This content explores the philosophical underpinnings of government consent, particularly concerning military conscription, by examining John Locke's theories and contrasting different models of military service, from conscription to an all-volunteer force.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
when we ended last
time we were discussing lock's idea of
government by
consent and the question arose what are
the limits on government that even the
agreement of the majority can't
rights that on locks
view a democratically elected government
It has to be taxation with consent
because it does involve the taking of
people's property for the common
good. But it doesn't require the consent
of each
individual at the time the tax is
enacted or collected.
require is a prior act of
consent to join the society to take on
obligation. But once you take on that
obligation, you agree to be bound by the
majority. So much for
taxation. But what you may ask
about the right to life? Can the
government conscript people and send
them into
battle? What about the idea that we own
ourselves? Isn't the idea of
self-possession violated if the
government can through coercive
legislation and enforcement
powers say you must go risk your life to
fight in
Iraq? What would Lot say? Does the
government have the right to do
that? Yes.
In fact, he says in
139 he
says what
matters is that the political
authority or the military
authority not be arbitrary. That's what
matters. And he gives a wonderful
example. He says a a sergeant, even a
sergeant, let alone a general, a
sergeant can command a
cannon where he is almost sure to
do. The general can condemn the soldier
to death for deserting his post or for
not obeying even a a desperate
order. But with all their power over
life and death, what these officers
can't do is take a penny of that soldier's
money because that has nothing to do
with the rightful authority. That would
be arbitrary and it would be corrupt.
So consent winds up being very powerful
in lock. Not consent of the individual
to the particular tax or military order
but consent to join the government and
to be bound by the majority in the first place.
place.
That's the consent that
matters. And it matters so
powerfully that even the limited
government created by the fact that we
have an unalienable right to life,
liberty, and
property. Even that limited government
is only limited in the sense that it has
to govern by generally applicable laws.
The rule of law, it can't be arbitrary.
Well, this raises a question about
consent. Why is consent such a powerful
moral instrument in creating political
obey? Today we begin to investigate the
question of
consent by looking at a concrete
case, the case of military conscription.
Now, some people
say if we have a fundamental
right that arises from the idea that we own
own
ourselves, it's a violation of that
right for a government to conscript
wars. Others disagree. Others say that's
a legitimate power of government of
democratically elected governments
obey. Let's take the case of the the
United States fighting a war in Iraq.
News accounts tell us that the military
is having great difficulty meeting its
recruitment targets. Consider three
policies that
the US government might undertake to
deal with the fact that it's not
achieving its recruiting targets.
Solution number
one, increase the pay and benefits to
attract a sufficient number of
soldiers. Option number
two, shift to a system of military
conscription, have a
lottery, and whoseever numbers are
System number three,
three, outsource.
outsource.
Hire what traditionally have been called
mercenaries. People around the world who
are qualified, able to do the work, able
to fight well, and who are willing to do
it for the existing
wage? So, let's take a quick poll here.
pay? Huge majority. How many favor going to
conscription? One.
Two. All right. Maybe a dozen people in
the room favor
solution? Okay. So there maybe uh about
dozen. During the civil
war, the union
union
used a
combination of conscription and the market
market
system to fill the ranks of the military
to fight in the civil war.
It was a system that began with conscription,
conscription,
but if you were drafted and didn't want
to serve, you could hire a substitute to
place. And many people
did. You could pay whatever the
market required in order to find a
substitute. People ran ads in newspapers
in the classified ads offering
offering
$1,000 for a substitute who would go
fight the Civil War in their place.
In fact, it's reported that Andrew
Carnegi was drafted and hired a
substitute to take his
place for an
amount that was a little less than the
cigars. Now, I want to get your views
about the Civil War system. Call it the
hybrid system. conscription but with a buyout
buyout
provision. How many think it was a just
system? How many would defend the civil war
system? Anybody? One. Anybody else? Two.
Three. Four. Five. How many think it was
unjust? Most of you don't like the Civil
War system. You think it's unjust. Let's
hear an objection.
Why don't you like it? What's wrong with it?
Yes.
Well, by paying $300 for uh to be exempt
one time around, you're really putting a
price on the uh on valuing human life.
And we established earlier that's really
hard to do. So, they're trying to
accomplish something that really isn't feasible.
feasible.
Good. So, so paying someone 300 or $500
or $1,000, you're basically saying
that's what their life is worth to you.
That's what their life is worth. It's
putting a dollar value on life. That's
good. And what's your name? Liz. Liz.
U Well, who has an answer for Liz? You
defended the civil war system. What do
you say? If you don't like the price,
then you have the freedom to not be sold
or hired. So, it's completely up to you
and I don't think it's necessarily
putting a specific price on you. And if
it's done by himself, I don't think
there's anything necessarily morally
wrong with that. So, the person who
takes the $500, let's
say, he's putting his own price on his
life or on the risk of his life, right?
And he should have the freedom to choose
to do that. Exactly.
What's your name? Jason. Jason, thank
you. Now, we need to hear from another
critic of the Civil War system.
Yes. It's a kind of coercion almost to
people who have lower incomes. Um, for
Carnegie, he can totally ignore the
draft. $300 is, you know, irrelevant in
terms of his income. someone of a lower
income, they're essentially being
coerced to draft to be drafted or um I
mean it's probably they're not able to
find a replacement or Tell me your name.
Sam. Sam. All right. So you say Sam
that when a when a poor laborer buys his
accepts $300 to fight in the civil
war, he is in effect being
coerced by that money given his economic
circumstances. Whereas Carnegie can go
off, pay the money and and not serve.
All right, I want to hear if someone has
a reply to Sam's
Sam's
argument that what looks like a free
exchange is actually
coercive. Who has an answer to to Sam?
Go ahead. I'd actually agree with him in
saying that. You agree with Sam? I agree
with him in saying that it is coercion
in in the sense that it robs individual
of his ability to reason properly. Okay.
And what's your name? Raul. All right.
So Raul and Sam agree that what looks
like a free exchange, free choice,
voluntary act is actually co it involves
coercion. It's profound coercion of the
worst kind because it falls so
disproportionately upon one segment of
the society. Good. All right. So, Raul
and Sam have made a powerful point. Who
would like to
reply? Who has an answer for Sam and and
Raul? Go
ahead. Uh, I just I don't think that
these drafting systems are really
terribly different from, you know, all
volunteer army sort of recruiting
strategies. Um, the whole idea of, you
know, having benefits and pay for
joining the army is, you know, sort of a
coercive strategy to get people to, um,
join. Um it is true that military
volunteers come from disproportionately
you know lower economic um status and
also you know from certain regions of
the country where you can use like the
patriotism to try and coers people to
feel like it's the right thing to do to
volunteer and go over to Iraq. You're
and tell me your name. Emily. All right. Emily
Emily
says and Raul you're going to have to
reply to this so get ready. Emily
Emily
says, "Fair enough. There is a coercive
element to the civil war system when the
laborer takes the place of Andrew
Carnegie for
$500." Emily concedes that. But she
says, "If that troubles you about the
Civil War system, shouldn't that also trouble
trouble
you about the Volunteer Army today?"
And let me and be before you answer, how
did you vote on the first poll? Did you
defend the volunteer army? I didn't
vote. You didn't vote.
No. By the way, you didn't vote. Did you
sell your vote to the person sitting
next to you? No. All
right. So, what would you say to that
argument? I think that the circumstances
are different in
that there was cons
conscription in the Civil War. There is
no draft today. And I think that the
volunteers for the army today have a
more profound sense of patriotism that
is of an individual choice than those
who were forced into the military in the
Civil War. Somehow less coerced. Less
coerced. Even though there is still
inequality in American society, even
though as Emily points out, yeah,
the makeup of the American military is
not reflective of the population as a
whole. Let's just do an experiment here.
How many here
um have either served in the military or
have a family member who has served in
the military in this generation? Not
parents, family members in this generation.
generation.
And how many have neither served nor
served? Does that bear out your point, Emily?
Emily? Yes.
Yes.
All right. Now, we need we need to hear
from most of you defended the idea of the
the
overwhelmingly. And yet overwhelmingly
people considered the civil war system
unjust. Sam and Raul articulated reasons
for objecting to the civil war system.
It took place against a background of
inequality and therefore the choices
people made to buy their way into
military service were not truly free but
at least partly coerced.
Then Emily extends that argument in the
form of a challenge. All right. Everyone
here who voted in favor of the all volunteer
volunteer
army should be
able should have to explain well what's
the difference in principle? Doesn't the
all volunteer ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar
ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar
ar ar ar ar ar army simply
universalize the feature that almost
everyone found
objectionable in the civil war buyout
provision. Did I state the challenge
fairly, Emily? Yes. Okay. So, we need to
hear from a defender of the all
volunteer military who can address
Emily's challenge. Who can do
that? Go ahead.
The difference between the the civil war
system and the all volunteer army system
is that in the civil war you're being
hired not by the government but by an
individual and and as a result different
people who get hired by different
individuals get paid different amounts.
In the case of the all volunteer army
everyone who gets hired is hired by the
government and gets paid the same
amount. It's precisely the
universalization of uh essentially
paying your service. you're paying your
way into the army. That makes the all
volunteer army just. Emily,
Emily,
I guess I'd frame the principal
difference slightly differently. Um, on
the all volunteer army, it's possible
for somebody to just, you know, step
aside and not really think about, you
know, the war at all. It's possible to
say, well, I I don't need the money, you
know, I I don't need to have an opinion
about this. I don't need to, you know,
feel obligated to take my part and
defend my country. with a coercive
system or or sorry with an explicit
draft then you know there's the threat
at least that every individual will have
to make some sort of decision you know
regarding military conscription and you
know perhaps in that way it's more
equitable you know it's it's true that
you know Andrew Carnegie might not serve
in any case but in one you know he can
completely step aside from it and the
other there's some level of responsibility
responsibility
while you're there Emily so what system
do you favor conscription
I I would be hardressed to say, but I
think so because it makes the whole
country feel a sense of responsibility
for the conflict instead of, you know,
having a war that's maybe ideologically
supported by a few, but only if there's
no, you know, real responsibility.
