carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/15/85)
Cliff Matthews writes: >Again, I have stated that I doubt this medium can be used to convince you >of the boons of libertarianism. Let's discuss a smaller issue in depth. >How about the issue of conscription. I guess you think it is wise for a >country to allow slavery. I don't. Shall we volley the issue a few times? Let me serve by quoting John Locke, in the _Second Treatise on Government_. Please note Locke's distinction, sure to discombooberate libertarians, between man's natural liberty and his liberty in society. _______________ 21. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule. The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it. Freedom, then, is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us: "A liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws"; but freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of Nature. 22. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life together. For a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot by compact or his own consent enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life cannot give another power over it. Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life by some act that deserves death, he to whom he has forfeited it may, when he has him in his power, delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service; and he does him no injury by it. For, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires. 23. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else but the state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive, for if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases as long as the compact endures; for, as has been said, no man can by agreement pass over to another that which he hath not in himself--a power over his own life. ________________ I don't consider conscription to be slavery. Neither did Locke, although he justified slavery under some circumstances (he was an administrator of slave-holding colonies in America). Neither did Abraham Lincoln when he abolished slavery, established the nation's first military draft (militia service had been compulsory since colonial times), and made a speech about government of the people, by the people, and for the people, all in the same year. Neither does anyone else, as far as I know, except libertarians. The state of Israel has had conscription during its entire existence. I read the papers but I have not noticed any great outcry from Israelis against this form of "slavery", or any great agitation for an all-volunteer force. How do libertarians explain this rather striking fact? Perhaps there are not many Israelis who agree with libertarians that individual liberty, in the sense of freedom from coercion, is the highest good. It would be an interesting experiment from numerous points of view to establish a Nozickian minarchy or an anarchocapitalist non-state in Israel and see what happens next. How about it, Israel? Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/15/85)
Richard Carnes writes: > I don't consider conscription to be slavery. Neither did Locke . . . > . . . Neither did Abraham Lincoln when he > . . . Neither does anyone else, as far as I know, except libertarians. The > state of Israel has had conscription during its entire existence. I read > the papers but I have not noticed any great outcry from Israelis against > this form of "slavery", or any great agitation for an all-volunteer force. > How do libertarians explain this rather striking fact? Well, gosh, I guess we must be wrong! People disagree with us. Why should we even attempt to argue the point? (leaving sarcasm mode.) How is slavery defined? Haven't got a Webster's handy, but how about: "Use (or threat of use) of force to cause an individual to act in a manner contrary to their free will for an extended period of time." What's that I hear you shouting? You don't like my definition? Well, you are hereby challenged to provide a definition of slavery which excludes conscription. Anyway, with the above definition of slavery, it seems clear that conscription is one form of slavery. While we're on the subject, how do people feel about these questions? a.) Is a person morally responsible for actions which they were ordered to do? b.) If your answer was yes, can you justify in any way taking an oath which states that you will follow the orders of commanding officers? c.) If your answer was no, do you think that someone who participates in a massacre while just 'following orders' is innocent? How is being in the services involuntarily different from being enslaved? Well, you get paid. . . . . That was all I could think of. Doesn't seem like much of a 'real' difference to me. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Aye, Captain, and at warp 11 we're going nowhere mighty fast!"
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/16/85)
Jeff Sonntag writes: > You are hereby challenged to provide a definition of slavery which > excludes conscription. Most dictionaries have something like "the condition of being a slave." Not good enough? Here is how the OED defines "slave": One who is the property of, and entirely subject to, another person, whether by capture, purchase, or birth; a servant completely divested of freedom and personal rights. Aristotle defines slavery as the ownership of one person by another as his personal possession. I doubt that even libertarians believe that a commanding officer owns his subordinates and can sell them at the local slave auction. Also, the authority of officers, and even of the Commander- in-Chief, is strictly limited by law and military code under a republican form of government. Your superior cannot order you to marry his daughter, shoot yourself, or buy shares of IBM with your salary. Draftees and other military personnel have well-defined rights in the US armed services, although they are not identical with the rights of civilians. The 1984 Libertarian Party platform declares that conscription is "involuntary servitude"; "servitude" as generally used is a synonym for "slavery." Libertarians believe that conscription is unjust. It is also rhetorically effective to denounce the draft as "slavery"; therefore, by Libertarian Logic, it IS slavery. By the same process of reasoning we can arrive at the conclusion that mandatory seat-belt laws constitute slavery. There was a story in the NYT a few days ago about a New York woman who claimed that the lives of her two sons, who had been in an accident, had been saved by NY's new seat-belt law. They had not used seat belts before, but buckled up this time "because it's the law," they said. In a letter to Gov. Cuomo their mother expressed gratitude, for some peculiar reason, for the seat-belt law. Too bad the lady wasn't a (consistent) libertarian: she would have screamed at the governor for taking away her family's freedom and the story might have made Page One, to the great satisfaction of libertarians no doubt. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/17/85)
> Richard Carnes writes: > > I don't consider conscription to be slavery. Neither did Locke . . . > > . . . Neither did Abraham Lincoln when he > > . . . Neither does anyone else, as far as I know, except libertarians. The > > state of Israel has had conscription during its entire existence. I read > > the papers but I have not noticed any great outcry from Israelis against > > this form of "slavery", or any great agitation for an all-volunteer force. > > How do libertarians explain this rather striking fact? > > Well, gosh, I guess we must be wrong! People disagree with us. Why > should we even attempt to argue the point? (leaving sarcasm mode.) There is a reason that very few people have agreed with you -- societies that don't have a military don't tend to last for very long. > How is slavery defined? Haven't got a Webster's handy, but how about: > "Use (or threat of use) of force to cause an individual to act in a manner > contrary to their free will for an extended period of time." What's that I > hear you shouting? You don't like my definition? Well, you are hereby > challenged to provide a definition of slavery which excludes conscription. > Anyway, with the above definition of slavery, it seems clear that conscription > is one form of slavery. How about "Forcing another person to work or depriving him of his liberty, when it is not essential for the overall well-being of the society that this be done". I think that this would exclude conscription and most other exampes where the term "slavery" is clearly inappropriate, such as keeping criminals in jail (which by your definition is also slavery and presumably is also wrong). > How is being in the services involuntarily different from being enslaved? > Well, you get paid. . . . . That was all I could think of. Doesn't seem > like much of a 'real' difference to me. If nobody is in the army, then some very bad things are likely to happen. If you are not enslaved, then some rich slave-owner will be a bit poorer, which isn't that bad. A big difference... > While we're on the subject, how do people feel about these questions? > a.) Is a person morally responsible for actions which they were ordered to do? Depends on the force behind the order. If he faces death as the consequence of his disobedience, no. > c.) If your answer was no, do you think that someone who participates in a > massacre while just 'following orders' is innocent? Well, it depends on the circumstances. If the man is a soldier in the Iranian army, and his commander threatens dissenters with death, then he can't be responsible. But if it is an army where the price of disobedience is just a dishonorable discharge, then the man isn't innocent. Of course, in answering these questions I'm not applying any clear and simple laws of the sort that libertarians and marxists always have to have, but just telling what my (and most people's, I think) intuitions are. That is the ultimate basis for any moral jugdements anyway, so why are so many people so eager to find some basic timeless laws of morality? There are some things that you just can't define in terms of other things, and "good" is one of them. Which means that any judgements about what should be done and what should not be done can't be made into laws, because they all rest on what is "good". Slavery is not good simply because we think it isn't, and conscription is good simply because (some of us at least) think it is good, or at least necessary. If you have a counter-argument to this, I expect it to start with a definition of "good" and a proof that it is objectively correct... Wayne
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (01/24/85)
[24 January 1985]
The US Constitution, Amendment 5 says, in part:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation."
The US Supreme Court has said:
"Labor is deemed to be property..." [State v Muller, 28 S Ct 324]
Put those two together, and it seems to me that conscription, or
the taking of your labor for a period of years, might be justifiable
under the principle of Eminent Domain, but the payment to the
conscripted soldier must be equal to the market value of his (her)
labor during the years of conscription. Please do not make the
mistake of thinking I agree with this opinion. I am merely drawing
a conclusion from US law as it exists.
Dani Eder / Boeing /. ssc-vax!edercliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/26/85)
> Put those two together, and it seems to me that conscription, or > the taking of your labor for a period of years, might be justifiable > under the principle of Eminent Domain, but the payment to the > conscripted soldier must be equal to the market value of his (her) > labor during the years of conscription. Please do not make the > mistake of thinking I agree with this opinion. I am merely drawing > a conclusion from US law as it exists. > The amendment abolishing slavery was written after the other two. It is interesting to note that there was a loophole in the selective slavery laws that said young men that would be making sufficiently more money as a civilian would not have to serve. (i.e. we only want to eliminate the poor people). That loophole was removed. --Cliff
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/28/85)
> Jeff Sonntag writes: > > You are hereby challenged to provide a definition of slavery which > > excludes conscription. > > Most dictionaries have something like "the condition of being a slave." Not > good enough? Here is how the OED defines "slave": > > One who is the property of, and entirely subject to, another person, > whether by capture, purchase, or birth; a servant completely > divested of freedom and personal rights. I maintain that any person that can be sent to certain death is completely divested of freedom and personal rights. Now how can you sit there and tell me that a poor person is less free than a rich person, yet claim that a person who can be killed at anytime has any bit of freedom or personal rights. How many of the Vietnam casualties are free? If being dead had anything to do with being free this discussion would be totally moot, for we living make up only a tiny fraction of all the humans that have walked/crawled on this planet. This is no longer theoretical material. During the time the U.S. participated in the Vietnam atrocity (it wasn't a U.S. war) real people were sent to their deaths. They were servents ("serving their country" HA!) and they were completely divested of freedom and personal rights. > Aristotle defines slavery as the ownership of one person by another as his > personal possession. I doubt that even libertarians believe that a > commanding officer owns his subordinates and can sell them at the local > slave auction. Maybe the analogy isn't so bad. If your C.O. sends you somewhere you must go or face court martial. Great, most likely he won't be sending you some- where else for obvious personal profit, but remember that this person is most likely a career military man who very badly wants that next promotion. Old soldiers never die--Young ones do. It hasn't always been that way but the median age of dead U.S. soldiers in Vietnam was the lowest of all the median ages for dead U.S. citizens in previous wars or periods of prolonged fighting. > Also, the authority of officers, and even of the Commander- > in-Chief, is strictly limited by law and military code under a republican > form of government. Yes and the authority of slave owners was strictly limited by law under a republican form of government. True the limit was negligible but a slave- owner couldn't have his slave burn down the capitol building. Just because the law and military code does not allow something today doesn't mean it won't be changed tomorrow (esp. since many things can be done in military law that can't be done by federal law or state law under our present Constitution). But seriously, how much more authority does it need when it can have you beaten to death during peace time with impunity? > Your superior cannot order you to marry his daughter, He can't today...who knows about tomorrow. > shoot yourself, No, but he can ask that you beat a fellow soldier for a fixed amount of time, even if it kills the other soldier. > or buy shares of IBM with your salary. Actually since your salary is taxed much of it will go to the companies supplying the goods for war...DuPont, etc. > Draftees and other > military personnel have well-defined rights in the US armed services, > although they are not identical with the rights of civilians. Please tell me what they are and explain why they are static when there is no Constitution or similiar fixed set of rights to work under. > The 1984 Libertarian Party platform declares that conscription is > "involuntary servitude"; Well, it isn't voluntary and it is servitude... > "servitude" as generally used is a synonym for > "slavery." Libertarians believe that conscription is unjust. It is also > rhetorically effective to denounce the draft as "slavery"; therefore, by > Libertarian Logic, it IS slavery. By the same process of reasoning we can > arrive at the conclusion that mandatory seat-belt laws constitute slavery. Actually, by definition (submission to a dominating influence) it is. The point is that when you are drafted you have to rescind your own sense of morals and obey your C.O. He can send you to certain death if he thinks it would benefit his status. > There was a story in the NYT a few days ago about a New York woman who > claimed that the lives of her two sons, who had been in an accident, had > been saved by NY's new seat-belt law. They had not used seat belts before, > but buckled up this time "because it's the law," they said. In a letter to > Gov. Cuomo their mother expressed gratitude, for some peculiar reason, for > the seat-belt law. It doesn't matter what the woman claims. If her sons lives were saved, it was by the seat belt, not the seat belt law. Sounds like a good idea to me: only behave responsibly when the law tells you what to do. In the mean time aren't we doing the same mother a severe diservice if we don't have a law prohibiting making toast in the bathtub? Of course I doubt that Gov. Cuomo even thought about replying to the lady and telling her that there are all sorts of dangerous practices in the world and that it would be unlikely that big brother would get around to making them illegal by the end of this decade, so she should consider raising children to have minds of their own. Maybe ten years down the road people will no longer have to think for themselves...but it is still a good idea today. > Too bad the lady wasn't a (consistent) libertarian: she > would have screamed at the governor for taking away her family's freedom and > the story might have made Page One, to the great satisfaction of > libertarians no doubt. That's right. I consistently "scream" at my "representatives" when they try to pass motorcyle helmet or auto seatbelt laws. Not only are they taking away freedom, but they are encouraging people to be dependent on the state for guidance away from safe practices (the same state that brought you love canal and agent orange). > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Summary of conscription as slavery debate: Richard Carnes favors conscription. He presents no points in its favor, but complains that libertarians choose to call it slavery and involuntary servitude. In the past he has been deeply concerned that a person with little money is sufficiently less free than one who is well off, yet he seems not to care that government thinks it has the right to arbitrarily send some of its citizens to certain death. Cliff Matthews is against conscription. Whether it is called slavery, involuntary servitute, selective service or the draft, it still directly results in the ultimate deprivation of liberty/freedom: death. U.S. history has shown that even in a democratic republic conscription has been used to selectively oppress minorities (males) for trivial pursuits that don't even require congressional declaration of war. --Cliff