Should the US..

[RichardE]

Institute military service for citizenship?

Obviously people who are not able to serve front line could serve in other capacities, but able bodies individuals would be put on the front line. After a certain number of years, you can go back to civilian life with your citizenship.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Institute military service for citizenship?

Obviously people who are not able to serve front line could serve in other capacities, but able bodies individuals would be put on the front line. After a certain number of years, you can go back to civilian life with your citizenship.

You just watched Starship Troopers, didn't you?

 

[her209]

So in order to get naturalized, you have to serve?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: RichardE
Institute military service for citizenship?

Obviously people who are not able to serve front line could serve in other capacities, but able bodies individuals would be put on the front line. After a certain number of years, you can go back to civilian life with your citizenship.

You just watched Starship Troopers, didn't you?

LOL, no actuall, never watched it, was talking to some friends last night when we were studying and it came up.

 

[Uhtrinity]

If we did politicians would pick their conflicts more wisely, assuming there is no favortism on military appointments.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: RichardE
Institute military service for citizenship?

Obviously people who are not able to serve front line could serve in other capacities, but able bodies individuals would be put on the front line. After a certain number of years, you can go back to civilian life with your citizenship.

You just watched Starship Troopers, didn't you?

LOL, no actuall, never watched it, was talking to some friends last night when we were studying and it came up.

The reason he asked is that a younger and less wise Robert Heinlein (who wrote the MUCH better novel well before that silly movie) had the exact same idea. His defense of the concept was that people who serve in the military are showing that they are willing to put the welfare of the group above their own, thus making them suited to serve democracy as well.

It's kind of a noble idea, but like many noble ideas, it's based on some flawed (or at least simplistic) logic. While military service might teach you about sacrafice for the greater good, that is hardly the ONLY, or even most important, requirement for being a "good" citizen. Another basic problem is that it removes a lot of varied perspective that makes democracy work. Instead of votes coming from all sorts of people from all walks of life, you'll have a huge shift towards one particular perspective. It's true that there will still be some diversity, but unlike our system, there will also be a commonality among all voters with no balancing force. Even if you accept the idea of military service as the ultimate experience and perspective, unbalancing the electorate like that will almost certainly cause problems. Are we suggesting that peace activists, people who don't do well with military systems in general, anybody who for some reason or another doesn't want to serve, have NO value to our democracy?

But the big problem is that it is actually nothing like democracy. The whole idea of our system is that I get to contribute to our system of government because that's my right. The system proposed in Starship Troopers is suggesting that only people with the "right" perspective should be allowed to vote. Even if military service gives you the right perspective, our system is not based on the value you bring to election day. That is an important distinction. By requiring you to have a certain perspective in order to vote, instead of your contribution being your right, it is now based on you being able to contribute in the right way to the electoral process. Extending this concept farther, we are left with a system where the freedom to do and think what you want is replaced by a system that GIVES you value based on its approval of your viewpoint and activities.

This isn't really a new idea, everybody thinks they have the perfect experience, and if only they could force the system to share in that experience, we'd all be better off. If only citizens served in the military/worked on a farm/owned guns/voted for Bush/smoked pot/voted Libertarian/drove an American car/went to the right Church we'd all be better off. But the idea is wrong in all those instances because that isn't at all what democracy is about. Our system has done exceptionally well because we DIDN'T fall back on the old formula of a bunch of guys who really knew what was what running things.

 

[Alistar7]

Yes, 1-2 years of military or civil service beginning after graduation.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: RichardE
Institute military service for citizenship?

Obviously people who are not able to serve front line could serve in other capacities, but able bodies individuals would be put on the front line. After a certain number of years, you can go back to civilian life with your citizenship.

You just watched Starship Troopers, didn't you?

LOL, no actuall, never watched it, was talking to some friends last night when we were studying and it came up.

The reason he asked is that a younger and less wise Robert Heinlein (who wrote the MUCH better novel well before that silly movie) had the exact same idea. His defense of the concept was that people who serve in the military are showing that they are willing to put the welfare of the group above their own, thus making them suited to serve democracy as well.

It's kind of a noble idea, but like many noble ideas, it's based on some flawed (or at least simplistic) logic. While military service might teach you about sacrafice for the greater good, that is hardly the ONLY, or even most important, requirement for being a "good" citizen. Another basic problem is that it removes a lot of varied perspective that makes democracy work. Instead of votes coming from all sorts of people from all walks of life, you'll have a huge shift towards one particular perspective. It's true that there will still be some diversity, but unlike our system, there will also be a commonality among all voters with no balancing force. Even if you accept the idea of military service as the ultimate experience and perspective, unbalancing the electorate like that will almost certainly cause problems. Are we suggesting that peace activists, people who don't do well with military systems in general, anybody who for some reason or another doesn't want to serve, have NO value to our democracy?

But the big problem is that it is actually nothing like democracy. The whole idea of our system is that I get to contribute to our system of government because that's my right. The system proposed in Starship Troopers is suggesting that only people with the "right" perspective should be allowed to vote. Even if military service gives you the right perspective, our system is not based on the value you bring to election day. That is an important distinction. By requiring you to have a certain perspective in order to vote, instead of your contribution being your right, it is now based on you being able to contribute in the right way to the electoral process. Extending this concept farther, we are left with a system where the freedom to do and think what you want is replaced by a system that GIVES you value based on its approval of your viewpoint and activities.

This isn't really a new idea, everybody thinks they have the perfect experience, and if only they could force the system to share in that experience, we'd all be better off. If only citizens served in the military/worked on a farm/owned guns/voted for Bush/smoked pot/voted Libertarian/drove an American car/went to the right Church we'd all be better off. But the idea is wrong in all those instances because that isn't at all what democracy is about. Our system has done exceptionally well because we DIDN'T fall back on the old formula of a bunch of guys who really knew what was what running things.

Awsome post

I was for it, but what you said made sense, thanks :beer:

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The reason he asked is that a younger and less wise Robert Heinlein (who wrote the MUCH better novel well before that silly movie) had the exact same idea. His defense of the concept was that people who serve in the military are showing that they are willing to put the welfare of the group above their own, thus making them suited to serve democracy as well.

It's kind of a noble idea, but like many noble ideas, it's based on some flawed (or at least simplistic) logic. While military service might teach you about sacrafice for the greater good, that is hardly the ONLY, or even most important, requirement for being a "good" citizen. Another basic problem is that it removes a lot of varied perspective that makes democracy work. Instead of votes coming from all sorts of people from all walks of life, you'll have a huge shift towards one particular perspective.... By requiring you to have a certain perspective in order to vote

You make something of a logical leap in going from military service making a shift in perspectives, to a certain perspective being a requirement in order to vote, don't you?

 

[Polish3d]

Hey Richard aren't you Canadian? Why do you care?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Hey Richard aren't you Canadian? Why do you care?

Fiancee is american, I plan on going to an American Uni for the nano field. Eventually I will be an american citizen, and as US politics affect 1) my fiancee 2) My future in my field and 3) Canada, I pay attention to politics. As well, if I had made this post asking if Canada should implement this, I would not get any responses. I would rather an answer from a country that is militarialised, than one that is not, as it makes more sense the country that is militarialised would be more likely, and have stronger opinions on this issue.

 

[CanOWorms]

I think it would be pretty useless to force people to work in such a mind-numbing field (military work). If you had to have a thing to go through to earn citizenship, I'd make it earn a college degree, preferably in science or engineering. That would be more useful to the country.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The reason he asked is that a younger and less wise Robert Heinlein (who wrote the MUCH better novel well before that silly movie) had the exact same idea. His defense of the concept was that people who serve in the military are showing that they are willing to put the welfare of the group above their own, thus making them suited to serve democracy as well.

It's kind of a noble idea, but like many noble ideas, it's based on some flawed (or at least simplistic) logic. While military service might teach you about sacrafice for the greater good, that is hardly the ONLY, or even most important, requirement for being a "good" citizen. Another basic problem is that it removes a lot of varied perspective that makes democracy work. Instead of votes coming from all sorts of people from all walks of life, you'll have a huge shift towards one particular perspective.... By requiring you to have a certain perspective in order to vote

You make something of a logical leap in going from military service making a shift in perspectives, to a certain perspective being a requirement in order to vote, don't you?

Well in terms of the novel, that's the same leap that Heinlein made in his satire. But considering that everyone I know who personally experienced indoctrination into the military, would totally agree with Rainsford in terms of this logic.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Frackal
Hey Richard aren't you Canadian? Why do you care?

Fiancee is american, I plan on going to an American Uni for the nano field. Eventually I will be an american citizen, and as US politics affect 1) my fiancee 2) My future in my field and 3) Canada, I pay attention to politics. As well, if I had made this post asking if Canada should implement this, I would not get any responses. I would rather an answer from a country that is militarialised, than one that is not, as it makes more sense the country that is militarialised would be more likely, and have stronger opinions on this issue.

Like that military powerhouse Switzerland?

 

[piasabird]

They use to do this in Italy. Every male had to serve in the military for a little over a year. I think it builds character. If you have a country you should be willing to protect it. You cant protect it if you dont know how.

