LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Cisairse]

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.

Yeah the CCC was based, we should absolutely bring it back.

[Novus America]

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.

Yeah the CCC was based, we should absolutely bring it back.

Absolutely. It was a great way to get people out into society, learning new skills and off the streets. It was a good program. And should also count towards any national service requirements. Many of the trails on such in national parks were built by the CCC and sadly many not much maintained since.

Also having the post office a give everyone who lacks one a basic banking/checking account and PO Box free of charge should not be that difficult. Even aside from the national service idea those things can and should be implemented.
This is important, we obviously will not agree on all things, but despite some major philosophical differences we can still agree on certain things. I respect you even if I do not always agree. And working together maybe neither of us gets everything we want, but at least we both would get some of what we want.

Although please see my edit on military service, and its benefits, I do think the military does not get credit for all the non fighting things it contributes.
But I still want to emphasize I do believe there are and should be OTHER ways to contribute.

The foreign service, NOAA (which might be merged into the Coast Guard but still) and Public Health Service Should give all the same benefits as military service, AND there are many other ways beyond those one could contribute.

My system would try to best fit people to how they can best serve and take their preferences into account. Not just automatically send people to the military for their national service (which again optional, you would still get the same rights a permanent resident gets if you failed to do and if you were born here that could not be taken away as citizens cannot be deported obviously).

In your case military service does not seem a good fit for you, but it is clear you are still willing to contribute in other ways, something that should be accommodated.
How would you like to serve, if given the choice?

[Farnhamia]

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.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[Lucja]

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.

In some countries, primarily those threatened by larger ones, it can be a useful policy.

But most people probably like it because it sounds cool.

[Novus America]

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

In some countries, primarily those threatened by larger ones, it can be a useful policy.

But most people probably like it because it sounds cool.

Well and I have specifically said even if military service would be major form of national service it would not have to be the only way. In Singapore for example you can do you national service time (or conscription) with the police, firefighting, emergency medical services as well.

But out of any particular system usually it is the military that has the single biggest personnel requirement, especially if the goal is to mats in a large trained reserve pool for the military although that does not necessarily have to be the case.

[Cisairse]

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

In some countries, primarily those threatened by larger ones, it can be a useful policy.

But most people probably like it because it sounds cool.

I guess if you're actively being invaded (or may be invaded in the very near future), then sure.

But like if we're talking about any NATO country then lmao.

[Ostroeuropa]

Despite making up 13% of the population, Black people commit 53% of crime. - Broke

Despite making up 1% of the population, the wealthy commit 80% of all thefts. - Woke

https://beta.grafiti.io/facts/149564-mu ... ch-economy



Often, crime is framed in terms that doesn't include employer crimes. When you include them, it's not even close.

The response to the "Despite making up 13% of the population" meme is "Which crimes? Why those ones? If you include these ones alongside the ones you have listed and compare, which are far more common and far more money is stolen by them, then it's clearly the 1% who are overwhelmingly criminal.".

[Novus America]

In some countries, primarily those threatened by larger ones, it can be a useful policy.

But most people probably like it because it sounds cool.

I guess if you're actively being invaded (or may be invaded in the very near future), then sure.

But like if we're talking about any NATO country then lmao.

NATO is only as credible as the military strength of its members. NATO does not preclude the need for a strong defense.
Also a place does not needs to actively invade you to be a military threat. For example the PRC is not going to drives tanks into DC, and does not have to.

You can defeat a country without seizing their capital.

NATO being so complacent is a major issue. When you assume no one can threaten you, you are actually at your most vulnerable. Overconfidence is the easiest path to defeat.

That being said It should also be noted a strong national security is much more than just a big military. A steel worker or farmer is not necessarily less important than a soldier.
If you soldiers have no food and sailor no ship because their is no steel to make ships they cannot fight.

Military service is not the only way to contribute to national defense.

[Cisairse]

Bloomberg: U.S. Ranked Worst for Workers’ Rights Among Major Economies



I am not surprised that the U.S. is ranked so poorly, but I am surprised that we still ended up below states that I would generally view as lacking systemic methods of protecting rights, such as Russia.

I guess if you're actively being invaded (or may be invaded in the very near future), then sure.

But like if we're talking about any NATO country then lmao.

NATO is only as credible as the military strength of its members. NATO does not preclude the need for a strong defense.
Also a place does not needs to actively invade you to be a military threat. For example the PRC is not going to drives tanks into DC, and does not have to.

You can defeat a country without seizing their capital.

NATO being so complacent is a major issue. When you assume no one can threaten you, you are actually at your most vulnerable. Overconfidence is the easiest path to defeat.

That being said It should also be noted a strong national security is much more than just a big military. A steel worker or farmer is not necessarily less important than a soldier.
If you soldiers have no food and sailor no ship because their is no steel to make ships they cannot fight.

Military service is not the only way to contribute to national defense.

Right but the solution to "We need a defense force" isn't "let's force people to join the military" for obvious reasons, and if your conscription model includes opt-outs for military service then there's no point in having it in the first place. NATO is doing just fine on a voluntary basis.

[Mirjt]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

[Novus America]

Bloomberg: U.S. Ranked Worst for Workers’ Rights Among Major Economies

(Image)

I am not surprised that the U.S. is ranked so poorly, but I am surprised that we still ended up below states that I would generally view as lacking systemic methods of protecting rights, such as Russia.

NATO is only as credible as the military strength of its members. NATO does not preclude the need for a strong defense.
Also a place does not needs to actively invade you to be a military threat. For example the PRC is not going to drives tanks into DC, and does not have to.

You can defeat a country without seizing their capital.

NATO being so complacent is a major issue. When you assume no one can threaten you, you are actually at your most vulnerable. Overconfidence is the easiest path to defeat.

That being said It should also be noted a strong national security is much more than just a big military. A steel worker or farmer is not necessarily less important than a soldier.
If you soldiers have no food and sailor no ship because their is no steel to make ships they cannot fight.

Military service is not the only way to contribute to national defense.

Right but the solution to "We need a defense force" isn't "let's force people to join the military" for obvious reasons, and if your conscription model includes opt-outs for military service then there's no point in having it in the first place. NATO is doing just fine on a voluntary basis.

Though what is the point of even pretending to have workers rights if we allow outsourcing to the places with the fewest rights?
Domestically having good rights while using slave abroad to make your stuff is not morally superior.

Outsourcing is the problem. The race to the bottom.

And actually NATO is not doing so well.
https://www.army-technology.com/news/ge ... port-2019/
Germany cannot find enough recruits even for its pathetically undersized force.

Many NATO countries have personnel shortages and/or very small military forces.

“This year, the government has promised a rise in active defence personnel from 181,000 currently, to 198,500 by 2025, despite the number of new recruits to the German military falling by 3,000 from 2017 to 2018.

Last year’s report also found that there were 21,000 officer and junior officer positions left vacant in 2017. Meanwhile, a new problem for 2018 was finding specialised personnel to fill skilled labour positions such as military staff in IT departments, medical staff, and management and logistics employees.“

And like I said I take the carrot over the stick. Making it more likely qualified people complete national service.
Making it encouraged and required to get certain benefits over mandated.

But also non military options does not make the thing pointless because the non military options would not be unlimited. Doing something that does nothing to contribute enough or doing nothing at all would not suffice. The non military options would only be for things that otherwise contributed enough and have issues getting sufficient qualified people on their own.

[Valrifell]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

I'm not shocked. US exceptionalism is the driving force behind letting the US be exceptionally cruel to its population.

[Novus America]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

Sauce?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers ... s#Adoption
The US voted for it.
Also the US signed and ratified the ICCPR
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna ... cal_Rights
Guess who did not?

PRC and Cuba.

Sure the US could improve on things a lot, but this is not the way to advocate it.

[The East Marches II]

Bloomberg: U.S. Ranked Worst for Workers’ Rights Among Major Economies

(Image)

I am not surprised that the U.S. is ranked so poorly, but I am surprised that we still ended up below states that I would generally view as lacking systemic methods of protecting rights, such as Russia.

NATO is only as credible as the military strength of its members. NATO does not preclude the need for a strong defense.
Also a place does not needs to actively invade you to be a military threat. For example the PRC is not going to drives tanks into DC, and does not have to.

You can defeat a country without seizing their capital.

NATO being so complacent is a major issue. When you assume no one can threaten you, you are actually at your most vulnerable. Overconfidence is the easiest path to defeat.

That being said It should also be noted a strong national security is much more than just a big military. A steel worker or farmer is not necessarily less important than a soldier.
If you soldiers have no food and sailor no ship because their is no steel to make ships they cannot fight.

Military service is not the only way to contribute to national defense.

Right but the solution to "We need a defense force" isn't "let's force people to join the military" for obvious reasons, and if your conscription model includes opt-outs for military service then there's no point in having it in the first place. NATO is doing just fine on a voluntary basis.

NATO is not doing just fine. I'd be happy to prove you wrong but I need your word of honor that you will not flee.

[No State Here]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

Lolno

[Cisairse]

Bloomberg: U.S. Ranked Worst for Workers’ Rights Among Major Economies

(Image)

I am not surprised that the U.S. is ranked so poorly, but I am surprised that we still ended up below states that I would generally view as lacking systemic methods of protecting rights, such as Russia.


Right but the solution to "We need a defense force" isn't "let's force people to join the military" for obvious reasons, and if your conscription model includes opt-outs for military service then there's no point in having it in the first place. NATO is doing just fine on a voluntary basis.

NATO is not doing just fine. I'd be happy to prove you wrong but I need your word of honor that you will not flee.

I am always open to new ideas.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

The Universal Declaration is not something you can sign. It’s a UN General Assembly resolution.

Bloomberg: U.S. Ranked Worst for Workers’ Rights Among Major Economies

(Image)

I am not surprised that the U.S. is ranked so poorly, but I am surprised that we still ended up below states that I would generally view as lacking systemic methods of protecting rights, such as Russia.


Right but the solution to "We need a defense force" isn't "let's force people to join the military" for obvious reasons, and if your conscription model includes opt-outs for military service then there's no point in having it in the first place. NATO is doing just fine on a voluntary basis.

NATO is not doing just fine. I'd be happy to prove you wrong but I need your word of honor that you will not flee.

‘Fleeing’, to you, is everything that makes a person log off before you, including needing sleep, having to work, or just getting sick of you repeating the same unproven point at infinitum.

Sucha victor you are.

[Rusozak]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

More than China? That's more than a stretch. We'd pretty much have to fire up our own Auschwitz to pass the PRC up.

[Fahran]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

Source?

[Ostroeuropa]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

Source?

It could be a "There are no homosexuals in Iran" source. Like, "Look, the US court system recorded 10,000 human rights abuses, and the Chinese court system recorded 12!".

The issue with recording this sort of thing when dealing with a government like China are obvious, but I wouldn't necessarily disbelieve that that is in fact what records say routinely.

[Kowani]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

I'm not shocked. US exceptionalism is the driving force behind letting the US be exceptionally cruel to its population.

The US violating human rights would not surprise me.

More than China? Yeah, no.

[The East Marches II]

Remember the U.S. still has not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which it helped draft), and is one of the very few countries that haven't. It is also believed the the U.S. may have more human rights violations that China or Cuba.

The Universal Declaration is not something you can sign. It’s a UN General Assembly resolution.

NATO is not doing just fine. I'd be happy to prove you wrong but I need your word of honor that you will not flee.

‘Fleeing’, to you, is everything that makes a person log off before you, including needing sleep, having to work, or just getting sick of you repeating the same unproven point at infinitum.

Sucha victor you are.

You still run my boy. You've all the opportunity in the world to cook something up :^)

You are right, I spare no mercy to a moralist who larps but when called to action, shrinks and hides. I am not a kindly victor. There is a link in my signature with all those stats you couldn't be asked to read. I spelled them out. I await your reply with bated breath.

[Valrifell]

I'm not shocked. US exceptionalism is the driving force behind letting the US be exceptionally cruel to its population.

The US violating human rights would not surprise me.

More than China? Yeah, no.

Oh yeah, more than China, probably no. For the record I can't read.

[The East Marches II]

NATO is not doing just fine. I'd be happy to prove you wrong but I need your word of honor that you will not flee.

I am always open to new ideas.

The first goal of NATO is to deter conflict by strength. In terms of force ratios and the pathetic nature of our allies. Bit can no longer do that. The second goal is to win. It can not do that at the moment either.

I'll spare you an extended lecture on equipment readiness rates and spending. Instead, I'll make it simple. We lose in every scenario run up. We will be fighting a two front war. We can not afford worthless allies who can't supply their own bullets much less get working planes. Conscription isn't the answer alone. It's integrating multiple armies into one whole that can fight together. We used to have this ability. We do not anymore.

[Cisairse]

I am always open to new ideas.

The first goal of NATO is to deter conflict by strength. In terms of force ratios and the pathetic nature of our allies. Bit can no longer do that. The second goal is to win. It can not do that at the moment either.

I'll spare you an extended lecture on equipment readiness rates and spending. Instead, I'll make it simple. We lose in every scenario run up. We will be fighting a two front war. We can not afford worthless allies who can't supply their own bullets much less get working planes. Conscription isn't the answer alone. It's integrating multiple armies into one whole that can fight together. We used to have this ability. We do not anymore.

Why don't we have this ability anymore? Assuming NATO's leaders are aware of the issue, and have some idea of how to resolve it, why are steps not being taken?