continuing proofs America is wacko

odo banks wrote:I think it commendable that less-well-to-do hobbits go off and give their lives, so hobbits (like me) can run businesses and live in prosperous freedom and... er... employ less important hobbits who, if not for hobbits like me, would not have... err.. reasonably well paid jobs....

Very sly, Odo. It's a very real criticism of the volunteer army that not all segments of society are represented. A draft surely makes society take war more seriously. In a small country the ideal situation is that everyone has to serve, but I don't think that works for large countries. Robert Heinlein had an interesting perspective: in Starship Troopers only those who have served in the military earn the right to vote. It does have some logic to it.

halfwise wrote:Robert Heinlein had an interesting perspective: in Starship Troopers only those who have served in the military earn the right to vote. It does have some logic to it.

I really don't think it has any logic to it, for so many reasons that I'm not even sure where to begin. The fact that it devalues other socially worthwhile and honorable professions outside the military (such as police, emergency services, teachers, doctors, etc.) is as good a place to start as any though, as well as the fact that it is fundamentally undemocratic. While democracy is not a perfect political system (not saying it's bad, but what is perfect?) I really don't think that restricting the vote to veterans is a good way of improving the system.

Turembar wrote: I would guess 310th because of Remagen.

Good guess. Actually the 309th. You're right, I need to make the tour sometime. I've kind of avoided it when I've been in Europe because it's all sort of haunted to me.

The idea is that people should not be able to direct the course of government until they have proved their commitment to it rather than their own interests. In Heinlein's world the military must accept anyone who applies regardless of disability and find a job for them, but then they are committed for the full term.

I'm not saying I agree with him 100%, but it does make you think. I wouldn't really recommend Starship Troopers as good reading either - it's the preachiest of all his books, and much of it feels like a paean to the virtues of corporal punishment.

But one thing I really did like is all the captains are women, because they have more innate mathematical ability needed for navigation. For a book written in the late 50's this is an astonishingly advanced point of view. And having been a physics teacher myself, I have to agree with him!

Eldorion wrote:
I really don't think it has any logic to it, for so many reasons that I'm not even sure where to begin.

OK Eldo, what would you think about a more general civil service requirement, like education, healthcare, or military?
At least in theory I see some logic to differentiating between active citizens and passive citizens.

He listed emergency workers, police, etc. I think it is a good idea that people must demonstrate some willingness to participate in government before being allowed to vote. But there's not ideal system to define participation - would giving money (the product of one's work and time) qualify? Not all money is earned with equal work. Would a public school educator be counted as worthy government service?

Again, not saying the military idea is best, but it's unambiguous. And if the homeless vets had a disproportionate vote they might be better treated. And the poor would go into the army and get to vote while the business school types would not.

David H wrote:OK Eldo, what would you think about a more general civil service requirement, like education, healthcare, or military?
At least in theory I see some logic to differentiating between active citizens and passive citizens.

First off let me say that this is not something I've spent a lot of time thinking about, especially not recently, so my thoughts here are off-the-cuff. I don't know if I'd still agree with them after further reflection.

On the surface of it, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of mandatory service, with a choice of military or more general civilian work such as education, health care, or whatever (I was raised by Quakers to value conscientious objection and I still think it's a worthwhile choice to offer). A number of developed countries have mandatory service of some kind and I think that it can be beneficial in terms of giving people skills, fostering a sense of civil responsibility and community, and providing important services to society. Again, I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but it strikes me as a very interesting idea. Sometimes I think the U.S. is a little too individualistic for its own good.

More to the point of the whole voting thing, I'm very discouraged by the thought that the leaders of any country are chosen (in part) by people who have no understanding of the issues or the candidates. I think it was first really driven home to me when my dad (who is not unintelligent, and who has to stay informed since he works for the government) told me he would down the Democratic party line regardless of who was nominated. I think I was 12 at the time so I had never heard something like that before and it really bothered me. The idea of distinguishing between active and passive citizenship therefore appeals to me on that level, though I'm not sure how one would best determine the difference without bias or injustice. I feel that mandatory service would probably encourage more active citizenship but I don't know if that's really the case or not.

Sorry that's so vague and non-committal. I should really think on this some more; it really is an interesting question.

the idea of mandatory service bothers me for a country the size of the US: I think it would be devalued. Works great for small countries.

Don't knock mandatory service. Look what it's done for Ringdrotten. Made a man of him. A gay man, true, but a man nonetheless.

{{{Where is he by the way? }}}

David H wrote:

Turembar wrote: I would guess 310th because of Remagen.

Good guess. Actually the 309th. You're right, I need to make the tour sometime. I've kind of avoided it when I've been in Europe because it's all sort of haunted to me.

I can certainly understand that. I have been to a few places that really depressed me. The battlefield of Verdun in France was so bad I actually felt the physicalogical symtoms of depression immediately. But for me, being in, I could feel it useful as an object lesson and dose of reality and consequences. It's probably not the kind of thing you really want to do on a holiday trip, where you are trying to relax. But one day you may suddenly shift and think 'now is the time' and your ready. It happens like that sometimes.

I have a problem with the service=citizenship thing. The Romans were big on that- was a pretty good deal if you made it through-you got to own land, own slaves instead of being one. And thats kind of the problem.
I don't see how in a country where you have citizens and non-citizens that the non-citizens would not become an undeclass or at worse slave class. You are talking about a section of the populace who would have no voting rights, so how long before they lose other rights only citizens would have? And what if your objection to becoming a citizen is political disagreement with the government who sets the criteria? Are you condemened to join the underclass of noncitizens because your politics differ? It all easily get horrible.

halfwise wrote:the idea of mandatory service bothers me for a country the size of the US: I think it would be devalued. Works great for small countries.

There'd certainly be some challenges with the size of the US, but we have challenges because of our size anyway. We often tend to lead our lives within insular groups without being aware of the issues around us.

If a mandatory service program were structured right, I think it could be a good way of giving American citizens a better understanding of the issues of other regions and economic and social situations.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I don't see how in a country where you have citizens and non-citizens that the non-citizens would not become an undeclass or at worse slave class.

You mean like undocumented workers?

Worse David. The status of those workers but openly state sanctioned to be treated as an underclass. As you point out it exists already without it, having a system of serivce=citizenship would only make it worse and acceptable surely?

I'm not so sure. The arrogance some people have about a citizenship which they claim based entirely on an accident of birth is pretty hard to swallow sometimes. Often hard to distinguish for racism. I don't think that having reasonable service requirement would do anything but good. If a person didn't like their second class status, they'd simply have to sign up for service (and maybe learn a little humility )

I feel my citizenship is earned through paying my taxes. I pay into the system I live in to help maintain it. Surely that is enough. If you go into a sytem of citizens and non-citizens what distinguishes one from the other? Is it the right to vote? The right to health care? The right to buy property? And who decides?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I feel my citizenship is earned through paying my taxes.

Earned? Sounds more like "bought". An interesting way to establish citizenship.

We have many citizens of other countries who pay taxes in the US. We also have some very rich citizens who pay no taxes because of good lawyers, and poor citizens who pay no taxes and receive an earned income credit because of poverty. How would your tax test for citizenship work for them?

[In the USA property and healthcare have nothing to do with citizenship. In both cases you get exactly what you can afford no matter what your passport says. ]

The original writers of the US constitution would have been horrified at the idea of all citizens having the vote: they thought it should be reserved for the qualified, which originally included land ownership if I remember correctly. It was very classist and didn't last long.

The idea isn't qualification for all the rights of citizenship, just for the right to vote. I understand the concerns, Petty, but all democracies are dangerously unstable - I think the only thing that has kept america stable is the idea that everyone has an equal shot, imperfectly realized as it is. If the requirements are something everyone can do, then everyone still has that equal shot.

Paying taxes is a way of contributing to an overall pot for the good of all- in theory at least. I have never really understod why Americans bother with a central government at all given it doesnt seem to do much. I expect a lot of my governemnt- health care for a start- but the idea health care is free is of course untrue, its not you pay for it through taxes- and that seems fair enough to me without a further need to add citizenship by any other means. If you contribute to society you deserve a place in it.
And for me at least being Scottish has nothing to do with being a citizen. I am a Scot in heart and blood, its a seperate entity. To declare that a Scot was not a citizen unless they met a certain criteria would probably lead to an uprising here. It is very much seen as a birth right, the one goes automatically with the other.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: ...And for me at least being Scottish has nothing to do with being a citizen. I am a Scot in heart and blood, its a seperate entity.

And so might say the 30-40 million Americans of Scottish decent.

But to mention 'perspective', as it relates to how different people see one another, this is my favorite song on the subject. Tongue in cheek, but nevertheless Tim Curry makes some thought provoking points, as only he can.

Where's that from, Turembar? It's definitely not the muppet show, and if a movie I've not heard of it.

Muppet Treasure Island

Turembar wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote: ...And for me at least being Scottish has nothing to do with being a citizen. I am a Scot in heart and blood, its a seperate entity.

And so might say the 30-40 million Americans of Scottish decent.

The blood thing gets kind of murky as some point, doesn't it? I mean the Irish have officially claimed Barack Obama because his mom's great-great-great grandfather came from Moneygall. And how do you test the heart?

Do you have any thoughts on the question of who gets to vote in the case of Scottish independence? Presumably residency would count for a lot, but I know a lot of Scots (and English for that matter) have residences on both sides of the line.

Voting is simple- if you are on the electoral role you get to vote- to get on the electoral role you have to be a resident in the country and pay tax (even if you get state benefit you still pay a small amount of tax on it). If you are clinically insane, or till very recently a prisoner, you don't get that right to vote. And the voting age is currently 18 but there (was) cross party agreement that it should be lowered to 16 (the agreement seems to have ended now the SNP want it for the Independence vote because polls show that age group is more pro-independent).

My own view on the blood thing is you have to born in a country- if I move to America, even if I become on paper a cirizen I would not view myself as American- I'm a Scot till I die- but if I had children who were born and raised in America- they would be American not Scots, their ancestry would remain Scots but not their nationality.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:... even if I become on paper a cirizen I would not view myself as American...

That would be a personnel view, but not all immigrants share it. There is also the factor of how and by whom you are accepted. But this I would say is an underlining characteristic of human nature. That your acceptance into a new group is affected by how you, and to what extent you disconnect from the old group.

Though it may not seem it (in my own mind at least ) I am still perusing the original topic obliquely.

I don't know about Scotland specifically. England surely has considerable immigration. Nothing however, can compare to America when it comes to this. In the modern era we have always had the most immigrants per annum, and since 2006 take in more each year then the rest of the world combined. Are there clues in this to support or refute the proposed insanity?