Author Topic: If You Were Developing a Citizenship Test.. (Read 1287 times)

cav58d · « **Reply #60 on:** August 16, 2007, 04:19:51 PM »

Ya know, I still cant understand for the life of me how by only allowing those who have served to able to vote will eliminate all that you claim it will.

Lets be honest...Anyone with a pulse, two arms and two legs and the ability to score a 25 on a ridicously simple test can find a job in the military. I'm not knocking anyone in uniform, but its the truth. And i'm sorry, but knowing how to read a radar scope, fire an M-16, or drive a tank does not equate to having any better understanding of laws or the political process than any civillian.

Maverick · « **Reply #61 on:** August 17, 2007, 12:25:53 PM »

Some of y'all really need to read the book and a couple of the posts already entered in the thread. The idea of "service" is not strictly limited to the military, there were other ideas of "service" that gave the franchise to the person. Thanks though for posting your opinion of some of those who have served for real. It speaks volumes.

As far as pensions go. You have to serve for a career to get that, same as other forms of employment who have pensions as a benefit for working there. The franchise (voting) in the book was not predicated on serving 20+ years, but a single enlistment where the individual was free to choose whatever other career choice they wanted including private enterprise. "Having served" is not necessarily a life long commitment unless that is the career choice the service member made. It is not an exclusion to other jobs or careers.

Paving is normally done by private companies who bid on the job. Only immediate repairs and maintenance is done by "state employees". Those private companies were likely started by, gasp, private entrepreneurs some of whom might actually have served or not.

cav58d · « **Reply #62 on:** August 17, 2007, 03:15:38 PM »

Maverick- No one has posted anything derogotory about anyone that has served...Me for example, I have merely pointed out that it is nieve to think that 100% of past, present and future service men and women are role model, Cross the T's, Dot the I's, Perfect humans...I don't think there is a career out there that would ever have 100% of this kind of person.

Maverick · « **Reply #63 on:** August 17, 2007, 03:48:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
Maverick- No one has posted anything derogotory about anyone that has served...Me for example, I have merely pointed out that it is nieve to think that 100% of past, present and future service men and women are role model, Cross the T's, Dot the I's, Perfect humans...I don't think there is a career out there that would ever have 100% of this kind of person.

Actually there has been some derogatory comments about service members. Let me give you a couple examples, you might recognise them.

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
Ya know, I still cant understand for the life of me how by only allowing those who have served to able to vote will eliminate all that you claim it will.

Lets be honest...Anyone with a pulse, two arms and two legs and the ability to score a 25 on a ridicously simple test can find a job in the military. I'm not knocking anyone in uniform, but its the truth. And i'm sorry, but knowing how to read a radar scope, fire an M-16, or drive a tank does not equate to having any better understanding of laws or the political process than any civillian.

"Anyone with a pulse", nice implication that the simple minded apply for the military there. Are you also implying that the "smart" wouldn't deign to be in the military? I never claimed it would eliminate anything BTW.

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
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?

Again the same implication, even more plainly stated.

Now once again I'd like to ask you to go back and read my first post on the subject here. Please note that I specifically mentioned other than military service as well as veterans. Also note that in none of my posts have I declared the military members were superior in intelligence to the non serving members, nor have I used derogatory terminology in regards to those who chose not to serve, either in the Heinlein paradigm I mentioned or in real life. I also didn't mention that you had to retire from the service to earn the franchise.

Like any other form of human enterprise there are those who are superior and inferior to the societal norm in intelligence in the military. To tar all of them with the the implication that they all fit the example that you used is rather disingenuous. I would also like to point out that being in private enterprise also is no guarantee of a superior intellect or education.

cav58d · « **Reply #64 on:** August 17, 2007, 04:38:54 PM »

Maverick - I've never implied that the smart out to stay away from the military. I think you would find some of America's most academically brilliant men and women to be found throughout all the ranks of our military; enlisted and commissioned.

And the "Pulse" comment may have been harsh, but IMO it is true on a number of degrees. It's crazy to say that right now the military would not take anyone they possible could that met their mininum criteria. It's not offensive. It's the truth. The nice thing is, the military offers job selection for the most part off the asvab scores, and individuals are placed accordingly to what they qualify for.

The best part about the military is that it can take any individual, brilliant or foolish, and for the most part, make them proficient and a technical expert in their craft.

And I would say you meet twice as many, if not more complete fools in the private sector.

I think i've totally lost track on where I have been going with the past couple post, and it was never intended to bring any disrespect to any past present or future service man or woman.

It was simply my arguement countering what I mis-understood others arguements about personel in the military being flawless, and some how more worthy of participating in a democrocy over other individuals who choose other career paths, which happen to contribute an enourmous amount socially and economically to the United States.

Anyways, didn't mean to offend anyone, and if I did I apologize. I hope that clears things up.

cav58d · « **Reply #65 on:** August 17, 2007, 04:55:52 PM »

Maverick- Your PMs are full so check e mail

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #66 on:** August 17, 2007, 08:44:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Trell
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?

The chance to serve is not denied to anyone who is willing. And service does not necessarily mean military. On top of that, anyone who volunteers will serve doing SOMETHING.

All government benefits only go to those who serve their time. Complete college funding, complete healthcare, every right is guaranteed to the citizens. Every civilian can put in his service at any time he wishes. You can't fail out, but you can easily quit at any time you want.

I'm not espousing this doctrine, only explaining it. It's easy to see that most people here don't understand that Service does not equal only Military.

Shaky · « **Reply #67 on:** August 17, 2007, 09:01:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Some of y'all really need to read the book and a couple of the posts already entered in the thread. The idea of "service" is not strictly limited to the military, there were other ideas of "service" that gave the franchise to the person. Thanks though for posting your opinion of some of those who have served for real. It speaks volumes.

The other interesting facts that are being omitted from discussion of the "Heinlein Paradigm" are...

Persons on active service are NOT entitled tothe Franchise. Only after you have successfully completed your term of service can you exercise your franchise.

and

Only those who have the franchise may run for or serve in an elected office.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #68 on:** August 17, 2007, 09:15:28 PM »

Only after you have completed your first term of service, could you vote. You could if you wanted, reenlist and continue to serve the government.

Maverick · « **Reply #69 on:** August 17, 2007, 09:36:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
Maverick- Your PMs are full so check e mail

Cleaned out. I forgot that sent messages were saved and counted against the total. Doh!

Maverick · « **Reply #70 on:** August 17, 2007, 09:50:12 PM »

That's true laser, but I believe the prohibition was no vote while serving. Kinda cuts back on the conflict of interest. The idea was that voting was something to be taken seriously, to serve in office was an obligation of honor as opposed to securing power or to satisfy greed in other words, both were a sacred trust to be earned, not merely handed out by accident of birth. That which is earned is often more valued than that which is given.

As I said before, this is a paradigm and not likely to be possible. More the pity.

Rolex · « **Reply #71 on:** August 17, 2007, 10:40:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
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

I grew up during the time when career federal government employees were not allowed to vote. The reasons seem just as valid today as they seemed to me then.

lazs2 · « **Reply #72 on:** August 18, 2007, 09:18:04 AM »

Allowing women the right to vote was the downfall.

Women by nature are socialists. Socialism is bad. Men behave badly under socialism and women can not control that. Women want to change mens natures and that does not work.

Women vote in socialists who need a brutal regiem to enact socialism.. resist the state and have everything you own confiscated.. resist having your property confiscated and be killed.

women are not capable of seeing that this is the inevitable result. that their utopia can not exist without selfish and brutal men running it.

women should not vote.

lazs