Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: National Defence
Message-ID: <3780@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 11:45:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3780
Posted: Wed Sep 25 11:45:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 06:58:58 EDT
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 55


In article <145@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>I think that the state is necessary. I think that the state should be
>responsible for only one thing -- the defence of the rights of citizens.

There are two interpretations of the phrase, "national defense".  One
is, defense OF the nation; the other, defense AGAINST nations.  The one
with which we need be concerned is surely the latter?  Why must there
be nations in the first place?  All that is obviously necessary is that
there be legitimate organizations of sufficient scope and capability
to handle any probable threats to rights and liberty.  I do not see why
such organizations need to be identified with geographic territory,
or be monopolies, or to have master-slave relationships between the 
organizations protecting one from nations, and those protecting one
from burglars.

>... I think that the price that
>citizens of libertaria will have to pay to have their rights respected and
>a small state is compulsory work for the state for one term. ...
>Laura Creighton

Compulsory service in defense is not necessarily a bad idea: there are
precedents, ie Switzerland, and rationales, to wit:  The physical 
defense of a territory is the one activity which can have such an
overriding importance as to transcend all other activities.  
Furthermore, defense can be of such a nature that *all* available
manpower is necessary to the task.  Under such circumstances, 
the need for a market to apportion the goals of social production
vanishes;  everything goes to "the fight".   Even the need for 
freedom (momentarily) vanishes; if the fight does not succeed,
you're dead.  (There are some problems with this rationale, but I'll
leave them for the moment.)

However, *even if you insist on a minimal State*, I cannot accept the
idea of nonmilitary service.  a) it is slavery.  b) Robert Poole has
made a career of showing that *whatever* services the gov't provides,
they would be much better done by contracting on the market than by
a direct gov't organization.  c) any State apparatus with coercive
wherwithal (ie, the power to tax or conscript) is absolutely bound
to grow, no matter what the constitutional or procedural proscriptions.

If you must have a State, there are several non-coercive models to
choose from.  Take Heinlein's "Starship Trooper" model, where service
is voluntary (but you must have served to vote).  Or one where the 
gov't gets its budget by inflating--$10 billion a year, fixed in 
absolute dollar amount forever.  In times of present danger that
was clear to the people and not just the politicians, voluntary
contributions and service enrollments would rise.  Or how about
gov'ts that were organizationally similar to present ones, but
non-geographic, so that you could change your "citizenship" by
calling a toll-free number?  I'd subscribe to New Hampshire for sure.

Experimentation is encouraged!

--JoSH