Le Petit Prince Thank you for your service!
[Originally written in Romanian, in 2015, then recollected in the volume Liberul arbitru fluieră antijoc. Jurnal de economie /și/ politică (2011-2018) [Free will in a standstill. Journal of political economy (2011-2018)] published in 2018 – yet relevant in the context of the debates on compulsory military service]
“Armies of slaves to fight for freedom” – the twisted and torn morality of conscription cannot be too far away from such a trenchant verdict. Nationalist-patriotic speeches leaning into ardour and bombast may get the blood running, but reason is impaired for the blood rarely bypasses the bulging veins of the neck presaging epic bloodbaths. Somewhere, sometime, Prince Harry of the UK has called for the reintroduction of compulsory military service, giving as the supreme argument the fact that both he and the soldiers he commanded were helped in life by their military career. The newsfeed does not detail one aspect: help with what? What could the 30-year-old prince, the fifth heir to the crown [N.B.: meanwhile, self-“spared” from the royal line], have understood from the army to such an extent that his life experience would become a governmental duty for the rest of the people? “I dread to think where I’d be without the army”, the precocious sage said (serving it to the grunts: “Maybe in Las Vegas, at some naked party”).
Beyond the personality of the one who speaks thus, one elementary thing must be understood from the outset: that the army is neither “physical education and sports” nor does it “temper/forge characters” as such. Or it does not do it obviously better than working hard in the coal mine, on the corn field, in the steel mill, or at the sciences/arts faculty. The army is an extreme experience in the moral sense that also requires elaborate expertise in the exercise of the technical function, elements that can sift the enthusiastic producers of carnage and the naive suppliers of cannon fodder. And for this there is both a need for assumed discipline and for correctly (pro)portioned incentives, which conscription nullifies brilliantly. In addition, economic logic makes it clear: compulsory military service is a waste of resources. We would add “human” here, which not only qualifies, but actually shows the depth of tragedy. The lack of freedom is the ultimate abduction/waste/tragedy of life. Death only waits after the corner(s).
Throughout history, ethical and economic debates on the ethical and efficient way to wage war (not only against enemies, but also against fellow citizens – that martially silenced talk of the belligerence too hastily decreed as sublimely heroic) have left the impression of a kind of civic consensus on the necessity of compulsory military service. “National defense is a public good that will be insufficiently provided via the private market” – the excuse goes. “Not to mention how unfair it may be for poor young people to feel they can only escape hunger by fighting to defend the property/wealth of the rich for a misery salary” – the state recruiters add. However, it is unlikely that the politicized warfare will provide anything more robust than free choice (in markets), even in the “sacred” area of public defense, where incentives and calculations align. Imperfectly, to be sure, but more frankly than under pure state coercion. Cynically, conscription masks the real monetary costs of war: instead of “buying” you, it gloriously “confiscates” you.
The division of labour remains the ordinator of each person’s place in the world. We all have/gain more than we would otherwise if each of us is allowed to do what (s)he knows best (in the interest of their fellow humans). The homeland defense has both meaningfulness and nobility when it is committed based on a free choice that, under harsh external pressure, is to be activated organically. Faced with danger, the mature will defend their children and elderly parents, those of the same blood, the close community, then they will group to better defend their wider areas and, finally, the country. For this we definitely need genuine (civic) order long before (military) orders. Moreover, a society should not be obsessively trained for war, under threat from own authorities; this will make it unprepared for both war and peace. The history of our humankind remains unclear in shedding light on “for whom” our heroes die, forced to see allies in old enemies and then foes in former friends: for the “people” or for the “princes”?!
Further reading: The debates around conscription have generated vigorous arguments across ideological lines. Libertarian thinkers like Murray Rothbard (For a New Liberty)¹ condemn it as the purest violation of individual rights. By contrast, institutional conservatives, e.g. Samuel Huntington (The Soldier and the State)² reflect on how conscription shapes the character of armed forces and their relationship to democracy. From the socialist tradition, Karl Liebknecht (Militarism and Anti-Militarism)³ exposes its role in sustaining class domination. More centrist voices, such as Mathea Slåttholm Sagdahl (Journal of Military Ethics, 2018)⁴ weigh its moral trade-offs against volunteer armies. Finally, historical case studies like Jerry Elmer’s recent book (Conscription, Conscientious Objection, and Draft Resistance in American History)⁵ illustrate how ideals collide with lived reality.
¹ Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (pdf, Mises Institute).
² Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State (overview, Wikipedia).
³ Karl Liebknecht, Militarism and Anti-Militarism (Amazon edition).
