Jump to content

Mandatory Military enlistment


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Of course a resident can't serve in the military. You have to be a citizen. I seem to remember that.

There are no citizenship requirements to be in the US miltary. To obtain a security clearance one must be a US citizen.

TTFN

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Gallion ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I agreed with that. (I thought ) A 30 year military man would get more than a single tour guy though."

Well, someone that has been in the military for 30 years would be a career guy and has access to the already existing veteran priviledges when he retires AND access to the priviledges already enjoyed by those in-service (someone mention tax-free ciggarretes and booze? Heehee. Not to mention free travel of sorts. A friend of mine said he used to hop in military transports and spend a few days in foreign nations and then come back when his leave was over. Quite cool if you ask me ).

"I like the cheaper education thing too. But then residents would scream bloody murder. Probably over the tax thing as well"

Would they? They have the clear cut option of serving the country to get those benefits AND citizenship or to pay higher taxes and REGULAR university prices. In short, just like the do now. Moral of the story: Having Citizenship is a good thing. All the blabbing of being a citizen of the USA is spewed out as if it was a granted priviledge. It shouldnt be. I believe a thing like that should be earned. A "resident" born and raised in the US that doesnt want to serve but demands citizenship and its benefits is a parasite.

Imagine what an ancient roman leggionarre would say today if he saw people just had to serve in their choice of military or non-military service.. for just a year or 2 with ALL that cool stuff... when he had to fight for 30 years of his life to get citizenship (right to own land) and a miserable piece of property in the outskirts of the empire. Vae Victis!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Charles, you kind of made my point for me, people should take responsibility in making a decision and take care in making it rather than voting for someone they don't know what it stands for.

Idea #2

Even simpler - only people who pay taxes vote. Citizenship is bestowed on a certain income and contribution to the economy. If they are on welfare, are on some government program, are not contributing - let them waste away, but not be allowed to vote for those who would take away their benefits, or bestow them. Of course this won't happen because of liberals, but I can dream.

Idea #2 seems like a fair enough idea, but idea #1 or anything remotely like it is a horrible one. First of all, by only allowing those who have somehow served the government to vote you create a bias. You also elevate "citizens" above the "regular people" which goes against the Constitution in a severe (and kind of frightening) way.

Secondly, you seem to forget that those people who work at fast food restaurants, wal-mart, in factories, or at any minimum wage or low paying job are making a huge contribution to the economy. As a matter of fact, without them the economy would totally fall apart. A nation of white-collar high-income workers is a complete and total impossibility until we have robots to do all of our menial work. And until then it's the people with low-paying jobs that make up a large portion of the country.

And besides, if everyone in the 18-20 range was serving the government you'd be cutting out on valuable time to do something worthwhile like going to college.

And to be honest, private sector workers and businessmen are contributing to the country a whole hell of a lot more than any single or group of government workers. Without big businesses and the people who run and work for them the economy would collapse. The military would have nothing to defend and the government wouldn't have a very strong country to run.

Also, even though the original wording of the Constitution didn't provide for a national presidential election it also doesn't provide for a selective population presidential election. If we followed the Constitution's wording strictly we would be voting for our legislators (and, according to the Constitution, it is a right to vote for your representatives) and they would be voting for the President. And the intent of a national election isn't really to "make the people feel more powerful", it's just more practical and makes more sense.

And on top of all that, the idea of "special privaledges" for those who serve the government seems totally insane. You want to bribe people to support their country? That's crazy. You're advocating the creation of a new type of welfare for those who help the government out. And as for taxes... well... until the government is able to pay for its own bloated self without using my money I just won't be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez. Reading this thread makes me weep for the state of education in this country.

Did all of you just forget about the "all men are created equal" bit? What you're describing is a surefire plan to create a concrete caste system. On the surface, such ideas might seem appealing. But in practice it would simply cause resentment and class warfare.

You also seem to be buying into the concept that the government grants rights to the people. This is not the case. Our rights are recognized by our constitution to be intrinsic human rights upon which the government is prohibited from infringing. The thought that the government should be granting special rights or privelages to certain people makes me ill.

100 years ago, people didn't even want the government to maintain a standing army. That the government would have the power to draft citizens in times other than war wasn't even considered. And now you think it should be mandatory before people are even allowed to vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that there ought to be requirements to vote, because it isn't taken seriously anymore. And yes all men ARE created equal, however some begin to move ahead of others in different areas of society. It's the way things have worked out.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather go back strictly to what Thomas Jefferson envisioned, but leftists have infiltrated our society to the point where SOME measures need to be taken.

quote:

You also seem to be buying into the concept that the government grants rights to the people.

I believe that government is based on the consent of the governed. And that government should be OF the people. people meaning citizens. Not any illegal alien who waltzes over the border to vote.

Anyway, I believe my 2nd idea was best, only those who pay taxes should vote. Because then they would vote responsibly, and about something other than a social agenda.

I don't think every Tom Dick and Harry in the country should be allowed to vote no. And in the constitution - they aren't allowed. People vote for legislatures which vote on electors, which vote for presidents.

But our government has been corrupted up and down, and it would take a DRASTIC measure to whip it back into shape. I'm not suggesting anything yet but I have some ideas.

Besides, I'm just dreaming about a nice way to make liberals mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

I'm saying that there ought to be requirements to vote, because it isn't taken seriously anymore. And yes all men ARE created equal, however some begin to move ahead of others in different areas of society. It's the way things have worked out.

The point is that all people should be regarded equally by the government. Whenever this is not the case(as it already is in many aspects), serious problems arise.

If you want to remove people's voting rights, start with the illegal aliens and the dead people in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People ought to be regarded equally by government in terms of treatment. However, only certain people should be enable to enact their wishes through government - those who contribute to it. Not those who never do a thing in their life but sit on their ass, those who actually pay taxes and/or work for the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting notes:

Personally military experience:

Never worked out

Spoke with recruitment officer when in late high school about an OTC scholarship. Said my branch of Engineering wouldn't qualify.

Thought about being a pilot. Got glasses in mid-University.

Thought about signing up during the invasion of Kuwait. Dad made a valid point... already being in Engineering I could do more for a protacted war effort designing planes or equipment. If it was a short war I would never get through training in time.

Found out about co-pilot vision requirements being less than those for pilots. Failed physical as I had fallen off a roof and need once a month chiropractic care. That counts as specalized medical service and you must be deployable for one year into remote areas.

Reserves must meet same physical level since they could be called on for the same deployment.

I could sign up into the reserves as a dentist on a base. uh... no thanks.

Anyway:

Once worked with a fellow at the Canadian Space Agency. He was doing his military service for France by being here in Canada at the CSA.

Military performance of volunteers is always way above draft troops. When it used to be march in column, raise musket and pull.. it wasn't so much an issue. But with more mobile warfare now you need people with initiative. Someone who has to be dragged in community service, like an army, will just have to be dragged around the battlefield too.

In terms of taxes don't think that will make much difference. Your teaching people how to save not produce with that. Promoting skills learned by the military at government costs... that will produce a much better country.

Canada's situation:

Volunteer army overtrained for their positions. Expectation that if we were to go to a full scale war existing staff would get promoted and handed basic training draftees. Gives us a capability to boost army size without having to keep the huge army feed when not needed.

Canadian Military Historical Trivia:

At the end of WWII Canada had something like the third largest navy. Behind UK and USA I believe. It was all those ships used to win the War of the Atlantic. Including the Canadain aircraft carrier Nabob.

Personal Opinion:

Anyway, I do think people need to contribute to the effectiveness of their community. Mandatory military service won't get you the sort of people to really be smart soldiers these days. Offering finanicial support, training, scholarships I feel will do more than just tax breaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

People ought to be regarded equally by government in terms of treatment. However, only certain people should be enable to enact their wishes through government - those who contribute to it. Not those who never do a thing in their life but sit on their ass, those who actually pay taxes and/or work for the government.

Unfortunetly, this seriously goes against the ideas that the country was founded on. I completely agree that far too many leftist ideas are now being put into practice, but the answer isn't to become a reactionary and start stripping rights away either. Any time that you (you as in the people) grant the government the right to seperate citizens into seperate groups and grant them special privaledges you're doing serious damage to the ideas that the U.S. is supposed to represent. And on top of that, you're not dealing with the problem. Welfare bothers me. The people on welfare who can't seem to make any money on their own and sit around having babies that'll probably never make money on their own bother me. But there's a much easier solution than saying "Hey, you can't vote 'cause you don't have a job.". Just take the welfare away.

Anyway, to get a tiny bit back on topic: as far as mandatory military services goes, I'm against it. Warfare probably has or will very shortly move beyond the "I have more troops than you do!" phase. Technology is clearly a more important factor, and when it comes to the kind of equipment and skills modern-day soldiers need to master someone who's unwilling and randomly selected from the population just won't do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Just take the welfare away.

That would take votes. Do you think they would vote for it?

Why should people who don't contribute to society benefit from it? Including voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that an important issue is raised. Why is it that people should benefit from a government or a country they don't contribute to. The USA is not based on the idea of "help every person in the country". It's based on the foundation that immigraints put down when they came to the country. They weren't automatically given money by the government, etc. They went out, got jobs in factories, etc, and worked for money. I see no historical precedent for welfare, giving everyone their due "share of America" The government was always intended to protect people's rights and freedoms, not to augment freedoms by giving them more money and making the playing field equal. You make the playing field equal by working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mandatory military service is just so disagreeable to me it is unreal.

There is NO way that I would want a draftee sitting next to me in a foxhole. I want a motivated volunteer next to me thank you very much.

There are a number of prerequisites that I would put forward in order to earn the right to vote.

1: you cannot be on any government programs, IE: Welfare, Social Security etc. If you take government money in ANY form, unless you work for the government, then you CANNOT vote.

2: you must own property, if you do not own property then the rights of property owners is something you do NOT care about, therefore you MUST own property, be it a business, acreage, house, whatever.

3: You must have volunteered to serve in the military, and have served in some way shape or form for 2 years minimum. While in the military you cannot vote, but once out, you would.

4: You must be trained in the use of and own firearms, but after number 3 that would be a given.

5: you must have a certificate of knowledge on the constitution of the United States. This class would be payed for by the intended voter, and would spell out the reasons the constitution was put together, what each article and section means, and a full study of the Bill of Rights. If you DO NOT understand the constitution, then you have no right to vote in the country that it holds sway.

6: Once you have EARNED the right to vote, you would be a part of the unorganized militia, unless of course you wished to stay in federal service via the reserves or National Guard. You would have the continued responsibility to protect your country after you recieved your franchise.

7: Last but not least, you would not be allowed to run for office UNLESS you had earned your franchise, and you would be limited to 2 terms in office, then you would go back to your life as a civilian. Unless you decided to run for another office.

Pretty hardcore, but I think that this would stop the continued erosion of the rights we have under the US constitution.

Let's see what you guys think of that!!

Now back to puting up Christmas lights at my mom's and getting the rest of the stuff I need to do here done so I can get home to Oregon and my DSL, this 56K is kicking my butt!! SLOW!!!! UGH!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar, you are absolutely right. Especially about #1. It makes me so mad when I see someone running for election promising to make it better for the "needy". That's such bull, what he is actually saying is he will make it easier for leeches and ticks, and harder for people who work, pay taxes and have to support those leeches and ticks.

Also, for anyone who thinks that what I mean by leeches and ticks is anyone who receives welfare or some help from the government, let me clarify. If you need some help for 6 months to get a job because you lost your previous one, that's fine, if you need some help for going to school and trying to better yourself so you can provide a better life for your family and contribute more, that's fine, but if you been getting help for years, have 10 kids because you didn't use your head and now can't support them so government has to, came to this country and receive social security without working here a day then no, it's not fine.

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Mandatory military service is just so disagreeable to me it is unreal.

There is NO way that I would want a draftee sitting next to me in a foxhole. I want a motivated volunteer next to me thank you very much.

Hip, hip, hurrah!!!! That is part of what I am getting at. And I as a citizen really don't want a disgruntled ex draftee knowing how to use weapons.

Unfortunately I don't like much of the rest of your post.

#1 Welfare no. However there are legitimate reasons for being on social security.

