Charles Rangel has renewed his calls for conscription — a heinous institution built on the presumption that people are property of the state.
Rangel’s main argument for the draft is that it makes Uncle Sam less likely to embark upon unjustified wars. Rangel said that "There’s no question in my mind that this president and this
administration would never have invaded Iraq . . . if indeed we’d had a
draft."
Here’s a letter that I sent today to the New York Post in response to Rangel’s proposal.
21 November 2006
Editor, The New York Post
Dear Editor:
Rep.
Charles Rangel (D-NY) believes that by forcing the children and grandchildren
of high government officials into the military, the draft would reduce
Uncle Sam’s likelihood of going to war ("Rangel: Bring On the Draft,"
Nov. 21). In other words, Rep. Rangel recognizes that government makes
irresponsible decisions whenever politicians have no large, personal
stakes in the matters they decide.Rep. Rangel’s insight applies
more broadly than he suspects. It means also, for example, that
minimum-wage legislation is ill-advised, for very few politicians have
family members who are likely to lose jobs as a result of raising the
minimum wage.Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 26 comments }
So, professor, do you know anyone that has died in Iraq? The problem with the chicken hawk answer to defense is that you have used up all the troops and if this government is going to continue to destroy countries in the Middle East, an all volunteer force is not working. Already it is 1/3 filled by citizen soldiers that probably did not sign up for war, but local assistance via the National Guard.
I see your point thought, The G W Bushes of the world will always shirk their responsibility.
Well, I'm not sure where me's non sequitur was headed, but . . .
Don, your thoughts on politicians generally, and Rangel in particular, were spot on as usual. I think you got to the crux of the matter: politicians will do/say whatever keeps them in power, the consequences of their ideas/actions on the general populace be damned. Kind of reminds me (and I mean ME and not the previous poster, me) of the imbroglio concerning Sen. Edwards and his reputed cutting-in-line, as it were, at the local Wal-Mart: politician says one thing; does another.
All those who may lose their job as a result of minimum wage laws can enlist in the armed forces. I don't see the problem. Why not kill two Iraqis with one stone? I'm also in favor of stale econ professors being shipped off to Iraq. You can espouse your woeful theories to a captive audience at Abu Ghraib prison. The prisoners will be pleading for a return to the previously used methods of torture.
Trumpit,
That's real nice: so you disagree with Don's minimum-wage comments; and rather than offer an argument as to why he's wrong, you think he should just be shipped off to Iraq. I don't know about Abu Ghraib, but your thoughts are certainly torturous.
For those of you who are inclined to toss around terms like "chicken hawk" in order to TRY and invalidate the opinions of someone who has not served, even though the opinion held is completely valid and on solid principled footing, I say this: as a veteran who put ten years of active duty in the US Marine Corps, it would have been extremely difficult to lead a group of men and women with a higher percentage malcontents making up the group who didn't really want to serve. But, as is usually the case with policy that relies on goverment in order to affect circumstances, not many will consider the consequences fully.
Are the Armed Forces even having problems recruiting people?
Lowcountryjoe,
In my opinion, even the military services not getting enough volunteers wouldn't justify a draft. If we ever reach a point where no one is willing to fight for this nation, then it won't be worth fighting for. I don't see this happening anytime soon.
Qoute from me: "Already it is 1/3 filled by citizen soldiers that probably did not sign up for war, but local assistance via the National Guard."
When did you invent this "fact". You've obviously never been in the military. After more than 20 years of service, mostly in the reserve component, I never met one person who joined to provide "local assistance".
The rest of the article is spot on, but I do think you're making a slightly unfair characterization of the logic behind a draft. It isn't that citizens are "property" of the government, but that in time of emergency, everyone has a responsibility to guarantee the freedoms we enjoy are preserved.
Good point, Josh. But a responsibility to who or what? A "nation" is a rather tenuous concept, don't you think?
In a draft, some group is doing the drafting, while another group is being drafted. I think its entirely accurate to say that the draftees have become the property of the drafters.
No, Randy, a nation is not "a rather tenuous concept." If you don't believe this, try living, for example, in France or Saudi Arabia or China, etc. Very different places, made up of very different people, institutions, and ways of life. You and I and everyone else on this site owe most of what we have in life to the fortuitous fact that we were born of American parents, or otherwise found ourselves living in this great country. Nations are quite serious concepts.
Don is wrong that the draft is based on the notion that people are "property" of the state. It is based on the idea that adult citizens have an obligation to help defend the polity against external aggression. This in principle is no different than the obligation of all citizens to obey the law, pay taxes, etc. Am I a "slave" because I am required, on threat of jail, to pay taxes? While this argument may have some rhetorical appeal, ultimately it makes no sense because it leads to the conclusion that no coercive taxation is ever justified. Indeed, like all libertarian thinking taken to its extreme, it leads to the conclusion that no government is ever justified. But the libertarian fantasy of peaceful, productive anarchy or small-scale "cooperative communities" is as philosophically and historically unsound as Marxist dogma.
Steven,
Re; "…adult citizens have an obligation to help defend the polity against external aggression."
That depends on whether the polity is worth protecting. It also depends on the nature of the external agression. A majority of US citizens are now opposed to the war in Iraq? Should they be drafted? Is it their obligation to serve regardless of their personal views?
My point is that IF the polity is worth protecting, and IF the nature of the external aggression is clear, then we will have no problem obtaining a military force made up of volunteers. But IF NOT on either point, then we certainly will have a problem getting volunteers. A defeat in such circumstances would be a matter of simple justice. Conscription, therefore, is always either unnecessary or unjust.
"Don is wrong that the draft is based on the notion that people are "property" of the state. It is based on the idea that adult citizens have an obligation to help defend the polity against external aggression."
When, except perhaps WWII, has the US govt used the draft to "defend the polity against external aggression"? How about Vietnam? Or Korea, WWI, the Civil War, and the current Iraq war?
And now the calls for drafting people include some vague "public service" component where young people can fight external aggression by working in the national park system or pushing papers in a homeland security office. If you truly believe that drafting people is about defending the country and not about using them to serve the state in any way it sees fit, you need to develop a healthy dose of skepticism.
The argument is sound. But I believe it can be emphasized even more where Mr. Rangel believes that it is more than just military service. His announcements also included that ability of the government to "draft" labor to work the sea ports, airports, etc. Had Dr. Boudreaux included this in the posting, you could see how Mr. Rangel see's the citizenry as "cogs in the wheel".
I would also argue that Mr. Rangel is wholly incorrect that a President would withhold support for a war with a drafted military service. If we look back at the war between the states, Lincoln could not have fought the war without the draft in the first place. Remember that there were draft riots in Baltimore AND New York.
I would agrue that the President needs more moral support for a war when it is an all volunteer army. There must be a belief that what the government is doing is just and right for many to join. As in the Civil War most citizens did not believe that Lincoln A) had the right to force to stay nor B) wish to participate. It's much easier to force men to become cannon fodder than have them fight voluntarily. No need to agrue now whether or not Iraq is a just and right war, but there must be a belief on the part of those that volunteer that it is.
For a free people in a free land, military service which is compulsory is a non-sequitor. A free people will always be able to recruit a significant percentage of its citizens to bear arms, especially in defense of their freedom. But to engage in militarism, one must have a draft.
'Be free.'
Whether or not a draft makes sense at this point in time, or whether or not our government makes good foreign policy choices, are questions separate and apart from the validity per se of a draft or national service requirment.
The notion that no draft is ever needed or justified because "if the country is worth defending" then sufficient numbers of volunteers will be forthcoming is plainly ridiculous and ignores, for one, the free rider problem. Moreover, the exact same "logic" could be applied to taxes or speed limits or pollution controls, etc. Are these only justified to the extent individual citizens "voluntarily" comply with them?
Libertarian thinking of this type may provide a certain intellectual frission to its adherents, but taken to this extreme it's a theoretical and practical nullity. No society could survive, let alone thrive, following the type of pure libertarian prescriptions suggested by many commentators on this site.
I also find it troubling how many commentators above cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the Civil War. I didn't realize that "libertarian" thinking is compatible with human slavery.
Steven,
Re; "The notion that no draft is ever needed or justified because "if the country is worth defending" then sufficient numbers of volunteers will be forthcoming is plainly ridiculous and ignores, for one, the free rider problem."
And I respond that a country with a significant free rider problem deserves to be defeated.
You mention taxes. Imagine a nation where the tax rates have risen to the point where they are completely unacceptable to a significant percentage of the population – where they are commonly seen as confiscatory and a form of slavery. What we will have is a nation that many of the citizens no longer feel is worth defending.
I offer Rome as an example. In the later days of the empire, for a variety of reasons, many of its citizens felt little if any bond to the emperor or to the city of Rome. Alaric the Goth sat at the gates of Rome for well over a year before sacking it, and yet no legion ever came to its aid, and no force was raised from within the city. Was the sack of Rome a tragedy? – or justice? I say justice.
"When did you invent this "fact".
I guess it's obvious you didn't serve or you would surly know the difference between the reserves and the National Guard to which I spoke.
"Are the Armed Forces even having problems recruiting people?"
You're kidding right?
Me,
I'm not sure why I am dignifying your ramblings with a comment, but since you posted twice here I suppose you think you are being serious.
You say "…if this government is going to continue to destroy countries in the Middle East…" Allow me to be naive for a second and ask which countries our government has destroyed in the Middle East? I can see an argument that we have worsened conditions in Iraq, but "destroyed"??? I guess your definition of destroyed is different than mine (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destroy). And because you used the plural "countries" I am concerned which other ones you are referring to. I fear you are just on a soapbox spouting polarized rhetoric.
Next, what does serving in the military or knowing anyone who has died in Iraq have to do with any of this discussion? In fact, myself not voluntarily signing up for military duty allows me to talk very much about the draft because it is I who will be affected, more so than those who have volunteered.
