me to seem a childish dream. With liberal
institutions in decay, it is only a matter of time before
one or another zealot will seize the chance to impose his
private nightmare on the rest of us (Ackerman, 1980, p. 312
On this view, conscription as a political policy would require justification by moral weight that is achieved only if the whole range of public policy debate were presumed and encouraged. Such, Ackerman concludes, "turns out to be nothing other than old fashioned liberal democracy" (p. 313). He adds, however and this element cannot be excluded from any observation of the primacy of political dialogue as a process fundamental to legitimate statehood that questions require answers. That is, mere questioning will not do, and questioning ought not be frivolous; answers are both mandatory and allowed. Further, the answers contained in the political dialogue must "bring relief from wrongful exploitation" (p. 324). This is consistent with the idea of compensation of those under obligation to the minimal state, but it suggests that the minimal state will be under as much scrutiny as any other state form.
This elaboration of the liberal state attitude toward statism and by extension toward conscription can be applied to certain of the real world considerations of the history of conscription in the United States in recent years. Walzer cites the fact that during the American Civil War, the official policy of conscription, which was enforced by fine against draftees who did not appear when called, was deflected by the fact that a draftee could purchase an exemption for $300. This was plainly a bias in favor of the well heeled and of the assertion of moral authority on the part of the state (Walzer, 1983). But there are conscription related examples closer to the modern period, as Walzer notes. Consider the issues raised by the fact that in the Vietnam era some were drafted by lottery and...