Well, one way to boost your chances of convincing people that you're a serious conscientious objector would be avoid leaving an internet trail that suggests your main reason for wanting to avoid conscription is concern for your personal safety.
How on earth are you getting that message from this thread? My whole intention with the thread is to say that I sincerely believe in opposing war, and wish to better understand the most effective ways to communicate that. I don't see anything in this thread to suggest that the reason I want to avoid conscription is concern for personal safety, other than mentioning Prob(death or serious injury | conscription) and I mention that here precisely because I would expect LWers to not view that as a retreat from separate ethical commitments to a position.
I find your reaction upsetting, either because you're only taking things at the surface level and disregarding what I'm actually saying, or else because I've written it up so poorly that I am not communicating my position at all. In any case, it's a shock to my prior that someone finds this post worthy of a downvote.
Corroboration of Khoth: I also assumed this was a how-to-fake-Pacifism ask.
Both pacifists and fake!pacifists are interested in efficient signalling to a draft board.
(I didn't downvote you)
In the post, you don't give any reason why you oppose war, but you do spend a few paragraphs on not wanting to be hurt. If it looks to me that your post is about how to most cheaply fake pacifism, how much more like that will it look to a draft board who are specifically looking for reasons to discount your pacifism?
Did it occur to you that the comments in this thread might be a practical implementation of your suggestion, i.e. an attempt to cover the internet trail in plausible deniability?
No, that didn't occur to me.
Do you think I should be adjusting towards that belief? It seems far too clever to work, bringing to mind the lessons from "The Tragedy of Light."
I was not trying to write a post to defend conscientious objection as a philosophy. I was trying to ask the following: given that you already sincerely believe in conscientious objection to war what should you do to elevate that signal to a level that e.g. a draft board would find acceptable?
It's true that you did not see any reasons in my post regarding why I oppose war. That was intentional. I wanted to write a thread about tradeoffs and decision making conditional on being a sincere conscientious objector.
Not every post should start from a philosophical recapitulation of all the beliefs held as supporting foundations.
If it looks to me that your post is about how to most cheaply fake pacifism,
I just don't understand this. I'm not asking about faking pacifism. I'm asking about how to efficiently signal actual pacifism. How else am I supposed to ask about that?
I could certainly write better. But I also expect readers to think about it a little more. It's easy to say I'm trying to fake a signal and then just stop reading. But is that really a justified interpretation of what I'm asking? And even if it was, what's wrong with doing the thought experiment where you simulate being a sincere conscientious objector and ask yourself what the right tradeoffs would be?
If LW discussion isn't the right place for doing that, I don't know where else on earth is.
I'm not asking about faking pacifism. I'm asking about how to efficiently signal actual pacifism. How else am I supposed to ask about that?
Replace "serious injury or death" with "causing serious injury or death".
Replace "serious injury or death" with "causing serious injury or death".
No. It's absurd to act like "real" conscientious objectors don't do other things like care about the probability that they would be sent to jail or sent to military service. It's as if, in your model, conscientious objectors are never allowed to speak about self interest. Which is preposterous.
If I understand correctly, the grandparent is a quote of the question to which the great-great-grandparent is a response.
In other words:
I'm asking about how to efficiently signal actual pacifism.
And the best way to do that is:
Replace "serious injury or death" with "causing serious injury or death".
The elaborated version is that showing first and foremost that you care strongly about not causing serious injury or death will be much more efficient for signalling purposes.
This reminds me of the musician-programmer thing in social science and attraction; If you first show yourself as a guitar player, and then reveal that you also do programming, you're a cool and smart person. If you first reveal yourself as a programmer, and only then show that you play the guitar, you're a nerdy freak trying to show off.
This is the advice that is being given, as my first guess. Show that you care about not causing injury first, before showing that you also want to not be injured and also would like not to be conscripted / imprisoned.
Yes, but my question is conditional. Assume that you already sincerely believe in conscientious objection, in the sense of personal ideology such that you could describe it to a draft board. Now that we're conditioning on that, and we assume already that your primary goal is to avoid causing harm or death... then further ask what behaviors might be best to generate the kinds of signals that will work to convince a draft board. Merely having actual pacifist beliefs is not enough. Someone could have those beliefs but then do actions that poorly communicate them to a draft board. Someone else could have those beliefs and do behaviors that more successfully communicate them to draft boards. And to whatever extent there are behaviors outside of the scope of just giving an account of one's ideology I am asking to analyze the effectiveness.
I really think my question is pretty simple. Assume your goal is genuine pacifism but that you're worried this won't convince a draft board. What should you do? Is donation a good idea? Yes, these could be questions a faker would ask. So what? They could also be questions a sincere person would ask, and I don't see any reason for all the downvoting or questions about signal faking. Why not just do the thought experiment where you assume that you are first a sincere conscientious objector and second a person concerned about draft board odds?
If there's a draft and conscientious objection is an exemption, then there will be information available about how to present yourself. Keeping track of such information should be part of your strategy.
This being said, a record of giving money to pacifist causes doesn't seem like it can make things worse (unless the government decides that some pacifist organizations are supporting terrorism) and might help.
In other words:
I'm asking about how to efficiently signal actual pacifism.
And the best way to do that is:
Replace "serious injury or death" with "causing serious injury or death".
Still true conditioning on what you said. It remains true regardless of whether you're faking or not. That's why I didn't mention sincerity at all.
Based on my priors, if the draft board functions in a similar manner to typical american public boards and committees, then the general feeling and impression that the members of the board "get" of you will be 90% of the decision, assuming you have no record of violence and no obvious thing signalling that you don't actually believe in pacifism. The stronger their feeling(s), the more their mind will rationalize towards perceiving you as the kind of person you want them to perceive you as.
Thus, using a bit of Dark Arts by signalling first and foremost that you care only about minimizing violence throughout the world in all situations is an effective way to get their impression of you to reflect your actual views (given the assumptions).
It is not the only way, and it might not be sufficient on its own, but just that alone is enough to get me a job from an interview despite massive deficiencies in my resume over some other applicant who is clearly perfectly qualified and has exactly what they ask for.
Assume that you already sincerely believe in conscientious objection, in the sense of personal ideology such that you could describe it to a draft board.
It would probably help to explicitly state this in the original post.
If LW discussion isn't the right place for doing that, I don't know where else on earth is.
Somewhere where there's no risk of the draft board googling it, that's where.
p(Draft Board is even AWARE of p4wnc6 really being John Smith) TIMES p(Draft Board even bothering with Google) TIMES p(LessWrong is a top result) TIMES p(An old thread is high on Google) AND/OR p(They spend time going through all their old threads)
So, um... seriously? You consider that compound possibility MORE LIKELY than LessWrong producing useful draft-dodging advice? I can't help but think that would be strong evidence that LessWrong is bloody useless at problem solving, if it were true.
I allude to this point and get -3 votes. I appreciate this point. There are many good criticisms of what I've written. But this idea that I should be worried about an "internet trail" about it is not one of them.
That's ridiculous. I have no problem if the draft board Googles this thread. Maybe I'm a poor writer, but I think even a cursory reading of this thread reveals that (a) I am arguing from a position of sincere belief in conscientious objection, and (b) there's a difference between making an argument for conscientious objection and asking questions about behavior that will be correlated to desired outcomes conditional upon sincere belief in conscientious objection. It seems you are unwilling to examine a distinction between the two, or at least you are unwilling to speak here as if there's a distinction between the two or perhaps you think that it is impossible for draft boards to believe there is such a distinction.
And you assign a far higher prior probability to the event that this thread would negatively reflect on me if seen by a draft board than I do.
As Khoth said, the main harm you are worried about is being conscripted. Talking about P(injured | conscripted) distracts the reader's attention. I also got the same vibe - if you re-read my first post, you'll see a less direct bit of push-back.
But again, not every post on this topic has to be about conscription ideology. Among the things that an objector would be concerned about are (a) actually being conscripted despite genuine beliefs that war is ethically wrong; (b) not suffering personal harm or death; (c) opposing wars to succeed in achieving ethical goals.
It is as if you are trying to argue that a "real" conscientious objector could only ever be concerned with (c), regardless of how (a) and (b) turn out. But that's ridiculous. Given that you care primarily about (c) then what should you do to also solve (a) and (b)?
This is a piece of writing criticism, not ethical-theory criticism:
not every post on this topic has to be about conscription ideology.
That's just false. An essay needs a point, and having too many weakens the essay. It's the difference between article Why it is unethical to eat meat and the essay Why it is unethical to eat meat - and by the way, pork tastes terrible.
In short, anything beyond the scope of "how do I show I'm a pacifist to the draft board" really distracts the reader.
As an aside, I think you over-estimate P( US institutes military conscription ). And you will never be forced into battle - prison for refusal to obey orders is always an option.
That's just false. An essay needs a point, and having too many weakens the essay.
I disagree. Not every essay on the topic of conscientious objection needs to be centered on the foundational basis for the belief. It is possible to begin a discussion by saying, "assume X," and then asking what you would do about Y or Z conditional on X. The point of my post could be muddied due to poor writing, sure, but not due to missing details about my personal feelings on the reasons for conscientious objection. Those details would be totally superfluous to the questions that I'm trying to ask.
In short, anything beyond the scope of "how do I show I'm a pacifist to the draft board" really distracts the reader.
It sounds like you're saying that no one can ever broach this topic unless they conform to what you think are boundaries on acceptable conversations about conscientious objection. I don't agree with the limits you're setting on the scope of the conversation.
A CO doesn't need to worry too much about serving against their will. During Vietnam, it was possible to end up in jail if you just peacefully refused to carry out any order.
I am not sure that I agree, but this is at least a cogent point. You are saying that I should not have the preferences that I do have (e.g. you think I should assign less weight to the possibility of conscription against my will). I still think this is non-sequitur to the point of the post. Just because you don't see a lot of reason to place a large negative weight on that possibility doesn't mean that asking about how best to avoid it should count as evidence of faking rather than genuine tradeoff planning.
Even if you believe that Khoth (and other readers) misunderstood your article, it still is an evidence that the article can be (mis)understood this way... and thus you should avoid being associated with texts like this, whether honest or not.
Generally, speaking directly about "how to signal X" is usually treated as an evidence that you are non-X and you just want to fake X.
Why exactly? Let's just say that humans are not automatically strategic. Unless they are actively trying to fake something, in which case they have to apply some strategic thinking. Thus, being strategic implies being insincere, because the sincere people are expected to use reflection rarely. :-(
For starters, write lots of letters to the editor stating that war is always wrong. Don't just attack the easy targets like the Iraq War. Try and write things that will make your average dove say "Well that's going a bit far." (ex, saying the American Revolution was unjustified.)
As it happens, I think the American Revolution was clearly unjustified, viz. Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."
Justified? Under any reasonable just-war theory, probably not.
Preventable? Any British policy that allowed the US to reach anything like its true potential was going to end up with the 2-ton tail wagging the 2-pound dog - American dominance of the political system based on weight of wealth and weight of numbers. This was something that the British political elite was willing to use violence to prevent. Was it really a tyranny in 1776? Doubtful, especially by the standards of the day. Could the status quo be maintained without violence? Unclear - the independence of Canada, Australia, and India happened in the shadow of US independence.
Assuming you are an American citizen, the relevant law is something like:
Nothing contained in this title [regarding mandatory military service] shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. Religious training and belief in this connection means an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.
take from Welsh v. United States, 398 US 333 (1947)
In particular, you must show that your position is a deeply held moral conviction opposing war in all circumstances, not just opposition to a particular war. GILLETTE v. UNITED STATES, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).
For reasons similar to Barbarians shouldn't win, I can't endorse trying to fake being a pacifist (additionally, the false statements you would need to make would be separate crimes from failure to report for service).
But if you really oppose all war, you'll need to justify it with testimony (written or oral), and your prior behaviors won't be all that relevant. Pr(excused from service as conscientious objector | my prior conscientious objector behavior) is low. Pr(excused from service as conscientious objector | compelling descriptions of your relevant personal beliefs) is orders of magnitude higher.
Based on this, it appears that only overt religious signaling is acceptable for being declared a conscientious objector. I don't believe in any Supreme Being, so I don't know where that leaves me in this description. I am ideologically and ethically opposed to war, and in particular to the military experience of serving in the American armed forces. I don't think it would be insincere or any sort of false testimony risk for me to claim that I am opposed.
My post is about what one should supply as "testimony" in your comment. It doesn't look like you can just give a verbal description of your reasons for war opposition and expect that to suffice. You have to back it up by referring to specific beliefs or habits that indicate a whole long-running pattern of pacifism. I am just trying to think about what actions I must do now such that my conscientious objection beliefs are sufficiently conveyed by those actions (assuming that I testify about them).
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. It seems like you've given a good description of the standards that are currently used, except that we need to unpack what "testimony" means and to what extent there must be evidence to back up statements of belief or conviction. But I don't see anything in your comment that address what one should do about it (if anything) preemptively.
If you have a sincere moral objection to the use of political violence (such as war) in any circumstances, then you qualify as a conscientious objector under US law (as of 1947, but I'm doubtful it has changed much). Religion is the primary historical example of this philosophy, but is not the only legally acceptable source.
I don't believe in any Supreme Being, so I don't know where that leaves me in this description.
Go read Welsh. One or both of the defendants refused to assert belief in a Supreme Being, but was allowed to become a conscientious objector.
It doesn't look like you can just give a verbal description of your reasons for war opposition and expect that to suffice. You have to back it up by referring to specific beliefs or habits that indicate a whole long-running pattern of pacifism.
I don't see a requirement to prove a habit. Sincere beliefs are sufficient - for exactly the reasons you are highlighting. Before the need for signalling, a true pacifist has no need (and little ability) to signal. After the need for signalling, when war is looming, behavioral signals are too cheap to be reliable measures of sincerity.
we need to unpack what "testimony" means and to what extent there must be evidence to back up statements of belief or conviction.
Again, consider reading Welsh. There's some description of the most important and relevant things the draftees said, and some description of the bureaucratic process they went through.
If the situation came up, I expect you would be put under oath to tell the truth, and questioned. If your beliefs a consider sincere by the hearing officer, you can be a conscientious objector and avoid the draft. The risk you run is that you won't be believed, but I genuinely doubt a donation to any particular charity will make that much difference. First, there aren't that many pacifist charities. Second, one could donate to anti-landmine advocacy groups even if one isn't a pacifist.
I don't see anything in your comment that address what one should do about it (if anything) preemptively.
I doubt the national head of the US Pacifism League (or its actually existing equivalent) will have any trouble avoiding a draft. Short of that level of commitment to pacifism, there's not much you can do but thinking about what you would say under oath. Maybe post versions of it publicly in a relevant forum?
Before the need for signalling, a true pacifist has no need (and little ability) to signal. After the need for signalling, when war is looming, behavioral signals are too cheap to be reliable measures of sincerity.
Is this really true? Building up a history of pacifism donations during times when war is not looming is hardly a cheap signal. One could easily check a bank account to verify that you didn't just immediately start donating now that the threat of conscription is actually credible. And if you are a pacifist, then you probably would get significant negative utils from military conscription. So "before the need" is ill-defined. If you place a high value on never being conscripted, then in some sense you "need" to do things to lower that probability.
Elsewhere, you said:
[Joining the Quakers] would be a money-cheap way to signal pacifism, but for me it is a socially-expensive way to attempt it. Paying for donations to orgs would probably be cheaper overall in my preference ordering.
For better or worse, this kind of willingness to do trade-offs in your ordinary life makes it seem more like a personal philosophy (not protected) rather than a duty higher than human relationships (which is protected). Your core concern is projecting sincerity, which is socially expensive.
In my case, because I am sincere, I feel the need to make sure that I seem sincere. I agree that, societally, we often think that a wish to seem sincere implies lack of genuine sincerity. That's why I would only ask this question in the confines of a place like LessWrong, where other users might more frequently understand that thinking carefully and planning to seem sincere does not necessarily mean that you aren't actually sincere. As Andrew Gelman likes to say, "Just because it is counterintuitive doesn't make it true!"
This is precisely why I think it is an interesting problem. If you are a sincere person but you do not believe in "higher than human" duties in the senses that are traditionally used to qualify as a conscientious objector, and you believe you need to do something to better the odds of qualification, what should you do?
The complainer in me wants to also stamp my feet about how unfair it is to be penalized for willingness to do tradeoffs. I don't like penalizing people for taking a decision seriously and making well-conceived plans.
I'm sympathetic to your problem. Perhaps the only useful advice I've given you is that spending money is not perceived as correlating with sincerity in this context. Just about any relevant non-monetary act would be better for your purposes.
spending money is not perceived as correlating with sincerity in this context. Just about any relevant non-monetary act would be better for your purposes.
Yes. People treat money differently than other things, because with money they understand the fungibility: you make trade-offs all the time, whether to buy this thing or that thing -- so it is easy to imagine that any financial decision you did was a similar conscious trade-off.
Other things seem different. On LW we try to understand that they are not so completely different, but for the communication with the non-LW world it is important to remember how they see it.
For example, for a rationalist spending one week creating an anti-war website should be equivalent to spending one week working at some job and paying the money to someone else to create the website. The only thing that matters is the effect of the resulting website. However for most people, spending a week of your time creating the website (unless you are a professional website-maker) signals that you care, while paying someone else does not work this way. (Paying someone else may be a rational decision, but people assume that if you cared, you would prefer to do everything first-hand, even if that would be an irrational decision. This is how people model emotions of others; and this model is rather correct for a non-rationalist.)
That's not a bad idea. But it does require some social cost since I don't sincerely believe Quaker doctrines and don't want to signal to others that I do or might. It looks like there's a reasonable contingent of nontheist Quakers. Maybe I can get the same signaling benefit from affiliation with the American Humanist Association.
But the point is well-taken. This would be a money-cheap way to signal pacifism, but for me it is a socially-expensive way to attempt it. Paying for donations to orgs would probably be cheaper overall in my preference ordering.
As you noticed in reply to TimS below, the out is heavily weighted toward religious objections. That's partly the result of religion's privileged position in society, but also because they expect pacifism to be the output of some philosophy you hold, not your philosophy itself.
So, even if you have a long history of anti-war donations, the draft board is going to need to hear some Theory of Everything that has pacifism as a derivable theorem, not an axiom.
Do you think it's wise to only give them some Theory of Everything? That is, can I push down Pr(conscription) by thinking hard about how to describe my Theory of Everything and giving visible signs that I actually believe it. It just seems awfully risky, especially being an atheist, to rely solely on hoping my impassioned account of my views will convince them alone. Sure, donations or other pacifist actions might not help much if I can't give a Theory of Everything. But that same deficiency might apply in reverse too.
You may want to invest some time in your ToE, regardless of the potential for conscription. :)
I agree. I'm not sure how that adds to the thread though. I already held that position before posting this and wanted to address whatever component of conscientious objection there is that is specifically orthogonal to the ToE portion.
1) Contact and talk with a counselor at the Center on Conscience and War. I've worked with them and know some of them personally. It's unlikely you'll find any source as knowledgeable about the draft and the mechanics of applying for conscientious objection in case of draft. And it's FREE.
2) If you find the help you receive from CCW relevant and helpful then send them a donation. Draft counseling organizations need all the help they can get. The amount you donate does not matter. Give what you can afford as often as you can afford it.
3) Maintain a portfolio of EVERYTHING you do/write/participate in which shows your belief in not wanting to participate in war, such as; receipts from donations to CCW, brochures from any meetings/rallies/protests you've attended, lists of books/articles you've read that validate your beliefs, copies of this discussion thread....anything that shows the progression of your beliefs.
