Home

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.

Copyright information:

The copyright to this publication is held by Liberty Fund, Inc. The New Individualist Review is prohibited for use in any publication, journal, or periodical without written consent of J. M. Cobb, J. M. S. Powell, or David Levy.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

NEW BOOKS AND ARTICLES

THE FOLLOWING ARE A SELECTION OF ITEMS AND NOTES WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE EDITORS, MAY BE OF INTEREST TO OUR READERS.

Two fine anthologies have appeared in paperback: Arthur A. Ekirch, Voices in Dissent, New York, Citadel, 1966. $2.45. And: Staughton Lynd, Non-Violence in America: A Documentary History, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1966. $3.45. Both anthologies, in particular the one by Ekirch, could use a generous dose of bibliographic citation to indicate where the fervent reader could find more information. The currents of liberty and peace run through both books, and they illustrate well the surviving ideas of natural law: that social organization should be citizen-centered rather than state-oriented and that laws are to be judged by the citizenry, as individuals; laws must be judged according to criteria independent of the state.
Richard Flacks, Florence Howe, and Paul Lauter, “On the Draft,” The New York Review of Books, April 6, 1967. Another example of an interesting article dealing with the draft and American empire, illustrating once again the features of thought shared by the “New Left” and many on the “Old Right.” Consider this comment on national service: “One of the main hand-wringers, Margaret Mead, describes national service at work: ‘Every individual, including the physically handicapped, the mentally defective, the emotionally disturbed, the totally illiterate, would be registered, and every one of these, according to their needs or potentialities, would be assigned to types of rehabilitation, education, and different kinds of service with different sorts of risks, benefits, and requirements.’ Oddly, despite this description, national service advocates persist in calling the system ‘voluntary.’ To deal with at least two million new men annually (to say nothing of women), the system would require an enormous Federal bureaucracy, fantastic expenditures for training and maintenance, and expansion of service opportunities beyond anything now imaginable. Besides, service is probably best rendered by those who freely give it.
“Above all, national service—perhaps servitude is a more appropriate term—would mean an enormous jump in the degree of control by a central authority over the lives of Americans. Assignments to the military, to service, or to rehabilitation would finally be made not according to individual ability or interest, but by a centralized manpower planning commission, according to established definitions on national priorities. In this light, national service can be seen as the present draft writ large: ‘channeling’ no longer applied ‘indirectly’—the ‘American way’—but by compulsion. The system becomes a machine, in which men are considered as a ‘national resource,’ to be developed, channeled, enriched, molded, utilized, exploited, and above all, nationalized—in the public interest, to be sure.”
John M. Swomley, Jr., who has long opposed conscription, recently smoked out national service in “The National Service Proposal,” Christian Century, January 11, 1967. Swomley has some silly (favorable) ideas about a guaranteed annual income, minimum wage laws, and “free” health services, but he does point out that the decisive inequities of conscription do not occur simply because not all people are conscripted: “The real inequity of military conscription lies at this point of pay, not simply in the fact that some young men are drafted and others are not. The real inequity is that we are drafting men when there is no need to do so except to keep down the taxes of the rich whose financial interests are being preserved around the world by the low-paid soldiers. . . . It is one thing to provide voluntary service opportunities; it is quite another to institute a national service program whose pivotal concepts are peace time conscription and service to humanity via the nation.” Donald J. Eberly replied in “National Service: Purpose and Potential,” Christian Century, April 5, 1967. Eberley’s main argument appears to be that life is full of coercion, anyway. Indeed! Barry Goldwater added a final touch to the assault on national service: “These so-called liberals, who want to fasten a domestic fascism on our young people, are simply following the line originally set by Robert McNamara who, months ago, suggested turning the draft system into a social service system in which every young American would be compelled to serve the state.” (Los Angeles Times Syndicate, April 17, 1967) Is Goldwater a party to the New Left?
