Drafty Ethics

I've never before heard someone say, "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori," in advocacy, though I cannot tell if the quotation was even intentional.

I was drafted into U.S. military service in 1971. Perhaps my view is not completely objective, for I do know what it feels like to lose one's freedom.

As I see it, military conscription is just an economics issue. The electorate of nations which choose conscription are simply saying:

"We want to be defended but we don't want to fully pay for that defense. We are unwilling to pay the wages which would induce young men and women to voluntarily give up their freedom and risk their lives on our behalf."

Events preceding the "Great" wars.

In other words the U.S. unofficially declared war on Japan and when Japan retaliated the U.S. claimed self-defence and officially declares war appearing to be the innocent party?

Do you need me to interpret everything for you?

I can only offer you MY interpretation.

I might, "might" be interested in your interpretation, but it's far from important other than that I think it a good idea that people be fully informed about the world before they make choices based on what they think they know.

It is understood in political regimes that if people were not conscripted, there would be little means to wage war.


History shows that politicians abuse our instincts for self defense (including that of community) by, imagining, contriving, provoking an outside enemy as a means for gaining power over people and the resources they produce.


I conclude then, that we should not, under any circumstances, allow politicians the power, authority, or sanction to choose our enemies for us, nor should we allow them the power to conscript us or the resources we produce for any reason.

People do have the instinct to protect self, family, and friends from those that threaten same. It is a perversion then to suppose that it may ever be required to coerce people into following their natural impulses in this regard.

History also shows that politicians have, by abusing people's instincts for self defense, recruited a great many individuals into waging war against others for reasons other than self defense.

How about this - if those who don't won't to fight when Libertopia is being invaded by a powerful enemy then they get expelled from Libertopia by those who did manage fight off and repel the invaders?

Assuming we are talking about the "able bodied", I can't imagine those that didn't would feel very welcome living with those that did.

Who's to say the 'non-abled bodied' couldn't pitch in somehow? However, do you think the defenders wouldn't have the right to be unwelcoming to the non-defenders if the right to choose not to fight is an option?

Freedom of association.

But that's saying people can 'socially coerce' people into the armed forces - "if you don't join up we'll look down upon and close our doors to you" - i.e. disallowing a person from freely choosing. It's akin to saying "you are free to say what you like but if it offends me I'll punch your head in" amounts to 'freedom of speech'.

Why are you torturing the logic this way?

I think you can tell the difference between refusing to interact with someone and punching them in the face.

IAC, there is no prescription for how individuals should interact with each other than their subscription to the principle of non-aggression.

There are always consequences for our choices.

How would YOU deal with the situation. You don't have to tell me.

I do not support consciption under any circumstance! Having served for 10 years on active duty and in-theater during combat, I would not want to have to lead men who were forced into service. I do not even think that there's a situation so dire that this topic should even seriously be discussed as a policy option. The solution, I feel, would be for the public, through the federal government/DOD, to provide more incentive for people to volunteer. In a dire situation, cost would have to equal the level of direness, would it not?

Now, assuming that there's some real policy wonks out there that still feel that conscription is neccessary -- a position I would vehemently oppose for the reason I outline above -- the only 'fair' way to find people to serve is by selecting those who are currently on the dole, stick them in units with other non-volunteers, have them self-select their leadership, and then [this is key] tell them exactly who it was that made the policy decisions that affected them. I'd own up to my end of it and would remain well armed and on guard for the rest of my days.

The draft is a truly hideous idea.

That said, I can't help but wonder if Heinlein didn't get it right in Starship Troopers. No citizenship (ie - no vote) without first serving? Hmmm.....might be something to that.

Of course, I'm not biased in any way as a career submarine officer.

To those who support a military draft:

Some of those drafted soldiers are going to die. All of them are going to lose their freedom for the duration of their enlistment, likely a couple of years.

Please explain to me how you can support individual liberty and also support picking people at random to be enslaved and killed.

Daniel supports individual liberty, except when he opposes it; which is either at the front end or the back end of his sentence, depending on which way the yabbut is pointing.

Liberty is not the same thing as license. Liberty exists because communities acknowledge and don't impede it. Maintenance of that community against threats to it's existence is consistent with the preservation of liberty. Prefering individual license to the maintenance of real liberty doesn't impress me as being supportive of liberty at all. It is inviting enslavement.

Getting to the heart of the relationship between the individual and the community:

Man is social by nature. Individuals participate in community because it is in his self interest to do so. This participation is voluntary in nature. To alter the nature of this participation by the introduction of conscription is to reduce the value of participation in the community to the individual.

To suppose that individuals must be conscripted to defend the community is to claim that the value of the community to the individual is less than the value of the individual to the community.

However, if the individual has determined that the community does not value his voluntary contribution, then he will seek to avoid making any further voluntary contribution and must henceforth be subjected to impositions to acquire his contributions.

He will no longer offer his most valuable contribution to the community which is his voluntary loyalty.

How can the individual have value to the community? The community can't value things. Only individuals can value things.

If you want to iron out the semantics:
Value to the well being of other members of the community as expressed through collective agency.

Perhaps the most valuable service an individual can provide to fellow beings is to elucidate the morality follow the moral principles that make for human progress.

One duty that simply CANNOT be imposed on individuals is the power and burden of moral agency.

Individual moral agency is required to keep collective agency from turning evil which happens when popular sentiment allows such agency exception to moral principles.

The devices of political government are often aimed at suppressing individual moral agency and replacing it with subservience and obedience.

What kind of people desire such replacement?

We saw some of this in the US during Vietnam.

Yep. The only way we're going to maintain liberty is by enforcing slavery. I wonder why we dummies just don't get that.

That's a good justification for a federally-funded military. I don't see how it extends to the imposition of conscription.

I have absolutely no problem with taxation for military purposes. If we need to fight a very big war, offer to pay more to volunteer soldiers. If we keep offering more and more money to raise an army and still can't get the participation necessary, that's a damn good indication that the populace doesn't support the war and so we shouldn't be fighting it.

People who live in a community that protects liberty have a public obligation to maintain that community. In almost all circumstances, I agree with you - collect taxes to fulfill that public obligation. You don't conscript for the sake of conscripting. If you face a civilizational threat and you need large-scale mobilization, but free-riding by people that have a reservation wage above the low-five-figures, I don't see how you can claim to be true to human liberty and not conscript.

"People who live in a community that protects liberty have a public obligation to maintain that community. "

This sound more like a premise than it does an argument.

It's definitely a premise. As much a premise, I would add, as the ones that people who disagree with me on here have been using. However - many of them have accepted the validity of confiscatory taxes to finance a national army for the purposes of common defense. So the premise they implicitly adopt is pretty damned close to the premise of mine that you've identified.

Why should the wage remain at the low five figures? If you have a civilizational threat, pay more!

Or try this: pay exponentially more at the higher officer levels. So that someone who has a successful career as a solider can retire in moderate wealth and prestige. That's basically what Rome did. It should encourage more people to join and try to make it a career.

RE: "Why should the wage remain at the low five figures?"

Free riding by people that can afford not to fight. If a certain segment of the population can exempt themselves from even participating in that particular labor market, and still benefit from the provision of national defense, they will. I'm saying rely on paying a competitive wage first. But all have an obligation to defend the liberty enjoyed in the community as surely as you seem to accept that all have the obligation to pay taxes to defend that liberty.

I think we disagree on what constitutes a "competitive wage." There's always a market-clearing price; we just have to find it.

If the wage is high enough, or the cause just enough, you'll find a lot of those people coming out of the woodwork. I would join the military under certain circumstances, one of which is a high wage.

We have to find it, and we have to be able to actually pay for it. You probably will find people coming out of the woodwork - if you read my early comment, it was a strong opposition to the practical application of a draft. But I'm not going to write off the possibility as inconsistent with liberty.

But I'm not going to write off the possibility as inconsistent with liberty.

Of course not! There is so little the government does that is inconsistent with liberty in your eyes. Why should involuntary servitude be any different?

Even if we could postulate a sufficiently dire situation in which the draft were the best choice, we get to the same problem you and Methinks were arguing about above -- everyone has a different definition of what constitutes an existential threat.

I oppose the draft altogether because I don't trust the politicians to make that call. Between the alternatives of (1) drawing my own definition and hoping that Washington agrees with me or (2) opposing it altogether, I choose the latter. And I think that's consistent with small-government libertarianism.

Yes - that will be a major political impasse when we get to that point. But Methinks lays the seeds for acceptance of the results of that political decision making process, because of the implicit acceptance of confiscatory taxation to support a national army, long before that political decision needs to be made.

If you accept that taxation, it's not the same as conscription, but you've accepted the basic logic of conscription. So yes - it will be a tough choice and people will be bitter over it. But the groundwork for agreement is laid by anyone that supports taxation for a national volunteer army (and presumably civilizational threats will be pretty clear to most people anyway).

But taxation is NOT the same as conscription. Tell that to the conscripted person who gets killed in a war.

Virtually everyone here accepts some form of taxation to pay for basic government services. That includes (in theory) increased government spending at times of existential threat. Picking people at random and enslaving or killing them is a difference of kind, not degree.

I think our current volutary service system is best, both from a libertarian perspective (freedom of choice) and from a results perspective (better skilled and more professional soldiers than in the Vietnam era).

But that doesn't mean a draft would be all bad. First, I think it could instill some discipline or inner strength in younger Americans that is currently lacking. As someone born in 1963, I sometimes feel like I'm missing something that's present in those who've served in the military.

Second, I think military service could expose young Americans to different viewpoints, through the others they serve with. For instance, when I took a labor economics course, I was extremely surprised to find out that only 25% of Americans earn a four-year college degree. How can that be? EVERYONE (okay 90%) I know has a degree!

Perhaps conscription should should only apply to those who support (whichever) war the conscription is supplying with fodder.

What fascist has ever opposed conscription?

Well said.

What government has ever opposed conscription?

Government doesn't oppose or support anything, it is what the people who empower government believe that matters.

Years of government indoctrination ensures that some segment of the population support conscription of one sort or another.

Political government exists for the purpose of conscription.

Political government exists for the purpose of conscription.

So true.

I hear they liked building roads and eating vegetables too. So?

Serious question, are you aware of any fascist who did not espouse conscription of human beings into military service?

Fascism holds the subservience of citizens to the authority of the state.
If fascists build roads by conscripting the the resources of citizens, this fall within the meaning of the term.

Eating vegetables is part of the human condition, but if fascists eat only by conscripting the resources created by others, then this falls within the meaning of the term as well.

That went completely over your head didn't it? The point was, providing for the common defense is part of the human condition as well. A recognition that common defense is a public good (even if we didn't always use those words) is part of the human condition.

Fascists breath air. Fascists wear clothes. Fascists are quite fond of singing and establishing youth groups.

Your point?

All fascists are for conscription... not all democracies are.

Providing for the common defense doesn't necessarily require conscription. Or do you assume it does?

Yes, fascists do all those things. But they do other things. They seek to exercise political power over their fellow humans, and when in power, they exercise it over their fellow humans.

I don't hold the concept of "Public Good" as necessarily valid or good, whereas you take it for granted.

"Public goods" seems to me a device for conscripting the services of the productive to serve the ends of others, usually elites and whatever special interest groups may apply for the benefits of such conscription.

Daniel, I understand that you have many assumptions, but one you should relieve yourself of it is the assumption that I necessarily share your assumptions, even the ones that you hold as beyond question.

So no, it did not go over my head, I know what you mean. It's just that I may beg to differ with your cherished assumptions.

If you support conscription of any sort under any condition, then I will hold that there is at least that much of the fascist in you.

If you don't like the term, then we can use "authoritarian" instead.

Sam, you dummy! DK went over your head AGAIN!

Nice response.

I hate when he does that, he make me feel so inadequate.

All kidding aside, from what I've read of both of your posts, I don't think DK is capable of going over your head. And I don't mean that to insult you by suggesting your intellect is that low - I find your posts to be consistently very good.

Daniel is a very clever fellow, but he does seem to carry a lot of received wisdom.

Sam's posts are some of the best in the comment section. he has a way with words and logic.

Thanks, I try.

I knew you must have been hurting on the inside, Sam! It's almost as though God just told you you're inadequate, isn't it? Don't worry, my pet, we're all equally unworthy of the DK (some more equally than others - see? I'm learning).

"The greatest danger to liberty today comes from the men who are most needed and most powerful in modern government, namely, the efficient expert administrators exclusively concerned with what they regard as the public good."

-Hayek

RE: "It's just that I may beg to differ with your cherished assumptions."

That would be welcome if you did beg to differ. You didn't - you didn't even engage the counter-argument. I don't take my assumptions for granted any more than you do, and I'm trying to establish that your conclusions are very obvious GIVEN your assumptions. It's your assumptions that seem a little lacking! Take that as you will, but don't just dismiss people for refusing to argue on your terms and for not accepting your assumptions. And yes - suggesting that I take my assumptions for granted does seem tantamount to dismissiveness to me.

Well you seem to respond as if I shared critical assumptions.
Maybe my assumptions aren't lacking so much as you aren't as well acquainted with them as you may presume.

I think the implication of earlier comments is that perhaps you took offense at my suggestion that support for military conscription is fascistic because you do conceive a justification for conscripting fellow citizens in defense against invasion, therefore I was suggesting that you have a fascistic place in your belief system. Of course only for the most valid of reasons. But I assure you, if you think it necessary to conscript me to fight against an invasion, you are mistaken, and if you attempt to conscript me in such a case, I will hold you perhaps as much an enemy as the invaders.

As if you shared critical assumptions? The whole point was you didn't share critical assumptions about the human condition, wasn't it? I'm not taking offense - I'm just pointing out that the response from you always seems to be "well I'm just not convinced by that". It's your response whenever anyone challenges any of your assumptions. It's your classic response whenever the discussion is about climate change. OF COURSE given your assumptions your logic is fine and your conclusions make sense - I'm not disputing your logic.

I'm a declared skeptic about the AGW science, so what do you expect?
Obviously I'm not convinced.

Nothing has been produced to persuade me that a carbon tax is justified and I still challenge you to find ANY data that shows ANY emission reduction plan that will produce an "above the noise" change in trends.

I may not share all your critical assumptions about the human condition, but I do have them.

We are not in a place here for discussing those assumptions and where they may differ. I am only expressing my views in short statements suitable to this format.
You said:
A recognition that common defense is a public good (even if we didn't always use those words) is part of the human condition.

