MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2063634711 · doi:10.1080/13621020600633101

Fighting for “Freedom”: The End of Conscription in the United States and the Neoliberal Project of Citizenship

2006· article· en· W2063634711 sur OpenAlexafffund
Deborah Cowen

Notice bibliographique

RevueCitizenship Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Établissements canadiensYork University
Organismes subventionnairesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Defense
Mots-clésMilitarizationCitizenshipWelfare statePolitical economyNeoliberalism (international relations)SociologyWorkfarePolitical sciencePoliticsSocial citizenshipLawWelfare

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This paper investigates the termination of conscription in the United States as a neoliberal project to reconstruct national citizenship. It examines how scholars of the “Chicago School” worked towards the termination of the draft through the 1960s, as foundational to their fight for (individual, economic) freedom. In their quest to liberate citizens from big government, Milton Friedman and friends theorized the state's right to take life as a fundamental political problem. Friedman conceptualized conscription as a form of tax, quantified its cost to individuals, and slated its practice to be dismantled. The end of conscription was something of a “first victory” for the early neoliberals, and as such, it was a key project through which they defined neoliberal notions of freedom and models of citizenship. Through debates about conscription, they came to distinguish themselves from both contemporary Keynesian alternatives and classic liberal thinkers. This reconfiguration of the state's biopolitical right to take its citizens' lives for national defense has contributed in important but understudied ways to the contemporary polarization of citizenship. In the context of the broader restructuring of work and welfare, neoliberal “social” policy is increasingly militarized, targeted towards socially and spatially marginal soldiers who work for their welfare. The end of conscription has been a central and unexplored element of the dismantling of “universalism” in the realm of social policy, the introduction of workfare, the militarization of social welfare, and the reintroduction of notions of a deserving and undeserving poor. The conflict with which we have to deal is indeed a quite fundamental one between two irreconcilable types of social organization, which, from the most characteristic forms which they appear, have often been described as the commercial and the military type of society … The army does indeed in many ways represent the closest approach familiar to us to the second type of organization, where work and worker alike are allotted by authority and where, if the available means are scanty, everybody is alike put on short commons. This is the only system in which the individual can be conceded full economic security and through the extension of which to the whole of society it can be achieved for all its members. This security is, however, inseparable from the restrictions on liberty and the hierarchical order of military life—it is the security of the barracks. (Hayek, 1944 Hayek, F. A. 1944. The Road to Serfdom, New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar], p. 131, The Road to Serfdom) Of all the statist violations of individual rights … the military draft is the worst … It negates man's fundamental right, the right to life, and establishes the fundamental principle of statism—that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time. (Rand, 1967 Rand, A. (1967) The wreckage of consensus, lecture at the Ford Hall Forum, Ayn Rand Institute [Google Scholar], track 2, “The wreckage of consensus”) A personal story will perhaps make my point. Sometime in the late 1960s I engaged in a debate at the University of Wisconsin with Leon Keyserling, an unreconstructed collectivist … He was doing very well with the audience of students as he went through my castigation of price supports, tariffs, and so on until he came to point 11 … That expression of my opposition to the draft brought ardent applause and lost him the audience and the debate. Incidentally, the draft is the only item on my list of fourteen unjustified government activities that has so far been eliminated—and that victory is by no means final. (Friedman, 1962 Friedman, M. 2002 [1962]. Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], Preface to Capitalism and Freedom)

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,048

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0140,053
Communication savante0,0110,010
Science ouverte0,0010,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,074
Tête enseignante GPT0,320
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations57
Publié2006
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCitizenship StudiesMême sujetPolitical and Economic history of UK and USTravaux en français237 207