Locke's idea of government by consent and the question arose,

"What are the limits on government that even 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 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?

And what about the idea that we own ourselves?

Isn't 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 139, he says,

"What matters is that the political authority or the military authority

not be arbitrary, that's what matters."

And he gives a wonderful example.

He says "A sergeant, even a sergeant, let alone a general,

a sergeant can command a soldier to go right up to a 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

that 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 government to conscript citizens

to go fight in wars. Others disagree.

Others say that's a legitimate power of government,

of democratically elected governments, anyhow,

and that we have an obligation to obey.

Let's take the case of the United States fighting a war in Iraq.

News accounts tells us that the military is having great difficulty

meeting its recruitment targets.

Consider three policies that the U.S. 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 whose 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?

A huge majority.

How many favor going to conscription?

Maybe a dozen people in the room favor conscription.

What about the outsourcing solution?

Okay, so there may be 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 to 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 500 dollars, sometimes 1000 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 he spent in the year on fancy cigars.

Now I want to get your views about this Civil War system,

call it the hybrid system, conscription but with a buyout provision.

How many think it was a just system?

How many would defend the Civil War system?

Anybody? Anybody else?

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 $300 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 paying someone $300 or $500 or $1,000...

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

That's what their life is worth, it's putting a dollar value on life.

- That's good. What's your name? - Liz.

Liz.

Well, who has an answer for Liz.

You defended the Civil War system, what do you say?

If you don't like the price then you have the freedom

to not be sold or hired so it's completely up to you.

I don't think it's necessarily putting a specific price

on you and if it's done by himself, I don't think there's anything

that's really morally wrong with that.

So the person who takes the $500,

let's say, he's putting his own price on his life

or on the risk of his life and he should have the freedom

to choose to do that.

Exactly.

- What's your name? - Jason.

Jason. Thank you. Now we need to hear

from another critic of the Civil War system. Yes.

It's a kind of coercion almost, people who have lower incomes,

for Carnegie he can totally ignore the draft, $300 is an irrelevant

in terms of his income but someone of a lower income,

they're essentially being coerced to draft, to be drafted,

it's probably they're not able to find a replacement.

Tell me your name.

Sam.

Sam. All right so you say, Sam, that when a poor laborer

accepts $300 to fight in the Civil War, he is in effect being coerced

by that money given his economic circumstances

whereas Carnegie can go off, pay the money, and not serve.

Alright. I want to hear someone who has a reply to Sam's argument,

that what looks like a free exchange is actually coercive.

Who has an answer to Sam? Go ahead.

I'd actually agree with him in saying that...

You agree with Sam.

I agree with him in saying that it is coercion in the sense that it robs individual of his ability to reason.

Okay, and what's your name?

Raul.

All right. So Raul and Sam agree that what looks

like a free exchange, free choice, voluntary act

actually involves coercion.

It's profound coercion of the worst kind

because it falls so disproportionately upon one segment of the society.

Good. Alright. So Raul and Sam have made a powerful point.

Who would like to reply?

Who has an answer for Sam and Raul? Go ahead.

I don't think that these drafting systems

are really terribly different from all volunteer army

sort of recruiting strategies.

The whole idea of having benefits and pay for joining the army

is sort of a coercive strategy to get people to join.

It is true that military volunteers come from disproportionately

lower economic status and also from certain regions of the country

where you can use like patriotism to try and coerce people

to feel like it's the right thing to do to volunteer and go over to Iraq.

And tell me your name.

Emily.

Alright, Emily says, and Raul you're going to have to

reply to this so get ready.

Emily says fair enough, there is a coercive element

to the Civil War system when a laborer takes the place

of Andrew Carnegie for $500. Emily concedes that but she says

if that troubles you about the Civil War system

shouldn't that also trouble you about the volunteer army today?

Before you answer, how did you vote in the first poll?

- Did you defend the volunteer army? - I didn't vote.

You didn't vote. By the way,

you didn't vote but did you sell your vote

to the person sitting next to you? No. Alright.

So what would you say to that argument.

I think that the circumstances are different in that

there was conscription in the Civil War.

There is no draft today and I think that volunteers

for the army today have a more profound sense of patriotism

that is of an individual choice than those who were forced

into the military in the Civil War.

Somehow less coerced?

Less coerced.

Even though there is still inequality in American society?

Even though, as Emily points out, the makeup of the American military

is not reflective of the population as a whole?

Let's just do an experiment here. How many here have either served

in the military or have a family member who has served in the military

in this generation, not parents?

Family members. In this generation.

And how many have neither served nor have any brothers or sisters who have served?

Does that bear out your point Emily?

Yes.

Alright. Now we need to hear from... most of you defended the idea

of the all volunteer military overwhelmingly and yet overwhelmingly,

people considered the Civil War system unjust.

Sam and Raul articulated reasons for objecting to the Civil War system,

it took place against a background of inequality

and therefore the choices people made to buy their way in to military service

were not truly free but at least partly coerced.

Then Emily extends that argument in the form of a challenge.

Alright, everyone here who voted in favor

of the all volunteer army should be able... should have to explain

what's the difference in principle.

Doesn't the all volunteer army simply universalize the feature

that almost everyone found objectionable in the Civil War buyout provision?

Did I state the challenge fairly Emily?

Yes.

Okay. So we need to hear from a defender

of the all volunteer military who can address Emily's challenge.

Who can do that? Go ahead.

The difference between the Civil War system and the all volunteer army system

is that in the Civil War, you're being hired not by the government,

but by an individual and as a result, different people who get hired

by different individuals get paid different amounts.

In the case of the all volunteer army, everyone who gets hired

is hired by the government and gets paid the same amount.

It's precisely the universalization of essentially paying your way

to the army that makes the all volunteer army just.

Emily?

I guess I'd frame the principle slightly differently.

On the all volunteer army, it's possible for somebody

to just step aside and not really think

about the war at all. It's possible to say,