The February 1967 issue of Moderator, “the national magazine for leading college men,” contains an article on conscription entitled, appropriately enough, “The Problem of Being Patriotic,” written by Moderator’s editor Philip R. Werdell and publisher Sherman B. Chickering. The thrust of the article is in a very non-radical, conservative direction: service to society is good, and the existence of military impressment is alienating an entire generation from all traditional forms of loyalty. The authors have familiarized themselves with the arguments in favor of a volunteer military, and present them cogently in arguing against a national lottery or compulsory service of any kind. The disturbing aspect about the author’s thesis concerns the notion of service to society—they argue for a massive transformation of American motivational incentives to counteract and reverse the trend toward alienation among today’s youth. Their program, although strictly within the framework of liberal principles, choice, voluntarism, etc., includes an appeal to colleges and universities, corporations, and government to give “those who have served” a special, higher status position or preferences in employment. A person of libertarian opinions cannot help but be cautious when approached by such allies, because the conscious erection of social pressures to induce a certain mode of behavior is no more acceptable than the imposition of legal sanctions—in fact social pressures can be more insidious because no libertarian would think of allowing intolerance to become a tort liability (as most modern-liberals would, for example.) There is much to be said in defense of social alienation, but clearly an Establishment publication such as Moderator would not think of this. It is difficult to conceive, for example, the revival of classical liberal opinions toward government without the breeding ground of alienated hostility toward “those in power.” Classical liberalism was born in an era of alienation and hostility toward kings; what choked and almost killed it at the end of the century was an optimistic trust in The People and popular government. This trust in government—“we are the government”—is the foundation of social democratism and the welfare state ideal, and if the Right (or Left, maybe) is ever going to succeed in dismantling the deadening hand of the state it might well be better to encourage social alienation.
We had been hoping that voluntarism would be the irresistible wave of the future, but there are a number of people conspiring against that prospect. Last May, Secretary of Defense McNamara proposed that we adopt some form of compulsory national social service: “It seems to me that we could move toward remedying that inequity [not everyone is drafted] by asking every young person in the United States to give two years of service to his country—whether in one of the military services, in the Peace Corps, or in some voluntary developmental work at home or abroad.” (“Address of Robert S. McNamara before American Society of Newspaper Editors, Montreal, Canada, May 18, 1966,” Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense [Public Affairs], p. 14.)
Last fall, President Johnson suggested the national social service idea: “We must move toward a standard that no man has truly lived who only served himself. . . . To move in this direction, I am asking every member of my Administration to explore new ways by which our young people can serve their fellow men.” (“Remarks of the President at Montgomery County Fair, Dayton, Ohio, September 5, 1966,” Office of the White House Press Secretary, pp. 4-5.)
In November, Secretary of Labor Wirtz called for a stampede to NSS: “First, that it be required that every boy and girl ‘register in’ with the local community when he or she reaches age eighteen. Second, that it be recognized as the community’s obligation to provide every youth with the opportunity to receive at that point two years of further education, occupational training, a chance to participate in a service program, or a job. Third, that it be recognized as the youth’s obligation, in return, to use this opportunity.” After pausing to say that his scheme, ideally, would be voluntary, Wirtz added: “There are strong reasons, at the same time for beginning to think through the possibilities of a firmer, tougher course.” (“Policy for Youth,” Vital Speeches, January 1, 1967, pp. 163, 165.)
More recently still, Poverty Commissar Shriver recommended that compulsory national social service be opened to people at age sixteen: “I favor the registration and testing of all young Americans at age sixteen—females as well as males. The Peace Corps and VISTA and the Job Corps have all proven—once again—that women are just as courageous and patriotic and hard working as men. Thousands, perhaps millions, of young women would like a chance to help their country by performing recognized national service and such service should not be restricted to combatant military service. It’s an archaic sentimentalism which excludes young women from selective service in the generic sense of those words.” (“Statement by Sargent Shriver before the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, March 23, 1967,” p. 1.)
Collecting all of these luminous ideas together is Donald J. Eberly, Executive Director of the National Service Secretariat, a recently-formed lobby; Eberly asserts: “In the free market economy the law of supply and demand operates to fill the most essential jobs. But the needs that are met are primarily private or personal—the provision of electric can openers or automatic dishwashers. Some of the more fundamental needs in the area of human and natural resources—concerns very much in the public domain—are left to the agencies of the community, state and Federal governments.” To satisfy basic, human, social, crying needs, Eberly would “establish universal volunteer service as a national goal, and rename the Selective Service System the National Service System and the Selective Service Boards the National Service Boards.” Happily, “a program of national service provides youths not only with an opportunity to serve their country, extend their education and broaden their experience but also offers them increased individual freedom.” A Plan for National Service, Washington, National Service Secretariat, November 1966, pp. 11, 29, 51.
Whether all of these proposals were sparked by the approaching expiration of the current draft law is not clear; but what is clear is the brand of Left-fascism that the proposals represent.
One book, excellent for its polemical approach, which has received little attention is Jean Carper, Bitter Greetings; the Scandal of the Military Draft, New York, Grossman Publishers, 1967. $5.00. The following quotation from the book’s introductory chapter may serve to whet one’s appetite: “Ironically, officials of the Selective Service in some of their press releases pat themselves on the back for never having suffered a scandal. . . . Nevertheless, it would be a joke of the blackest kind for the American people to join in Selective Service’s celebration of itself. For the truth is that the draft enjoys no small scandal. Its very existence, its operation, its Orwellian schemes and powers for controlling the nation’s youth constitute a scandal of monstrous proportions. Contending there is no scandal in the draft is like saying there are no blackheads on that portrait of corruption rotting away in Dorian Gray’s attic. For the draft, like the degenerate Dorian, suffers no small blemishes; it is corrupt of spirit all the way through.”
The December 1967 issue of Ramparts reprinted selections from an official Selective Service document entitled “Channeling” which illustrates the totalitarian philosophy of such a system and its functionaries. “The psychology of granting wide choice under pressure to take action is the American or indirect way of achieving what is done by direction in foreign countries where choice is not permitted. . . . From the individual’s viewpoint, he is standing in a room which has been made uncomfortably warm. Several doors are open, but they all lead to various forms of recognized, patriotic service to the Nation. Some accept the alternatives gladly—some with reluctance. The consequence is approximately the same.” All that is denied is the freedom to choose an “unapproved” course of action which more nearly fulfills the individual’s notion of what his life should be.
Probably the two best books to have appeared on this subject are James C. Miller III, ed., Why the Draft? Baltimore, Penguin Books, 1968. $1.25 And: The Draft? prepared for the Peace Education Division of the American Friends Service Committee. (New York, Hill and Wang, 1968. $1.25.) Both books argue strongly against conscription and in favor of voluntarism, and both are impressive for their scholarship and the careful, scientific treatment of this highly emotional subject. The A.F.S.C. book, The Draft?, takes a completely pacifist point of view, arguing against all military service; and does an excellent job of destroying the case for conscription, as well as the more difficult job of building a case against all militarism. The Miller book, Why the Draft? argues positively for a volunteer army on the grounds of feasibility and optimality, and against conscription because it is simply not the best way of doing the job and has bad side effects as well. Both books were prepared by high-powered research teams, and this division of labor produced two superior books.
The source of most of the technical arguments against procuring military manpower through compulsion which are used by almost every other work on the subject is the economic research of men such as Prof. Walter Y. Oi, who presents his findings in the American Economic Review, LVII (May 1967), 39-62; and also in Sol Tax, ed., The Draft (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), pp. 221-51. Other technical articles of note are Stuart H. Altman and Alan E. Fechter, “The Supply of Military Personnel in the Absence of a Draft,” American Economic Review, LVII (May 1967), 19-31; and W. Lee Hansen and Burton A. Weisbrod, “Economics of the Military Draft,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXXXI (August 1967), 395-421. Additional articles in the Sol Tax book, which is a symposium covering all points of view and not merely the case for a volunteer army, include one by Kenneth Boulding, President of the American Economics Association, questioning the legitimacy of the national state; and several others which appear in revised form in this issue of N.I.R.

