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