Mandatory Environmental Service

[Thermodolia]

So do a general tax hike and then offer a tax break for signing up. Happy?

That is literally no different. Stop trying to force environmentalism on people. That's the same strategy SJW use for their goals.

If you want people to follow you toward a goal lead them, don't force them through fear of penalty or taxation. For that is the way of tyrants.

This is why I don’t like the carrot and stick method. Forget the carrots. You’ll do your 3 years or you’ll spend 40 in a 6’ x 7’ x 9’ cell.

[Telconi]

An option with penalties.

Nobody is assessed a childless tax.

So do a general tax hike and then offer a tax break for signing up. Happy?

Of course not.

[Novitskaya]

I just generally don't think people should be forced to do anything, whether it is conscription, the environment, civil duties etc.

If we want to uphold fairness, Democracy, and freedom, we shouldn't force people to do services they possibly don't want to do.

Besides, what if lots of workers have low morale or training? If random people are just thrown at the environment/other things, that would not be good.

Which is why it would be strongly encouraged (via tax breaks and government benefits), not forced.
And it would not be just throwing them at it.
People would be able to pick a certified job from a certified employer, generally only assigned one if they cannot find one. And assigned to a job best fitting them if assigned one.[/quote][/quote]


I was talking more about the idea of mandatory service. I wasn't targeting your way of encouraging, just the person saying they would be thrown in prison, and you saying that resisting individual would be given high taxes instead and less benefits.

Even if you aren't forcing them, you still are practically by making their lives harder. If they don't want to do it, they don't need to suffer consequences. You have no right. It is not technically forcing, but you are still putting them in a position where they have to unwilling to save their financial and general lives.

And for the throwing at it response, even if you assign them the best roles for them, low morale can still have an effect on work. There will always be people who just don't want to do it, and with low morale comes sloppy work. Especially those who came due to high taxes or limit on benefits, as they will feel practically forced and therefore won't have high morale.

[Novitskaya]

Note:
Sorry Novus America I accidentally cut out your text responding to my original post. So sorry, it was an accident.

Just to let you know the one above is a response to your response, I just made a technical mistake.

You can still see your original response, just not in the special box thingy.

[Novus America]

Which is why it would be strongly encouraged (via tax breaks and government benefits), not forced.
And it would not be just throwing them at it.
People would be able to pick a certified job from a certified employer, generally only assigned one if they cannot find one. And assigned to a job best fitting them if assigned one.

[/quote]


I was talking more about the idea of mandatory service. I wasn't targeting your way of encouraging, just the person staying they would be thrown in prison, and you saying that resisting individual would be given high taxes instead and less benefits.

Even if you aren't forcing them, you still are practically by making their lives harder. If they don't want to do it, they don't need to suffer consequences. You have no right. It is not technically forcing, but you are still putting them in a position where they have to unwilling to save their financial and general lives.

And for the throwing at it response, even if you assign them the best roles for them, low morale can still have an effect on work. There will always be people who just don't want to do it, and with low morale comes sloppy work. Especially those who came due to high taxes or limit on benefits, as they will feel practically forced and therefore won't have high morale.[/quote]

Benefits and taxes breaks are not always guaranteed. They are things you get by doing something in return already.
Social contract theory is based on exchange, not pure hand outs.

[Ostroeuropa]

So do a general tax hike and then offer a tax break for signing up. Happy?

Of course not.

Why not?

[Novitskaya]

This is what I propose minus the prison.
Instead you get a big tax hike.
Or more technically those who compete it get a tax break.

Here you agree people who don't do service shouldn't get benefits, but instead of prison, should get tax hikes. This is what I was talking about.

You aren't psychically forcing them, but you still technically are forcing them by putting them in an uncomfortable and unfortunate situation. Either risk your financial life, or do work you really don't want to do.

These people shouldn't face punishment. It is their choice.

[Novus America]

Here you agree people who don't do service shouldn't get benefits, but instead of prison, should get tax hikes. This is what I was talking about.

You aren't psychically forcing them, but you still technically are forcing them by putting them in an uncomfortable and unfortunate situation. Either risk your financial life, or do work you really don't want to do.

These people shouldn't face punishment. It is their choice.

Declining benefits and tax breaks is their choice.
Nothing in life is free. You have to give to get.

If you refuse to work you do not get paid as well.
That is generally how it is.

[Kragholm Free States]

Of course not.

Why not?

Because it's literally the exact same thing except you make the punishment pre-emptive.

Anyway, any attempt to save the environment or prevent climate change by forcing greater burdens and lifestyle changes upon the West will accomplish absolutely nothing while countries like China and India continue to pump out more pollution than even the US, let alone the UK and Europe.

One cannot in good conscience propose the enslavement of the West to offset the harm of the East. Not only is such an effort evil beyond compare, it will utterly fail at its stated goal.

[Ifreann]

For me it depends on when this Doomsday happens.

If it will happen in my lifetime then I can maybe be convinced to support this (provided you can show it would avert the crisis).

It’s 100 plus years down the road then I’m going to oppose it.

I don’t want to be forced to do some environmental labour gig. I want freedom.

That’s where I’d honestly stand on this.

It'll happen in your lifetime but nothing you do individually will help.

[Novitskaya]

Here you agree people who don't do service shouldn't get benefits, but instead of prison, should get tax hikes. This is what I was talking about.

You aren't psychically forcing them, but you still technically are forcing them by putting them in an uncomfortable and unfortunate situation. Either risk your financial life, or do work you really don't want to do.

These people shouldn't face punishment. It is their choice.

Declining benefits and tax breaks is their choice.
Nothing in life is free. You have to give to get.

If you refuse to work you do not get paid as well.
That is generally how it is.

??

They are not declining it.
They really don't want to do the work. Medical issues, personal issues, not the right time whatever.

You don't respect that they don't want to do work, and infringe on their rights by giving them punishments, therefore putting them in unstable situations, and forcing them to do work they don't want to do so they won't face repercussions.

Why do you think you have the right to meddle in people's lives and punish them from doing things they don't wish to do?

If they don't want to do environmental work, then ok, no to civic duties or anyother assigned duties? You don't have the right to force them.

If someone isn't working in the current Western World, they don't suddenly get tax hikes, and most can still get benefits if their reason is respectable.

What makes your cause to meddle with them so special?

[Telconi]

For me it depends on when this Doomsday happens.

If it will happen in my lifetime then I can maybe be convinced to support this (provided you can show it would avert the crisis).

It’s 100 plus years down the road then I’m going to oppose it.

I don’t want to be forced to do some environmental labour gig. I want freedom.

That’s where I’d honestly stand on this.

It'll happen in your lifetime but nothing you do individually will help.

"Abandon hope all ye who reside on this planet" is a pretty bad recruitment line.

[Novus America]

Declining benefits and tax breaks is their choice.
Nothing in life is free. You have to give to get.

If you refuse to work you do not get paid as well.
That is generally how it is.

??

They are not declining it.
They really don't want to do the work. Medical issues, personal issues, not the right time whatever.

You don't respect that they don't want to do work, and infringe on their rights by giving them punishments, therefore putting them in unstable situations, and forcing them to do work they don't want to do so they won't face repercussions.

Why do you think you have the right to meddle in people's lives and punish them from doing things they don't wish to do?

Giving them benefits is meddling in their lives.
All I am saying is they have to give something to get benefits.

Already you have to serve to get certain benefits anyways.
You do not get veterans benefits if you do not serve.

You do not automatically have the right to get everything for free.

If you want to get paid you are expected to work.

[Novitskaya]

What you were implying was the fact that if they didn't do eco-friendly/specific work you would meddle in their lives. What if they wanted to do something else not on the list, or didn't like anything on the list? From reading your posts they'd deserve punishment...

And I'm not dumb. I don't advocate getting everything for free, I'm not about that.

Maybe you have misunderstood my point.

I am not talking about work in general, but the eco friendly, or specific work you are encouraging.

Even if you don't work in reality, you aren't usually going to get a tax increase.






Already you have to serve to get certain benefits anyways.
You do not get veterans benefits if you do not serve.

You do not automatically have the right to get everything for free.

If you want to get paid you are expected to work.

[Novus America]

Which is why for my proposal environmental work would only be one of several options to complete national service.

And you do often have to do something to get tax breaks.
Such as have children.

You cannot get child face breaks without having children of course.

[Novitskaya]

Which is why for my proposal environmental work would only be one of several options to complete national service.

And you do often have to do something to get tax breaks.
Such as have children.

You cannot get child face breaks without having children of course.

I'm not talking about breaks. In your original post you said NOT doing the work would get you higher taxes and less benefits.

If you said 'citizens who don't work at all shouldn't get benefits', I would agree.

But you said if they didn't do a specific field of work.

It is not Democratic to force people to complete a specific field of work. They don't have to, they shouldn't have to.

Want to live your whole life as a grocer without ever doing state quota specific jobs? They should be allowed to just work as their job without doing a field of jobs.

If you said that this could apply to homeless people to get them off their feet, then yeah, that would be beneficial.

But your saying people who already have jobs or dream of having one still have to suffer punishment for not doing a specific possibly state assigned work they don't want to do?

That isn't fair. They don't need to do this state assigned jobs or specific jobs, if they have a job.

[Novitskaya]

To be honest my original post was against mandatory work or getting forced into uncomfortable situations so you have to do that work, not "Everyone gets everything for free"

I never implied that. I'm saying they shouldn't have to do specific work if they have jobs or are interested in other Jobs. I never said anything about getting everything for free. If they are homeless/jobless and refuse the opportunities, then they shouldn't get benefits, as they rejected responsibilities. My post was forcing employed or interested in other field people, not the unemployed/homeless

The original

[Novus America]

Which is why for my proposal environmental work would only be one of several options to complete national service.

And you do often have to do something to get tax breaks.
Such as have children.

You cannot get child face breaks without having children of course.

I'm not talking about breaks. In your original post you said NOT doing the work would get you higher taxes and less benefits.

If you said 'citizens who don't work at all shouldn't get benefits', I would agree.

But you said if they didn't do a specific field of work.

It is not Democratic to force people to complete a specific field of work. They don't have to, they shouldn't have to.

Want to live your whole life as a grocer without ever doing state quota specific jobs? They should be allowed to just work as their job without doing a field of jobs.

If you said that this could apply to homeless people to get them off their feet, then yeah, that would be beneficial.

But your saying people who already have jobs or dream of having one still have to suffer punishment for not doing a specific possibly state assigned work they don't want to do?

That isn't fair. They don't need to do this state assigned jobs or specific jobs, if they have a job.

Getting tax breaks for doing something vs paying more for not doing it are the same thing, just the former makes it sound better.

Not everyone pays the same tax rate.

And this would just be paying something in to get something out. Like any job.

And it would only be for two or three years, not you being forced into one job for your whole life.

Coca Cola is not going to pay you to work for Pepsi.
For getting payments from the government you would be doing work beneficial to the government.

All I am asking is you contribute to society to get benefits from it really.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Activities could include forestry, recycling, litter picking, renewables creation and installation, and so on. The usual drawbacks include conscientious objection, but for this project such an argument doesn't appear to hold up. Nor do the dangers of militarization of a nation and how it makes war more appealing, in fact, the culture it would instill in the public could generate something akin to Prussian militarism of an environmental style and dramatically alter a societies behavior.

I wonder if there's a NS issue on a compulsory environmental/social service program...

Can't see how conscientious objection would apply if you get to choose what kind of project you'd be working on.

[Ifreann]

It'll happen in your lifetime but nothing you do individually will help.

"Abandon hope all ye who reside on this planet" is a pretty bad recruitment line.

I'm not saying there's no hope, only that the solution isn't people picking up litter or planting trees. I assume we have all heard that a few corporations are responsible for a majority of all pollution? Pressuring the government to crack down on them is a far better use of our time and energy than pressuring the government to force us all to join Thermodolia's Green Army.

[Kowani]

"Abandon hope all ye who reside on this planet" is a pretty bad recruitment line.

I'm not saying there's no hope, only that the solution isn't people picking up litter or planting trees. I assume we have all heard that a few corporations are responsible for a majority of all pollution? Pressuring the government to crack down on them is a far better use of our time and energy than pressuring the government to force us all to join Thermodolia's Green Army.

I don’t know, we could have the Environmental Force nationalize any corporations that refuse to go green.

[Novus America]

Why not?

Because it's literally the exact same thing except you make the punishment pre-emptive.

Anyway, any attempt to save the environment or prevent climate change by forcing greater burdens and lifestyle changes upon the West will accomplish absolutely nothing while countries like China and India continue to pump out more pollution than even the US, let alone the UK and Europe.

One cannot in good conscience propose the enslavement of the West to offset the harm of the East. Not only is such an effort evil beyond compare, it will utterly fail at its stated goal.

Well we should cease trade for with countries who fail to meet certain environmental requirements.

[Ifreann]

I'm not saying there's no hope, only that the solution isn't people picking up litter or planting trees. I assume we have all heard that a few corporations are responsible for a majority of all pollution? Pressuring the government to crack down on them is a far better use of our time and energy than pressuring the government to force us all to join Thermodolia's Green Army.

I don’t know, we could have the Environmental Force nationalize any corporations that refuse to go green.

Em, no, that's not how nationalisation works.

[Distance Running]

Shamelessly stolen idea from reddit because I love it.

Mandatory military service is often discussed in terms of duty, national security, and so on. Given the current environmental crisis facing the species which Is likely to continue into the near future, would you support a mandatory environmentalism service, some term of service people are required to serve between the ages of 18 and say 30, or face penalties, until the crisis has passed.

The typical benefits of mandatory military service translate over here, it could serve as a means to instill national values, teach skills, discipline, team work and so on, allow large scale projects to be completed, and protects us from a species scale disaster.

Activities could include forestry, recycling, litter picking, renewables creation and installation, and so on. The usual drawbacks include conscientious objection, but for this project such an argument doesn't appear to hold up. Nor do the dangers of militarization of a nation and how it makes war more appealing, in fact, the culture it would instill in the public could generate something akin to Prussian militarism of an environmental style and dramatically alter a societies behavior. The only argument against mandatory military service which appears to translate is the standard liberty argument, which can surely only be viewed relative to the threat posed.

So, discuss I guess?

So enviro-fascism?

[Kowani]

I don’t know, we could have the Environmental Force nationalize any corporations that refuse to go green.

Em, no, that's not how nationalisation works.

Think of them like strikers, physically occupying the property. Obviously they’re not going to do all the paperwork.