For example, I don't know anyone killed in a drunk driving accident but I have formed an opinion about it. I know that drunk drivers have killed over 60,000 Americans compared to the 2,865 military deaths since the beginning of the US invasion of Afghanistan.
I DO know someone who died being hit by a train – does that mean that I have more power to speak of the railroad industry than you? But you might answer that you've been on the ground in Iraq and you know what it's "really like". If so, you haven't used any of that experience to contribute to the topic here. The debate here is about the draft in general, not whether or not our current Iraq strategy is "working".
And regarding the recruiting issue, I have not heard a single report suggesting that we are having any "real" trouble recruiting. Only the Army was slightly below their desired levels for the previous year. The evidence that there is a recruiting problem is more anecdotal than factual. Please cite references that address real recruiting problems. "You're kidding right?" isn't a strong enough citation.
"I also find it troubling how many commentators above cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the Civil War. I didn't realize that "libertarian" thinking is compatible with human slavery."
My abhorrence of human slavery IS the reason I oppose the draft.
Steven-
I will respond to your quote: "I also find it troubling how many commentators above cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the Civil War. I didn't realize that "libertarian" thinking is compatible with human slavery."
Let's set something straight about the Civil War. First, the war was never started because of slavery. Second, Lincoln never once stated that he was for emancipation, quite the opposite. Third, the blessed Emancipation Proclamation never freed a slave held under "Rebel Control", but rather only areas in which the Union Army had control. It didn't even free slaves in Maryland, a Union State. Lincoln himself mentioned several times that if he could keep the union together without freeing a single slave he would do so. So let's understand where Libertarians stand on the issue. Libertarians are most definately against slavery, but you seem to insist that a draft, legalized slavery, into the military is ok. Because remember, if you run away from the military you can be punished, just like the slaves were.
Am I missing something here?
PS…Slavery's end would have happened peacefully, like it did in most of the western hemisphere, had Lincoln not used hundreds of thousands of lives insisting that the federal government have more control.
No, Me, I'm not kidding! Show me where recruitment has been a problem. And Stephen, the compensation given to those who make the choice to serve is QUITE a bit better than the medium incomes of those with similar skill sets, plus, by serving, one accumulates even more supervisory skills the longer they stay in. Just one final issue about the Cival War…it was primarily fought over economic issues that were not directly related to slavery; Great Britian's making slavery a wedge issue with the influence they still had on the states (as well as the animosity GB harbored against us for declaring our independence); and the fact that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not include the freeing of slaves from the northern states. Slavery is/was wrong but nothing about the way the issue was resolved was any better.
You are right – no problem at all
Army Lowers Standards To Meet Goals
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9, 2006
"AP) The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.
The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards."
Or this:
"Cameras Show Army Recruiters Misleading Students
Colonel Says Incidents Are the Exception, Not the Rule
(Nov. 4) — An ABC News undercover investigation showed Army recruiters telling students that the war in Iraq was over, in an effort to get them to enlist."
And I do have a different definition of destroying a country than you apparently. When they go from 22 hours a day of electricity to 2 hours a day that is destroyed.
"Next, what does serving in the military or knowing anyone who has died in Iraq have to do with any of this discussion? "
If you have to ask you wouldnt't understand. Too bad col Hack is dead, he could explain it to you. If you believe Keith and he was so gung ho, why didn't he enlist for the active duty he crqved? he expects us to believe Quayle and Bush joined the reseves to serve in Nam? Hardly. When I was in the reserves I do not receal a single person saying activate me, send me back to Nam again.
There's nothing wrong with the enlistment rates that money won't fix. It wouldn't bother me to see the military become one of the highest paid professions.
What of the other 77,400? Were the standards lowered for them, too. What of the branches other than the Army…are they, porpotionally, getting their 77,000+ people to newly enlist. Isn't the war over? Is this not rebuilding at this point even though there are some dangerous elements of malcontents. Where are you cherry-picking the electricty totals from…is that country-wide data? Are you really saying that the Iraqi people, in the aggregate, worse off now then they were before? If that is what you are saying, are the prospects more dim for anything good to become of it?
Just out of curiosity, what are your views on our actions taken in Afghanistan?
You know, "me", I've been rethinking my stance and have concluded that I've been wrong about the direction of my previous views: certainly it is more preferable to indiscriminitately force qualified people to serve their country than it is for the Armed Services to offer more pay and/or to lower its recruitment standards in order to entice individuals to join on their own accord. Heaven forbid you should wind up with more undesirable service members if the standards were lowered or if more money had to be offered to lure people into such an unsavory line of work!
Qoute from me: "I guess it's obvious you didn't serve or you would surly know the difference between the reserves and the National Guard to which I spoke."
Other than a chain of command that includes the state government, there is no difference between the National Guard, the Reserves and the Active Duty forces. All of these components are war fighters first and foremost. All other missions are secondary. Your statments only confirm that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and your "facts" exist only in your mind.