Additional funding provided by

When we ended last time

we were discussing Locke's idea of government by consent

and the question arose

what are the

limits on government

that even the

the agreement of the majority can't override

that was the question we ended with

we saw

in the case of property rights

that on Locke's view

a democratically elected government has the right to tax people

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 the each individual

at the time the tax

is enacted or collected

what it does require

is a prior act of consent

to join the society

to take on the political 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

is 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 Locke say? does the government have the right to do that?

yes

in fact he says in one thirty nine

he says

what matters

is that the political authority

or the military authority

not be arbitrary that's what matters

he gives a wonderful example he says a

a sergeant even a sergeant

let alone a general, a sergeant

can command a soldier

to go right up to the face of a cannon

where he is almost sure to die

that the sergeant can do

the general can condemn the soldier to death for deserting his post or for not obeying

even 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 Locke, 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

that's the consent that matters

and it matters so

powerfully

the 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

that's Locke.

well this raises a question

about consent. Why is consent such a

powerful moral instrument in

creating political authority and the obligation to 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 ourselves

it's a violation of that right

for a government

to conscript citizens to go fight in wars.

others disagree others say that's a legitimate

power

of government, of democratically elected government anyhow,

and that we have an obligation to obey

let's take the case

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 who's ever numbers

are drawn

go to fight in Iraq,

system number three

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

how many favor increasing the pay?

huge majority.

how many favor going to conscription?

all right maybe a dozen people in the room

favor conscription.

what about the outsourcing solution?

okay so there maybe

about two, three dozen.

during the civil war

the union

used

a combination

of conscription

and the market system

to fill the ranks of the military to fight in the civil war

it was a system that

began with conscription

but

if you

were

drafted

and didn't want to serve

you could hire a substitute take your 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

five hundred dollars

sometimes a thousand dollars

for a substitute who would go fight the civil war

in their place

in fact

it's reported that Andrew Carnegie

was drafted

and hired a substitute to take his place

for an amount

that was

a little less than the amount to spend for a year on fancy cigars

now I want to get your views

about this civil war system call it the a hybrid system

conscription but with the buyout provision

how many think it was a just system how many would defend the civil war system?

anybody?

one, anybody else?

to 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

three hundred dollars for

to be exempt one time around you're really putting a price 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.

good, so

so paying someone three hundred or five hundred or a thousand dollars

you're basically saying that's what their life is worth you. that's what their life is worth

it's putting a dollar value on life