volunteer armies

Byron wrote:
>The problem you cited is a question of how the military (or any government function) should be financed, not really whether there should or should not be a compulsory draft.

Hi Byron

I think it is related. Let me run this argument in reverse to show the point I'm making.

Invasion by another powerful country would undoubtedly be *extremely bad*.

To lessen this threat we might institute a compulsory draft, which would certainly be *very bad*, but not as bad as invasion.

But *very bad* as the draft is, we can lessen the possibility of this too by ensuring our army is as reliably and well funded as we can. ,This will give us our best chance of a consistently strong volunteer force. In turn, this seems best achieved through a compulsory tax, due to the free-rider problem among other issues.

This tax would merely be *bad*.

So the problem is really a choice between varying evils, and that is the way to think about it. At least until we have a perfect world, and sadly I am not expecting one anytime soon...;-)

- Daniel

Post 21

Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 11:05pm

Point taken. I agree with your comparison between which is the lesser of evils (this is where I have to depart from Ayn Rand who was absolutist when it came to evil). Nonetheless, they are all evil. I suppose you could say if it was our goal to work from where we are today towards a libertarian society, the issue of government financing would be in the backburner compared to a draft (which Rand appropriately called the the worse evil of a mixed economy).

However, I do not buy the premise that the best way to defend an aggressor is with an army of conscripts. My anecdote regarding the Marines earlier in this thread spoke on this matter. I also do not buy the premise voluntary financing is insufficient to finance a military force, as I argued in my last two posts.

Post 22

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 12:08am

I suppose you would be right that we should choose between the various evils presented there
    if you were working towards the greater aggrigate 'good'

However since Objectivist government is founded upon individual rights whenever you have a question of evils caused by the government you have to check against the basic six rights.

1.) It is the job of the government to protect the rights of the individual not provide for the rights of the individual.
          (Right to life does not equal the right to health care.)

2.) In the case compulsatory finance and conscription in relation to a foreign invader.
          Here again it is the job of the military to protect the rights of the individual not provide the rights.
                   If a person fails to provide for their own rights then they do not get them.
                   If a person fails to work to buy food, they starve.
                          They failed to provide their own right to life the government did not fail to protect it.
                   If a person fails to seek out their own happiness
                          They failed to provide their own right to happiness the government did not fail to protect it.

3.) Therefore:
               If person who fails to properly provide for their own self-defence is invaded their military will respond to protect their rights as well as they were funded. If they fail this is not the fault of the military but of the individual for not providing for their own right to self-defence.

Objectivism is a philosophy of individual responsibility, thought, action and principle.
Not a philosophy of altruist aggrigate 'good'

If the individuals of a country fail to provide for their own rights,
the government has not failed to protect those rights.

So a country whose individuals do not take responsibility for their right of self-defence will be over run.

Americans used to be able to own guns to defend themselves against such concerns in case the military was unable to stop foreign invaders. Under an objectivist government we would have this again.

Eric J. Tower
Buffalo, NY (The Socialist Empire State)

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 4/30, 12:13am)

Post 23

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 12:58am

Eric wrote:
>I suppose you would be right that�we should choose between the�various evils presented there if you were working towards the greater aggrigate 'good'

Nope. This is not a utilitarian argument. The question should be, not how we should increase the greater good, but *how we can best minimise coercion*.

To re-run the argument above in slightly different terms so you can see this:

- The invasion by a stronger foreign power would result in maximum coercion.

- The draft would not be as coercive, but still very much so.

- A compulsory tax to properly maintain a volunteer force ( which Byron rightly believes is far more effective than conscription anyway) is also coercive, but less than the draft.

So this system is actually the *minimum coercive* model, designed to keep out *maximum coercion* as effectively as possible.

BTW, if 20% of "New Athens" population fail to pay their voluntary defence tax, with the result that 100% of the population are invaded, why should the 80% have to suffer this? (Recall that the aggressive neigbour state "New Sparta" probably has no problem with collecting 100% of its dues, and thus has 25% military superiority)

- Daniel

Post 24

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 3:08am

Indeed the question should be how can we minimize coersion.

