Message from @Bowman151
Discord ID: 531701277814554624
Twitter is a waste of time and energy
^^^ we should just call it twatter. Lol
@Beemann While i do think most people should understand how important service is, very few of the total population would be able to do it. And its not the best to have free citizens (legal) with no vote for over its governance.
Also, there is a reason we don't just elect high ranking generals to president (rarely), as you don't just want people with just a military mind leading you, only thinking of how to win fights/wars. You need a balance of ideals, and not just people fit to fight holding more power over everyone else in the population without a say.
1. You don't vote while you're in the service, only once you're out
2. Service != military
Military is one of multiple options, but all are meant to be the individual serving the nation/public. The right of voting becomes the right to serve, for anyone of sound mind able to consent to the contract
Do you mean under your idea you can't vote? Because if your in the military now you can vote. And yes i know what you meant by after having served but making a tier system of citizens is not great for any society.
It's not my idea specifically. It's Heinlein
And the tiering is purely by choice. Citizenship is more attainable than wealth, so long as you're willing to endure service
And in the hypothetical society described, you can vote once you leave service
After serving the min required time
Also depending on the state, you already have a worse version of this system in the USA
Ya i know its not your idea, just what you were saying is the best.
And calling something you either join service or you have no vote as a citizen, isn't really what i would call a "choice".
And while i agree in some places it could be worst then citizenship or no vote, its still all apart of peoples freedom playing out.
Specifically in the US you can lose franchise if you don't register for SS by 26, depending on the state. As far as voting goes, how is it not a choice? A growing number of citizens in western nations are not voting, or are essentially voting blind. Given the immense power behind the vote, is this not irresponsible and destined to create a dysfunctional, non representative system?
Having the right to vote but not doing so, is still a choice, and a right. Having the right to vote poorly is still a right (as these are things that have happened for all of history, and we are not doing to bad as a species). Having a vote or not based on service is not a choice, as you are taking away free peoples rights (under our constitutions).
Voting is important, and people should learn more when doing so, but that does not change the persons right if they choice not to, or don't bother voting at all.
you don't hate the (((whites)))? what are you, a racist?
Voting is important, but not important enough for it to come with any real consequences, @Shadows ? A vote is intent to push your idea above all others, utilizing government force. Why is that guaranteed just because you were born? It moves beyond the purview of the personal and well into the sphere of social and political control
That's what it means to be a US citizen..... You are born with immutable rights, free to engage them or not.
It does not change because some bad outcomes happen (even tho we try to take steps to limit that).
If there was a way to actually get people reconnected with a culture that promoted an understanding of rights that would seemingly help. But it seems like a pipe dream at this point.
you have rights specifically because of 2A. Nothing is ultimately immutable, else you would still have 2A, 4A and 10A entirely intact, for starters
I've already said before, principles are not easy to fight for, and they never will be. But that's what our founding fathers gave us, and i won't stop fighting for that ideal.
The constitution merely enumerates rights. It’s not the source of rights
^
@amlam Yep, but our constitution is one of the only places in the world (if not the only) that abide by a persons human rights.
the constitution only means anything insofar as the public enforces the rights enumerated within. The public has not enforced these rights
Of course. We’re unique in that way but that doesn’t mean that the rest of the world isn’t having their innate human rights being violated
The constitution has certainly be encroached upon but it’s done remarkably well in holding up against the slow creep of tyranny
Pretty much better than anywhere or any time in history
How are we measuring the "slow creep of tyranny"?
With a ruler
Get it?
A ruler?
most of the constitutional encroachments have occurred within the past 100 years or so
Like the instrument and also the tyrant?
👌
But my point was only that while we have slowly lost some of our freedom over the past couple centuries we’ve lost a lot less than other nations that should be compared to us like the UK and Canada
Not relative to what you had, no
Canada's constitution popped up in the 70s and was basically swiss cheese. UK never had a constitution
from the early 1900s onward there has been a steady erosion of rights that the average American *did* have