LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Novus America]

Dropouts have the choice of seeking out the evaluation during school or seeking it out later.
If they do neither then they are considered to have avoided it intentionally.

Seems kinda strange to require someone to actively seek out something that for everyone else seeks them out. How do you address the issues you mentioned earlier, about people who don't have a car or for whatever other reason can't (or don't know they should) seek out the evaluation?

All males are already required to fill out a Selective Service form, and proving you did already required to receive certain government benefits.

There are many methods this can be achieved, the form can have a self assessment, and be available online, at schools, requested for free by phone or mail, all post offices, court houses, etc. thus that it is possible for everyone to get one. Then using the self assessment as a basis people could be called in for a in person assessment as needed, and if they have no transportation, transportation provide for them. And any public transportation user refunded, and an advance requested.

But actually having to make a little effort to do it is not bad, that is kind of the point, you having to actively do something to contribute to your societal responsibilities.

[Duvniask]

As Cisairse says: conscription is antithetical to personal liberty.

It is also pointless. The social cohesion you guys expect from welfare states doesn't derive from the fucking draft. Jesus.

And completely unrestricted individualist personal liberty cannot coexist with things like social welfare. You give up some liberties to get benefits from the state. Expecting you can have both unrestricted individualist personal liberties AND collectivist policies at the same time is doublethink.

In order to ave both at the same time you need to have a compromise that sacrifices some personal liberties and is only partially collectivist. Real social democracy realizes this.
Even if many left coms and US “democratic socialists” seem to struggle with the idea that they are pushing two partially conflicting ideas and unwilling to compromise on both.

Holy fucking shit, you're so bad.

Saying something is antithetical to personal liberty does not mean I want unrestricted personal liberty.

And the social cohesion in the Nordic States does not stem ENTIRELY from the draft, the draft absolutely plays a role in it. The problem is you refuse to admit it plays a part on ideological grounds.

Having an obligation to society (which can be fulfilled with alternative non military service for conscientious objectors) in form of a draft is one of those critical obligations, not the only one but an important one.

You have nothing to show for it. Don't extrapolate your obnoxious American military-worship to my country.

[Duvniask]

If you let a gang of thugs into your dorm to go wild on your mates, does the problem start and end with you? Of course not.

Surely you'd see there's also a problem with, you know, the guys you let in who're going to be the ones actually doing the horrible shit you let them do?

African leaders are compliant. That does not make them the cause.

They are part of the cause. Why are you being so reductionist? There can be more than one cause, both of which must exist for the problem to occur.

In the hypothetical both the gang of thugs AND you are causes, that must both exist for them to run wild. Both you and them are guilty. Quite often things occur because of the right combination of causes, and in many if not most crimes, there is more than me guilty party, or at least party that contributed to the crime.

Read the post again. Read it very carefully so you can understand it does not say what you think it says.

[Dumb Ideologies]

They are part of the cause. Why are you being so reductionist? There can be more than one cause, both of which must exist for the problem to occur.

In the hypothetical both the gang of thugs AND you are causes, that must both exist for them to run wild. Both you and them are guilty. Quite often things occur because of the right combination of causes, and in many if not most crimes, there is more than me guilty party, or at least party that contributed to the crime.

Read the post again. Read it very carefully so you can understand it does not say what you think it says.

Read this post again. Read it very carefully so you can understand why being this passive-aggressive doesn't often win people over to your argument.

[Novus America]

And completely unrestricted individualist personal liberty cannot coexist with things like social welfare. You give up some liberties to get benefits from the state. Expecting you can have both unrestricted individualist personal liberties AND collectivist policies at the same time is doublethink.

In order to ave both at the same time you need to have a compromise that sacrifices some personal liberties and is only partially collectivist. Real social democracy realizes this.
Even if many left coms and US “democratic socialists” seem to struggle with the idea that they are pushing two partially conflicting ideas and unwilling to compromise on both.

Holy fucking shit, you're so bad.

Saying something is antithetical to personal liberty does not mean I want unrestricted personal liberty.

And the social cohesion in the Nordic States does not stem ENTIRELY from the draft, the draft absolutely plays a role in it. The problem is you refuse to admit it plays a part on ideological grounds.

Having an obligation to society (which can be fulfilled with alternative non military service for conscientious objectors) in form of a draft is one of those critical obligations, not the only one but an important one.

You have nothing to show for it. Don't extrapolate your obnoxious American military-worship to my country.

So you are okay with certain restrictions on civil liberties, but only those that are in accordance with whatever benefits your ideology or you personally.
You are selective on it. So the reason you object to it cannot be solely on the grounds you provided. Sure throwing in the antithetical word (without actually demonstrating why it is so much worse) is designed to give you a cop out, but it is a cheap one, because you would just assign the word to advance your ideology. Selectively slap it on things you do not like.

And is the draft a social obligation? Yes or no? Again I never said it is the only one, actually said it is not the only one, but it does exist as a social obligation (even if you are not selected you could be) and social obligations are an important part of the Nordic Model.

Which is the fundamental point, under the Nordic model you do not get things for free, because you are expected to contribute to society in return, including in being available to defend it if you are needed to defend it. Even potentially at risk of your life.
There is no greater obligation than potentially being required to give your life to society.

[Duvniask]

Read the post again. Read it very carefully so you can understand it does not say what you think it says.

Read this post again. Read it very carefully so you can understand why being this passive-aggressive doesn't often win people over to your argument.

I'm not interested in winning him over to my argument. All I'm saying is he doesn't even get my position right. He's a buffoon, consistently, and I have zero appreciation for his input at this point.

One thing is true though. There can be nothing good gleaned from it. This conversation is over.

[Novus America]

They are part of the cause. Why are you being so reductionist? There can be more than one cause, both of which must exist for the problem to occur.

In the hypothetical both the gang of thugs AND you are causes, that must both exist for them to run wild. Both you and them are guilty. Quite often things occur because of the right combination of causes, and in many if not most crimes, there is more than me guilty party, or at least party that contributed to the crime.

Read the post again. Read it very carefully so you can understand it does not say what you think it says.

I read it. African leaders are part of the cause, or one of the causes, and their corruption is a critical point in allowing neoliberalism and PRC neocolonialism (which is not really neoliberal as it is heavily state directed and managed) to run amuck. They are one of the causes, because without them enabling them, neoliberalism and neocolonialism could not run amuck. The are not the SOLE cause, but they are a cause.

Again you can have more than one cause of action.
In many if not most cases multiple simultaneous causes have to occur concurrently for the outcome to happen, so one cannot say just one of the causes is the cause, and the other causes are not causes. Because more than one cause must happen for the outcome to occur.

If you are guilty, and your guilty action (or in some cases inaction) is one of the things required for the adverse outcome to occur, then you are part of the cause.

[Novus America]

Read this post again. Read it very carefully so you can understand why being this passive-aggressive doesn't often win people over to your argument.

I'm not interested in winning him over to my argument. All I'm saying is he doesn't even get my position right. He's a buffoon, consistently, and I have zero appreciation for his input at this point.

One thing is true though. There can be nothing good gleaned from it. This conversation is over.

You can disagree with my viewpoint without resorting to flaming, but this hardly advances your cause.

Why are you here if you are being unwilling to deal with alternative views and discuss them in a civil manner? Even by hearing ideas that we disagree with, or that we even view as outright wrong, we learn and grow. Although if you are not trying to convince some people your cause is right, how are you advancing it?

Sure I am sometimes wrong, sometimes not very civil, sometimes write stupid things, as do we all, I am not perfect. But some others here do find some value in some of my points, so I do not think it fair to say all are entirely without value.

And maybe do not take things so seriously.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

France is still a colonial power in Africa

https://africanarguments.org/2019/02/14 ... oing-chad/

Chadian authorities have strategically instrumentalised the “war on terror” by rebranding rebels as “mercenaries and terrorists“. Since its army’s intervention alongside the French in Mali in 2013, Déby has also played up the military diplomacy card and made himself indispensable to Western allies. As a result, the conflict-ridden country has acquired the status of regional power in just a few years.

Chad’s army is currently engaged in the war against jihadist armed groups in the Sahel and Boko Haram in the Lake Chad basin. It is now badly overstretched, however, and is facing difficulties in trying to cope with a rebellion on its own territory. This is especially the case as many soldiers and rebels have been recruited among the same ethnic groups and share strong social ties.

This is why France’s airstrikes are particularly important. They are part of an escalation and are a sign that France is now supporting Déby at all costs while ignoring the regime’s authoritarian practices and human rights violations.

[Nakena]

France is still a colonial power in Africa

https://africanarguments.org/2019/02/14 ... oing-chad/

Chadian authorities have strategically instrumentalised the “war on terror” by rebranding rebels as “mercenaries and terrorists“. Since its army’s intervention alongside the French in Mali in 2013, Déby has also played up the military diplomacy card and made himself indispensable to Western allies. As a result, the conflict-ridden country has acquired the status of regional power in just a few years.

Chad’s army is currently engaged in the war against jihadist armed groups in the Sahel and Boko Haram in the Lake Chad basin. It is now badly overstretched, however, and is facing difficulties in trying to cope with a rebellion on its own territory. This is especially the case as many soldiers and rebels have been recruited among the same ethnic groups and share strong social ties.

This is why France’s airstrikes are particularly important. They are part of an escalation and are a sign that France is now supporting Déby at all costs while ignoring the regime’s authoritarian practices and human rights violations.

Le françafrique

[Fahran]

The blood tithe is a traditional responsibility of citizenship akin to other forms of taxation. It is hardly antithetical to a civic conception of liberty, no more so than a billionaire having to pay taxes. It presents a steeper demand on the citizen but, theoretically, it occurs more rarely and serves to protect the political community and thus all other liberties citizens enjoy.

[Cisairse]

By economic conscription I mean serving your term of conscription via public works projects or state-administered employment in underemployed sectors. Or just the public sector in general.

Fair. Then we are in agreement on that point. I do think we need a national service but obviously not everyone is best suited for active military service, and only those motivated and qualified for military service, who are not better used serving in a non-military capacity should be called up for full time military service.

To make the system equitable all persons should be able to to participate, even those who have a physical disability or some other reason that makes them not well suited for military service.

I don't really see the military as something that warrants mandatory service.

[Cekoviu]

What's the deal with folx?

leftlibs just like abbreviatiŋ digrafs ig

[Cisairse]

Seems kinda strange to require someone to actively seek out something that for everyone else seeks them out. How do you address the issues you mentioned earlier, about people who don't have a car or for whatever other reason can't (or don't know they should) seek out the evaluation?

All males are already required to fill out a Selective Service form, and proving you did already required to receive certain government benefits.

There are many methods this can be achieved, the form can have a self assessment, and be available online, at schools, requested for free by phone or mail, all post offices, court houses, etc. thus that it is possible for everyone to get one. Then using the self assessment as a basis people could be called in for a in person assessment as needed, and if they have no transportation, transportation provide for them. And any public transportation user refunded, and an advance requested.

But actually having to make a little effort to do it is not bad, that is kind of the point, you having to actively do something to contribute to your societal responsibilities.

A ton of people never fill out the Selective Service form, though.

What about people without access to a phone or a permanent address?

[Fahran]

What's the deal with folx?

leftlibs just like abbreviatiŋ digrafs ig

Why write folx when folks is already gender non-specific and traditional in at least one community of color? Who is this even for at this point?

[North German Realm]

France is still a colonial power in Africa

https://africanarguments.org/2019/02/14 ... oing-chad/

Chadian authorities have strategically instrumentalised the “war on terror” by rebranding rebels as “mercenaries and terrorists“. Since its army’s intervention alongside the French in Mali in 2013, Déby has also played up the military diplomacy card and made himself indispensable to Western allies. As a result, the conflict-ridden country has acquired the status of regional power in just a few years.

Chad’s army is currently engaged in the war against jihadist armed groups in the Sahel and Boko Haram in the Lake Chad basin. It is now badly overstretched, however, and is facing difficulties in trying to cope with a rebellion on its own territory. This is especially the case as many soldiers and rebels have been recruited among the same ethnic groups and share strong social ties.

This is why France’s airstrikes are particularly important. They are part of an escalation and are a sign that France is now supporting Déby at all costs while ignoring the regime’s authoritarian practices and human rights violations.

I'm like 90% sure this was never a secret. France was like a baby, dragged away from her colonies kicking and screaming, and has tried to get them back since then.

[Cisairse]

leftlibs just like abbreviatiŋ digrafs ig

Why write folx when folks is already gender non-specific and traditional in at least one community of color? Who is this even for at this point?

I prefer folkſ

[Novus America]

Fair. Then we are in agreement on that point. I do think we need a national service but obviously not everyone is best suited for active military service, and only those motivated and qualified for military service, who are not better used serving in a non-military capacity should be called up for full time military service.

To make the system equitable all persons should be able to to participate, even those who have a physical disability or some other reason that makes them not well suited for military service.

I don't really see the military as something that warrants mandatory service.

Well again I would not make it mandatory per se, but being available for it should be a civic obligation to those capable of doing it, if the state is defending you and providing for you, you should be willing to do the same. But I recognize that military service should not be the only acceptable form of national service, I would have alternative options for those not a good fit for military service. Obviously someone with no interest in military service, or physically or mentally unqualified would not make a very good soldier.

And it would be voluntary in as much in that you would not be jailed for refusing your national service but I do not see why those unwilling to give something in return should get the benefits of controlling the state via elections, running for office or working many government jobs, or getting state subsidized college.

Those things mean much more if you have to do something to get them, instead of viewing them as hand outs.

[Cisairse]

I don't really see the military as something that warrants mandatory service.

Well again I would not make it mandatory per se, but being available for it should be a civic obligation to those capable of doing it, if the state is defending you and providing for you, you should be willing to do the same. But I recognize that military service should not be the only acceptable form of national service, I would have alternative options for those not a good fit for military service. Obviously someone with no interest in military service, or physically or mentally unqualified would not make a very good soldier.

And it would be voluntary in as much in that you would not be jailed for refusing your national service but I do not see why those unwilling to give something in return should get the benefits of controlling the state via elections, running for office or working many government jobs, or getting state subsidized college.

Those things mean much more if you have to do something to get them, instead of viewing them as hand outs.

This line of thinking doesn't really follow. Specifically the bolded part.

The social contract isn't transactional. "Society does X for you, so you should do X for society" makes no sense.
When you get a can of soup from a homeless shelter you aren't then expected to give them a can of soup later. Or even pre-emptively, as is the case in your proposed scenario.

[Cekoviu]

leftlibs just like abbreviatiŋ digrafs ig

Why write folx when folks is already gender non-specific and traditional in at least one community of color? Who is this even for at this point?

to reiterate, leftlibs just like abbreviating digraphs, i don't think it's really supposed to be extra inclusive or anything

Why write folx when folks is already gender non-specific and traditional in at least one community of color? Who is this even for at this point?

I prefer folkſ

ow my eyes, long s can't come at the end of a word

[Novus America]

All males are already required to fill out a Selective Service form, and proving you did already required to receive certain government benefits.

There are many methods this can be achieved, the form can have a self assessment, and be available online, at schools, requested for free by phone or mail, all post offices, court houses, etc. thus that it is possible for everyone to get one. Then using the self assessment as a basis people could be called in for a in person assessment as needed, and if they have no transportation, transportation provide for them. And any public transportation user refunded, and an advance requested.

But actually having to make a little effort to do it is not bad, that is kind of the point, you having to actively do something to contribute to your societal responsibilities.

A ton of people never fill out the Selective Service form, though.

What about people without access to a phone or a permanent address?

Sure, many people do not fill it out, although some government jobs still require you prove you did, and federal college aid sometimes still requires it as well.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatod ... 3205425002
It is also technically a felony, meaning you could lose your voting rights for failing to do it although this is not really enforced.

It is easy to fill out too although I would make the form a little more useful.

Ideally we should try to fix the problem of people lacking an address in the first place.
I do not think people should have to live on the street. At least make sure everyone not having a permanent housing gets a PO Box. The Post Office should guarantee ever a bank account and a free PO Box if the do not have one at the very least.

But again I would have it where you could simply walk into a Post Office, DMV, Court House etc. and fill it out.

[Novus America]

Well again I would not make it mandatory per se, but being available for it should be a civic obligation to those capable of doing it, if the state is defending you and providing for you, you should be willing to do the same. But I recognize that military service should not be the only acceptable form of national service, I would have alternative options for those not a good fit for military service. Obviously someone with no interest in military service, or physically or mentally unqualified would not make a very good soldier.

And it would be voluntary in as much in that you would not be jailed for refusing your national service but I do not see why those unwilling to give something in return should get the benefits of controlling the state via elections, running for office or working many government jobs, or getting state subsidized college.

Those things mean much more if you have to do something to get them, instead of viewing them as hand outs.

This line of thinking doesn't really follow. Specifically the bolded part.

The social contract isn't transactional. "Society does X for you, so you should do X for society" makes no sense.
When you get a can of soup from a homeless shelter you aren't then expected to give them a can of soup later. Or even pre-emptively, as is the case in your proposed scenario.

Under law a completely one sided contract is usually voidable. Not really a proper contract at all, contracts generally require mutual exchange (although not necessarily of equal value exchange for every exchange).

I think it makes perfect sense you have to give something back to society. Now note it is not really transactional as it should not be a la carte.
Because not everyone can give something equal to what they receive each time. Which is fine. But you still should be expected to contribute if you want to get all the benefits.

Even in the homeless shelter though you have to follow certain rules the shelter or you might be kicked out of it. You still have often obligations you must meet to use it.

Nothing is free. Even if it costs you nothing it costs someone else something.

Being a part of society should mean more than just being an accident of birth. Otherwise it has no real meaning at all.

[Fahran]

The Chadian government is problematic on human rights issues but they're probably not wrong to brand militants in league with Boko Haram as Islamist terrorists. Beyond Boko Haram, a lot of the opposition is tied to previous presidents/dictators, so much so that the leader of the largest rebel group until recently was Mahamat Nouri, who served in Idriss Déby's cabinet until 2006 and has committed numerous human rights violations of his own and who is related to the dictator Déby overthrew - one Hissène Habré. Both Habré and Déby have received military support from France. Essentially, Chad is in trouble no matter what happens.

Source

[Cisairse]

I think it makes perfect sense you have to give something back to society.

I strongly disagree, and I doubt this disagreement can be reconciled in this case.

From a fundamental standpoint, on civil liberty grounds, birth is not optional. In order to preserve liberty, options must, then, be preserved by the state due to the lack of optionality of birth. Forcing proactive responsibilities on someone due to the geographic location of their birth is, as I said before, antithetical to civil liberty — that is, the existence of such a situation cannot coexist with principals of civil liberty.

There is a difference between "follow[ing] certain rules" (ie there are things you can't do — reactivity) and "you must do these X things" (proactivity).

Because it's true that being a part of society is, objectively, an accident of birth. Unless you propose having alternative requirements for birthright citizens compared to naturalized citizens, which, honestly, I find it more difficult to be opposed to. Saying you have to go track down a specific building to fill out a specific form by a specific age no matter what you're doing in your life is silly and we shouldn't have such a system.

Now if you want to condition social engagement (ie government programs) on conscription, that is more agreeable on ethical grounds, but I am still opposed. I question why military service? Military service seems to be a substantial waste of human resources with little benefit for the nation.

We already condition unemployment benefits on the payee actively seeking employment, with job offices generally assisting in the matter. Why not have public service work and, if allowable, military work be part of that "assist" in finding employment?

[Novus America]

I think it makes perfect sense you have to give something back to society.

I strongly disagree, and I doubt this disagreement can be reconciled in this case.

From a fundamental standpoint, on civil liberty grounds, birth is not optional. In order to preserve liberty, options must, then, be preserved by the state due to the lack of optionality of birth. Forcing proactive responsibilities on someone due to the geographic location of their birth is, as I said before, antithetical to civil liberty — that is, the existence of such a situation cannot coexist with principals of civil liberty.

There is a difference between "follow[ing] certain rules" (ie there are things you can't do — reactivity) and "you must do these X things" (proactivity).

Because it's true that being a part of society is, objectively, an accident of birth. Unless you propose having alternative requirements for birthright citizens compared to naturalized citizens, which, honestly, I find it more difficult to be opposed to. Saying you have to go track down a specific building to fill out a specific form by a specific age no matter what you're doing in your life is silly and we shouldn't have such a system.

Now if you want to condition social engagement (ie government programs) on conscription, that is more agreeable on ethical grounds, but I am still opposed. I question why military service? Military service seems to be a substantial waste of human resources with little benefit for the nation.

We already condition unemployment benefits on the payee actively seeking employment, with job offices generally assisting in the matter. Why not have public service work and, if allowable, military work be part of that "assist" in finding employment?

Oh well then I did not express myself clearly enough. We mostly agree it seems. Because you do not choose to be born you should still get the rights guaranteed in the constitution, like freedom of speech, due process and such. After all even foreign visitors and illegal immigrants get those rights.

But getting a basic right, and additional benefits like government paid college education, voting and running for office should entail something more.

So basically yes it would be that there would essentially be two levels of citizenship. That you get from birth, giving you all the rights of a permanent resident PLUS the fact that unlike a green card holder it cannot be taken away (as no person should be made stateless against their will) and then the higher level of responsibilities those get by truly being a member.

So that addresses the ethics problem. No one is denied their basic rights as a human being.
And it is voluntary. You could live your life fine without doing it.

And a do agree there should be a non-military option. I have said this, that only those most willing and fit for military service should be called up for it, those not should be given and alternative non-military means to contribute. Like you said, and I agree not everyone is best suited to contribute via military service. If you are no fit or willing to serve in the military maybe you could work at school or hospital in a disadvantaged area, help fix a national park (we should bring back the CCC BTW) or such.

Although I disagree military service is a waste with no benefits. Beyond defending the nation in world were countries like the PRC and Russia are increasingly engaging in aggressive actions, the military does much more than fight.

I never killed anyone during my service. But I was sent to Haiti to help with the disaster response there. An aircraft carrier can kill, but it also can save lives. It is a mobile airfield, hospital, power and desalination plant. The Army Corps of Engineers builds and maintains flood control works, the military also operates GPS.

There is much good you can do by military service. But I agree not everyone should be required to serve in the military to perform their obligations as they might be better suited for some other service.