I’ve always been struck by the relative hawkishness of politicians that were never in a shooting war and the relative dovishness (relative to the chickenhawks) of those that had.
Just for the record, for most businesses, a peaceful, reliable, consistent, and open world is to their benefit. War creates instability, uncertainty, unreliability, and closed borders. Almost universally, that is bad for business.
Despite what Hollywood writers may put in their screenplays, war is bad for business. Even in the arms industry, I suspect, war is bad for business because the government is liable to co-opt your production, your market shrinks from global to national levels, and should your country lose, you might go before a tribunal set up by the enemy at the end of it all. Peaceful governments can be bid up on impractical and new designs. Wartime governments are paying attention to their pocket book and what they’re getting for it on a practical level.
Do you consider our current government to be a wartime government? I do, and I don’t think your analysis is correct when we talk about the kind of wars fought in this era. Your analysis would be correct if we are talking about large-scale wars.
I agree with your first paragraph, but war today is about serving special interests. The benefits are concentrated and the pain is diffuse, even delayed to future generations. ACtually Smedley Butler may attest to the fact that this has been true for awhile.
We could take the Roman approach (in the early/mid republic at least). Only those able to afford their own equipment are are eligible for military service. Slight problem is our adsidui would be a little on the small side, our stealth fighters and aircraft carriers would be manned entirely by the children of Zuckerbergs, Gates, etc.
I propose a negative definition: if you or your children can be drafted against your will, you’re not part of “The Ruling Class.” In fact, if you’re not powerful enough to manipulate a draft board, you’re probably nowhere near capable of starting a war.
But wait a minute. Do you realize the problem that creates for the OP to execute his plan? It’s a veritable Catch 22!!
Trump is an idiot and poor business man.
The desire to go to war is a human condition and one which affects people of all social and finical levels. But, in modern day, with modem knowledge of economics (which Trump lacks), ones finances are more likely to push one away from warmongering than towards. But, even ignoring Trump, it is not a sufficient mitigation for all people who have money, even among those who should know better.
Gambling, for example, is stupid at anything above a pocket change level. That doesn’t prevent rich people from engaging in high stakes games. But as you climb the income ladder, it is less likely that you’re going to find a person gambling their home away. But also, probably, relatively prevalent compared to what you would expect. Financial acumen and gambling are at odds. But human nature is human nature.
If you want to blame someone, Mother Nature and God are better culprits than “rich people”.
Just rank the draft lists by income (or parent’s income and perhaps personal wealth). Rich kids are drafted first, that is.
And above a certain income level, there are no deferments at all. If you feel you (or your kid) can’t (or shouldn’t) fight, we reintroduce the scutage tax, whereby you can avoid military service only by paying a very large fee, roughly equal to what it would cost the government to recruit, train, equip and deploy your replacement.
EDIT: If your goal is for the powerful to reap the consequences of their declarations of war, it might be a good idea to not even take volunteers. That prevents Congress and the President from saying “Yeah, this volunteer military is large enough for our war goals, no draft needed”.
This sounds like a good idea, but I have a question. Who is this advice directed to? I certainly don’t have the power to rank draft lists by income or to decide who gets drafted first. I don’t think the OP does either. So who are you suggesting does this?
The king? “The revolution”? I don’t know. It’s highly unrealistic, but I think the OP understands that, too. Avoiding wars (unless they are into that sort of thing) is one of the benefits of being rich and powerful. And the powerful don’t give up their power without a fight.
And in any case, decreasing their power in this way, in addition to whatever power they have to lose to implement these measures in the first place, makes them less powerful, so wouldn’t that make drafting them first less worthy of a goal? I’m just spitballing here, not advocating seriously. It certainly would be nice for those who start wars to have some skin in the game. I also think it would be nice to have a pony.
Make soldiers pay for their own gear? Use the old feudal paradigm where being a knight requires personal investment? No, I don’t know how to make this work in the modern era.