In Language Arts, I have to argue why we shouldn't have mandatory military service for 2 years after high school. I am kind of pressed on time and want to find good articles that may pertain to economics, and i'm hoping there are some good articles out there written by Austrians. Any articles saying why it is bad will help though, because I need my sources in by tomorrow so if anyone could help, you would be helping educate the community in strengthening my argument and helping me convince other people out there why it is bad. So do your part and please give me some good articles!
Because it's slavery.
Feel free to quote me.
Tell your audience to pretend we bombed England (or any other of our 'allies'; England probably being the least controversial) tomorrow for no reason and all of the recent graduates had to go fight against them. Ask them if they think it would be "good" then.
If you really want to do well in the debate (I'm assuming you're debating someone who thinks we should have it or you'll at least be asked questions in such a manner), think about how you'd argue the pro-mandatory military service and then dispute yourself. It's really the only way to go.
To mirror nielsio but using a slightly less loaded phrase: "Involuntary servitude"
I would expect that to be slightly better received than jumping to slavery (even though it's the same thing) simply because it doesn't immediately conjure sensitive rhetoric.
A more utilitarian argument may be simply to assert that any entrepreneur that would have improved the well-being of others is prevented from doing so for 2 years regardless of the relevance of the service.
Lastly I might ask why military service is specifically highlighted--i.e. why is it not just as "noble" to work for other "needed" government functions.
As far as you getting a good grade, it may depend on the intentions of your teacher presenting this question (hopefully not, but no guarantees) so weigh that personal value before going gung ho.
Best eco argument is opportunity cost. The market sends a signal through prices that there are better uses of your time. There's no demand to mass produce killbots. There is a demand to produce engineers though, so thats why engineers get trained and paid.
http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf, Chpter 5
Nielsio: Because it's slavery. Feel free to quote me.
just QFT :D
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
This is really an ad hoc hypothesis, and I really can't demonstrate this formally or empirically, but here it is, for all its worth:
Every time the military conscripts somebody means one less worker in the private sector. That person that was previously productive in private employment, suddenly becomes unproductive in a military encampment, except for the overproduction of State security.
However, one can make a case that conscription can reduce the unemployment problem (e.g. World War II). But the proposal to conscript everyone within a particular age group, irrespective of unemployment rate, makes no sense productivity wise.
To mandate those who are college age to delay their college education for two years, means two years less of productive employment, or two years less of formal education. This may mean a potential doctor or engineer will graduate two years later, thus two years less of productive employment, throughout ones lifetime. This may mean someone may choose to cut short their formal schooling by two years. For example, someone may wish to start a family by a particular age, or support an existing family. Take those two years and multiply that by the number of persons conscripted. For example, if one million are conscripted, then multiply that by two years, and the result is two million years of productivity or education lost.
Every additional soldier conscripted has a diminishing marginal utility, and a diminishing product of labor. The consequence for this that each additional soldier (marginally speaking) becomes less valuable and more expendable.
Furthermore, the increased supply of soldiers will encourage the military to pay a lower wage rate. The consequence for this is that the State will substitute more expensive capital goods (military hardware, advanced weapons systems, etc.) in favor of cheaper labor (more grunts on the ground, with inexpensive rifles).
For an all volunteer force, the military will emphasize quality over quantity. This is because a smaller military makes each soldier valuable, so the military will make the necessary investment in capital goods and training to keep the soldier alive as much as possible. For a conscripted force, the military will emphasize quantity over quality, since a larger military makes each soldier less valuable, and thus the military will provide less training and investment per soldier, making them expendable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder
For the above reasons, an all volunteer military will have an advantage over a conscripted military.
There are some counter examples to the hypothesis I described above, such as Israel and Switzerland, who have mandatory military service, and both have well trained and highly equipped military.
My hunch is that mandatory service works well with small states, but not so well with large states.
I am not a military expert, so take this with a grain of salt.
Google is your friend:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=site:mises.org+conscription
I'm not one for obscuring the root truth either. It's slavery.
It's not complicated. Think of any example where a group of people should be enslaved because other people feel it's advantageous to a different group of people. It can't be more simplified than that, nor can it be dismissed as an over-simplification. Even small children can understand something so fundamental.
Slavery is immoral. Any cause to justify any kind of slavery is to condone and promote all kinds of slavery for any reason.
The End.