#2 This I really don't like. We would be heading back to a feudalistic society. I am sure there are some renters who have ideas as valid as any land owner.

#3 Military and/or civil service.

#4 No, no, no. I don't like guns. I don't think I would ever own one. You most certainly have the right to own yours but I don't like them.

#5 This has a little bit of merit. People should know what they are voting for or aginast but it smacks of the poll tax and literacy tests of the deep south.

#6 Again no. There are other ways to serve other than the military.

#7 Term limits I like. We have far far too many career politicians. If we had some statesman rather than politicians I might just vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to get back on and see where this would go,

Charles, I am amazed at you, you don't like guns? when did this happen and why?

I would really like to know. Most people who do not like guns are either A: untrained or inexperienced in thier use, or B: Had a very bad experience, as in criminal victimization, which I think should have the OPPOSITE effect, or C: Hunger for power and as long as people have guns to defend themselves, that power cannot be realized. (Most liberals, Socialists, and of course the UN, fit into this last)

Now as far as owning property before being allowed to vote, there is a VERY good reason for this, if you own nothing then you have nothing to lose if you vote badly, whereas if you have something to lose, such as your property rights, then you would chose to vote for your property rights and not against them.

Social Security? nope, if you collect ANY form of government payout SS included, you DO NOT GET TO VOTE!! Period, this is bread and circus' if you have ever heard of the term. The people will vote themselves as much of the government money as they can and tax the producing part of the population until the country goes broke, see Democrats and CLASS WARFARE, for EXACTLY what I am talking about. The liberals will be the death of this country, and that is a fact.

And it MUST be military service, where you put your life on the line for your country, I don't care if you're a cook or a clerk, or some dweeb in accounting, but, you must be willing to put your life at risk for the good of the country, until you can do that, you should NOT have the right to vote. Civil service just will NOT do.

The right to vote must be hard to get, because as a priviledge of those who would sacrifice to get it, those people will put the good of the country above thier own interest. Right now it's free, therefore it means NOTHING!! but this way it would cost, and that cost would hopefully put some pride back into the priviledge of voting. we have a 50% turnout rate right now, if that, but my way, I guarantee that at least 95% of those franchised to vote, would vote. And they would vote to protect the constitution, it is after all something that they put thier lives on the line for.

To close this little post I want to say this.

Guns are tools, just like a jigsaw, a roundsaw, a hammer, an icepick etc ad nauseum. It is a tool of protection and self defense, it is also the right of all free men. If you do not have the right to own a firearm, then you are not truly free, because the government can come in and pretty much do whatever they want, and you have NO say in the matter. He who has the guns, has the power, and in this country the power comes from the citizens, not the government. Therefore the citizens MUST be armed and prepared to protect thier rights as stated in the Constitution of the United States. The 2nd amendment gives the bill of rights it's teeth, without the 2nd amendment, the whole Bill of Rights is a waste of space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar, I have to disagree slightly because I just had an idea. What if we could set up the social security system to replace welfare?

Let's say that I work for 5 years, paying into social security, and get laid off. I should have my social security money in an account with my name on it, that way I can draw from it ONLY when I am unemployed. And can only draw 2/3 of what I was making while working.

That would do away with those who want to leach off the system AND would get incentive to find another job, because once that money runs out - it runs out.

And Charles I am surprised you don't like guns as well. Rather than disuade you from your point or reason for not owning one, I respect that you have the decency to respect OUR right to own them.

You should know my feelings on guns, as I don't think they are any different than ANY tool of self defense. I do not wish to kill anyone and if someone broke into my home I would much rather force a surrender than shoot them. But if it came down to my life or theirs, I have that choice available.

I'm interested as to your feelings on the matter.

I'm not usually interested in anti-gun people's opinions because they don't respect my right to own one, why should I respect their right to free speech?

You are different however and I would like to learn why you don't like them. You have a grasp of reality unlike liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Now as far as owning property before being allowed to vote, there is a VERY good reason for this, if you own nothing then you have nothing to lose if you vote badly, whereas if you have something to lose, such as your property rights, then you would chose to vote for your property rights and not against them.


So you're saying I have nothing to lose if I'm a renter and the majority of "land owners" are liberals and they decide to take away my guns? Raise my taxes? Take more of my money and give it to blood-sucking welfare recipients? Sorry, there's just no logic behind your argument. Land ownership simply isn't an issue that takes up a majority of the government's time.

quote:

And it MUST be military service, where you put your life on the line for your country, I don't care if you're a cook or a clerk, or some dweeb in accounting, but, you must be willing to put your life at risk for the good of the country, until you can do that, you should NOT have the right to vote. Civil service just will NOT do.

Again, this is just completely wrong. Coupled with the rest of your proposed prerequisites you're creating an elite minority that will actually be allowed to vote. In general this minority will never vote for anyone willing to change the system, even if that reflects the general will of the people. Not only is that unconstitutional, it's just plain wrong. You destroy the idea that Congress represents the people, since all Congressional members know they can only be re-elected if they pass laws that benefit the voting minority.

I'm sorry, but as much as I hate welfare and most leftist ideas I can't see punishing an entire nation for them. And I can't see stripping them of their rights and voice simply because they don't agree with me.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

quote:

we have a 50% turnout rate right now, if that, but my way, I guarantee that at least 95% of those franchised to vote, would vote. And they would vote to protect the constitution, it is after all something that they put thier lives on the line for.

Unfortunetly, 95% of the minority that could vote would pale in comparison to the 50% turnout we have now. Ultimately you would deprive tens of millions of voters, many of whom would probably be more informed than most people who meet the prerequisites you specify, from voicing their opinion in a meaningful way. Remember that a reactionary can be as dangerous to freedom and rights as a radical.

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: Simparadox ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to post until I had my thoughts gathered some more but Simparadox "made" me.

That was a good post. Everyone else, including myself, should be deeply ashamed we have even proposed such a thing or thought about supporting it in any way. Taxation without representation. Ring a bell? Deciding who can and who cannot vote would be just that.

I can still support rewards for military service such as tax reduction. The same or reduced for any other Civil Service.

Thoughts on guns will come later guys. I do want to answer you but it's getting late and I've been knocked offline 5 times tonight already.

$ilk is welcome to drive up the the 'Ham for lunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. I'm still interested in anyone's experience with mandatory enlistment.

Quit lurking.

And where did Dad go? Premature grey? I should be so lucky. I got carded tonight by someone who hasn't even graduated yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simparadox,

Just 2 things, MOST property owners are NOT liberals, and are NOT welfare recipients.

The reason I say that the right to vote must be earned, is because you get just what we have now, people voting for what THEY can get out of the government, who cares if it's unconsititutional or not. There is a reason we have a constititution, and if you are not smart enough to take and pass a class on the constitution, then you should not have a right to vote PERIOD!!

Sorry if I sound hardcore here, but I am tired of my constitution being trampled on because EVERYONE and his brother has the right to vote. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! GET THAT STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW. democracies do not work and have NEVER worked, it is called MOB rule!! This is a republic, and if what it takes to get it back on track is kick out every bozo in office and making prerequisites to vote, then so be it. I love my country and want it here for my children, but at the rate things are going, it's not gonna be!!

Do you expect to get SS when you retire? DON'T, Because it AIN'T gonna be there, not unless something is done about it and done about it NOW, like FULLY privatising it, partial privatization is a pipe dream and will NEVER work. besides the fact that the very idea of Social security is socialist and unconstitutional!!

Sorry, getting way off subject, but fact is, my 7 points should have been prerequisites, and some as a matter of fact were. This country has never been a democracy, and hopefully it never shall be, because when that day comes, this country is DONE and gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your main point Jaguar, but I want to make some clarification, but it'll have to wait until tommorow cause I am dead tired.

Good points on all sides and I will be geared up to make a good post tommorow.

Hopefully it will be educational. We'll see, goodnight fellas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought of something. Instead of the "Liberals and Democrats Must Die" stance, how about this. If you are a contributing member of society (veteran, property owner, etc), you don't have to pay taxes that would go to social welfare programs (aka, make TWO different taxes out of the income tax, each being less than before). That way lazy people who aren't trying to get a job can support each other, and the rest of us just pay the tax to support our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...