Polls: Romney could win popular vote and Obama the Electoral College

[Ad Orientem]

For the people who believe that a state is required for a society, I ask: if tomorrow, you awoke to find that all levels of government had vanished, would you revert to callousness, barbarism, and cruelty, killing others for their property, or enslaving the weak for your own pleasure? Or do you instead believe that the state is necessary to keep other people from doing these things? If so, is it not possible that people such as yourself could peacefully live in a stateless society composed of similarly enlightened folks?

No. I doubt that I or any of the others on this forum would do such things as you describe. But there are people who would. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of history. And if you want evidence you need look no further than the local jail or prison. There are dangerous animals in this world and some walk on two legs. Sometimes you need to band together for protection from them.

[Pointedstick]

I think we can all agree that there are certain depraved individuals who would! The question then becomes, "is government the best way to protect a society from them?" This involves weighing the asserted benefits to society from government against its costs. Let's start with the benefit of "Protection from depraved individuals" -- has government actually accomplished this?

[D1984]

Several false equivalencies there. Defending your nation from attack and digging ditches or picking cotton are not morally equivalent. I notice the conversation switched from a morally acceptable war of defense (WWII) to Vietnam quite quickly. Use straw men if you wish, but WWII would have lost utterly without a draft. Likely with a minimum of Axis casualties (assuming Russia was foolish enough to rely solely on volunteer forces).

I mentioned Vietnam not to switch from a "war of defnse" like WWII but because you reply seemed to imply that a fixed, limited term of conscripted service somehow was morally acceptable and was not comparable to a term of service "until the war is over" and I was pointing out that those who were forced to serve in Vietnam were no freer in moral terms than those who were forced to serve in WWII since anyone who is forced to serve against his will is no freer than a slave regardless of ther duration of said servitude.

Furthermore, why would the US have lost WWII without a draft? After Pearl Harbor we had plenty of people who volunteered; the draft probably helped facilitate getting men into the service quicker (and perhaps winning the war a year or so earlier since we had draftees coming in since late 1940) but it's arguable that for a defensive war like WWII that we would have needed conscription. The USSR may indeed have needed conscription (although my understanding was that they had conscription well before WWII started and that as a Communist dictatorship they always had conscription since at least the late 1920s so whether they would have had it to fight the Second World War was a moot point) to successfully fight WWII but why should a tyrannical Communist country under Joseph Stalin be held up as an example for a free country like the US? SInce when are they to be seen as something to emulate? After all, they used slave labor to help win the war (the zeks in the gulags did everything from rolling bandages for the wounded to mining nickel for making armor plate); certainly some of what the gulag inmates (most of whom weren't legitimate criminals but political prisoners or victims of Stalin's paranoia) did was equivalent to "picking cotton or digging ditches." If the US had said it was needed for the war effort, should we have enslaved people for essentially civilian jobs as well?

Finally, did you ever consider that if we had not fought in WWI (which would have been more difficult for us without a draft) then the outcome of that war might have been different, as would perhaps all of world history (no Versailles Treaty means little or no chance for a prostrate Germany eager for revenge and thus no Hitler rising to power)?

[D1984]

Being somewhat inclined to the libertarian ideal of minimalist government I abhor conscription. But I concede that in case of a real threat to the survival of the country it is a legitimate option. During peacetime however I think it should not be imposed. Nor should it be employed for aggressive overseas military adventures.

Why not simply let those who wish to fight for their country (which is a rather nebulous concept, anyhow) at the offered military wage do so and let those who do not, not do so? If enough people choose to fight, then the country will survive. If enough don't, then the country will be invaded and/conquered (presuming there was a real military threat in the first place....in most of US history, there hasn't been). Let's say 49% are willing to fight and the other 51% aren't. Why subvert the will of the 51% who would apparently rather (as indicated by their choice to not fight in the first place) be conquered than fight? Let the magic of the marketplace sort it out; just like if enough people choose to buy a particular brand of product at the offered price, then the manufacturer will survive and prosper, whereas if enough don't then that company will go under.

[MediumTex]

D1984,

Here is an answer in song from all of the statists in history addressing why your idea would never work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BRv9wGf5pk&sns=em

[MachineGhost]

True, a draft does involve sacrifice....the question is, why should I (or you, or anyone else) be forced to make said sacrifice, whether it is to fight a war, do civilian national service, or serve a few years in a public office? Let those who want to serve serve, and let the rest of us alone in peace. Whatever happened to concepts like individual self-ownership, live-and-let-live, and the ideal that you have a right to do anything (and a duty to do nothing) so long as in doing so you initiate no harm against anyone else?

But if you leave the jobs in the public interest to those that would aspire to them voluntarily, they will engage in rent-seeking behavior which is a detrimental to society as a whole (i.e. current DC).  Sometimes what is a short-term good for an individual, is a long-term bad for the collective.  Forcing someone to serve in the public interest where they are not personally placed in harm's way is significantly different than being forced to fight in wars so political elites can profit.

One major problem with non-statist political ideaologies is that they were political thoughts developed long before we had an awareness and understanding of behaviorial economics and cognitive biases.  Left to themselves, there is not a sure guarantee that incentives and disincentives will spontaneously arise to keep everyone moral and prevent rent-seeking abuses.

[MachineGhost]

Those who believe they should enjoy all the benefits of citizenship without any of the responsibilities should be politely reminded that they are free to leave. An orderly society requires some form of state. And while we may disagree on the proper role and boundaries of the state, none save anarchists deny its necessity.

Anarchists correctly deny that an illegitimate state has any legitimate authority.  There's certainly the possibility of a legitimately organized state, but that might be an oxymoron.

I find it troubling that the free market has plenty of sink holes, yet resorting to an illegitimate authority to fix those moral hazards only serves to give more color of legitimacy.

[MachineGhost]

I think we can all agree that there are certain depraved individuals who would! The question then becomes, "is government the best way to protect a society from them?" This involves weighing the asserted benefits to society from government against its costs. Let's start with the benefit of "Protection from depraved individuals" -- has government actually accomplished this?

No, but as long as "government" and "police" is conflated to be the one and the same, the former will continue to have color of legitimacy.

At some point you can deconstruct separation between xxxxx and government until all you wind up with is authority.  Then it becomes: is it legitimate or illegitimate?  I think we know the answer.  But I think in the modern world, or at least in a pre-tech world, a legitimate government on the scale of nation-states is just an impractical possibility.

[D1984]

But if you leave the jobs in the public interest.

There is no such thing as the "public interest." There are only the (oftentimes exclusive and competing) interests of various individuals who make up that public

to those that would aspire to them voluntarily, they will engage in rent-seeking behavior which is a detrimental to society as a whole (i.e. current DC).

The same could be said for any job that is currrently filled by voluntary action today. What is needed IMO is to prevent rent-seeking behavior in the first place by minimizing or eliminating opportunities for it.

Sometimes what is a short-term good for an individual, is a long-term bad for the collective.

So...why is what's ostensibly good for some nebulous "collective" my problem? Again, a "collective" by its very nature cannot have interests (except for those of the individuals who make it up).

Forcing someone to serve in the public interest where they are not personally placed in harm's way is significantly different than being forced to fight in wars so political elites can profit.

Forcing anyone to do something against his/her will (unless it's forcing them not to initiate force, fraud, or coercion against others) is NOT different in that either case you are still initiating force against another human being (by forcing them to undertake an action that they would not have freely chosen to do). By your logic, what's to stop the government from forcing a woman (or a man, for that matter) to, say, serve as a prostitute in the name of the "public good"? I mean, if they made sure all the potential customers had been tested, made protection was available, and made certain that it all happened on supervised premises to prevent violence from happening ,then the person being made a sex slave could not rightfully complain about "being placed in harm's way", could they? Yes, it's an extreme example, but once you decide that the "public good" outweighs an individual's right to be left alone (so long as he/she harms no one) and to choose their own vocation free of coercion, then there's no real limit to the slippery slope you've created.

[Ad Orientem]

Anarchism, which some seem to be advocating, is the same sort of utopian fantasy as Marxism. I have 6000 years of recorded human history that says it's bunk.

[Pointedstick]

Anarchism, which some seem to be advocating, is the same sort of utopian fantasy as Marxism. I have 6000 years of recorded human history that says it's bunk.

By that standard, couldn't someone in the year 1700 have said that they had 5,700 years of recorded human history to say that this newfangled "capitalism" thing was a utopian fantasy?

How about Kowloon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

Or any of the societies described in this paper? http://www.scribd.com/doc/33699631/Stateless-Societies

[Pointedstick]

anarchism is inherently unstable, the first time a big guy takes property from a smaller weaker guy or two or more guys work together do the same to somebody else, anarchy is over and mob rule begins..   

I believe you just described majority rule democracy.

[MachineGhost]

So...why is what's ostensibly good for some nebulous "collective" my problem? Again, a "collective" by its very nature cannot have interests (except for those of the individuals who make it up).

Because you live in a co-dependent human ecosystem where written and unwrriten rules, regulations and other individual interaction-consequences do effect you.  No man is an island.  It doesn't matter whether you call this ecosystem a society, a collective, the public interest, the body politic, Gaia or whatever, but granted I'm not meaning it in the same exploitative, sacrificial way that politicians do.  I'm talking about it more from the utilitarian incentives in an environment.

So when the momentum of individual's negative actions accumulate and impugne upon the entire ecosystem, it starts negatively effecting those individuals that didn't originally engage in the negative behavior.

[RuralEngineer]

I didn't realize that I was arguing with Anarchists when I made my analogy referencing a draft necessary to fight a legitimate war of defense.  Since Anarchists hold views that reject the very premise that underpins my argument, it's difficult to debate the issue.  For example, if one cannot make the leap from "a collection of individual interests" to the "common good" when a particular event is universally bad for the entire collection of individuals (such as an invasion by a foreign power), then debate is rendered pointless.

However, with respect to whether WWII could have been won without a draft, it's a simple numbers game.  They had more.  Our military at the start of hostilities was pathetically small with a regular army of less than 250,000.  By the end of WWII more than 16 million had served in the military.  Over 10 million of those were drafted.  German forces for the duration of WWII numbered around 18 million.  If this doesn't lead you to the conclusion that a draft was a necessity to fight WWII, then no further argument will suffice.  I thought I had made it clear that I believe conscription is only moral in a defensive war.

[MachineGhost]

However, with respect to whether WWII could have been won without a draft, it's a simple numbers game.  They had more.  Our military at the start of hostilities was pathetically small with a regular army of less than 250,000.  By the end of WWII more than 16 million had served in the military.  Over 10 million of those were drafted.  German forces for the duration of WWII numbered around 18 million.  If this doesn't lead you to the conclusion that a draft was a necessity to fight WWII, then no further argument will suffice.  I thought I had made it clear that I believe conscription is only moral in a defensive war.

So Starship Troopers had it all wrong then?

[Bean]

So Starship Troopers had it all wrong then?

The only good bug....is a dead bug.

[Pointedstick]

RuralEngineer, you bring up some good points, but I don't think a bare comparison of numbers is adequate. What about force magnification? Strategic resource concentration? Geographical barriers? If the USA was sitting right next to Germany and was 1/10 its size, I might be more convinced, but the USA was not truly at risk of being invaded and destroyed. The axis powers lacked oil and were separated from us by two large oceans.

By your own figures, without a draft, our military would have ballooned to 6 million voluntarily-serving men. This is all just monday morning quarterbacking, of course, but it's hard for me to imagine that the USA would have been unable to defend itself with 6 million armed men manning and crewing tanks, planes, ships, submarines, and artillery pieces, not to mention the nuclear bombs.