Mandatory Military / Civil Service

[Guest Grayfox]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

In the military you do not defend the country or the nation, you defend the State

---

ok... you keep thinking that.

maybe thats how you think it is (or maybe it is) where your from.

here, i join the military, i serve my country, not the "state"

[ 05-05-2002, 09:17: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

[Guest]

Menchise,

Now I understand what they mean by overeducated, and no common sense.

Sorry, but that is the picture that I am beginning to get.

[Lotharr]

(long post...I've been out of the net)

I myself tend to lean towards feeling that I live in a state rather then a nation (however I volunteered to serve my nation). I feel like people haven't the access or political influence the way they should. I think the real power rests with special interest groups, corporate sponsorship, and soft money etc. Some people see it too and are trying to change it....including some Ex POW U.S. Senators...

I think everyone in America should be forced to do something to help when young...just to get them out of their comfort zone and meet their neighbors face to face and do something worth while for the nation. If a person were interested in politics they could then join the military...male or female...there are places for everyone. Who knows.

What I do know with certainty is this. Being in politics is a full time job. But to do it well (like anything) requires knowledge of the topic at hand and a desire to do it right. Politics to me is understanding complex international situations joined with understanding different cultures. Domestic polices in an economic sense and philosophy in general. Someone with a great deal of common sense and no book smarts is going to get reamed and do their constituents a severe injustice. Oh yeah and you have to care...about people. I throw that in as an after thought because that's what it seems to be these days.

Vision doesn't require common sense until plans are laid and courses of action are developed to realize this vision. And if theirs one thing we do have in great abundance it's bureaucrats. Let them figure out the details.

Many of historyÔÇÖs greatest contributors had zero common sense but without them we still might be living in huts....

[Raven]

quote:

---

In the military you do not defend the country or the nation, you defend the State, because it's run by the holders of state power (the national or federal government). If the military was in the hands of the people (i.e. independent popular militias), THEN it could be defending the nation at least theoretically.

---

I agree that the state and the nation are not the same, but there not completely separate either. Sure, the military is controlled by the state, but the state is charged with safeguarding the nation. Now, IÔÇÖm not going to say that the state does a perfect job of this, but we do have a very democratic government and the state does a fair job all things considered.

By the way, depending on a free popular militia would be a catastrophe of the worst kind.

quote:

---

In the big picture, the application of Heinlein's idea will only divide the nation between first class people (the statists) and second class people (the non-statists).

---

Not true. Oh, sure, the citizens would have an advantage, but wealth would still define who is first class and who isnÔÇÖt. Furthermore, because citizenship would be non-hereditary and open to anyone who could qualify for military service this ÔÇ£first classÔÇØ your talking about would be completely dynamic. Oh, sure, people from families with a long military history would have an advantage, but some people always have an advantage in any system (and an attempt to ÔÇ£equalizeÔÇØ everyone would be a big mistake).

Now, before you get all riled up about who would qualify for military service, it would be most anyone. Oh, sure, criminals and the mentally incompetent wouldnÔÇÖt qualify, but thatÔÇÖs for the better. WhatÔÇÖs more, the danger of the citizens consolidating power and preventing a large portion of the population from becoming citizens is not great. Yes, it could happen, but itÔÇÖs like suffrage, over the last couple of centuries the percent of the population who could vote has done nothing but rise even though the voting population COULD have prevented that from happening. The same would be true with citizenship.

quote:

---

And since the government is not accountable to the non-statists, and it is within the interests of the statists to support the government, the stage would be set for a bitter internal conflict.

---

Like I said before, becoming a citizen would be possible for virtually everyone. Yea, sure, some lazy bums would rather complain about being second class citizens, but who cares, people who want to be able to vote would be able to.

[Guest]

imo, making the sole requirement for citizenship be military service only creates a militaristic nation.

Im sure that in peacetime the one and only thing you can do to serve your nation is to lug a rifle in the mud on your own backyard.

I'd like to think that everyone "serving" for their citizenship but NOT serving in the military would be considered 1st-line reservists if the shit hits the fan. Thus, the guy serving as a phonics teacher in some illiterate section of the nation helps his country greatly by educating others, and when he's needed to lug a rifle he'd be first in line to be called up. If he refuses.. *buzzer* no citizenship for him.

[Raven]

The point is not to make people serve their country before they are given citizenship, that is something else all together. There are two really big reasons for requiring military service for citizenship. The first is that people who arenÔÇÖt willing to risk there lives to defend there nation shouldnÔÇÖt have a say in how its run. The second in the effect serving has on people, teaching discipline and all that, Grayfox no doubt could say more about that then me so IÔÇÖll let him. Teaching phonics (or any other type of civil service), while no doubt of use to our country, is not the same as military service and should NOT be treated the same.

As far as having reservists earning their citizenship, ask Grayfox whether he thinks that would count, but I would be inclined to say no.

[Lotharr]

I know I've learned to appreciate things.

The health care system on active duty is beyond ridiculous. So are the barracks. So is the pay. And these are the standards of today. I hear the stories of how it used to be. Could I have made it...you bet. I just feel bad for that soldier who is trying to feed his family and has to make it a career 'cause it's all he knows.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

There are two really big reasons for requiring military service for citizenship. The first is that people who arenÔÇÖt willing to risk there lives to defend there nation shouldnÔÇÖt have a say in how its run.

---

First, soldiers are not the only people who risk personal safety in order to defend the people. Secondly, an unwillingness to risk one's life is not the only reason why one doesn't choose to join the military: there is also the issue of taking a life.

quote:

---

The second in the effect serving has on people, teaching discipline and all that

---

If military service becomes a requirement for citizenship then discipline will not be the only thing being taught. Government can use the opportunity to indoctrinate the entire voting population with state propaganda.

*Nick waits for everyone to call him crazy*

[Guest $iLk]

Just because you do not join the military does not mean you will take a life. You can always try to be a doctor and try to save lives.

And the people who don't enjoy citizenship will enjoy pretty much the same rights they do today, except not being able to vote. Everyone will have the same opportunity, if someone is rich their entire life, never vote, then who cares? They just won't be able to change the way their government is run.

The checks and balances would be a direct vote by those who have earned it, and having earned it realize the civic responsibility they carry with their vote.

You cannot *make* someone cast a knowledgable vote if they simply have the right.

Having to earn it, if it isn't important to them they won't try anyway and have no reason to complain. If it is important, enough to make that sacrifice, even if I didn't vote I'd be glad that my future was decided by people who realize the signifigance of a vote than by people who can be bought off with pork barrel spending by congressman.

People would be better off having to work for responsibility than by having it thrust upon them after they get done crossing the border of Mexico.

My two cents on that.

[Guest Grayfox]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

First, soldiers are not the only people who risk personal safety in order to defend the people. Secondly, an unwillingness to risk one's life is not the only reason why one doesn't choose to join the military: there is also the issue of taking a life.

---

True... police are hired to defend the people... or "state" as you call it. and arent they sometimes required in the course of their duties to take a life??? i mean cmon, if theres absoloutely no other way for them to defend themselves or an innocent from an armed assailant (by armed i mean armed with a knife or gun)except by taking the assailants life, should they? or should they let the assailant kill them or the bystander?

if they dont want to take a life then they shouldnt be police either right?

like silk said before. there are military doctors you know.... people who actually serve the "state" in a militarty capacity but save lives... imagine that.

[ 05-06-2002, 12:14: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

[Lotharr]

I think both Menchise and $ilk make good points. The strength of democracy is putting power in the hands of the people. That has to be protected.

But...only my opinion here.... I think there needs to be some (maybe major) changes to the American election system.

But military service may or may not be the way to go....But I still think people should have to do something to help the whole regardless.

[ 05-06-2002, 12:31: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Or]

Join the army, travel the world, meet interesting people, kill them.

[Or]

This will make you a good citizen?

[Lotharr]

You know I bought a lighter in Korea with those exact sentiments

Well being a Sergeant gave me four young soldiers for me to kick into shape (unfortunately kicking soldiers is frowned up these days....so I kept asking politely until they got tired of my voice).....and sent them to take some college classes. And the Army paid 75% of the tuition...

I altered some of the hours they worked so they could participate in labs etc....

And I never had to kill anyone....well maybe one day....

[Enderlin]

Ok I have a question in regards to this thread. Lets say that I am an Old Fart that didn't want to go the military route in my younger years. What I did instead was get an education and establish a career which had allowed me to live a very nice life.

Now that I am retired I am having alot of ideas I would like the government to change. Would I still be able to join the military life at lets say 65+ and still be able to gain my "Voting Rights"? From what I have read and heard in the past most people that do vote regularly are people 35+. Youth tends not to really care about government affairs and such until they get older and become more wise.

Also, wouldn't this sort of system really drain the government income? I just don't see how it could be economically feasible to support such a large force of military personal especially durning a period of peace.

[Lotharr]

Yeah they kinda took the leap on this....I was just talking about how people should have to give something back when young.....but I read Starship Troopers too, so I can understand the desire to take it a step further.

I would guess you could forward your idea's to your rep who served their tour and they would consider it. Any good leader knows that they don't know it all.

But really you made your choice at 35 (or whenever). That's when it starts to become clear if you want a life in politics in this alter reality. By 35 you should be able to make your choice and live with it.

And anyway shouldn't at 65 you be in a old folks home somewhere being mistreated?

[ 05-06-2002, 17:24: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[CommanderJohnson]

I like the Starship Troopers: Military Service=Citizen idea. It makes it so the state is in the hands of people who care about it enough to die for it, as opposed to the people who ***** and moan about how the country is so evil and wrong day after day, without doing a thing to change it. If your willing to die for the fundamental idea of the country, you have a right to voice your opinion through voting to get it changed. If not, well, move.

EDIT: Since when/why is Witch with a B a censored word?

[ 05-07-2002, 19:33: Message edited by: Dredd ]

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Would I still be able to join the military life at lets say 65+ and still be able to gain my "Voting Rights"?

---

No, Enderlin, you would not. The military does have it's standards and a 65 year old "Fart" would not have the physical requirements enabling him to enlist. That is a decision you must make before you are wise enough to make it.

I mean, the good job allowing you to lead a good life does nothing at all to defend the country. That good job probably also employed other people whose job also did nothing at all to defend this country.

You and I are nothing. We didn't proactively support the defense of this country so we are mere worker ants. Mindless drones whose only job is to produce.

[Raven]

quote:

---

Now that I am retired I am having alot of ideas I would like the government to change. Would I still be able to join the military life at lets say 65+ and still be able to gain my "Voting Rights"? From what I have read and heard in the past most people that do vote regularly are people 35+. Youth tends not to really care about government affairs and such until they get older and become more wise.

---

A bit of a clarification here (I believe I touched on this in a previous post), no one will loose there citizenship, that would be horrible. The idea is that no one would be granted citizenship without the requisite military service. It means that it would take a generation to really come into effect, but that is a small price to pay to avoid all the turmoil that would be caused by churning everything up.

[Raven]

quote:

---

And anyway shouldn't at 65 you be in a old folks home somewhere being mistreated?

---

I once considered starting a chain of nursing homes named ÔÇ£old folk dungeonsÔÇØ but the price of importing giant rats, and the subsequent veterinary expenses, was prohibitive.

[Lotharr]

Lady you are sicker than me....heh heh....even more honest.....so is the world.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

You and I are nothing. We didn't proactively support the defense of this country so we are mere worker ants. Mindless drones whose only job is to produce.

---

*Nick wonders if he's still on planet Earth*

Workers make or break nations! Without production there is nothing to defend.

Heinlein's idea is so pre-occupied with the defenders that it has no regard for the builders. I will never support it.

[Lotharr]

I wouldn't either in pure form...but I might be interested in incorporating parts of his idea into a new system.

[Raven]

quote:

---

Lady you are sicker than me....heh heh....even more honest.....so is the world.

---

I do my best

[Charles Lindsey]

Hopefully Nick sees the sarcasm in my post.