« Adam Smith and Self-Interest | Main | The Nobel Prize and Politics »
October 11, 2004
This just won't go away...
Congressman Charles Rangel (Dem., New York) shows once again that he won't let logic get in the way of his support for military conscription (scroll down to see previous posts here). He states in a letter to the editor of the WSJ:
Offering economic incentives to prospective recruits appeals only to people who need the money and opportunity. It's not Rangel's class war, it's the Bush Administration that has made no direct appeal to patriotism and has relied only on economic incentives.
No American who supports the Iraq war should be against the draft. If anyone really believes that Saddam Hussein was such a threat -- notwithstanding that the president now admits that there was no connection with 9/11 and that the Duelfer report shows that Saddam's weapons capability was decreasing before the U.S. invaded -- then they must deal with the question of how to find the troops.
Can I assume then that Rangel would support pay freezes for all policemen/women? Under his reasoning we should appeal to their patriotism instead of resorting to economic incentives.
If the LAPD had problems finding new recruits it would be a good sign that the pay may be too low to compete with the private sector and hence needs to be increased. Why should the military be any different? If we still have trouble recruiting for the armed forces despite high monetary incentives, that might be the best signal that we are in a war that does not have much to do with our national security.
And yes, the validity of the war should be judged on whether or not Iraq was an immediate threat to our national security. But to make the leap then that anyone supporting the war should also support the draft is beyond me.
What this comes down to is that Rangel believes your life is not your own but is instead, ultimately, the property of the government. It is here that our disagreement lies.
UPDATE: Don Boudreaux has an excellent post on the same subject. Not only did he tie in some issues regarding choice which fit perfectly with my last post on Adam Smith, he also has a much better title: "Wrangling with Logic"
If poor Americans live as civilians in such grim circumstances that voluntarily accepting employment in the military is the preferred option for many of them, in what way is the all-volunteer force harming these people? To conclude that the all-volunteer force inflicts a net harm on its rank-and-file employees (namely, soldiers) requires resort to some presumption that each of these people is generally unable to judge for himself what is in his best interest.
Posted by Peter Mork at October 11, 2004 8:42 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.economicswithaface.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/25/[What is Peter Mork's first name?]
(Please add the answer to the question to the end of the link in order to trackback this entry.)
Comments
Email Comments Here