Markets and Morals

Markets and Morals

By: Kulsoom Basharat
Date: September 22, 2011
PAPA 6414

In my opinion, being a part of the armed forces is unparalleled to any

other job. One must possess an undying ability to serve and protect their
country with pride and honor. An individual who commits to defending their
country is willing to sacrifice their life at any given moment for the sake of
their country. The hardships military personnel are willing to endure affect
them physically, mentally, and financially.
This service to the country calls for an extraordinary human being to
fulfill the requirements and to have the mindset to selflessly serve and risk
losing their lives in order to save the lives of their fellow citizens. None
Commissioned Officers (NCOs), pay and benefits are considerably lesser than

Markets and Morals

compared to their private sector counterparts. They are strong enough to

bare the pain of saying goodbye to their families as they answer the call of
duty. But the beauty lies in the willingness for individuals to sign up and
serve in the military with no obligations or pressure to do so.
I believe that the armed forces should operate on the basis of a free
market economy. Based on the free market principle, it is up to every
individual to voluntarily sign up for military service. From the libertarian
perspective, citizens are free to do what they choose. Military service should
not be regulated by the government. Rather there should be mutual consent
between the government (buyer) and citizen (seller) to engage in an
agreement (trade) without any physical force, threat, or coercion. The idea is
that both parties involved believe the product or services they are acquiring
is just as equal if not more than what they are forgoing. Mandatory military
service is an example of a utilitarian ideology; the basic notion of being
collectively happy may come at the expense of violating individual rights.
However, many opponents of compulsory military service maintain that
conscription does more harm than good and that it should be abolished for
professional, personal, psychological and economic reasons.
The first argument against conscription is that nowadays most
countries possess high-quality military equipment as well as nuclear
weapons which can be operated by a small force. That is why maintaining
large permanent military personnel is no longer essential. The strength of the
country does not depend on the manpower of the military but rather on the

Markets and Morals

skills and knowledge of experts who are specially educated to operate

complicated equipment. Another important point against the utilitarian view
is that of psychological nature. For many sensitive young men, military
service is tremendously difficult because they are forced to do things which
they hate i.e. taking orders and having the discipline to carry them out.
The service requires that everyone be obedient and submissive and
all those that rebel against the status quo are frequently ridiculed,
humiliated, and treated in a very brutal way. As a result, they suffer terribly
and this may lead to psychological damage or even suicide. Therefore, from
a psychological point of view, conscription may cause more evil than good.
Everyone should be granted freedom of choice and not forced to something
against his plans or nature.
A good lawyer became extremely useful to the reluctant solider. i
In the Vietnam War, the United States armed forces cycled out new
recruits every 15 months, just when the soldiers were learning how to do
their jobs and fight a war there would be a new batch of fresh soldiers having
to jump in and learn all over again.
All eighteen-year-old males were required to register for induction
with a local draft board. Liability for induction continued until age twenty-six
or age thirty-five if initial liability had been deferred.ii
Compare that with the Iraq War, where professional soldiers have
served multiple tours, and become more effective as they return for the 2nd
and 3rd tour.

Markets and Morals

The libertarian philosophy, in my opinion, is one that is the real

advocate in promoting happiness of all people. Citizens have a choice of
whether or not to participate in an activity or job. The freedom to select the
source of your livelihood is one that brings people happiness. Using the
utilitarian outlook as an example, if citizens were required to fight in battle
and many were against the war and how happy would they feel at that point?
My guess is that many would be bitter and less effective than those who are
committed to the mission and are mentally and physically are capable of
answering the call of duty.
By making military service compulsory, the armed forces are required
to accept everyone with a few exceptions and therefore must provide
benefits for individuals who might be ill suited for military service. The
government would have to invest in people who are not invested into serving
the country and its people. However, if the armed forces operate on the
basis of the free market they can recruit those individuals that the military
needs and wants therefore allocating precious resources to the right
candidate who is willfully accepting and volunteering for such an esteemed
position. Soldiers who have volunteered themselves to the military serve
longer terms and therefore are better trained and experienced; which in turn
leads to raising the overall quality of the military, raises the demand for the
military and helps defend the country more effectively, efficiently, and is a
deterrent to other hostile nations.

Michael J. Sandel, Justice A Reader (Page 130 2007)

ii

Michael J. Sandel, Justice A Reader (Page 129 2007)