How would major wars that require the whole nation to be mobilised be a] funded and b] orchestrated, under a perfectly free society?
How would major wars that require the whole nation to be mobilised be a] funded and b] orchestrated, under a perfectly free society?
There are no such wars.
How would major wars that require the whole nation to be mobilised be a] funded and b] orchestrated, under a perfectly free society?
I heard a quote once, though I don’t remember the source, “A just war has no shortage of volunteers.” And with that, I wholeheartedly agree. If a majority of people think something is worthwhile, then there’ll be plenty of people doing it. Capitalism and individual liberty works that way.
When you say perfectly free society, do you mean that one country is perfectly free and some other is not? i.e. the other country wants to conquer the free one? If that’s the example you’re thinking of then I’d re-frame your question as follows:
“If an evil country seeks to conquer and plunder a free, capitalist one, who – in the free country – would contribute to a defence?”
A continuation from this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p…st&p=136113.
But what if, for example, not enough donations could be garnered, and a world war was looming?
I think your question is an unrealistic, strawman argument. Out of self-interest, citizens would both volunteer themselves and their money to fight a just war. It is only for unjust wars that coercion is necessary, whether through the draft or taxation.
For example, consider the many thousands of Americans who volunteered to fight after Pearl Harbor or even, today, after 9/11. Also, consider the many tens of billions of dollars that was raised during World War II through the purchase of war bonds. War bonds were a form of voluntary lending to the government in order to pay for the war.
There is a huge benefit from a government that solely protects our rights. In terms of war, it acts as a check that prevents the government from fighting self-sacrificial or unjust wars. For example, the Vietnam War was made possible by the draft and taxation. If there were no draft, all of those protesters simply could have refused to volunteer for military service, thereby depriving the government of soldiers. If there was no taxation, citizens could have starved the government by withholding financing. (Of course, voting not to re-elect the bad government officials is the ultimate recourse, which happened.)
Another important point to consider is that it is highly unlikely that any major war would have to be fought in an age where freedom had advanced to the point where the United States had achieved laissez faire, the government was delimited to its true functions, and taxation had been abolished. For a culture of freedom to advance to that point in the United States, it is unlikely that there would be any gigantic, potent dictatorship out there threatening us. There would likely only be small dictatorships (of the scale, say, of today’s Iran or less). A war with an enfeebled dictatorship like that would be very cheap to prosecute. A few nuclear bombs and the war is over, with probably close to no deaths on our side.
If we were so free as described above, our technology would also be astounding. It is highly unlikely that any enemy could really threaten us with technology as sophisticated as ours. The enemy would be lucky to have guns and battleships, while we had nuclear bombs, space lasers, electronic jamming equipment, etc.
Gigantic, extremely threatening world wars only happen when irrational ideas are rampant. Those ideas create the dictatorships and, perhaps more importantly, they create the moral doubt and weakness on the good side which results in inaction or even active collusion as the dictatorships gain power. For example, the foolish policy of appeasement that Britain and France adopted in World War II allowed Nazi Germany to gain sufficient strength to the point where a horribly bloody, messy global war was necessary to defeat that enemy. If the Brits or French had stood firm and not allowed Hitler’s army to re-arm in the 1930s, and not re-occupy the Ruhr Valley, absorb Austria and occupy Czechoslovakia, Hitler could have been stopped at a much lower cost in terms of money and lives.
Today the West is displaying similar inaction in the face of North Korea arming itself with the nuclear bomb, Iran working hard to do the same, Hugo Chavez forming a mini “Axis of Evil” in Latin America, etc. We could still stop the Muslim fascists at very low cost, but while we wait, the cost of stopping them will only get larger. If we do nothing long enough, we could end up having to fight a world war. This type of passivity in the face of growing evil would not be tolerated in a country that had achieved such a level of rationality that it was laissez faire and had no taxation. Instead, it would have “nipped the bud” and prevented the enemy from getting so large. By doing so, the wars it has to fight are far cheaper than the global wars we have had to fight in the last century, and are shaping up to fight again in this century.
“If an evil country seeks to conquer and plunder a free, capitalist one, who – in the free country – would contribute to a defence?”
Yes, this is a better way to phrase my question. Hypothetical example: market communist China vs. a free capitalist America.
Galileo -
I appreciate your post and the points you make.
What I’m worried about right now is a question that will inevitably come up time and again: How do you live rationally in an irrational world?
I started trying to imagine a hypothetical situation in which American involvement in war would be necessary, and a draft would be necessary, but I floundered. Also, researching the topic, I found a draft wasn’t really necessary in WWII (contrary to what I’d believed previously).
But what if a world war was looming, and threatened to severely damage American interests overseas or result in loss of home territory? I don’t think voluntary donations would be enough - I think we’d need taxes. And I think taxes would be a better alternative than losing. Keep in mind that running a military takes long-term planning and long-term revenue intake in astounding figures–you have to maintain a strong enough military to be able to mobilize for a large war, even if said war is decades away and hasn’t even been conceived.
My point is, things that contradict individual morality but are necessary for the protection of rights in a legal sense would be a better alternative than anarchy. I guess everyone would agree with that, but where people likely differ is whether or not such a situation could occur at all.
What say you to my scenario about taxes for a huge war and keeping the military in good condition? Do you think the US could maintain its current military excellence without taxes?
Galileo -
I appreciate your post and the points you make.
What I’m worried about right now is a question that will inevitably come up time and again: How do you live rationally in an irrational world?
I started trying to imagine a hypothetical situation in which American involvement in war would be necessary, and a draft would be necessary, but I floundered. Also, researching the topic, I found a draft wasn’t really necessary in WWII (contrary to what I’d believed previously).
But what if a world war was looming, and threatened to severely damage American interests overseas or result in loss of home territory? I don’t think voluntary donations would be enough - I think we’d need taxes. And I think taxes would be a better alternative than losing. Keep in mind that running a military takes long-term planning and long-term revenue intake in astounding figures–you have to maintain a strong enough military to be able to mobilize for a large war, even if said war is decades away and hasn’t even been conceived.
My point is, things that contradict individual morality but are necessary for the protection of rights in a legal sense would be a better alternative than anarchy. I guess everyone would agree with that, but where people likely differ is whether or not such a situation could occur at all.
What say you to my scenario about taxes for a huge war and keeping the military in good condition? Do you think the US could maintain its current military excellence without taxes?
Two things I noticed:
- A war that threatens America’s interests overseas. Unless that war involved anything inside American borders, then there is no american interest overseas. Individual Americans and American Corporations might have interests overseas, but their choices in investments should not be protected my the US governement. If I were to build a factory in china (maybe because I was enamoured with the artificially low labor costs), which was nationalized, my poor choice and it’s consequences should not be supported by all of the other americans who do not own a nationalized factory in china. To protect “american interests” overseas, is really just a form of corporate welfare.
2)If a war was looming which a leader thought would ultimately threaten the country in an actual way, it is his resposibility to convince the nation of the validity of this threat, if he wishes to preemptively attack. The use of force to pursuade is always the admission that persuasion is impotent. And the reason persuasion is impotent, is usually because the ideas are not grounded in reality. He cant “fool all the people, all the time” so he decides to use force to carry out his desire.
- A war that threatens America’s interests overseas. Unless that war involved anything inside American borders, then there is no american interest overseas. Individual Americans and American Corporations might have interests overseas, but their choices in investments should not be protected my the US governement. If I were to build a factory in china (maybe because I was enamoured with the artificially low labor costs), which was nationalized, my poor choice and it’s consequences should not be supported by all of the other americans who do not own a nationalized factory in china. To protect “american interests” overseas, is really just a form of corporate welfare.
I disagree. I think the US military should be used to protect the individual rights of all people, to the degree that doing so is in the national interest. “National interest” is kind of an nebulous term, but it’s not completely useless. For example, I think the military should be used to defend Israel if that were essential to the preservation of the (Israeli) state. (Although admittedly, as this discussion continues, I’m seriously questioning my thoughts on such matters.) As a litmus test - what do you think about that particular issue?
2)If a war was looming which a leader thought would ultimately threaten the country in an actual way, it is his resposibility to convince the nation of the validity of this threat, if he wishes to preemptively attack. The use of force to pursuade is always the admission that persuasion is impotent. And the reason persuasion is impotent, is usually because the ideas are not grounded in reality. He cant “fool all the people, all the time” so he decides to use force to carry out his desire.
Well, this is a good point, and I think persuasion will usually work–for example, if there is a direct threat on the country. That doesn’t mean it will always work; after all, look at the voting record of the American populace.
I disagree. I think the US military should be used to protect the individual rights of all people, to the degree that doing so is in the national interest. “National interest” is kind of an nebulous term, but it’s not completely useless. For example, I think the military should be used to defend Israel if that were essential to the preservation of the (Israeli) state. (Although admittedly, as this discussion continues, I’m seriously questioning my thoughts on such matters.) As a litmus test - what do you think about that particular issue?
National interests is right up there with common good, and general welfare. That last term, incidentally, was originally meant to mean those things which affect all people equivlently. So everyone inside a country is protected by police, courts or the army equally. Everything else that I am aware of is only affects some of the people.
Isreal has directly cost the US $1.6 trillion dollars since 1973. ($5700/american) So if you want, let’s reverse it and you try and convince me to send $5700 to isreal for my own best interests. I will identify where I stand now. I like that it’s being there pisses off some religious totalitarianists, so I might send 100 bucks, but not $5700. If I was truly worried about my own safety and an invasion by islamic terrorists I could buy myself a really nice 50 caliber sniper rifle and a 1000 rounds for $5700. Do I support isreal morally? Sure, despite being very socialist, they are a beacon of democracy in a very politically and culturally backward part of the world. My personal belief though is that this foreign welfare would not be necessary if they were not a socialist country. So what I am really being forced to do through taxation, is prop up yet another socialist regime’s sputtering economy. If on the other hand, they were a laissez-faire capitalist country being relentless attacked by attila’s of any form, I would be much more likely to send more money. shoot, I’d probably move there. The important thing is, that it would be my reasoned choice to do support them.
Well, this is a good point, and I think persuasion will usually work–for example, if there is a direct threat on the country. That doesn’t mean it will always work; after all, look at the voting record of the American populace.
Well, a populace “edjumucatd” by a state run gun back monopoly can hardly be expected to be reasoned decision makers.
edit: lol it occured to me that $5700 dollars/person would buy a 50cal rifle with 1000 rounds for everybody…Can you imagine someone trying to invade a country where 300 million citizens had 300 million sniper rifles? I don’t think rommel, patton, washington, hannibal, and ceaser working as a team could pull it off. Sorry…off topic, but I thought it was funny.
Yes, this is a better way to phrase my question. Hypothetical example: market communist China vs. a free capitalist America.
I think if China were threatening an invasion there would be more than enough Americans willing to give money and time, and to risk their lives to defend against the threat. For most people in a free country, money would likely be the easiest thing to contribute.