I don't buy that at all. That may be your assumption, but I question it.
I think such a "recognition" is indoctrinated into people and therefore is not a part of the "human condition" but rather an imposition upon the human condition.

Part of the human condition IS that we have a culture of historical legacy and one of those legacies is power hierarchy.

Another part of the human condition is that is is easier to get along if you go along.

And that's how even bad legacies are perpetuated.

>"Public goods" seems to me a device for conscripting the services of the productive to serve the ends of others

It is justification for the initiation of force, the polar opposite of justice.

Generally speaking I'm opposed to the draft on all counts. I have to say, though, it's particularly obnoxious that the idea is being raised again when our leaders show no thoughtfulness in prosecuting war in the first place. If they actually had a more reasonable approach to war - if they truly used it for the purpose of self-defense and as a last resort - perhaps I could find it appropriate for everybody to be obligated to contribute to national defense. But not the way they've been running wars lately - it's a non-starter. A draft with war policy like we have had is a blank check.

So, as long as you agree with the particular wars the US gets into, you're okay with slave labour.

Mmmmmkay.

So long as national defense is a public good and national defense is actually what is being pursued, I think the state can legitimately use coercive power to provide national defense. That's very different from saying that coercion for military service is OK.

Or we could just drone on about slavery to muddy the waters and avoid the real point.

The only time conscription might have a right to be considered would be in the event of a foreign invasion.

But the Second Amendment effectively arms every man, woman, and child by prohibiting the government from disarming them under any circumstance, making the entire citizenry into a militia, and making conscription unnecessary in the event of an invasion.

Unfortunately clever lawyers inserted "but", "unless", and other qualifiers into plainly worded language, and effectively nullified those limitations on government power.

We had conscription during the Revolutionary War, didn't we? Anyway - I agree with the general thrust of your point. We're only talking about extraordinary situations like invasion, the second amendment goes a long way toward providing this common defense, and the government has made the actual use of something like conscription untenable. All agreed, except for the fact that I doubt the second amendment alone could repel an invasion.

"We had conscription during the Revolutionary War, didn't we?"

To the best of my knowledge, no we didn't. As far as I know, the first war time draft was instituted during the civil war and the first peace time draft was instituted by FDR.

If someone knows different I'd like to know about it.

They most certainly did.

Here - maybe Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard will be more convincing to people: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/...

>I doubt the second amendment alone could repel an invasion.

If you think of it in terms of rifles and pistols, I suppose so. However nothing in the plain language of Second Amendment specifies what arms we are allowed to keep and bear.

A citizenry armed with whatever hardware they could afford could most definitely hold of even the most determined invaders.

Actually, I was thinking more interms of organizational capacity than firepower. A well armed populace is incredibly important, but arms alone won't defend a nation.

I honestly see the second amendment as more of an effective defense against domestic threats and the government than as an effective defense against invasion. It's crime and a totalitarian state that are the most immediate risks without the second amendment, don't you think?

Now, see...there I agree with you. I always understood the right to bear arms as a check on our own government.

Or is that a right to bare arms?

"Or is that a right to bare arms?"

...I'm not sure
http://www.bustedtees.com/secondamendment

Yessss....I know a couple of guys with arms that look like that!

RE: "Or is that a right to bare arms?"

It's neither. It was a long misunderstood typo:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/the%20right%...

>It's crime and a totalitarian state that are the most immediate risks without the second amendment, don't you think?

We're more than halfway there. It's called Progress. When the Progressives achieve all of their goals we will be all the way there.

Ever wonder why Swiss were never attacked by the Nazis?

Nope. Never wondered at all.

Bingo. I view the 2nd Amendment as both a defense against domestic threats and foreign threats. Sure, a pistol or a rifle isn't much good against a tank. But 300 million small arms make occupation by a foreign power much, much more difficult. Look at all the trouble we're having in Afghanistan.

So you agree the 2nd Amendment is to do with militia forces and not sporting shooter and hunters?

Duh!

So you agree there's nothing wrong with gun control for non-militia purposes?

Gil, we've been over this.

I know that you believe yourself to be government property, and that if the government chooses to defend your life against criminal mischief, that's great. But if they can't be bothered? Well, that that's OK, too.

"So long as national defense is a public good and national defense is actually what is being pursued..."

Who gets to decide? Obama? a majority of the population?

Ummm... me. I can't speak for anyone else. I'm just explaining the conditions under which I would be more comfortable with conscription.

You do see the problem with that? You want to decide. I want to decide. We won't agree - I'm sure of it.

Also, when the guys deciding the way you like are replaced by those who don't....Ooops. What exactly is your problem with a volunteer military under all circumstances (except when we are in an large active war like WWII where every hand is needed on deck)? Why would you ever support conscription except under extreme circumstances?

Why do we have to agree? I'm just saying that I am the one that gets to decide what I think is a common threat to the community - what I would be comfortable with when it comes to the draft. Of course getting to the point where society makes a decision on the issue is a lot messier and more complicated.

