Author Topic: If You Were Developing a Citizenship Test.. (Read 1333 times)

Neubob · « **Reply #45 on:** August 16, 2007, 11:19:31 AM »

So the Supreme Court's power is unconstitutional. Fair enough.

Maverick · « **Reply #46 on:** August 16, 2007, 11:29:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
Those damn secondary citizens that give medical care to the soldiers when they are wounded....Or who provide legal services when one of those soldiers has problems...Or those secondary citizens who fly thousands of rounds of ammo for the soldier to shoot...Or those secondary citizens who teach the children of the soldiers...Or those secondary citizens who pick up the garbage and recycling of the soldiers...or those secondary citizens who manufacture the weapons AND clothing of the soldiers....

Yea....Screw those secondary citizens....Who needs them right?

You assume that those who have those jobs haven't served. I don't. Just because an individual is currently in a job outside of the military or a "Heinlein paradigm" recognized critical service to the nation / community doesn't mean they didn't serve an enlistment or in the recognized job field earlier that entitled them to vote.

As far as paying taxes is concerned, as long as the person is enjoying the roads and other tax paid services they are entitled to pay taxes to support that which they use. That means all services provided in the current society that are tax funded.

Now you may want to think that this sucks or not, I know it will never be implemented but I do think it has a nice bit of an idea to it. The one that says if you really care about something, you'll risk your own troglodyte arse to protect and serve it. That sacrifice of time and effort indicates that you just might be interested in what you are voting for and why rather than a simple sound bite or a handout from the government.

Of course like I said, it isn't very likely to ever be implemented, that's why I listed it as a paradigm. Paradigms very rarely implemented fully.

Neubob · « **Reply #47 on:** August 16, 2007, 11:42:52 AM »

Sorry to be blunt about this, but active service, for a great many individuals, constitutes wasted time and energy. Where their talents could be implemented in ways that could generate more productivity, more income, and more support to the system which funds those in active service, any time taken away from these pursuits is just plain inefficient and wasteful.

And what the hell is this active service, anyway? Who qualifies? Do they have to be out in the field, getting shot at, or is sitting at a desk at a base enough? And if it is enough, exactly how is that 'troglodyte arse" being risked? Is working for the IRS good enough, how about the Passport Authority? The vast majority of these people don't do what they do because they 'care'. They do it because their jobs are mindless, their expectations are low, and their chances of upsetting their boss are negligible.

Here's a counter proposal...

Only people who work for themselves should get to vote. People who, instead of going to work, in whatever respect, for the giant entity that is the Federal Government, take the risk and improve this nation from the ground up.

People in the private sector need to produce results, or lose their shirt.
People working for the government, generally speaking, need only show up, if that

People in the private sector need to compete, directly, and do so successfully and constantly.
People working for the government, generally speaking, need only show up, if that.

People in the private sector need to be inventive, creative and aggressive, or lose their livelihood.
People working for the government.....

Afterall, who better embodies the American spirit than the independant businessman?

Maverick · « **Reply #48 on:** August 16, 2007, 11:51:54 AM »

Neubob,

You sound very bitter. I don't know why you are but you certainly do sound like you are. Your conception of service is certainly rather derogatory and maybe that has something to do with the way you feel.

I'll say it one more time. It's a paradigm, kinda like if the world was a better place. It won't happen in today's society as too many aren't willing to put themselves out to serve others. They'd rather chase the almighty $ (or substitute any other form of exchange) for their own benefit and let the others fend for themselves.

I don't expect to see it and would be very very surprised if it was taken seriously. It's just a nice concept dealing with a demonstration of responsibility for ones actions for the greater good.

Just curious, have you read the book?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #49 on:** August 16, 2007, 11:57:50 AM »

Neubob assumes Service to mean infantry. It does not. It means whatever you are capable of doing.

Know how to place and pave roads? Guess what you could be serving the government doing.

Have a law degree? Work for the government as a lawyer.

The only difference is that your time of service often varies based on danger and time it took to train you.

Neubob · « **Reply #50 on:** August 16, 2007, 12:02:46 PM »

I'm bitter for two reasons.

First of all, any sort of policy that inches us closer to socialism, or anything resembling socialism depresses me greatly. There is too much to be gained that is inevitably lost through the inefficient allocation of talent and ability. This nation, which I truly do love, is starting to lose its edge in the world, and this bothers me. It bothers me greatly. Healthy free enterprise, in my opinion, is the only way to stay at the top.

On the topic of service, I believe that no citizen or resident can do a greater service to this country than to do what he or she does best. If that involves being a soldier or a firefighter, so be it, but if that involves being a landscaper or a doctor or a lawyer, the situation should not change. Everyone's tax dollars are green, and everyone's sweat is equally salty. Labor on behalf of the government is no better than labor on behalf of personal initiative.

And as mentioned earlier, working on personal initiative, in the private sector, for a company, for a contractor, for a firm, can be and often is harder, more taxing and more competetive. I've seen government employees in action, or lack of action I should say. The same sort of lackluster approach to work would not fly in the private world... What difference does it make paving a road and having the state sign your checks verses a private company? Independant companies do not tolerate inefficiency the way the government does... So what is the benefit of having Uncle Sam as your boss? What does it prove?

Do I support the army? Definitely. Do I support my local cops and firefighters? Definitely. I give to their organizations, on my own free will, annually. I just think that my support of those organizations, as well as the big one governing them all is best done in the way that I choose, verses a way regimented and overseen by what I consider to be an overgrown and inefficient system.

The second reason I'm bitter is that I have a pounding headache that hasn't gone away for days.

I have not read the book, but after all this, am curious to.

cav58d · « **Reply #51 on:** August 16, 2007, 12:29:05 PM »

So since peon civillian pilots like me with a BS in Poly Sci and a MA in History are not in the military, should my rights to any state funded service be taken away too? I have no direct say in electing the people who will influence these services, so would the mere presence of a pathetically uneducated and unfit to vote individual like me be deterring from Billy Ray; the five time ASAB taking, because he couldn't distinguish the difference between a hammer and a saw, southerners experience?

Shamus · « **Reply #52 on:** August 16, 2007, 01:13:35 PM »

Actually I don't think that public employees should have the right to vote, they have a vested interest in voting for higher taxes.

I once had a teacher state to me that she should not have to pay taxes because "she was just paying herself". I stood there waiting for the punch line and it never came, she was as serious as a heart attack.

shamus

Trell · « **Reply #53 on:** August 16, 2007, 01:25:53 PM »

I don't see Anything wrong about having to serve to vote, As long as people that server no longer get pensions, benefits or anything else after they leave the service,

I mean they are only there to help the country and the people right? Not so that they can retire in 20 years and have an easy life after.

cav58d · « **Reply #54 on:** August 16, 2007, 01:29:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Trell
I mean they are only there to help the country and the people right? Not so that they can retire in 20 years and have an easy life after.

That also fits the job description of many other careers outside of the military. But forget about those losers! HUAAAAH

cav58d · « **Reply #55 on:** August 16, 2007, 01:31:45 PM »

And if members of the armed forces were the sole voice of the American people, think how it would change candidates now that they only have one demographic to appease.

Quit possibly the dumbest idea i've ever heard.

Trell · « **Reply #56 on:** August 16, 2007, 02:04:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
That also fits the job description of many other careers outside of the military. But forget about those losers! HUAAAAH

those people if working for the government state or county are all paid by the people of the country,

Remember following this discussion they are the only ones that people want to vote.

If they work for a company and gets over paid then there share holders will fix that. or let the whole company will go belly up.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #57 on:** August 16, 2007, 02:23:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Trell
I don't see Anything wrong about having to serve to vote, As long as people that server no longer get pensions, benefits or anything else after they leave the service,

I mean they are only there to help the country and the people right? Not so that they can retire in 20 years and have an easy life after.

Actually, ONLY those who serve can get pensions and benefits.

You want welfare? Fine, do your 4 years of service. Then we'll talk.

cav58d · « **Reply #58 on:** August 16, 2007, 03:16:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, ONLY those who serve can get pensions and benefits.

You want welfare? Fine, do your 4 years of service. Then we'll talk.

Does this include family members of servicemen and women? Are your parents, and brothers and sisters eligible, or are they also unworthy of voting?

Trell · « **Reply #59 on:** August 16, 2007, 04:03:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, ONLY those who serve can get pensions and benefits.

You want welfare? Fine, do your 4 years of service. Then we'll talk.

So let me get this strait.
The ones who serves are the only ones that get to vote. Those that vote can vote for benefits for them selves as well as raises for them selves. and any one who does not serve still have to pay?,

Wow sounds like the senate house, and the CEO's of Americas.

Guessing your goal is to be that teacher that Shamus knows huh?