Losos, Joseph O.

English

Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship

Washington University Law Review Volume 1970 Issue 3 1970 Review of “Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War, and Citizenship,” By Michael Walzer Joseph O. Losos Missouri Bar Association Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph O. Losos, Review of “Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War, and Citizenship,” By Michael Walzer, 1970 WASH. U. L. Q. 378 (1970). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol1970/iss3/8 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu. BOOK REVIEWSOBLIGATIONS: ESSAYS ON DISOBEDIENCE, WAR, AND CITIZENSHIP. ByMichael Walzer.' Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. Pp. xvi,244. $7.95.For thousands of years men have been discussing the question of whatthe individual owes the state. The issue crops up again and again in boththe Old and New Testaments; it is the major thesis, of course, ofSophocles' Antigone, and a gnawing concern of Plato's. It is hard to seehow much new could be mined from this old vein, but Professor Walzerhas succeeded in looking at the old problem in new and absorbing ways.When one thinks about it, that is not so surprising. What is politicaltheory in quiet times becomes the stuff of political battles in turbulentones, and we certainly live in a turbulent time today. States, even (insome ways, especially) democratic ones, ask so much of their citizenstoday and, after a century of advancing governmental power, everyone,from left to right, has complaints. In particular, peacetime conscriptionseems an extraordinary burden. If one thinks about the draft in theabstract, it is amazing. In a period of twenty-five years during which ourcountry has been technically at peace (since the Congress has declared nowars) millions of young men have been forced to serve in the Army. I f wewere to conscript policemen, there would be an outcry; if the governmentwere to require all able-bodied young men to work on the highways fortwo years (or, pace the current mood, to build rapid transit systems), thegovernment in power would surely fall. Or suppose a socialist statewould replace the profit motive with a permanent labor draft, withnational KP lists? To think of the military draft that way requires a freshlook, which Walzer supplies.This book is redundant because it is a collection of separate essays. Inreviewing these questions of obligation, Walzer sometimes seems like anagitated man jumping from one vantage point to another. But this hasadvantages too. By covering so many aspects of this question, the authorforces us to think harder about its problems. Does the state have a rightto punish suicide, and if so, why? If not, how can the state require thecitizen to run the risk of death, to force suicide, so to speak? Is this not abizarre form of capital punishment? Walzer clearly states that heI. Professor of Government, Harvard University.Washington University Open ScholarshipVol. 1970:378]approaches these questions from classical liberal, Lockeian premises. Heasks us how, if we too support these principles (the ideas which underliethe Declaration of Independence and most of the American Credo), wecan reach other conclusions.This is where this book, so largely theoretical, becomes a ripe subjectfor scholarly legal thought. If we follow the logic of these essays, it isimperative to reconsider many of the assumptions of our law. Is there animplicit right, perhaps under the 9th Amendment, of the citizen todetermine his own life, absent some special overriding governmentalneed? This need may, the author concedes, arise in times of nationalemergency, or when individual behavior is thoroughly other-regarding.But otherwise, the presumption would seem to be in favor of the citizen.Yet, not exactly. For Walzer is a pluralist, a real old-fashioned one ofthe Figgis-Laski type. The individual is helpless before the state, so hemust resist it or ignore it in groups, and these groups have a life of theirown. The result seems to be that, as much as Walzer has rescued fromthe state, he snatches back to hand to the association. And here theauthor plays favorites. Not mean old corporations or absolutistchurches, but good democratic groups. And, as much as he admires theBlack Revolution, it does not qualify either. So, like Figgis and Laskibefore him, a comprehensive work of hautepolitique sometimes seems toend up as a nifty bit of special pleading for "our" side-here, thevoluntary community of idealistic protesters. Walzer sees the problemand apologizes for the bias, but then proceeds on his way. This isunderstandable, but unfortunate, for beyond the advocacy (mixed withsage advice) is a fine work of general theory.JOSEPH 0. Losos*SENTENCING: THE DECISION As To TYPE, LENGTH, AND CONDITIONS OFSENTENCE. By Robert 0. Dawson. ' Boston: Little, Brown andCompany, 1969. Pp. xxi, 424. $12.50.The sentencing of offenders has maintained an ambivalent position inthe administration of criminal justice. Attorneys (both prosecuting and* Member. Missouri Bar.I Professor of Law, University of Texas.BOOK REVIEWShttps://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol1970/iss3/8

Review of “Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War, and Citizenship,” By Michael Walzer

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2847&context=law_lawreview

Review of “Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War, and Citizenship,” By Michael Walzer

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship