America Reinstituting the Draft

[Edric O]

Heh, reminds me of the French that were defending their country in the start of World War II in trenches, while the Luftwaffe dropped bombs on them from above. Oh how times change quickly...

...and the Wermacht casually went around their trenches, ignoring them completely. That's why the French lost so fast. The Germans ignored their defences and took the scenic route through Holland and Belgium.

[danielsh]

...and the Wermacht casually went around their trenches, ignoring them completely. That's why the French lost so fast. The Germans ignored their defences and took the scenic route through Holland and Belgium.

The Maginot Line, right?  Funniest military blunder ever.  (As long as one ignores the fact that its uselessness led to Nazi occupation of France...)

[Edric O]

Getting back to a discussion I had earlier with Wolfwiz...

You know, what strikes me as interesting is that the US Federal Reserve already has an excellent system in place for just this sort of thing. The Fed has 12 major centers around the US, and each center must, at the end of each day, verify will all of the others that the management of the nations securities and loanable funds have taken place without fault. I am sure, if that such a system is already in place for individually verifying the validity and identity of trillions of dollars, then the same can be done for mere millions of votes. In fact, it would be easier, since one cannot counterfeit genetic testing easily. That, and the Fed does its work every day!

Well, there you have it. The technology to make direct democracy work on a national scale is available right now. The only thing we're lacking is the proper level of maturity among the people (as Acriku pointed out), but that will develop in time.

Just one small note, however: It's better to use retina scans for identification, rather than DNA tests. You can easily get hold of some genetic material from a person without him noticing, but cutting his eye out isn't quite as easy...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Getting back to a discussion I had earlier with Wolfwiz...

Well, there you have it. The technology to make direct democracy work on a national scale is available right now. The only thing we're lacking is the proper level of maturity among the people (as Acriku pointed out), but that will develop in time.

Just one small note, however: It's better to use retina scans for identification, rather than DNA tests. You can easily get hold of some genetic material from a person without him noticing, but cutting his eye out isn't quite as easy...

but then people who are blind due to missing both eyes wont be able to vote.  :P

[Acriku]

Edric, I'm wondering.. Time isn't a magical fix, there must be something active to make the people more educated about their economics and politics. What do you have in mind?

[Wolf]

True, and we'd easily notice people dangling eyeballs above the voting booth.

[danielsh]

If people are given more power, they'll take on more responsibility.

Right now, American citizens see their government as distant from them, separated by too many different bodies.  The belief that one's vote doesn't count, thanks to the Electoral College and now the Supreme Court, is widespread.  Show people that their votes directly affect their government, and they'll become involved.

[Wolf]

I agree. What's the first thing that pops into my head why I shouldn't vote? Because, it won't matter. It won't truly affect the outcome.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I agree. What's the first thing that pops into my head why I shouldn't vote? Because, it won't matter. It won't truly affect the outcome.

however that attitude seems to be changing with each election....

the Bush/Gore election was the highest voter turnout in a looong time.

so if anything we can say that people are atleast interested in Bush even if they feel strongly enough to vote  for/against him.  ;D

[Acriku]

I agree. What's the first thing that pops into my head why I shouldn't vote? Because, it won't matter. It won't truly affect the outcome.

But that is false. Each vote does count. If the results were 1000 to 999, then if just one person used your reasoning and didn't vote for the winner, the winner wouldn't be a winner. If the person didn't use your reasoning and voted for the loser, the loser wouldn't be the loser. You have no idea how the results will turn out, so with that uncertainty you can't reason that it won't matter. In any case, voting to change the outcome of an election is not the right reason for voting, a better reason would be for contributing to the democratic process, for being a part of the greater group that voted.

[Wolf]

But, the results aren't 1000 to 999. We perceive our votes as being worthless when the end result is 13,458,671 to 9,577,238. We can't argue that from "such-and-such a condition", our votes would count, when that condition does not match the one at hand.

Also, consider the American electoral system. Hey, even if we manage to pull off a win in our state, we can still lose the election. Even if we get a majority of votes, we can still lose the election. Look at 2000. How many votes did Gore beat Bush by? Those are how many votes that didn't matter.

[GUNWOUNDS]

But, the results aren't 1000 to 999. We perceive our votes as being worthless when the end result is 13,458,671 to 9,577,238. We can't argue that from "such-and-such a condition", our votes would count, when that condition does not match the one at hand.

Also, consider the American electoral system. Hey, even if we manage to pull off a win in our state, we can still lose the election. Even if we get a majority of votes, we can still lose the election. Look at 2000. How many votes did Gore beat Bush by? Those are how many votes that didn't matter.

Gore got  500,000 more popular votes than Bush....

so therefore half a million people voted for nothing  ;D

[ordos45]

With the Electoral system you need only win the 11 states with the most electoral votes.  If your opponent wins the other 39 he still loses.

[danielsh]

It's not so much a question of what actually happens, Acriku.  We are all of us intelligent people with a sense of civic duty, and so recognize that although representative democracy is far from perfect, our votes can indeed effect change in our government.  However, that is not the popular perception of our democratic system... and the 2000 debacle did nothing, I imagine, to help that.

[exatreide]

I was watching starship troopers and It actully looked like a sound method of goverment.

Basicaly military service wasnt required, that was no conscription. However becouse the democracies of the past grew fat with corpate greed. The veterans took over. They figured that anyone who did military service came to value fellow man.

A citizan therefor has the ability to vote.

a civilan does not....

sounds better then democracy or comunism...Cause they actully factor in the greed factor in humans.

[Wolf]

Yes, Rookie! For a long time, I thought that that idea deserved some deabate.

Only, READ THE BOOK!

Heinlein believed that the only people who should have a say in government should be those who have demonstrated that the good of society comes before their own personal safety. Hence, all citizens are discharged service members.

[exatreide]

I really think that idea could work. Heinlein really considerd the human greed factor more then marx or the founders of democracy  ;)

Oh and I have read the book I still remember the last couple lines

Johny leaned back his head firm against the dropship wall. The pilot in the front put in the familer tape as the dropship decended into hell.

"Glorry glorry to the everlasting infantry..."

Some say highlin was a facist, hardly....

[Wolf]

Heinlein was the opposite of a fascist. A fascist desires a government with an all-powerful leader, and a population that revolves around a cult of personality. Heinlein was an individualist; he believed in the strength of the individual above all else. However, since Heinlein was also a veteran, he had a large amount of respect for the military, as we can tell.

[Dude_Doc]

So much for the martial-law/NWO theory...

Now we all know why emprwrm moved to Canada ;) ...

[Dante]

I was watching starship troopers and It actully looked like a sound method of goverment.

Basicaly military service wasnt required, that was no conscription. However becouse the democracies of the past grew fat with corpate greed. The veterans took over. They figured that anyone who did military service came to value fellow man.

A citizan therefor has the ability to vote.

a civilan does not....

sounds better then democracy or comunism...Cause they actully factor in the greed factor in humans.

Rrr, don't like that idea... What of those inelligable for service? And what of people who don't want to help everyone else? You can't exclude people just because they don't think the way you want them to.

[Wolf]

First of all, no one is ineligable for service. No matter how damaged or incapacitated you are, the civil services will find something useful enough and sufficiently dangerous enough for you to earn your citizenship. Joining the civil services is everyone's right, and none are barred from it. (To paraphrase one part, "Even if you're blind, deaf, mute, and sitting in a wheelchair like I am, we'll find something sufficiently dangerous enough for you to do; like counting the fuzz on caterpillers on Pluto by touch.")

Secondly, if you don't want to serve society, then why should you make decisions for it?

[The_Sadukar]

Of course you can Dustie, and the very idea of that system is that only those who want to help everyone else can have any sort of political influence, but those who dosn't want to do that can't have any influence. As for those inelligable for service, well atleast they are not just killed.

EDIT: Well said Wolfwiz

[Dante]

First point taken, though it seems nastily like a system implemented at my school. 'Rights' inherant to being in the highest year recently because contractual. Yearbook, graduation ceremony, all that is only now available to those who will agree to sign a contract and do services for the school. The systems are very similar and it sucks.

Some things are supposed to be afforded as 'rights,' with no prerequisite. Those in year six should have the right to attend the graduation simply because they are year six and those people who are part of a country should be able to vote simply because they are part of a country. Making rights contractual is not a good idea. What of the right to privacy? The right to safety? These are also supposed to be inherant to being a member of any country, should they be contracted?

Secondly, if you don't want to serve society, then why should you make decisions for it?

Because you are automatically also making decisions for yourself. And even if someone did want to destroy society through their votes they should still have a right to do so because that is the whole point of the system.

[Wolf]

True, the whole point of our democracy is to allow even those who would want to destroy society the right to do so.

However, I never said that such a thing was the point of a Heinleinian democracy (I think this is the best term for it, Dust is also right in calling it contractual democracy).

Both systems, however, seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. In contractual democracy, the rate of voter apathy is far lower than in universal democracy. That, and in contractual democracy, the voting body is largely immune to media influence, and the media is largely kept out of politics. Think about the media rule of thumb; it has to tailor itself to the lowest common denominator of viewers. That's often why we're displeased with a a lack of media content. In Heinleinian democracy, the lowest common denominator of views are not all voters. Some may be, but all are not. And thus, tailoring yourself to those who have entered civil service isn't profitable. And, therefore, media and corporate influence is hindered.

Also, Heinlein was right when he said that such a democracy would never have a rebellion; all those capable of fighting are running things.

Its a tradeoff.

[Edric O]

With all due respect to Heinlein, his ideas are abysmally stupid - because his "democracy" is not really different from a military dictatorship and/or oligarchy.

The arguments against Heinlein's system can be counted in the dozens, and I'm surprised that nobody brought up any of them yet. This "military democracy" has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Here's just a few of them:

1. The mercenary factor. Of all the people who join the military, only a small minority do it out of concern for their fellow man. Many are just plain mercenaries. Others may be bloodthirsty psychos looking for a legal way to kill people. And in any case, the assumption that professional killers are more altruistic and compassionate than other people is horribly flawed. Adolf Hitler served with distinction in the German army.

2. Power corrupts. If you put a minority in charge, it will be inevitably corrupted by power. Even if all those mercenaries and professional killers turn out to be virtual saints when they return from battle, they WILL be corrupted by their newfound political power. In fact, you could end up having lots of people joining the military specifically for the purpose of gaining political power. So your "military democracy" would end up giving exclusive voting rights to a bunch of power-hungry megalomaniacs.

3. Warrior culture. By putting warriors in charge, you get a militaristic warrior culture. Do you really want to live in a modern version of Sparta?

4. What about doctors, teachers, firemen, etc.? Aren't those people altruistic and compassionate? Aren't they also dedicating their lives to the good of their fellow man? If I'd have to choose a minority to put in charge, I'd choose doctors over soldiers any day. But, of course, doctors would still fall victim to corruption (point 2).

5. No minority has the right to make decisions for the majority. When a minority rules over the majority, that's called tyranny. History proves that all the talk about "compassionate" or "altruistic" minority rule is hogwash. Tyranny is tyranny. Even if you put the best and brightest in charge, they will always look out for their OWN interests rather than the interests of the people.

I could go on, but I think you got the point. As I said in the beginning, Heinlein's idea is a really, really stupid one. The fact is that NOTHING works better than universal democracy. Sure, it may not be perfect, but that's because humans aren't perfect.