I will criticize Ron Paul's critical stance on the female conscription system.

 Ron Paul's criticism that “female conscription is nothing more than equal slavery” can be critiqued from a conservative perspective as follows.

First, “justifying conscription as a ‘reward’ for the freedoms the government provides to its citizens” is actually emphasizing civic duty from a conservative perspective. Conservatism values social stability and order, and to that end, it emphasizes the duties and responsibilities that individuals have to society. Therefore, conservatives may view the draft as one of the civic duties necessary to maintain the security of the country.

Second, Ron Paul's argument is that the draft for women “makes mothers feel like they're being forced into combat, and that's what leads to the anti-war movement.

However, conservatism values tradition and family values, so it's fair to say that conservatives aren't about sending women or mothers to the front lines, but rather about valuing women's roles in the many ways that keep the country safe. (In wartime, of course, women are expected to carry guns and charge in the front lines, but normally, women can also serve in a variety of other roles within the military, such as defense medicine, intelligence analysis, military technology research, and administrative support.) However, whenever possible, I believe that women should be allowed to serve in combat as equally as men, and that they should be trained to be as competent in combat as their male counterparts. This is unavoidable given the nature of the military, which is to defend our allies against our enemies, and we can only understand and respect each other's struggles if we've been through the same struggles.)

Third, Ron Paul calls the draft “one of the worst violations of individual rights committed by governments today.” Conservatism values individual liberty and rights, but not when they undermine the stability and order of society. Therefore, a draft that is necessary for the security and stability of the country can be viewed as a social obligation rather than a violation of individual rights.

Finally, Ron Paul has criticized conscription as “the worst form of modern slavery, exploiting people's labor for a very low price. However, conservatives may see it as a necessary measure to maintain national security. Conservatives can also acknowledge the existence of conscription as necessary to maintain national security, but argue for improvements in how it operates.

(For example, improving the salaries and living conditions of soldiers and officers, as well as their living quarters.)

Thus, from a conservative perspective, conscription is not a violation of individual rights, but rather a civic duty that is necessary to maintain the security of the state and preserve the stability and order of society.

Quadruped: Libertarians and conservatives often draw parallels between their arguments anyway, so I think we can just assume that this is how conservatives think.

And there's a lot of talk about perceptions of the treatment of soldiers, and given the habit of most Koreans of thinking that favors are entitlements, there's a good chance that they'll look down on those who defend them, even if we switch to a conscription system, or even if we privatize defense by putting it in the hands of PMCs.

In other words, we need to humbly admit that 'people are the problem', not just 'the system is the problem'.