Service Guarantees Citizenship

[Desolation mkII]

So, voting is upon us in Britain for our local councils and also to decide which 72 Brits are condemned to the Kafkaesque nightmare that is Brussels for the next 5 years. And it has once again, reignited amongst those I know, the age old Starship Troopers debate of 'Service Guarantees Citizenship'.

 

Now, the basic arguement, along the lines of Heinlen's novel, is that in order to vote, one should first serve a volunatry period of time (2 years in the book and film) in a Federal Service. Now, the distinction here is, that it doesn't actually have to be military service, but instead can be any service in which a person puts the good of the people, above his/her on personal welbeing. So, not only would military service count, but for example being a medical test subject, or aiding in dangerous tasks like scientific research or nuclear/chemical cleanups etc. the idea being that anybody, no matter their abilities or physical condition, has a 'right' to federal service.

 

So interesting concept at least, and I would be interested to hear the opinions on the usually fairly imtelligent denizens of this forum on the subject.

[Tinkerton]

Ooh, someone else who's read the book! Huzzah!

 

I'm not so sure on the idea, myself. Having never performed a 'dangerous' duty such as military service, medical experiments or the like, I can proffer no opinion on that aspect of it.

 

However, I do think that on pretty much everything but a general election, (EU elections, referendums on EU membership, scottish independance, local elections, etc) only people who pay income tax should have a vote.

 

Quite simply, people on benefits and the like (whomever they may be, and however that situation has arisen) should have no say on these matters, as they're not contributing to society in an easily measurable way.

 

 Obviously, I'm no politician and have no real clue if this would work at all, but it makes sense to me.

[scorch]

Ooh, someone else who's read the book! Huzzah!

 

I'm not so sure on the idea, myself. Having never performed a 'dangerous' duty such as military service, medical experiments or the like, I can proffer no opinion on that aspect of it.

 

However, I do think that on pretty much everything but a general election, (EU elections, referendums on EU membership, scottish independance, local elections, etc) only people who pay income tax should have a vote.

 

Quite simply, people on benefits and the like (whomever they may be, and however that situation has arisen) should have no say on these matters, as they're not contributing to society in an easily measurable way.

 

 Obviously, I'm no politician and have no real clue if this would work at all, but it makes sense to me.

 

People on benefits actually pax tax on the benefits they receive, though because its not being worked for I don't believe they're actually paying anything in the sense of working for something and giving it up in trade. Because they could just be paid less benefit and have the same payout without the tax, I would guess its more a token thing for when people say "you're not paying tax" etc.

 

That being said, those that are perpetual benefit claimers would naturally vote for those promising to give them more for nothing, so I believe that their vote shouldn't be allowed to count as it would be compromised by this.

[Habakure]

What about people who are on benefits after paying into the system for over 30 years. Are they not allowed to vote?

[AceOfSkulls]

It would be a good idea.. if there was that many public jobs available or you wanted an army of inexperienced soldiers.

 

Edit; it also implies one cog in the machine is more important, or gear in the v2 if you will

[bladerunner168]

Isn't democracy meant to encompass everyone?

[Skarclaw]

I really, really, really dislike this idea.

 

 

Not sure I like Tinks idea of voting either... I think someone has a right to vote even if they are out of work for whatever reason. Got MS? Wheelchair bound? No voting for you! When it comes to democracy I generally think that one man - one vote regardless  is a a pretty good way of doing it. 

 

Personally I would prefer to live in such a society where people make their own decisions and do not impose their preferences on others, even if they are in the "majority" - which is why I don't vote. Don't give a *suitcase* about being a citizen, I just want to be a person.

 

edit:

 

"And it has once again, reignited amongst those I know, the age old Starship Troopers debate of 'Service Guarantees Citizenship'."

 

^do these people by any chance have links to the military?

[DrAlexanderTobacco]

Well isn't this a big can of worms.

 

I should start with saying that Heinlein, whilst a bit wacky, had a couple of ideas which I appreciate and think everyone should keep in mind when approaching the *suitcase* that is life:

 

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

 

However I do disagree with his opinion that there should be a distinction between "citizen" and "civilian", to an extent. I think the system can work well in some instances (Germany, if I remember correctly, has mandatory civil service not restricted to just the military) - But I believe that anyone's views should be represented, regardless of perceived contribution to the country.

 

I believe that because I believe voting to be a core human right - That may sound extreme, but in any society a person should have a way to have their voice heard. Otherwise, it's easier to infringe on people's civil liberties and is not representative of a true democracy.

[scorch]

Everyone should absolutely get a vote.

 

But when the fate of the country can be swayed by those content to take from the system and not work towards it, how fair is that to those that work hard to try to do well?

 

 

Why shouldn't someone who works hard and pays their way have more of a say than someone who refuses to?

 

We could argue the point back and forward forever, and be no closer to what is right for all. It's just too complex an issue to come to a resolution other than "we make the best of it"

[DrAlexanderTobacco]

Should my father, who earns ~£90k per annum get more of a say than myself, who in comparison earns ~19k?

 

Edit: That wasn't meant to be rude or brusque - Just a thought exercise to promote discussion.

[Skarclaw]

Everyone should absolutely get a vote.

 

But when the fate of the country can be swayed by those content to take from the system and not work towards it, how fair is that to those that work hard to try to do well?

 

 

Why shouldn't someone who works hard and pays their way have more of a say than someone who refuses to?

 

We could argue the point back and forward forever, and be no closer to what is right for all. It's just too complex an issue to come to a resolution other than "we make the best of it"

 

Because people that "refuses" to work are in very small percentage and are unlikely to vote anyway. It's not to hard to conceive that a political authority could put opponents out of work and thus deny them the voice - like a reversed  homes for votes scandal 

 

short version: democratic system shouldn't be on the basis of whether some people are "better" then others. Spoiler alert: being in the military does not make you "better".

[scorch]

If you're able and yet unwilling, that's when I think you should start getting less of a say.

 

You're not sitting on your *albartroth* doing nothing all day, neither is your dad. You're both workers, paying in your share.

 

 

I'm not saying "this is the true way", and I'm not saying its fair either. Just batting some ideas about. I'm as open to new ideas as much as the next man.

[DrAlexanderTobacco]

I'm not saying "this is the true way", and I'm not saying its fair either. Just batting some ideas about. I'm as open to new ideas as much as the next man.

For sure - Refreshing to hear this from people It's IMO the thing that's wrong with politics in the UK at the moment - Everyone's really dogmatic and opposed to actual discussion.

[Skarclaw]

If you're able and yet unwilling, that's when I think you should start getting less of a say.

 

 

 

mmm, but why?

 

Employment is also a two way street - you have to want to be employed but also someone has to want to employ you.

 

On a more practical level it would be very hard (=expensive) to measure someone's electoral worthiness. Hence why I think one person one vote is the KISS way. 

 

Edit: in any case I don't think restricting people's voting rights will solve anything. Previously only wealthy landowners and such voted which is what the house of commons/house of lords divide references. Universal Suffrage is a good thing imo. Basically I'm not what problems would be solved by restricting who can vote. 

[scorch]

 

mmm, but why?

 

Employment is also a two way street - you have to want to be employed but also someone has to want to employ you.

 

On a more practical level it would be very hard (=expensive) to measure someone's electoral worthiness. Hence why I think one person one vote is the KISS way. 

 

Edit: in any case I don't think restricting people's voting rights will solve anything. Previously only wealthy landowners and such voted which is what the house of commons/house of lords divide references. Universal Suffrage is a good thing imo. Basically I'm not what problems would be solved by restricting who can vote. 

 

 

It just doesn't feel right to me, that I should get up at 7am, shower, eat, go to work for 8 hours a day for the government to take a bite out of what I have worked for before I even get it, for someone who gets to sit in the sun all day doing sweet FA to get equal say where that is spent while also being given some of it just because they don't fancy it.

 

 

I do agree though, the practical side of it would be a nightmare and probably make it unfeasible.

[Skarclaw]

It just doesn't feel right to me, that I should get up at 7am, shower, eat, go to work for 8 hours a day for the government to take a bite out of what I have worked for before I even get it, for someone who gets to sit in the sun all day doing sweet FA to get equal say where that is spent while also being given some of it just because they don't fancy it.

 

 

I do agree though, the practical side of it would be a nightmare and probably make it unfeasible.

 

Ha see this is what happens when you let the government take your money (try and stop them, it won't end well) - I feel ya though

[Elliot]

I love the idea of having to earn your citizenship.

2 years of federal service (In good standing, meaning you actually have to pass inspections) as anything from a cleaner or porter at a hospital to a doctor, member of the armed services or police officer, or street sweeper or job center employee, or a probation officer etc. the list could go on for ever and could easily make allowances for physical and mental disabilities.

Citizenship guarantees free medical treatment after the age of 18 and the right to vote.

 

But as the turnout for yesterdays elections was a pathetic 36% how motivated are the other 64% of the population, in fact given the split of that 36% into the big three political parties and all the other smaller parties and the independents, if someone could get just 20% of the 64% that did not vote, to all vote for a new party, they would walk the next election. 

[bankz5152]

Sounds like Starship Troopers.

 

On my phone, my spelling will suck.

[Azubi]

Should my father, who earns ~£90k per annum get more of a say than myself, who in comparison earns ~19k? .

This!

 

It would promote a class system, where the 'rich' will be pandered to and the 'poor' would be trodden upon. It's come a long way for everyone to get the vote where originally it was so restricted. It would be terrible to throw that away.

 

I say this when only today was saying how we shouldn't be given referendums on important stuff like leaving Europe, etc. because we simply aren't qualified enough to make an informed decision. Look at the AV campaign and how we threw that away, when it would have been a benefit to us, the people. The big parties chucked loads of money into slagging it off, and the public believed all that *suitcase*, throwing away their chance to make politics more beneficial for the average person. You can say 'do the research then!' But how many actually are willing to do that? Very little, and that is my point.

[spetsnazdave87]

The biggest problem with democracy is that collectively, people are morons. I think you should have to qualify for the right to vote- not through compulsory service, but through various tests of intelligence, gullibility, prejudice etc. 

[Desolation mkII]

Okay, so I think it is fair to agree that we have determined that employment is not going to be a great method of determining a right to vote, and certainly not income. As we have been sidetracked into the arguement of 'military' service guarantees citizenship, I will remind that Federal Service would be eligable to anybody, pro or anti military, and would simply be a job that is dangerous and of benefit to society. (Street sweeper would not count, certain jobs in hospitals would, as anyone who has been in A&E at 2am on a Saturday morning will attest)

 

But just to throw something else into the mix to consider. In 2005, to use a simple example, Labour won a solid majority in parliament, meaning, thanks to our lack of constitution or pretty much any check on government whatsoever, they could basically pass any insane anti-terror law they wanted and give themselves considerable abilities to breach our freedoms.

 

They did this, with 9.5 million votes. So a nation of 62 million, was governed by a party that was voted for by 15% of the population.

 

Another thing to consider, is that of the current government, only one or two members would be eligable to vote or run for office. That is 2 out of 22 cabinet ministers who has put the good of society before themselves. Rather than creating a political elite of rich, this would most likely disenfranchise a huge proportion of career politicians. And if the bullingdon club types decided they wanted to run for parliament, what could be more humbling for them then having to serve for two years as equals with people from all corners of societty.

[Thechom]

What about people who are on benefits after paying into the system for over 30 years. Are they not allowed to vote?

 

Or someone like me, who, although I am working about 40 hours a week, just can't earn enough to cover rent and still manage to feed and clothe me wife and child, and thus the local council are helping me out with some of my rent? does that mean I don't get to vote etc?

[Habakure]

Doesn't it one down to free choice. Freedom being just that (supposed to be any way), you are free to live in this country but must abide by its rules. If people are braking those rules then they should be held accountable. Not everyone on benefits is a *insert derogatory swear word* and you should keep that in mind when regarding people on benefits.

 

If a system was created, were you have to earn your right to vote, it would be exploited.

[AceOfSkulls]

Okay, so I think it is fair to agree that we have determined that employment is not going to be a great method of determining a right to vote, and certainly not income. As we have been sidetracked into the arguement of 'military' service guarantees citizenship, I will remind that Federal Service would be eligable to anybody, pro or anti military, and would simply be a job that is dangerous and of benefit to society. (Street sweeper would not count, certain jobs in hospitals would, as anyone who has been in A&E at 2am on a Saturday morning will attest)

 

But just to throw something else into the mix to consider. In 2005, to use a simple example, Labour won a solid majority in parliament, meaning, thanks to our lack of constitution or pretty much any check on government whatsoever, they could basically pass any insane anti-terror law they wanted and give themselves considerable abilities to breach our freedoms.

 

They did this, with 9.5 million votes. So a nation of 62 million, was governed by a party that was voted for by 15% of the population.

 

Another thing to consider, is that of the current government, only one or two members would be eligable to vote or run for office. That is 2 out of 22 cabinet ministers who has put the good of society before themselves. Rather than creating a political elite of rich, this would most likely disenfranchise a huge proportion of career politicians. And if the bullingdon club types decided they wanted to run for parliament, what could be more humbling for them then having to serve for two years as equals with people from all corners of societty.

Those things wouldnt change just because you had to be a citizen to vote. If anything it would get worse with rich/political elite getting their aspiring children into token jobs or into the military as non combat officers.

 

Not to mention someone with the IQ of a fish who is completely dissinterested in politics and uninformed having the right to vote because they were a peacetime cook in the army. While say a smart person in a highly skilled profession interested in politics doesnt, just because the benefits to society of what they do isnt imediately clear.

 

The reason its one vote for everyone is because humans are too varied and different to make a blanket assumption. Some 18 yearold single mothers living on benefits could be a better judge than a 50 yearold ex soldier, world travelling millionaire with a masters in politics. So any system that stopped either having a vote would just be silly.

[amateurstuntman]

Look, it is pretty simple.

 

 

Anyone who has mentioned anything about "human rights" has made a pretty big mistake, due to a problem with etymology.

 

There is no such thing as "human rights" there are civil rights.  There are no rights granted to anyone just by being human or poor child soldiers in the Congo would have them.

 

Civil rights (like the right to vote) are given by the government and are protected by the criminal justice system.

 

Everybody should have a vote whether they are employed or not, when I was younger I liked the idea of service guarantees citizenship but I have grown out of that.

 

However, government gives you your right to vote and I believe they should take it away from some people.

 

Certain convicted criminals - don't want to act like a citizen, you can't be one - *fruitcage* you.

The under 25s - kids are idiots with stupid ideas, those idiotic ideas often extend into adulthood.  You'll have plenty of time to vote when you are older, chill.

The mentally incapacitated - sorry, if you can't understand the issues you can't be trusted to make an informed decision.

Anyone who can't speak English - that is the most basic requirement to be British, all the other nonsense the flappy mouthed racists spout about place of birth, skin colour and religion is pointless.  If you want to be British, sign up for citizenship, learn English, pay your damn taxes and you are in.  Welcome brother.

 

 

That's it.

 

 

Anyone who is worried about the scumbags taking over, don't, there aren't that many.

However, we can make life really, really difficult for them.

 

No more benefits, ever.

 

If you can't feed yourself sign up for government support and that day the following will happen:

 

1, All your possessions are seized (some leeway for heirlooms and items with emotional significance is available but don't take the ).

2, Your house is taken.

3, You get a room in a government welfare facility (think uni halls or a modern cushy prison).

4, Canteen food is provided.

5, A pack lunch will be available.

6, Every single day that you are not at job interview you will be on work detail (picking up fly tipping or rubbish, pothole repair, grass cutting etc.).

7, Training will be provided to get you back on your feet.

8, If a job is found for you you will move house to get it - anywhere you are sent.

9, If you are still out of work 6 months after signing up you are now in the army. Congratulations, you are now on minefield clearance detail.

Once Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Korea, the Falklands, Colombia and all the other mined counties in the world are clear we'll find something else for you to do.

 

I also have plans to sort out child benefit, tax, prisons, the NHS and everything else.