While doing some reading for a political philosophy class and wondering if there's any possible way to square Keynesian economics with Libertarianism, I came across a bit that was considering the in/justice of the American volunteer army.

The usual bits were trotted out for consideration: is it fair that the economically disadvantaged are the ones who serve most? would there be fewer wars if the sons and daughters of those who vote to lead us into war actually served too? is a market-based system for recruitment moral?

I bring this up in the context of Keynesian economics because my school has very well-known economics professor (he was interviewed in that documentary about the 2008 financial collapse with Matt Damon narrating). The idea our econ. dept puts forth is that we as a country should have government-guaranteed jobs (employer of last resort, I believe it's called), which I think would also effectively put a wage floor in place.

Leaving aside whether or not that's a good idea, it got me thinking about how that's essentially what the military is. While there are military operations happening, things like the signing bonus goes up because less people want to get into the military (supply goes down) and the military needs more soldiers (demand goes up).

Libertarians think one of the few things the government should do is to provide for the security of its people. Having a market-based system that is effectively an employer of last resort seems to already take care of that, no?

A big issue with this is that the people who decide when and where those soldiers go to war are considered 'out of touch', because their sons and daughters never have to serve. (Also, they have a tendency to decide we should go to war when it will be financially beneficial to those who contributed to their campaigns, IMO)

Could we not get around this sort of conflict of interest or conflict of fairness by letting the country directly vote on if we go to war? I understand this would take a constitutional amendment to implement, but let's assume that could happen. Also, perhaps a fail-safe could be in effect - like the president can override a mere majority and keep us from war, but over, say 55% or 60% would mean that we did enter hostilities - the resolution for which would have been introduced in the House, for example.

In this way, the people who decide if we fight would also be the ones whose families are affected. And the warmongers would have to convince a whole hell of a lot of more people that war is warranted or necessary.

I understand the objection that one should not be able to tell one's boss how to conduct business, but I think combat operations are just different enough from business operations to warrant such a change of policy, maybe.

Anyhow, I'm sure I'm forgetting some of the points or arguments I wanted to make in attempting to flesh out the larger issue, but maybe I'll remember all that as other people talk about the idea.

Lol no. In the middle of two wars 75% of 18-24 year olds were unfit for military service.

US Congress kids serve at a higher rate than the rest of the US.

Edit: Also, we already do put it to a vote, obv.

Five years later, I don't know how accurate this is:

http://www.military.com/news/article...s-growing.html

I am the 0.45%.

If the vote was only for the start of wars, not the end, do you think any of the previous wars would have been voted down? I think public opinion is already considered and heavily weighed before hostilities start.

Where is the poll??????

A nationwide vote of the citizens deciding if we go to war or not would be like a million times better than what we have now.

Well, 300 million times, amirite?

Ideally, if they are to take my money they should let me vote for everything.

Interesting post, but I think fails on the facts.

Reasonable questions.

As noted by 2/325Falcon, this is wrong.

As noted by seattlelou, people like wars--especially since very few of them (or their close relations) will be fighting anyway. This quote also comes to mind. The speaker is Herman Goering, his interlocutor Gustave Gilbert.

Air national guard ftw! But seriously how many of them slummin it as grunts in the US army or marines.

I'm an ACist, not a libertarian, so that probably skews my response a bit. But what we have now is certainly not market based imo. Market based would see multiple firms competing to defend us militarily. As is, there's just one, and it has a full fledged monopoly.

no way joe public would have anywhere near enough information to make an informed decision aboue this..foreign policy tough to accurately evaluate without access to tons of intelligence reports one would think

How convenient for those in power.

Actually come to think of it, bringing it to a vote of the public would probably be just as terrible. The ****ing propaganda would be shoveled out and all the idiots would be itching for warfare.

"check yes or no? hell, let's bomb them buzzards! they deserve it! Amurrica, **** yeah!"

How much information does one need? I would think we could piece together just by news reports that responding to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor may be required.

I suppose I'm just imagining situations where there are credible threats, as opposed to wars of choice.

Yes, there's just one, but it is not a draft. People have a choice of joining voluntarily, or if the money and benefits aren't high enough, not joining. That is what I mean when I say it is pretty much market-based.

Apologies, lousy iPad ate the header of these quote tags.

Has this info been posted here before already? (on the forums, I mean. I ask because I've seen a lot of people accepting assertions at face value lately that are proven wrong with little effort later)

I'm not saying this sort of thing wouldn't be attempted, but with a free press the chances of it happening are diminished. (and I say that as someone who thought the media was failing in the run up to the Iraq war)

You should have a guaranteed amount of money simply for being born on this planet. Every animal gets a share of the natural resources without having to go get a job get taxed for it then pay rent to someone. The idea that people can own vast amounts of natural resources then convince people that their lives aspiration should be to get a job and pay them rent. Its absurd. The market distorting ideas like "guaranteeing a job" what the hell does that mean force someone to hire someone? And paying people not to work like in unemployment "insurance". These things are ridiculous Just keep making things worse and worse. You own your own body and the fruit of your labors. Natural resources should belong to everyone. You should be taxed for owning land and oil fields not for working. Nobody should be paid not to work or paid to have kids. We shouldnt have burecracies running around trying to find jobs to keep people busy. Just create a level playing field and get out of the way. Give everyone a citizen's dividend eliminate all the socialism and market floors like minimum wage and let people do what they want. Geolibertarianism is the only thing that makes sense to me.

Just out of curiosity what disqualifies them? that seems really high.

It should be mandatory that the children between 17-35 of any senator or congressman who approves a war fight in said war,male or female.

http://www.ihpra.org/june%202010%20w...areadiness.pdf

Obesity, not graduating on time, and prior convictions, it would seem.

Adderal (sp?) is a big exclusion if I recall correctly.

How many past declarations of war would have lost under this policy? Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam - all were (initially, at least) popular.

lol i always wonder if people believe this **** when they spew it.



OP, unless the vote also enacts the draft, then your measure really doesn't change much. the people voting on it still aren't the ones who have their kids in the military. most people don't have their family in the military.

obviously it's better than letting 535 corrupt individuals make the decision, but it doesn't fix the problem you want it to fix.

lol@ the rest of your post obviously.

"Iowa is doing better than the national average. However, Iowa >still has 13 percent of its
students not graduating on time..."
when I served in the USAF [1977-1982] you have no idea how many kids were brought in w/ GED's. Military recruiters make the SEC look like choirboys.

>27 percent of its young people ages 10-17 overweight or obese,
Oh hell, I ain't addressing that here, the authorities yank some kid's bag lunch and give the kid Mc Nuggets...

>and one in every 54 adults on
probation, in jail, in prison, or on parole.
I'll defer to Lirva and others on this. [present insane drug laws,
suspension of habeus corpus, etc.]
I've heard first-hand accounts of recruiters' police-record waivers during the early Iran conflict years, I KNOW first-hand accounts of these waivers during 'Nam, at least one of them involving a coke charge, the judge told the dude, hey, the army or jail.
That's not counting the draft either. The DoD can get beefed up when it has to.

they're bein' pussies nowadays:
>The Article 15 they gave me for pot[1977]
>the first hand account of a TI telling us how they had to pull guys outta Basic becuz they were drying out on smack [mind you, this was the late 70's]

This is the grand libertarian delusion.