Ethics of emergencies and conscription

[Mushroom]

I've been wondering if the 'ethics of emergencies' that Rand outlined apply to governments. Specifically, I'd like to know what everyone thinks of an argument for conscription and statist-style government intervention (rations, embargos, quarantines, etc.) for short duration in times of extreme war or hardship. 

 

I know that Rand discusses how morality doesn't apply to these extreme kinds of situations for individuals - you're shipwrecked and need to eat someone to survive, you are in a cave and a fat man's blocking the entrance and the tide is coming in, a runaway trolley is going to hit five innocent people, etc. As I understand it, she believes that morality is in some manner 'suspended' because life isn't livable as a human in emergencies.

 

Can this line of reasoning be extended to include governments? If a war or disease were to break out that was so terrible that the U.S. (or the whole world) was in a 'state of emergency' would government intervention/conscription be taken out of the realm of the moral/political in an analogous manner as individual morality in lifeboat scenarios?

 

That said, I understand that this situation would be very rare. I doubt that the U.S. has faced a war, famine, economic hardship, or disease that would merit conscription or limits on the market, but something like the German invasion of Poland or the Irish potato famine might have been an 'emergency' for the Polish or Irish governments. (These are probably bad example cases, as I know little of the German invasion or potato famine.)

 

I know this has been somewhat addressed in at least these two threads, http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=21926&hl=draft, http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=19362&hl=draft, but I think my question is sufficiently different to have a new thread. Thanks for your thoughts.

[A is A]

As a practical matter, there really can not be an emergency war conscription.  It takes many months to properly train soldiers to properly fight and develop the morale for fighting.  If a country is not prepared to fight known enemies, the best solution is to surrender when the enemy is overwhelming.  

[dream_weaver]

In his book "Living the Martial Way", Forrest Morgan wrote something to the effect of : The time for morality is before or after the war. During a war, it is kill or be killed.

 

Granted, this would apply most aptly to those involved on the war arena proper.

 

Patrick Henry put it succinctly when he stated "“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

 

If what is being fought for is compelling enough, would conscription be necessary?

 

During a time of war, individuals cease their productive activities to persue the required activity of defense. When productive activities cease, shortages in supplies do not need to be dictated by government.

The question that would remain is does this make it proper for a government to seize the supplies they claim to need for defense or seize control of the supply lines and allocate the distribution?

 

In the case of famine, it would be crop failure to which the shortage is attributed. Still, does this invalidate the market principles that determine how goods are allocated and demand government seizing control of the distribution process?

 

Given the effacacy that government demonstrates with the monies it already takes from its populance, is an "emergancy-situtation" likely to result in equitable redistribution, or dispensation by crony favoritism?

 

 

[Repairman]

War, that is, national defense, is an explicit function of government. Defense of a nation's border is a matter that would unify a nation to meet the challenge, when the threat is recognized. Milton Friedman debated Pentagon leaders over this subject, and shortly thereafter, the conscription army of the United States became a "mercenary" army. As far as I understand, the United States conscripted soldiers only during the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. While the draft ended in 1971, the Cold War continued for another 20 years without a draft. The reliance on technological systems and specialization were sufficient for our national defense, and continues to be so. As for the Civil War, and the two World Wars, we amateur historians can debate the necessity of conscription, but in the future, human lives (and, of course, deaths) on the field of battle will dwindle, as they have dwindled for decades. For this optimistic forecast, we may thank the pioneers of defense technologies. 

War, it should be noted, is an external threat; diseases are an internal and very personal threat.

It is to Mushroom's other subject that I have yet answered for myself: Does government have the right to innoculate citizens against diseases that pose a public health risk? In times past, many people resisted forced innoculations from officials, because of their mistrust of the governmnents they had left in the "Old Country."

Edited August 26, 2013 by Repairman

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Morality isn't suspended by an emergency; it changes implementation.

The selfish pursuit of your own happy life has radically different requirements, depending on whether human life is sustainable or not.

Harming others to survive is only moral as a last resort where no alternatives are possible.

On a national scale this reasoning simply can't apply. A nation is not a person and has no rights except those of its individual citizens.

To enslave someone for their own good is a contradiction in terms.

[Repairman]

I will concede that conscription cannot apply in a truly free nation. (The United States may qualify as quasi-free nation.) But what about quarantines or forced innoculations? Suppose there is an epidemic of devastating proportions, and a minority of your population refuse to cooperate with the official emergency measure?

[Leonid]

I will concede that conscription cannot apply in a truly free nation. (The United States may qualify as quasi-free nation.) But what about quarantines or forced innoculations? Suppose there is an epidemic of devastating proportions, and a minority of your population refuse to cooperate with the official emergency measure?

Then this minority will be unprotected and die out. Mind is tool of survival, and if they don't want to use it they will pay the price. 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Forced innoculation is never okay; by its nature the only victims of antimedicinal stupidity would be its perpetrators.

Quarantines might be okay, depending on the disease.

To quarantine people over step throat would be tyrannical. The black death, though?

I think it could be justified.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Banishment would be morally superior to quarantine, though.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Banishment would be morally superior to quarantine, though.