4) There is no ONE thing that will sway your draft board should you find yourself in front of one. Odds are the 5 or so members will be filled with the same amount of skepticism and, even, contempt that you're confronting in this thread of discussion. You're asking the right questions. The draft board decision will be entirely subjective and will award CO status based on THEIR belief that you are sincere about YOUR belief and that you somehow show evidence that you've lived a life reflecting those beliefs.
Moral beliefs do not spring up fully formed out of nowhere. What you come to believe about YOUR participation in war is a journey that requires ongoing study and rigorous self examination. I was given an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector after 5 years of military service. I've assisted hundreds of military men and women through the CO process. You are on the right track.
Watch the documentary SOLDIERS OF CONSCIENCE. It may help in formulating your beliefs. It is available entirely on line or thru NetFlix.
At this point, it is extremely unlikely that the United States will return to a general draft any time soon. This is politically untenable. (This may be unfortunate: there's a decent argument that drafts make people less likely to support war when they know their kids may be called up.) In any event, I'd estimate around a 1% chance of a draft in the next decade, moving to 5% in the next 20 years, in which case you will almost certainly be well above draft age before it is activated. Speaking more generally, these don't seem like major issues to worry about, aren't connected that much to rationality, and are things involving legal issues which can be better served by asking a lawyer rather than a general internet forum.
I agree with much of this, but I would say that 1-5 % is a large chance, relative to how much I would get negative utils from such an experience.
Legal advice is a big component of my question, but there's another component that is best served by asking about tradeoffs between different behaviors, like donating. Maybe that doesn't overlap strongly enough with rationality to make it relatable to the extent that true optimal philanthropy posts would be, but it's still something and I feel it's fine at least for the discussion area.. certainly not a topic for a main post or anything.
If worst comes to worst, refuse to sign any papers what so ever, you'll go to prison for a few years. Or shoot yourself in the foot on accident, that flips burden of proof. It's called non-violent resistance. I don't think US would allow any other form of objection (edit: besides e.g. being Amish). There are 2 types of conscription. Total war conscription to win an important war where you have a lot to lose; this one would go nuclear within the first hour. And majority enslaving minority, the only type of conscription possible in the US.
I guess one could just expand the question like so:
1) Avoiding combat where I cause harm or death is the first priority, so if I have to go to jail or shoot myself in the foot to avoid it, so be it and if it comes to that, it's what I'll do. This is priority number one.
2) I can do things to improve my odds of never needing to face the situation described in (1) and to the extent that the behaviors are expedient (in a cost-benefit tradeoff sense) to do in my life, I'd like to do them now to help improve odds of (1)-avoidance later. Note that this in no way conflicts with being a genuine pacifist. It's just common sense. Yes, I'll avoid combat in costly ways if I have to. But I'd also be stupid to not even explore less costly ways to invest in combat-avoidance that could be better for me.
3) To the extent that (2) is true, I'd like to examine certain options, like donating to charities that assist with legal issues in conscientious objection, or which extend mental illness help to affected veterans, for their efficacy. There is still a cost to these things and given my conscientious objection preferences, I ought to weigh that cost.
I appreciate your willingness to engage me on the actual point of my question, rather than solely looking at the signal faker aspect like other commenters. But I still think there's much to discuss here.
The usual advice for anyone who is concerned about legal trouble with the U.S. government in the future is to get a lawyer.
Since there people, all the way up to U.S Presidents, who have been excused from conscription for all sorts of reasons, I suspected that there are lawyers who are aware that some people do not want to be drafted for a variety of reasons. They could also give you things like rates, which would help in any cost benefit analysis.
For instance, here is a link to a lawyer who specializes in a type of Conscientious Objector law that I found through googling:
http://jameshfeldman.com/discharges_for_military_conscientous_objectors.html
It appears that this particular person focuses on discharges for people who are already in the military. But it seems likely that he might at least point you in the direction of other resources.
Suppose that you believe larger scale wars than current US military campaigns are looming in the next decade or two (this may be highly improbable, but let's condition on it for the moment). If you thought further that a military draft or other forms of conscription might be used, and you wanted to avoid military service if that situation arose, what steps should you take now to give yourself a high likelihood of being declared a conscientious objector?
I don't have numbers to back any of this up, but I am in the process of compiling them. My general thought is to break down the problem like so: Pr(serious injury or death | conscription) * Pr(conscription | my conscientious objector behavior & geopolitical conditions ripe for war) * Pr(geopolitical conditions ripe for war), assuming some conscientious objector behavior (or mixture distribution over several behaviors).
If I feel that Pr(serious injury or death | conscription) and Pr(geopolitical conditions ripe for war) are sufficiently high, then I might be motivated to pay some costs in order to drive Pr(conscription | my conscientious objector behavior) very low.
There's a funny bit in the American version of the show The Office where the manager, Michael, is concerned about his large credit card debt. The accountant, Oscar, mentions that declaring bankruptcy is an option, and so Michael walks out into the main office area and yells, "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!"
In a similar vein, I don't think that draft boards will accept the "excuse" that a given person has "merely" frequently expressed pacifist views. So if someone wants to robustly signal that she or he is a conscientious objector, what to do? In my ~30 minutes of searching, I've found a few organizations that, on first glance, look worthy of further investigation and perhaps regular donations.
Here are the few I've focused on most:
The problems I'm thinking about along these lines include:
I'm curious if others have thought about this. Good literature references are welcome. My plan is to compile statistics that let me make reasonable estimates of the different conditional probabilities.
Addendum
Several people seem very concerned with the signal faker aspect of this question. I don't understand the preoccupation with this and feel tired of trying to justify the question to people who only care about the signal faker aspect. So I'll just add this copy of one of my comments from below. Hopefully this gives some additional perspective, though I don't expect it to change anyone's mind. I still stand by the post as-is: it's asking about a conditional question based on sincere belief. Even if the answer would be of interest to fakers too, that alone doesn't make that explanation more likely and even if that explanation was more likely it doesn't make the question unworthy of thoughtful answers.
Here's the promised comment:
... my question is conditional. Assume that you already sincerely believe in conscientious objection, in the sense of personal ideology such that you could describe it to a draft board. Now that we're conditioning on that, and we assume already that your primary goal is to avoid causing harm or death... then further ask what behaviors might be best to generate the kinds of signals that will work to convince a draft board. Merely having actual pacifist beliefs is not enough. Someone could have those beliefs but then do actions that poorly communicate them to a draft board. Someone else could have those beliefs and do behaviors that more successfully communicate them to draft boards. And to whatever extent there are behaviors outside of the scope of just giving an account of one's ideology I am asking to analyze the effectiveness.
I really think my question is pretty simple. Assume your goal is genuine pacifism but that you're worried this won't convince a draft board. What should you do? Is donation a good idea? Yes, these could be questions a faker would ask. So what? They could also be questions a sincere person would ask, and I don't see any reason for all the downvoting or questions about signal faking. Why not just do the thought experiment where you assume that you are first a sincere conscientious objector and second a person concerned about draft board odds?
Stated another way:
1) Avoiding combat where I cause harm or death is the first priority, so if I have to go to jail or shoot myself in the foot to avoid it, so be it and if it comes to that, it's what I'll do. This is priority number one.
2) I can do things to improve my odds of never needing to face the situation described in (1) and to the extent that the behaviors are expedient (in a cost-benefit tradeoff sense) to do in my life, I'd like to do them now to help improve odds of (1)-avoidance later. Note that this in no way conflicts with being a genuine pacifist. It's just common sense. Yes, I'll avoid combat in costly ways if I have to. But I'd also be stupid to not even explore less costly ways to invest in combat-avoidance that could be better for me.
3) To the extent that (2) is true, I'd like to examine certain options, like donating to charities that assist with legal issues in conscientious objection, or which extend mental illness help to affected veterans, for their efficacy. There is still a cost to these things and given my conscientious objection preferences, I ought to weigh that cost.