Skip to content
MiltonFriedman.org

Milton Friedman on The draft and the volunteer army

A voluntary army would preserve the freedom of individuals to serve or not to serve. Or, put the other way, it would avoid the arbitrary power that now resides in draft boards to decide how a young man shall spend several of the most important years of his life—let alone whether his life shall be risked in warfare.

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.” This is the second of the advantages he lists, under the heading “Individual freedom”.

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. 6098
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. 6098. https://miltonfriedman.org/quotes/voluntary-army-preserve-freedom-to-serve-or-not-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. So long as compulsion is retained, inequity, waste, and interference with freedom are inevitable. A lottery would only make the arbitrary element in the present system overt. Universal national service would only compound the evil—regimenting all young men, and perhaps women, to camouflage the regimentation of some.

    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.”

    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
  2. A liberal is fundamentally fearful of concentrated power. His objective is to preserve the maximum degree of freedom for each individual separately that is compatible with one man's freedom not interfering with other men's freedom. He believes that this objective requires that power be dispersed. He is suspicious of assigning to government any functions that can be performed through the market, both because this substitutes coercion for voluntary co-operation in the area in question and because, by giving government an increased role, it threatens freedom in other areas.
    Capitalism and Freedom
    Book, 1962, Ch. 3 The Control of Money, p. 39
    Checked against the sourceFind the book
  3. I favor it on economic grounds because it enables the ultimate consumer—the ultimate individual, you and me—to decide how the money should be used. You know, it makes no sense for me to send my money to Washington to have somebody in Washington decide how to use it. I’d rather decide how to use it myself—whether for charity or for welfare or for other purposes. So that’s the first and most important argument. But the political argument for it is that it’s the only way to keep Congress from spending it. … That’s why for a long time now I have been in favor of any tax cut, under any circumstances, in any way, in any form whatsoever.

    Context. Asked about the third option for handling the federal budget surplus, tax cuts, and whether he favors it above all. The ellipsis marks a question from Peter Robinson, “Only if Congress doesn’t have the money can it be prevented from spending it?”, and the word “Right.” with which his answer begins.

    Friedman on the Surplus
    Interview, 2001, Interview by Peter Robinson for Uncommon Knowledge, January 17, 2001; adapted in Hoover Digest 2001 No. 2
    Checked against the sourceRead the transcript

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