With a PhD from George Mason University and the rank of Major in the Marine Corps, Chad W. Seagren has plenty of credibility to write about economics and national service. But his argument in his superb essay “Service in a Free Society” is so common-sensical that it doesn’t even need his ethos to back it up:
So far I have argued that when we rightly understand the nature of service, we must conclude that the millions of people in this country participating in the market serve their countrymen and the others around the world in a remarkably beneficial way. But, you may wonder, what about those truly in need of assistance from others? Aren’t government programs aimed at inducing youths to help them appropriate and righteous? No—because the ends do not justify the means. Yes, there are truly needy people in this country and all over the world, but helping them by coercing others is an inappropriate way to deliver charity. Besides, the aim of national service is most often to improve the servers and to inculcate in them a sense of responsibility to the State. The beneficiary of their service is of secondary importance. With private charities, the primary aim is more often to alleviate the suffering of the beneficiary. Charities that do so effectively and efficiently tend to attract donors, while donors tend to avoid charities that squander their donations.
Read the rest. I’ll confess that I’m biased toward this position. I am adamantly opposed to “national service” programs and even more vehemently against forced conscription into military service. If our country ever gets to the point where we don’t have enough able bodied men and women who are willing to voluntarily serve in the armed forces then we will have reached a time when we no longer deserve to exist as a nation.
(Via: Joseph Swanson)
May 4th, 2011 | 2:38 pm
Is this definition of coercion in keeping with the Christian tradition of social and political thought? Is it buying into some paleoliberal premises? I think so, but it’s hard to prove right now, though I would refer to the scholastic notion of “legal justice” as a good place to start. First Things would be one of the best venues for exploring that subject, I think.
May 4th, 2011 | 4:38 pm
“For the State to force or exhort them to take positive action, even to help the poor, is a violation of their right of self-ownership and dignity as human beings.
Say what? Force or exhort? So telling people that it would be a good idea for them to help the poor is just as bad as throwing them in jail for not helping the poor?
I can understand arguments that government-directed social programs tend to be inefficient or ineffective, and can serve to drive out more effective voluntary programs. I agree that a compulsory service program would be problematic in the same way that a military draft is (not that Americans seem historically to have had a problem with compulsory military training, even in the pre-Civil War era).
But what if the government isn’t even directing the programs, but just encouraging people to join privately-directed programs? Is that really so bad?
After all, it already encourages the creation of service organizations by granting them tax exemption. Would the author of this article be in favor of removing all tax exemption?
May 4th, 2011 | 4:44 pm
More problems with this article:
Simply put, if it is morally wrong for your neighbor to force you to spend time every weekend helping out at your local nursing home, then it is just as wrong for the government to do so. The State, after all, is really just a collection of individuals and therefore cannot possess rights or powers that the members of the collective do not themselves possess.
This is pretty obvious silliness. The State by its nature possesses many rights and powers that its members do not themselves possess, such as the right to imprison criminals or to wage war against foreign states. Sure, Social Contract theory holds that the State only has these powers because its members voluntarily relinquish them, but that doesn’t mean that the members actually retain those powers themselves. Nor are the individual members capable of reclaiming them whenever they please.
May 4th, 2011 | 5:27 pm
“and even more vehemently against forced conscription into military service. If our country ever gets to the point where we don’t have enough able bodied men and women who are willing to voluntarily serve in the armed forces then we will have reached a time when we no longer deserve to exist as a nation.”
Unfortunately, the willingness to volunteer is not evenly distributed across the population. Certain groups are far more likely to produce volunteers than others. Huge swathes have simply opted out. They do not worry about carrying the burden, and certainly do not expect their children to carry the burden. The AVF allows them to enjoy this luxury without moral cost.
This creates a disturbing divergence between the composition of the Armed Forces and the population at large. I am firmly convinced that the present popularity of the military is directly related to the isolation many people feel from it. People will often admire those who carry a selfless burden that they themselves would never consider carrying. This is not a good situation in a democracy. It’s too easy to expend the lives of soldiers when the casualties are mal-distributed.
carl
May 5th, 2011 | 12:07 pm
This is one of those things where the philosophic arguments don’t mean very much. It is political suicide for any member of Congress to support it, so it is simply not going to happen.
May 6th, 2011 | 3:30 pm
Except that he is just as guilty of coercion, and in a worse way:
“The most obvious implication is that barriers to competition in the labor market should be struck down. Occupational licensing, minimum-wage laws, closed shops, and prevailing-wage laws prevent people from participating in the division of labor. Eliminating such barriers enables more people to devote their talent and energy to serving their fellow man.
Second, all barriers to free trade should be unilaterally dropped. Expanding trade with foreign partners increases prosperity on both sides by increasing wealth-enhancing trading opportunities. In essence, it enlists more people from around the world to serve Americans.
The final policy prescription is that barriers to immigration should be discarded.”
Believe me, a year of national service is nowhere near the amount of difficulty as all these. He has the ironic position of believing in market “service” as a good while hastening reforms that has been shown to make it an unprofitable good for the workers.
What he is doing is trying to make work into a near-volunteer service by depressing wages through these changes. Yet somehow coerced service is bad, while this kind of economic coercion through unfettered competition is a-ok.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact