12/02/2004 11:22pm, #101Originally Posted by The Wastrel
Last edited by Hawkeye; 12/02/2004 11:27pm at ."We spoke to them in the only language they understood: the machine gun"
12/02/2004 11:55pm, #102Originally Posted by tkdan28
In a given debate whose side would I most likely chose, your's or Hannibal's? Us and them....
All of the citizen's interests will be looked after... just saying if you haven't chosen to actively look after my interests by serving the general common good, instead looking after just your interests by your actions,
why should I trust your opinion about what is best for me?
12/03/2004 11:21am, #103
Because the people who provide jobs and new products do it with a different motive in mind. People don't open up businesses to employ people, they do it for the very selfish ideal of making themselves more money. Behold the power of capitalism. It just so happens that to make more money, one has to have better products than their predecessor, or new products. It's about the dollar.
Unfortunately, the same could be said about serving the government in such a system as Phrost and Heinlein dictate. There would be people who serve, not to better society, but to enable their own goals, be it the right to procreate, or to vote. And then again, the benefit to society that the service provided would be just a pleasant side effect, like the jobs created in a new McDonalds.
12/03/2004 11:30am, #104Originally Posted by Ray Nelson
For example, has no heard of rent-seeking? I think it's kind of hilarious that any conservative could throw out their whole theoretical foundation on this one question.
And what if someone simply can't afford to take two years off for this selfless service? Now it becomes a job corps for the idly rich.Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog
12/03/2004 11:50am, #105I'm of the opinion that simply being shat out of your mother's **** on American soil should not by itself grant you carte blanche to cast ballots that affect your neighbor's life.
12/03/2004 12:09pm, #106I'm of the opinion that simply being shat out of your mother's **** on American soil should not by itself grant you carte blanche to cast ballots that affect your neighbor's life.
There will always be people who's votes you don't like and any system that tries to weed them out, however philosophically pure or well-intentioned, is suicide.I dork harder than any of you can imagine.
12/03/2004 1:08pm, #107Originally Posted by DCSKungfoolss, Scourge of the theory-based stylists, Most Feared man at Bullshido.com, and the Preeminent Force in the martial arts political arena
12/03/2004 1:55pm, #108
Actually, even though I dislike Phrost's idea and its underpinnings, it service would not be mandatory. Only if you wanted certain privileges in his society.I dork harder than any of you can imagine.
12/03/2004 2:04pm, #109
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Currently a SAMBO newb
I would say phrost has developed his idea since presenting it on page 2 or 3 or whatever page it was...
The idea you would have to do government service (any not just military, but ye, under a militaristic diciplanary system) before attaining citizenship.
If you held it to it's originial premise (military service is required, or at least some service with martial application) would either lead to militaristic expansion or a beaucratic nightmare beyond that of the iron curtain, or both.
So, whne there is nothing left to conquer, then what? Civil war?Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. - Machiavelli
12/03/2004 2:55pm, #110
Mandatory service is not what he had in mind, in that people have the right to choose whether or not they serve. It's a way of 'paying' for the rights and priviledges that are freely given to people. The idea is that people, having had to work for those liberties and rights, would give more weight to them, and take them more seriously. Voter turnout (Among registered and legal voters) would skyrocket, and since the 'service' need not necessarily be martial, it wouldn't immediately become a war machine.
Is it right? Who knows? There has yet to be found a form of government that does not grow fat and corrupt. I just think that America has the best system to date. It's not without it's flaws, but it is still above and beyond most other ideals.
But then again, that's just my opinion, and subject to change.
Oh, and 'when there is nothing left to conquer', we'll always have space to explore and plunder.