bites you.