Service Guarantees Citizenship

[DrAlexanderTobacco]

Which stage would the Soylent Green production facility go into action - Stage 55b or 68d?

[Habakure]

Isn't that what the nazi's wanted to do?

 

'You are free, to do as we tell you.'

[Tinkerton]

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?

 

Fair enough - Not saying its the best idea, or even a good idea, it's just something I thought this morning while waiting for my coffee to kick in.

 

If it makes a difference, my mother actually has MS (Secondary Progressive, iirc), and my father has osteoarthritis and acts as her carer. This means neither of them work, although they do volunteer for various charities (Dad for food banks, and the Scouts, and Mum for a charity that helps dementia patients).

 

I'm well aware that some (most? I'm not sure of the statistics) of people on some kind of benefits aren't the stereotypical scroungers as depicted by various newpapers and the like, but still, it does irritate me how my mum gets a brand new car paid for by the government (motability), free prescriptions, and various other 'help', while I'm working hard to stay out of debt, and currently can't see me and Mrs Tink actually owning a house of our own... ever.

 

 

Sounds like Starship Troopers.

 

On my phone, my spelling will suck.

 

Funny that, who'd've thought?

 

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. 

 

I'd agree with this - it makes sense, and means that people that genuinely understand the consequences of their vote would use it properly.

 

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 year old ex soldier, world travelling millionaire with a masters in politics. So any system that stopped either having a vote would just be silly.

 

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I quite like the one person one vote system. 

 

What about a weighted voting system? Either something like each time you vote, your vote counts for an extra 0.05 vote? So first time voting, 1 vote, second time, 1.05 votes, third 1.1 votes, etc etc, upto say, a maximum of 4 votes? Miss one and your total halves the 'weighting' you've earned, miss two and you go back to 1 vote.

 

Again, disclaimer, I don't study or research anything remotely related to the political system, policies, voting, voters rights or anything like that.

 

Just some ideas.

[Seraphim989]

Everyone having the vote is based on the idea that every person has the capacity to add to society through their input.  Yet this is false; the average person doesn't even care to vote, and many of those that do are not voting responsibly, lacking even the capacity to know what they want, much less what is best for the nation.  Voters are already voting largely based upon what they are being told in advertising and mud-slinging campaigns.  People have the vote and are wasting it, I see nothing wrong with taking it from some of them.  I agree with stuntman, there are no human rights, just civil rights.  Humans were created crawling in the dirt, killing animals with rocks to wear their skins and eat their flesh.  Let's not pretend the idea of democracy is is innate.  We created it, just like all other rights.  If we must have a democracy, then it should be composed of voters who are educated an enabled to make rational decisions for the best of the whole, not based upon whichever party platform includes their personal feelings on gay marriage or immigration.

[Habakure]

Sorry to burst some peoples bubble but it is a personal thing. It's your vote, your chance to have a say in an election. You can't get more personal than that.

 

Which also raises the question; 'who decides, who has the right, and who will check, that those who decide are not corrupt?'

 

Edit: let's be honest, the old adage always comes through 'power corrupts'.

[scorch]

Sorry to burst some peoples bubble but it is a personal thing. It's your vote, your chance to have a say in an election. You can't get more personal than that.

 

That brings me onto one of my pet hates. Those "you must not vote X party" pressure groups on Facebook.

 

I'll vote for whoever I feel will do the least damage, and it's nothing to do with anyone else. That's why we have the secret ballot.

[Azubi]

Sorry to burst some peoples bubble but it is a personal thing. It's your vote, your chance to have a say in an election. You can't get more personal than that.

Which also raises the question; 'who decides, who has the right, and who will check, that those who decide are not corrupt?'

Edit: let's be honest, the old adage always comes through 'power corrupts'.

Exactly. Any system such as this would be adjusted by those in power to ensure they benefited the most. There really would be no incentive to voluntarily give away some of your power to someone who will not support you.

 

That brings me onto one of my pet hates. Those "you must not vote X party" pressure groups on Facebook.

I'll vote for whoever I feel will do the least damage, and it's nothing to do with anyone else. That's why we have the secret ballot.

The media doesn't help. When UKIP was formed, it had the same views and policies as it does now, but it was accepted as an alternative to the Tory party. Now that they are gaining some momentum, all hands seem to be on deck to draw as many comparisons as possible to the Nazi party. It's easy to throw such accusations around and get away with it, and *suitcase* sticks.

 

Although I don't agree with their support of Scottish independence, I think the a Green Party are the only ones actually interested in helping this country. Rest just want power.

[-Drake-]

I'd much rather there was an option to vote to have politicians sent to klendathu to fight the bug meanice.

[ED-SKaR]

I read this book once, and very nearly fell into its propaganda. Very compelling writing.

 

It brings back the age old argument of "rights" verses "Responsibilities". In our current culture everyone knows their rights, but nobody fulfils their responsibilities.

 

My personal view is to bring back national service. Not for the military training, or having instant soldiers at the nations disposal if we ever had another major conflict. I think that the personal discipline national service teaches is so important, and is completely lost in our generation and the next.

 

(This is only half written because I'm pressed for time, I'll write a little more later)

[Habakure]

This seems odd. As a lot of people who want national service brought back, arnt old enough to have done national service (I mean conscripts, not people who have chosen to go in to the military). It makes me think if a person can be respectful and understand right from wrong, without national service, why would we need it back?

[Seraphim989]

Because lots of people aren't respectful and don't understand right from wrong.

 

Look, this a thread on an airsoft website, we're talking about what we think should happen, not what will.  Do I believe there should be determinants on who can vote and who cannot?  Absolutely.  Is there a way to actually implement this(much less have it accepted by a society that is big on rights and short on responsibilities)?  Absolutely not.

[PMO Gordo]

Here's a great article on democracy: http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21596796-democracy-was-most-successful-political-idea-20th-century-why-has-it-run-trouble-and-what-can-be-do

 

My favorite quote: "One reason why so many democratic experiments have failed recently is that they put too much emphasis on elections and too little on the other essential features of democracy. The power of the state needs to be checked, for instance, and individual rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to organize must be guaranteed."

 

Some points in the article coincide with the following video: What is America's True Form of Government

[Seraphim989]

Some cultures fit democratic ideals, other don't.  Democracy isn't innate, it was a created idea.  It can't be assumed that it will be successful everywhere(or even that it should).  That's why, when  so many countries have difficulty implementing it when we push them towards it.  If there isn't a culture of democracy(and frankly, I feel that even in the US we've lost a lot of this), then democracy can't succeed

[Habakure]

Because lots of people aren't respectful and don't understand right from wrong.

 

Look, this a thread on an airsoft website, we're talking about what we think should happen, not what will. Do I believe there should be determinants on who can vote and who cannot? Absolutely. Is there a way to actually implement this(much less have it accepted by a society that is big on rights and short on responsibilities)? Absolutely not.

If you agree it can not be implemented than it's already a mute point. If you believe in it, regardless if the bookies say it will never happen, it's still something you think is a good idea and can show why it's a good idea. But if you know it will become corrupt or is wrong, then the point is lost due to falling at the first hurdle.

 

Let's be honest, the only way to make actual change is a civil war and that would be a terrible idea (a mute point also). So what we have is what will always be the best idea for voting. It's just a crying shame that everyone who has power becomes greedy and blind sighted.

[PMO Gordo]

I also recently saw an episode in the Twilight Zone ( a 60's TV show) called " The Obsolete Man". It showed the horror of a Totalitarian government. Those who think they are superior than some people and thus are entitled to more may end up having the table turned on them.

 

It's amazing how some old TV shows can say more in 20 minutes than many movies nowadays.

 

[Seraphim989]

If you agree it can not be implemented than it's already a mute point. If you believe in it, regardless if the bookies say it will never happen, it's still something you think is a good idea and can show why it's a good idea. But if you know it will become corrupt or is wrong, then the point is lost due to falling at the first hurdle.

 

Let's be honest, the only way to make actual change is a civil war and that would be a terrible idea (a mute point also). So what we have is what will always be the best idea for voting. It's just a crying shame that everyone who has power becomes greedy and blind sighted.

 I don't believe the problem is corruption or it being wrong.  I have said I believe it is right.  But the public doesn't want to admit someone may be able to make a better decision than they.  I trust engineers to design bridges, scientists to tell me about global warming, doctors to cure my illnesses, but everyone thinks they're more fit to make decisions regarding national policy than the people who are paid to do so(and supported by hordes of subject matter experts).

 

What you describe is the meme of failing government.  No one trusts the government to do a good job.  "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a phrase that's been said enough that it's accepted.  There is no human who can wield power without being corrupted?  "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"  It's a quote, so it must be true also.

 

The debate isn't moot because my idea is innately wrong, it's moot because people believe it so.  Democracy is seen as the height of political systems, few are open to the idea of anything being better.  To suggest otherwise is to invite people to start shouting "Nazi!"(a sure end to any real political debate)

[Habakure]

Selection of the best to vote for the rest, is an idea that suggests people are less than others (which is what th nazi party wanted). Who can decide that, who has the right and who would enforce it. Bridges have to be inspected and also monitored (rules and regulations). With a system of 'x' amount of people, who are more privileged and so choose who can vote for 'y' politicians, wouldn't be policed or monitored. Reason being they would just change who can vote. And yes, people abuse their position of power (just ask the thousands of people forced to live a secret life, because homosexuality is seen as wrong/illegal by the people in power).

 

It's a discussion and open to interpretation. But there are examples of how having a select few, who can vote, can lead to huge problems.

[Skarclaw]

Gordo raises some good points. I've said before about why I don't vote (cue "what about ww2?", queueing Afghan women, tiny violins, etc) - fact is far too much emphasis is placed on elections and in turn party politics. Other stuff is left my the wayside. I think its fair to say that we do no longer have actual freedom of speech. Firstly government monitoring of the internet has left a chilling effect on what people feel they are able to broadcast. Secondly laws on what is offensive have seen people locked up for making distasteful jokes. And lastly the mob behaviour of the internet have seen people hounded out of their jobs on the basis of the holding racist or homophobic views.  

 

What is clear is that there is a massive discrepancy between:

1) The impact and position of government within society

2) people's willingness to engage with it

 

I'd say instead of trying to increase 2), it would be better and easer to reduce 1). I'd say that by and large, people make the best decisions about themselves, for them selves. There would be less need to make sure that the big decisions are carried out in the best way because simply put, there would be less big decisions to make.

 

http://thenewirs.com/ is an interesting idea. The main issue with it as far as I can see is that would give more power to whoever submits the most tax. However that could be remedied with a flat income tax, and to make it more progressive, a landvalue tax which is spent on the average budget allocation choice.

[amateurstuntman]

It would be pretty cool to have a Saparmurat Niyazov type character in charge.

 

Basically a bat *suitcase* bonkers benevolent(ish) dictator.

[spetsnazdave87]

Selection of the best to vote for the rest, is an idea that suggests people are less than others

 

I don't think this is a nazi ideal; I think if you contribute less to society you should have less say in how society is run. Without meaning to sound like a conceited elitist...  ill-informed, gullibile morons have been the main reason so many far right/extremist groups have come to power. 

[Habakure]

Trying to remove people who had different views, the mentally ill and physically disabled. It's the same as saying 'x' people are better at voting than 'y' people. Same idea just without the physical act of removing them, just removing their political vote.

 

It's okay to think one thing but to act it out is another. The amount of votes ukip got was an eye opener for me, as I don't want the nhs sold off (I do believe it is a bit of a blip though, to be honest). I've had conversations with people who have phd's who have scared me with their political views, just eh same as people with no qualifications have scared me. I'm sure that if you are not of sound mind you can't vote (committed), so there already is something in place already.

 

But the idea of a test, to ensure you are able to make an informed vote, sounds do able. It would just depend on how it is monitored and who pays for those people, who would do the monitoring/marking.

[amateurstuntman]

UKIP have themselves said that their under-representation in London is due to the voters being "younger and more media savvy" in London.

 

i.e. not backward old people.

 

 

Also the fact that they can get so many votes and no seats is mental.

 

I think each party should put forward a list (in order) of who will be elected then all the votes are added together and a ratio is created for all the parties.

The party is then given their number of politicians, and they have to take the top [that number] from their list and give them seats.

 

That is all.

[Habakure]

That quote made me laugh. 'Damn those pesky kids and their intelligent ways . . . .Gggrrrrrrrrrr'.

[Colin_The+Ferret]

Have any of you read the Asimov story, "Election Day" I think it is called?

Scientists locate the most average man in America and read his mind to decide who becomes president.

[Seraphim989]

"Nazi" has become such a weighted term that it's mere association with an idea serves to torpedo it.  Because people wear leather boots doesn't make them like the Nazis.  Similarly, Prince Charles' remarks on the Russians.  Did he compare them to the Nazis because that was absolutely the most accurate comparison, or because it was similar, while also portraying the believed badness of the actions?

 

Surely all of us knows someone who is bad at making decisions.  Who isn't in a mental institution, but is surely far from average, for whatever reason.  It's commonly accepted that some people are better swimmers, some better mathematicians, or better drivers.  Why cannot we consider that some people are more fit to make the choices when it comes to voting?

 

Government has to exist, we can talk all we want about rights and freedom and government staying out of people's lives, but government is needed to make decisions that involve everyone, that involve other nations.  I firmly believe that there are people who are more suited to making these sort of decisions than others.