Good. Who wants to reply? Go ahead. Um,
so I was just going to say that the
fundamental difference between the all
volunteer army and then the the army in
the civil war is that in the all
volunteer army, if you want to
volunteer, that comes first and then the
pay is um comes after. Whereas in the
civil war system, the people who are
volunt who who are accepting the pay
aren't necessarily doing it because they
want to. They're just doing it for the
money first. What motivation beyond the
pay do you think is operating in the
case of the all volunteer army like
patriotism for the country?
Patriotism. Well, what about and a
desire to defend the country? I mean
there is there is some motivation in pay
but the fact that that it's first and
foremost an all volunteer army will
motivate them for I think personally. Do
you think it's better and tell me your
name? Jackie. Jackie, do you think it's
better if people serve in the military
out of a sense of patriotism than just
for the money? Yes, definitely. Because
the people who that was one of the main
problems in the Civil War army is that
the people that you're getting to go in
it uh or to go to war aren't necessarily
people who want to fight and so they
won't be as good soldiers as they will
be had they been there because they
wanted to be.
All right. What about
Jackie's having raised the question of
patriotism? that patriotism is a better
or a higher motivation than money for
military service. Who who would like to
address that
question? Go ahead. Patriotism
absolutely is not necessary in order to
be a good soldier because mercenaries
can do just as good of a job of the job
as anyone who waves the American flag
around and wants
to defend what the government believes
that we should
do. Did you favor the outsourcing
sir. And all right, so let Jackie let
Jackie respond. What's your name?
Phillip, what about that? Jackie, so
much for patriotism. If you've got
someone whose heart is in it more than
more than another person's, they're
going to do a better job. When it comes
down to the wire and there's like a
situation in which someone has to put
their life on the line, someone who's
doing it because they love this country
will be more willing to go into danger
than someone who's just getting paid.
They don't care. They've got the
technical skills, but they don't care
what happens because they really have
they have nothing like nothing invested
in this country. There's another aspect
though once once we get on to the issue of
of
patriotism. If you believe patriotism,
as Jackie does, should be the foremost
consideration and not money, does that
argue for or against the paid army we
have now? We call it the volunteer army.
Though if you think about it, that's a
kind of misnomer. A volunteer army is,
as we use the term, is a paid army. So
what about the suggestion that
patriotism should be the primary
motivation for military service, not
money? Does that argue in
favor of the paid military that we have,
or does it
argue for
conscription? And just to sharpen that
outsourcing, if you
think that the all volunteer army, the
paid army is best because it lets the
market allocate positions according to
people's preferences and willing
willingness to serve for a certain wage.
Doesn't the logic that takes you from a
system of
conscription to the hybrid civil war
system to the all volunteer
army? Doesn't the the idea of expanding
freedom of choice in the market? Doesn't
that lead you all the way if you follow
that principle
army? And then if you say no, Jackie
says no.
something. Doesn't that argue for going
back to conscription? If by patriotism
obligation, let's let's see if we can
step back from the discussion that we've
had and see what we've learned
learned about
about
consent as it applies to market exchange.
We've really heard two
arguments, two arguments
against the use of
exchange in the allocation of military
raised by Sam and Raul, the argument
the
objection that letting the market
allocate military
service may be unfair and may not even be
be
free if there's severe inequality in the
society. So that people who buy their
way into military
service are doing so not because they
really want
to, but because they have so few
economic opportunities that that's their
that's their best choice. And Sam and
Rubble say there's an element of
coercion in
that. That's one argument.
Then there is a second objection to
service. That's the idea that military
service shouldn't be treated as just
another job for pay because it's bound
up with patriotism and civic obligation.
This is a different argument from the
argument about unfairness and inequality
and coercion.
It's an argument that suggests that
concerned, we shouldn't
allocate duties and
rights by the
market. Now, we've identified two broad
objections. What do we need to know to
assess those objections? to assess the
first the argument from coercion,
inequality and unfairness.
Sam, we need
to ask what inequalities in the
background conditions of society
undermine the freedom of choices people
labor. Question number one. Question
number two, to assess the civic obligation
obligation
patriotism argument, we have to ask what
are the obligations of
citizenship? Is military service one of
them or
not? What obligates us as citizens? What
is the source of political
obligation? Is it
consent? Or are there some civic
obligations we
have even without
consent for living and sharing in a
certain kind of society? We haven't
answered either of those questions, but
our debate today about the civil war
system and the all volunteer army has at
least raised them. And those are
questions we're going to return to in
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
