Skip to content
MiltonFriedman.org

Milton Friedman on The draft and the volunteer army

On a more mundane budgetary level, the argument that a voluntary army would cost more simply involves a confusion of apparent with real cost. By this argument, the construction of the Great Pyramid with slave labor was a cheap project. The real cost of conscripting a soldier who would not voluntarily serve on present terms is not his pay and the cost of his keep. It is the amount for which he would be willing to serve. He is paying the difference. … When he is forced to serve, we are in effect imposing on him a tax in kind equal in value to the difference between what it would take to attract him and the military pay he actually receives.

Context. From a paper he gave at a conference on the draft at the University of Chicago in December 1966, arguing that the United States should move to an all-volunteer armed force. His case is for peacetime: in the same paper he grants that “for a major war, a strong case can be made for compulsory service.” Here he answers the objection that a volunteer army would cost more. The ellipsis omits his example of a star professional football player and an unemployed worker, who would need very different pay to be attracted into the army.

Why Not a Voluntary Army?
Journal article, 1966, Paper for the conference on the draft held at the University of Chicago in December 1966, sponsored by the Ford Foundation and chaired by Sol Tax; reprinted in full in the Congressional Record, House, March 9, 1967, pp. 6098 to 6100, inserted by Representative Donald Rumsfeld among four conference papers on a voluntary army., Congressional Record, March 9, 1967, p. 6099
Checked against the sourceRead the original

Where this comes from

Checked against the sourceThe wording was checked against the work itself.

Cite this passage

Milton Friedman, “Why Not a Voluntary Army?” (Paper for the conference on the draft held at the University of Chicago in December 1966, sponsored by the Ford Foundation and chaired by Sol Tax; reprinted in full in the Congressional Record, House, March 9, 1967, pp. 6098 to 6100, inserted by Representative Donald Rumsfeld among four conference papers on a voluntary army., 1966), Congressional Record, March 9, 1967, p. 6099. https://miltonfriedman.org/quotes/conscription-tax-in-kind-great-pyramid-1966

Quoted for commentary and research. Rights in the underlying work remain with its rights holder, so cite the work itself, not only this page.

Topics

He also said

  1. Enforced service by a conscript is a tax imposed on him no less than the check you send to Internal Revenue is a tax imposed on you. The size of his tax is the difference between the sum of money for which he would have served voluntarily and the pay he actually receives. Currently, this tax amounts to about 50 per cent of the potential civilian income of draftees. So unfair a tax imposed on so small a minority would never be passed explicitly by Congress. It persists only because it is hidden.

    Context. Friedman served on the President’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force (the Gates Commission), which unanimously recommended a plan to let conscription end on June 30, 1971, when the existing draft authority expired, keeping only a standby draft for emergencies.

    The End of the Draft?
    Column, 1970, Newsweek (1970); reprinted in full in the Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, March 20, 1970, p. 8443, introduced by Representative William A. Steiger as one of “two recent articles on the volunteer army which were published in Newsweek.” The bracketed header “[From Newsweek, Mar. 23, 1970]” stands above the Stewart Alsop column printed first; this column carries no date of its own in the reprint, Congressional Record, March 20, 1970, p. 8443
    Checked against the sourceRead the original
  2. Whatever the extra amount, we are now paying a larger sum in concealed form. Conscription is a tax in kind—forced labor exacted from the men who serve involuntarily. The amount of the tax is the difference between the sum for which they would voluntarily serve and the sum we now pay them—if Joe Namath were drafted, his tax might well run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Context. From his answer to the objection that a volunteer army would cost too much. The “extra amount” is the added military pay needed to attract volunteers, which he notes was estimated at $4 billion to $20 billion a year.

    A Volunteer Army
    Column, 1966, Newsweek (December 19, 1966); reprinted in the Congressional Record, Senate, January 22, 1969, p. 1438, under the heading “From Newsweek magazine, Dec. 19, 1966”. Later collected in An Economist’s Protest (1972)., Congressional Record, January 22, 1969, p. 1438
    Checked against the sourceRead the original
  3. The well-meaning current sponsors of universal national service will recoil at that prospect. They would insist on letting the youngsters choose for themselves how they serve. That is what happens now, via the market system, in which market wages equate supply and demand. But universal national service is meaningless unless it involves equal pay—which also means control and direction of labor.

    Context. From a 1979 Newsweek column answering renewed proposals, after the end of the draft, to require a period of military or civilian service from every young American. “That prospect” is the power over conscripted young people he has just described.

    Universal National Service
    Column, 1979, Newsweek (1979); reprinted in the Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, May 15, 1979, p. 11349, introduced by Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who says Friedman “recently” made these arguments “in Newsweek.” The reprint gives no issue date and omits part of the opening paragraph, Congressional Record, May 15, 1979, p. 11349
    Checked against the sourceRead the original

Think this quote is wrong, misattributed, or missing context? Report it and it gets fixed, not argued with.