You do not effectively minimize coersion another state through coersion by your state.

The ends do not justify the means.

To minimize it the individuals need to finance their military. If they do not they will meet more coersive forces. also your "New Athens" must not be a market economy your system is based entirely upon independent donations which would mutliply savings in times of general peace.

Eric.

Post 25

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:02am

I would like to bring up, not "New Athens" or "New Sparta", but the historical city-states themselves. Sparta was a totalitarian state where military service was compulsory for all able-bodied men from a very early age. They had no problem fielding and funding an army because just about every Spartan's entire way of life revolved around serving in or supporting their army. Every city-state in Greece feared them, especially after what they did to Carthage. Athens had no such luck. Athens was by no means a free state as a libertarian would understand it, yet they were far more individualistic. The Athenians were all about artsy, fartsy things like philosophy, art, and democracy. Putting together an army was probably more of an afterthought for them. If you crunch the numbers, Athens' ass should have been grass and Sparta would have been the lawnmower. To borrow from your mathematical argument, 100% of Spartans were 100% behind military dominance. I doubt Athens had anywhere near such numbers. Yet, in war, Athens did prevail over Sparta. I would like to think it was for the same reasons I said American soldiers are the best warriors in history, over such staples as the Japanese samurai, the Spartan hoplites, etc. An army consisting of hordes and hordes of brutes fighting with (and under) the hammer of coercion cannot triumph over even a smaller army consisting of rational, freedom-loving individuals.
(Edited by Byron Garcia on 4/30, 7:06am)

Post 26

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:22am

Regarding this notion that 80% of people are going to suffer if 20% don't do their part, well, those 20% don't owe jack to the 80%. To use an analogy from another field, only a minute handful of people ever invent technologies that effect sweeping changes to our way of life. Those people who do invent such things stand the least to gain from these inventions, given the time and effort they put in it. Everyone else, who did not have to lift a finger or think an original thought, will receive an immeasurable value compared to the time and effort they put in (little to none). For example, if the one person who invented the vaccine for polio, yellow fever, or whatever disease failed to do so, many people would have died from that disease until someone else came along with a similar level of genius. If noone else came along who could or would invent whatever vaccine, well, tough luck. Play the hand you were dealt. This bromide of "everyone doing their part" really is another form of collectivism and altruism.

Thankfully, this has historically not been the case. In fact, it is just the opposite. This 20%, or more like 2%, does far more than their fair share. We see far becaues we stand on the shoulders of giants. These giants did not do so out of some sacrifice to the collective. They did it because it was in their rational self-interest.

Post 27

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:44pm

Byron wrote:
>Yet, in war, Athens did prevail over Sparta.

Sadly, no. Check your history books, Byron, as to who won the 28 year Pelopennesian War - essentially the final military showdown between the two, after a series of lesser struggles....;-)

(Sparta, of course, ultimately collapsed due to over-expansion, and a subsequent series of internal revolts in its conquered states - pretty much the predictable end of such military/totalitarian societies) But Sparta conquered Athens; not the other way around.

- Daniel

Post 28

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:51pm

Eric wrote:
>The ends do not justify the means.

I am afraid this slogan does not make things as simple as it sounds. For I might just as easily ask the same question of you:

Does your "ends" - the avoidance of a minor form of coercion (taxation) for a small percentage of the population - justify your "means" - the invitation of massive coercion (invasion) for the whole population?

- Daniel

Post 29

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 4:02pm

I am no scholar on the subject of the Pelopennesian War but I do know, as you said, that Athens was defeated militarily by Sparta during that war. Perhaps I should have made that clear for the sake of disclosure? What I meant by Athens prevailing over Sparta was they not only were able to give the Spartans a run for their money during the war (refusing offers for surrender in exchange for renouncing democracy) but, in the end, they were still able to maintain a flourishing democracy long after Spartan empire collapsed not too long after their so-called victory. It was post-war Athens was populated by men like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. It is clear to me which of the two cultures stood the test of time.

Post 30

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 4:13pm

Maybe I should have used a better analogy? My weakness is that I am really not interested too much in historical particulars but the essence of what happened. I know you or some professional (or armchair) historian, if you all really wanted to, could pick apart chapter-and-verse my Marine Corps and American Revolution analogies as well. To me, it does not change the essence of what happened: the fighters for liberty ultimately triumphed over the fighters for oppression.

Oh well. It's Friday and this sailor is going to do the age, old Navy tradition of going to a bar and finding things to see and people to do. We'll pick up this battle again next week, good sir. This is not a retreat, but a retrograde movement.

Post 31

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 10:44pm

Daniel Asked:

Does your "ends" - the avoidance of a minor form of coercion (taxation) for a small percentage of the population - justify your "means" - the invitation of massive coercion (invasion) for the whole population?

Firstly your heading down the altruist "Aggrigate good" road again with your coercion for the whole population.

Secondly a person or country does not invite coercion. If a man rapes a woman you don't blame the woman. The fault lies with the man or in this case the country that is applying the coercion in the form of invasion.

My ends do not justify the means of my argument. I state coercion is wrong and there is no compromise on its wrongness. No grey area when you have one Objective Standard to judge; your individual life.

Your small coercion of taxation is just as Immoral as the large coercion of invasion.

There is no such thing as polite slavery, bearable tyrany, etc.

Your argument is justifying the means with the ends in Altruist fashion:
Ends: Protect the country at all costs
Means: Cost of coersion on personal liberty, and right to property.

You see?

Thirdly, I am beat, good nite.
(Thanks for making me realize another angle to positive and negative right interpretation in my previous post. )

Eric.

Post 32

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 2:28pm

Eric wrote:
>Your small coercion of taxation is just as Immoral as the large coercion of invasion.

This is, of course, an extremely dubious proposition. And besides, if you are invaded you will find very little interest in debate as to its moral content...;-)

>Your argument is justifying the means with the ends in Altruist fashion:
>Ends:�Protect the country at all costs
>Means:� Cost of coersion on personal liberty, and right to property.

Just a tip: the idea of the "ends justifying the means" by no means always an utilitarian one. We make many arguments of this nature every day. For example, we may decide to suffer the small pain of a smallpox vaccination in preference to the greater pain of the disease.

Let us compare it with your version then:
Eric's version -
Ends (or "objective"): protect the citizenry from even the smallest coercion (a minor tax of some description) at all costs
Means (or "cost"): Exposure to the greatest possible coercion (ie: invasion, due to an inherently unstable defence force. Just to recap, this inherent instability is due to the hard economic fact of the "free-rider" problem)

>Thanks for making me realize another angle...

Thanks - that's what we're all here for...;-). While we're looking at other angles, it would pay to consider these too:

1)Why would it be in your rational self-interest to pay for the defence of other people who don't themselves want to pay?

2)Why would making them pay by law *not* be in your rational self interest? Remember, you intend to pay anyway, so the fact that the contribution is made law is does not affect you personally in any way.

3)Why would it be in your rational self interest to risk invasion - and total loss of rights - just because the rational self interest of a minority (the free-riders) weakens the overall defence forces? (Remember, invasion is a "public evil" - something that no-one can be excluded from)

4)Finally, in what way would putting up with all this *not* be a form of altruistic self-sacrifice on your part?

-Daniel

Post 33

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 3:04pm

Daniel,

I can see now that I cannot get around your premise that voluntary financing (in addition to other methods available to a free society) is insufficient to provide for a military capable of defending our rights. It is not possible because my assertions are based on extrapolations from the success of non-profit organizations in soliciting contributions, in spite of the presence of taxes and regulations. I was not born with omniscience so, until we do live in a free society, my extrapolations will forever be extrapolations, as are your extrapolations that voluntary financing will lead to an unstable military. This is also one of the roots of our differences concerning what is in an indviduals's rational self-interest. You say coercion of the "free rider" can be in an individuals' rational self-interest. I say it can never be. My arguments are based on the long-term consequences of any form of coercion, as I am sure your arguments are based on the long-term consequences of not considering lesser forms of coercion to avoid greater forms of coercion.

Oh well. So we don't get to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" at the end of the day after all. I would cry a river into my pink hanky but I think I left my purse in the little girl's room. Time to move on to the next discussion!

Byron

Post 34

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 7:08pm

(ie: invasion, due to an inherently unstable defence force. Just to recap, this inherent instability is due to the hard economic fact of the "free-rider" problem)

Still your example is lacking in any dynamic you continue to look at the issue of finance as static. The hard economic fact of the "free-rider" problem is lessened by the fact that contributions would gain in interest through investment. In times of peace presuming still that the minority of folks continued to contribute the moneys involved may come to establish itself as a well funded yearly endowment. As there are currently a great many organizations funded yearly, in full, in this manner I think it could be established again for the purpose of defence.

1)Why would it be in your rational self-interest to pay for the defence of other people who don't themselves want to pay?

Its not, I would be paying for the protect of myself and my assets. The cumulative side effect is that they are also defended by my money and others. Its like if I were to have invented the electric power generator the cumulative side effect is a rise in the standard of living in the nation.

2)Why would making them pay by law *not* be in your rational self interest? Remember, you intend to pay anyway, so the fact that the contribution is made law is does not affect you personally in any way.

Its not in my rational self-interest to promote initations of force against anyone; establish a presedence of force initation on immoral grounds and it will be established in other ways. Not even if that initation of force were being coersed by the threat of another initation of force by an invading nation would it be acceptable to pass such a law. I would sooner stand my ground with my own guns on my own property and await the enemy.  Principles are not open to compromise.

3)Why would it be in your rational self interest to risk invasion - and total loss of rights - just because the rational self interest of a minority (the free-riders) weakens the overall defence forces? (Remember, invasion is a "public evil" - something that no-one can be excluded from)

It may not be utilitarian to bow to coersion when faced with the threat of further coersion but this is not about being utilitarian, this is about being free. The whole point of this is freedom. We are either free or we are not. I would find it better to have died in a nation that was, for a time, completely free; than to live forever in a nation with the immoral compromise of my rights to property looming forever in legislation.

4)Finally, in what way would putting up with all this *not* be a form of altruistic self-sacrifice on your part?

Dieing moraly justified in defence of my own natural rights and my putting up with all of this in the name of the principles of freedom is hardly sacrificeing myself to the worthless bags of flesh who would ride free on defence.

**************************   *******************************   ******************************

Your concern for the free riding issue is a real concern that I share, if we presume a static economy or a slump in economic growth and donations.   I disagree with your methods of handling the issue, the solution to the problem is perhaps better handled in the social enviroment where people can choose if they wish to deal with you or not without compromising everyones natural rights. There are more ways than legislation and compromise of rights to solve a problem. We need to get out of the "their ought to be a law" mentality.

There is currently a list online of everyone who has contributed to a presidential candidate. http://www.fundrace.org/

There could also be a list of those who contribute to defence kept. Let people choose to deal with whom ever they choose.

Regards,

Eric J. Tower

Post 35

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 9:07pm

Eric wrote:
>Still your example is lacking in any dynamic you continue to look at the issue of finance as static.

But your example suggests that proper defence is only possible under the best possible economic assumptions!

Daniel wrote:
>>1)Why would it be in your rational self-interest to pay for the defence of other people who don't themselves want to pay?
Eric replied
>Its not, I would be paying for the protect of myself and my assets.� The�cumulative side effect is that they are also defended by my money and others.� Its like if I were to have invented the electric power generator the cumulative side effect is a rise in the standard of living in the nation.

Actually, you're paying for yourself *but* you're paying for them too. Your comparison is wrong. It's not like some invention, like a generator that has free knock-on effects. A more accurate analogy is that you're paying for a power company that other people can plug in to for free. Plus, the more people that plug in for free, the more you'll have to pay to keep the company going or else it will go bust. But if you're happy to do that, fine.

>Not even if that initation of force were being coersed by the threat of another initation of force by an invading nation would it be acceptable to pass such a law.

This is, in fact, not an anti-utilitarian argument, but a kind of *mega*-utilitarian argument. For the typical utilitarian argument is that the few should sacrifice for the needs of the many. But you've gone even further than that here, as you say that the freedom of the many (the population) *must be sacrificed for the freedom of the few *(the free-riders)!!!

You're still sacrificing for "the greater good"- and vastly so - just that you've assigned the "greater good" in this particular case to *the freedom of the few*.

I am sure you do not mean to end up up there, but that is how it is.

>We are either free or we are not.

I put it differently. I say we can never be perfectly free; for the obvious reason that we must place restrictions on things that threaten our freedoms (as we do for most forms of violence for example). This is the well known "paradox of freedom". So we must strive to be as free *as possible* but cannot be more so.

>Dieing moraly justified in defence of�my own�natural rights and my putting up with all of this in the name of the principles of freedom is hardly sacrificeing myself to the worthless�bags�of flesh�who would ride free on defence.

I personally consider that the idea of sacrificing your earnings - and even your life - just so a few people can enjoy free national defence is about as altruistic as it gets...;-)

- Daniel

Post 36

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 10:53pm

Daniel wrote:

quote I put it differently. I say we can never be perfectly free; for the obvious reason that we must place restrictions on things that threaten our freedoms (as we do for most forms of violence for example). This is the well known "paradox of freedom". So we must strive to be as free *as possible* but cannot be more so.

This sounds pretty close to what George Reisman calls the "anarchic conception of freedom," which holds that one is deprived of liberty whenever one is barred from engaging in any action, including such irrational behavior as theft, murder, or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Such initiations of force are not a part of freedom; in fact, they are its exact opposite. They are actions against the real, rational freedom of others (which includes liberty of life and property).

This conception of freedom is often part and parcel of statist arguments. For instance,
1. We can't let people yell "fire!" in a theater.
2. There must be limits to freedom of speech.
3. Let's pass campaign finance reform, or regulate tobacco advertisements, or whatever.
The flaw in this argument is that true freedom of speech does not consist of the right to wander onto anyone else's property shrieking whatever one wishes, to the detriment or possible physical harm of the proprietor or his patrons. True freedom of speech is the right of those with the ability (including the necessary property) and the desire to state a viewpoint to state it without forcible interference from third parties or the state. It cannot rightfully be limited or abrogated in any way.

-Andrew

Post 37

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 12:04am

Andrew:
you said, re: initiations of force, that they are not covered under freedom because:

" Such initiations of force are not a part of freedom;�in fact, they are its exact opposite.�They are actions against the real, rational freedom of others "

in other words, it sounds like you are saying one only has freedom to be rational and that irrational behaviors must be not be considered as part of freedom but as some sort of unfreedom. so are you saying that there must be no freedom for the irrational because to grant it under the rubric of freedom leads to the anarchic view of freedom and thus opens the way to statist arguments? problem is, if you are saying this, youre still opening the way to statism. drugs, the statist will claim, arent rational, lets ban them! and lets ban heavy metal! and lets ban religion! if you deny a freedom to the irrational qua irrationality, you open the door for some pretty dire unintended philosophic consequences: man must have the right the be stupid if he so chooses, just as he must have a right to be intelligent.

Post 38

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 12:06am

and also, on the question of yelling "fire" in a theatre, I think it should be legal to do so if the owner permits it.

Post 39

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 1:14am