RE: "What exactly is your problem with a volunteer military under all circumstances (except when we are in an large active war like WWII where every hand is needed on deck)?"

I don't have a problem with that - that's what I want. I want a volunteer military except in large wars - and I'd add another qualifier to that even - large wars to ensure the common defense.

Okay. So you want conscription only under extreme circumstances. Not - as you claimed earlier in the thread - only if the military engaged in conflicts you happen to approve of.

But I should add - a big war isn't sufficient reason to have a draft. Obviously you could start a big war that actually threatens national safety. Size alone isn't what's important. Indeed, the advantage of a volunteer force is that it prevents politicians from starting big wars for the hell of it.

So, if a big war isn't sufficient and nobody is going to ask your permission for a draft and I will differ with your opinion (yes, what I think is important. Despite what you imagine, in matters of public policy, Daniel Kuehn's opinion is not the supreme decider of all things good and fair), why have the draft ever? Why not just pay people enough to willingly fight?

Re: "in matters of public policy, Daniel Kuehn's opinion is not the supreme decider of all things good and fair"

Well at least we're in agreement on that. I never claimed to be the supreme decider - I have only outlined the conditions under which I would be comfortable with a draft.

Oh, you say we're in agreement on that, but you know we're not. If you're comfortable with enslaving people at your whim (and you are), then we're not in agreement.

We are in agreement with the point that I am not the "supreme decider of all things good and fair". Wasn't that clear from my post?

You're under the mistaken impression that I misunderstood your post.

Did you even read my initial post? I had two conditions for when I would feel comfortable: if war was (1.) for self-defense, and (2.) used as a last resort.

You added a third one that I could readily adopt as well - a big war. Obviously there's no need to start up a draft if it's a minor, but appropriate war, that we could easily staff with a volunteer army.

When did I claim it has to be a war I liked????

well, what I consider self-defense and what you consider self-defense may be different. You only want to enslave people if it's your definition of "self defense". Your definition of "last resort" and my definition may be different. You want to enslave people only when it's your definition. I get it.

Actually....on second thought, we should never ever conscript. As the circumstances become more dire, the cost of new recruits should rise as that resource becomes more scarce and we are forced to decide between continuing to fight and giving up. If we want defense, we should be willing to pay for it, right? Why should my childless old self be defended by the forced labour of you and your children?

RE: "Actually....on second thought, we should never ever conscript"

Just let me know when you've made your final decision.

RE: "If we want defense, we should be willing to pay for it, right?"

You're thinking in terms of national defense as a standard private good. If it were, of course an all-volunteer force all the time wouldn't trouble anyone. The point is your childless old self would reap the benefits of my decision to put up a fight for my (in a couple years) children whether you choose to pay for it or not. That's why it has to be a collective endeavor. That's the whole point that's the whole difference. If my one-man military campaign is successful, all the pacificists in Arlington, Virginia will reap the benefits without paying a penny (lucky for me, with the Pentagon sitting in Arlington, Virginia and visible from my apartment building, I don't think I'll have to mount a one-man military campaign).

LThe point is your childless old self would reap the benefits of my decision to put up a fight for my (in a couple years) children whether you choose to pay for it or not.

So, are you going to conscript me too - provided the military behaves in a manner which you approve of, screw everyone else? That might work. I'm good at issuing orders.

That's very different from saying that coercion for military service is OK.

Right. So you didn't say: "if they truly used it for the purpose of self-defense and as a last resort - perhaps I could find it appropriate for everybody to be obligated to contribute to national defense."?

I was just assuming you didn't mean contributing by paying taxes since a little less than half of us are already doing that right now. God forbid we should muddy the waters by calling spade a spade.

Huh? I didn't mean contributing taxes. I meant conscription in response to a real national defense threat - as opposed to conscription to make military misadventures easier. But since we seem to have a strong propensity to military misadventures I oppose the draft.

My point on muddying the waters is that you're sensationalizing it by referencing slavery and completely ignoring the public goods facet of the question that is the entire basis of my distinction.

Your public good argument is fine for arguing for a national military. It's not fine for arguing for conscription. Conscription is a form of slavery. It's not sensational, it's true.

You support slavery as long as it's for a purpose you approve of.

You get compensated, even if you're conscripted - and you're being coerced into providing a public service, rather than private profits. Slaves don't get compensated and they work for benefits they do not share in. Conscription is not a walk in the park, but to call it slavery trivializes the experience of slaves (not to mention the service of men who serve under the draft).

I'm particularly confused since you seem to be accepting the existence of a national army. How is forced contribution of labor for national defense different from forced contribution of the wages of labor for national defense (which presumably would be used to support the national military you seem to approve of)? I don't understand the distinction you're making. Is it confiscatory? Of course. But then so are the taxes that you seem to be fine with in this case at least. Where's the difference, Methinks?

And let's be clear - I can't imagine supporting conscription any time soon or for any of the wars we've been fighting. But if there is some civilizational threat, by all means put the men of fighting age on the battlefield to defend our liberties.

Nope. Wage rate does not determine slavery.

Incidentally, slaves do get compensated and they do share in the benefits - depending on how you define "benefits". Agricultural slaves certainly get a portion of the food they're forced to produce, for instance.

You don't see the difference between paying someone a wage that is acceptable to them to enter the military and forcing them to do it at your whim? You also don't see the difference between contributing to the common defense and forcing the individuals to serve at your whim? Strange, but okay.

Oh yes - making sure slaves don't die of starvation. That's really what I'd call compensation.

RE: "You also don't see the difference between contributing to the common defense and forcing the individuals to serve at your whim?"

You tell me the difference. I don't see it. You're still forcibly confiscating from the population to provide a public good. You're trying to brow-beat me for saying that some public goods are important enough that they merit some degree of confiscation, without owning up to the confiscation that you implicitly support. Why is it different, methinks? I can't even exactly keep track of what you think, because you seem to be supporting my view of conscription when we need "all hands on deck" below.

I'm simply saying confiscatory practices are occassionally necessary at dire moments for a polity. I'm perfectly up front about that. You seem to be supporting confiscation at one minute, ridiculing it in another, demanding a voluntary army in one instance, and then making exceptions for major wars in another. I can't understand how you make these distinctions or even whether you agree with me or not because you keep going back and forth.

"That's really what I'd call compensation."

Doesn't matter. Food and shelter is compensation.

You tell me the difference. I don't see it.

If you don't see the difference between a small tax theoretically paid by everyone to cover the expense of the defense of everyone and forcibly using one human being for the purposes of another, then I can't help you.

BTW, were it not for the pesky constitution, I'd be fine with private militias. But then, I can afford one and you probably can't.

I'm simply saying confiscatory practices are occassionally necessary at dire moments for a polity.

No. That's not what you're saying. You're saying that you support slavery as long as the military behaves in a manner you approve of. But, you're not going to admit that. At least not in so many words.

So I guess this means you're back to "opposed to conscription in large wars for national defense".

I guess it means that I think about things rather than reading from the list of opinions handed to me the moment I crawled out of some hippy's womb.

To quote (closely enough) Keynes: "When circumstances change, I change my opinions - what do you do?"

My only confusion is that you started arguing against conscription for the narrow purposes I outlined, then supporting it, then opposing it again. I don't expect you to maintain the same perspective year in and year out. I was just getting whiplash for a while there.

I changed my mind once. Upon further reflection, I decided that conscription is not justified under ANY circumstances.

Agreed. If a cause doesn't inspire volunteers, then it isn't worth fighting for.

That whiplash you're getting is from your ever changing definition of "narrow purposes".

That's a ballsy response for someone who recently lead with "actually... on second thought". Come on, methinks - you've clearly been jumping around here from opposition to conscription to support under certain circumstances. Trying to put that on me just makes you look frantic and desperate. It's not the end of the world to admit you've adjusted your thoughts over the course of the discussion. That's what's nice about thoughtful discussions - that you get an opportunity to do that.

And don't forget, folks, that the draft is still in effect. Young men over 18 are still required to enroll. A stroke of the pen by some progressive party commissar and its back on.

On the other hand, what of the days of the Roman Empire - the military had the best working conditions and the greatest chance of growing old with a retirement plan? In other words, is it dubious if the government makes the military a very attractive choice over the private sector? If so, then the government has greater incentives to tax and create wars. Therefore should the military defence be left for private market forces to solve?

Marcus, I share your concern. The fascists never left Foggy Bottom. You can bet your ass that the 'permanent class' that sits in the Pentagon dreams of the old times when they could round up all the college kids and send them as cannon fodder to test out their armchair defense theories.

Granted, I didn't serve in the Pentagon for very long, but when I was there (most of last year) I couldn't detect even a hint of that mentality. But then, I'm just a lowly O-4.

>>Granted, I didn't serve in the Pentagon for very long, but when I was there (most of last year) I couldn't detect even a hint of that mentality. But then, I'm just a lowly O-4.<<

Lowly Lt. Commander? Okay, maybe at the Pentagon; but an O-4 is pretty significant relative to the whole Navy (which, from a comment below, I see served in)...especially to an enlisted guy!

Should the alternative to have a 'U.S. Foreign Legion' instead of the army? This way no U.S. citizens gets hurt or killed.

Hello,
I just got out of the Army 2 weeks ago. No one in the army wants conscripts, please believe me. Second, the opening of the freaking constitution says we have the right to life and liberty. In order to protect those rights we created a government. My life and liberty stopped being the property of the government when I took my uniform off for the last time.
I would put that uniform back on if we were not fighting a vanity war in Iraq and a pointless stalemate against any kid with an AK in Afghanistan. States that protect the individual from others have no need to fear a shortage of able bodies and minds in the defense of freedom.
A free mind is the greatest advantage the average American soldier has on the battlefield. Conscription takes that away from him. He is a beast to be driven to his death.

Eric,

Thank you for your service in defense of our freedom.

I agree we are continuing to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq. I do not know whether Afghanistan was equally unnecessary. But I do know that war had close to unanimous support of the American people immediately after 9/11, when we truly feared for our safety. Regardless of the situation today, the Afghanistan War was in late 2001 almost universally believed to be a defense of American freedom.

While I share your disgust of the notion that the draft is anything but unjust, I do believe that it, if properly implemented, is probably the very best way to reign in the foreign policy of the federal government. If men and women of ALL ages were forced into service in some capacity or another, I do believe that the outcry would be so great that people would actually start paying attention to what the government was doing. If women, everyone over the age of x, and men who weren't qualified for more strenuous work were doing laundry, cleaning toilets (do you know how many porta-potties there are over there?), doing paperwork, and cooking in the hot desert, we might have a foreign policy that didn't require forced labor in the first place. As it is, women, everyone over the age of x, and men who aren't qualified for more strenuous work are exempt from becoming the next slaves of the federal government and therefore don't have much of an incentive to pressure government officials (whether by words or by guillotine) into adopting a better foreign policy.

I say draft EVERYONE (economists included). Let's provide everyone with some very powerful incentives (among which is the distinct possibility that they might have to clean up other people's fecal matter) to see to it that our military is only used when absolutely necessary.

We're all ignoring the root of the problem and the true solution. The only sure way to end these horrible wars is to end the Federal Reserve--seriously. What do you think has enabled the military-industrial complex, and how do you think the government can so easily finance its wars? Because the Federal Reserve means that the government ALWAYS has a borrower and can always tax without the public's approval via inflation. To quote Mises: "Inflation becomes one of the most important psychological aids to an economic policy which tries to camouflage its effects. In this sense, it may be described as a tool of antidemocratic policy. By deceiving public opinion, it permits a system of government to continue which would have no hope of receiving the approval of the people if conditions were frankly explained to them."

Good point. And did you know that Keynes made his bones obtaining funds for the war effort (WWI) in Britain?

Sorry, "always has a LENDER."

Easier way: eliminate income tax withholding. Make everyone write a check to the government for the full amount of their income taxes. Then everyone will realize exactly how much of their labor is confiscated by Uncle Sam. That'll exert some decent pressure.

I've been trying to make this point for a long time. Thank you for bringing it up!

"While I share your disgust of the notion that the draft is anything but unjust, I do believe that it, if properly implemented, is probably the very best way to reign in the foreign policy of the federal government."

What evidence is there to support such a claim? Remember, we've had the draft before so we have actual data to evaluate.

Also, having a draft doesn't stop people from volunteering. What it does do is make it so the military doesn't have to hold out as good of a carrot to attract volunteers.

"Also, having a draft doesn't stop people from volunteering. What it does do is make it so the military doesn't have to hold out as good of a carrot to attract volunteers."

I would like to emphasis this point.

My father volunteered for the Navy in 1956. Why did he volunteer? Because as a volunteer he got to request what job he wanted to do and he wanted to be a radioman. There was no guarantee that he would get it but he was fortunate and he did.

In 1982, my cousin volunteered for the Navy. Not only did he get to request what job he wanted to do (though, like 1956, no guarantee he would get it), they also paid for his college education after he got out.

There's the difference between having a draft and not having a draft. The people who support a draft under the guise that it will help poor people, are wrong. It will hurt them.

Who ever said a draft will help poor people?

Because hurting rich people is helping poor people. Right? Isn't that the logic in the Bizarro World that you hail from?

Exactly right. It's a zero sum world and if rich people are doing well then they must be doing it at the expense of poor people.

Marcus, about 60% of the time we had a "peacetime" draft, the U.S. military was engaged in major combat operations involving batalions or larger units.

In contrast, after the end of the draft, the United States entered a very violent period of 20 years with less than 5% of that time conducting major combat operations. Of course, that ignores the current Bush/Obama wars, which will drag on for probably another 5 - 10 years before the U.S. government declares victory and withdraws. Those wars push the percentage up to 30%.

Institute a draft where every billionaires sons and daughters and every congressmen's sons and daughters and every tenured professors sons and daughters are at risk and war along with the military budget will shrink to an appropriated level.

Everyone needs skin in the game. No more poor men fighting rich mens wars!

"No more poor men fighting rich mens wars!"

And yet, as history demonstrates, a draft guarantees precisely that as the politically well-connected will get their sons and daughters assigned to plush, cozy jobs.

Comparing the death tolls of American soldiers in Vietnam vs. Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates unequivocally under which system the government values our children more.l

You're kidding right?

Under the draft, the military population was HEAVILY biased toward the poorer end of the economic spectrum. And all those billionaires and congressmen did their wopping best to keep their kids out, and for the most part succeeded.

Nowadays, if you actually look at recruiting data, a large portion of military personnel come from middle or upper-middle class backgrounds. It differs among the services, of course (we in the submarine force are skewed toward the richer backgrounds, from what I've seen), but the overall stats are easy to find. The image of the poor dude in the military because he had nothing else to do or the judge made him go in is, for the most part, a myth left over from the draft days. No doubt that myth persists because those who promulgate it are baby boomers who only ever saw the military through the lens of their Vietnam protests.

Yea, tenured professors are such war mongers right? How long have you been here???

I notice your list doesn't include greedy, profiteering doctors who take annual carbon-spewing vacations to Exit Glacier where they piss-and-moan about carbon-spewing proles destroying the planet.

Still don't think that guy's a doctor. And now a new muirgeoism is born: that he served in a military! lmfao. Oh the funniess that guy brings me...

So you support military conscription as long as it is egalitarian, is that right?

Yep, Bill Gates, myself and Llyod Blankfein would all be on the list. Of course I already DID serve.

You have served in the armed forces!? Vidyohs is going to be pissed!

In what capacity? And how did you feel about people who signed the contract and later decided miltary service was not for them? Imagine that on a much larger scale. Do you really stand by the earlier crap you wrote or was that just your way to signal something to the rest of us and that you do not reallty feel this way?

Ah muirgeo,

I know you are really, really ignorant of history, so I'll just assume it was ignorance rather than stupidity that prompted you to write that jem.

The United States of America entered into two undeclared wars with a loss of 100,000 dead and, I think nearly half a million wounded, the vast majority of them conscripts while they had peacetime conscription.

In fact, during "peacetime" conscription, which lasted nearly 30 years, the United States was prosecuting significant infantry campaigns for 20 of those years. In the nearly 30 years since the end of conscription, it has been 9 years of fighting.

Why? Because when there is conscription, the politically connected, the crony capitalists you carry water for despite your strong denunciations of them, always get their kids to get either exemptions, or assignments far away from the bang of the guns.

Conscription + big government invariably creates more war, the exception being countries that were so brutalized in the 20th century that they have developed a cultural aversion to warfare. People like to pretend that under conscription we will get the Swiss model of military policy. In fact, we will get the policies of post-versailles England or Japan.

Of course, the above completely ignores the moral component of the argument; slavery is always wrong, no matter how widely practiced. It is a vile institution that brutalizes the cultures that adopt it. It's sad that even today, people like yourself advocate for it, despite being well aware of its immorality.

Newsflash, YASAFI, the young people who currently serve do so by choice and do not wish to serve with other young people who do not wish to be there. Stick with medicine or risk adding to your stupid comments list.

Don,

I am not sure the Mr. Brodsky didn't write his letter without giving it a lot of thought, I do not get that he is really for a draft; but, that his protest is that a government that involves it citizens in a war like Iraq or Afghanistan should be a government with the political courage to involve all its citizens rather than just some. Now I come to the part where I believe Mr. Brodsky is confused and that is in assuming that the men and women for whom he expresses concern volunteered for military service without volunteering for the whole enchilada i.e. combat and possible death. They asked for it and they got it.

This confusion on the part of the American citizen appears to be widespread, and I have to place the blame on the military services as they advertise all the benefits of enlistment and service, personal enhancement, learning crucial leadership skills, bonuses, college tuition, etc., while glossing over the obligations, service, and possible death, and of course no government authority points that out.

I am against the draft and always have been.

A government that can not legally, rationally, and morally convince its citizens that they need to support a government action is a government that should avoid getting into those actions. Or, abandon them promptly if it can not win without producing slaves as cannon fodder.

It is a conflict in logic to say no one can make you serve them (enslave you); but, government can. Slavery is slavery no matter who or what is the enslaver.

political courage

There is no shortage of that. If we can really call it courage.

Watch out for oxymorons, sandre.

This fellow puts a good argument forth for the draft:

http://www.johntreed.com/militarydraft.html

I think this guy is way off base for why people, by and large, volunteer for military service.

There are no good arguments for the draft. There are only political arguments for the draft.

Nope, his argument for the draft fails because of his opinion that an all volunteer army is involuntary servitude (kind of strange) and that is somehow different from the draft army being slavery.

What he does is make an excellent argument for the complete failure of our unconstitutional government and its institutions.

You side with the totalitarian types frequently, don't you?

People like him, which totally lack the respect for the liberty of other people, make me sick. Just look at his reasons in favor of the draft. Here is my person favorite, where his hatred of freedom really shines through: "to acquire persons with skills that are needed but which the military cannot teach." He represents the very worst of humanity and I wish him all the worst.

So you don't think our country should be defended from foreign threats? Don't you realize that it takes over 700 military bases throughout the world, thousands of nuclear bombs, and half the world's military budget to defend our country from France?

It astounds me that this issue seems to be making a come back.