LIBERALS OF THE WORLD: UNITE!

Our Hour of Need is upon us. The time is fraught with peril for the most promising development in the non-Western freedom movement—the Arabic Edition of New Individualist Review. Our latest foreign language edition is in grave danger, threatened with extinction by the International Postal Monopoly, the United Nations, and the fine hand of the COMINTERN itself.

To crush the rising tide of revolution which everywhere has followed upon the first publication of our SYMPOSIUM ON CONSCRIPTION, the government of Egypt has launched a drive to deny New Individualist Review’s Arabic edition the free use of international postal services. In the United Nations debate devoted to the issue, the Egyptian Ambassador demanded:

. . . that the United Nations declare the Arabic edition of New Individualist Review to be the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East—stirring discontent among the harmonious Egyptian people and spreading sedition by its challenge of ancient truths. All nations must rise to fight the anarchists, who preach such treason as “Taxes In Money, Not Forced Labor” and “Emigration Before Conscription” and the like. No government is safe; no military force is secure. In Sinai alone, thousands of soldiers left the battlefield with cries of “Freedom Now; Down With Military Servitude!” on the very eve of Israeli attacks. . . .

The United States Ambassador demonstrated the cunning solidarity of all government agents when threatened by the stirrings of liberation. His reply:

We wish to assure the State of Egypt that the Arabic edition of this odious publication—judging by the contents of the English edition—will trouble the peace no longer. The United States government has a great tradition of respect for freedom of speech; as President Johnson once said, “Freedom of Speech is a First Class Freedom.” Of course, this New Individualist Review is mailed third class . .

FRIENDS OF FREEDOM,

You must not fail us!

Subscribe Today!

Vote with your dollars.

The Journal of Law and Economics is published by the University of Chicago Law School twice annually, in April and October.

All issues of The Journal of Law and Economics may be obtained for the price of $2.50 per issue. However, the Journal is also available at a special student rate of $1.00 per issue.

The subscription rate for the Journal will be $5.00 for two issues each year ($2.00 to students), with the following discounted rates for extended subscriptions: two years, $9.50 (students, $4.00); three years, $13.50 (or $6.00); four years, $17.00 (or $8.00); and five years, $20.00 (or $10.00 to students). Those students wishing to obtain all volumes of the Journal of Law and Economics issued to date (through Volume X) should remit $10.00. Please send orders and remittances (and particulars of student status if you are applying for the student rate) to:

Publications Assistant

The Journal of Law and Economics

University of Chicago Law School

1111 East 60th Street

Chicago, Illinois 60637

“We won’t go!”

echoed outside the Chicago conference room last year, while inside 33 experts—professors, lawyers, politicians, businessmen, generals—met in response to nationwide protests, to consider selective service systems and possible alternatives from every angle. Based on that conference, this book is an indispensable background for an informed discussion of the draft.

THE DRAFT

A Handbook of Facts and Alternatives

Edited by Sol Tax

$12.95 at bookstores, or from

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS

5750 Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Ill. 60637

VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1, WINTER 1968

THE RHODESIAN CALUMNY

W. H. HUTT

TWO DECADES OF ECONOMIC PLANNING IN YUGOSLAVIA

LJUBO SIRC

MARXISM AND ALIENATION

DAVID LEVY

THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT OF FREE TUITION

ARMEN A. ALCHIAN

A JOURNAL OF CLASSICAL LIBERAL THOUGHT

Winter 1968

$1.00

Vol. 5, No. 1

BOUND VOLUMES OF NEW INDIVIDUALIST REVIEW

The Editors of New Individualist Review are pleased to announce in conjunction with publication of the first number in our fifth volume the issue of a small number of compete, bound sets of the journal which will be available for distribution in June of this year. These rare and valuable sets will include the three out-of-print issues of New Individualist Review which are not available to the general public, and unavailable in most libraries; issues, we might add, containing articles by F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray N. Rothbard, as well as all of the original editors of the journal.

This announcement is being made in the endeavor to supplement our subscription revenues with contributions from readers and suporters who may have been unaware of our need and dependence upon supplemental contributions for continued publication. The number of bound sets of New Individualist Review which will be available is strictly limited by the availability of the out-of-print numbers; it may be impossible to repeat this offer. If you would like to obtain one of these sets and assist N.I.R. in its publication, please send your check in the amount of $75.00 or more to New Individualist Review, Ida Noyes Hall, University of Chicago, Illinois 60637.

NIR Back Issues

Certain back issues of NEW INDIVIDUALIST REVIEW can be purchased for a limited time at the special rate of $1.00 per copy. Among the issues presently available are those containing:

“Sin and the Criminal Law,” by Robert M. Hurt (II/1)

“National Review: Criticism and Reply,” by Ronald Hamowy and William F. Buckley, Jr. (I/3)

“The Fusionists on Liberalism and Tradition,” by Ralph Raico (III/3)

“Civil Liberties in the Welfare State,” by Robert M. Schuchman (II/3)

“The Uneasy Case for State Education,” by E.G. West (IV/2)

“Why Not A Volunteer Army?” by Milton Friedman (IV/4)

A complete set of the available back copies (thirteen issues) may be ordered for $12.00, postpaid. The three out-of-print numbers can be provided by xerographic reproduction at a cost of $4.00 each. Address inquires to:

NEW INDIVIDUALIST REVIEW

Ida Noyes Hall, University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois 60637

The Rhodesian Calumny
	3	W. H. HUTT
Community, Leadership, and Progress
	13	SVETOZAR PEJOVICH
The Political Thought of Michael Oakeshott
	17	JAY A. SIGLER
Two Decades of Economic Planning in Yugoslavia
	23	LJUBO SIRC
Marxism and Alienation
	34	DAVID LEVY
The Economic and Social Impact of Free Tuition
	42	ARMEN A. ALCHIAN
REVIEWS:
Book Reviews
	53
New Books and Articles
	57

NEW INDIVIDUALIST REVIEW is published quarterly by New Individualist Review, Inc., at Ida Noyes Hall, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637. Telephone 312/363-8778.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors. Editorial, advertising, and subscription correspondence and manuscripts should be sent to NEW INDIVIDUALIST REVIEW, Ida Noyes Hall, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637. All manuscripts become the property of NEW INDIVDUALIST REVIEW.

Subscription rates: $3.00 per year (students $1.50). Two years at $5.75 (students $2.75).

Copyright 1968 by New Individualist Review, Inc., Chicago, Illinois. All rights reserved. Republication of less than 200 words may be made without specific permission of the publisher, provided NEW INDIVIDUALIST REVIEW is duly credited and two copies of the publication in which such material appears are forwarded to NEW INDIVIDUALIST REVIEW.

EDITORIAL STAFF

Editor-in-Chief • J. M. Cobb

Editor • James M. S. Powell

Associate Editors • David Levy

Ernest L. Marraccini • Robert Schuettinger

Editorial Assistant • J. Huston McCulloch

Contributing Editors • Robert L. Cunningham

Bruce Goldberg • Ronald Hamowy

Sam Peltzman • Ralph Raico

EDITORIAL ADVISORS

Yale Brozen • Milton Friedman • George J. Stigler

University of Chicago

F. A. Hayek	Benjamin A. Rogge
University of Freiburg	Wabash College

Complaints of the loss of individuality and the lessening of respect for the person and his rights have become a commonplace of our time; They nonetheless point to a cause for genuine concern. NEW INDIVIDUALIST REVIEW, an independent journal associated with no organization or political party, believes that in the realm of politics and economics the system most effectively guaranteeing proper respect for individuality is that which, historically, has gone by the name of classical liberalism; the elements of this system are private property, civil liberties, the rule of law, and, in general, the strictest limits placed on the power of government. It is the purpose of the Review to stimulate and encourage explorations of important problems from a viewpoint characterized by thoughtful concern with individual liberty.

Home

The Forum

Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

The Library

Return to Title Page for New Individualist Review

The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

NEW BOOKS AND ARTICLES - Ralph Raico, New Individualist Review [1961]

Edition used:

About Liberty Fund: