Book Reviews

198 A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK The Examined Life by John Chamberlain H ere's a funny one. After carrying his readers to the very end of his book of meditations called The Examined Life, philosopher Robert Nozick asks that "no reader summarize this book's contents or present slogans or catchwords from it." He warns that the trickled down philosophy "is not worth following." But how in Heaven's name can a reviewer talk about a book of six-or-eight-sided summaries without doing some summarizing of his own? It is indeed part of a necessary summary to say that the book is published by Simon and Schuster in 303 pages for $21.95.Nozick disobeys his own injunc tion in section after section. He takes on capitalists, Communists, Christians, and nationalists seriatim. He does this in a most evenhanded way. No one can say that he is not fair. In abeautiful paragraph he sets forth the capitalist ideal of free and volun tary exchange. Then, back-pedalling with skill, he comes in with a negative summary of the nastier items that are attributed to capitalism-items such as "international predation, companies bribing governments abroad or at home for special privi leges which enable them to avoid competition."

This, saysNozick, "is the underside of the capitalist ideal as it actually operates. It is not the whole of the story ... but it is part of that story." Similarly with the Communist, Christian, and nationalist ideals. There are undersides here, too. Ideally, Communism should be operating in a soci ety without class distinctions. Christianity should stress loving one's enemy, with no violence permit ted. But violence is nonetheless part of the story here, as it is in the case of nationalism. If Nozick wants to deny summarization rights to everyone save himself, that is his business. But he believes in "the problem of evil," and he can't resist engaging in eloquent bull sessions about the nature of a God Who, though He is presumably omniscient and omni-competent, allows evil to be. The reader must think he is back in sophomore class when he hears Nozick say that free will is good because it provokes people to think about goodness.

Something perverse in bull session logic leads to asking crazy questions, such as "suppose God cre ated beings with free will in order to make them unpredictable, so that He could follow their story with interest and surprise." This might be called "God's television serial." Query: could an omni scient Being be reduced to such a soap opera level of entertainment without risking the laughter of all the gods on a pagan Olympus or in a Christian Heaven? Nozick's chapter on "love's bond" is a lovely bit of writing. It is about the making of new entities in the world consisting of romantic couples who form "we" attachments. A "we" happens when love means that two reflective persons can walk down the streets separately without thinking of "trading up" for better partners. "Each person," says Nozick, "in a romantic we wants to possess the other completely yet each also needs the other to be an independent and nonsub servient person."

"Seeing the other with us and made happy through our love," says Nozick, "we become hap pier with ourselves." The difference between common friendships and the making of a we is tenuous when "trading up" is a possibility, "but between lovers, it never becomes this complicated explicitly." Lovers should not be expected to solve paradoxes.

Nozickwould viewwith disapproval any effort to undercut his bringing older books into the picture. Yetmuch of what he has to say about such topics as love, marriage, prayer, happiness, death, and crime and punishment was said by followersof S1. Francis of Assisiyears-and even centuries-ago. Kahlil Gibran summarized the Franciscan points in his poetic The Prophetof the Twenties and Thirties. Gibran was a Lebanese who could be both poetic and succinct. The Prophet is still in print (I found a good copy at the Barnes and Noble bookstore on New York's Fifth Avenue, and was informed that the book had sold a total of four mil lion copies). I found much of Nozick's book to be blurry and vague. The invocation of a few great names (Rilke, Wallace Stevens, etc.), and the dependence on a many-sided matrix, didn't help. Nozick piles abstractions upon abstractions in long solid pages that seldom refer to anything concrete. For myself, reality, a favorite word with Nozick, demands a good deal more. D A CALLTO CMC SERVICE:NATIONAL SERVICEFOR COUNTRYAND COMMUNITY by Charles C. Moskos The Free Press,Front & BrownStreets,Riverside,NJ 08375 • 1988 224 pages • $22.95cloth Reviewedby DougBandow O ne of the first bills introduced in the Sen ate when Congress reconvened in 1989 was the "Citizenship and National Ser vice Act of 1989." This legislation, co-sponsored by Senators Sam Nunn and Charles Robb, among others, would create a Federal Citizens Corps to enlist 800,000 or more young people to spend a year or two doing good. President George Bush's largely private Youth Engaged in Service initiative pales in comparison.

The notion of national service has been around for a long time, at least since 1887 when Edward Bellamy proposed conscripting an "industrial army" for public projects. William James picked up the theme in 1910,urging that the nation's "gild ed youth" be drafted in what he termed the "moral equivalent of war." Among the concept's most articulate proponents in recent years has been sociologist Charles Moskos, intellectual adviser to Senator Nunn and other members of the Demo199 cratic Leadership Council (DLC), which released its own book on the subject, and author of A Call to CivicService. Moskos, a longtime critic of the All-Volunteer Force's reliance on market incentives to fill its ranks, makes as good a case as is possible for national service. In his view America has been paying too much attention to individual freedom and entitlements and too little to corresponding social responsibilities; he argues that national ser vice would promote a "spirit of civicmindedness"

that is presently lacking. Moskos, whose proposal closely resembles the Nunn/DLC proposal, wants to involve upwards of one million young people in fulfilling "tasks that neither the marketplace nor government can pro vide," including day care, tutoring, health care, and conservation work. He would establish a Cor poration for National Youth Service, pay partici pants $100a week, cover room and board, and pro vide extensive educational assistance to people who finishthe program. Existing student loans and other educational benefits would be terminated. This, indeed, is the key to his proposal: Federal tuition aid, like the post-World War II G.I. Bill, would be the "nation's way of expressing its grati tude for those" who enlisted for civilian as well as military service. Moskos also promotes his plan as a meafis of improving the volunteer military, which, he believes, is incapable of delivering "a socially rep resentative force." He would set up a two-track system involving "professional soldiers"-essen tially today's volunteers-and "citizen soldiers,"

who would serve for shorter terms and be paid sig nificantly lower wages but would receive expand ed G.1. Bill benefits. This approach, he argues, would allow the armed services to "reach the largely untapped pool of talented and upwardly mobile youth who would find a temporary diver sion from the world of work or school tolerable, and perhaps even welcome." There are several problems with A Callto Civic Service,as well as the other dozen proposals for national service now circulating on Capitol Hill. The first is the issue of entitlements. Americans have developed an indefensible entitlement eth ic-what justification is there for forcing lower income taxpayers to pay for middle-class college graduates to attend law or business school? The solution, however, is not to create a new entitle200 THE FREEMAN • MAY 1990 ment,payableif you do a job that UncleSam hap pensto approveof,butsimplyto endthesubsidies.

Of course,the proposalto endstudentfinancial aid nevercomesup in Washington,but whatjusti ficationis thereforthisbitofmiddle-classwelfare? On average, a collegedegree increasesa gradu ate'slifetimeearningsby $640,000.Why shouldn't he devote part of that return to cover his school expenses? Then there's the curious notion in this bookand, indeed, in virtually every advocacy pieceon behalfofnationalservice-that there are an enormousnumberof unmet needsto be filled through a nationalserviceprogram.Moskos,for instance, cites estimates of 3.5 million tasks presentlyleftundone.But as longas humanwants are unlimited,the real numberof unfulfilledjobs is infinite.Sincelaboris not a free resource,most such"needs"are notworthmeeting.We'reallbet ter offif we let the pre-medstudentgraduateand go on to get his M.D. insteadof makinghim (or payinghimto) spend a year pickingup cigarette buttsin a localpark.

And simplyerroneousis Moskos'oft-repeated contentionthat the All-VolunteerForceis a poor man'smilitary.In 1988,95 percentof new recruits had highschooldegrees,comparedto just 75 per cent of civilianyouth;enlisteesalso did far better on standardizedteststhan their non-servicecoun terparts.Evenvolunteersin the army,whichtradi tionallyhashadthe mostrecruitingdifficulties,are well above average and have been for years. ObservesSue Berrymanin Who Serves? The Per sistentMyth of the UnderclassArmy, a short but fact-filledbookon the questionofsocialrepresen tativeness in the armed services:"even in 1979 [one of the military'sworst recruitingyears] the younger members of the enlisted force by no means came from the most marginalfamiliesor from youth with the most marginalattainments, aspirations,or workattitudes." Finally,why do we need a nationalservicepro gram to promote volunteerism?Americawould, in fact, benefitfrom a new "spiritof civicminded ness," in Moskos' words. But there is no lack of opportunities for people to serve today: private organizationslikethe ChristHousemedicalfacili ty for the homelessin Washington,the Our Daily Breadsoupkitchenin Baltimore,the Community ServiceNetworkin SanDiego,and any numberof libraries,nursinghomes,hospitals,parks,andoth er institutions across America welcome volun teers.The Commissionofthe Stateshasorganized the CampusCompact,whichpromotescommuni ty serviceat 150 differenteducationalinstitutions; the Campus Outreach Opportunity League was createdby studentsin 1984and coordinatesactiv ities in 450 collegesand 200 other organizations.

Ninety-twomillionAmericansnow gjvetime to some volunteergroup, and the number has been growingsteadilythroughoutthe pastdecade. Moskosandothersupportersofnationalservice have looked out across America and found it wanting: people, especially young people, are greedy,frivolous,selfish,lazy,irresponsible,andso on. Therefore,someone-namely the public-spir ited proponents of national service-must make everyoneelse changetheir ways. In the "kinder, gentler"U.S. such a systemmightnot be quite as odiousas China'soncewidelyadmiredprogramof youth service-recently reestablished in an attempt to stamp out "bourgeois liberal" ideas-but it would still do violenceto a republi can order based on individuallibertyand limited government. Moreover,service,to be meaningful,must be voluntary, stemming from genuine feelings of charityand concernfor others.Compulsorycom passion is an obvious oxymoron. But even Moskos'promiseof financialrewardfor spending a year cleaningbed pans would corrupt the con cept of service.Highschoolgraduateswouldthen be more likelyto sign up to collectthe generous benefits,equivalentto morethan$17,500aftertax es, than out of a sense of moral obligation."Ser vice"wouldbecomejustanotherjob.

Moskosrightlycriticizesa civicethicgrownself ish and cold. But we need to generate a renewed commitmentto servicefrom the groundup, from the family, churches, and community organiza tions,not imposeit from the top down, especially fromCapitolHill.Thenotionofpeoplevoluntarily helpingone anotheris far too importantto entrust to government.We need more individualservice, not a programof nationalservice. D Doug Bandowis a SeniorFellowat the Cato Instituteand the authorof The Politicsof Plunder: Misgovernmentin Washington,forthcomingfrom TransactionBooks.Whilea SpecialAssistantto PresidentReagan, he workedwith the President'sMilitaryManpowerTask Force.