It might not be feasable at the present for every person to actually be in the military. I dont think there would be a place to put that many military people. We could always make them border guards or coast guard or something. People could do with some different skills.

Be careful about your confused line of thinking. You cant take a bunch of non-citizens and let them take over your military. I think the Romans use to do this. It eventually helped to bring down their empire. Once the non-citizens are running the military, they it is not longer the US Army and they might overthrow the US Citizens. There is a fatal flaw in making foreigners do the work you dont want to do. Sooner or later they think they can take over your country and take all your good jobs.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Institute military service for citizenship?

Obviously people who are not able to serve front line could serve in other capacities, but able bodies individuals would be put on the front line. After a certain number of years, you can go back to civilian life with your citizenship.

They already do this...

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: RichardE
Institute military service for citizenship?

Obviously people who are not able to serve front line could serve in other capacities, but able bodies individuals would be put on the front line. After a certain number of years, you can go back to civilian life with your citizenship.

You just watched Starship Troopers, didn't you?

LOL, no actuall, never watched it, was talking to some friends last night when we were studying and it came up.

The reason he asked is that a younger and less wise Robert Heinlein (who wrote the MUCH better novel well before that silly movie) had the exact same idea. His defense of the concept was that people who serve in the military are showing that they are willing to put the welfare of the group above their own, thus making them suited to serve democracy as well.

It's kind of a noble idea, but like many noble ideas, it's based on some flawed (or at least simplistic) logic. While military service might teach you about sacrafice for the greater good, that is hardly the ONLY, or even most important, requirement for being a "good" citizen. Another basic problem is that it removes a lot of varied perspective that makes democracy work. Instead of votes coming from all sorts of people from all walks of life, you'll have a huge shift towards one particular perspective. It's true that there will still be some diversity, but unlike our system, there will also be a commonality among all voters with no balancing force. Even if you accept the idea of military service as the ultimate experience and perspective, unbalancing the electorate like that will almost certainly cause problems. Are we suggesting that peace activists, people who don't do well with military systems in general, anybody who for some reason or another doesn't want to serve, have NO value to our democracy?

But the big problem is that it is actually nothing like democracy. The whole idea of our system is that I get to contribute to our system of government because that's my right. The system proposed in Starship Troopers is suggesting that only people with the "right" perspective should be allowed to vote. Even if military service gives you the right perspective, our system is not based on the value you bring to election day. That is an important distinction. By requiring you to have a certain perspective in order to vote, instead of your contribution being your right, it is now based on you being able to contribute in the right way to the electoral process. Extending this concept farther, we are left with a system where the freedom to do and think what you want is replaced by a system that GIVES you value based on its approval of your viewpoint and activities.

This isn't really a new idea, everybody thinks they have the perfect experience, and if only they could force the system to share in that experience, we'd all be better off. If only citizens served in the military/worked on a farm/owned guns/voted for Bush/smoked pot/voted Libertarian/drove an American car/went to the right Church we'd all be better off. But the idea is wrong in all those instances because that isn't at all what democracy is about. Our system has done exceptionally well because we DIDN'T fall back on the old formula of a bunch of guys who really knew what was what running things.

Awsome post

I was for it, but what you said made sense, thanks :beer:

IIRC (and I could be wrong, as it's been a long time since I've read the book), serving in the military was one way to earn citizenship, but wasn't the only way. So maybe the system would overcome some hurdles if different means could be found by which to earn citizenship.

The idea, however, that citizenship is something that must be earned rather than automatically granted, might have real merit.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: piasabird
They use to do this in Italy. Every male had to serve in the military for a little over a year. I think it builds character. If you have a country you should be willing to protect it. You cant protect it if you dont know how.

It might not be feasable at the present for every person to actually be in the military. I dont think there would be a place to put that many military people. We could always make them border guards or coast guard or something. People could do with some different skills.

Be careful about your confused line of thinking. You cant take a bunch of non-citizens and let them take over your military. I think the Romans use to do this. It eventually helped to bring down their empire. Once the non-citizens are running the military, they it is not longer the US Army and they might overthrow the US Citizens. There is a fatal flaw in making foreigners do the work you dont want to do. Sooner or later they think they can take over your country and take all your good jobs.

Only citizens had to, not immigrants. In fact immagrants could not serve even if they wanted to. And it wasn't necessary military service. 80% of the people chose to do a civil service instead.

 

[Agrooreo]

I think it would be a great idea. Would also help to make sure that anyone who wanted to join the military regardless of diasabilities would have a place in helping to serve their country if thats what they decided they wanted to continue doing.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Like that military powerhouse Switzerland?

:laugh: