Regarding Conscription and Compulsory non-Military Service

November 26, 2006

Pardon me for my extreme tardiness with regard to this issue:

In light of Sen. Rangell’s draft proposal, a commenter on Matt’s blog asks about the economic impact of the draft:

I think it was Milton Friedman, who while objecting to the draft, brought up the case for someone like Muhummad Ali, a consciencious objector who happened also to be terribly wealthy. Let’s say that the wages of an Army private are $10,000/year, and that M. Ali can earn $5M in a year. It doesn’t take a mathematician to recognize that the taxes wrested from M. Ali on his annual income of $5M will pay for many, many conscripts (or enlisted men). If M. Ali pays $1M in taxes, he will fund the salaries of 100 privates.

On the contrary, if M. Ali is prohibited from earning his income, and instead forced into service, the government loses the tax revenue he would’ve provided, with which they could’ve purchased the services of an additional 100 men. Since it is unlikely that M. Ali’s military value is greater than that of 100 of his compatriots, it is exceedingly foolish to force such people into service.

But it’s not only budgetary constraints with which we should be concerned - lord knows that politicians don’t exactly have the best track record with regard to fiscal responsibility. Conscription is, in short, bad for the economy, and probably bad for overall troop morale. But it’s also morally reprehensible.

“What if conscripts are allowed to opt-out of military service, and do something else, instead?”

To this end, people like Sofia, commenting at Matt’s blog seem to be OK with the idea of compulsory national service, as long as the conscripts could choose their occupation. This is only marginally less putrid from a moral standpoint. It needs to be made abundtanly clear that any sort of forced service, be it “community service” à la candy-striping, or actual military service, is pseudo-slavery, at best.

Such compulsory service only assures that the government will have access to scarce economic resources (i.e. labor and human-fodder) at less-than market-clearing prices. Failure to provide market-clearing wages is implicit; if the wages were in fact market-clearing, no compulsion would be necessary, and any laws to that effect would be superfluous. It effectively permits them to steal accountants, lawyers, burger-flippers, mechanics, spot-welders, carpenters, salesmen, etc., from their respective employers, and turn them into soldiers. Society is deprived of the men and women who were previously contributing in a meaningful, voluntary manner. This is not debatable.

And besides, we already have enough conscription - in the form of obligatory taxes which fund the war. It is a non sequitir to suggest that one is free to oppose a war, although he is forced to support it financially. Because even as taxes are concerned (they are only a few minor steps away from full-blown conscription), we’re really not free in any meaningful sense of the word. The ultimatum given in either instance is that the objectors (whether defecting or evading taxes) will be shot if they do not acquiesce to the demands of the omnipotent government.

“Well, we’re not forcing you to fight in wars…”

Slavery… A rose, by any other name. This is like suggesting that “it’s not slavery” if one is given a choice. For instance, you have the option of picking cotton, or digging ditches, or building railroads; but you must perform one of the duties. This is merely violence masquerading as choice, and it is the principle behind every statist program by which a government seeks to obtain the use or control of resources without paying the appropriate, mutually agreed upon price.

The proposed semblance of “choice” does not make the results of such conscription any more voluntary than a random military draft; it is no more voluntary to allow the victims to pick their poisons. You see, behind this “choice,” is ultimately a government gun, which will be used against the otherwise peaceful, law-abiding citizens who merely refuse to participate in any involuntary labor arrangement.

As Stefan Molyneux says, don’t blame me. “We’re not having a debate here… They want you shot if you don’t agree with them. … I’m not the one holding the gun here, I’m just pointing out that there’s a gun in the room”


Comments

Leave a Comment

If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comments

Archives

Categories