From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat May 11 2002 - 12:29:47 MDT
Brian Phillips wrote:
>
> This is an interesting notion. I would be interested in hearing what the
> list exo-libertarians think of career military service.
> How is this sort of federal government work ethically different than
> being a public works sponge (or is it basically the same?)?
Well, we do live under a Constitution, and that defense is actually a
responsibility of the federal government under that Constitution is
completely unable to be debated by anyone who is not insane.
Libertarianism doesn't say you shouldn't be a career military person, it
just believes that military forces should not have monopolies on the
market for defense services in any given geographic areas.
Libertarianism does say that it is wrong to use a military force to
initiate conflict, but it doesn't say not to use a military force to
defend against such an agressor. If such defensive military forces did
not exist (i.e. if they did not posess career military persons to staff
them) then the need to defend against agressors would be unmet.
Even in cases where a minarchist state depends upon a citizen's army of
militiamen, such forces require that some of the core of the officer and
NCO corps be full time professionals to maintain training and logistics
during peacetime. This doesn't make them mercenaries or parasites, since
they provide essential services to the taxpaying public which are
actually mandated by the state's constitution, rather than being
invented by socialist legislators.
> For instance... I could get the service to pay for all my postgrad
> training, but the ethics are questionable.
> For instance.
> Medicine, as a profession, may not be freely practiced in this country,
> lest you be fined (robbed) and imprisoned (kidnapped) for infringing
> on the legislatively condoned monopoly held by the Physician's Guild (AMA).
This is inaccurate. Only a small percent of doctors actually belong to
the AMA. It has ceased to be anything but one more special interest
group that doesn't actually represent the opinions of those it claims
to.
> It is essentially impossible to gain the license to practice unless you
> 1. Graduate from an accredited medical school (which gets lots of gov.
> money)
> 2. Serve post-grad training in a program funded by Medicare (gov money).
> 3. Pay The high cost of medical school (100K+ US$) which is a direct
> result of the AMA monopoly.
The high cost of medical school exists primarily because there is such a
high demand of medical educational services. I know plenty of fellows
who have gone overseas to gain medical educations at much lower cost. A
couple of my best friends are licensed anasthesiologists who are
graduates of that medical school on the island of Grenada. They
graduated from that school, and that school is respected well enough
that they became accepted as residents at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical
Center here, and they both finished their residencies and are well paid
with excellent positions for newly minted Docs.
>
> Under the circumstances.. is it the lessor of the two evils to let the fed
> pay for one's training directly (and effectively "rob" the taxed populace
> to a lesser degree) and not have any loans?
Considering that military medical personnel are paid less than 1/4 of
the rate they would enjoy in private practice, they are certainly not
'robbing' the taxpayers.
If anything, the taxed populace should pay more to military personnel
who are subjected to the care of such inexperienced medical personnel
and are precluded from pursuing malpractice claims against military
doctors.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:59 MST