qui tacet consentire videtur

Honey and Clover, my favorite anime series, employs plenty of wheel imagery - the circularity much like the endless back and forth of its love triangles that seem never to come to a conclusion.

Reading Geoffrey’s retrospective on 2006, I felt it necessary to write my own, as if I must articulate to myself the lessons it taught me in order to truly internalize them, now that the wheel of time has come full circle.

Read the rest of this entry »

This started as a little thought exercise on the bus ride home.

Beginning with the premises that conscription is just as a civic responsibility in support of the order that protects civil rights, and that all citizens enjoy equal rights, it follows that conscription must be universal and equal in order to be just. Equal sacrifice for equal rights. Call it the law of equivalent exchange, if you will. (apologies to Fullmetal Alchemist/Hagane no Renkinjutsushi)

In the real world we often diverge from this ideal form, as conscription is almost never strictly universal systemically (lotteries, male-only, exemptions, deferrals etc). But in many cases it is inclusive enough to approximate universality. How about equality then?

Most conscription systems draft citizens for specific durations - the time served by all citizens is generally equal. However, time is a tricky measure of sacrifice… An objective valuation of productivity (however quantified, opportunity cost or ‘defence value’ etc) differentials would conclude that the value of the time differs. For the same amount of time, high-productivity individuals contribute far more than low-productivity individuals, and conscription in this sense is productivity-inequitable. It is a progressive ‘tax-incidence’ on productivity, with the incentive effects that a progressive incidence causes. If productivity is endogenously determined by innate capacity and discretionary effort, disincentives to possessing high productivity would lead high capacity individuals to either opt out or reduce discretionary effort. It would be either a brain-drain or a race to the bottom, both suboptimal outcomes.

(This assumes that productivity valuation is conceptually sound - I suspect that efforts to value opportunity cost would not only have to include the market value of civilian income foregone but also the discounted returns on human capital investment foregone and other such projections of counterfactuals. If we are to ignore conventional accounting of opportunity cost for a specific value to defence efforts, then we have the pricing problem. This also assumes that valuation is practically possible - informational asymmetries are huge and the closest indicators of market value like income statements are poor proxies)

However, what if conscription was value-equitable? Instead of an equal duration of service, citizens must contribute a flat rate of X value. High productivity individuals who contribute more value thus serve a shorter period of time. Disincentives are flipped: Discretionary effort and productivity will increase. Valuation in terms of market value would help retain high capacity individuals, and raise standards all around. Valuations in terms of ‘defence’ value, depending on how prices are derived, would incentivize individuals to become better soldiers and take on greater responsibilities. In other words, there are potentially significant gains from liberalizing conscription towards a more market-based system of value-equitability.

[Edit] Just to reply to some comments on the post. Caveats - its a model of human behavior, and the model like any other model is abstracted and simplified for discursive purposes. So you’re right, there is a lot of subjectivity in value, there are multiple incentives and disincentives at work (and the net effect will differ), people aren’t hyperrational, there are other relevant concerns, the model does not explicitly factor in training time. Agreed that I’ve conflated consistency with ideals and system efficiency, two separate issues. Admittedly this wasn’t rigorously thought through - its a blog post and part of a evolving process.

I think the main point is that if differentials exist in productivity (regardless of how it is objectively derived and regardless of distinctions between ‘military’ and ‘civilian’ forms) but are not accounted for, equity is not achieved. Also, (dis)incentives come into play, and on net the system will trend towards a certain outcome.

One of my unit’s ‘cohesion’ activities was laser tag at a public-sector ‘resort’ (for lack of a better word). I hadn’t played laser tag since late primary school - some 8-10 years ago - and that was with my small group of friends. If that group maybe one or two remained close to me… the rest left east and west at different times or became different people on different paths. Anyway.

So we clerks paired up with the junior officers and cadet dropouts against the signallers and storemen. For all their tactics and advanced leadership training, the officers and cadets did marginally better than the clerks. They were completely pwned by the signallers and storemen. I did pretty well, 3rd place for the day - and I probably have the least real military background of the lot. Adverse outcome?

The junior officers and cadet dropouts employed their tactical training to the game, when the mechanics of laser tag are more like CS: small penalties to being shot, accuracy less important than volume i.e. You score more points per frag than you lose for being tagged, the sensors are hard to set off at a distance. These two features of laser tag render the standard logic (and an important logic it is) of ‘making shots count’ and ‘not getting killed’ irrelevant. In laser tag, risk-aversion is not the optimal strategy.

Laser tag is probably not a good training method to internalize risk-aversion. Neither is counterstrike and most FPS games. Save functions, reset buttons, iterated rounds between terrorist and ct… all of these diminish the importance of not getting killed. What is the best way to replicate real world incentive systems into video games? Iron-man no-save rules, single deathmatch tournaments are some.

In my view arcade shooters like time crisis and house of the dead have incentive structures that represent the closest thing to real life - you pay cash every time you get hit. The incentive here is to be very, very good at not getting slashed by zombies and cyborg ninjas. Perhaps the ’survival’ in ’survival horror’ is more important than we realize.

In a conversation with Palinurus and Oikono over dinner, I mentioned that the recent controversy over Melvyn Tan, the draft-dodging pianist, tended to conflate separate issues and resulted in an unlikely public consensus. Palinurus suggested that a similar process was at work in the public outcry over the other recent controversy over the hanging of Australian drug mule Nguyen Tuong Van. The issues:

1. Should Melvyn Tan be punished in an equal fashion as any other draft dodger in Singapore, regardless of his individual achievements and international standing?
1b. OR, if Melvyn Tan was indeed equally punished, is the sentence for this crime too light?
1c. AND, why is there not enough public condemnation of the man?
2. Should Melvyn Tan be punished for draft dodging at all, when he has renounced citizenship, not lived in Singapore since the age of 12 and never returned since (until now)?
3. Should draft dodgers be punished in this fashion at all, and is our system of conscription just?

There is a huge public outcry in the media over first issue, about the perceived special treatment of elites, which Palinurus half-jokingly suggested might be due to egalitarian-fetishist hatred of elites/fear of genius and a celebration of mediocrity mentality. Or, a vindictive desire that others must suffer as much as they have. Regardless of the non-rational/emotional nature of this issue, the other issues of whether Melvyn should be tried for this particular crime, given his somewhat extenuating circumstances, and of the catch-22 nature of citizenship/conscription in Singapore, only tend to come up in discussions on Young Republic or in camp.

What happens then is that people conflate the issues and the answer for one overrides the answers for others. They conflate justice with consistency in punishment and perversely, end up advocating equal injustice. The media frames the first issue and people naturally say ‘yes’, but frame the other issues and the answer becomes ‘maybe’ or ‘no’ - but nobody sees the separate issues.

1. Should Nguyen Tuong Van be sentenced and hanged in a manner consistent with Singapore law?
1b. regardless of his extenuating circumstances?
1c. regardless of the appeals of the international community?
2. Is the death penalty for capital crimes justifiable?
3. If so, does drug trafficking constitute a capital crime? OR, is our mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking policy just?

The first issue is about the rule of law and consistency, and to a certain extent, some nationalist sentiment over sovereignty. The public tends to agree with the government’s position on consistent sentencing and independence from foreign pressure, but doesn’t consider whether the sentence in question is just. The second issue is a perennial debate, and the third issue based on a particular position on the second. The process of conflating issues and selective framing is similar. Personally, I’m torn between being consistent with libertarian positions, and a pragmatist ‘public-choice school’ position on the second and third issues - which makes the whole business uncertain, and I wonder if my certainty over the first issue is warranted.

On another note, things like this putative boycott of Singapore goods and services, and this denial of service, seem counterproductive and plain dumb. It’s like they never learn from history, and it doesn’t help change public sentiment here either.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Or is it? Rand didn’t think so. Libertarians in general insist on consistency to principles.

Now, Chris makes an observation about Melvyn Tan, the draft-dodging pianist who comes back a national hero:

Our entire legal system is based not on mercy, but on a strict conception of justice. But, when a Singaporean judge allows a person like Mr Tan to slip through the cracks because you want to show mercy, a most un-Singaporean virtue, you break that strict conception of justice. By failing to punish this law-breaker, you will encourage many more.

Mr Tan’s case will set a legal precedent: Future draft-dodgers may return to Singapore unscathed, provided they become rich and famous. And if you happen to be able to play a musical instrument as well as Mr Tan, then you need not do NS, because you’ve already “done your duty”.

At first, I wondered if Chris had turned into one of those people I swore I would never become - someone who would defend conscription, having served through it and not wanting to devalue his legitimate-or-otherwise sacrifice (and there are quite a few around, just read some of the Young Republic posts on conscription). A fallacy of sunk costs undermining personal integrity. The same way that some officers and specialists rationalize punishing their subordinates in a perverse sense of ‘tradition’ - buying into the very system they suffered under.

After all, if you read the rest of Chris’ posts and mine, you would know that he and I generally concur that conscription in Singapore is unjust. One would expect us to celebrate the flexibility of the government in considering his service to the nation, in welcoming the market principles of specialization that let Melvyn Tan contribute where he can contribute best. One would expect us to respect a man who could stick to his principles and exercise labor mobility, paying the costs of draft dodging - exile to a foreign land. One would expect us to see this as an incremental step towards the dissolving of a system we hate. One would expect us to be happy. All these would be consistent.

Yet his response is also consistent with our position (at least my position) that conscription is just in principle, but often lacking in its practice. We accept conscription as a necessary evil, a civic responsibility that pays for our civil rights, and we look back to Athenian democracy and citizen soldiering as a model. At the same time, we look at the practice of the modern draft, and the nature of military organizations and the state, and see plenty of injustice. We want our conscription to meet the ideals of universality, minimality, transparency etc - in this perspective, it is not inconsistent for us to demand system integrity in universal conscription, that Melvyn Tan must be punished the same way any draft dodger would - that we make equal sacrifices for equal rights.

So I wonder which is more consistent as a libertarian.

This is the first post in a series called Conscription Delenda Est, a phrase that will end each and every one in it. Unlike Cato the Elder, I will not end all my speeches regardless of subject with it, though sometimes I think that would be necessary in these times.

After a difficult day fighting bureaucratic inertia, incompetence, ingratitude and military malice, it becomes even harder to take what little pride there is in communitarian servitude. How pleasing then to come home to read on Tacitus about Russell Kirk on the draft:

The claims of enthusiasts for conscription are numerous. They may be consolidated under three heads: conscription builds character, it improves health, it educates youth to play its part in the world. The writer, who has been on the inside of conscription looking out, has not found himself ennobled, strengthened, or educated thereby.

It has always irked me whenever someone attempts to identify the positive aspects of my condition as such, regardless of how good their intentions are. Because it obfuscates the main purpose of conscription, it conflates the military argument with the social and thus perpetuates a lack of critical thought on the former.

Yet what is truly irrational about this line of argument is its omission of comparison to the next best alternative ie opportunity cost. A statement that conscription has been beneficial because I am now ‘more mature’ lacks a comparison to how mature I might have become in any other context, not to mention its weak causal link. Nor whether I have actually become more mature given the particularly perverse incentives in military life towards evading responsibility, punishment of independent thought and action, and lack of autonomy. Conscription delenda est.