Patri brings up the point regarding the draft that the negative impact on the men being drafted (unlikely women would get drafted) is sexist.

Additionally, the cost is *life* which is in a way different ballpark than wages.

So, given that I think that the draft would save a lot of lives worldwide and probably be of net financial benefit, would I want to have it, given that it would cost the freedom and perhaps lives of those I hold dear?

My first thought is "I'm really glad I don't have to make that choice." Seems to more or less say that I value those I love more than the world at large. Which I think is a very common bias, hence why the middle class would work so hard to stop war if it was in danger as a group.

I suppose in a way my stance on Affirmative Action is the same thing. "My people" v.s. "the world." In this case "my people" is American women and minorities, as opposed to classes. So I would like to see these people empowered in a way that somewhat lowers the current income level of white men and/or those in power.

In the case of Affirmative Action, in the way I just derived it for skin color, I am extending my biases to be in favor of people of color when that doesn't have much direct personal impact on me. I suppose its largely because I think a lot of their treatment as races is unfair, and that among other significant factors, a lot of the bias against people of color is based on how easy it is for those in power to discriminate against them based on visual appearance, as opposed to their actually being less qualified.

The financial issues around discrimination against women is much trickier. Largely because of pregnancy. It probably hurts a business a lot to compensate for the time lost to maternity leave among other factors. So from a maximization of wealth perspective, I think on the whole the country may well be a little less financially successful (with most of the additional income going to men) due to anti-discrimination laws. And I'm in favor of that ;)

Patri: Sure, the volunteer army may make waging war a bit politically easier. This is an old argument, and seems reasonable. But to me, that effect pales in comparison to how much better it is to not grab random young men and force them to go fight and die in foreign countries!.

Like, if a law was passed that said anyone arrested for drug possession could pay $500/day of jail time to get out of jail. If someone said "Oh no, now there is less political will to end the War on Drug Users b/c less middle-class people are going to jail b/c they will just pay fines instead", I would say "Yeah, sure, but isn't that secondary effect way smaller than the massive benefit of keeping all these nice people out of jail ?!?!?!"


Shannon: so having worked through this I think I may disagree with Milton even about the draft removal increasing the wealth of the nation.

Well, you are wrong, the economic argument about net wealth is pretty simple and easy to prove once one is familiar with basic arguments about economic efficiency. Also, disagreeing with economics Nobel Prize winners about fairly simple economic arguments when you haven't even worked through them seems overly arrogant to me. And since I'm really arrogant, if I think something is overly arrogant, it's probably pretty bad :).

My response which Patri can respond to with more nuanced arguments:

A lot of the economic effects depend on how much additional war we end up engaged in. Personally, with this current war we're in as an example, I think that number is quite likely very high. As you say, the current army is volunteer. So the army and their families are unlikely to rebel. And the middle class is unlikely to rebel, and the upper class is unlikely to rebel.

As you passionately express in your arguments Patri, the middle class is going to be passionately up in arms if random men are drafted to go to war! Do you honestly believe that the current ugly long war we're in wouldn't have ended a long time ago if there was that sort of passionate social pressure?

So, I stand by the arguments that there would be significantly more war, which in the end may likely end up with the government spending more money.

As you say, this is awful for the middle class. For the country as a whole, if it saves money, then its probably better for the poor.

For the world at large, if having no draft is indeed extending the war, way way way more people die, especially men, who are not US citizens.

Also, keep in mind that the draft was an incredibly inequal system. It was fairly wealth-equal, sure (only the very rich & well-connected could get out of it). But it applied solely to young men, so it was *extremely* gender-inequal and age-inequal. You're worried about the volunteer army leading to middle-class people voting to send poor people to fight and die. What about worrying about the draft leading to women and people over 26 years old voting to send men 18-26 (the only people drafted) to fight and die?

Since you've been arguing on race/class issues using the form of argument "The beliefs of white men are irrelevant b/c they are biased", I feel comfortable saying to you: "It's easy for you to say the draft was more equal. You're a woman, the draft didn't apply to you, so your beliefs are irrelevant." :P

You've got me on that one. You are definitely right that I have way less personal invest than my male friends. So from a personal perspective, being in the class that would be drafted, and having my wonderful friends in the class that would be drafted, in practice I probably wouldn't be as quick to advocate the way I'm doing now.

I still think that on the world level when we consider number of lives, and arguably for the poor, getting rid of the draft is likely a net loss.

so having worked through this I think I may disagree with Milton even about the draft removal increasing the wealth of the nation.

Well, you are wrong, the economic argument about net wealth is pretty simple and easy to prove once one is familiar with basic arguments about economic efficiency. Also, disagreeing with economics Nobel Prize winners about fairly simple economic arguments when you haven't even worked through them seems overly arrogant to me. And since I'm really arrogant, if I think something is overly arrogant, it's probably pretty bad :).

Since when did disagreeing with a nobel prize winner stop you? Brilliant people say things on both sides of arguments all the time, its up to an individual to decide based on things different brilliant people have said. I'd be much more inclined to value a market opinion than a Nobel Prize opinion. I think its much more significant that he's family than that he's a Nobel winner.

And the argument I'm making is not simple economic. I don't think we have much evidence for how much longer a war is going to last, and I think we had much less evidence before our current stretched out war.

As you all may have figured out, I have not read Grandma and Grandpa Friedman's books. I really feel like I should, but its not the sort of literature that I'm interested in these days, and I expect that it will probably take a few years for me to get to.

So, I'm going to go forward being ignorant about their work for awhile, as well as ignorant about racial issues, and just try to learn and grow as much as I can in the ways that are most efficient for me to learn and be balanced, as an individual.*

Learning that Rose and Milton passionately hated affirmative action caused me to recall another instance where I think my utility function is different than theirs.

When Patri first told me that Milton was more or less responsible for getting rid of the draft, I thought that was awesome. Then I spoke with someone who didn't think it was a good thing, because of its effect on the poor.

I agree with Milton that removing the draft increases the wealth of the nation as a whole. I also derive that by getting rid of the draft, you may end up having more war. Patri makes the point that ending the draft means that people only enter the army if the pay suits them.

The thing is, the middle class has a really big impact on war. If their sons are being drafted and put on the battlefield, I believe this would inspire a lot more action from the middle class than taking away some of their discretionary spending diminishing marginal utility, if you want to speak economic. The poor are less likely to fight a war than a middle class that is being more significantly impacted by it, because the poor are supporting their kin who are in the line of fire, and getting money as soldiers.

It is true that the poor are getting money from the war, but its also true that we'd have more resources to spend on them if we weren't engaged in war, so I question if whatever money they get actually puts them ahead even in the pocketbook.

The wealthy don't have that much emotional incentive either way, since they can generally keep their kids out of the draft and the money is even further down the utility curve for them.

So personally, while myself and my peers benefit greatly from the lack of draft, I have to admit that from the perspective I'm in right now, I think it could be better for the US as a whole**, and for the world, if there was a draft in the US.

*_{Patri gave me some fast and passionate arguments, so I know know that this is an old argument which he takes Milton's side on. I'm realizing how my view in writing this is over-symplistic, an will address that in the following journal.}

** Arguably less war and less money spent on war, because of there being less total war, so having worked through this I think I may disagree with Milton even about the draft removal increasing the wealth of the nation.